Capitalism’s conditions seduce us into labels, that then become a grounding that fixes us in belief beyond any point we could reasonably say is advantageous. It becomes advantageous on capital’s terms of zero-sum conflict, but these must always erode the social. Unconsciously, and in opposition, we deposit the failures of identity into the social other in this process, in order to dispose of our undesirable traits, and avoid dissonance. The rules of psychic interaction say that our image must be legible and non-contradictory, which is always more an unconscious compulsion than anything we consciously affirm.

We are driven to make the other into an object that we can eradicate. The more rigid and permanent we desire our position within a label to be, the more static and opaque the other must become to conceal what we project and hide from in ourselves. That we address the other in this social field of individualistic meaning guarantees that we will follow our image into conflict. Of course, capitalism structures our lives on these terms, apart from anything we decide to address on our own. We are always pulled back into self-image. Paradoxically, it is often a result of the other raising self-reference through the use of “I”, preceding self-description. We are driven straight back into ourselves through the other presenting their own fixed boundaries of identity.

Yet, the social environment forces us to preemptively defend ourselves on terms of identity, and we are wise not to try to escape those terms. We can’t lose track of what our identities mean in our environment, for our own safety. Even our attempt to be free of our identity can assert it in the eyes of others. They may see your freedom from identity as an assertion of it. The image they understand you through may demand a certain, opposite form of self-denial, or else your refusal to bow your head insults what they feel should constitute identity, on their own ideological terms. For you, denial of ego is freedom, and likewise asserts you as an identity contra anyone who feels you should hang your head. They need to see you suffer through self-aware self-persecution, which renders you as voided of self in their eyes. This is what is demanded by their attempt at self-esteem.

It would be nice if simply having good morals could save of us from this predicament, but communists, too, fall victim to such social dynamics. Communists are driven to destroy each other. The less we posit our needs into abstract ideals, and wield those ideals against each other, the better off we are. We do not need to use ideals to beat people into good morals. The presentation of ideals and morality should not close itself off in an individualistic loop. Claims about morals and ideals should be presented like a bridge for us to cross into shared practice. How do we honor ideals together? What we think of as ideals are activities that we must make speak in social reproduction. Our inactivity communicates a demand for ideals. Our activity would speak those ideals and allow us to dissolve rivalry.

If ideals speak in practice, they ease the sense of competition, as these ideals in practice, for communists, are about mutual interdependence. “Communists” do not need to have a country, or even an official org, to back self-identity, but they should seek a practice, even if practice is broader than ideologues would like to admit. We must develop the practice that can give us an escape from our hovering ideals, through action. If some social other doesn’t conform to what you see as an ideal, figure out how to bridge their practice with yours. How do you include them in your self-understanding, instead of using them as foil, that you ultimately project your negative features into? You can avoid competing with them, or demanding everyone focus on what you possess and they lack. We are never just our static self-image. Alongside our self-image is always the social other. Do we incorporate that other into our larger sense of self, or do we refuse them, only to have them haunt what we think is our clean self-image?

We can figure out how to lose that sense of competitive accomplishment. We can dissolve the figure of a rival “nonparticipant” through action. How do you figure out how to act in concert, so neither you or this social other are opposed through individualistic identity? How do you close off the paths of individualistic pursuit on both ends, to move towards each other in a space of reconciliation, where neither are forced to obey the laws of competition?