Communism KILLED 35,000,000+

And if you don't believe me, here are some estimates — and the list is nowhere near exhaustive:

Irish Potato Famine (1845 - 1849): 1,000,000 deaths
Congo Free State (1885 - 1908): 10,000,000 deaths
World War I (1914 - 1918): 18,000,000 deaths
Bengal Gamine (1943 - 1944): 2,000,000 deaths
Bodo League Massacre (1950): 1,000,000 deaths
US Bombing of Korea (1950 - 1953): 1,000,000 deaths
Indonesian Purge (1965 - 1966): 3,000,000 deaths

But I guess that wasn't real socialism!

Other urls found in this thread:–1966–United_States_relations

communism is so powerful it can make your hand fall off

another similarity with masturbation!

Indonesian purge happened because of the fascists though.

Watch Parenti


The USA is the only country to have nuked a population of humans.

Early days, friend.

how was the irish potato famine communist

That's the joke

The Joke


marx introduced pathogens to attempt to exterminate the hibernian menace but failed

Of course, but we can't know if it was ten million or thirty million: the regimes were secretive. Considering just three: Stalin's regime, Mao's regime, and Pol Pot's regime, many millions were killed as a direct result of class warfare. Millions of land owners and the "wealthy", or just whoever was called counter-revolutionary, were directly executed. That doesn't mean they were socialist or communist, it means that the mainstream, major attempts resulting in millions upon millions of deaths. You can see it on this board, people justifying mass scale murder by glorifying gulags or talking about liberals getting the bullet. Ironic considering how it is meant to be a worker's movement… so long as you agree with the party line (the ONLY line).

Is this a pasta?

bot post worst post



Laughing at the death of millions. Afterall they were just the deplorable undesirables that didnt follow the will of the state right?
The will of the state is all that matters. Individuality is a great crime. Obey the glorious leader.




Are you denying that there was a whole 'counter-revolutionary' scare that didn't just result in socially ostracizing people, but actually putting them in prison? Compared to those charged with trumped-up sedition charges in the US, the scale pales when you compare the two.


ITT, damning evidence that no one on this board even reads the OP beyond the title.

Explain the capitalist qualities of the Spanish empire and explain how wars for conquest of territory, women, and resources is capitalistic. Does that mean that the Soviet Union's imperialism against the Eastern European nations or during WW2 was capitalistic? They gained territory and resources, too.


not even gonna entertain this shitty ass thread, nb


Well considering they were a state capitalist country I'd say yes.

Yes, but how was their intentions and the conquest that ensued capitalistic? What is your definition of capitalism and how does it relate to every conquest, from the Spanish empire, the Soviet empire, the British empire, and so on. From which text do you draw this definition from?

Most people here don't care for Pol Pot, and regardless even then the number of deaths in Cambodia is massively overstated. In reality, nobody quite knows how many died, though the best estimate we have (from someone who was actually there) is in the "thousands", not millions.

As far as Stalin goes, here we see an enormous exaggeration of death tolls. It's difficult to know the precise figures, but with reference to the opened Russian archives, if we add up the numbers contained therein, what we get is 800,000 executions in a period of 36 years, less than the lives claimed by the dictatorship of the CIA-backed anti-communist Suharto in Indonesia in a time span of 2 years.

Now onto Mao. Other than those who were killed in the prosecution of a civil war and the protection of the revolutionary regime (something that is required in order to preserve any revolution, see the Terror in France) it is doubtful Mao killed many people at all.

in my defense I also read his picture

Or understated. The regimes weren't exactly open about their class warfare.
Only one person? The current consensus is millions, at least on the wiki. I have no reason to believe the 'millions' figure is wrong, unless you can present a criticism. There were other people who were 'actually there' who purport the 'millions' over 'thousands', so by your own criterion of being present there, it is also valid.
I agree. That's why I just say somewhere above a couple million.
I'm not talking just about executions, I am talking about the resulting starvation that came from bastardizing the wealthy (capital flight), seizing property from land owners, and exporting grain for the war effort while people were starving.–1966
"The most widely published estimates were that 500,000 to more than one million people were killed,[8][9] with some more recent estimates going as high as two to three million.[2][10]"
Depends what figure you trust. One is 500k, which is less. Also, I wasn't talking just about executions, but the failures as a result of stealing property. The only counter-argument I have ever received that attempts to justify the theft is that the victims of the crimes should have just accepted the crime against them.
So on one hand, it's totally commonplace for mass scale murder of the counter-revolutionary (perhaps it is not a worker's revolution if many people revolt…), but on the other hand, it is doubtful if many people were killed at all? This is refuted by the fact that many people at the time did not welcome the regime. So again, by your own criterion of "revolutions require mass murder when they are met with resistance", many millions were inevitably killed to maintain order. Which is it? Either the regime was welcomed with no resistance and nobody was forced to die, or it was a shaky alliance and millions were killed fighting it, like with the whole Cultural Revolution.

you missed a lot things, shit list

That's British India, brainlet. Unless you were being ironic in which case I guess that's fine

How was the starvation as a result of capitalism? If I trade my grain with one customer instead of the other, and the guy I didn't trade with starves, then the starving guy should blame the other customer who undercut his price offer, not the producer of the grain.

RIP to the millions of axis soldiers.

this is your brain on neoliberalism

Yeah, the deceased I was referencing were the workers being killed. Oh, I forgot: even if you're a poor middle class landowner, you're petit bourgeoise so that justifies theft and murder.

Interesting that the first argument you run to is to assume my underlying ideology, as if people cannot be critical of bad arguments or simply ask for your reasoning/propose alternatives UNLESS they are "insert boogeyman here".

I didn't see your 'argument' as worthy of actually addressing, but if you want a clue, communists don't only believe in negative rights like you


My argument was that blaming the guy who produced grain and sold it to a customer instead of blaming the customer who out-competed your price offer is foolish.
Nothing was said about negative rights.

The capitalists take the food they own and choose to sell it. The resulting famine is not a function of capitalism, but of competitive pricing, which is not mutually exclusive to the capitalist operational system. That's why I'm saying that saying "hey, you offered this guy a better deal than me: this is all capitalism's fault" is not an honest argument because it ignores the fact that, even in the absence of private property owners/rights, competition will still exist and people will go hungry because others will out-compete their offers.

oh you didnt hear? anything that happens under communism or socialism is because they dont work but anything bad that happens under capitalism are just because of individual reasons

Is that a challenge?

Strawmen aside, the argument is that those attempts at socialist systems failed. The large-scale/major attempts to reach the goal could not achieve the 'mission statement', so to speak. The same goes with Communism because it predicts too much with little proof that such a reality will be the case, like a pseudo-science. If I tell you that sometime in the future, these things will all occur, you should always ask how I know this, what my evidence is that the hypothesis will unfold as I predict, and when it will happen (just predicting things in some untold future is meaningless).
The difference is that there are no such camps that hold hundreds of thousands of people for being in jail for 'counter-revolutionary activity' and the attempted capitalist systems do not steal things from people. The socialist attempts resulted in theft of private property and mass scale killings, which most in this thread do not dispute (in scale, but not in occurrence).

Unless you've actually read Capital, you don't really have a leg to stand on. All the evidence and arguments for why things will happen the way they will is in those three books, and so far they've only been proven right.

It is, it does not follow the scientific method. There is no way to falsify the predictions, even the most basic point about hypotheses and their predictive power was grossly damaged. A hypothesis cannot predict some event's occurrence with an indeterminate timeframe. That defeats the whole purpose.
Great, so there must be an abundance of evidence demonstrating the inevitability of the Communist system, with each nation becoming stateless and operating under a dictatorship of the proletariat. Please point to those instances occurring to such a degree so as to justify Communism.
And I cannot stress the pseudo-scientific basis of the prediction enough: unless the argument had some sort of endpoint where 'by this period in time, these nations would become Communist', then the entire premise is flawed. Marx never predicted such a revolt to occur in Tsarist Russia, yet it did. The progenitor of the hypothesis was caught blindsided by evidence that went against his predictions. If Marxism was scientific, then the evidence pointing to the contrary of the hypothesis would be just cause to reform the hypothesis, or drop it. But this has not occurred.

Pol Pot wasn't a communist you dumb fuck, he was an agrarian nationalist.
I don't see the problem.
The maximum sentence for any crime was 10 years, most were released before their sentence was up. There was free healthcare, education, and library access and you actually got to go outside, plus you were paid only 25% on average less than regular proles (higher amount of money than the US prisons pay) drunkards and other pathological criminals actually BEGGED to be let in so they could fix their lives, the same can't be said for America. Don't get me wrong, I'm a prison abolitionist, but this shit meme you're spouting needs to die.
Always kill a traitor before an enemy.
The problem is statism, not socialism. If you think otherwise, please tell me all about the millions of innocent people killed by anarchists or genocides that the anarchists made…OH WAIT, that never happened! Suck it.

"If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development." - Karl Marx

Yes, of course, he wasn't a human made of cheese, either. He might have called himself something that is impossible to achieve, but my argument wasn't that he was actually made of cheese. I said that the mission statement, the purported purpose, was communistic. That is not up for debate.
Which is why it comes to nobody's surprise that many people were subject to murder and theft under these regimes that claimed to be communistic/socialistic.
If you are willing to say 'most', I assume you have the statistics to back this claim up. What is most? >50%? You are making my own argument for me but you are too dull to realize it: if the average sentence for literally any crime was ten years, then that only reinforces the kangaroo courts that tossed people in prison for being counter-revolutionary.
You're also missing out the part where it does talk about counter-revolutionary sentences being, on average, ten years… right after it lists the death sentence, too.
"Sentences were long, up to 25 years, and frequently extended indefinitely without trial or consultation. Inmates under Article 58 were known as "politichesky" (политический, short for политический заключённый, "politиchesky zakliuchenny" or "political prisoner"), as opposed to common criminals, "ugolovnik" (уголовник). Upon release, the prisoner would typically be sent into an exile within Russia without the right to settle closer than 100 km from large cities."
Also missing that part out, too. That darn nuance, always debunking strawmen!
So… slave labour? Did the teachers and physicians work for free? Not really making your argument that it wasn't inhumane.
Do you have a single citation to back up these statistics?
Reminds me of the 'and you are lynching negroes' talking point USSR officials used to use: who the hell is talking about the US and their problems? I'm talking about the USSR and their problems.
Imagine being this deluded to think you aren't the enemy.
Idealistic socialism, you mean.
Good job winning the argument I never disputed.

I don't dispute his conclusions reached in his later writings, as that was a decade after the original manifesto. In his earlier work, it was clear that he observed the Russian climate as being underdeveloped and incapable of harbouring a socialist revolt.
In any case, it is still pseudo-scientific because the revolt occurred over thirty years after. He did not predict the time frame, so this is not evidence in favour of his claims.

I was merely making a joke, although the joke was kinda strawmany in nature

I agree that you can find plenty of faults with capitalism and its ethical ramifications, but you can't compare me trading with one person over another being equivalent to stealing things from another person to fund a revolution. One is death by inaction, the other is death by action. Worlds apart.

Are you serious?

The preface, yes.

what are you politcally?

No, he wasn't a communist, period. He worked with the fucking CIA. Hell, the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by communist Vietnam.

You do know that the Manifesto is a political pamphlet and not a book of theory, right?

Still missing the point.

Who said it was a theory? Also, that is a very loose usage of a theory. Theories have survived falsification, Marxism has not.


I'm not this guy, but do you have any sources on the katyn massacre being a nazi false flag?

Actually, it's exactly the reverse:
"The massacre was prompted by NKVD chief Lavrentiy Beria's proposal to execute all captive members of the Polish officer corps, dated 5 March 1940, approved by the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, including its leader, Joseph Stalin. The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000.[1] The victims were executed in the Katyn Forest in Russia, the Kalinin and Kharkiv prisons, and elsewhere. Of the total killed, about 8,000 were officers imprisoned during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, another 6,000 were police officers, and the rest were Polish intelligentsia that the Soviets deemed to be "intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials, and priests".[1]

The government of Nazi Germany announced the discovery of mass graves in the Katyn Forest in 1943. When the London-based Polish government-in-exile asked for an investigation by the International Committee of the Red Cross, Stalin immediately severed diplomatic relations with it. The USSR claimed that the victims had been murdered by the Nazis in 1941 and continued to deny responsibility for the massacres until 1990, when it officially acknowledged and condemned the perpetration of the killings by the NKVD, as well as the subsequent cover-up by the Soviet government.[1][2][3][a]"
It was just in 1990 when they claimed responsibility.

eh i dont like ☭TANKIE☭s

Who do you think the commissars of domestic security answered to, out of curiosity?
Also, children starving as a result of not having enough food is a function of immature parents who birth children when they know they are impoverished. Using this logic, all the deaths that were resulted when there was food people were eating and others did not are all capitalism's fault because, somehow, there is a valid juxtaposition wherein the norm is a situation where everyone eats. This is an impossibility and the overwhelming majority of organisms on earth have learned this the hard way. Not mutually exclusive to capitalism. Big difference when you compare that to the people who called themselves communists and stole land and grain from people, or killed them/imprisoned them for not submitting to their authority.

I don't like bad arguments for Communism.

I wouldn’t include the Korean War though, that was started by the North.

Except those deaths are a direct result of market distributions mechanisms. If a system produces enough food for everybody as capitalism does, and then fails to distribute them in a way that ensures everybody is fed, then that system is to blame for their deaths. Blaming them for having children is nonsensical because there IS enough food to feed those children, but capitalism fails to deliver it to them.

You could just as easily apply your reasoning to Stalinist collectivization. If those Kulaks didn’t want to be starved then they shouldn’t have been counter revolutionaries, it’s not communism’s fault they died, they made their decision.

Your point doesn't make sense. How can you use Pol Pot as an argument against communism when he was an anti-communist?
More precisely, the CIA funded a group formed by former Khmer Rouge people after communist Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge,–United_States_relations
The CIA supported Khmer insurgencies after Communist Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge. Furthermore the US gave diplomatic support to the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam and officially recognized it as the legitimate government.
So you claim. The thing is that you're trying to hide the fact that you haven't read the single book that explains, in perfect detail and with empirical evidence, what Marx's theories are. The communist manifesto is a tiny pamphlet meant to explain the political program of the Communist League. It is not the sum of Marx's work. If you want to criticise Marx's theories, you need to read Capital.

To add on to your point, how does that guy know to what extent "immature parents" allow children to starve to death?

Of inaction. Blaming the producer where the lion's share of the blame rests on the competitive action of undercutting the price offer is not a valid argument.
It also produces many other things in abundance, you and I are both aware of the wastefulness, too. Who would have thought that we could make enough plastic to create plastic oceans in the Pacific Ocean? Yet it happens.
Where you go wrong is assuming that because there is a mind-boggling abundance, that there is an obligation to share with people even if it is possible. We make enough food to sell to everyone. Does that mean that everyone can offer a competitive price for the grain? No, because the offers people put forth are not equal, some people are worth more than others, and as a result, can purchase more.
Again, this is not a paradigm that capitalism operates within. There is more than enough bottled water that is produced, too. That doesn't mean that people will never be thirsty. This is a classic case of the nirvana fallacy. Because it isn't perfect, then fuck it IF you are, within this context, anti-capitalist, which I suspect you are. Even though within quasi-capitalist nations who are neo-Keynesian or whatever you want to call it, the issue of starvation and dehydration pales in comparison to the non-capitalist, non neo-Keynesian nations. It would be unfair to criticize attempts of Communism by looking at nations who staged fascistic revolts for the same reason.
No, it isn't nonsensical because food for all has never been commonplace, it has never existed on an industrial scale, and it cannot exist BUT it can be, effectively, reduced greatly (which is what we see in neo-Keynesian nations who are capitalist and not in other nations that are anti-Keynesian and anti-capitalist). If you are born in a shanty town in some favella and choose to have three children, their suffering is on your shoulders: you chose to bring life into this world to suffer under the false assumption that simply because there 'is' that everyone can offer a competitive offer to 'have'. This is wrong.
Inaction versus action. If I choose to trade with people who offer better prices, that is not the same kind of decision as if I went and killed kulaks if they resisted and stole their land. That is a false comparison of murder versus voluntary exchanges based on offers for, say, my apple business.
Also, they weren't counter-revolutionary, they were the '99%' ers.

The parents are immature because they produce life knowing that it will suffer. If you give birth to a son knowing that he will be born without enough food, his starvation could have been avoided if you did not have a child. That's my point about immaturity: poor foresight.

The point is that he wasn't made of cheese, either. His original purpose was communistic, which is a separate issue of whether or not he achieved that purpose.
Interesting, sounds like the moderate rebel fiasco all over again. But again, I fail to see how his funding invalidates his purposes. If this is the standard of application towards communistic figures, then I'm fine with it if the point is that it invalidates their purposes, but this will also extend to Lenin, too. After all, he was fine with Alexander Parvus and Hans Freiherr von Wangenheim's plan to, as it was aptly named, destabilize Russia (called: 'A preparation of massive political strikes in Russia').

And what causes "the competitive action of undercutting the price offer"? Is it not the mechanics of Capitalism?
No, which is why people don't get it despite there being an overabundance of it. Farmers burn perfectly good crop every year because they produced too much for it to be profitable to sell, regardless of whether or not there were still people who needed that food. The foundation of any social system is that it provides for the needs of the people in that system. The original argument for capitalism was that individuals acting in their own self-interests as private property holders would benefit the whole of society. Now, instead of capitalism being the solution for social ills, it is the cause of social ills, and as Marx describes the entire system rests on people being trampled in the dirt. Capitalism cannot provide for these people and it never will, because doing so would undermine the entire system. Communism can, however.

Please explain how Pol Pot was in any way a communist and not just an ethno-nationalist primitivist pretending to be a communist to win points with the CCP?

You cannot simply claim that "his original purpose was communistic" when the fact of the matter is that his politics have nothing to do with the politics of any communist country in history. Your argument is nonsensical.

People like you always talk about how bad it is for working people to be violent against elites. But you don't have a problem when elites are violent to working people, which is all the time.

The inequalities people are born into or create for themselves. People have different goals and aspirations, and as a result, are in different circumstances. Or, they are born to immature parents (explained what I meant by immature above) who realize that the family that was just created will, most likely, remain poor.
Point being, the competition is a function of human ability and circumstance, which isn't mutually exclusive to capitalism. You will always have people competing in some aspects to gain some things while others lose other things. The paradigm was never 'we can all eat at the end of the day', that has been the exception to the rule.
Like I said, that's the wrong narrative to be operating under. I challenge you to name a single nation in the history of humanity that has ensured its citizenry food for all, water for all, and as a kicker, shelter for all. How did this work in practice?
Yes, because of the supply and the demand. If they create an excess of produce, then the value it is sold for in the market will decline as a function of its abundance. Makes perfect sense. It isn't ethical because people starve, but nobody said that people wouldn't starve. And again, just because there are needy people doesn't mean that the farmer will have to give over his food for free. Like I said above, the needy will have to put forth an offer that is reflective of the produce the farmer has already sold (in order to turn a profit without saturating the market with wheat, for example). If this cannot be done, then the trade is rejected. Nothing more to it.
Capitalism is not a social system.
Depends what kind of capitalist argument you are talking about. That's more so the Austrian school that argues for free self-interest. Other capitalists refer explicitly to intervention.
What social ills are you talking about? Like I said, the only place you see starvation and dehydration become pervasive factors that lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions over decades, which is what the image was alleging, is in non neo-Keynesian, non-capitalist nations. In the first world nation with more privatized freedom that are quasi-capitalist (in terms of freedom of self-interest), those social ills are negligible in comparison.
Because the people have to provide for themselves. You don't blame the animal for fleeing your chase when you hunt game just as you do not blame the producer for choosing the better deal that is offered for his goods. If you cannot compete, then you will not survive.
Theoretically. Not in practice, there is a dearth of evidence of its implementation to suggest that.

Well, his political affiliation was communistic and judging from his earlier affairs, he participated in communist circles. Like I said, if he was actually communist is a separate issue from his personal ideology and his purported purpose.

When did I say I had no problem with that? Pointing out that one form of violence and murder is wrong does not mean that I agree with other forms of violence and murder.
It WAS the elites being violent to the working people when they targeted innocent "counter-revolutionaries" on trumped-up charges of sedition, and I will denounce that in any nation, the US or the USSR.

Imagine believing this.

Pol Pot wasn't a communist, mind explaining to me how he was?
You're braindead. Read this:
Actually you were usually exiled, which is preferable to prison imo.
Maybe if you were a child murderer or Tsarist loyalist.
You're retarded. Do US prison guards work for free? Idiot.
if you only knew how much damage liberals have done…

No, inaction implies doing nothing. If a starving person walked into a store with no money force would be used against them to prevent them from getting food. That is action, not inaction. It’s the difference between watching somebody drown and pushing them off of your boat when they try to climb aboard to avoid drowning.

Except those price systems are a mechanism of capitalism. The producers as well as the market as a tool of distribution are to blame, both are elements of capitalism.

I’m not talking about obligations, I’m talking about the outcomes of a system. Capitalism produces goods but fails to distribute them to where they are most needed, and people die as a result. Therefore capitalism kills those people through its inadequacies.

That’s the point, we’re talking about a system that produces wealth and somehow makes people poorer. There is food and people are hungry, there is medicine and people are sick. A system that is not capable of distributing resources to people who need them is not a system adapted to human needs, and therefore is a failed system.

The problem of starvation is worst in the third world, the vast majority of which follows a capitalist economic model.

It literally does exist right now. There is enough food produced every year to feed 150% of the earth’s population. It’s a question of distribution which capitalism fails miserably at.

If you use force to keep vital resources away from starving people then you are engaging in action, not inaction. Even then, when presented with a choice immediately in front of you, and inaction causes mass misery and death, then your inaction is just as bad as an action that causes the same result. You make a conscious choice, and the consequences of your decisions are on your hands, regardless of whether they came about as a result of doing nothing or doing something terrible.

Already explained the difference between his purported goal and if he achieved it.
Two can play at that game, brainlet.
Yeah, that's what the wiki said so, too.
Doesn't specify that.
Then it wasn't free.

Yes, I agree.
That's a poor analogy when we're talking about starving people starving. If I choose to trade with one person over another because the other guy gave me a better deal, then my not trading with the first guy (whose deal I rejected) is inaction. That's a different story if that same person walked into a store and tried to steal food. Yeah, there would be an action to prevent the theft. If that guy tried to murder me, I would stop him with force, too. Not an honest comparison to what I was actually talking about.
A better analogy, I agree that my example would be like watching somebody drown. I would revise it as such: I have the choice to save one person, and the two people drowning give me offers. However, in most real-life scenarios, individuals do have other options besides my own trade. Whether or not you buy my grain or apples doesn't mean you will starve and die, a lot of other stuff has to go wrong first.
They are to blame, but they are not burdened with the lion's share of the guilt. In fact, I don't think there is any guilt, the only party worthy of reprimand is the person who fails to offer a proper deal then complains about others out-competing him.
Then the outcomes are that people who can compete with price offers get food and people who cannot do not get food.
If you aren't talking about obligations, then operating out of the paradigm that abundance=we all eat is implicitly resting on some trumped-up obligation.
Sure, and this is not mutually exclusive to capitalism. I would say the same about most systems throughout human history, too.
But that's wrong, median household income has skyrocketed since the Industrial revolution. There wasn't even a household in many circumstances.
Okay, now you're operating based on a paradigm of abundance=we all get stuff we don't own even though you explicitly said that it wasn't about obligations. If you admit there is no obligation to sell, or just give away, those things, then naming them off ought not come as a surprise (that people lack them).
Is it neo-Keynesian capitalism? Is it laissez-faire capitalism? Is private property honoured, are individuals free to pursue their own self-interests within a marketplace and operate without restriction? Depends what kind of capitalism you're talking about.
I said 'food for all'. That there is an abundance does not mean that it is 'food for all'. That does not exist.
Yeah, because there is no obligation to associate with people who refuse to offer a competitive price for goods. Medicine companies aren't going to produce things and give them away just because they made an abundance, there is no obligation to do any of that, like you said.
Operating out of the paradigm that the starving own the food they do not own. The farmer who grew the food and invested the capital in the machinery is the owner, legally and morally.
The starving should not cast the stone at the farmer for growing food and selling to to people who offer better prices than them, but should either blame his/her parents for birthing him/her in a world of suffering and poverty or his/her own life decisions for leading to that point.
Choosing to trade with one person over another, yes. No consequences because there are no obligations attendant upon 'ethical trading': either you offer a good price and the exchange occurs or it doesn't happen. Again, the starving and ill do not own what they do not own. They have no legal argument to demonstrate ownership and they sure as hell cannot physically assert their ownership over the private property owners.

no it was your mom

Then maybe you should stop whining and implying you were put to death for minor shit
It does. Read the link I gave you.
Go back to >>>/liberty/ moron

Same reason you dismissed the wiki article. It was sourced with, as you say, "books". I am using your own brainlet logic against you.
Counter-revolutionary activity was the context, not minor shoplifting, brainlet.
Nope, those links are no-no links, just like wiki links are to you.
That projection lmao, are all brainlets this incapable of debate? I said that your usage of the word free was misplaced, that has nothing to do with Communism, brainlet. Please try harder, this is very easy.