I'm a bit confused about it all. I understand how their failed (or utopian) fiscal policy is supposed to work. I understand that many jews were behind it. However, i'd like to know if the communism we know today, has always been like this. (even during Lenin or Stalin's regime).
Maybe i'm wrong, but when i look at today's "communism", it seems as though it has mutated into something a bit different. Today's communists (at least, the american ones, or European)..Are obsessed about race. And they are apparently hell bent on destroying one ethnic or racial group in particular. The European people. For whatever reason, they all want to biologically eradicate people of european origin. (i'd also add antifas in that group..They seem to hate their own race).
But was it always like that ? The old school communism seemed to be more concerned about class struggle (or what was based on Karl Marx's manifesto)..
Am i seeing things, am i wrong or what ? Ironically, the soviets kinda isolated russian people from western degeneracy (and most of Eastern Europe).
So i don't know what to think anymore. It's an internationalist ideology though. Commies seem like useful idiots of globalists as far as i'm concerned. But is my conclusion correct ? Are today's commies obsessed with race ? and do they want to genocide the european race ? If not, why do they want Europe and europe only, to be flooded with sub-saharan africans ?
>Communism = state redistributes all wealth = state controls all wealth = state is tyranical and corrupt. Anything else you need to know?
But why are so many of them so obsessed about destroying people of european origin ? was it always like tht even during soviet times or is it a new thing ?
Jace Kelly
>supposed to help minorities and workers >exterminates minorities and decreases workplace safety and increases working hours
Thomas Parker
Even soviet communism was SJW as fuck. It was feminist and "inclusive". However Stalin also genocided everyone he didn't like so that balanced things out
Jonathan Myers
because they were (mostly) jews
Jason Morris
Communists today are TOTALLY different from those communists of the past, they aren't nationalist, they love bourgeois degeneracy, and they are consumerist big-tech bugmen.
What links the two is their allegiance with government bureaucracy, and fetishising of subdividing power into never-ending bureaucratic committees & councils.
This is why universities protect and foster communist ideology. They are useful idiots for the bureaucracy, because they both promote the bottom-up power, informal power structures based on "decentralization" and infinitely sub-dividing power into smaller and smaller groups which are ultimately controlled by the bureaucratic hivemind itself, which only seeks to expand itself, and to do that it needs the government spending budget, and to endlessly increase it.
Race is simply a tool for them to gain more power, they need to vanguard themselves into other social movements to subvert and re-direct it's power toward their highest goal: bureaucratic expansion.
Deep down they don't hate whites, they hate what whites represent. Europeans have cultural values of self-ownership, self-rule and a desire to be free from government.
>Even soviet communism was SJW as fuck. It was feminist and "inclusive". However Stalin also genocided everyone he didn't like so that balanced things out
Ok so, if we substract the Stalin element ouf of the equation, communism itself , would have been the same as the ones who want to import the entire african continent into Europe then ?
Sorry if i'm repeating myself but i've seen so many antifas, so many lefties and particular commies who invariably side with illegals and openly talk about white genocide that i'm left dumbfounded.
Carson Bell
Im not planning on explaining an entire ideology, but it basically goes something like this: >Private proprety and shit is bad cuz it divides a society into classes >You have burgeoisie on the top, the workers class, proleteriat, on the bottom >cuz the top is made out of 1% the proleteriat will eventually revolt, since they will finally relaise the unjustice >They will make a new goverment, without kings or queens or the ruling class or shit, compromised of only workers >oh, and everyone is a worker now, and nobody has any private proprety so everyone is equal >everyone will be equal in this beautiful utopia of a state and will have all they need to survive, given to them by the new goverment >eventually, the whole world will be like this >there will be no more need to care about nationalism and tradition, as they would divide us even further, so everyone loses its identity. >religion will eventually no longer be required, as people will solve their problems instead of praying them away
Eventually the world is compromised only of workers and the goverment thats controlled by them, and everyone has everything they need. Its dumb af, the first step should be socialism, like the current scandinavian countries, then communism
Dylan Cooper
Communism is still about class first and foremost. I encourage you to examine communist history - they were the first on the battlefronts of gender and racial equality, even during the time of Stalin and Lenin. Many blacks in America described the Soviet Union as the only place in the world where they felt like real human beings. I'm sure that this comment will turn you off to communism, considering this is Jow Forums, but no, communists now are the same on this issue. The only difference between communists now and the communists then is that they don't defend and admire the achievements of socialism and instead say "that wasn't real socialism" (essentially capitulating to imperialist propaganda), which falls in with the self-defeating revisionist wave of leftists that began with Trotsky, eventually gaining traction when Kruschchev came to power.
Blake Watson
It depends who you ask I just want more equality where I live because I'm sick of profiteers directly controlling every aspect of my life
Carson Long
>they love bourgeois degeneracy, and they are consumerist big-tech bugmen.
Yep, i've noticed that too.
Jack Nelson
saved, thanks, i'll watch it later
Sebastian Foster
Communism is based on feels and emotions so just ignore it.
Communism and Anarchism have the same ultimate goals, but disagree on how to reach them. Communism has never reached its final form, because creating an over-reaching government with the intent of abolishing it always creates a vacuum for power. Go figure. They are pawns of elitists that tell them, "Look, goy, everyone has to be equal. . . but success is due to inequality! Oppressor vs oppressed! So, you must abandon everything that makes you unique in solidarity with your new family, the Workers!"
Josiah Hernandez
I'd like to ask all the commenters here why even American economists were advocating for planned economics during the Great Depression while the Soviet Union achieved the highest economic growth (at that time) in human history? The only problem with the communist wave is that it didn't destroy capitalism. It became soft after Stalin died.
Jaxon Ward
I more or less was aware of all that. But it still doesn't adress the issue i was talking about. The racial element. Someone else said that they weren't always like that but my point remains. As an outsider, when i look at today's commies, it seems (to me at least) that, just like the people we call "SJWs", commies are bizarrely focused on exclusviely dehumanizing, demonizing people of european origin;
Ayden Bailey
Scandinavian countries are NOT Socialist.
Chase Wright
> Communism and Anarchism have the same ultimate goals
They say that, but commies always kill anarchists they second they seize power. They see eachother as temporary useful idiots. Commies want MORE government, they just want it to be informal power, committees, councils, academia, msm: the bureaucracy. Anarchists actually want what they say they want
Xavier Adams
Originally Communism was a Jewish plot to enslave the world, starting in the Russian Empire. Of course, the biggest Jews in control of Communism, namely Lenin and Trotsky, died. Communism then became a sort of proto-fascistic totalitarian idea headed by goy Russians and nationalist, anti-imperialist third worlders. That's when the Jews came up with their new plan of neo-liberal, liberal internationalism in order to, once again, divide and conquer the world (Frankfurt) Modern "Communism" is about leftist internationalism, not nationalism like Stalinistic, Caucasian Communism. It's mostly adopted by angry, angsty teens that get sucked into the pretty colours and cool anthem.
Josiah Smith
>Modern "Communism" is about leftist internationalism, not nationalism like Stalinistic, Caucasian Communism.
Ok thanks
Oliver Edwards
>seize means of production >abolish private property >criminalize personal wealth
>look at how effective the government was at turning a profit!
Nathan Ward
Communism also kills fags and retards, but look at its supporters.
They are social democratic and they are the superior system compared to the US they rate much higher in happiness and life satisfaction, funny how not having to work two jobs, have barely any free time, healthcare costs a fortune so if you get cancer prepare to go bankrupt by giant corporations to pay for medicine and treatment.
Xavier Fisher
Communism and feminism was invented by Jews. If Jews never existed, there would be 500 million more white people on earth who's bloodlines would have never died from Jewish wars and genocides against us.
It only works if you filter HARD who gets to be part of it. If you do that, it's paradise; if you don't, it's hell.
Robert Campbell
They got subverted at one point or another from >we must unite all the people of all colors and ancestry and one day become a single universal race to >we must eradicate all of our differences because they bad. brown ppl ftw!
The jews are trying to make globalism seem like the only solution to our world, so they make all other ideologies seem horrible in contrast.
Jaxon Gray
vrag naroda or enemy of the people, was about more than just kulaks
It applied to the royal family, nobility, monarchists, clergy, aristocrats, bourgeoisie, entrepreneurs, nationalists, any number of political enemies of the faction in power (ie. mensheviks, the old bolsheviks, trotskyist, esers, bundists, bukharinist), any former military/police prior to the revolution, anyone who worked on or administered the chinese far east railway, anarchists, kulaks, cossacks, emigrants, political dissidents, anyone who refused to work, anyone who refused to serve or study, refuseniks (emigrants refused status), intellectuals/artists whose work was considered against regime, diverters (anyone who damages state or collective property), wreckers (anyone who gave wrong directions), saboteurs (anyone who carelessly or did not execute their duties), anyone who failed to meet unrealistic economic targets, anyone who caused poor moral (for example complaining about working conditions), anyone who was incompetent at their duties, anyone who resisted collectivization, anyone who was a merchant, anyone who used hired labour etc.
Plus all the usual sedition, traitors etc.
vrag naroda were executed, imprisoned or expelled and their property confiscated
chleny sem'i izmennika rodiny - or the vrag naroda's friends and family - were also targeted thusly >wives get 5 to 8 years in gulag >"socially dangerous" children were separated and placed in gulags, corrective labour camps or "re-education" orphanages >normal children got to go to an orphanage >they also got stripped of citizens rights and sometimes even involuntary settlement in remote areas like Siberia
Hell, if you were LUCKY you got to be a lishentsy - which means no vote, no retirement, no occupying government positions, no employment, no welfare, no housing, no ability to join any co-ops, no access to rations etc. Oh and if the head of your family was lishentsy? The entire family gets to be them.
Luis Gutierrez
And since we are on the topic of kulaks:
In russian peasantry there were classes of peasant: >batrak = guy who works seasonally for hire and owns no land >bednyak = guy who is poor farmer >serednyak = guy who is average farmer >kulak = guy who is "rich" farmer
Only the first two were considered allies Serednyaks were kept kind of at length and used if applicable but generally seen as hesitant to join the cause Kulaks however, were immediate class enemy
But kulak is not defined well - in fact, it was almost entirely subjective criteria. A kulak most commonly ended up being a guy with a couple of cows, and around 5 acres more than his neighbours. Personal rivalries played a huge part in who was or wasn't a kulak as the neighbours could strongly influence this. Hell, kulaks weren't even prosperous - on average they had about 150$ worth of goods when it was confiscated. Any peasant who resisted giving food to the red army? Kulak.
It wasn't until like 1930 where a criteria became semi-official. You were a kulak if you owned any of the following: >a mill >a cremery >any form of processing equipment >anything with a motor >rented out agricultural facilities or equipment >used hired labour >involved in any trade/loans/renting accomodation etc. >sold surplus goods on the market
But where did this class come from? Because here's the thing: kulaks did not exist prior to 1905.
In 1906 Stolypin introduced his agricultural reforms. These introduced private ownership of land, development of larger scale individual farming (predecessor to industrial farming), introduced the ability to form an agricultural co-op, developed formal agricultural education, disseminated modern farming techniques and land improvement, and gave affordable credit lines to peasants. It expanded the railroad, gave peasants benefits for resettlement to remote areas, assisted settlers with advice/subsidies and exemption from some taxes.
Kulaks = peasants that benefited from Reforms
Alexander Edwards
It is Capitalism with a Welfare State -- same as US, you fucking retard. Our (((diversity))) is the reason we can't have nice things and European countries will face the same fate if they don't buckle down.
Bentley Perry
they capitalistic to the root with a bit of welfare welfare =/= socialist
the only reason it feels like it works is due to their absurdly small size and up until last decade due to their very homogeneous society
to have an idea, there is 1 city in my country that have the same population of all the nordic countries combined
its a lot easier to make systems that works in small scales, people tend to not fuck up their neighbor or their brothers when in a close knit society try to replicate it in a large scale and it will inevitably collapse due to its inherent flaws of going against human nature
its the same way a tyranny can work as a household, where the father sets all the rules, but will not work on a bigger scale with a dictator enforcing all the laws without force
you are willing to concede a bit for your father to have a healthy relationship in your home, and you also know that your father has your best interests as well same cant be said for a larger scale, as in a society or nation people are not willing to let a single entity govern everything about their lives, be it a dictator, a tyrant or "the party" , the "council" or whatever communists will name the organization that will set the rules the fact is, there will be an organization, and only a select few will be part of it also its funny how communists always think they'll be part of it ironic
Mason Diaz
In communist land, we share the same benis
now I need to take a big shit, open up our bathroom and let me take my huge steamy meat log shit
Im also gonna eat our food in the fridge, cause im fuckin starving
Adrian Myers
Name one socialist/communist government that advocated foreign immigration. Every single socialist/communist government proclaimed the value of family and patriotism as well as access to housing, healthcare, education and high employment rate all of which are incompatible with any meaningful immigration numbers. Not even the *global revolution* branch (which was a minority) of communist politicians/writers advocated for foreigners to come to communist states, instead they dreamed of exporting the ideology. In the perfect communist world there'd be no need for migration because you'd already have everything you need at home. On the other hand, capitalism essentially ensures mass migrations in order to increase the supply of labor, lower wages, raise the value of real estate, increase rent, expand the market base, etc.
self-proclaimed communists on US campuses merely advocate anti-conservative sentiment which they falsely assume to be socialism/communism. If they lived in actual socialist/communist countries like socialist Yugoslavia they'd find out that government and people are firmly conservative despite their revulsion of capitalist market type.
Alexander Peterson
>Ok so, if we substract the Stalin element ouf of the equation, communism itself , would have been the same as the ones who want to import the entire african continent into Europe then ?
Yes. Holodomor, decimation of the Komi intellegentsia, mass deportations of various ethnic groups that according to the NKVD had a 20% fatality rate (activists claim 45%), decossackization, arguably the famine in general cause it targeted a largely Russian population, etc.
Jacob White
So a proletarian revolution was essentially made impossible through social reform in capitalist countries; healthcare, minimum wage and so on and so forth. The marxists realized this and in response decided to incorporate elements of the then fashionable postmodern critical theory forming what is called neomarxism.
Essentially this is just marxism, but with the proletariat being replaced by "unprivileged" "protected classes" being united in a revolution against the "privileged" "unprotected classes" i.e. straight white males. This inversion of the natural hierarchy, the so-called 'victim olympics' is also typical of a postmodern approach; concepts of subversion and inversion themselves being key elements of postmodernism. The more of a victim you are, the less "privilege" you have, and the higher you stand in the hierarchy (ironically granting you more actual privilege in our age of "affirmitive action" and "inclusivity" (which are loaded terms, read: linguistic sophistry)).
It ties in with the whole SJW thing, they're one and the same group. Gender being relative is a dead giveaway: relativity is another key element of PoMo. Neo-marxists. Remember the term. Learn their calling cards: relativity, deconstruction, subversion, inversion & advanced linguistic sophistry.
>Name one socialist/communist government that advocated foreign immigration. Every single socialist/communist government proclaimed the value of family and patriotism as well as access to housing, healthcare, education and high employment rate all of which are incompatible with any meaningful immigration numbers. Not even the *global revolution* branch (which was a minority) of communist politicians/writers advocated for foreigners to come to communist states,
I can only speak for my country but our commies want unlimted african immigration. same thing with our socialist party.
I'm not saying all of them ae like that, and i guess North Korea is a perfect opposite of what i'm saying.
>self-proclaimed communists on US campuses merely advocate anti-conservative sentiment which they falsely assume to be socialism/communism. If they lived in actual socialist/communist countries like socialist Yugoslavia they'd find out that government and people are firmly conservative despite their revulsion of capitalist market type.
These are the ones i'm also talking about. They read Marx though. They also brandish their communist flags, call their friends comrads, talk about class truggle etc..yet they are also exclusively focused on ethnic europeans. Just like the SJWs, the antifas... hey strangely all havr this in common. Biologically exterminate the european people in the name of "tolerance", "antiracism", "human rights", and especially "equality". They talk about class struggle but mostly about racial struggle too. And they seem to all agree on killing white people.
Isaac Green
Your diversity is the least of you're problems , the real problem is the corporatist jews who imported all those shitskins in the first place, lobby for government contracts which create all the bad policies, everyone need to leave the eu and abandon neo liberal politics.
>On the other hand, capitalism essentially ensures mass migrations in order to increase the supply of labor, lower wages, raise the value of real estate, increase rent, expand the market base, etc.
Why did you guys let this get through the entire thread without debunking his idiocy?
Jose Cruz
>Essentially this is just marxism, but with the proletariat being replaced by "unprivileged" "protected classes" being united in a revolution against the "privileged" "unprotected classes" i.e. straight white males. >This inversion of the natural hierarchy, the so-called 'victim olympics' is also typical of a postmodern approach; concepts of subversion and inversion themselves being key elements of postmodernism. The more of a victim you are, the less "privilege" you have, and the higher you stand in the hierarchy (ironically granting you more actual privilege in our age of "affirmitive action" and "inclusivity" (which are loaded terms, read: linguistic sophistry)).
I see them as professional victims. These people worry me. Because victims feel morally perfect and justified...
Anthony Baker
thanks
Parker Rivera
>Essentially this is just marxism, but with the proletariat being replaced by "unprivileged" "protected classes" being united in a revolution against the "privileged" "unprotected classes" i.e. straight white males.
Marxism chief tenet is keeping the value you produce. Everything, including the whole class struggle is secondary. Nowhere does socialism/communism promote any sort of handouts or correcting historical injustices.
What you refer to as neomarxism is the devil's spawn of muttmerican racism, civil rights movement, pickers-of-cotton bigotry and anti-conservative sentiment. It shares no obvious links to marxism, socialism or communism, i.e. systems of government that promoted employment and rights related to being employed. I don't think there was a single socialist/communist country that promoted any kind of handouts, racial guilt or such ideas.
Tyler Torres
I'll take your word for it, but you are discussing dead empires and failed states, I am describing the contemporary reality. What marxism has evolved into in the West (and spreading out therefrom). I must insist, however, that there is a provable descendancy between the two ideologies.
the best political system, but it only works if everyone is white and has an IQ over 140
Brayden Williams
The Jews were invited to the Western world because usury is a sin in Christianity, but borrowing is not.
Oliver Garcia
Yes, you're completely correct. I share your fear. They feel justified when they hit people with bike locks for voting differently, when they force people to stay home from university because of the colour of their skin, when they blind people with bear repellent for attending protests, when they kidnap and torture people, when they destroy peoples families and careers, when they censor people and shut down their bank accounts, when they murder and rape people, when they loot and burn, trample and riot. These are things that have all happened, and it will only get increasingly worse until it comes to an inevitable head.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but who cleans the toilets? Who does all the menial tasks that would drive somebody with an IQ of 140 up the wall? You can't take away the opportunity for labour with complete automation, I'm not sure that would be "real communism", comrade, so what do you do about the fucking filthy toilets?
Easton Wright
> You can't take away the opportunity for labour with complete automation, I'm not sure that would be "real communism", comrade, so what do you do about the fucking filthy toilets?
Automation will take care of it and people would be able to work on things they truly enjoy, that's what communism is supposed to do, to free the people to decide instead of having their lives dictated by the market.
Andrew Bennett
But this would only be possible in a post scarce world and where the culture doesn't value commodities and property.
Robert Diaz
Communism only works when PoC collectively eliminate all whites from being part of it. It can only work correctly when there are no whites involved in any capacity.
Daniel Carter
Disprove how big business aren't the only beneficiaries of mass, uncontrolled immigration. On the other hand give me one socialist/communist state that permitted any serious immigration, let alone support it.
The like between is liberal college professors and college kids wearing Che Guevara tees. Even champagne communists wouldn't support any sort of mass foreign immigration as it is directly counterproductive to what the ideology is all ablut. Maybe these kids are fascinated by communism because it isn't racially coloured but its chied tenets would invariably freeze the current ethnical composition regardless if it would be enacted in nation states or worldwide.
Socialist/communist states historically prove this. Current socialist states like China, Cuba, North Korea (sort of) prove this as do all the former Warsaw Pact countries and other former socialist countries. Socialist ideology will always put the needs of its own citizenry ahead of foreigners. It is the capitalist system that drives countries like Germany, Sweden, UK, soon to be Japan, to import foreigners which are only good for the interests of big businesses
Charles Ortiz
The "jews are behind communism" thing is so utterly retarded.
If this was truly the case why is every single leftie politician in a major party shut down as an anti-semite?
Julian Roberts
I just hope we have start the revolution before Silicon Valley guys achieve immortality and sic their private robot militaries on us.
Wyatt Bell
Yes we need to seize control over silicon valley and AI, use it combined with a socialist state, automation and AI will help us transition into communism more smoothly, eventually dissolve the government and opt for a decentralized direct democracy.
Adam Clark
It's just a tool. They need an "oppressor" to point at and say "You're so oppressed by them!".
They don't actually give a fuck who or what it is, anyone who is successful is an "oppressor".
It was the bourgeoisie then. Now it's straight white males. They don't give a shit about race. They give a shit that there's a group (any group) who's doing well.
The oppressed always feel justified genociding their oppressors.
