When u thought u said deliver the working class from bondage but wut dey heard wuz create a cult of personality based...

>when u thought u said deliver the working class from bondage but wut dey heard wuz create a cult of personality based around a ruthless dictatorship and indiscriminately slaughter everyone

>indiscriminately
Communist shit holes tend to be extremely good at discriminating

this they made lists of everyone they were going to kill long before they took over a country

>1940
His problem was he couldn't see past industrialization and into the future. For a man who went against human nature and wanted a utopia, he was short sighted to think about the wonders humanity could make.

> tfw a cuban banged his daughter

>tfw

Are you for real? Now's that a Cuban Revolution.

...

>states
What did he mean by this?

Marxists on suicide watch

You've not read Marx, have you?

>indiscriminately slaughter everyone
kulak lies

>Marx didnt advocate violent overthrow and purges in order to wipe out borgiouse influence

My favorite meme, it's almost like very few socialists have actually read and understood Marx or something.

>bourgeoise influence
>not the cause of the decadence of the west

Those are mostly champagne socialists who think that they they aren't the problem. Actual socialists understand this but seek a compromise via state intervention. Gommies want the aforementioned systemic overthrow so they'll never not be marginalized in democratic elections.

>when u lowkey bringin more bantz than an australian shitposter

Would you call Pol Pot's regime discriminatory?

Yes. Of course. Went after viets, urban dwellers, the literate with discriminatory preference.

Read you useless fucker.

It's shit economics.

I know all Marxists like to pretend their shit "has never been seen" on earth, but the fundamental problem with Marxism is that it is so thoroughly unnatural that the only way you can enact it is by creating a totalitarian government and murdering everyone who disagrees until they are sick of fighting it.

It's the same problem as Anarcho-primitivism. It's a lovely theory. I wish I could go back to a society like that and just hunt and live in nature, but unlike Anarcho-capitalism which is a goal that could be realistically worked toward, Anarcho-primitivism is the exact opposite direction to where society is heading and the only way to realize it is to completely destroy (violently) that society and start again.

Then you'd presumably have to stop progress and people holding onto the remnants of that society that they miss.

anarcho-capitalism just seems like lawlessness, it's a system based on desires and not thought

Daily reminder.

You should actually read what anarcho-capitalists have to say. David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom and Rothbard's Anatomy of the State are probably good places to start and easy to access. The government is bad at what it does. We have been told for so long that we need it that the idea of not having it seems ridiculous. It's not though.

The government is literally just a corporation with guns. They are about as bad at doing shit as every other company.

Except they hold a monopoly on a number of industries that others could do better and, like you said, they have guns. They use force to get what they want.

Yes, they do get to use force to get what they want, because that's what a monopoly of violence does.

But if it didn't exist, anyone could exert force all the time without any repercussions.

>You should actually read what anarcho-capitalists have to say.

And you should look at actual anarcho-capitalist systems, like Boris Yeltsin's Russia

Government doesn't have a profit motive, therefore it doesn't have any motivation to be efficient.

>Boris Yeltsin's Russia
>actual anarcho-capitalist system

lel cool story