Communism means big government!

>communism means big government!
>communism means I'll have to give away all my possessions to the homeless!
>communism will kill me because I'm white!

Most of those seem accurate in regards to how communism actually plays out. I'm sure i'd be worse off even though i'm unemployed with a yearly income of less than 1k.

and true.

Why are capitalcucks so stupid Veeky Forums?

>communism means big government!
How else are you going to redistribute the wealth you fat cuckold?

>he typed on his computer made in a private factory owned by a private company

communism will kill me because I'm rich desu

Your whole economic ideology is based on nothing but spooks.
I dont think you're in a position to call other people cucks or stupid.

>Your whole economic ideology is based on nothing but spooks

But user, that poster wasn't from the CSA

show me any time in history where the second or third statements of the OP's came true in communist countries. where did people have to give away ALL of their possessions to the less fortunate? where did whites die EXPLICITLY because of their ethnicity in communist countries?

i won't refute the big government point because it's true, and i would hope the government would be big in my ideal version of communism due to the fact the government should incorporate all proletarians' wills. a dictatorship of the proles is going to be a big gov initially.

>communism will kill me because i'm white!
Mao says hi

>Which was initially developed by socialized military R&D and socialized universities

Collectivism is a symptom of mental illness and femininity, which is really to say the say the same thing twice.

Edgy

*tips*

nice meme
Workers' councils

>things I don't like are mental illness
Sounds like something Brezhnev would say.

*tips fedora*

Marx and Stirner are compatible.

What's stopping me from flaying the council alive and making an example for the other proles?

Nice try shill but stirner is a /leftypol/ meme

>workers will fairly distribute capital amongst themselves if allowed to

all this marxshitsm and spooks belong to /leftypol/

>striker
>/leftypol/
>when Marx was so butthurt he couldn't let it go

Really made me think.

Anyway communism is a spook

check out this fucking baboon

Only if you ignore key aspects of Stirners philosophy.

Socialism is more compatible than capitalism when it comes to egoism, when it comes to making a pseudo-society.

Capitalism requires that individuals use the threat of force against their own interests to support the interests of someone else that exploits them. Protecting someone else's property is a little spooky. Maybe they help you protect your property too. But when it gets to the point where you protect another's ability to exploit you, you work against your own self interest, that's the definition of spooky.

In the socialist pseudo-society, no one is asked to make that choice. You simply will never be asked to do something against your own interest of your own will. You're only a member of a group because it is advantageous for you as an individual to be part of a group, but you never expect the other individuals to elevate you above them as individuals because of a spook.

Of course if everyone else agrees you should do something, and their collective might is greater than yours you might be forced to do it anyways since you're their property. You're simply not doing it for the greater good. You're doing it because you're forced to.

>of a capitalist nation

New Keynesianism master race

kek nice meme

No, I've read everything he wrote in detail.

>Marxism
>God
Noice
>not anti-scarcity based economy with strong collectivist principles, ran by science and logic.
Boooooooo
Gommies suck as bad as capitalist. The anthropocentric value system will always be unsustainable.

>USA
>socialized military
>social security
>medicare
>anti-trust laws
>labor laws
>...capitalist?

>Capitalism requires that individuals use the threat of force against their own interests to support the interests of someone else that exploits them. Protecting someone else's property is a little spooky. Maybe they help you protect your property too. But when it gets to the point where you protect another's ability to exploit you, you work against your own self interest, that's the definition of spooky.

Top laff

Capitalism is based around the idea of voluntary cooperation. It flummoxes me how socialists can aver that capitalism is based around force and exploitation, when it's patent enough to anyone with a knowledge of history that force and exploitation are the cornerstones of socialism, not capitalism. Paying someone a wage that corresponds to their level of productivity is not exploitation. People did not immigrate to the United States en masse during the 19th century with the aim of being exploited and abused. If that had happened no one would have stayed in America. You are spreading nonsense and a false account of history.

When lenin came to power one of the first things he did was force the peasants to provide produce for the state and to prevent them from engaging in the market economy. There have been many collectivist communes throughout history, notably in the USA (in the 19th century) and In Israel. The American socialists were not particularly successful. In fact the most successful collectivist communes have always been religious in outlook rather than socialist.

Also didn't pol pot force collectivist farms?

>communism will kill me because I'm white!

lmao, this one always gets me

>communism means big government!

das true tho (socialism is a necessary stage for communism)

Face it. Communism was a pipe dream of a lazy borgouis journalist who didn't know shit and whose book was read by basically noone, who couldn't even write the subsequent volumes is das Kapital because he was too lazy. Das Kapital was just the first volume! One of the founding treatises of communism wasn't even finished! I can't think of a more appropriate summation of communism's half baked ideology (E.g. Marks never specified how a communist state would be run save that "every man would be supplied according to his needs").

Fuck communism, the Mensheviks were right and social democratic countries proved to be the most successful in the end.

>USA
>privately owned means of production
Capitalist.

Capitalism is based around property rights. Rights that are a spook.

Go back to leftypol and stop shitting up Veeky Forums with your failed ideology.

Private property is a right that most people recognize.

So are morals. That doesn't make them not spooks

Spooks all the way down.

Whenever you retards say 'spook' I read 'meme'.

This is not an argument. It's just semiotic nonsense.

Marxism, in practice, necessarily leads state supercapitalism.

Prove me wrong.

>communism=collectivism meme spouted by american conservatards ad nauseam
read a book senpai

>lazy borgouis journalist who didn't know shit and whose book was read by basically noone
wew lad. marx read huge amounts of material
>who couldn't even write the subsequent volumes is das Kapital because he was too lazy.
>marx
>too lazy
"no"
>He was a prolific writer; his (and Engels’s) collected writings, in the most authoritative, and still ongoing, edition (the new MEGA, or Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe), will contain 114 volumes when complete.

He was a grumpy retard who had no idea what wealth is, mooched off Engels, raped his maid and kicked her out when she got pregnant, and alienated all his and his wife's family and friends by begging for money and taking out loans and never paying them back. Why would you trust this idiot? He did nothing but bitch

lmao at this faggot defending his god marx, a NEET who got everything handed to him

>You simply will never be asked to do something against your own interest of your own will
What happens if I don't want to hand you 60% of my income to sustain your bloated bureaucracy and inefficient social programs and welfare system, then?

Read the book you'll be better for it.

sounds like ad hominem to me. why would his raping his maid (an allegation that gets thrown around all the time here but has yet to be proven to me) or his beggaring have to do with the quality of his work? its also natural considering marx's views about political agitation that he would alienate people close to him. he spend his young adulthood hiding from the authorities and he had to self censor a lot of his work as well. his "mooching" off of engels (who besides maintaining his wealth inherited a lot of it anyway) is no different than any time throughout history when a rich patron commissioned writers in artists (or in a current form, endowing a chair at a college with funds). by all accounts they had a productive working partnership anyway. you just sound bitter desu

I'm not a marxist, its just a matter you getting so radibly worked up about your archvillain that you're willing to believe anything about him, even if you havent studied him yourself

>Wealth inequality is bad

Some people are better at things than others. Get over it.

>stirner is a /leftypol/ meme

You realize that Marx hated Stirner more than anybody else right?

Leftypol is full of dumbasses who think stirner and marx are compatible.

>Supercapitalism

Is that regular capitalism in tights and a cape?

>wealth=merit

...

>communism will kill me because I'm white!
Modern communists do essentially see race as a correlation of class. In their minds white people are the bourgeoisie who oppress the PoC proletariats.

His body was in great shape compared to his mind

Well they are better at getting money

This is not fucking History or Humanities

Fuck off to /pol/ or /leftypol/