Anonymous #1 1w

There’s nothing the ruling class is more terrified of than communism, that alone should tell people what the solution is

6

Anonymous OP 1w

….communism? You must be joking.

-4

Anonymous #2 1w

The bourgeois pedophiles and rapists have spent more money than you could imagine to distort your understanding of Marxism and communism, start reading and understanding what communists stand for and you will be a red.

17

Anonymous #2 1w

Are you going to elaborate on your thoughts, or are we supposed to just know what you’re thinking (I’d assume, based on an idea that it’s a “fundamental truth”, wherever that came from🙄)?

3

Anonymous #4 1w

Point just flew right over your head huh? Of course they are, the ruling class hasn’t spared any expense to ensure it stays that way.

6

Anonymous OP 1w

The elites have spent centuries making sure the flat earth idea gets labeled as crazy. Schools, maps, space agencies, media, all of it dedicated to brainwashing. It’s been a relentless, multi-billion dollar propaganda campaign.

-3

Anonymous #4 1w

Oh sheesh, an actual flat earther?? And you had the nerve to talk about literally anybody else?

11

Anonymous #3 1w

What else would explain why the “experts” parrot the same line as the ruling class and the indoctrinated masses?

-3

Anonymous #4 1w

You know, there are valid critiques to be had of the ruling class without throwing out every sense of objectivity. Otherwise you lose your footing in reality, and it just comes down to your feelings.

8

Anonymous #3 1w

(Aka yeah the bourgeoisie is bad, they’re oppressing us, but that does not mean the scientific process is to be thrown out. You’re just casting things off (that you don’t like) based on association instead of the individual content or validity)

7

Anonymous #3 1w

What’s not objective about it?

-3

You’re asking how claiming that the earth is flat isn’t objective? It’s been repeatedly disproven, and the only evidence in support of that claim is *subjective*; entirely anecdotal experiences (rather than statistical evidence)

11

Anonymous #3 1w

You’re 100% correct. Now let’s apply the same logic to OP’s conspiracy theory.

-3

Anonymous #4 1w

The difference is my point is objectively correct

9

Anonymous OP 1w

No one is saying that anti-communist messaging doesn't exist, but its not the reason that communism isn't popular. Communism is unpopular because it's a terrible idea.

-3

Anonymous OP 1w

You’re using the same logic that flat earthers and most other conspiracy theorists use: 1. Start with the conclusion you already want to be true 2. Explain away all disagreement by saying people have been brainwashed 3. Treat any evidence against your conclusion as further proof that the conspiracy is real It’s a bulletproof strategy for protecting yourself from critical thinking.

-3

Anonymous #4 1w

I actually never started with that conclusion, I actually read and understood the logic of dialectical and historical materialism and determined it to be the objective course of human societal development. If you read the books and theorists you spend so much time automatically dismissing, you might just agree.

5

Anonymous OP 1w

To call Marx’s predictions about the future is laughable. He’s already objectively been wrong about the working class becoming poorer, the first socialist revolution taking place in a highly industrialized nation, that no revolutions would take place under socialism, and much more.

-3

Anonymous OP 1w

I continue to be amazed at how many Marxists assume A.) any critic hasn’t read Marx and B.) anyone who reads Das Kapital will inevitably agree, like Christians who believe reading the Bible guarantees conversion.

-3

Anonymous #4 1w

The working class is becoming poorer, in nations exploited by imperialism, Marx was incorrect about the socialist revolution’s beginning in developed nations as shown by Lenin and later Marxist theorists (though I’d say he was right in that for socialism to remain stable and prosperous it must occur in developed nations, otherwise we see how capitalist powers will fight tooth and nail to destroy them), he never said no revolutions would occur under socialism, of course reactionaries fight back

10

Anonymous #4 1w

Judging by your comment you either haven’t read it, or didn’t understand it lmao.

11

Anonymous OP 1w

The working class is becoming much less poor, including in former colonies. Marx was completely wrong.

0

Anonymous #4 1w

if you just get to consistently redefine poverty than sure 🤭

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Poverty has declined on every level

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Bruh you’re getting bodied harder than Trotsky

0

Anonymous #4 1w

Well that’s all fine and dandy now isn’t it? I have to skip meals because food is expensive but the numbers on your chart are going down so I’m sure it’s nothing to worry about 🙄

1

Anonymous #4 1w

I think you should show this chart to child slaves mining for cobalt in the Congo and get back to me. If you still don’t see a problem or understand that numbers pulled from the asses of imperialists then you aren’t human and aren’t worth discussing with.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

Besides China has elevated more people in the world out of extreme poverty than any country, you should be thanking the communist party

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Perfect example of good communists, that Chinese Communist Party, which does whatever makes money and calls it communism.

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Actually state-capitalism can be used in the development of socialism as a tool for building productive forces, nobody is saying capitalism isn’t better than agrarian feudalism lmao. Made clear with the NEP following the Russian revolution.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

No one is saying that life isn’t hard. Of course it is, even if you’re wealthier than your ancestors. What Im saying is that poverty is the default state of man, and is currently at an all time low. While some Americans may be food insecure, and that is a real problem it’s much less widespread than it was in the past. The US has the highest median disposable income of any country in the history of the planet (yes, thats adjusted for cost of living). Marx predicted the opposite.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

So communism is when we move from communism to state capitalism and keep calling ourselves communists, got it.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

Marx never predicted that the United States, as the world leading imperialist power wouldn’t have a labor aristocracy, obviously we are fucking rich compared to many nations and it’s because we fucking stole it

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Do you think the world bank pulls numbers from their asses? Now we’re back in conspiracy territory

0

Anonymous #4 1w

Lmao do I think the world bank pulls number out their ass? Are you kidding? Lmao the massive international org that exploits impoverished countries with high interest loans in the name of “reducing poverty”? Why don’t you get back to sucking billionaire cock, although I have a feeling you are too old for their liking

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Notice that your graph starts in the 80’s. The reason China was so poor at the time was because of the CCP and the great leap forward. It was only when they began liberalizing their economy that they began to lower poverty. Let’s be clear though, poverty has been falling in most of the world. China is only one example.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

The other nations have also generally been getting wealthier.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

The world bank’s methodology is public. How would you collect data differently?

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Oh my god is this kid still complaining? Like wtf??

4

Anonymous #4 1w

Once again opening the economy aided productive forces (the lack of which was the reason for collectivizations and the great leap forward’s failures) and lead to less pressure against the nation from imperialist powers, state-capitalism can absolutely be a beneficial tool in nations that don’t have the productive forces needed to sustain a fully socialist economy

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Jesus ikr, I’d like to see him lecture child workers in Bangladesh about how “capitalism is good actually you’ll get rich too one day!!” 🙄

4

Anonymous OP 1w

Bangladesh has seen a massive decline in extreme poverty. Few of these people are rich, but almost all of them are better off than they were before. I want people to be better off and I refuse to apologize for it.

-1

Anonymous #4 1w

Sweatshop apologia lmao. Also note the fact the “international poverty line” set by these imperialist fucks is 3 whole dollars a day

6

Anonymous #3 1w

Also how is #3 still commenting after they legitimately thought I was a flat earther?

-1

Anonymous #4 1w

Because your analogy was apples to oranges and they rightfully misunderstood your idiotic analogy

4

Anonymous OP 1w

Nearly the whole world lived on less than three dollars a day before capitalism. Should we not acknowledge the greatest increase in living standards in human history because it’s less than utopia?

-1

Anonymous #4 1w

Marxists don’t think humanity was living better under feudalism lmao. No Marxist will deny that, and this shows me you don’t actually understand Marx’s critique of capitalism or why socialism is an inevitable stage in human development

5

Anonymous OP 1w

That comment wasn’t directed at marxists generally, it was directed at you. Its funny that you accept the obvious when Marx observes it, but call it “sweatshop apologia” when I point it out.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Communism won’t work as long as today’s social/societal structure exists

1

Anonymous #6 1w

but agree with the general point ur trying to make

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Tbh yeah, that’s kinda the point though; communism isn’t meant to coexist with capitalism, it’s meant to be the natural successor in response to the limitations and downfalls of capitalism.

6

Anonymous #3 1w

and that I agree with but how do we get to that point?

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Capitalists and liberals are in principle happy to coexist with communists. You can start a co-op, run your business completely employee owned, or go get together with some people and go live in a community where you can own as much of your own labor as you want. It’s communists who can’t abide capital and liberalism and will at every opportunity attempt to undercut and destroy the institutions that protect both, and this is why they have to go.

1