What the fuck was his problem?

The exploitation of the proletariat by nature of the capitalist system.

They aren't. Wageslaves in the first world are better off than they were in his time but they still succumb to a lot of the problems of capitalism.

>And his solution was to effectively diminish everyone's rights and enslave them.
On the contrary he wanted to liberate them with the ability to control the means of production and thus the total value of the fruits of their labour.

Yes they did, the USSR did literally nothing wrong.

He was useless.

>Inspired the greatest revolutions of the 20th century and the fight for global communism continues.
>Useless.

Only a slave cannot own property.

Spooked.

>the fight for global communism continues
Haha

Therein lies the distinction between slaves and masters.

To abolish private property alltogether is to end this system of subjugation.

There has literally more or less been a communist revolution happening somewhere in the world at any given point for the last 100 years.

Getting assblasted by Stirner

...

...

>Greatest revolutions that led to failures and massacres like the Stalinist Purges, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution
>Thw fight for Communism is still alive today
W E W V L A D
E
W
V
L
A
D

>he USSR did literally nothing wrong.
Is that why they're still around oh wait

He wasn't that bad, his fans were just autistic retard. He did get absolutely BTFO by Stirner and he has literally no banter-handling capabilities.

>Famines and poor economic choices don't happen in capitalist countries.
>The cultural revolution did anything wrong

You're right, they did do one thing wrong and that's putting Gorbachev anywhere other than the gulag.

>implying I'm a nazi
I forget that you types think anyone who grew out of socialism is a fascist.

Reminder that capitalists have no arguments against socialism besides

>jewish conspiracy
>hooman natchuurrr
>sounds good on paper
>718002392123 kabillion dead
>invisible hand

tbqh on Veeky Forums accusing anti-communists of being fascists is a very safe-bet.

He just needed a shave!

You have to look at Marx from the time he lived, because when he lived, workers had very little to no rights at all.

Shaving is a bourgeoisie construct designed to distract the proletariat from their oppression with cold faces.

The funny part is that socialism failed, and then it was rebranded as welfare capitalism. And then the capitalists predicted that nordic model countries would eventually attract too many low skilled migrants for the system to support... and then the Syrian refugee crisis happened and the capitalists were proven right yet again.

>Welfare capitalism is socialism.
>Socialism failed

>one of the most fundamental aspects of socialism is democratic ownership of means of production
>'socialist' examples capitalists use do not meet this requirement
>actual socialist projects are generally successful

It's true though. Central planning and state ownership of the means of production was a failure. And when people talk about socialism today, they mean "capitalist economy with more gibs"

kek, this

Capitalism silly.

It wasn't, every socialist country was generally a success until they started believing western propaganda, became capitalist, and then their stable economies and quality ways of life absolutely imploded as capitalism is want to do.

>And when people talk about socialism today, they mean "capitalist economy with more gibs
You mean Fox News and Democrats who think Bernie is the second coming of Jesus describes welfare as socialism.

It's also hard to enact a new social system when you have the most powerful countries and coalitions in the world trying to throw you off track.

Would communism have prospered if it wasn't enveloped in a hostile geopolitical climate? It's one of those hypotheticals you can never know the answer to.

>every socialist country was generally a success

It definitely would have, if the Soviets didn't have to put dispropotionate amounts of resources towards the military the people would have been better off.

I've heard it said it was a common sentiment in the USSR for people to wish that capitalist powers would just leave them alone.

>this whole post

Yes, the USSR went from third-world level shithole to world superpower in a single lifetime.

The economic superiority of socialism is simply undeniable, hence why the capitalist world has been partaking in a century long propaganda campaign to prevent people from realizing how hard they're getting fucked.

>The economic superiority of socialism is simply undeniable

...

!00 percent spot on.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Go back to the thread about the French Revolution, tankie.

...

>t. Soviet internal ministry

>unsourced chart

Gee, I wonder how many of these communism supporters are speaking wonders of such system from Cuba or North Korea.

On top of that
>cherry picking years to fit your narrative
Tankies are truly this stupid.

Neither are communist.

Cuba is a glorious country and North Korea don't even pretend to be communist anymore.

The communist party of Cuba are legit.

>State owns everything
>Not communist
Inb4 in gommunism ders no state!!!111!

>Inpoliticalandsocial sciences,communism(fromLatincommunis, "common, universal")is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of thecommunist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon thecommon ownershipof themeans of productionand the absence ofsocial classes,money, and thestate.
>and state
Literally in the definition.
You're delusional.
They accept the most foreign aid this side of the prime meridian.

Okay.

How does that make them uncommunist?

Not only that's not true but you didn't understand my post. I asked how many of those praising communism online are actually Cubans or North Koreans. Protip: probably none.

But user, both Cuba and North Korea attempted to reach that goal. The real outcome is what you see today. If you have the definition right there, how can you deny that they're communist?

They have a state, they have classes, workers do not own the means of production.

>But user, both Cuba and North Korea attempted to reach that goal. The real outcome is what you see today. If you have the definition right there, how can you deny that they're communist?
Neither ARE communist.
They tried to be, which is impossible in a scarce society.

I dont think there's that many Cubans online in general and I'm quite positive the only people with open internet access in North Korea are party members.

You know what he meant.

He meant a communist party run state rather than a completed commumist state of affairs.

>,communism is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society
Straight from your definition. They are not communist societies, but they attempted to create one and are therefore ideologically communist.

>Juche
>communism

It has another definition that you conveniently leave out which, unlike the one you just gave, is not delusional. Why? Because unless there's a state keeping you from having private property, people will justly want to have private property. In other words, the definition you just gave is one big oxymoron.

You're right, it's better than communism.

>Occupy Democrats
Beautiful

That's what I mean. They freely express themselves in favor of communism online when ironically, they probably couldn't do so in such countries.

Okay, how would communism in a developed first-world country end my freedom to shitpost on the internet?

>private property

Another misinformed view.

Communism has no problem with private property as personal property. Want a laptop for yourself? Fine. Want a bunch of other shit for yourself? Fine.

Only the means of production is made public, owned by the people who run it.

So you can own all the stuff a person should own, but you can't own hospitals and the shit everyone needs to survive.

Can I own land under communism?
Can I own power tools under communism?

>land
No, no but for all intents and purposes you would own your house.
>Power tools
Yes.

So if I own a house on a plot of land, if everyone else decides they want to turn it into a parking lot, I'm fucked?

What if come up with a great idea for some new technology, like an app. What is my incentive to develop this idea if I can't profit off of it?

No, that would be infringing on your personal property on the same level as stealing your toothbrush.

Communists are very against practices like spite-hills and capitalists pressuring people to sell their house so that they can develop the property.

I see.

When has communism ever allowed free speech?
What difference would it make regarding the absence of free speech whether it's a first world country or not?

The USSR protected intellectual property.

Personally I think Stallman's ideas on copyleft would be better and that tsoftware advancement would be perfectly fine without capitalism.

In college I took a world civ class and at one point the prof said Marc advocated that one day technology should take care of all labor so humans would have infinite free time. What was he talking about? Also isn't that kind of inevitable?

>tbqh on Veeky Forums accusing anti-communists of being fascists is a very safe-bet.
That doesn't mean anything though. You can't swing a cat without hitting a fascist here. Gommies are still retarded though.

There was still the problem.of.embellishment.and a disproportionate amount of money goingt figureheads. Which is a clear.indication that the communist ideals were put away for greed.

The USSR was hardly a utopic vision of communism. I was assuming that we were talking about the ideal communist society.

>copyleft
Explain?

Generally in the Soviet Union people were perfectly fine to criticize the government among each other and the media wasn't censored in a way any more heavy handed than it is in the west.

>Famines and poor economic choices don't happen in capitalist countries.

This is a correct statement

Topkek.
We're gonna need to see some broofs buddy.
I can't believe tankie shits are this deluded.

>Explain?
Free software eyh

>What is my incentive to develop this idea if I can't profit off of it?
What was the incentive to develop GNU/Linux?

Now this is some premium grade shitposting.

He was Lutheran

Tankie tankie go away, come and spam delusions another day.
>>>/leftypol/

Even the ancap sperglords don't pretend Somalia is a utopian paradise.

And these tanky fucks wonder why nobody takes them seriously

This is true, a lot of what the USSR did was an abberation to socialism and shouldn't have happened. Fortunately we can learn from this and take it as a guide of things to prevent.

>The USSR was hardly a utopic vision of communism. I was assuming that we were talking about the ideal communist society.
The USSR was very good, it could have been better and it definitely wasn't end-stage communism but in terms of that all work would essentially be a hobby rather than a necessity to survive.

And copyleft is the idea that works can be freely distributed and modified provided that the freedom of distribution and modification is preserved with future deviations on the original piece.

I already know the distinction between personal and private property, don't strawman that. What's the problem in owning a factory?
The point still stands, anyway. Unless there's a tyrannical state keeping you from owning a factory, people will want to do so, so gommunism is an oxymoron.

>What was the incentive to develop GNU/Linux?
Money actually. Linus never wanted it to be free, it just ended up open source because he used too much random help to copywrite it.

>Even the ancap sperglords don't pretend Somalia is a utopian paradise.
that would be because claiming being in a civil war = ancapism is completely retarded

>random help
I'm talking about those lads

Well, according to communist theory, you didn't develop a new idea per se. You borrowed ingredients and components from the social production surrounding you. Patents become obstructions toward the greater accumulation of social production.

Your incentive to develop a new idea or app would be the understanding that this contribution to society would spur further contributions to society, so that the overall level of social production increases.

Don't forget that the software industry in particular is highly communistic. Open source and community-based production is one of the driving forces behind many of the best software breakthroughs.

Do you think the overall level of production would be better if Google and Apple compete with each other, as they do under capitalism, withholding knowledge and expertise from one another, or would the overall level of production and value increase if they were to pool their knowledge and expertise? Communism argues the latter.