Communism

It's not bad to kill your own people if they're feudalists, though. And if they're literally trying to send you back to serfdom under another Tsar, which was the case of the political opposition in the USSR and the kulaks. Also, the kulaks burned grain causing famines that killed millions so it only made sense when Stalin starved them

Back to rèddìt plebbit.

I mean, the reason Lenin used to say "free speech is a bourgeois luxury" is because the stakes for the bolsheviks were life and death. There were civil wars and the other sides supported both fascism and a return to feudalism, lol. If some armed assholes came to the USA and said "OK, we're gonna genocide a bunch of you, then take away your rights to own anything, and also we're gonna burn a massive portion of your food supply" you'd say "fuck your free speech" too

Communism was an economic tool to destroy you fool. Russia and China had great potential but, the west unleashed communism on them.

>Communism was an economic tool to destroy you fool
LMAO it's like comic book retardation conservatives have about communism

>>What exactly made communism such a deplorable political opinion?
It's Jewish and therefore anti-White.

Communism is a Jewish tool used to destroy the goyim.

>China had great potential but, the west unleashed communism on them.

Uhhh what year are you living in?

Stalin : There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class?

On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits.

You are a fucking retard.

And who profits under capitalism you fucking subversive kike

They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the poor, the exploited class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labour power to the capitalists which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the United States better than I do as I have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have some experience in fighting for socialism, and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place. The capitalists will say : Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?

Stalin : You object to the simplified classification of mankind into rich and poor. Of course there is a middle stratum, there is the technical intelligentsia that you have mentioned and among which there are very good and very honest people. Among them there are also dishonest and wicked people, there are all sorts of people among them, But first of all mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from the fundamental fact. I do not deny the existence of intermediate middle strata, which either take the side of one or the other of these two conflicting classes, or else take up a neutral or semi-neutral position in this struggle. But, I repeat, to abstract oneself from this fundamental division in society and from the fundamental struggle between the two main classes means ignoring facts. The struggle is going on and will continue. The outcome will be determined by the proletarian class, the working class.

>You are a fucking retard.
You're an anti-White Judeo Communist shill.

The amount of countries and lives it has destroyed yet, people like yourself still defend it. There is no reasoning with the irrational. Nobody takes people who still support communism seriously anymore. It's always just a circle jerk of progressives faggots who live in echo chambers that support it.

Communism / socialism is inherently anti--semitic though, just read some Marx and watch him proclaiming how capitalism is a jewish plot to destroy the workers

you guys are so funny

>And who profits under capitalism you fucking subversive kike
Capitalism is just as Jewish and anti-White as Communism is.

Your stupidity lies in believing that one only can choose either Communism or Capitalism.

After the October Revolution, a certain section of the technical intelligentsia refused to take part in the work of constructing the new society; they opposed this work of construction and sabotaged it.

We did all we possibly could to bring the technical intelligentsia into this work of construction; we tried this way and that. Not a little time passed before our technical intelligentsia agreed actively to assist the new system. Today the best section of this technical intelligentsia are in the front rank of the builders of socialist society. Having this experience we are far from underestimating the good and the bad sides of the technical intelligentsia and we know that on the one hand it can do harm, and on the other hand, it can perform "miracles." Of course, things would be different if it were possible, at one stroke, spiritually to tear the technical intelligentsia away from the capitalist world. But that is utopia.

Are there many of the technical intelligentsia who would dare break away from the bourgeois world and set to work reconstructing society? Do you think there are many people of this kind, say, in England or in France? No, there are few who would be willing to break away from their employers and begin reconstructing the world.

>Communism / socialism is inherently anti--semitic though
It's literally created by Jews and Jew lovers.

> just read some Marx and watch him proclaiming how capitalism is a jewish plot to destroy the workers
Marx is a lying fucking kike. Marx only hated Capitalists. He was fine with Jews being Communists.

>you guys are so funny
You're a nigger.

Besides, can we lose sight of the fact that in order to transform the world it is necessary to have political power? It seems to me, Mr. Wells, that you greatly underestimate the question of political power, that it entirely drops out of your conception.

What can those, even with the best intentions in the world, do if they are unable to raise the question of seizing power, and do not possess power? At best they can help the class which takes power, but they cannot change the world themselves. This can only be done by a great class which will take the place of the capitalist class and become the sovereign master as the latter was before. This class is the working class. Of course, the assistance of the technical intelligentsia must be accepted; and the latter in turn, must be assisted. But it must not be thought that the technical intelligentsia can play an independent historical role. The transformation of the world is a great, complicated and painful process. For this task a great class is required. Big ships go on long voyages.

>So what exactly makes communism so bad?
stripping of rights so the government can feel ore safe when sending your family to starve to death doing hard labor in the gulag for questioning if communism isn't in everyones best interest

Stalin : Of course the old system is breaking down and decaying. That is true. But it is also true that new efforts are being made by other methods, by every means, to protect, to save this dying system.

You draw a wrong conclusion from a correct postulate.

You rightly state that the old world is breaking down.

But you are wrong in thinking that it is breaking down of its own accord. No, the substitution of one social system for another is a complicated and long revolutionary process. It is not simply a spontaneous process, but a struggle, it is a process connected with the clash of classes. Capitalism is decaying, but it must not be compared simply with a tree which has decayed to such an extent that it must fall to the ground of its own accord. No, revolution, the substitution of one social system for another, has always been a struggle, a painful and a cruel struggle, a life and death struggle. And every time the people of the new world came into power they had to defend themselves against the attempts of the old world to restore the old power by force; these people of the new world always had to be on the alert, always had to be ready to repel the attacks of the old world upon the new system.

>The amount of countries and lives it has destroyed yet
LMAO what countries did it "destroy"? Please pray tell. Name one place that communism was implemented where it didn't solve tons of problems and make people's lives way better?
The life expectancy in China was under 35 before Mao.
In Russia, prior to the revolution, there were famines and there was serfdom. Once the serfs were freed into capitalism their lives became even worse under capitalism than they were as serfs. It's impossible to deny how much better things were for them under communism.
Typical conservative knows nothing of the history of either of these places, or the circumstances they faced. Just retarded Hannity brainwashing.

Materialism doesn't recognize the truth as a valid concept. All materialist ideologies lead to tyranny because anyone who accepts them consents to being lied to, and any organization that doesn't exploit people who consent to being exploited will be outcompeted by an organization that does exploit them.

>Also Capitalism has killed plenty of people as well.
Capitalism is a marxist exonym.
The only self-identified capitalist countries are failed communist ones.
Markets != capitalism.

Yes, you are right when you say that the old social system is breaking down; but it is not breaking down of its own accord. Take Fascism for example.

Fascism is a reactionary force which is trying to preserve the old system by means of violence. What will you do with the fascists? Argue with them? Try to convince them? But this will have no effect upon them at all. Communists do not in the least idealise the methods of violence. But they, the Communists, do not want to be taken by surprise, they cannot count on the old world voluntarily departing from the stage, they see that the old system is violently defending itself, and that is why the Communists say to the working class : Answer violence with violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing you, do not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with which you will overthrow the old system. As you see, the Communists regard the substitution of one social system for another, not simply as a spontaneous and peaceful process, but as a complicated, long and violent process. Communists cannot ignore facts.

Wells : But look at what is now going on in the capitalist world. The collapse is not a simple one; it is the outbreak of reactionary violence which is degenerating to gangsterism. And it seems to me that when it comes to a conflict with reactionary and unintelligent violence, socialists can appeal to the law, and instead of regarding the police as the enemy they should support them in the fight against the reactionaries. I think that it is useless operating with the methods of the old insurrectionary socialism.

Stalin : The Communists base themselves on rich historical experience which teaches that obsolete classes do not voluntarily abandon the stage of history.

Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did not many say that the old social system had decayed? But did it not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?

Wells : Cromwell acted on the basis of the constitution and in the name of constitutional order.

>USSR seemed pretty hell bent on maintaining ethnic Russian supremacy.
they literally didn't and it's tiresome to listen to lefy shills pretending otherwise
USSR literally invited blacks in to their country to criticize the racism of america
sci-hub.st/10.1111/j.1540-6563.2008.00230.x

wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/black-skin-red-land-african-americans-and-soviet-experiment

>. Robinson enjoyed the apparent lack of racial oppression in the Soviet Union, including the ability to work without fear of sabotage or physical harm. (In Detroit, he found that a co-worker had sabotaged his tooling machine in an effort to electrocute him.)

>However, he was unable to forget his skin color. He considered Soviet anti-racism peculiar, especially when Soviet men encouraged their girlfriends to dance with him at worker events.
Russian were literally trying to get black people to fuck their girlfriends lol

reminder Communism has always been the globohomo it is today

Stalin : In the name of the constitution he resorted to violence, beheaded the king, dispersed Parliament, arrested some and beheaded others!

Or take an example from our history. Was it not clear for a long time that the tsarist system was decaying, was breaking down? But how much blood had to be shed in order to overthrow it?

And what about the October Revolution? Were there not plenty of people who knew that we alone, the Bolsheviks, were indicating the only correct way out?

Was it not clear that Russian capitalism had decayed?

But you know how great was the resistance, how much blood had to be shed in order to defend the October Revolution from all its enemies, internal and external.

Or take France at the end of the eighteenth century.

Long before 1789 it was clear to many how rotten the royal power, the feudal system was. But a popular insurrection, a clash of classes was not, could not be avoided. Why? Because the classes which must abandon the stage of history are the last to become convinced that their role is ended. It is impossible to convince them of this. They think that the fissures in the decaying edifice of the old order can be repaired and saved. That is why dying classes take to arms and resort to every means to save their existence as a ruling class.

Competition is an inevitability of life. If the existence of competition justifies temporarily suspending your values, then your values will be suspended permanently and thus everyone is justified in calling you a bullshitter for claiming to hold those values.

Socialism is a cultural thing that had been in Germany for centuries. Most of the communist manifesto was done by engels not marx. They both materialized socialism based on individualist British culture. This is where the anarchism nature comes from.

Wells : But there were not a few lawyers at the head of the Great French Revolution.

Stalin : Do you deny the role of the intelligentsia in revolutionary movements? Was the Great French Revolution a lawyers' revolution and not a popular revolution, which achieved victory by rousing vast masses of the people against feudalism and championed the interests of the Third Estate? And did the lawyers among the leaders of the Great French Revolution act in accordance with the laws of the old order? Did they not introduce new, bourgeois revolutionary laws?

The rich experience of history teaches that up to now not a single class has voluntarily made way for another class. There is no such precedent in world history. The Communists have learned this lesson of history. Communists would welcome the voluntary departure of the bourgeoisie. But such a turn of affairs is improbable; that is what experience teaches. That is why the Communists want to be prepared for the worst and call upon the working class to be vigilant, to be prepared for battle. Who wants a captain who lulls the vigilance of his army, a captain who does not understand that the enemy will not surrender, that he must be crushed? To be such a captain means deceiving, betraying the working class. That is why I think that what seems to you to be old-fashioned is in fact a measure of revolutionary expediency for the working class.

First, the main thing for the revolution is the existence of a social bulwark. This bulwark of the revolution is the working class.

Second, an auxiliary force is required, that which the Communists call a Party. To the Party belong the intelligent workers and those elements of the technical intelligentsia which are closely connected with the working class. The intelligentsia can be strong only if it combines with the working class.

If it opposes the working class it becomes a cipher.

Third, political power is required as a lever for change. The new political power creates the new laws, the new order, which is revolutionary order.

I do not stand for any kind of order. I stand for order that corresponds to the interests of the working class. If, however, any of the laws of the old order can be utilised in the interests of the struggle for the new order, the old laws should be utilised.

I cannot object to your postulate that the present system should be attacked in so far as it does not ensure the necessary order for the people.

And, finally, you are wrong if you think that the Communists are enamoured of violence. They would be very pleased to drop violent methods if the ruling class agreed to give way to the working class. But the experience of history speaks against such an assumption.

Huh? What the fuck does this retarded comment even have to do with anything? Also "no". If you want to "compete" go join a sports event. If you pick up guns and try to enslave people you don't get to justify it by saying "haha competition". You're just a sociopath who deserves to be starved the death in the same way the evil kulaks were by Stalin

Owing to pressure from below, the pressure of the masses, the bourgeoisie may sometimes concede certain partial reforms while remaining on the basis of the existing social-economic system.

Acting in this way, it calculates that these concessions are necessary in order to preserve its class rule. This is the essence of reform. Revolution, however, means the transference of power from one class to another. That is why it is impossible to describe any reform as revolution. That is why we cannot count on the change of social systems taking place as an imperceptible transition from one system to another by means of reforms, by the ruling class making concessions.

Funniest part too is I've spent enough time on Any Forums to know that retards like this who talk about "competition" and believe it's totally fine when a feudalist government enslaves everyone or whatever, are almost all disabled. Almost always. Poor and disabled. That's the biggest irony of it.

no food

>Capitalism is just as Jewish and anti-White as Communism is.
You can go one further. Capitalism is just as marxist as communism is. Capitalism as a concept was defined by marx in terms of other concepts defined by marx. The US founding fathers, classical economists etc never once referred to "capitalism". Capitalism is a marxist idea in the exact same way that satanism is a christian idea. There is no satanism outside of christianity. Buddhists, atheists, pagans etc don't recognize "satan" as a valid concept, only christians do.

Fuck rootless cosmopolitans

Attached: quote-and-as-for-the-jews-who-since-the-emancipation-of-their-sect-have-everywhere-put-themselves-karl-marx-65-27-72.jpg (850x400, 73.56K)

You're disingenuous. Prior the 1800s poverty was always the norm you dumb fuck. Most countries struggled one way or the other then the industrial revolution came. The Russian empire was full of natural resources and was in the transitioning process. The only thing that kept the Soviets going was the resources. If you look at countries like north Korea who are more economically communist, then you will see that they're dependent on international hand outs. Thats why they threaten nuclear war every few year.

>You can go one further. Capitalism is just as marxist as communism is. Capitalism as a concept was defined by marx in terms of other concepts defined by marx. The US founding fathers, classical economists etc never once referred to "capitalism". Capitalism is a marxist idea in the exact same way that satanism is a christian idea. There is no satanism outside of christianity. Buddhists, atheists, pagans etc don't recognize "satan" as a valid concept, only christians do.
Both ignore racial reality and both are soulless materialism.

Which is why both collapse.

The only difference between you and a marxist is that you replace the word worker with race
The rest is identical, even down to having pogroms against jews

all you socialists only split societies with collectivism, then pit them groups against each other, in order to have a good time and become a fat fuck like Göring
>It's literally created by Jews and Jew lovers.
>I don't like the primary sources, I prefer muh feelings
>Marx is a lying fucking kike
no u
brilliant argument

Communism caters to the stupidest most useless members of society, also to the most hypocritical and double faced people. That's why communism is so disgusting, because it puts the worst people possible in power.

All this text and literally not one single actual argument or point. Why did you even write it?
Anyway, communism indisputably made people's lives way better in both China and the USSR. I don't think anyone even a mainstream western historian who leans right politically can deny that.

The early jew Bolshevik movement was very pro gay, gender fluid, anti racism, in the early 20s. It wasn’t until Stalin purged all of the jews and liberals that the fag stuff went away.

The problem was when they replaced the successful farmers they thought they were simply successful because of the ground they happened to have their land on. You can’t replace generational farming experience with a college kid who took a 6 month course on farming.

Attached: F95006A5-FDC8-4D93-84D7-4FA8DC62949B.jpg (750x1179, 673.91K)

>The USSR was socialist, brainlet. It's in the name.
Yes, just like National SOCIALIST Germany, amirite?

>The only difference between you and a marxist is that you replace the word worker with race
Except that race is real and race is the basis for civilization.

All forms of Communism ignore reality.

>The rest is identical, even down to having pogroms against jews
Communism is pro-Jewish though. Stalin protected Jews.

>brilliant argument
you're a lying fucking nigger who is fine with kikes so I don't expect much from you.

Both using the classic commie strawman of equating explanation with justification. We're so familiar with your kind that we've even made a habit of pre-emptively calling you out in our writing. You are so predicable you couldn't even pass a turing test. The NPC meme was an apt one.

Attached: self-prop.png (510x888, 79.97K)

What does any of this even mean? Dude this proves my point above when I said that you're disabled. Like clearly you're mentally not all there.

Yugoslavia. 3000-5000 killed, not nothing, but not exactly Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot.
About as many people as were lynched (total) in the USA.

I made plenty of points. You claimed that Russia went through famine, yet when you look around the world at the same time period you will see that many places had them including my own which is western Europe.
I know exactly what your problem is. You're so stupid that your political views are polarised into two categories. Communism vs capitalism. You probably think the axis were capitalist too. Get fucked refugee and back to réddìt.

Also, by enflaming class warfare you got to the point where people who were dirty poor “bolsheviki” who were granted land by Lenin were suddenly 5 years later enemies of the state and targeted for village occupation and removal of all edible products

Attached: 23600470-18AE-440E-8D5A-92D123B23F96.jpg (569x800, 333.95K)

>What does any of this even mean?
You tell me.
You're supposedly the big brain marxist intellectual.
Do you mean to tell me you don't know how to read?
>it is important to avoid confusing our viewpoint with the (now largely defunct) philosophy known as "Social Darwinism."
This was written with (you) in mind. That's how predictable you are.

Attached: selfprop_3.png (542x768, 73.82K)

Yes they were both Socialists states that took stuff from the wealthy and gave it to everyone else

One thing that communist all have in common is their irrationality. They lack the ability to debate. Everything is based on emotions just like women who they see equal to themselves. Pathetic.