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.

But we do not have a constant level of resources, and there is no reason to suspect that we cannot keep growing that pool of resources.

You say 'resources are finite', and I agree, but potentially-speaking this is not the case. There is no reason to suspect that we cannot keep expanding the pool.

So the problem of stepping on each other's toes to fight for resources is not something that will go away all at once. I never said that they will.

Seriously, I have never once suggested that there is a final and absolute state of freedom!

Lol changing subject to resources possibly being infinite

Yes, because *that*'s what I've been saying the whole time.

I did not say that they would not be finite at any given time.

I also did not say that building freedom could occur all at once.

lol no you werent

Quote me, then!

you said that communismy is doing what ever you want,, you backpeddaled later with "if there are enough resources" no it is "create a bigger pool of resources"

I did not say that at all!

lol

'if there are enough resources'

Of course I said that, but that does not mean that saying 'creating a bigger pool of resources' is inconsistent with that.

You haven't accounted for primitive accumulation.

quoete you , you wrote 50 pages of text, the search function wont even go that far back.. you said it i already quoted you many of times. but you are like "a jelly like slime"

you keep lying saying you didnt said it when we went true several points multiple time

Yes, and you are a philistine who wants to bring up things that I never said.

And your proof was always an out-of-context screenshot where you assumed the nuances of what I was talking about.

you were show to be wrong, and the next day you simply carry one with the same lies and bullshit as if the conversation of the previous day never happedned

**resources are finite, communism is not doing hwat ever you want**

**"you have to submit"**

Where did I say that?

And how can you consider it to be 'submission' in the first place? That word refers to something that someone does to serve someone else more than something that one must do to serve themselves.

I mean, you will drag these assumptions of yours out of everything that I say regardless of whether I said it or not.

I never said that 'resources are not finite' (potentially, there is an infinity; at present there is a finitude); I also never said that Communism is where one can do whatever one wants. Freedom does not come for free or all at once.

I said that it is maximal freedom, not an abstract and meaningless 'total' freedom.

The latter does not exist as a stationary thing; it is meaningless.

inb4 he posts another out-of-context quote in his arsehurt search after saying that he wasn't gonna scroll through the walls of text

But it gets even worse too. You see, even if I *did* backpedal, then I can still keep my claim that you don't belong to the same tradition as Marx and Engels (the default 'Communism') and that your revisions of 'Communist' theory are nothing new and have been thrashed many times over by writers from M&E through to Zizek.

Did you know that I could still find a stronger argument and let go of previous ones? *In fact, that's the whole damn reason why I'm here: to use you as a Xenomorph larva does with its host, to strengthen myself on the political front.*

So there are multiple levels of obstacles which you have to traverse to even begin to put me on shaky ground as an opponent, so you can prove to me that I really don't know what it means to be a Communist.