Russians need to accept that they were a much stronger under communism

kek

Attached: download.jpeg.jpg (103x120, 10K)

That's not the only reason. Only 30 percent of those polled said they miss the feeling of being one of two superpowers. The rest said it was for selfish reasons.

being american is great

youtube.com/watch?v=CiGPbHnpQks

youtube.com/watch?v=8Z6OEqc0uS0

youtube.com/watch?v=6PfaE4R4eA4

Attached: MV5BN2ViMmU4NDAtOTZmZi00ZGZkLWJlMjMtZGNiMWY0NjE1ZTVmL2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjkxMjM5Nzc@._V1 (814x500, 59K)

Kys jew

The USSR wasn't Communism you fucking retard

>wears pour homme
>is pure homo

It was socialism which is on the road to communism.

Socialism requires a Socialist State and Communism is stateless.

what's cool about a man who is literally enslaved to risk death for jewish interests?
i'd rather be a gopnik than that

Russians are such an anomaly, they're either the smartest people you'll ever meet or the dumbest people you'll ever meet. It's like a massive divide, there is no person with an average IQ it's either 110+ or 90-. It's like communist made an effort to kill those at the standard deviation. Gopniks are only reflective on the dumber portion.

That being said, communism is not a viable system of government. If anything we need to stop dwelling in century old ideologies such as the struggle between capitalism and communism. Those ideologies were developed to accommodate a rapidly industrializing world.

>Socialism requires a Socialist State
The USSR was a socialist state.

>Communism is stateless
Correct, but many people confuse communism with anarchism. Communism is when the state naturally goes away because people become accustomed to the system. It can't be forced.

>state naturally goes away

No one believes this

Marx did. Lenin did. Communism has never been achieved so it's not like we know for sure whether it will work or not.

Communism is synonymous with Anarchy becouse Capitalism is first and foremost a POLITICAL regime of governing man where one class dominates another. a classless society (communism) is a society without a distinct political class (anarchy)

>state naturally goes away
Oh I am laughing. Hierarchy exists in every society dumbass

No, but it's been tried many times and always failed.

Marx was a fucking retard and the USSR under Lenin was a State

communism did exist in primitive societies, like in pre-Columbian america. the Indians lived under communism

>It is well known that the idea of the state of nature is crucial to Locke’s theory. Many writers have suggested that such a state was for Locke either a “logical abstraction” (Macpherson, 1980) or “an ahistorical condition” (Dunn, 1969). In fact, there is a third possibility: “In the beginning all the world was America.” For Locke, Indians “in the Woods of America . . . are perfectly in a State of Nature,” since “if Josephus Acosta’s word may be taken . . . in many parts of America there was no Government at all”; the “Kings of the Indians in America” command their armies but “exercise very little Dominion, and have but a very moderate Sovereignty.” The reason the Indians lack the institutions of political society is because their simple way of living confines their desires within narrow bounds and so generates few controversies and so no need for laws to decide them. Their system of property ownership, in other words, is such that they have “no temptation to enlarge their Possessions of Land, or contest for wider extent of Ground” (Locke, 1988, 276, 301, 335, 339).

>Such a reference to enlarging possessions or land hints back to Locke’s argument that God has given the world to men in common and that everyone is free to exercise their labor “to make use of it [the World] to the best advantage of Life, and convenience.” This is in accordance with the natural law of preservation and can be carried out without the consent of others. For Locke, the “civilized” part of mankind recognizes that “God gave the World to men in Common; but . . . it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated.”

>God directed man “to subdue the earth, i.e., improve it for the benefit of Life,” and thus “gave it to the use of the Industrious and rational . . . not to the Fancy or Covetousness or the Quarrelsom and Contentious. He that had as good left for his Improvement.” This reinforces the idea that “As much Land as a Man Tills, Plants, Improves, Cultivates, and uses the Product of, so much is his Property” (1988, 286–7, 289, 290–2).

>This reference to subduing and improving the land is important. Locke time and again refers to “improvement” both in and of itself, as in “improvement, tillage or husbandry,” or through some other term which for Locke is synonymous to improvement: “cultivation,” “pasturage,” “tillage,” “planting.” These are the things the Indians fail to do. The Indians, he says, “whom Nature having furnished as liberally as any other people, with the materials of Plenty, i.e., a fruitful Soil, apt to produce in abundance, what might serve for food, rayment, and delight; yet for want of improving it by labor, have not one hundredth part of the Conveniences we enjoy. Worse, in failing to labor on their land the Indians fail to create anything of any value — a bushel of wheat on Indian land being worth barely one-thousandth of a bushel of wheat in England” (1988, 296–8).

>One of the defining features of the state of nature and the state of the Indians is therefore the sheer waste that comes with land and nature going “unimproved.” “Land that is left wholly to Nature, that hath no improvement of Pasturage, Tillage, or Planting, is called, as indeed it is, wast” (1988, 297

Stalin followed every single plank from the Communist Manifesto, you dumb cunt.

You don't understand, for communism to be achieved the entire world needs to adopt it and become a stateless society with 0 inequality. So essentially it will never be achieved.

>"Whatsoever he tilled and reaped, laid up and made use of, before it spoiled, that was his peculiar Right; whatsoever he enclosed, and could feed, and make use of, the Cattle and Product was also his. But if either the Grass of his Inclosure rotted on the Ground, or the Fruit of his planting perished without gathering, and laying up, this part of the Earth, notwithstanding his Inclosure, was still to be looked on as Waste, and might be the possession of any other." (1988, 295.)

>This is an argument that Locke applies directly to the condition of the Indians: “there are still great Tracts of Ground to be found, which (the Inhabitants thereof not having joined with the rest of Mankind, in the consent of the Use of their common Money) lie waste” (1988, 299).

>In other words, by virtue of the fact that they do not use money, the Indians allow land to “waste” and have thus failed to join mankind.

I didn't say Stalin wasn't a communist tho.

> a le coq

>with 0 inequality

this is something you made up

>Communism hasn’t been achieved

Squatting on the tippy tops of two beer bottles is the ultimate feat of strength and skill. The slav is a strong one, stronger without communism starving him and not letting him live to his peak potential, as demonstrated in the pic.

Even Stalin wouldn't say he achieved communism. He believed he was on his way.

Stalin didnt fallow Marx, user. that's like saying Constantine The Great fallowed the teaching of jesus christ.

saying "communism doesn't work" is like saying Christianity doesn't work becouse of the Holy Roman Empire and all its crimes

Communism, like Christianity is a way of life, it works so long as you live it

He accomplished every single plank.
Communism means equality, right?

In order for it to be achieved man would have to suppress his deeply ingrained desire to want. That's why it always fails. You are fighting nature.

communism is having all things held in common.

Attached: goose.jpg (395x411, 56K)

But it means equalization of everybody, right? No inequality?

Communism have nothing to do with the "wants" of man. capitalism is not human nature but a historical movement

>The everyday practical activity of tribesmen reproduces, or perpetuates, a tribe. This reproduction is not merely physical, but social as well. Through their daily activities the tribesmen do not merely reproduce a group of human beings; they reproduce a tribe, namely a particular social form within which this group of human beings performs specific activities in a specific manner. The specific activities of the tribesmen are not the outcome of "natural" characteristics of the men who perform them, the way the production of honey is an outcome of the "nature" of a bee. The daily life enacted and perpetuated by the tribesman is a specific social response to particular material and historical conditions.

>The everyday activity of slaves reproduces slavery. Through their daily activities, slaves do not merely reproduce themselves and their masters physically; they also reproduce the instruments with which the master represses them, and their own habits of submission to the master's authority. To men who live in a slave society, the master-slave relation seems like a natural and eternal relation. However, men are not born masters or slaves. Slavery is a specific social form, and men submit to it only in very particular material and historical conditions.

>If it is held that man is "by nature" an uninventive tribesman and an inventive businessman, a submissive slave and a proud craftsman an independent hunter and a dependent wage-worker, then either man's "nature" is an empty concept, or man's "nature" depends on material and historical conditions, and is in fact a response to those conditions.

you gonna have to explain what you mean by that

words cannot express how much i hate that kike woody

It’s pretty obvious what I mean. Does Communism erase all inequality of wealth and power?

Ex-USSR here. When I was a child me and my peers dreamed of to become astronauts, today's children are dreaming to become fortnite streamers. The next generation would probably plame their parents that they didn't become drag queens. So yeah, I totaly understand two thirds of russians.

*blame

communism abolishes the Owning-Governing class. communism is insurrection/class war that aims at the abolition of a distinct ruling class. communism is real everywhere "disorder" is present

Attached: presnt.jpg (768x768, 152K)

Capitalism is about competition. Competition breeds strength. Strength brings dominance. Survival of the fittest. That's why your indiginous tribes always lose. It is the natural way of things.

You didn’t answer my question. Are all people in the same class under Communism? No matter what they accomplish, they stay in the same social class / level of wealth as everybody else, right? It abolishes selfishness, correct?

Seems like a failure of the entire world, i'm sure the case is similar anywhere you look in the world. Personally i don't think the masses are essential to achieve great things, all throughout history it was a handful of individuals that steered society. Someones it involved manipulations of the masses but sometimes it didn't. Overall all it takes are a couple of influential individuals to turn things around. Then again such individuals may never come and the society will decay into obscurity.

wrong. why would you make the same money if you work harder than someone? that makes no sense. the problem commies have with capitalism was never that hard work is rewarded, it's actually the opposite

Attached: 3101F88E-BF16-46CB-A273-6E63C15F0986.jpg (645x729, 170K)

well then i guess its up to us to out-compete the capitalists... the force of communism will manifest itself in the ferocity of the coming insurrections

youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyi2qNskJc

Attached: GettyImages-1064749138-1200x628.jpg (1200x628, 88K)

under communism whatever "one" accomplishes is never "his own". there are no individuals under communism. the "individual" is an integral component of Bourgeoisie Ideology - Liberalism.

I am never "I" under Communism

"I" am Common.

I would unironically accept a Socialist state if it kept my nation ethnically homogeneous (Which the Soviet states and Eastern Bloc did really good at) than this Capitalist society

Communism is built off of equalization. You can’t just blatantly lie to make your ideology look good.
Doesn’t answer my question.

>Communism is built off of equalization. You can’t just blatantly lie to make your ideology look good.

I'm not lying about anything, you just have no idea what you're talking about.

Well... communism did weed out the weak... lmao

let me try again. who built the Trump Towers? the workers that did, so does that mean that it is their property? No. why not? becouse while they were construction that building they ate food that some other people grown and harvested, and at the end of the day they went back to home home some other people built and they slept in beds that yet some other people made. this means that it is impossible for "their" accomplishments (the Tower) to be "theirs". it is not their property. it is common.

Prove that’s not the basis of Communism.
You aren’t answering the question still. Stop dancing around it.

All the millions of dead Russians who died thanks to Jewish bolshevism and communism agree too.

It did the opposite. They purged the smart and beautiful and turned eastern Europe into white niggers. Similar to how mao made the Chinese cowardly insects.

>"Look mommy! I'm roleplaying as a communist on 4chinz again!"
t.OP

they weed out the top 5% most productive, and the weaker 50% who weren't strong enough to survive low calories intake during winter

before private property the world was a barbaric bloodshed, if you analyse why it makes more sense than you think

pee pee, poo poo. looks like the commies were easily bested once again.

it takes unprecedented violence to keep capitalism from being overthrown,

Capitalism does not equal Peace. Capitalism is War made permanent. it requires permanent war (tho it increasingly called "police operations", "humanitarian intervention", "small war" etc.)

a permanent Global Civil War.

youtube.com/watch?v=4Zt7bl5Z_oA

youtube.com/watch?v=EPdjPaPZC6o

in other words: the blood is all around us to the point where its all we know so we dont recognize it as such

Attached: skynews-france-protest-paris_4572607.jpg (768x432, 51K)

Mmmkay. Prove it.

Look for modern russian army pics, they dont look different. You faggot compare shit with piss.

Fuck off retard

Do commie fags always give up in arguments because they’re lazy fucks and that’s why they support communism or just because the ideology is shit?
The world may never know. Probably both.

whats the matter? you're triggered?

Attached: 3536706_1.jpg (630x630, 114K)

Capitalistic imperialistic russia is 3x stronger and happier

Attached: strong.jpg (720x1080, 148K)