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.

Cheap shots are what you're used to, but when you are disarmed there, you have nothing to fall back on at an intellectual level. Your only hope of getting away from this is to piss off those who want to show you that you're wrong and then flush this shit out of your memory besides the idea that you've 'won' because you got them to fuck off.

holy shit @Deleted User shut down

Really, dont think so,, "Do you know what a search tool is?"

I already stated that the search function doesnt goes that far back, and you are still using this fallacy. Its theer you said it. @ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ implying you even read any of that text 😄

Oh, really?