Why are your memes so fucking awful Holla Forums?

Why do you post the same thread everyday?
Is your creativity so low?

Is that why Communism is bad too?

Communism is dead as of 1992.

Fascism is dead as of 1945.

Communism was never alive. How do you kill what hasn't been born?

No. But your obsession with memes reveals yours.

:^)

Communism has never seen the light of day, no matter what tankies like to think.

Leave you fucking liberal.

No, it definitely lived. The Soviet Union successfully enacted all of the tenets in the Communist Manifesto, it was as close to actual communism as the world will ever see. It failed hard. Nationa.l socialism on the other hand was killed before it ever got off the ground.

Communism happened and it didn't even last a hundred years.

...

...

A meme is supposed to be easily understood, if you can't do that then your memes are stupid. Yes, that makes sense. That's also how aphorisms and advertisements work too.

...

...

The Ideology is strong with this one.

...

okay

Unrelated to that specific post tbh.

So, a Meme is the purest form of Propaganda, as presented by Goebels.
Hmmm…

No wonder Holla Forums loves it's memes so much. It's litteraly it's ideology.

The "Ten Planks" set out in the Communist Manifesto were a set of transitional demands put forward during the revolutions of 1848. They are not descriptors of communism by any measure.

Oh? Please give me an example of a classless, stateless, society that has existed in the past. If your answer is the USSR, you're already wrong.

Communism starts with establishing a state and is supposed to end with a stateless society aka a utopia. The Soviet Union established itself and then failed because communism is fucking stupid.

An ideology that actually has some basis in reality, unlike communism.

what

Yes they are. If any of you faggots properly understood communism you wouldn't fucking endorse it. Just talk to anyone from eastern europe, it sucked.

Please stop. You're killing me here!

As a ML it always amusing to see a board that's made anti-"Stalinism" into a cult unironically parrot the Soviet propaganda definitions of socialism and communism.

It has been dozens of times and has ended in massive failure.

"no"

None, because utopias are for retards. Besides equality isn't even desirable, especially if it means being equally poor and miserable.

You actually know that there are more flavours of not-capitalism other than Soviet Union and its leninist fuckbuddies?

describe the vandalism meme

No, if you actually read Marx, you would know that he even said that the Manifesto was outdated.
The Manifesto doesn't even contain real theory.

Sure thing fam. Just keep ignoring the facts.

This nigga is Oscar the grouch

Yes they fucking are. The primary difference between communism and anarchism is that communism emphasizes establishing a state as a prerequisite for statelessness.

lmao that is a literal contradiction

A stateless society would be an anarchy, and anarchies are purely capitalist. You need a powerful state to enforce lack of classes by hoarding all the goods and oversee their redistribution in bread lines or whatever.

And by definition the people who hold that job are the ruling class who technically own everything and enforce communism on society.

commies I swear

Flavours that are more devoid of reality. The Soviet Union is proof that communism doesn't work.

Whoa, didn't see that vandalism there.

Can't say I dislike it, though.

OH BOY HERE WE GO

Never would work because class will always exist due to genetic advantages and disadvantages. You do realize that some people are better than others, right? The real spook is equality/equal opportunity IQ, athletic ability, charisma, ect are practically set in stone by DNA

user, you gotta take the mic here. I give up. He's all yours.

They aren't. There is nothing more to say. You didn't even engage with my argument.

really, how are you differerent than a libertarian?

There is no communism outside of Marx. He birthed it, and he is the ultimate fedora tipper contrarian. Anyone who takes him seriously should be locked up or shot in the head.

They took power from the workers and were shat on for that by many western leftists, stop with SU = communism meme

I don't think I can handle the autism

lol

LOL

stay mad commie. The natural order of the world is the strong eating the weak. You cannot go against that without an authoritarian state.

They are. There is no argument to have. Communism happened and failed. If you're talking about a 'stateless' society it's never going to happened. So either it happened and it's retarded and failed or it can't happen ever. You pick.

Abolishment of private property is desired by most anarchists that aren't ayncraps, because private property is a tool to uphold the hierarchy.

If OP is not willing to do anything other then shitpost, then that's all I'll do as well.

He invented the theory.

I pick you fucking off of my board

So the workers had power and lost it. Pathetic, they clearly didn't deserve power in the first place if they couldn't hold on to it.

"it can't happen ever" out of the two, but preferably

...

You are powerless.

No, he didn't. The only meaningful thing you can say about this is that Marx "created" what is called scientific socialism, which was in contrast to earlier iterations of socialist/communist theory that was considered utopian. Communism is old, mate. Thomas Muntzer advocated for a sort of communism (Omnia sunt communia) back in the sixteenth century during the Reformation.

Hierarchy is the way of man. Every functioning society had hierarchy cannot be abolished because of the laws of genetics. Some people are just superior. In order to have a functioning society you need an elite comprised of people from the deep end of the gene pool.

You don't even know how wrong you are.
The original traditions of anarchy despise capitalism. It's only recently that we have anarcho-capitalist.

Oh, you mean like a powerful state that enforces private property?

Except that when things are run a certain way and there is no private property, there is no ruling class.

...

The party took it from them, that's the flaw of leninism, not socialist ideologies in general.

Hierarchy is natural, equality is bullshit.

This. In a classless society class would eventually appear when genetically gifted individuals take charge.

That's proof that workers are too stupid to have power.

To add to that, heirarchy occures naturally within any society, it is not held up by some imaginary property rights laws, but by the concept of justice and reward for ones contributions.

Marx invented communism, and it's for people who have no idea how society works.

:^)

He's using class as an economic demarcation, you fucking troglodyte. It's not "these guuise r smrter den theze ppls therfeore different class hurrr"

Explain non-hierarchical tribalist societies

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalty

Why are you still arguing with him. He isn't interested in disscusion or debate, just shitposting.

There cant not be a ruling class, because superior people have natural monopolies on power or resoursfulness, and the inferior people feel it and follow. Without a state to enforce otherwise, aristocracies and monarchies are the natural developments, not communist classless societies.

It enforces it in refference to the will of the people. Most people feel that higher quality and quantity of work deserves better rewards, and when someone takes them away from you, either you or the police are allowed to dispence justice upon him. It is a law of convenience.

listen pinko, i dont care what they despise, but capitalism is a natural development on anarchy
they are one and the same, hence the term free trade

People who are smarter usually make more money, dumbass

They didn't understand genetics back them. And for every fucktard like your pic there was hundreds of kings who made commoner leaders look like shit.

insignificant people who never became anything great. No empires.

When was biology shitposting?

It's not even held up by justice, justice is for the weak. Hierarchy is just the natural state of inequality that has always existed. You cannot have an efficient military without hierarchy, you can't have specialized labor without hierarchy. Anyone who advocates equality is mentally fucking ill.

You're helpless, lad…

Nigga, read a book.
Communist ideas predated Marx by hundreds of years and Marx wasn't even the first to coin the term.

Did I strike a nerve?

This. If you are too stupid then all of the money in the world won't stop you from getting into debt. MC Hammer is a great example of that.

YOU ARE FUCKING HILLARIOUS!

memes are so great
yeah
I just love how "intellectual" thought propagates these days

I read the communist manifesto. I contemplated mostly on how stupid the nationalization of banks and nationalizing the media was for the purposes of creating a stateless society. Marx was the creator of communism, if you want to associate other people with such cancer go ahead.

And for every hundred fine kings there were thousands of medicore tards who were in charge only thanks to the bureaucrats running things and not because they were worth shit

We're not talking about empire-building, stop moving goalposts you dipshit

And you are your memes are not.

That MC Hammer thing proves my point, dumbass. Rapping, sports, acting, ect are different from making money using your IQ. When people who aren't smart get rich they go broke. They weren't meant to be rich like a hippo isn't meant to fly

Prove me wrong, fucknut.

Nope, thread got derailed, sorry sweetie

Bureaucracy works on the basis that some people deserve more than others, namely those who are better at doing their jobs.

And that is what I mean by justice. Those who are better get higher positions and higher rewards. Justice is all about people getting what they deserve, the absolute morality of nature.

So, Spartans were insignificant? No empire!

It's fun.

Then we agree, dumbass.

They had a meritocracy, dumbshit. They appointed worthy leaders.

Sure, ok, whatever.
Our art is not your cup of tea.

But that does not excuse being shit at history!

Okay, that's my kind of justice. Still I don't think this is a just world, and people don't necessarily get what they deserve. For example during the French Revolution a bunch of innocent people were killed because muh equality.

When I said "economic" I didn't mean the classes were divided by how much money people make, although most of the time the bourgeoisie make more money the working class and working aristocracy. Classes are defined by where a person stands in the relations of production.

"The bourgeoisie owns the most important of the means of production, through which it exploits the working class."

B-but…. They had … GOMMUNISM!

(Hellots were the automatons of communism).

Still, what about empires?

Or whoever sucks off the guys above better

And the working class cannot run things due to the arrangement of the base pairs in their cells. Why act like they can?

Memes are not your cup of tea. You aren't funny, your pretentious and completely devoid of a realistic view of the world.

That's when shit fails, my friend.

Nepotism is a sign of corruption, not that meritocracy doesn't work.

Anyone who endorses communism has no understanding of history beyond looking at class distinctions. Marxist history is some of the most vapid shit I have ever read. Absolutely no sense of the importance of nationalism or culture in general. Read some Herder bro.

Corruption always happens in case accumulation of power, unless we assume everybody is an idealist.

That is a fallacy I see often on leftypol that people are opressed because they dont own the means of production.

In reality people don't want to own the means of production because it carries far more responsibilty than simply being a hired contractor.
When a business fails, the ones who go into debt are the owners, which is why they make the decisions regarding said business.

Also thanks to the wonders of a free market, there actually DO exist companies which are owned jointly by their employees and all of them own part of the stock.

What exactly is stopping you from making one of these? Why are they not wide spread if they are perfectly legal? The answer is very simple.
It is beause the average worker is not smart enough or business savvy enough to actually afford that kind of aditional responsibility, as well as the fact that they cannot afford that kind of income instability.
Because after all, if the company does not make profit for a particular month, you cannot feed your family that particular month. So naturally most people would choose a steady contractor type job with no stake in the company and no added complexity or income instability, albeit with a smaller but still profitable wage.

Why does such stupid shit get so much attention. Who cares about the Holla Forumsacks. They're not even serious about what they say. They're more or less just joining the bandwagon. Honestly, internet memes are annoying. They ravage potential serious conversations all for the sensational non-arguments. They're ok in a small dose, but now rather than discussing earnestly, all people do is post a cute little drawing.

Not immediately or to everybody. The history of mankind is a history of our increasing ability to harness power and use it effectively which can only be done by exploiting the stupid and weak.

Exactly this. With power comes responsibility and risk of failure, not everyone can handle that.

Stay mad commie. You know intuitively that we are right and you are just an autismo trying to use sophistry to justify believing in some fairy tale utopia. There is a natural order and once you betas stop trying to rebel against it you will feel much better.

Thanks to the free market which you so hate*

I'm not a communist.
I'm not a beta.
To everything else, yeah whatever.

And then that power is used to cement the position, even for next generations, in which strong are strong and weak are weak not because of their merits, but their position.

cuck

...

...

...

The ability to retain that position is a merit upon itself. The merit of maintaining power is the most important of them all. Your appeal to inevitable corruption of the strong is in itself pathetic as this does not even neglect the fact that by losing power someone who is better with it has now come along. Only the strong can take from the strong, once the weak take from the strong they are no longer weak and the cycle goes on.

You're using our words and you aren't even using them properly. You are a cuckold if you are weak and submissive, that's the natural order faggot.

It's true though. Remember that Debs was thrown in jail because that's how real Americans deal with socialism. We should have just shot the degenerate.

Actually here you would be the cuck. Since you are a beta you naturally assume that the natural order would involve you getting cucked while you stand and weep and watch. And you are projecting that to me and others who would be actually fighting for supremacy.

...

I don't see how that's ironic.

everyone who replied to this and did not sage is a fucking idiot

So I shouldn't submit to the "natural order", otherwise I'll be a cuckold

I was talking about your intuition. Inferior people such as yourself are aware of their status as lesser, which is why they adopt commie opportunist parasite morals rather than right wing ones based around meritocracy and honour.

Well commies are fucking idiots so there you go.

It's not a matter of choice. You are either strong or weak.

Yes, you shouldnt submit to it, but to the fact that it exists.
Rather than spending lots of time and energy trying to convince people that the natural order doesnt exist, you should try fighting for supremacy in it.

Not if some fags from below in the hierarchy who believe in natural order/god given right/whatever runs shit for you.
Not really, one is required to be "medicore", ie. not total fuckward to retain the same level of power.

But you wont, because you already know your place in society and you are mad about it, which is why you adopt this "there is no mountain" stance.

I'm not, that's why I want to get rid of hierarchies to ensure the danger of me being cucked won't happen

projection 101

That would automatically make them superior retard.

But they retain the hierarchy with them being lower than retard with strange jaw still ordering them around.

In doing so you will have to become strong enough to control others. There is strong and weak, there will never not be a hierarchy. That's why no one should take Marx seriously, I have a hard time believing he wasn't just trying to muck shit up for his own personal gain.

That makes them stupid and weak for putting up with that retard when they have the capacity to take his place.

Except that ruling class =/= natural superiority. Superior in what way, how, and why? When does someone begin to be "superior" and cease being "superior"? If a group of people start out rulers, but then are deposed by the previously weaker group, were they always the weaker group? If communist take over, are they now superior? Your argument is basically "might makes right" and it's a dated one.

What people?

Polyarchy only allows for a select group of people to have a say on the matter.

You or I didn't vote on it.

No communist here has argued against that.

You're confusing personal property with private property.

Please re-read whatever book you didn't read about Marx.

Just because something has "free" in the name, doesn't mean it actually is, bucko. I didn't know it was "natural" to bastardize anarchy till it lost all meaning.

I agree that superiority is something not present in todays ruling class, and that they dont represent our opinions. I fully support the public hanging and gassing of all todays politicians and lobbyists.
But you dont need a cancerous parasitic ideology that destroys the very essense of natural heirarchy and genetic inequality to acomplish that.

It is simple enough to recognise that they are working against our interests purposefuly, and we should hang them for treason. Once subversion and cancer has been removed, society will find its balance itself, and convenient things like property rights and markets do not have to be removed.

Only three of his seven children made it to adulthood. He was poor as fuck.

Tipping the balance of power does not require only one "gifted" individual, who might also fail, because he stands up against elites, which is inherently a group.

So we've got retard with a jaw who is in power thanks to others being willingly stupid and weak. Such configuration is both anti-meritocratic and making things for "strong" individuals even harder, as they stand before a giant group who is bent on stopping him.

When they have or lose power.

No, they were once strong and now they are weak.

Absolutely, then they become the strong. Look at the Soviet Union, communists took power and within a short time realized the distributing that power would lead to a loss of their own ability to control. Lenin's vanguard is a contradiction.

It's also one that has and never will be proved wrong. Inequality is a fact of life that will never go away.

I've always thought this train of thought was particularly retarded. Who is to say what is and what is not personal property? Communism is for people who have never had a family of their own.

So he was stupid as fuck like his theories. Gotcha.

I disagree. The fact that they still have power over us is proof that they are superior, whether or not we want that to be the case.

...

I never said that. There is no balance of power though, someone will always have more than someone else.

The harder it is to gain power, the stronger and smarter someone needs to become to gain power making them all the more worthy for getting it.

You are powerless.

Haha so your basing his value on his poverty? Idiot. Poor Tesla! Poor Mozart! I could go on.

That is simply because they are many and organised into (((one group))) with the same goals. They have made it so that people would not fight them at all, because their debt fueled bubble is so incredibly easy to burst with just one nationalist movement.

Genetic mutations, son. Sometimes average individuals will have an above average kid who will rise up into the upper echelons of society.

So you accept the possibility of a large, large group getting into power and potentially distributing it among themselves?
Or it might never happen, who knows?

To say it simply, we have been culturally disarmed. We need to rise again with pride and determination to fight. Thats why a Trump victory is so important at a time like this. Its a stepping stone for the rise of traditional nationalist honour culture and meritocracy - the building blocks of a healthy civilisation.

Beauty is not the same thing as intelligence or strength. A flower is beautiful but it's easy to destroy and lacks sentience. I definitely don't based value on how much work you put into something otherwise digging a hole to china would be considered valuable. Marx's theory of value was especially fucking cringeworthy. He did help separate the pseudo-intellectuals from the actual ones.

ITT

This has happened multiple times in history, and inequality always pops right back up. Communism is stupid because it assumes that if you give everyone an equal amount of power that it will just stay that way. Equality is a false god.

That's a great metaphor for muh safe space.

Communism is not about eliminating the power, but getting rid of it completely.
Besides, there's still socialism, which is naturally more meritocratic than capitalism, just like capitalism is more meritocratic than feudalism.

It's a metaphor for the fact that Holla Forums is more or less constantly having to deal with braindead Holla Forumsacks either trying to b8 us or else just raiding with shitty memes

If that were the case, then revolution wouldn't happen, we would have observed the same order in all human history. Orders aren't natural, they are purely man constructs.

What if you dismantle the instruments people use to gain power?

Please tell me how you would try to dominate the world in a stateless, classless society.

fixed

How about this. The communists murder the "natural order" faggots and then everyone can be right!

You would have to leave your basements first.

I dont think that means what you think it means.jpg

Youre just like those safe space tumblr users that say if any conflicting opinion is a troll. Just because we've made you upset doesn't mean that that was the main goal of the conversation.

Or like Holla Forums users talking and Illuminati Patriarchy /shills, amirite?

lel.

Youre the ones who wanted a seperate board cause u couldnt handle the bantz

Capitalism = private ownership of the means of production, it's not the same as free trade. You can't enforce this type of property without a state, so anarchy can't be capitalist.

fix'd that for you.

kek, this

Power has nothing to do with natural ability and everything to do with property rights.

In every society you have three basic groups of people.

Productive labor. The people who create the goods and services society needs. These people, as a rule, must produce more than they themselves consume, producing a surplus.

Unproductive labor. The people who's occupation is not directly related to the creation of socially necessary goods and services (eg - soldiers, lawyers, salesmen, etc)

The Ruling Class. The people who receive the surplus produced by productive labor, and ultimately decide how it should be distributed.

What we want to do is get rid of that last group and distribute their role to the two former groups, with special deference to productive labor.

We don't care if there's some fuck who fancies himself a leader, if he doesn't own property, if he doesn't have that special relation of production.

I don't remember voting to have a boss.
Which has nothing to do with property rights.

"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. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days' labour, civil government is not so necessary."
-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Nah I've got the real version right here m8

Posting uninformed drivel with the sole intent of getting a reaction isn't bait when you do it?

You seem to have a natural talent for those mental gymnastics. Or is a thread entitled "why are your memes so fucking awful" meant to be a serious critique of leftist philosophy?

...

That society would never exist because there will always be crime. Such a society assumes that people are perfect.

Pack it up, boys. Holla Forums won.

Then you accept that if we were to get rid of the ruling class, that communism would be "right"?
Do you just have a problem that it isn't strong right now?

Most of us reject the soviet union and would rather not go back to it.

BTFO in the first part of Plato's Republic, fam.

No one here says that it will.

If the capitalist can turn property into private property, why am I disallowed from providing the distinction of what it was beforehand?

great post, as always

If at least half of the people are acting rationally the rest will be put into place

S L A V E M O R A L I T Y

If people are able to develop adaptations down to the genetic level to carry out one form of governance, why do reject the possibility that they could do it to form another?

...

...

The average worker isn't smart enough to manage something big like that.

WEW LAD
Organisms don't mutate in response to the environment. They mutate randomly and the ones that get traits that are ill suited to the environment die, and the ones that get traits well suited for the environment live. Lrn2bilolgy.

...

I didn't say they did, although I would argue you're ignoring the possibility of mutagens, I'm talking about adaptations.
I'm asking you why you wouldn't also apply the logic of evolution to communism?