Which is it Sup Forums?

Which is it Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html
youtu.be/bddH5vA9kCU
unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Wall street are communists!

There's little difference between capitalism and communism at this point.

Common denominator:JEWS.

heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

Both.

The democrats are idiots.

They're communists who are too retarded to realize they're being used by wall street.

>SECRETLY communists

there is no contradiction here, you know?

There are different branches of the party.

>Hillary's and Obama's crew of "neo-liberals" that are basically centrists and do what ever their donors tell them to

>Bernie's crew of faux-socialists - lots of young people - who don't really have a clue about economics and wouldn't have any idea what to do if they had any kind of real responsibility

Democrats are secretly communists and wall street shills are (((THEM)))

>There's little difference between capitalism and communism at this point.

There's little difference between having a state, money and class structure and not having any of those things? What?

Fucking disgusting communists

You forgot the neocons.

they are both.
The goal of communism is to make sure that the wrong people don't amass capital and challenge the ruling class.
Wall Street is the filled with the "right" people.

It's fairly obvious when you look at which billionaires are demonized and which are celebrated, and the fact that entertainers, who make way more money than CEOs are never even mentioned.

Who are they?

Dumb fucking anglo.
Who do you think funded all the commies?

The Republican Party globalists
Cheney, McCain, Romney, etc.

>The goal of communism is to make sure that the wrong people don't amass capital and challenge the ruling class.

That's the goal of governments under capitalism, the goal of communism is to eliminate money and class altogether.

It's almost like the leaders of the left are wall Street kike shills and the sheep are the commies

Democrats are useful idiots.

democrats have always been hypocritical. smash both buttons

wall street shills pandering to communists

>thinks they are mutually exclusive
Read Skousen mangled tooth fish-n-chips eater.

Establishment Republicans. I'll make it easy.

There's the group of Jews and good goyim who want to give other white peoples shit to all the mud people of the earth and their army of welfare dependants

There's everybody else who wants the government to try and keep them safe and not economically destitute but otherwise want to be left alone (mostly white but your based blacks and whatever are here too)

False dichotomy. The 'Democrats' are both, and neither.

What's the point of pandering to people who:

1. Never vote
2. Will hate you just for being a Wall Street shill or even just being personally wealthy anyway.
3. Hate your party for imperialism and warmongering.

>Illegals belong here they're humans like you and me
>Illegals do the jobs you won't for slave wages

Which is it Sup Forums?

> democrat politicians = WS shills
> democrat voters = communists

literally "u wot m8"

The elected Democrats are interest group shills. Wall Street has plenty of interest groups. People who vote for Democrats are openly communists. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie are the only ones who actually believe that shit, I'm pretty sure, broham.

>That fucking family tree
You can connect ANYONE if you go far enough back in ancestry, dumbass. We wuz ALL Rothschilds

/thread

>democrat voters = communists

This is the height of delusion, the Hillbots are blaming their loss on the fact that communists and anarchists didn't vote for Shillary to stop Trump.

The Democratic leadership are Wall Street Shills and the easily manipulated college students who support them are secretly communists. The rest of their supporters are dependent on dem programs and really don't have a political philosophy.

So who do liberals vote for?

>the goal of communism is to eliminate money and class altogether.

That's the beautiful lie.

it has way too many point of weakness, and without an extreamly heavy hand it falls apart.

Power hungry people threaten it
Savers threaten it
People with hobbies threaten it
Gardners threaten it
People who waste too much threaten it.
Beautiful people threaten it
Ugly people threaten it
Evolution itself threatens it.
If I grow a tomato plant in my apartment I've fucked up the system.

If you gather driftwood and build a beautiful piece of furniture you have fucked up the system.

If you keep your apartment clean while I never clean mine and just let the garbage pile up, I have fucked up the system.

With all these point of weakness one has to wonder, did Marx not seem them? He seems smart. Of course he saw them. But the stated goal never was the real goal.

Communism is a creation of the banking establishment to overthrow
and enslave the masses.

youtu.be/bddH5vA9kCU

Literally none of that is true but I would love to know how you think any of those things would fuck up communism.

Both.
democrats are shills for the wall street elites who ARE leftist "useful idiots"

democrats are actual marxists driving the US towards socialism by lying to us and deceiving the stupidest 50% of the population, many of whom are in fact on wall street.

also, no company ever went broke giving money to a politician who promises to bail them out if they make shitty investments.

You know, if the people punching "Nazis" and blocking ICE vans thought about it for a second, they'd realize that all the giant corporations and evil businessmen are on their side. When multinational conglomerates and billionaires are rooting for you, it might be time to consider that you aren't exactly fighting for the little guy.

I don't think Amazon and Microsoft are in it because "no human is illegal" and this one world one love stuff. Nobody ever accused communists of being smart, deep thinkers, but it's really pretty ironic that the foot soldiers of the bourgeoisie are Marxists.

You really don't know what this communism thing is, do you?

There are anarcho-communists within the Democrat base but the elected politicians (sans Bernie) are almost all shills.
It's both.

This

>they'd realize that all the giant corporations and evil businessmen are on their side

The giant corporations and evil businessmen are trying to destroy themselves and get murdered in a violent revolution? Why?

The DNC is paid for by wall street shills and pays for shilling in the media and on social media.

The common masses that vote Democrats are Marxists, easy for the DNC to manipulate.

So, both, I guess

They manage to be both.

>making statements without providing any facts or sources to support them

Both they just don't know it. And the ones that do just don't care cuz they think it'll all fall down and (((they))) can take over :D

if we go back 150 years, we are all rothchilds?

I don't think so, schomo

Sure:
If I have a tomato plant I get more. If I have extra tomatoes I can trade them.
Now I can get ahead.
The further I get ahead the less equal I am.

If I destroy my house, it has to be fixed when I leave. Unless you plan to move people into my disgusting mess. if I do enough damage I have take more from the system than I put in. Thus unequal.

If you make a very nice piece of furniture someone might want it from you. They may like is so much they offer to trade more than the same kind of furniture. If you take the trade now you are unequal.

My neighbor is very frugal. He is very careful with what he uses and after a few years he have a nice stash of everything. I am wasteful. After a while I find I never have enough to get to the next dispersion. So maybe he helps me, and now I am in debt to him.


My wife grew up in rural communist china. In order to solve these very problems the authorities would come in and take things. Even a chicken was a problem.

How do you solve that?
How to you keep accumulation from coming back?

They play both sides of the field to sow total mayhem... You stupid fuck you already know this.

I see the problem here, you think communism means "everyone is equal"

Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless utopia.

A communist revolution is never going to happen in America. Civilized countries don't go communist. Think of a revolution as being like a prison riot.

A third of prisoners will riot anytime; they're always ready to go. These are the protestors you see in the street; the college students disappointed that the world isn't as great as they expected. Another third will never riot. These are the millionaires, the super rich. People who love the system and are doing great in it. The middle third is the swing vote. If shit gets bad enough, or something sparks it off, they'll join in and you'll actually have a riot. Can't do it without them.

In society, that's the middle class, roughly. They're not rich enough to get their assets out of the country, but they're not so poor that they have nothing to lose. They own houses, cars, make a decent salary. They're not doing great in the system, but they absolutely have stuff to lose.

In Germany you had the same thing. Commies were pushing for revolution, fighting in the streets. The middle class was unhappy enough to join in the revolution, but they picked Nazis. The middle class doesn't like fascists, but they fucking loathe communists. Fascists want some of their stuff, but will let them keep on keeping on mostly, and communists want it all. They want to drag them down.

If a revolution ever comes, the multinationals will just leave, and the middle class will go fascist. It's only in a society without a real middle class that a communist revolution can happen. The country isn't so starkly divided between super rich and very poor. Most people are still doing okay, and a lot of people own houses, cars, and are making $50,000-100,000 a year. They'll side with anyone to protect them from redistribution.

In the meantime, illegals and open borders makes a lot of money, so they're allies. Shit will probably never hit the fan, but they'll be okay if it does.

>Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless utopia

Inequality leads to classes.

You will never get rid of the state, because some people are assholes and do horrible things just because they enjoy it and you need a way to stop them.

Not one of my examples included money. Money isn't necessary for wealth or power to be amassed, its just a convenient thing for the masses to use to smooth transactions.

...

And that will never exist so stop deluding yourself

The nose knows...

>A communist revolution is never going to happen in America. Civilized countries don't go communist.

Civilisation is one of the perquisites for a communist revolution, that's why Lenin had to practically rewrite Marxism to justify attempting socialism in Russia.

The rest of your points are valid though, the existence of the middle class is a barrier to a socialist revolution as a lot of the middle class are useful idiots who see themselves as bourgeoisie instead of proletariat.

If wealth inequality continues to grow however you could realistically see the middle class shrink and disappear, which could spark a socialist revolution.

That's also not considering things like welfare that were implemented to make the proles more complacent and remove the "life or death" necessity of a revolution.

Why not both?

They are secretly communists but at the same time useful idiots and pawns of the corrupt on Wall Street without knowing it.

The middle class doesn't have free time though. They are working 50+ hours week, taking their kids to after school activities, stressing over their personal business, etc.

The underclass and disaffected determine the course of revolutions when the oligarchs fail to insert controlled opposition. The middle class will be working, not on the streets picking the new leaders.

Of course, >99% of the time revolutions are co-opted if not outright synthetically provoked. So you rarely see anything benefit the disaffected.

believe it or not there were plenty of rich fucks during communism.
It was just kept secret.
during communism the rich got even more rich

>Inequality leads to classes.
Class in this context doesn't mean the amount of money you own but your place in society, bourgeoisie or proletariat, the guy who owns the factory or the guy who works in the factory.

>You will never get rid of the state, because some people are assholes and do horrible things just because they enjoy it and you need a way to stop them.
You don't need a state to stop them though. What would the state do? Hire people put on uniforms, investigate the crime and apprehend the suspect. That could all be achieved without one.

>Not one of my examples included money.
I know, I was just giving the definition of communism.

Explain why,

They take money from Wall Street to serve Wall Street's interests and do paid speeches for Wall Street without realising they're dealing with Wall Street? Who, as communists, they hate on principle?

>Why not both?
Because it makes no sense to anyone who knows what Wall Street is and what communists believe.

They're wall street shills. There is no populist, pro worker, or anti war party at the federal level.

Progressive politicians, such as the Democrats, use socialist rhetoric to appease actual socialist from rioting and staging actual revolutions. They then attempt to make more people socialist or socialist friendly from union workers and the lower middle class to gain votes and win elections.

>Class in this context doesn't mean the amount of money you own but your place in society, bourgeoisie or proletariat, the guy who owns the factory or the guy who works in the factory.

What exactly does that accomplish though? As you have pointed out it doesn't end the accumulation of wealth, it doesn't stop the accumulation of power. There are a lot more than those two classes of people. Just because Marx defined it that way doesn't make it useful.

>You don't need a state to stop them though. What would the state do? Hire people put on uniforms, investigate the crime and apprehend the suspect. That could all be achieved without one.

Who hires them? Who pays them? No one has any money. Who decides what to do with them when they are caught? Is that all on the fly?

You DO know that commies have been getting money from Wall Street (((bankers)) since 1848, right?

We're talking reality, not Marxist fantasy land.

Wealth inequality does continue to grow, but regardless of how rich some people are getting, it doesn't change the fact that most people are doing pretty well in the system. Sure, a lot of people are multi-millionaires, and a lot of people are drowning in debt, but most people have assets, are doing well, and only concerned about having enough saved for retirement.

Another interesting lesson from history is that people don't usually revolt because things suck and their lives are shitty. You see people tolerate all kinds of horrible things without the thought of revolution. What gets people up in arms is when things aren't as good as they expected them to be. That's why college students with iPhones are marching in the street: they expected better than a job as a barista. Actual poor people in Appalacia, collecting scrap metal and watching their teeth fall out aren't anywhere near as angry as a lawyer's daughter finding out that her sociology degree won't get her $50,000 a year.

A significant majority has more to lose than they have to gain from a socialist revolution. Even if they didn't, the idea of personal property is fundamental to our lives. When people talk about the rioters, they care more and pay more attention to destruction of property than they do personal violence. Smashing someone's window, stealing someone's hat, burning someone's car, these are the things that people respond to with the most anger.

The majority of people will never accept socialism. If the communists ever get close enough to taking over, the people will demand that the military be deployed to protect our property, and we'll go full Nazi to stomp you down.

Close, it's true that the point of the Democrat party is to curb revolutionary tendencies but they do this by reducing the left to neoliberalism.

Their aim is to create more liberals and less socialists, they are puppets of the ultra-wealthy establishment who would be at risk of losing their wealth and therefore power should a leftist revolution occur.

This is the real newspeak of our time, where liberals are rebranded as the left and the actual left is just removed from the conversation altogether. That's why the US has always came down harder on socialism and communism than fascism. You can control a fascist with money. You can't control a communist with money.

>democrats are one person

America is a communist country

unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html

Sure thing, buddy. Your revolution will completely overthrow the government and capitalist system, and the middle class won't have input because they'll be too busy working.

If you even come close, the National Guard deploys to protect private property and we have martial law. If you think soldiers are going to help you take people's things, you've never met a soldier. It's a big country. Try taking over San Francisco before you aim for all from sea to shining sea.

>implying they can't be both
You realize that anyone who truly believes themselves to be communist is just their useful idiot, right?

Easy, rank and file democrats are communists who are too stupid to realize their elected officials are all wall street shills.

>Wealth inequality does continue to grow, but regardless of how rich some people are getting, it doesn't change the fact that most people are doing pretty well in the system. Sure, a lot of people are multi-millionaires, and a lot of people are drowning in debt, but most people have assets, are doing well, and only concerned about having enough saved for retirement.

I thought it would have been obvious but I guess not, by "wealth inequality" grows I didn't mean "the rich get richer" I mean everyone else gets poorer as wealth and power continues to accumulate at the top whilst wages continue to stagnate.

>Another interesting lesson from history is that people don't usually revolt because things suck and their lives are shitty.
Well yes they do if you actually look at history, the problem is they are usually uninterested in socialism and are drawn down that path by a vanguard party. Essentially fooling people into socialism, instead of the mass movement it needs to be to work.

>A significant majority has more to lose than they have to gain from a socialist revolution.
No they don't and as wealth inequality increases so will the potential gains.

>The majority of people will never accept socialism.
False assumption. Do you think capitalism was accepted straight out of the gate?

>If the communists ever get close enough to taking over, the people will demand that the military be deployed to protect our property, and we'll go full Nazi to stomp you down.
This has been true in some countries and will always be a risk until an actual popular socialist uprising happens, as opposed to Marxist-Leninists forcing the proles into their version of socialism.

Yes.

Communism.

The proles get scraps while inner and outer party members are rewarded.

Read the Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by George Orwell. His books are really popular right now.

Oh, and Jewish bankers.

You do realise leftists and liberals hate each other and that most communists don't vote, right?

>leftist
>liberal
Those mean the exact same thing this side of the puddle.

Which is part of the newspeak I was talking about here: In reality liberals aren't leftists, they're not even left wing on an ideological level as they share nothing in common with any left wing ideology but a lot in common with right-wing ideologies.

I'd say they're the leftmost part of the right-wing but that's social democracy, Democrat voters are completely deluded when they think their party is progressive.

Wealth inequality is a meme. It exists on paper and in the minds of college students. It's like when the Democrats tried to tell us that unemployment was super low and everything was great. People didn't accept it because it doesn't match their reality. Ditto wealth inequality. It doesn't matter how much you tell people they're poor, poorer than they've ever been, you can't convince people who own houses, cars, computers, making $75,000 a year that they need to overthrow the system.

I notice you ignored my main point. Private property is the base of society. People feel it on a gut level. Destruction of property is more newsworthy and more visceral than people getting attacked. People will die to protect their property, and most of our rights are property rights. The National Guard has and will be deployed to protect property, and people will beg for it. Post a video of rioters destroying a car on Facebook, and even the die hard leftists will condemn it, give or take one or two. "Don't mess with my stuff" is the closest thing to a universal value we have.

If you seriously threaten to take that away from people, the overwhelming majority will support anyone, elect anyone to stop you. Go down to Mississippi and start taking people's cars; see how far you get.

The first one!

>Wealth inequality is a meme.
Completely delusional, I thought liberals were bad with accepting facts they don't like but holy shit that puts them to shame.

>I notice you ignored my main point. Private property is the base of society.
Private property or personal property? Because leftists only want to get rid of one.

>Post a video of rioters destroying a car on Facebook, and even the die hard leftists will condemn it
No they won't, you're probably confusing leftists with liberals.

Also you keep talking like the socialist revolution has to happen now under the current conditions and I'm not sure why.

Communism is owning both the means, and the product by the government. The one world government the corporations want (which own the globalists), would give them the means, and with enough taxes they can have the product as well. Think before you talk nigger.

I believe the argument is that through shady business dealings (((they))) are slowly driving the economy into the ground which will leave the working class feeling disenfranchised as well as just flat out poverty stricken thereby inspiring a working class revolution. The invetible outcome of this revolution will be (((their))) control over a single world government that controls every aspect of society for the betterment (((their))) culture through the slave labor of every other race.

High-ups are Wall Street Shills, democratic advocates are commies. Republican leaders are also Wall Street shills however. No matter who you choose, you lose.

It's depressing that it would take absolutely no time at all to learn the definition of communism but you'd rather parrot incorrect bullshit you've picked up from your echo chambers.

Communism = No class, no money, no state.

The last thing the corporations want are communist uprisings because they'll have all their property appropriated from them and may possibly be torn limb from limb by angry peasants.

Ok friend.

It's not delusional. Is inequality growing? Absolutely. Do the charts and the numbers match the reality on the ground? No, not at all.

If you give someone $1,000, and give their neighbors $10,000, then they'll probably be pissed off. They got $1,000, sure, so they're objectively better off than they were before you showed up, but they're angry. They'd be happier if you gave them nothing and took $10,000 from their neighbors. That's envy, for ya.

Wages have stagnated for some people, and everyone's money goes farther. Cell phones used to be borderline useless toys for the super rich. Then they were expensive but obtainable tools. Now you can get smartphones for free. Things just get better.

For the average person, for most of society, wealth inequality exists in the abstract. People don't live on a chart. They get their money; they buy things; they live their lives. If you give $1,000 to someone, and give $10,000 to people living on the other side of the country, they don't think it's particularly nice or fair, but they don't get the same bitter response that makes them wish for nothing. They'll take their $1,000 and be happy with it.

Wealth inequality is a meme because it isn't felt in life. It exists on paper, or in the minds of people paying attention to it. In reality, people get money, about as much as everyone around them, and lately a lot of things have been getting less expensive.

People making a million dollars a year in San Francisco feel broke, because they're spending spending spending and the people around them are making a lot more. You can tell them that they're actually quite rich, and they know that they're rich if they think about it, but in their reality they're the poorest motherfucker on the block, and they feel that way. Telling them that almost everyone in the country is making less has about as much impact as telling a barista that people in Africa are living on a dollar a day.

How does is feel living in a shithole, Juan?

Commies hate both parties specifically because they're shills for the rich.

This. Republicans (trump Included) are wall Street shills pandering to conservatives

Both. The democratic party is divided, that is why it is failing.

same thing

read "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution"

/thread