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.

by magic?

brb

'Magic', he says, when I already mentioned things like geothermal engineering, mining and so on.

You've proved again that you aren't bothering to read what I'm saying.

```
You harped up some time ago and said that resources cannot be expanded. Why not? What do you think recycling, mining, geothermal and the entire 'primary sector' even is? Where do they get much of what they produce? It is certainly not that which we have already used up.
We are surrounded by resources, and we are forever becoming more efficient in using those resources. If not, capitalism would be long dead. Without a way of constantly revolutionising the means of production, which means using more resources to a greater degree of efficiency to perform that revolutionising, it cannot continue to be profitable. No new value is introduced.
There needs to be new value otherwise there would be less and less value in economies over time due to things going missing and breaking down.
So there is room to expand our resources, meaning that there is less of an excuse to politically fight over what exists in economies.```

**We face a potential infinity of resources, *not an actual infinity which is accessible to us here and now*.**

***But the limitation of what we have now is not what we will forever have.***

If we have no more resources to accumulate, then capitalism will die along with us. Things will wear out.

If we have a constant level of resources, then commodity production will become meaningless as we could still make technologies using what we have which would allow us to forget markets altogether and use a resource distribution system. Capitalism would still die.