What if we didn't hate anyone? How would we go about making the world into a better place, without anyone to blame?

Why would I be triggered by something that isn't real?

Liberal nonsense. We're dismantling power, there'd be nothing to abuse. Human nature is entirely non-static.

This faggot just released his new EP "Respect my spooks or I'll get mad"

Yes but if we don't kill or properly reeducate the ruling classes they will be very dangerous to the survival of the revolution.

But there are people to blame.

So you abolish the position of power altogether. Make it so nobody is a porky because your economic system is structured in such a way as to make being a porky impossible, ie socialism.

Yes, of course, but I don't think the current holders of power are just going to step aside and do nothing while we take over.

Guys?

And you'll notice none of them really lived in/ruled over socialism

And you'll notice this is the delusion that keeps the left standing in today's world. I will approach the Chavez example because it hits close to home, he claimed to have built the perfect socialist infrastructure even in the economic field, which he promptly ruined, advised by no other than Fidel Castro. This didn't stop him and his family and the entirety of his party from becoming absolutely filthy rich even today.

How these people can defend "worker's rights" is beyond me, and how people like you can claim this is right 'because it wasn't real socialism' is just insulting the argument.

Except it wasn't socialism even if Chavez called it that because it objectively didn't meet the retirements for socialism.

Sorry it makes you mad we don't care about your strawman. Better luck next time.

That honestly doesn't make me mad. I want to understand more, which is why I come to you, the experts.

Fine, let's work from the fact it wasn't real socialism, but you'll agree they (both chavez and fidel) were working to build this. How then, is it acceptable that they became incredibly rich, beyond porgy levels, while at the same time claiming to build a system where this isn't possible?

It's ok for them to be rich but not anyone else? Isn't this why you guys are against capitalism?

It isn't acceptable that they made themselves wealthy. Chavez's economic policies were severely flawed in numerous ways. The only time they are defended here in the least bit is either to annoy shitposters with contrarianism out because some idiot is saying Venezuela = socialism. It's similar for Castro, who even when he died received severe criticism from the left, see Zizek for example.

But since most of the time they're only ever brought up by faggots wanting to 'disprove' socialism the stock response is just to say it wasn't socialism and leave it at that because there is no point arguing with someone that completely disregards nuance. Stalin, Mao, Chavez, Castro, etc, might deserve some respect for whatever progress for the working class they accomplished, but they definitely deserve the severest criticism for their inability or unwillingness to build our even set their country on the path toward socialism.

I should qualify this with that it isn't acceptable that they made themselves wealthy "at the expense of the proletariat" because there isn't anything wrong with wealth per se, it even someone having wealth, but the manner in which they wealth of acquired and their contributions to the advancement of the proletarian cause.

FTFY

Not all lives matter, only the lives of the under classes.

What do you think is meant when you read the words "human nature"? I suspect your interpretation must be very, very different to mine.

What is a proletariat-conscious way of making wealth? I've seen posts here saying that by owning a business you instantly become porgy, which makes no sense to me to be honest.

Also, according to my understanding of some statements by Marx, whenever wealth is amassed it means it was robbed or taken from soneone else, if this is so, then there is no real way to acquire wealth without summoning the rage of leftists everywhere. So what is a man to do if he looks down on class difference but at the same time wants to live a wealthy enough life?

Okay I didn't make myself very clear. I mean that almost all humans are currently counter-revolutionary. It isn't just limited to the bourgeois. You'll have to fight plenty of pigs and pig sympathisers if you want your revolution.

Okay.

And you people say you're for the masses. Hilarious.

I don't support killing anyone. I posted . In my opinion trying to have a revolution without changing the underlying material conditions is futile, and if you can change the material conditions then you don't need to have a revolution.

just because human nature doesn`t technically exist or theories on it are retarded,
doesn`t mean there aren`t people/movements who won`t find ways screw up the revolution and the work

Of course not, don't be stupid.

Because that isn't exactly true. To most people the concept of owning a "business" is some sort of operation that pays employees a wage for labor, and that's where the rub is because performing your own labor and receiving money for it is different than having others work for you, taking the money they make (by selling or production or whatever), paying them back a fraction and then keeping the rest for yourself.

It's the difference between selling a painting you did for a million dollars and making a million dollars from the work of your employees.

In fact, Adam Smith said it first (so far as I know)

“Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.”
― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

But generally that's so, yeah. Either because he inherited it, in which case he didn't do the work for it, or he owns some sort of productive enterprise, in which case he didn't work for it, or they were an aristocrat or won the lottery or whatever. I don't believe that a leftist would object if an artisan, say, created some work of art that the citizens in his town or city assented to reward significantly from the common fund. I've been using artisans here mostly for convenience's sake.

Well it really depends on what you mean by "a wealthy enough life," because what is a wealthy enough life? It wasn't too terribly long ago that 12c a day was considered by factory owners to be enough for a wealthy enough life. For the most part, leftists are concerned with seeing that everyone has enough for life, much less what I think in the west would be considered a wealthy one.

But in any event, the primary objection isn't to someone having more wealth or resources than another person, but that one person is arbitrarily given complete power over a necessary resource–sometimes even natural resources that they had no hand at all in making–and then gains his wealth by withholding that resource from the public unless they agree to be his wage slaves.

ps is might take me a little while to respond because I'm at work having my surplus value extracted.