Serious question, are spooks memes? Not in the sense that calling things spooks is a meme

Serious question, are spooks memes? Not in the sense that calling things spooks is a meme.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yes, they would more accurately fit the definition of a meme better than throwing some impact text on a picture. It adds quite an amusing dimension to daily life if you remember this going about your business.

serious tip:

fucking forget stirner

read german ideology by marx and forget this idiot. He is only relevant on the internet. Max Stirner is dead and so is his stupid philosophy

I don't understand your question.

REMINDER THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY IS JUST MARX'S AUTISTC SCREECHINGS

t. somebody who doesn't read

Stirner was very influential on the anarchist movement and while you can just start with Kropotkin and didn't miss much, he's still valuable to read for historical reasons alone

everyone who criticises my views is an autist


an emotional guide for everyone on the internet

He's using "meme" as in an information that gets passed around a lot.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

lol whatever. Stirner was Engels in disguise.

Marx was wrong about the lumpen, he can be wrong about stirner too.

i've read kropotkin so there is no reason why i should read mr ghostman :DDD


srsly just stop with digging up edgy philosophers from the past just because you feel like it.

show me how he was wrong with the lumpen if the AfD in germany is voted by mostly lumps and petite bourgeois, and every fash party before

Ask Bakunin

show me an anarchist society or state (it is a state even if you call it differently) which lasted more than a five year plan

Show me a leninist state that gave the workers actual ownership of the means of production.

Would you risk getting haunted by Stirner? Not that there is a body to dig up.

Show me an anarchist state.
Protip: It's all of them.

hopefully Rojava in 2021

you know that building communism and socialism takes fucking time and that you need to form the material conditions to actually fit?

the former leninist states started to eliminate alienation from the production process and (tried) to develope into socialism. You know that there was war going on literally at any moment of the USSR?


you cannot try democracy during such hard conflicts and if you are clearly a weaker force. You anarchists want everything now, now now but fail to realize that socialism needs time.

Giving the workers control, actual control would have happen if the ussr could have faced more peaceful times. but marxism-leninism is socialism in extreme defense mode. Do you think i love everything that happened under Stalin? Of course fucking not, im not an idiot but you have to understand why it happened and that every socialist movement would have to face similiar difficulties, but only the authoratarian ones are strong enough to defend themselves. It's nothing heroic about suicide and democratizing the USSR would have been suicide at this time. Im not per se anti-democracy, im not a dogmatist idiot like some others, but I do understand that different times need a different style of rule etc.

As said before socialism is a process not sontehing that stands still.

i excuse for every spelling mistake, its a bit late here and im a bit tired

is that how the bolsheviks justified destroying makhnova to themselves

are you more interested in crying over idiotic attempts and romantizing "freedom" than in actually building socialism?