I already went over that in another post, the one where I said: “Your clarification does not meaningfully change anything about what I was addressing.”

Then instead of going through and telling me which parts are supposedly still a “misrepresentation”, you told me this:

Again you didn’t read what I wrote. I never said “dont ortganize.”

I am done talking with you. Your arguing against things I didn’t even come close to saying. If you want to argue in bad faith there’s a whole fediverse out there full of libs and chuds.

I’m still not sure what is supposedly a misrepresentation. As it is, I never said that you said not to organize (that is a mouthful). I was addressing the idea of being openly communist as an individual, but not as an org. The idea of being secretly organizing with other communists was taken into account in my criticism of the point of view.

I even emphasized it as an attribute of what I was talking about here:

The concept of communist efforts as a whole solely being guerilla, but not even fully, because they’re actually calling attention to the fact that they’re communist while pretending not to be in orgs, is contradictory nonsense.

So how is this claiming that you said “don’t organize”?

You literally said:

Helping people is great but directly tying that in with your communism is a good way to ruin both.

Which is an incredibly misleading way to put things. This doesn’t need to be about you or I as ego, but about the points of view. And trying to make it about ego does no one any favors.

Its like you read one sentence decided to inject the worst possible meaning into it when the explanation was right there.

Your clarification does not meaningfully change anything about what I was addressing. In fact, it makes even less sense than the idea that communists should be secretive both as individuals and organizations. If you truly believe the state is going to put you in a black van for being a practicing communist, being “loud and proud” as an individual communist, but not as an organization means putting a target on your back and now, not only do you not have anyone to back you up if things go south, you will just be (according to the black van narrative) disappeared quietly and without a fuss since nobody even knows what you’re doing. What you’re describing sounds like adventurism. The concept of some groups and their operations being guerilla in some historical contexts does make sense. The concept of communist efforts as a whole solely being guerilla, but not even fully, because they’re actually calling attention to the fact that they’re communist while pretending not to be in orgs, is contradictory nonsense.

In any case, a premise like “Helping people is great but directly tying that in with your communism is a good way to ruin both.” is a terribly misleading way of talking about things. If you use a premise that is bad, you can’t depend on a lengthy explanation to supposedly fix it. You need to go back and do a premise that is better.

Helping people is great but directly tying that in with your communism is a good way to ruin both.

You can’t raise class consciousness effectively if you pretend communism doesn’t exist and act like you have no affiliation with it. Are there situations some of the time in history where some groups have to act in near total secrecy? Yes. Are there situations where you need to be wary about how obvious you are, especially if you’re in a more vulnerable situation / among a more reactionary group? Yes. But if you’re wanting to organize people, you won’t lead them by pretending you’re something you aren’t. Just as an example, the people who hang out on this forum, I think it’s safe to say many of them would not know it exists and would hardly know what communism is if everyone they had encountered who had communist views had pretended not to.

Tying together communism and helping people on an organized level is actually one of the most effective things that you can do. You help because you believe in helping, but you also tie it into what your aims are, or else people will just assume you’re being charitable because you feel like it and will fill in the blanks with their own narrative about how the world works. Some people awash in western Christian thinking might find it feels icky to combine the two, like you’re somehow undermining the act of kindness by relating it to communism. But the reality is, people seeing that a group consistently does good for them will make them believers far easier than trying to get them to read thick books. And for good reason. People tend to like those who help them get their needs met and do it consistently, without there being some kind of trick or catch to it that undermines them in the process. It’s a sensible reaction. And part of getting past the existing propaganda is showing people that there is an alternative that can not only get their needs met, but do it without all the class/racial/etc. divide and means tested BS.