Why do bolshevists and egalitardians always claim to represent "the working class" when it fact it's always been...

Why do bolshevists and egalitardians always claim to represent "the working class" when it fact it's always been workers and farmers that have suffered the most throughout leftist reigns in history?

Just a few examples from history:

- The Khmer rogue systematically exterminating the rural farmer and peasants worker population in cambodia
- The kulak farmer caste within Ukraine getting exterminated during the holodomor by the soviet bolshevists
- The vendeé farmers being slaughtered mercilessly in countless massacres during the french counter-revolution

The scheme was always the same in all of these cases: Impose a dictatorship on common folk, disarm them, then slaughter them when they are defenseless whilst simultaneously claiming to represent the interests of the very people you are slaughtering at the same time.

So it's kind of extremely absurd for them to fetishize the "working class" so much and put them on such a high pedestral. It boggles the mind, really.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
gq-magazine.co.uk/article/eu-referendum-old-people-should-not-vote
vice.com/en_au/read/brexit-proves-baby-boomers-should-get-less-of-a-vote?utm_source=vicefbanz&utm_campaign=global
star.txstate.edu/2016/03/09/why-people-over-the-age-of-65-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote/
phnompenhpost.com/national/pol-pot-dilemma
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>egalitardians
Stop.

>farmers
>workers

>The vendeé farmers being slaughtered mercilessly in countless massacres during the french counter-revolution

That was only one part of France. The rebels were the ones who initiated conflict, anyway.

I agree. Actually bolchevists killed and destroyed one serious attempt of an anarchist society.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

So yes, some leftist movements are fake. They only dream of achieving absolute power.

They were not self-critical enough.

It is no difficult task for any genuine intellectual to suppose that they are corruptible and their own ideals have the potential to be abused by dictators and demagogues for propaganda purposes as so many others have, then at least make some effort to prevent this if not devoting chapters to examining corruption and flaws in human nature. Even Ayn Rand had a disdain for the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists that cropped up after her ideals became popular.

However this was absent among the ideologies that circulated among the first international. Naturally they were wary of laying any criticism on the working class whom they needed to gather support from. It explains their success, yet also their failure.

Leftists and Marxists in particular are

1) NOT working class
2) Detest the actual working class

See how libartds mock white working class people.

See how after Brexit some suggested those without a degree and old people should lose their political rights.

The only reason they mention the working class at all is because they have a special palce in the Marxist eschatology, but that role has largely been replaced by so called minorities and gays in the West.

>See how after Brexit some suggested those without a degree and old people should lose their political rights.
Who said this?

>See how libartds mock white working class people.


I'm fairly lefty (and working class), and this is precisely why I hate your typical college liberal.

'White trash' and 'inbred hick' are classist slurs and no better than calling people lazy niggers or dirty spics.

I;m eating now. Google it,

one, liberals aren't marxists or leftists. as a marxist, i do care about the working class. i want to see the working class, which includes myself, you, and likely everyone you know or care about, in a place of economic and social power.

working class means you have to sell your labor for a wage to live from day to day. this applies to a vast majority of people in society, including likely yourself. most marxists are working class because most people are working class.

modern marxists, the khmer rouge and soviets often had working class backgrounds

No, you back up your claim

Get fucked marxist cunt.

>liberal pundits are Marxists
holy shit read a book nigger

Someone tell Hiroshima to nuke this board, it was a mistake to think there could ever be intelligent discussion.

Soviets didn't start electing workers to face them til after stalin, and brevzh was an obvious puppet

You're moronic.

Since that homo is busy shoving spaghetti up his ass or whatever I'll do his dirty work

gq-magazine.co.uk/article/eu-referendum-old-people-should-not-vote
vice.com/en_au/read/brexit-proves-baby-boomers-should-get-less-of-a-vote?utm_source=vicefbanz&utm_campaign=global
star.txstate.edu/2016/03/09/why-people-over-the-age-of-65-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote/

Couldn't find articles about the lack of degrees, but there was a lot of articles where they made fun of this claim. I also had some Leftist friends say to me 'People without degrees shouldn't have been able to vote' but that's just hear say so not worth much.

You can't really be autistic enough to think that's meant literally. It's just a joke about the demographics voting to fuck themselves over. Also, the EU is a free trade organization, the opposite of "leftist."

Pretty sure those aren't jokes, they are pretty devoid of self-awareness. Most of them end with a call to action to 'reform' democracy.

And the EEC did that perfectly fine. The EU was an unnecessary step for a simple Trade Organization.

>Why do bolshevists and egalitardians always claim to represent "the working class" when it fact it's always been workers and farmers that have suffered the most throughout leftist reigns in history?

Because Marx was inherently reactionary in his creation of Marxism, creating an economic ideal that was in direct response to the suffering he saw around him by the working class at the hands of the upper classes

>Marx was inherently reactionary

Apologies, I misused that word. I mean his viewpoint was in direct response to what he saw at his time and place, so the worker became paramount.

I don't mean to say he was a political conservative that resisted change.

Many self-identified Marxists today see sexual minorities and women as the true revolutionary class.

but that's wrong, how would they seize the means of production if they never worked as a part of it

Well gee OP that's just fantastic. I just love how this is a violation of the "/pol/ with dates" rule.

Fuck off and discuss it on /pol/. This isn't a place for political jacking off.

Privilege is considered much more power than the means of production.

Having society say you DESERVE the means of production can lead to you actually controlling the means of production, that is what privilege means in this area.

>Khmer rogue
backed by the US and UK
and invaded by Vietnam to be replaced bt the PRK, Heng Samrin is still seen as a hero today
>kulaks
not the working class, deserve equal responsibility with stalin for the famine
>vendeé
not the working class again, and the french revolution is seen by marxists as the bourgeoisie seizing power from the nobility

Wow Constantine, you actually just helped me realize why I've seen social justice and Marxism appear together recently.

>backed by the US and UK
i don't necessarily doubt you, but some sources would be nice

The vendee farmers were literally led by their ancestral lords who had remained on their lands.

phnompenhpost.com/national/pol-pot-dilemma