I slip through your fingers because you cannot grasp me, which is ironic because you have declared yourself to be the one who cannot be understood because everyone else is busy perpetuating and instigating a shadowy agenda!

...all while you alone are the most free thinkers of anyone here - the Messianic creature who knows things that others violently refuse to believe. It is nothing short of cheap projection, made meaningful solely by your persistence in repeating this mantra of your self-declared superiority.

You just want to tire your enemy out, point out inconsistencies when they change their minds to a considerable extent or even simply refresh themselves, and then proclaim that you are the only one who can be consistent. But you cannot even do that.

"I said that it is maximal freedom," you never said this, you clearly stated. comunnims is being free do what ever you want. Where did you say this lol, like im going to sroll back. You said it, why are you denying this and talking around it with so many words that i did not read :D?

Do you know what a search tool is?

You could've used that and searched for things like 'free', 'freedom' and 'want', too.

One problem: I've already done that and found fucking nothing that suggests that I've actually said what you're saying I've said.

*Why are __you__ denying that you've been absolutely crushed here?*

So let's get this straight: you tried to quote me but you failed and I caught you with your pants down when you pulled out some out-of-context screenshots.

And then you gave up on quoting me altogether despite repeating yourself over and over again when I was telling you to shut up so that I could explain everything all over again and you kept on interrupting me.

Even *that* didn't work, though! I still remained rock solid on that position, and now you seem to have given up altogether with both of those efforts.

All that you have left is to repeat yourself and ignore much of what I've said, focussing on something which I've repeatedly cleared up. In fact, even if I did not start with my current position, for the last few times that I've brought it up, my 'new' position has not changed.

Your arguments against this 'new' position have simply been attempts at proving your case by assertion.

Your first detour regarding 'anarchy' failed miserably, and now your second detour about what I was initially arguing has collapsed too. The irony is that it's reinforced my initial point: you have no reason to call yourself a Communist because you are completely unfamiliar with what Communism (i.e. Marxist Communism, the dominant 'Communism') is.

Not only that, but you don't know much about capitalism either. Your politics is somewhat similar to 'trade-unionist' identity politics, i.e. a movement of proletarians *as a positive class* with distinct intra-class boundaries who seek to establish a proletarian hegemony which does not dissolve itself after fighting off bourgeois forces.

You've changed the subject at least twice in trying to drag my attention away from *that* particular controversy. Now that your games are over, we must focus on the initial issue at hand.

In the case of the first game, it was about what you meant by 'state' and you threw 'anarchy' into the mix. You gave a definition of 'state' and conflated it with the term 'government', saying 'there's no difference' despite being shown to be wrong about conventional terminology every time a source was brought up either by you or by me.

...but this dodged the whole point of the demarcation that I was making between different kinds of political force, which I identified upon the basis of different kinds of conflict resolution. For me, a 'state' was necessary to provide a foothold for political hegemony so that some groups would win out over others if both claimed a share of the resources including the means of production.

I had brought up an example of a Marxist definition to reinforce this.

A 'government' would be an as-neutral-as-possible social structure which would be used for mutual conflict resolution and empowerment.

The point is that it would avoid any need for one set of groups to have a sustained hegemony over the means of production. In fact, Communism must involve the absolute dissolution of identity (as a process, not as a mode which society sticks with).

Of course there would be a need to cater to an existing order to satisfy an increasingly-inclusive hegemony in Communism *for a given time*, but the point is that people would need to work to abolish that hegemony.

**I know this very well, hence I said that "freedom does not come all at once".**

The source of your confusion regarding all of this comes from your treatment of the present and the indeterminate future.

***Every time I said that I was talking about potential things, you confused this with me saying that those potential things are accessible to us right now.***

You seem to be absolutely stuck in thinking solely about given intervals of time, abstracting qualities of historical processes, hastily-generalising them and then building a deterministic framework out of it. Limitless potentiality is absurd for you because you think that the limits we have are based on a set framework of concepts which are built to describe particular periods of history. You form them into rigid laws which cannot be deviated from regardless of our intentions and actions.

But surely *you* must be part of this too when you approach the present time in this way.

Your grand theory has to account for your own treatment of yourself as a determined thing, acting in accordance with laws which you have come to know. You have to capture your own subjectivity and regard it in a formalised manner, using rigid definitions and set-in-stone demarcations between concepts.

This is impossible, however. At the moment that you regard yourself as a subject, you must include knowledge of you regarding yourself, and this self-regarding of that self-regard and so on.

You can collapse this into an infinite series of self-regardings, but then you have to recognise this series and fit this into your description of yourself too!

You cannot capture yourself and abstract yourself away from yourself as if you're taking a snapshot of yourself. That snapshot is not you as you are now.

**Determinism is kaput. It cannot keep up with this explosion of concepts and thought-processes; we have an inherent inability to reduce ourselves to a set framework of laws.**

This does not just apply to you, it also applies to every other subject, who in their practice, must taxonomise and order the world in their minds.

It means that there is always more to the world than anything that's captured in our minds (materialism).

We cannot possibly form deterministic laws at the most general level, which relates to how we conduct ourselves and what we should do.

Every attempt to capture our subjectivities fails.

*This includes biological determinism. At best, social trends and movements have only been explained 'biologically' in __hindsight__ and in terms of various 'attitudes' which are projections of how we approach things in our time back onto the past. I am not saying that the past cannot be known, but that it is being approached in the wrong manner.*

It's *these* points which you don't want to engage with, and so far you've spent a lot of time trying to avoid them.

It's all relevant to how you view the world and why you keep dragging things out of my words which I've never said. These points are specifically designed to target your uncritically-held assumptions which I am laying out for you to see.

This is the sort of thing that you will seldom get either here or on both the major /pol/ boards, or even on /leftypol/ and splitter boards from 8/pol/.

It's why you cannot even approach what I'm saying. You are far too impatient; you're not used to this whatsoever. You're a junkie for the same old reactionary propaganda, spouting phrases and familiar images like a cross between a child and a bot.