```
I said that you described anarachy because you said "you are free to do what ever you want "that is communism"". And i said that that was anarchy. So sure i brought the word up first, because you mixed up communism with anarchy and i called you out on that .```

I didn't, though. I said that the only limit to freedom in Communism is a lack of means to get whatever one is pursuing which is owed to nothing more than material conditions, i.e. resources. In modes of production where there are classes, there is a second limitation which is owed to different political interests.

In capitalism, we have the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We also have intra-class and cross-class divisions. There are race wars, gender wars, fandom wars and so on.

There is no common goal at all which allows these people to act in accordance with their ideology and keep their ways of life with the current resources that we have.

The revolutionising of the means of production, which allows us to make more shit which works in a more effective manner, is not the only problem which is faced.

Groups lobby to secure a hegemony over the means of production as an identity-based group of people. Capitalism is the politics of generalised exclusive interests and the economics of generalised commodity production.

Everyone can have an identity, but some also have the advantage of hegemony. They tend to be those for whom the present order, going in its present direction, is most beneficial.

They see no need to make provisions for anyone who doesn't benefit them and strengthen their hegemony in some way.

**In short, bourgeois politics is identity politics.**

How does Communism relate to this? We destroy hegemonies to an ever-faster extent.

We are the enemies of normalcy and of the destructive wars of attrition which are necessary for groups to battle for hegemonies.

We don't say 'fight as identities; you could never possibly have overlapping interests'. We say that there is a commonality between us with which we can remove the potential for the wars of attrition.

This commons relates to our needs to be able to unlock more possible goals which would become easier to fulfil and our use of language and reasoning to be able to coordinate ourselves.

Will there always be conflicts? *Yes*, but they do not have to be nearly as violent as the wars of identity politics, i.e. of capitalism.

***Communism requires effective conflict resolution where all parties involved work together to come out stronger.***

Now, this is not the class-collaboration of many kinds of third-positionism, where it is demanded that people stick to certain specialised roles.

In Communism, one must become absolutely cosmopolitan and rootless, as much as they can, in order to do more of what they want.

Absolute freedom in the most abstract sense *does not exist*, and I have never said that it does (you have assumed this, and you take my words out of context to get that conclusion out of what I've said).

Freedom at its greatest is the freedom to do otherwise than what is (thought of as being) possible, including the freedom to do otherwise than the freedom to do otherwise and so on - it is a negative, explosive concept.

It cannot remain still otherwise it will become formally contradictory, i.e. *meaningless*.

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.

Now you've gone on and wailed about how I think Communism is anarchism and all over again. Actually, the only difference is with praxise. Anarchists (at least, anarchocommunists) want the destruction of the state straightaway. Communists who aren't anarchists seek to weaponise the state.

But just think about what a state is actually supposed to do: provide political stability and hegemony.

**It is nothing more than a foothold upon which one can maintain a set hegemony over the means of production.**

Non-anarchist Communists argue that states must be used to set up a proletarian hegemony which must set about fighting off counterrevolutionary forces which fight for different hegemonies.

The proletarian state must not stop there when it has fought them all off: it must abolish itself.

Political struggles of the religious and crypto-religious sort that we see today, which involve the worship of idols from gods to identities alongside the ghostly economic process of capital (relating to unconscious economic processes), must be made history.

The aim is to ensure that people have no reason to fight as 'blacks', 'whites', 'women', 'men' or anything else. Those categories must be deprived of any real basis upon which they can exist as meaningful things. They must become superficial (which requires transhumanism).

In other words, people must take on the identity of no (specific) identity; they must lose every common thing between them besides their language and access to their power of reason.

Only in this way can we avoid stepping on each other's toes.

Anarchocommunists argue that this can be done on a much quicker time scale.

They say that states should be among the first things to be attacked because they simply are not necessary; they are the most powerful and unshakeable sorts of hegemony without which the Communist project would function better without.

A government (or maybe we can call it something else since you insist on conflating 'state' and 'government' even when every source that you bring up tells you otherwise), on the other hand, does not require a particular and set identity or even a class position around which to form a hegemony which fights off others. It is simply a coordination tool which attempts to, as neutrally as possible, provide conflict resolution in a way which does not require the creation of hegemonies to fight to direct production in accordance with a certain exclusive interest.

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.