Was there every a truer communist than Brother Number One?
Abolished commodity production
Saloth Sar implemented actual socialism as Marx envisioned. His acheivements dwarfed Lenins.
I seriously dont get who Marx worshipping leftcoms dont praise him nor ancoms that are sympathetic to Marxism.
He went further than any figure in history by acheiving real scientific socialism.
Industrialization and urbanization were mistakes. I don't see how true egalitarianism will ever be possible in a society with urban-rural distinctions.
I cry every tiem
No, he was actually totally correct. Luckily, Year Zero will still happen once the capitalists destroy modern society for us.
If you nuke the whole world, this too will abolish commodity production. In fact, it will abolish everything.
Now you get it.
Fuck yuo he wasnt a true comunist bcuz he was spooked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Moon confirmed for purest socialism.
"Lord Kalki, the Lord of the universe, will mount His swift white horse Devadatta and, sword in hand, travel over the earth exhibiting His eight mystic opulences and eight special qualities of Godhead. Displaying His unequaled effulgence and riding with great speed, He will kill by the millions those thieves who have dared dress as kings."
We've been in a perpetual state of catastrophe since the fall of man.
Global communism will only be brought by apocalyptic means.
read about the CIA
Are you sure about that?
are there Pol Pot fans still in Cambodia I wonder?
Gee I really missed these threads
Gotta say America's dedication to crushing socialism wherever it pops up is almost impressive
Interesting that the international legal system didn't start to get involved until after Pol Pot was dead.
“Without Pol Pot, I wouldn’t have survived till today,” said Khim Suon, a 56-year-old who has a job selling tickets to the cremation site. “Pol Pot was a leader who protected the nation, so foreigners and locals come to respect him. … They come to pray and take souvenir photos.”
It’s a common sentiment in Anlong Veng, the last stronghold of the Khmer Rouge, which lies near the Thai border and around 60 miles north of the famous temples of Angkor.
For some Cambodians, bizarrely enough, nostalgia lingers for the final years of Khmer Rouge rule. From 1975 to '79, the Khmer Rouge sought to turn Cambodia into an agrarian utopia and rid itself of traditional elites.
"In those days we didn't have to worry about food or supplies — Ta Mok took care of that," says 56-year-old Sam Roeun, a former Khmer Rouge soldier with a prosthetic left leg who now sells entrance tickets to tourists in front of his former boss's home.
I wonder what Varg thinks about Pol Pot.
Now this is what I call revisionism.
Really makes me go hmmm and go back to reading theory.
(I really do hope this is just bait…)
Because the development of capitalism continually destroys the remnants of previous society, pushing farmers to become proletarians. This is literally the first chapter of the Manifesto.
Also [le meme cambodia man]'s idea of "communism" has been refuted ever since Marx refuted Proudhon's regressive and reactionary ideas about social change. It's basically the same point: the latter proposed a return to a simpler society, while Pol Pot forced such a transformation unto his people through the most violent means.
big if true
Nothing in your post addressed my main argument - which is that real, not on-paper egalitarianism is impossible in a society with urban-rural distinctions. The urban areas, by their very nature as centers of industry, education, commerce, etc, dominate the rural areas and subjugate them.
Let's imagine we achieve whatever utopia you believe is the greatest possible way of organizing society. No matter what, people living in rural areas will be worse off (both in terms of material wealth as well as access to culture, education, and the possibility of social mobility) than those living in urban areas - even though those people produce the food necessary to feed those urban areas in the first place.
The fact that urbanization has been the trajectory of society up to this point doesn't disprove my claim.
I'm not even mentioning the possibly terminal (meaning species-suicidal) environmental devastation directly caused by urbanization.
but everyone isn't equal, evidenced by the fact that you need a leader
Literally not an argument
RAZE THE CITIES
Material equality is not a necessary component of socialism.
For the very same reasons listed about urban and rural areas, the only two situations in which a society has equal material distribution to all members are societies with 1 person and societies with 0 people.
It's not necessarily about material equality. Wouldn't you agree something every socialist and leftist wants is equality of opportunity - the ability for every person in society to reach their full potential?
In a socialist society with urban-rural distinctions, the people living in rural areas will have less opportunities to do this, just by the very nature of the urban-rural dynamic. The son of a farmer, no matter how smart they may be, will be disadvantaged relative to the son of an urban proletariat.
Hey Chaya, do you have a Twitter? If not, shouldn't you get one so you can jewpill your followers?
sage since off topic
Shut up fag