Few communists have ever read this book

Pigs = Jews

this book is a major redpill my fellow aryans

Hmmmm I wonder why "Road to Wigan Pier" or "Homage to Catalonia" are never mentioned but "1984" and "Animal Farm" are.

I'm sure plenty of communists have read the book, and I'm sure some have incorporated it into their ideology. Most Americans read this and/or 1984 in middle school

It's almost like the kind of people who post these threads have never heard of a book if they weren't assigned it in high school.
Really causes one to ponder

In all seriousness, the way communism turned out in the 20th century isn't the only way it could have.

It arose under a variety of conditions which might have cemented a certain path for communism to take.

Leninism ruled the communism of the 20th century, and in many ways (and in almost all the important ways) it was very antithetical to Marx's own conception of communism. Communism was instigated in a more-or-less feudal societies, no modern industrial societies. It was isolated in particular states. There was no democracy.

It is possible to envisage a type of communism which is completely and entirely anti-Lenin (all the other communisms were based on Leninist/Stalinist ideas. Communism has basically come to mean Leninism because of that.) There could theoretically be a democratic communism which wasn't started by a dictatorship of the peasant proletariat, by violent revolution or whatever.

We could move into a technocratic communism. It's stupid to think because all of the communist countries shared the same problems (due to the same implementations) that those problems are inherent in the basic idea of communism itself.

>Leninism ruled the communism of the 20th century, and in many ways (and in almost all the important ways) it was very antithetical to Marx's own conception of communism.
>A democratic communism which wasn't started by a dictatorship of the peasant proletariat, by violent revolution or whatever.
Good God this is peak opportunism.

Ok in all seriousness I'll respond. Communism is utterly impractical on the large scale, although it could conceivably work in very small communities (as it has had some success in kibbutzes). Democratic communism is impossible in a practical sense in large scale societies, and communism in general has always drifted away from the rule of the many because of human nature (i.e. people understandably desire to have more than what they have, whether that's power, wealth, status, etc). Whether it's Pol Pot, Mao, the Kim family, Stalin, or Castro, Communism has always led to immense suffering and disastrous human consequences. Sure you can say that those aren't examples of "true communism", but you might as well be advocating for Plato's philosopher king if you think communism could ever work in an idealized form.

>Communism was instigated in a more-or-less feudal societies

You don't know what communism is

>Whether it's Pol Pot, Mao, the Kim family, Stalin, or Castro, Communism has always led to immense suffering and disastrous human consequences. Sure you can say that those aren't examples of "true communism", but you might as well be advocating for Plato's philosopher king if you think communism could ever work in an idealized form.
>"muh human nature"

Neither do you, and you're also stupid

I agree with what you are saying actually. Any real attempt at communism would fail unless the entire world commits to it, which I think we can all agree is not realistic. Otherwise, the communes will be overrun by non-communist states immediately. It can only then turn to statism in its own to defend itself, which leads to the despotism shown in the USSR and the PRC, which of course always leads back to capitalism.
Therefore, our only escapes lie in distributism and social democracy which is again just the tyrannies of the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie respectively, but this time with a smiling human face on the boot.
In other words, there is no way to save ourselves

Psst ... hey kid ... take this:

*hands you Distributionism*

It's just repackaged Socialism, but the Yankees are too stupid to know, hehehe they won't know what hit em, hehehe

hehehe hehe

hehe

he

he

h

Are you actually dense enough to think that everyone in the world would be satisfied with a system that gave them only according to their need? People aren't automatons, they have aspirations for a better life for themselves and their children. If you just dismiss that desire with "muh human nature" then you really are dumb enough to believe in communism. In any case, a democratic communist system where every single societal decision is voted upon by every single person is ridiculously impractical for any kind of larger society. This isn't even to mention the fact that technological progress and societal progress would cease completely. Why would anyone feel the need to work more than the bare minimum, invent, or innovate current systems if they only are allotted according to their need in spite of that? True communism is a fairy tale.

>t. turbopleb who read 1/3 of Atlas Shrugged

I don't want forced communism of any kind, including democratic communism. I never said people were automatons. You in fact propound this view by appealing to the fatalistic myth known as "human nature." This false conception appears in shoddily conceived rhetorical questions like:
>Why would anyone feel the need to work more than the bare minimum, invent, or innovate current systems if they only are allotted according to their need in spite of that?
Invention isn't entirely out of need. If this were the case, every invention could be derived a priori from a logical framework, i.e. each invention could be invented independent of circumstances (which is obviously false). Invention comes out of a willing toward a want and, like every creative act, is fundamentally an act of irreverent play. Creation is joyful to even unthinking creatures.

Few postmodernists have ever read this book
Those who had were no longer postmodernists

Few ironists have ever read this book
Those who had were no longer ironists.

I don't think it would be possible for communism to work if it was not forced unless you just are talking about small voluntary communes. Call it fatalistic if you want, but to say that people generally desire more than what they have and better lives for their children is just an acknowledgement of reality (and you haven't refuted it by calling it a "myth").

Your discussion of creation as being only out of a "willing want" and as "creative play" completely disregards that innovation is greatly increased by systems that reward the innovators. Why do you think people file patents, viciously protect their own copyrights, battle in court over copyright or patent infringement? Why do so writers sell their books and protect their copyrights, and why do artists sell their paintings rather than give them out for free? People in general desire to protect their own creations/inventions and profit off of them, and rightfully so.

(And for your information, I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, in addition to The Communist Manifesto and essays by Marx and Engels.)

orwell was a marxist, you dumb ass

kek

>Those who had were no longer communists
No they aren't, the book completely worships Trotsky (snowball) and makes it out as if the only reason communism doesn't work is because of that dastardly Stalin (Napoleon)

In reality Trotsky would have been even worse based if his writings and what he did while with the Bolsheviks.

It's criticises governmental authoritarianism and capitalism, but not communism. It's not like they ever show the horse getting pissed off that he only gets the same amount of food as the duck. It's barely even touches on the actual issues of communism fundamentally.

Animal Farm is the perfect ammunition for communist who think it "just hasn't been implement right", and that capitalism is slavery.

>democratic communism
Thats even dumber than state run communism.

Instead of having the government who (in theory) is informed on the needs of the people making decisions on how resources are partitioned, Youre getting the idiotic uninformed masses to decide

Nixon and Teddy were 100% better than that faggot desu

>depiction of the Father
delete this desu

>Call it fatalistic if you want, but to say that people generally desire more than what they have and better lives for their children is just an acknowledgement of reality

People only want this in certain societies though. Tribal people don't care for most of the luxuries of contemporary capitalism. You don't need most of the material goods you have. You only want them because you want to "keep up with the jonses" and if you don't acknowledge that, you're deluded.

Does a single person really get any more enjoyment from having a six bedroom house and a 92 inch tv than they would from having a 1 bedroom house and a 28 inch tv? I'm betting no.

To have a successful communism you would have to change the culture to one of actually caring about your immediate community more than your possessions, getting enjoyment out of duty instead of gluttony etc.

In essence you would have to convince people to behave more like real old-timey Christians.

If you could convince enough people to do that, by altering the culture through a mass-hegemony, most people would be far happier.

>You don't know what communism is

Name one communist country that wasn't primarily agrarian before it become communist?

Russia still more or less had a population of peasant serfs.

This actually went COMPLETELY against what Marx had in mind. He said if communism were to be successful, it had to start in an already industrially advanced society.

China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia etc were not.

>but to say that people generally desire more than what they have and better lives for their children is just an acknowledgement of reality
Yes, of course, I must in some wise acknowledge your vague generalizations as in comport with reality, because if I were to contradict you, I would be "denying reality." But there is nothing "realistic" about the statement that "people generally desire more than what they have." There are no discrete quantities or qualities associated with this statement. It's a completely worthless abstraction, and it only seems to have worth because you believe in the Randian-brand limited picture of the world.

There only needs to be a system to "protect innovators" if you break the human race apart into the class of thinkers and the class of menial laborers. To say that "innovation has been increased" by capitalism is an assertion that can't really be backed either, since each techno-material advancement equates to a global social regression.

There are few things more anti-intellectual and stifling than the patent system. The idea that you should get "credit" or in any way benefit materially from a notion you arrived at is such a novel perversion I wonder how you can incorporate it into your ideology of "capitalism as human nature." It didn't become commonplace in Europe for an author to sign a work as his until the 15th Century, after the invention of the printing press, but obviously if you had studied any history, or if you gave your knee-jerk fabrications more than a second's thought, I wouldn't be explaining this shit to you right now.

>(And for your information, I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, in addition to The Communist Manifesto and essays by Marx and Engels.)
Not surprised you would say some faggot shit like this, either

>Sure you can say that those aren't examples of "true communism", but you might as well be advocating for Plato's philosopher king if you think communism could ever work in an idealized form.

This is a stupid argument. It basically amounts to "because I said so".

The problem with communism could very well have been its implementation, as it was always the same implementation.

>Communism is utterly impractical on the large scale

Why?

>Democratic communism is impossible in a practical sense in large scale societies, and communism in general has always drifted away from the rule of the many because of human nature

>Human nature.

kek.

> people understandably desire to have more than what they have, whether that's power, wealth, status, et

Many people don't. Devout religious people certainly don't. This is largely a cultural thing. People want their basic needs, everything else is just coveting and marketing.

>Whether it's Pol Pot, Mao, the Kim family, Stalin, or Castro, Communism has always led to immense suffering and disastrous human consequences. Sure you can say that those aren't examples of "true communism"

The "they weren't true communism" argument which is so often mocked by people is perfectly valid though. They were all the one thing (Leninism), and they didn't exactly stay true to Marx's vision. Marx barely even designed a political system. It was just a vague ideal.

We're clearly not speaking the same language if you can't acknowledge that people desire success and more material wealth/possessions in society. You can back the fact that innovation has been increased by capitalism because of the fact that capitalist societies have produced more wealth, technological advancement, economic enrichment and better quality of life comparably than any other system in the world (although no system is perfect and of course there are shortcomings, there is no better system that has revealed itself to produce more innovation and economic growth than capitalism). The patent system has been responsible for an uncountable amount of innovations in the West, and saying something is "anti-intellectual" or a "novel perversion" is just empty filler. If you want to get into why authors didn't sign their works in the past, that's a whole different discussion, but folk tales and oral traditions were the main form of story-telling prior to perhaps Chaucer, and folk tales by their very nature have no author (the stories change on different retellings or in different cultures). But if you want to argue that authors do not value protecting their own works, then why don't most authors just publish their works for free? In any case, I can point to a multitude of large capitalist societies that have produced immense innovation, economic growth, and better standards of living. I can't point to a single large scale communist society which has prevailed in producing anything but misery. Why do you think that is?

>Those who had were no longer communists
Orwell himself was a Trotskyfag, that's what all of his books were about. His entire career is about him being asshurt about Stalin interrupting the great revolution

>I can't point to a single large scale communist society which has prevailed in producing anything but misery. Why do you think that is?

Apart from China, none of the countries which were communist have produced anything other than misery under capitalism either.

Not to mention that the bulk of technological and scientific advancement which directly lead up to the industrial revolution was done before capitalism was really a thing.

>Devout religious people certainly don't
They certainly do and if you had any knowledge of history you'd understand why most of what your saying in nonsense.

Puritans believed what you do and tried communism and guess what, it failed miserably.

Cromwell thought devout religious people were all virtuous and selfless just like you think, and let them run Britain and within a few months he realised he was completely wrong.

>The problem with communism could very well have been its implementation, as it was always the same implementation.
The problem with communism is its fundamental premise of "proletariat" as oppressed. It's an arbitrary opinion and view of free market transactions. Also Marx completely misunderstands where the value of labour comes from so utterly failed to measure its value, which is the same reason all communist societies fail because they redefine value to labour rather than its product, that value is from effort not from results.

Communism fails because it's fundamentally wrong, not because of the details of its implementation

>He said if communism were to be successful, it had to start in an already industrially advanced society.
yes because it doesn't FUCKING INNOVATE OR ADVANCE SOCIETY so it relies on an already advanced society SO IT CAN FUCKING LEECH

FUCK i hate commies. it's a fucking plague that reaches into ALL aspects of life. faggots at uni think that work's gotta be "evenly distributed" despite that some people are dead beats and they want good marks.

>'The patent system has been responsible for an uncountable amount of innovations in the West, and saying something is "anti-intellectual" or a "novel perversion" is just empty filler.'
>names precisely 0 of these "uncountable innovations"

>"If you want to get into why authors didn't sign their works in the past, that's a whole different discussion, but folk tales and oral traditions were the main form of story-telling prior to perhaps Chaucer, and folk tales by their very nature have no author (the stories change on different retellings or in different cultures)"
>"folk tales by their very nature HAVE NO AUTHOR"

I am beginning to understand why Wittgenstein furiously beat some of his students

>none of the countries which were communist have produced anything other than misery under capitalism either.
This is pure nonsense

>yes because it doesn't FUCKING INNOVATE OR ADVANCE SOCIETY so it relies on an already advanced society SO IT CAN FUCKING LEECH

He also said it would need to be a worldwide thing otherwise it wouldn't work.

A communist country will fail against a capitalist country economically every time, sure. But it won't necessarily stop innovating, but it will economically collapse if shut off from the global market and unable to have a complex system of world-wide trading.

>faggots at uni think that work's gotta be "evenly distributed" despite that some people are dead beats and they want good marks.

In communism, ideally you should become more dutiful because you're more invested in the community.

Most people prefer being productive. If people don't want to pull their weight, then you do the same thing people do at a work site if someone isn't working, shame them, make them feel bad for not contributing.

Besides, perhaps people don't want to work, because work in a capitalist system is so unfulfilling and ultimately meaningless? (alienation etc)

So in order for communism to succeed, capitalism has to have already succeed.

In that case why would you implement communism? Why would you give up on a system that's actually working?

Russia is far better off today than it was under Soviet rule, Cambodia is no longer starving with millions perishing as it was under the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam is now an economic powerhouse, and South Korea is lightyears ahead of North Korea. Are you actually so dense that you think those former communist countries were better off with millions of their own people starving than the relative recovery/economic growth they've gained under capitalism?

My comment about folk tales is not controversial, if you're interested in reading more about it, read Vladmir Propp "Morphology of the folktale".

And greentexting something is not an argument.

>This is pure nonsense

Refute it then. Russia is still a miserable place where most people are poor. Corruption is still rife. Cambodia and Vietnam are still third-world shit holes. The only place that improved was China, and that was largely due to the fact that its cheap labor attracted leagues of multi-national corporations.

>In that case why would you implement communism? Why would you give up on a system that's actually working?

Because another system might be better? Feudalism also worked, but we gave it up for something that we thought was better.

>Russia is far better off today than it was under Soviet rule, Cambodia is no longer starving with millions perishing as it was under the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam is now an economic powerhouse, and South Korea is lightyears ahead of North Korea. Are you actually so dense that you think those former communist countries were better off with millions of their own people starving than the relative recovery/economic growth they've gained under capitalism?

South Korea and China excluded, those countries haven't given the world earth shattering innovations is what I'm saying. They aren't hugely innovative or productive. I made no argument that life is not better for them under capitalism. It unarguably is. Nice strawman.

>If it is not controversial, then it is correct

You're so dull that you're not even any fun to have an argument with. If you don't work in or around government you certainly should.

"Apart from China, none of the countries which were communist have produced anything other than misery under capitalism either." Your original comment did not relate to the innovations of former communist countries, it related that those countries still only produced misery under capitalism. It's not a straw man argument to point out why this statement is wrong. Maybe look up the phrase straw man.

Nice job not offering any argument against what I said. The idea that folk tales have no author is widely accepted by most folklorists. I even gave you an example of where you could go to read about that instead of talking out your ass.

bugs.. easy on the carrot juice

East Germany, Poland and other central/Eastern European nations, France (Revolution era), Balkan states.
>Vietnam
It's still communist
>Russia
it's doing a fuck load better than it was, it certainly isn't "nothing but misery"

You do know it takes time for countries to recover from being completely destroyed by communism.

Would you like a list of countries completely ruined by communism? Would you like to list just one nation that has been better off for implanting communism?

>Because another system might be better?
Better in what way exactly?
>Feudalism also worked, but we gave it up for something that we thought was better.
Feudalism was simply a resitricted form of capitalism. It's not radically different from capitalism fundamentally

Questions to my fellow commies: why are most commies so reluctant to learning economics considering that Marx himself was an economist and Das Kapital is (among other things) an economics book?
Have you tried looking at reasons why the vast majority of countries that tried to implement communism failed miserably? If yes, what did you think?
How do you think society would change if we tried to implement communism?

Orwell was a self described socialist and the book is over to Trotskyist. The big horrible then that happens is that the pigs go full (a revolution get it?) circle and become self serving capitalists exactly like the humans.
Orwell wrote the book as a response to the popularity of Stalin, whom he regarded as a horrible authoritarian, in Western society at the time.
Not that I'd expect reactionaries to know anything about historical context or political philosophy

8/10 Latin American death squads agree

>muh death squads
Talk shit get hit

>Vietnam is now an economic powerhouse
>It's literally still a communist country
Is this the illusive self-btfo?

>Stalin, whom he regarded as a horrible authoritarian
He was not wrong, btw

>implying literally any "communist" country that has ever existed was a hierarchy-less socialist utopia where the workers own the means of production, or that any country has even ever been in the process of actually bring this about

(You)

Here, have a third (You), I'm feeling generous to shitposters today.

Ah yes George Orwell, known conservative.

I think you mean anti-fascists?

>libsocucks
Why do you artists hate on Stalin so much. He's one of the better things to happen to Communism. Honestly, I feel like half of supposed "communists" who dislike Stalin are straight up /pol/tards trying to cause divisionism. Stalinism is really for the good of all communists

It's a pseudo-communist country, market capitalism is rampant throughout the country, with countless consumable goods sold all over the world being made in Vietnam. Vietnam is a "communist" country just like China is a "communist" country, as in, they are communist in name only. Their rise in economic status is due to the market capitalism they've engaged in.

BASED

This book is kinda dumb, desu.

>"Wasn't real communism" is a totally bullshit excuse except when I need to use it

Ah yes, those provocative third world hispanics!
Don't they know democratically electing a person the lobbyists don't like is total incitement

Ah yes, the Anti Fascists receiving arms and training from the CIA

It's almost as if the only grasp you have on the history of the region comes from how nice the cars there are in the background when it shows up on the news

...

uh oh, actual history. no wonder /pol/ didn't bother responding.

literally stopped reading after his insane recount of the dream where jackals cut up and ate the cousin he wanted to fuck. Peterson is off his fucking rocker.

>lefties believe this

Pretty shit critique of communism desu

It's worth mentioning a bunch of those mental patients were only mental patients because this fucking dolt had them institutionalized on his lobbyst buddies' facilities for the absolute insaninty of carrying a joint or a tab of acid.

"Maps of Meaning" sounds like the most art-wank postmodernist academese "dialectic" title ffs, people should actually attend their university classes. Peterson is a hack pseud butthurt that psychology has moved past Freud.

what did he mean by this?

>George Orwell was a socialist
>Implying Stalinism is anything near Marx's vision of Communism
>Implying lefties cannot be critical of tyrannical regimes within their own ideologies, just like righties cannot be critical of nazism and fascism...
An hero please

What on earth did I mean by this?

Seriously though, Peterson is a bad scholar.

I am convinced by a non-argument from some faggot online.

Let's play a game of questions, I serve.

Was this an argument?

Hey commie lurker! Yes, you! Read Capital or stop calling yourself a Marxist! If you don't understand the critique of capitalism, all you have is rhetoric!

Reading books is for psueds

>encouraged Iran to keep US embassy hostages until he was into office

Sounds pretty smart to me.

>Supply-side economics. National debt tripled.

This is one of the only good criticisms you can come up with, but it's still only an evil coupled with a great good. He should have both cut spending and taxes radically - he only did the latter, causing the evil of a large deficit. Still not even that bad according to avowedly leftists economists like Krugman (cf. Peddling Prosperity).

>Deregulated savings and loans

Yes, which was an excellent thing which he should be praised for.

>precipitated huge economic crisis

Hogwash and nonsense.

>Tax raiser

Are you retarded? Do you know what supply-side means, which you just complained about above? This would be bat if it were true, which it obviously isn't. I wonder who's got Alzheimers here...

>Taxed the poor

Nonsense, he lowered taxes for everyone.

>cut taxes for the rich

Indeed. He saw to that the state stole less than before. Praiseworthy.

>SDI "Star Wars" boondoggle

Dude have you even read the SDI wikipedia article?

>Military spending increased to match imaginary spending in USSR

Imaginary in hindsight. But I'll give you this one, half-heartedly, as he was acting in what most people believed to be the best interests of everyone.

>deregulation caused oil bust

Which was necessary and ultimately good.

>broke air traffic control union

Excellent!

>Gutted social welfare

Unfortunately not. But he did try, which was great.

>Release of mental patients without recourse

Cf. >homeless population up

So what? Spending down. Good. Homeless population has also been up under every president since, and several before, just fyi.

>ignored AIDS crisis

Good.

>abstinence-only sex education

>implying this isn't the best solution

>Strengthened ATF, banned automatic weapons, blamed Dems for it

Nonsense, source please.

>Increased spending for War on Drugs
>national drinking age of 21

True, and these are valid criticisms.

>Underfunded NEA

Not enough. Shoulda pulled the plug entirely.

>EPA superfund grants manipulated to help Republicans in local elections.

Maybe, not too well read on this one, doesn't sound like a huge issue though.

>deregulated kids' tv, initiated 22 minute toy ads

And the problem here is? Just don't let your kids watch channels that do this. Geez, I swear.

>killed energy programs

Excellent.

>crack in the ghettos

This was the CIA, not Reagan.

Cbf going on with your nonsense, but I encourage people reading this to Google the issues or something. Don't take my word for it.

Wow, that has to be the worst gish gallop against Reagan I've ever seen. It's basically a bunch of gaffs, conspiracy theories, and ad hominems that are somehow all justified a priori by the existence of Iran Contra.
Actually that's called a gish gallop
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Also, /pol/ doesn't like Reagan you moron lmao.
>Everyone who is conservative is /pol/ meme
Neck yourself

>abstinence only sex education
>best solution
>when the highest teen pregnancy rates are consistently in the states with abstinence only education

>ignored aids crisis
>good
>if I put my head in the sand, the problem will go away!

>gutting social welfare is good

>the deregulation was ultimately good

Why dislike those dudes again?
They are /ourguys/

If by capitalism you mean anarchocapitalism or laissez-faire capitalism, which is what "not true capitalism"fags mean , then it really fucking is

When I was a dirty commie, I dismissed this book as a blatant misportrayal, written by someone who never set foot in the USSR, and then I pointed minute flaws which I felt were grounds for rejecting the whole thing.

People tend to draw conclusions and then try to frame the evidence to support their case. Furthermore, people hate being refuted too directly.
Luckily I've mostly gotten over that, but it was a long path.

Mein Gott, of corrse I'm not shaying we should go back to the old Leninist Pa- and so and so on *sniff*

>the most intellectual, intelligent, inspiring and dominant group are the jews
Maybe not the type of redpill you intended

Can someone give me like the top 5 George Orwell books because I'm going to stock up on some literature and I think I should give Georgie a go. Would be much appreciated

nazism is leftist

...

He only wrote nine books and they're not very long.
The most popular/frequently cited ones are 1984, Animal Farm, Down & Out in Paris and London, and Homage to Catalonia. The last two are the most interesting, the first two the ones everyone knows.

Well that will do for me. My computer is shit so I'm just trying to download some books to read so I turn it off and be done with it for a while.

I'm currently reading Brave new world and have revisited and Island on my list to read as well so these short books are really good for me. They're short enough that I don't autistically just stop reading them

>
>I don't think it would be possible for communism to work if it was not forced unless you just are talking about small voluntary communes. Call it fatalistic if you want, but to say that people generally desire more than what they have and better lives for their children is just an acknowledgement of reality (and you haven't refuted it by calling it a "myth").
You're missing the point, human nature is not fixed, your acknowledge of reality is only an acknowledgement of current reality.
>Your discussion of creation as being only out of a "willing want" and as "creative play" completely disregards that innovation is greatly increased by systems that reward the innovators.
[citation needed]
>in b4 brainlet thinking causation comes directly from correlation and doesn't understand the industrial revolution is a highly confounding variable

>Why do you think people file patents, viciously protect their own copyrights, battle in court over copyright or patent infringement? Why do so writers sell their books and protect their copyrights, and why do artists sell their paintings rather than give them out for free?
Because they want money. They want money so they can buy stuff. They want to buy stuff so they can not die and decay, for essentials, and so they align with social norms and also gain utility (but social norms >utility) in determining purchase rates for materialistic consumers.

>People in general desire to protect their own creations/inventions and profit off of them, and rightfully so.
Your ideology is showing

>(And for your information, I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, in addition to The Communist Manifesto and essays by Marx and Engels.)
>he's unironically read Rand
>he's only read propaganda for proles rather than actual Marxist theory
Laffin

>trotsky would have been even worse based on his writings and what he did while with the bolsheviks
I wonder who could be behinds this post

Stick with those four then and you won't get too sick of his style.

I don't want to shit up the thread, but based on the books I've mentioned I don't suppose you have any other recommendations.

I really want to bang out a week or so's reading before turning on this piece of shit again.

>a revolution get it?