why communism will never work

[shekel]

This is the dumbest argument socialists make. Just because you're good at baking bread doesn't mean you'd be good at managing the bakery.
>but it'l be managed collectively
yes i'm sure any business will run smooth like butter when you have everyone running around like headless chickens expecting the next guy to know how to actually run shit.
Society has roles for a reason.

Workers don't mindlessly follow orders while unaware of the actual process. Most of the the time the business owner isn't even there at the site to give them the orders, they only manage the finances and capital that the business produces, which only applies under capitalism and is irrelevant the actual work being involved.

>yes i'm sure any business will run smooth like butter when you have everyone running around like headless chickens expecting the next guy to know how to actually run shit.
The point is to abolish the concept of a "business" entirely, not to continue it under new management.

>Society has roles for a reason.

The division of labor that has existed under capitalism has only existed for the few hundred years, how labor has been organized has never been static.

 

[Apeson]

Workers don't mindlessly follow orders while unaware of the actual process. Most of the the time the business owner isn't even there at the site to give them the orders, they only manage the finances and capital that the business produces, which only applies under capitalism and is irrelevant the actual work being involved.
<REDDIT SPACING
>yes i'm sure any business will run smooth like butter when you have everyone running around like headless chickens expecting the next guy to know how to actually run shit.
The point is to abolish the concept of a "business" entirely, not to continue it under new management.
<REDDIT SPACING
>Society has roles for a reason.
<REDDIT SPACING
The division of labor that has existed under capitalism has only existed for the few hundred years, how labor has been organized has never been static.

>Workers don't mindlessly follow orders while unaware of the actual process. Most of the the time the business owner isn't even there at the site to give them the orders.
t. has never worked a real job before
>they only manage the finances and capital that the business produces, which only applies under capitalism and is irrelevant the actual work being involved.
Oh yeah, let's abolish money, fucking brilliant. There's a reason the soviets abstained from doing that after Stalin died. Your bread quotas aren't met comrade, go to the gulag.
>The point is to abolish the concept of a "business" entirely, not to continue it under new management.
Then what exactly is the driving force for production? Nationalism? The power of friendship? People don't wake up one day and feel like producing jet engine supersonic nozzles with the knowledge they gained in their dreams apparently. Your commune won't be producing any jet engines for a good while.
>The division of labor that has existed under capitalism has only existed for the few hundred years, how labor has been organized has never been static.
<let's return to a guild system.
blud went the whole way around and argued for a return to feudalism.

 

[shekel]

>Workers don't mindlessly follow orders while unaware of the actual process. Most of the the time the business owner isn't even there at the site to give them the orders.
t. has never worked a real job before
>they only manage the finances and capital that the business produces, which only applies under capitalism and is irrelevant the actual work being involved.
Oh yeah, let's abolish money, fucking brilliant. There's a reason the soviets abstained from doing that after Stalin died. Your bread quotas aren't met comrade, go to the gulag.
>The point is to abolish the concept of a "business" entirely, not to continue it under new management.
Then what exactly is the driving force for production? Nationalism? The power of friendship? People don't wake up one day and feel like producing jet engine supersonic nozzles with the knowledge they gained in their dreams apparently. Your commune won't be producing any jet engines for a good while.
>The division of labor that has existed under capitalism has only existed for the few hundred years, how labor has been organized has never been static.
<let's return to a guild system.
blud went the whole way around and argued for a return to feudalism.

Do you think engineers, architects, and other high-skilled workers don't know what they're doing? I'm not talking about menial wagie positions, which are themselves a product of the current division of labor.
>Oh yeah, let's abolish money, fucking brilliant. There's a reason the soviets abstained from doing that after Stalin died. Your bread quotas aren't met comrade, go to the gulag.
The Soviets never wanted to abolish money, at least after Lenin died. The failure of the other revolutions in Europe pretty much ended that possibility.
>Then what exactly is the driving force for production? Nationalism? The power of friendship? People don't wake up one day and feel like producing jet engine supersonic nozzles with the knowledge they gained in their dreams apparently. Your commune won't be producing any jet engines for a good while.
Do you think all knowledge regarding complex production will be destroyed? The purpose of production will be moved from the extraction of surplus value (which is itself is inefficient due to the alienation of labor) to wholly to fulfill specific needs.
><let's return to a guild system.
Never said that award
>I'm a transbian and love jerking my tbp to some good 'ol BLACKED. Capitalism is good because Greg Lansky is my favorite
noob wtf...

 

[Apeson]

Do you think engineers, architects, and other high-skilled workers don't know what they're doing? I'm not talking about menial wagie positions, which are themselves a product of the current division of labor.
>Oh yeah, let's abolish money, fucking brilliant. There's a reason the soviets abstained from doing that after Stalin died. Your bread quotas aren't met comrade, go to the gulag.
The Soviets never wanted to abolish money, at least after Lenin died. The failure of the other revolutions in Europe pretty much ended that possibility.
>Then what exactly is the driving force for production? Nationalism? The power of friendship? People don't wake up one day and feel like producing jet engine supersonic nozzles with the knowledge they gained in their dreams apparently. Your commune won't be producing any jet engines for a good while.
Do you think all knowledge regarding complex production will be destroyed? The purpose of production will be moved from the extraction of surplus value (which is itself is inefficient due to the alienation of labor) to wholly to fulfill specific needs.
><let's return to a guild system.
Never said that award
>I'm a transbian and love jerking my tbp to some good 'ol BLACKED. Capitalism is good because Greg Lansky is my favorite
noob wtf...

>Do you think engineers, architects, and other high-skilled workers don't know what they're doing?
Depending on the level of complexity, yes. An engineer doesn't know the whole process. noob this is basic fucking knowledge, you hire more than one engineer for a reason.
>I'm not talking about menial wagie positions, which are themselves a product of the current division of labor.
What would you define as "menial wagie positions". Dont say managers or i'l fucking die from gegs.
>The Soviets never wanted to abolish money, at least after Lenin died. The failure of the other revolutions in Europe pretty much ended that possibility.
Then guess what, you DO need someone to manage finances.
>Do you think all knowledge regarding complex production will be destroyed? The purpose of production will be moved from the extraction of surplus value (which is itself is inefficient due to the alienation of labor) to wholly to fulfill specific needs.
No? I never said that. I'l ask you again, in what way would a worker be motivated to produce "engine part A" instead of bread apart from autism if it isn't through the laws of supply and demand of the market?
>><let's return to a guild system.
>Never said that award
If your answer to the last question is regulating production so only a certain amount of bread may be produced to encourage production of other things then you are arguing for a return to guilds.
If your answer is to argue for a command economy then congratulations, you just argued for stalinism and it's back to the never ending cycle of "it's not le real communism lole".

 

[shekel]

>Do you think engineers, architects, and other high-skilled workers don't know what they're doing?
Depending on the level of complexity, yes. An engineer doesn't know the whole process. noob this is basic fucking knowledge, you hire more than one engineer for a reason.
>I'm not talking about menial wagie positions, which are themselves a product of the current division of labor.
What would you define as "menial wagie positions". Dont say managers or i'l fucking die from gegs.
>The Soviets never wanted to abolish money, at least after Lenin died. The failure of the other revolutions in Europe pretty much ended that possibility.
Then guess what, you DO need someone to manage finances.
>Do you think all knowledge regarding complex production will be destroyed? The purpose of production will be moved from the extraction of surplus value (which is itself is inefficient due to the alienation of labor) to wholly to fulfill specific needs.
No? I never said that. I'l ask you again, in what way would a worker be motivated to produce "engine part A" instead of bread apart from autism if it isn't through the laws of supply and demand of the market?
>><let's return to a guild system.
>Never said that award
If your answer to the last question is regulating production so only a certain amount of bread may be produced to encourage production of other things then you are arguing for a return to guilds.
If your answer is to argue for a command economy then congratulations, you just argued for stalinism and it's back to the never ending cycle of "it's not le real communism lole".

I'm not saying one engineer should do all of the work, but they should have basic knowledge of the process and what is going on, because that's what's required to accomplish it.
>What would you define as "menial wagie positions". Dont say managers or i'l fucking die from gegs.
When did I ever say that? I don't think being a manager is menial work. I'm talking about the low-skilled positions in labor such as fast food and shit
>Then guess what, you DO need someone to manage finances.
The revolutions failed because of them being overpowered by the national bourgeoisie, not because they didn't manage their finances.
>No? I never said that. I'l ask you again, in what way would a worker be motivated to produce "engine part A" instead of bread apart from autism if it isn't through the laws of supply and demand of the market?
Not all motivation in labor comes from supply and demand, at the end of the day the individual workers under capitalism only cares about collecting the gross wage after their surplus value has been collected. The only people caring about the market forces that push them to produce those commodities are the bourgeoisie.
>If your answer to the last question is regulating production so only a certain amount of bread may be produced to encourage production of other things then you are arguing for a return to guilds.
>If your answer is to argue for a command economy then congratulations, you just argued for stalinism and it's back to the never ending cycle of "it's not le real communism lole".
Just because they sound similar doesn't mean they are the same. Guilds were made up of the bourgeoisie that helped protect the economic interests of their fellow members. They were the ones that helped push Europe into the early stages of capitalism, they were more akin to modern-day unions than anything I'm describing. And command economies were a concept before Stalin.

 

[Apeson]

I'm not saying one engineer should do all of the work, but they should have basic knowledge of the process and what is going on, because that's what's required to accomplish it.
>What would you define as "menial wagie positions". Dont say managers or i'l fucking die from gegs.
When did I ever say that? I don't think being a manager is menial work. I'm talking about the low-skilled positions in labor such as fast food and shit
>Then guess what, you DO need someone to manage finances.
The revolutions failed because of them being overpowered by the national bourgeoisie, not because they didn't manage their finances.
>No? I never said that. I'l ask you again, in what way would a worker be motivated to produce "engine part A" instead of bread apart from autism if it isn't through the laws of supply and demand of the market?
Not all motivation in labor comes from supply and demand, at the end of the day the individual workers under capitalism only cares about collecting the gross wage after their surplus value has been collected. The only people caring about the market forces that push them to produce those commodities are the bourgeoisie.
>If your answer to the last question is regulating production so only a certain amount of bread may be produced to encourage production of other things then you are arguing for a return to guilds.
>If your answer is to argue for a command economy then congratulations, you just argued for stalinism and it's back to the never ending cycle of "it's not le real communism lole".
Just because they sound similar doesn't mean they are the same. Guilds were made up of the bourgeoisie that helped protect the economic interests of their fellow members. They were the ones that helped push Europe into the early stages of capitalism, they were more akin to modern-day unions than anything I'm describing. And command economies were a concept before Stalin.

>I'm not saying one engineer should do all of the work, but they should have basic knowledge of the process and what is going on, because that's what's required to accomplish it.
We're getting somewhere now, at this point you need some kind of management position, like the kind we have now.
>The revolutions failed because of them being overpowered by the national bourgeoisie, not because they didn't manage their finances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repudiation_of_debt_at_the_Russian_Revolution<The USSR's debt denominated in convertible currencies was approximately US$61.4 billion by early December 1991
>Not all motivation in labor comes from supply and demand, at the end of the day the individual workers under capitalism only cares about collecting the gross wage after their surplus value has been collected. The only people caring about the market forces that push them to produce those commodities are the bourgeoisie.
Get to the coal mines comrade, after all you'd rather work at the coal mines than at a comfy office job right?
This is the problem with this model, it's a complete pipe dream where everyone's expected to work unequal jobs for the same reward out of goodwill apparently
>Just because they sound similar doesn't mean they are the same. Guilds were made up of the bourgeoisie that helped protect the economic interests of their fellow members.
Guilds were made up of artisans and craftsmen aka your proletariat who controled production so that prices wouldn't drop to noobhell and they could afford to buy food. The only way a non-command communist economy could even have a chance would be through a similar system, where other craftsmen would be forced to dabble onto production of other goods not through the market, but through peer pressure and max quotas which would be enforced God knows how.
To do otherwise would betray the marxist ideals of the workers themselves being in control of the methods of production. A command economy only means that the guy giving orders to the workers is an armed government officer who will shoot you instead of some liar who'l just fire you.
>They were the ones that helped push Europe into the early stages of capitalism
false, moving away from the cities to circumvent guild laws that banned mass-production, running the guilds out of business through said mass-production then hiring said now unemployed craftsmen is what caused that.
>And command economies were a concept before Stalin.
that's true, let's look at a more modern example of a command economy
<A recent study of poverty in North Korea through an analysis of nighttime lights has estimated that the country's gross domestic product per capita was among the lowest in the world at $790 and that 60 % of all residents lived in absolute poverty
<In North Korea, citizens are periodically given rations by the government, but it's not enough to live on and they must also purchase additional food from markets, or find it elsewhere.
<North Korea hunger statistics for 2021 was 45.50%

 

[shekel]

>I'm not saying one engineer should do all of the work, but they should have basic knowledge of the process and what is going on, because that's what's required to accomplish it.
We're getting somewhere now, at this point you need some kind of management position, like the kind we have now.
>The revolutions failed because of them being overpowered by the national bourgeoisie, not because they didn't manage their finances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repudiation_of_debt_at_the_Russian_Revolution<The USSR's debt denominated in convertible currencies was approximately US$61.4 billion by early December 1991
>Not all motivation in labor comes from supply and demand, at the end of the day the individual workers under capitalism only cares about collecting the gross wage after their surplus value has been collected. The only people caring about the market forces that push them to produce those commodities are the bourgeoisie.
Get to the coal mines comrade, after all you'd rather work at the coal mines than at a comfy office job right?
This is the problem with this model, it's a complete pipe dream where everyone's expected to work unequal jobs for the same reward out of goodwill apparently
>Just because they sound similar doesn't mean they are the same. Guilds were made up of the bourgeoisie that helped protect the economic interests of their fellow members.
Guilds were made up of artisans and craftsmen aka your proletariat who controled production so that prices wouldn't drop to noobhell and they could afford to buy food. The only way a non-command communist economy could even have a chance would be through a similar system, where other craftsmen would be forced to dabble onto production of other goods not through the market, but through peer pressure and max quotas which would be enforced God knows how.
To do otherwise would betray the marxist ideals of the workers themselves being in control of the methods of production. A command economy only means that the guy giving orders to the workers is an armed government officer who will shoot you instead of some liar who'l just fire you.
>They were the ones that helped push Europe into the early stages of capitalism
false, moving away from the cities to circumvent guild laws that banned mass-production, running the guilds out of business through said mass-production then hiring said now unemployed craftsmen is what caused that.
>And command economies were a concept before Stalin.
that's true, let's look at a more modern example of a command economy
<A recent study of poverty in North Korea through an analysis of nighttime lights has estimated that the country's gross domestic product per capita was among the lowest in the world at $790 and that 60 % of all residents lived in absolute poverty
<In North Korea, citizens are periodically given rations by the government, but it's not enough to live on and they must also purchase additional food from markets, or find it elsewhere.
<North Korea hunger statistics for 2021 was 45.50%

>Repudiation of debt at the Russian Revolution - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repudiation_of_debt_at_the_Russian_Revolution)
Why should've the revolutionary government been responsible debt of the regime before it? Regardless, their plan was that the debt would've been re-mediated with the other revolutions in Europe and the NEP, which would've consolidated the remainder of feudal elements in Russia into a bourgeois revolution before moving on from that into establishing a proletariat dictatorship. Of course this never happened, as Stalin took power and led the Soviet Union into a state-industrialist/capitalist economy.
>Guilds were made up of artisans and craftsmen aka your proletariat who controled production so that prices wouldn't drop to noobhell and they could afford to buy food. The only way a non-command communist economy could even have a chance would be through a similar system, where other craftsmen would be forced to dabble onto production of other goods not through the market, but through peer pressure and max quotas which would be enforced God knows how.
>To do otherwise would betray the marxist ideals of the workers themselves being in control of the methods of production. A command economy only means that the guy giving orders to the workers is an armed government officer who will shoot you instead of some liar who'l just fire you.
The proletariat didn't exist back then, they only exist as a product of the industrial revolution and the bourgeoisie's seizure of power. This is common historical knowledge. To be more specific, they were the petty bourgeoisie, and were displaced by mass industrial production to become proletarian or ascend in capital to become apart of the larger bourgeois. What do you mean by quotas not being able to be enforced? Are you talking about the ability to make sure production fits in line with the quota? That's an easily solvable problem.
>A recent study of poverty in North Korea through an analysis of nighttime lights has estimated that the country's gross domestic product per capita was among the lowest in the world at $790 and that 60 % of all residents lived in absolute poverty
Night time lights isn't the most accurate way of measuring wealth, regardless, North Korea's situation is much more complex than it just being a command economy. It has suffered the bulk of the world's sanctions since the Korean war and it's available capital has dwindled since the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

[Apeson]

>Repudiation of debt at the Russian Revolution - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repudiation_of_debt_at_the_Russian_Revolution)
Why should've the revolutionary government been responsible debt of the regime before it? Regardless, their plan was that the debt would've been re-mediated with the other revolutions in Europe and the NEP, which would've consolidated the remainder of feudal elements in Russia into a bourgeois revolution before moving on from that into establishing a proletariat dictatorship. Of course this never happened, as Stalin took power and led the Soviet Union into a state-industrialist/capitalist economy.
>Guilds were made up of artisans and craftsmen aka your proletariat who controled production so that prices wouldn't drop to noobhell and they could afford to buy food. The only way a non-command communist economy could even have a chance would be through a similar system, where other craftsmen would be forced to dabble onto production of other goods not through the market, but through peer pressure and max quotas which would be enforced God knows how.
>To do otherwise would betray the marxist ideals of the workers themselves being in control of the methods of production. A command economy only means that the guy giving orders to the workers is an armed government officer who will shoot you instead of some liar who'l just fire you.
The proletariat didn't exist back then, they only exist as a product of the industrial revolution and the bourgeoisie's seizure of power. This is common historical knowledge. To be more specific, they were the petty bourgeoisie, and were displaced by mass industrial production to become proletarian or ascend in capital to become apart of the larger bourgeois. What do you mean by quotas not being able to be enforced? Are you talking about the ability to make sure production fits in line with the quota? That's an easily solvable problem.
>A recent study of poverty in North Korea through an analysis of nighttime lights has estimated that the country's gross domestic product per capita was among the lowest in the world at $790 and that 60 % of all residents lived in absolute poverty
Night time lights isn't the most accurate way of measuring wealth, regardless, North Korea's situation is much more complex than it just being a command economy. It has suffered the bulk of the world's sanctions since the Korean war and it's available capital has dwindled since the fall of the Soviet Union.

>Why should've the revolutionary government been responsible debt of the regime before it?
i don't know, ask the rest of the planet.
>The proletariat didn't exist back then
From Oxford "workers or working-class people"
>they were the petty bourgeoisie
you're just arguing semantics now, you know very well what i mean.
>What do you mean by quotas not being able to be enforced? Are you talking about the ability to make sure production fits in line with the quota? That's an easily solvable problem.
How do you force someone to work in something they don't want without creating another class system or perpetuating inequality? Someone has to clean out the septic tanks, nobody's gonna do it unless they're forced to.
>It has suffered the bulk of the world's sanctions since the Korean war and it's available capital has dwindled since the fall of the Soviet Union.
so you mean to say they're at a production deficit because even when forcing people to work and completely destroying marxist ideas, a state can't effectively micromanage a modern economy without collapsing upon itself due to administrative costs? That's crazy. I thought the workers could run themselves. Or the army in this case because it's not le real communism when it's at gunpoint by foot soldiers or whatever.

 

[Herpes Trout]

Why I will never work: I don't want to.

 

[StudioExcréments]

the reason no ideology will ever work is they are all just capitalism with a different name kuz humans are stoopid

 

[shekel]

>Why should've the revolutionary government been responsible debt of the regime before it?
i don't know, ask the rest of the planet.
>The proletariat didn't exist back then
From Oxford "workers or working-class people"
>they were the petty bourgeoisie
you're just arguing semantics now, you know very well what i mean.
>What do you mean by quotas not being able to be enforced? Are you talking about the ability to make sure production fits in line with the quota? That's an easily solvable problem.
How do you force someone to work in something they don't want without creating another class system or perpetuating inequality? Someone has to clean out the septic tanks, nobody's gonna do it unless they're forced to.
>It has suffered the bulk of the world's sanctions since the Korean war and it's available capital has dwindled since the fall of the Soviet Union.
so you mean to say they're at a production deficit because even when forcing people to work and completely destroying marxist ideas, a state can't effectively micromanage a modern economy without collapsing upon itself due to administrative costs? That's crazy. I thought the workers could run themselves. Or the army in this case because it's not le real communism when it's at gunpoint by foot soldiers or whatever.

The proletariat are a specific class, working-class is synonymous with it today but that's because they compromise the class who does the labor in exchange for a wage.

<Proletarians, then, have not always existed?​

<No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions."

>How do you force someone to work in something they don't want without creating another class system or perpetuating inequality? Someone has to clean out the septic tanks, nobody's gonna do it unless they're forced to.
Inequality is a useless buzzword, Marx never said that the point of communism was to abolish inequality. Regardless, do you think people are going to let shit pile in the streets? Places like India were only able to install modern plumbing because they recognized it was a problem, regardless of any profit incentive

 

[LoveableLesothoMan]

>gusARIOS

high class and middle class iberian whites , built miami into a swamp for old mutts into a massive urban city that houses all of latam assests and companies.




>communist (((cuban)))

pedophilic , acts the same way as a the so called “gusano” , cries when their noobmutt system fails , literal slave plantation of a country award




why are commiebraps so lame and dysgenic geg

 

[Herpes Trout]

I just got 2 kittens that look pretty similar to this stock photo I found. I've decided to name them Ruble and Kopek respectively in honor of this fallen kang..

 

[SoyawayAccount]

>names self packgod
>becomes corny
icl gng ts aint tuff

 

[Namefag]

Opening Thoughts​

It’s valid to question communism’s feasibility, especially in light of its historical failures. However, the reasoning in the original post relies more on misanthropy and conspiracy theories than on any rigorous critique of Marxist thought or socialist economics.

---

The Problem with the "People Are Stupid" Argument​

Claiming that communism can’t work because most people are “too stupid” is:

• Elitist and reductionist — It oversimplifies human capability and ignores how intelligence is shaped by education, environment, and opportunity.
• Self-defeating — Ironically, this kind of logic was mirrored by the communist regimes themselves, which also saw the masses as tools to be directed by a “vanguard.”
• Not necessary — You don’t need to insult humanity to make a sreal womang case against communism.

---

Real Reasons Communism Has Historically Failed​

Here are historically grounded, non-conspiratorial reasons why communism struggles in practice:

• Lack of price signals → Without market-based pricing, resources are misallocated.
• Perverse incentives → When productivity is divorced from reward, innovation stalls.
• Authoritarian outcomes → Concentrating power in the state tends to produce tyranny.
• Suppression of dissent → From the USSR to Mao’s China, freedom of thought was crushed.

These arguments are far more convincing than blanket misanthropy.

---

About That Marx-Rothschild Claim​

There is no credible evidence that the Rothschild banking family funded Karl Marx. This is a myth perpetuated by fringe conspiracy circles and lacks documentation or support from reputable historians. Believing this weakens any serious anti-Marxist argument.

---

If You Want to Critique Communism, Do It Right​

If you want to win ideological battles, you need better tools than "people are dumb" and "Marx was a Rothschild puppet." Communism is vulnerable to factual critique. Don't bury that under layers of edgelord rhetoric and fake history.

 

[shekel]

Opening Thoughts​

It’s valid to question communism’s feasibility, especially in light of its historical failures. However, the reasoning in the original post relies more on misanthropy and conspiracy theories than on any rigorous critique of Marxist thought or socialist economics.

---

The Problem with the "People Are Stupid" Argument​

Claiming that communism can’t work because most people are “too stupid” is:

• Elitist and reductionist — It oversimplifies human capability and ignores how intelligence is shaped by education, environment, and opportunity.
• Self-defeating — Ironically, this kind of logic was mirrored by the communist regimes themselves, which also saw the masses as tools to be directed by a “vanguard.”
• Not necessary — You don’t need to insult humanity to make a sreal womang case against communism.

---

Real Reasons Communism Has Historically Failed​

Here are historically grounded, non-conspiratorial reasons why communism struggles in practice:

• Lack of price signals → Without market-based pricing, resources are misallocated.
• Perverse incentives → When productivity is divorced from reward, innovation stalls.
• Authoritarian outcomes → Concentrating power in the state tends to produce tyranny.
• Suppression of dissent → From the USSR to Mao’s China, freedom of thought was crushed.

These arguments are far more convincing than blanket misanthropy.

---

About That Marx-Rothschild Claim​

There is no credible evidence that the Rothschild banking family funded Karl Marx. This is a myth perpetuated by fringe conspiracy circles and lacks documentation or support from reputable historians. Believing this weakens any serious anti-Marxist argument.

---

If You Want to Critique Communism, Do It Right​

If you want to win ideological battles, you need better tools than "people are dumb" and "Marx was a Rothschild puppet." Communism is vulnerable to factual critique. Don't bury that under layers of edgelord rhetoric and fake history.

goyGPT gem

 

[shekel]

>gusARIOS

high class and middle class iberian whites , built miami into a swamp for old mutts into a massive urban city that houses all of latam assests and companies.


View attachment 29083

>communist (((cuban)))

pedophilic , acts the same way as a the so called “gusano” , cries when their noobmutt system fails , literal slave plantation of a country award

View attachment 29081


why are commiebraps so lame and dysgenic geg

Soyteen Dyker is a gusano.

 

[LoveableLesothoMan]

Soyteen Dyker is a gusano.

ferdinadist and me are gusarios doebeit so we are 1000% more whiter than you chud?

 

[Thrembolone]

 

[pig]

This thread smells like my toilet after I ate seven boxes of popeyes