Anti Communism dump

post your anti communism memes / arguments / copypasta

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/wujCAy1llxc
mises.org/library/nazi-economic-policy
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Man, my computer is lagging like a motherfucker, if it were a bit better I would definitely post some memes.

Good luck

What the fuck is happening, so many images on Sup Forums are taking so long to load.

...

...

I'll post something that I wrote for one of my political philosophy professors a while back. It was my issues with Marxism and Communism.

Blackouts have occured in major cities, [pssibly linked?

The foremost, and most troubling thing for a liberal like myself, is Marx’s advocating of the abolishment of private property. However, I will grant that he wrote “the bourgeois private property” which indicates the specificity of this abolishment. This is an issue, at least to the liberal principle of private property rights, for two reasons. The first is that the Bourgeoisie are still humans and therefore have inherent natural right to own that property, whether it is landed or not. No man who is not the owner himself of some piece of private property like a farm, building, or piece of land, has a right to the private property of the owner.

The second reason is that the implementation of this Marxist principle simply cannot work without either capitulation or government intervention, both of which will create enemies for Marxists. Through the capitulation of the owner, and rightly so by human right, the former owner retains a legitimate claim on the property and, depending on the nature of the man, can take action at a later time. In a land like America, with a multitude of private property owners, the Marxists will see our nation drowned in blood before they can accomplish their goals. Through government intervention they make enemies not only of the owners, but also the entirety of the people of the nation. Not only do the owners lose their property to the collective of Marxists, those who had wanted to one day come to own private property would have their hopes, as well as their natural right to property, crushed by the government.

Of course, this is only the immediate effect. What is left is a government that has a precedent of taking from its own citizens and the thus the first motion towards centralization of government.

John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government makes a great analogy with a slave ship that is headed towards Algeria. The ship sails down the coast and whenever the slaves on board look away from the coast, the captain steers the ship closer and closer to the shore. Locke’s point here is to always be aware and suspicious of government lest we be led to that land of slavery; the first warning sign of such a motion towards the shore is the government taking private property without consent of the governed.

...

This centralization of government is, for all intents and purposes, perhaps even worse than the loss of the private property rights of the citizenry. When so much power is centralized in government it leads to an obvious and harsh tyranny. Under a system of Communism, it would come in an even deadlier and subtler form: the Soft Despotism of Tocqueville which he describes in great work Democracy In America.

This would be the, what he called, “infantilization” of the populace who rely solely on this new centralized power for all of man’s needs and desires. The worst part is that all of that which has made us human is completely gone in these people under Soft Despotism. The desire for anything has been replaced with something else: hate for the oppressor. In the person’s mind, this is the most important possible to think about and they attempt to exert much of their mental energy on it. This is how the last of our humanity is transferred to this new government. They would desire to spend more and more of their energies fixated on this hate and would not just give up, but gladly and enthusiastically give it up to the government so that they need not worry about it since they have more “important” things to think about.

One of, if not the most pressing, issue with any kind of despotism, whether it be soft or harsh, is the crushing of freedom of speech and thought. Marx’s vision of the collectivization of humanity has no sympathy for dissenting opinion. Freedom of Expression is a pillar of Western culture and civilization.

P H Y S I C A L
R E M O V A L

Although John Stuart Mill in On Liberty goes into much more detail than I will, he makes a utilitarian argument for Freedom of Expression. What Marx does not consider is that without the marketplace of ideas and constant rational discussion of a variety of topics, his ideas will likely wither and die at the first sign of any kind of resistance in the future (albeit, at least with the Soviets these were likely suppressed and promptly shot). Mill describes the downsides of suppressing freedom of expression with three main points: first, the opinion expressed may possibly be true and it would be lost to society, to deny this would be to assume that we as humans are infallible which simply is not the case; second, even if the opinion is wrong it may contain a portion of the truth, and usually prevailing opinions (in this case Communism) do not contain the entire truth, this kernel of truth can only be obtained through rational discussion and debate which the Soft Despotic state would have abolished; and thirdly, even if Communism was the whole truth it would end up being held in a matter of prejudice, much like how many Christians today hold Christianity in prejudice without understanding the theological background of it (or even opening the Bible at all), this leads to the meaning of the doctrine of Communism being lost and deprived of its effect on its followers, becoming mere dogma and preventing the growth of any real heartfelt conviction for it.

The twentieth century has been the proving ground for Communism and in all places it has failed, but that is not all; in all places it has been tried it was almost always totalitarian and repressive. Thus, is the nature of Communism and Marxism and their tendencies towards centralization of power.

Not being a social psychologist, I can’t say much on this issue of mine, but it certainly does not feel right. The mentality of “us versus them” inherent to the concept of Marxism’s “Oppressed versus Oppressor” certainly cannot be healthy. This victim complex of Marxist’s seems irreconcilable with any sort of rational thought and with Marx’s rhetoric of the Bourgeoisie, he does not seem to even consider them human. Though to the Marxist, they are oppressors, the Marxist should see that even these so-called oppressors are still human and thus ought to be afforded human rights. This makes perfect sense what with the almost constant violation of human rights in Communist countries throughout the twentieth century.

The overarching issue and probably most arguable, is the idea that Marxism and Communism seem not only like a departure from normal Western ideals, but a departure from humanity itself. In Marx’s On the Jewish Question, he speaks of liberalism and its success of making humanity freer, but he then says that it is not radical enough and that it does not go far enough. He first talks about the liberalism’s success of removing religion from politics, but then scolds it for merely privatizing it. Marx talks about how there are two spheres to life: the political/public sphere and the private sphere; the private sphere is the “real” life of a man. He does not like religion since it keeps the worker looking to the heavens and an afterlife of peace rather than focusing on his conditions here on Earth. For this reason, he says liberalism needed wipe religion away completely so that man could look at his current condition and join the Communist revolution. His disdain for private property also comes through while he talks about things liberalism was not radical enough about. His issue with the liberal government is that it not only defends private property and freedom of religion, but it upholds them as things that ought to be defended and among the purposes that government even exists in the first place.

I just realized I didn't quite finish it. Oh well.

Any real Communists, please talk to me here and tell me what you think of the liberal arguments against Communism.

...

...

This picture does a great job of summing up my biggest problem with communism. Communists get to attack our actual, real-world, functioning system of government, but if you try to criticize communism, suddenly it turns that it has never been tried.

You wanna know why?!

YOUR PERFECT VERSION OF COMMUNISM CAN'T EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD!!!!

Enacting it literally REQUIRES the government to destroy any opposition. Communism can only exist in a perfect world, but it cannot create that perfect world. Therefore, it's a dumb idea for dummies, and capitalism rocks.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

youtu.be/wujCAy1llxc

In Russian, but watch perestroika unravel the system

See how rich everyone was, with their nice car, big house, lots of nice food, clothes, oh wait

...

saved

Anticom advertisement from back when Red hunting was a nationally mandated sport

...

...

...

...

Sadly this is not true. The only ones enjoying shit are the kikes that pinoshit sold the country to. Real patriots here realized that Pinoshit was a globalist betrayer. Also Communism was created by the same guys creating capitalism to "make it look good".

369

>tfw soon this will have to be updated with venezuela

feels good.

Is national socialism the only way for a smaller county to form a formidable army after hyperinflation or were the Nazi's bankrolled by the Catholic Church?

Nazi regime only lasted 12 years, it would have eventually run the same course. It was the same as every other socialism. Convince people they're oppressed, pick a perpetrator that is doing well, steal their shit and kill them.

The Nazis required constant military build up, conscription and eventually total control of the economy to survive, and even then their Keynesian policies were failing.

Even in 1937-8 government intervention and policy of autarky led to shortages and rationing.

Socialism always ends the same, regardless of if it's Marxist or nationalist.

mises.org/library/nazi-economic-policy

But how is it possible for a country where it costs a wheelbarrow of cash for a loaf of bread, and when you come out of the shop with the loaf, someone dumped the money to steal the wheelbarrow... how does that country build superweapons like jet turbine engines, long range rockets?
Didn't the Rothschild's and the Catholic Church massively bankroll the effort, and hedge their bets at the same time?

with socialism, you just make people work lmao as long as the materials are available and you have control of the military then you're good.

See
In Nazi Germany you either found work, joined the army or the government would find you a job, and if you didn't accept it you were declared workshy and put in a concentration camp or chain gang.

It works in the sense that burning down your house will make you warm now, but fucks you for the future.