Prove this wrong. Infact, can you?

Prove this wrong. Infact, can you?

t. guy who ran death squads

He's a spicshit. Why should I give a fuck what he has to say?

Would you get rid of all your property to save one African child from starving?

He also considered niggers to be subhuman, so i can agree with that.

Why did he kill so many people then?

how can i prove an opinion wrong, its just that an opinion
however im sure most niggers and spics would kill you and your whole family for like 10,000$ so i guess that proves it wrong

You know how many poor people this fuck killed?

everybody has a price to commit murder. the value of all human lives is measurable econometrically. go to school retard.

Holodomor = 10,000,000
Russian purges = 30,000,000
Mao's purges = 5,000,000
etc etc
Wow marxism is truly a religion of morals and peace.

i doubt op is the richest man on earth

and raped women

After this commie cunt personally murdered people.

all systems of government kill people, all revolutions have death counts

>mao had 5 000 000
Son.... you forgot an extra zero.

I know, it only means he would have to give away even less to save one poor child. But would he do it?

>a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man

but what if i had human beings as my property

But because human life is precious, then revolutions are a horrid evil.

Only a psychopath would willingly cause the deaths of innocent people through a revolution.

when you take statements out of context you destroy their message

sometimes there's no peaceful means of achieving something, that's not the fault of the revolutionary that's just the nature of humanity

>t. Literally worse than hitler

Responsible for shitting on an up and coming country.

Chances are the original statement sucks ass.

Uh, no, sorry. Not to mention I'm not going to believe a guy who'll say shit like that, while simultaneously stealing everyone's property and murdering everyone who fights back.

And yet leftist killed people through their policies as easily as someone picks their nose. Basically a complete and total disconnect between claimed principles and reality.

Typical Commie double-speak. This, said by a man who personally executed innocent teenagers just because their parents were rich or educated. Che Guevara is burning in a special cell of Hades lodged up Beelzebub's butt hole. Fuck Che Guevara.

Human nature is no justification for allowing any destruction of humans themselves.

We can become better than that.
Join the alt-pacifist

Marxists are delusional in that they pit humans against property when in fact a selective campaign of assasination targeting less than 1% of the population would effectively revolutionize economics as we know it. Trusting authority is the biggest mistake humans ever made and it was the most cowardly.

matter of opinion, doesn't change that removing the context eliminates its meaning

I don't think it's terribly out of context. If someone claims one human life is worth more than what some billionaire owns, but isn't even willing to use his little property to save life when he could, he is obviously a liar. Che took it a little further by saying that kind of things and then actively went into situations where he will end up murdering people.

Communists say the most beautiful things about society, but that's pretty much it.

t. guy whose government legalized abortion in 1965

"The negro is indolent and lazy and will spend his money on frivolities." - Che

The enemy of my enemy ( the shitskinned nigger horde) is my friend.

>Russian purges = 30,000,000
The number of documented executions from documents the USSR tried to suppress is several hundred thousand. Even doubling that yields a number of less than a couple million.

I can't. This changes everything....

Ohhh you're a Pussyfest

>i am worth more than everything you own
bit up himself

sometimes not doing anything is allowing the destruction of humanity

peace is an important component of a revolution, it's a necessity, but it doesn't achieve anything on its own

it's only when people work using many different means towards a common goal that change is possible

those who can't or won't fight using violence should fight in other ways, but their fight doesn't negate the need for violence as a means to an end in some cases

Yes

Why? It disproves the ethical case for Marxism. If even one human being would die in the revolution, it would obviate the entire point of redistributing the wealth.

It's also a non-empirical statement--like all Marxist statements. Sort of like their constant repetition of non-empirical definitions of value, etc. Marxism isn't science, no matter how much they want you to believe it is, it is a series of MORAL (remind them of this EVERY time) postulations upon which they make the MORAL claim to steal from people.

It is NOTHING except an argument from a morality based on supposition.

ive noticed the commies like making everything black and white, completely arbitrary and then playing on emotions.
its completely based on who is the single life in question and who is the rich person in question.
communism is a close minded fantasy

it is out of context, a wealthy man might own property that they use for nothing other than material gain for themselves

a common man is likely to only own what he uses personally

that's the difference, that's why the context matters

an ideal is only an end game, it's not the means to bring it about

what if the richest man in the world has hospitals and equipment in them to save 10,000 people and that's all they have (besides cash)?

checkmate atheists

But they keep RIPing all the time, by selling your house now you can rescue at least a hundred.

Capitalism is also public relations masking a pseudo science masking ideology masking nepotistic wealth strategies.

If this isn't a fake quote he is a literal retard

Is that why he shot people who went against him?

Is that why he shot a man for opposing political views and when the man's twelve year old son vowed revenge an came after Che, Che sentenced the child to die by a firing squad?

Is that why Che used blacks in Africa and supplied them with weapons and training to become communist for his own end even though he hated blacks with a burning passion?
Is that why when their rebellion failed spectacularly he felt no remorse that they were slaughtered and he blamed their own stupidity?

Learn the truth

during a revolution removing dissenters is sometimes the key to success

human lifes are worthless
in fact, everything is worthless until we give it subjective value
human life is no exception
anyone who disagrees and/or believes in objective morality is a self righteous cunt

Democracy btfo

But this is a self-defeating circle. You are justifying war with peace, and the next person after you will use the same exact justification to wage war on you.

The only way peace can come to the world is if it starts with you. Pacifism is the way forward from war.

coming from a murderer who confessed he felt like he chewed 5gum when he killed people

violence is part of nature, it's part of life, there will always be that risk

pacifists still get shot

Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange, full stop, and the failings some Capitalist societies have do not negate its empiricism.

Marxism is a religion. Worse, it is a religion that brings no comfort to anybody, but only misery. It is essentially one long, screeching, incoherent moral argument to ignore economic fact and submit to mob rule and disenfranchisement.

Cannibalism, cancer and incest is also part of nature, but we are better than our nature.

Its time you become a better person as well

Most common people can easily give up something to help others. Do I rather give $30 every month for charity or will I save for new phone or nice looking shoes? It's pretty obvious what most people choose.

Thinking that only rich people have to contribute is the kind of mindset that allows you to see yourself as a better person without ever having to do anything. Rich people are just as entitled to keep their money for themselves as anyone else.

This is the core cycle of civilization that no one acknowledges.
To revolt you have to kill your dissenters. Then you kill their children in case they decide to take vengeance. Then you deny you were an asshole for killing 5 year olds by rewriting history.
Most revolutionaries don't care about human life. They would destroy everything to gain status. Go ask your local Commie what he would be after the revolution. He will say a vanguard or party official.
The only exception is the American revolution

in che guevarapists world, no person has any money.

therefore the richest man is flat broke

1,000,000 x 0 = 0

therefore the human life is worth nothing

0 > 0 is false.

therefore che is proven wrong.

Ideology is as flawed the humans who push it.

:/

they are, and i don't expect them to disappear because of my lack of engagement

sometimes peaceful means aren't enough on their own, doing things that don't work never accomplishes anything

again, i'm not anti-pacifism, i just think it has its place and is only a part of what actually brings about change

like i said: those who can't or won't use violence should do what they can, but that doesn't negate the necessity of violence to bring about change

you need multiple tools to get a job done, pacifism is nice pr

is that why you enjoyed killing people so much?

Faggot

Without property there is no value so even in his little retard commie world people are worthless.

Not if you're a marxist

There have been peaceful revolutions and transfers of power throughout the history. Baltics got its independence, India and others through non-violence and without killing their own citizens.

Its dangerous to pathologize all revolutions and all killings as "part of nature", since it dehumanizes the victims and turns the revolution more into a beast than a noble struggle.

>a reason not everyone agrees with
Wew lad, next thing you'll tell us is how based Islam is for discriminating agains jews.

the quote is about land, it's not about what you're talking about

that being said you're speaking to someone who's given a homeless person food while they've been down to their last five bucks

i have very few material items that matter to me, i'm not well off, but i always help when and where i can if i see someone in need

Its not pacifism if you yourself throw hands up and say you wont kill anyone, while letting others do the killing on their own volitation. Its cowardice.

The killers and murderers have to be reminded of moderation, and of the eternal value of every single human being, no matter their allignment, faith or sins.

Dangerous? Many leftists very obviously feel great joy and ecstasy at violence. They really really want violence.

In Norway, the Labour Youth Army (AUF) which Breivik killed, a few decades back in the time of camp leaders like Stoltenberg (NATO chief) and Jagland (gave the peace prize to Obama), sang a song which went like

WE WILL FILL OUR BATHTUBS WITH THE YOUNG RIGHT'S BLOOD
WE WILL FILL OUR BATHTUBS WITH THE YOUNG RIGHT'S BLOOD
WE WILL FILL OUR BATHTUBS WITH THE YOUNG RIGHT'S BLOOD
WHEN THE RED REVOLUTION COMES, YES IT COMES!

The revolution isn't just about a sociopathic power grab. It's also to fulfil the same sadistic violence-as-ecstasy tendencies you can see at any leftist demonstration.

just because something works in some contexts doesn't mean it always will, relying on one method of achievement and overlooking others is foolish at best

Weird thing for a guy who wrote to his father about how much he loved executing POWs to say.

Its also foolish to use ends to justify the means. The peaceful revolutions have proven that they work in solving societal problems, and defaulting to the murderers is a sign of weakness, both of ideology and of popular support for your revolution.

Murdering someone to gain your revolution is proof from the start that the revolution has no support of the population at all.

Lives under Communism are so valuable Thousands of people have given theirs up trying to escape from it.

Who benefits from communism
>the worker
>>factory workers
>>farmers
>>general laborers
>>etc

Who does worse with communism
>Highly skilled labor
>>doctors
>>scientists

Who gets dead
>lumpen-prolitariate
>>occupy wallstreet
>>antifa
>>fags who want gimmes and wont work

Marxism will get all these kids killed and they dont even know because they never read the manifesto. A workers revolution for the workers. Not a gimme revolution for the gimmes.

It's irrational. The property of the richest man could produce millions of human beings.

Nobody gives a shit about you if you don't have (lots of) money. Poorfags never mattered and never will.

"worth" is a Capitalist Lie!!!!

humans are only worth what they can give to their society and to their race, as well as their family. Fucking sage this useless thread.

probably he didnt said that, i agree with everything he said about the niggers tho

what you choose to engage in, and your means of fighting to achieve something is what matters when it comes to you

anyone with a brain who's on your side, nonviolent or otherwise, is going to let you say and do what you want as a pacifist because it helps accomplish things

but the expectation of control and a complete lack of violence if it comes down to it is just naïve

sometimes being willing to use any means necessary is what makes or breaks a movement

i'm not claiming that violence should be a first resort, but i'm not going to lie and say it doesn't need to happen sometimes

if peaceful revolution isn't possible why keep using means that don't work?

>Black people
>More valuable than the cotton they pick
kek

Ok but then OPs statement is retarded. You're using literal kike logic where words and benchmarks get redefined whenever convenient.

>HUMAN LIVES ARE MOST VALUABLE!
>end lives of people who disagree with you
And thus Che proved that human lives do not have equal values, and moreover, communist lives have negative net value.

>farmers
>benifiting from communism
Pick one.

what exactly isn't based about islam?
>wtf 9 yr olds
if this is your only argument you have autism

Because all revolutions can end peacefully if all parties sit down behind a table and talk over their differences, reaching a perfect compromise.

Even the crusades and muslim conquest, or hell, even the modern day ISIS can be defeated simply by getting everyone to talk to eachother in a civilized manner.

Didn't he enjoy personally executing people?

sometimes the means do justify the ends, again peace has its place i'm not denying that, however that doesn't negate reality

peaceful revolution isn't always a possibility, when it is then it should be utilized, but when it isn't then you adapt and try something else

flexibility is just strategic

utilization of violence doesn't equate with a lack of support, it shows the nature of what someone's fighting

i understand that it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth to acknowledge that peace can't and doesn't fix everything

i understand wishing it did

unfortunately that doesn't always reflect reality

I was once required to do a paper on 3 influential people that did good in the world from south America. The problem is that there isn't any. Eventually I had to bullshit the about Che and a couple soccer players.

Try trading a single human for all the property of any rich man at all.

Then its up to us to break the habit and set a precedent. Humans did not give up cannibalism simply because they suddenly no longer saw the use of utilizing dead meat. They gave it up because someone set a precedent.

War is a drug, and we have to wane humanity off of it. And i know all your instincts as a junkie scream for you to go forth and spill blood for whatever ideology you spouse today, but you have to control yourself and see a brighter future instead.

A future without war.

ops statement compares lives to property, not the cost of revolution

again, it's cute that you think that, but that's not the way things always work

you can't expect one method to fix every problem, sometimes life doesn't work that way

i'm aware it's unfortunate, and i'm not denying it, but i'm not so idealistic as to believe every enemy can be won over through conversation

He was literally a Killer and Executer. That quote must be fake.

attempting to set a precedent doesn't equate with success

i don't like the idea of killing people any more than you do, i don't like the idea of war any more than you do either

however, i'm realistic and i accept that sometimes ideals don't line up with reality

> documented executions
you honestly have no idea how things worked here during communism
> one day you were working in a factory participating in building " the great nation"
> next day you were being dragged off to the gulag because of a rumor about you
> no documentation, no trial, no gravestone

this was the real situation

You are blinded by realism. The world does not have to be as bloody as your urges tell you to be.

All it takes is for one of the opposing sides to open up to show the other that violence is unnecessary. If you keep the option of violence on the table, then it will be responded to with equal or greater force.

What you say here becomes completely redundant and pointless once society is filled with people with a so low IQ that they cannot even comprehend the message.

you don't know my urges or me

you're making assumptions that my acceptance of multiple means of gaining something and fighting an enemy make me a violent person, but it's an acknowledgment of reality

peace has its place, violence shouldn't be the first means used, but that doesn't mean inflexible approaches are unrealistic

use of diplomacy when it can be used is important, but relying on it if it doesn't work is senseless

the option of other means of achievement should always be on the table, but you don't keep that table in full view of the enemy

aren't unrealistic*

people who equate the acceptance of violence as a means of accomplishment with iq are typically self righteous and fearful

an intelligent person accomplishes their goals using the necessary means and being flexible where they need to be

strategy is important, and sometimes it's not strategic to be completely nonviolent

I can tell already that you are a violent psychopath, who would be better reeducated in a mental hospital.

Viewing violence as an option is not an option of a man, but of a beast.