hypotecical question as you dont get it

communism you get means of existance, exploitation by capitalism results in some one getting more then just the "load"

In a communist system you could have some one else carry your load, and this happens as there is class differnce in ppl

```we just need eugenics and racial seperation and even class seperation, considering not every "worker" produces the same```

That would itself require some kind of racial cooperation. If communities do not want to mix with each other, that's up to them. Ultimately the focus *must* be upon the supremacy of *no* race.

This requires the establishment of a political commons between those of different backgrounds.

On 'class separation', I take it that you mean that workers of different 'collars' must be separated, but again, that requires a sort of commons.

Any segregation *must* be transitional, since Communists demand the democratisation of all.

We seek to build a world where what we do is not dictated by markets or anything else which, as an organising force, is at least partially reliant on our unconscious actions.

There is absolutely nothing that unites workers besides their inclusion in the social order, as it happens.

What you're proposing is more of the same bullshit fucking identity politics which has plagued Communism, while Communists seek to use this commons of having little or no control over the social order despite being dependent on wage labour.

```You dont know what morality means right. If you do something you dont want done to yourself you are breaking morality. There is no grey zone, If you think there is current order bs, something is moral or it is not```

What morality? Whose morality? Why do you bring up 'the golden rule'? I am a different person to others, so me doing something to someone else and me doing something - which for all I could possibly care, is the same thing - to another person will not necessarily result in the same consequences, and it won't benefit or hurt them in the same ways as it would with me.

And that's assuming that I can do *exactly the same thing* to someone else that I could do to myself. My actions might be very comparable, but they're not the same.

You're right that there's no grey zone, but only insofar as concrete circumstances can this ever be true. If you are dealing with abstractions, though, then no, there *is* a massive grey zone due to there being a spectre which hangs over any analysis which you could make. That ghost is the question 'what if?'

What does it mean to do something, who is going to benefit from it, what if something else happens?

And even if one's looking retrospectively, where the past is the past, then there's usually if not always something that one could have done in a better way, perhaps.

One might be able to construct a setting which can be modelled through game theory, or more generally, decision theory, and then show that there is an optimal outcome, but this comes with assumptions with regards to what is useful and what isn't.

That's not to say that we can't know what's useful and what is not, but that there is nothing meaningful about it outside our consciousness of it. Despite the ways in which we think about them, these things exist nonetheless and cannot be reduced to our thoughts about them (materialism) - there's always something more about them that we can drag out.

```It is called "being Human" i strive for something bigger thenmyself unlike you and the other "us". You are nothing but a animal grassing on the fields being triggered by my attempts to create a better world in which you feel like you dont belong```

By *what* standards would it be better?

Communists don't give a shit about 'being Human'. We don't care about our bodies in the same religious way that you seem to. We see them as tools, not temples. Like all tools, our bodies can and must be improved so that we can realise an ever-greater field of goals that we could possible imagine and fulfil.

You say you're striving for something bigger than yourself, which is true, but the point of Communism is we make our own personal and conscious struggles match with every other struggle - not to say that we must all be the same, but that we must be conscious of as many struggles as we possible can and work towards their realisation.

Communism is the ultimate egoism: the world becomes consciously controlled by us, and the last vestige of unwilled processes must be those which we don't have the materials to bring into our control.

```offcourse facts dont matter to your and "us" feel feels. And you clearly lack foresight and the morality to change your and "us" actaions resulting in a more positive outcome then the dismal you and "us" are heading to atm```

No, Mr Shapiro, many facts *are* affected by our feelings, our practice and so on.

You tell me that facts don't matter to me and to the Communists whom I only mention as those mythical Communists (which says a fucking ton about the shambles of the Communist movement today), and yet I am precisely commenting on your facts simply being barriers which we must struggle to overcome!

Are you a determinist, Offender? Do you seriously think that you can derive the actions of anyone from a set of assumptions and premises about the world?

It's impossible to make such a judgement without looking at things retrospectively. The pace of the developments of concepts and our own abstractions - which inform our practice if thinking is itself not a form of practice - is unknown to us at this present moment. There is always a division between us and our self-representations.

How would I be able to capture the process of my own self-representation without accounting for that too - now a different subject who is looking back on the chain of their history?

Determinism kills itself, but a retrospective determinism does not (rather than 'what if's - good luck creating an alternate history timeline).

You are projecting the past and present onto the future, and in doing so, you neglect what can be done at present because you think it's wide-eyed to consider the possibility of overcoming the prevailing divisions. If that's your attitude, give up being a Communist if you really consider yourself to be aligned with the movement.

As it happens, *we can already provide roadmaps of what needs to be done* with regards to many things, from race wars to gendered relations.

```victory would be obtained by establising natural order. This existiance this twisted morality you hold, that is the unnatural thing here```

But your order must be imposed, i.e. it's fucking artificial.

It relates to consciously-made understandings of our world which are not in lockstep with the actuality of the world.

You would need to infinitely chisel away at the world in order to keep things consistent with your idea of Nature, even if that idea changes.

It's not just those annoying conscious actors getting in your way, but the natural world itself!

If something is unwilled, then it's not in your control and therefore doesn't conform to what you want. It might explode into your worst nightmare at any moment even if it is highly unlikely.

You might be able to say 'well, by the time I'm dead, it probably won't have happened', but can you be sure?

And what if someone else brings it about?