Again, the problem is that class politics works in terms of exclusive interests, whereas Communism seeks to escape this.

I might as well quote Syndrome of all people, slightly out of context: 'When everyone is super, no-one will be.'

There are two ways of resolving the problem of who gets what: the first is that they battle to set up and hegemonies and fight using these political fronts, wasting resources in trying to get others to submit to them; the second is that they cooperate to ensure that they can reach a mutual solution through which they can all fulfil their goals and in fact benefit from others fulfilling their goals too.

A more authoritarian tool is necessary to mitigate the first as far as Communists are concerned, and that's what Communists call a 'state'. It can encourage the second too, but such a violent tool is not necessary for that.

Non-Communist anarchists differ in opinions. Some might say that a 'state' is anything that isn't agreed towards, for example.

But of course, Mr Nuance, when you mention 'anarchy', the largest anarchist movement is anarchocommunism, so that's what I'm going to think you mean.

So it's not a straw man fallacy given that you gave me no hints as to what you meant. I don't know what's going on in your mind (though for an insult's sake, I could assume that it's an obese hamster trudging along in a wheel).

.@Garbage Why are you talking about wikipedia? digress much. You clerly said " cpommunism is doing what ever you want" You are still lying back pedalling and bullshitting.

So you have to submit and you are not free.

You made up this new thing saying "if there are enough resources. You have added this now in your backpeddal.. Yet you fail to see that resources are finite lmao

```Why are you talking about wikipedia? digress much. You clerly said " cpommunism is doing what ever you want" You are still lying back pedalling and bullshitting.
```

[citation needed]

For someone who claims that I'm repeating myself, you sound like you're doing it all over again.

```So you have to submit and you are not free.```

You call it submission, but this conflict resolution is not something that one can choose not to do if they want to avoid an explosive political dispute brewing and a return to the politics of hegemony. It's a requirement for ever-greater freedom.

```You made up this new thing saying "if there are enough resources. You have added this now in your backpeddal.. Yet you fail to see that resources are finite lmao
```

There was no backpedal here either; I spoke very clearly about this.

lol

Again, I have shown that there are two possible reasons for any political disputes.

still lying and denying that you said it

And you're going to post that cropped screen again, American?

Textbook burger.

citation needed lmap. like im gone read all your bs back. no one reads what you say you know

Coked.

Lastly, asserting that resource limitations cannot be dealt with is not a proof that they cannot be dealt with.

You clearly said it, no explation. no variable. even the "have enough resources" is a fallacy as resources are finite. and you are still talking

Resources are not *eternally fixed*.

your back peddal said you are free as a communist if there are enoufgh resources

now you say that there arent

so you arent free "to do what ever you want"

No, I clearly said that it's about expanding the pool of resources.

but resources are finite dummy

And I never argued about 'being free to do whatever one wants'.

It is about *becoming* like that...

you forget this as you are to bussy ranting

*This* is what you fail to grasp.

Yes, they are, but they are not *fixed*.

You literally said it

you are now lying about what you said

In fact, potentially, we could tend towards an infinity.