You should be a communist

Freedom

he believes you can freely obtain guns in china, russia, cambodia, cuba, and venezuela

Why are commies always such retards

How would a gun protect you from the government when they have tanks and shit?

How does that work? Doesn't the government tell me what to do? Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

The bigger question is how is being armed a protection against tyranny when they're already living under it with no resistance? The ruling class no longer needs to disarm the population to control it.

If I become a communist, do I have to believe every negative thing about China and Russia is just CIA propaganda?

No, common misconception. Your life is controlled by people who own the means of production, and they will be dispossed of those means and thus stripped of their power over you.

The government can just drone strike your ass.
An army of Walmart scooter ar-15 obese niggers isn't going to overpower the military.

No you'll just learn that most of it is and develop a more nuanced understanding of history and geopolitics

That's also part of the point, but I'm trying to get you see a larger perspective here.

So I'm not free till I am? How long does that take? What if they don't want to give up that power.

Not really, are you truly satisfied with your current level of "freedom?"

What the larger perspective Anon?
The US military has way more technology and firepower than a bunch of people with guns.
The second amendment meant something when it was written because everyone had the same shitty weapons back then.
But it's not even remotely close now.

You can freely get a gun in the US? Or do you need gov approval?

Protip: you need give approval

But it's not even that level of military tech that prevents insurrection. The population is sufficiently controlled in such a way that those measures do not even have to be employed

Funny you should say that because I am. Heaven is living in a comfy flat in Moscow with a good job, and beautiful Russian wife to have sex with every day. And some vodka

I know Anon but my point is that second amendment fags think it matters that they have a hoard of weapons.

I'd rather be told upfront about my freedoms than "just trust me, bro. I'll give it up next week, I promise"

You don't need gov approval, you can 3D print a gun in your garage in most states.

Which is still bad argument because farmers with outdated firearms routinely defeat the US war machine. So I'm giving you a better argument. You're welcome

bbc.com/news/articles/cy8303xnjl8o

I'm telling you about it right now. And you conspicuously dodged the question

A drone can fly over a farm Anon.

You should be a faggot
Oh wai-

Oh you mean like in Vietnam when it wasnt American soil and the American gov did not intend on staying in Vietnam forever. How does that compare to American soil where the American gov plan to stay forever?

And they flew all over Afghanistan, and who's in charge now?

That's right, and they dropped more bombs on it than all of the allies did in WW2 and that firepower was still insufficient

I noticed you didnt answer my question

I am a Marxist/socialist in the classical sense that the whole reason for taxes is to secure a nation and provide beneficial services for its people and the USA is doing a piss poor job of providing beneficial services for its people because it spends too much on the war machine

That wasn't the goal of Afghanistan Anon.
The January 6th insurgency didn't work. And no drones were even used there.

To answer your question, the US military would be even more nerfed on US soil

I think you should reread my post then answer the question I posed

What does Jan 6 have to do with this? You seem to have a lot of "buts" for every example I provide. We could spend all day of me listing examples of low tech insurgencies succeeding over high tech imperial powers, are you really going to have an excuse for each one?

I did I just don't think you understand the absurdity of your own position

Yeah it was a failed insurrection lol.
Guns didn't help you then and it won't help you now.

I'm a communist anon and jan 6 was performative

The absurdity that in Vietnam the US gov didnt plan to stay forever. Unlike in American where the US gov plan to stay forever. Interesting

I'm a communist

I don't care

jan 6 was performative

So now it's a conspiracy?
Oh brother.

I am a communist and have read many books on the subject.
However I also acknowledge that there's virtually no class consciousness in America, and if I'm being honest I don't think the great communist minds of the 19th and early 20th centuries would even know how to revolutionize Americans with their existing framework.

The fascists are arguing more sincerely than you right now, you should be ashamed

The fascists

I don't care. Fuck them too.

you should be ashamed

For using critical thinking?
God forbid.

I'm American, the burnout on party work is real because of the issues you mentioned. Though the contradictions of capitalism will inevitably result in the collapse of the US state regardless

I'm waiting for you to demonstrate that "critical thinking"

I already totaled your poor argument.
You're welcome.

How about we skip the mayhem, systemic executions, cannibalism, and societal collapse and go straight to to the part where you either kill yourself or get executed.

Lmao ok I only provided counterarguments for every single example and you had nothing to say about it but insist on your previous argument. Poor rhetoric form, anon. As Lenin would say, you are a clumsy polemicist.

Criticizes rhetoric because the premise was that solid.

Thank you for the compliment.

As Lenin would say

Open a window Anon.

Lol I hurt your feelings

I don't have feelings.

Agreed. The US can't sustain itself for much longer. It just bums me out that our country has been so thoroughly atomized and pitted against each other that I truly don't have any good answers for how to unite the working class.
As the state continues to exert increasing levels of violence among its people, given Americans are so passive and against violence, I unfortunately think they'll simply accept it.
But I don't think the individual is wrong for accepting the violence because individual actions don't amount to shit here. There has to be a unified class solidarity in order to effectively work against the overwhelming US state military.

Then why do you choose to think exclusively with them?

I should be a part of a political group who's leaders were known for shooting black people for fun. You really are a fucking idiot OP.

There's no emotion in seeing the shortcomings of both communists and fascists.
Believe it.

Very true. When the US imperial machine is in its death throes, there will be opportunities elsewhere for communism to flourish. Eventually, under a new world order, those ideas will take hold on America. We'll probably just be one of the last societies to get on board

You want to debate communism now? You couldn't even hold-up in a debate about the fundamentals of modern warfare, and now you want to get into something as complex as marxist theory?

Despite a materialist dialectic we still live in a very capitalist society.
So when's the revolution? Or does idealism and materialism coexist because this whole,

Choose a side!

Metaphysics is all bullshit like most ideology.

How's that capitalist society doing right now?

Pretty good, I haven't been buried in a mass grave by the government and have running water and all the guns I can print.

It has flaws like any other.
It turns out balance is better but that's rare in today's current landscape of identity politics.

Then why do you spend so much time complaining about trump if all is dandy?

These flaws seem to be growing

I agree and there needs to be a rebalancing.
But hoping over to communism is irrational. Just like the fascists who want authoritarianism.
You're both cancer.

A rebalancing

Anon the only cancer is you upholding capitalism with zealous ferocity

I haven't mentioned trump in this thread

I never said that at all.
You're just so far left that anything in the middle is "radical".
I'm not sure why you're so heavily identified as a communist that you're politically inflexible and willing to try smaller solutions.
Some progress is better than none.

I know you highjacked my conversation with the other lib. Change trump to Biden and the argument is the same

That's a lot words about me and not the argument. I don't even know why you're denying your support of capitalism

You're only premise is that people who'd disagree with you are capitalists.
When really you can have free markers and social welfare.
In fact many nations operate this way. They're hybrid systems.

hijacked

You're on a public basket weaving forum dipshit. I haven't mentioned biden in this thread either.

When really you can have free markers and social welfare

That's capitalism, anon.

You don't need to, we know

in my mind you're complaining about biden!

My nigger, you are arguing with yourself

Yes free markers are capitalism.
But you also have systems of "social democracy" where both free markets exist and policies that reduce inequality and increase social mobility.
Many Scandinavian countries operate this way and one could argue they're superior systems.
Even thought they're rather homogenous and wealthy from petroleum, they're are alternative economic models in 21st century democracies that work better.
Idk why you're clinging to 20th century ideologies that failed. Like Nazism and all the other shit they tried.

No you're right you seem like an extremely well-adjusted person who is part of the .01% of people who are happy with the overall direction of this country

There's a difference between thinking we're going in the right direction and trying to see the good in a bad situation

Free markets are capitalism

Lol no

But you also have systems of "social democracy" where both free markets exist and policies that reduce inequality and increase social mobility.

Still capitalism

Many Scandinavian countries operate this way and one could argue they're superior systems.

They are, but inequality is still rampant

Even thought they're rather homogenous and wealthy from petroleum, they're are alternative economic models in 21st century democracies that work better.

You would have loved Mussolini

Che openly hated blacks and gays. Funny how pro LGBT anti-racist commies ignore that.

Yes, there is. But you were insisting society is not deteriorating

You're a broken record.
You don't really have any counter evidence or arguments because you're an idealogue.
It's all just bad faith Anon. Stop wasting our time.

You don't even know what capitalism is, anon.

Here you go

capitalism, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.

britannica.com/money/capitalism

production are privately owned

There we go. By your own definition, you are a capitalist. Glad we can finally move on

It definitely is deteriorating, what makes you think I said otherwise?

I already discussed free markets in hybrid systems Anon.
And that you can have social policies without the means of production being central to the government.
Just gracefully admit you're wrong and learn something.

This post

So you disagree with your own definition now? Come on anon, these games are getting tiresome.

I think you're confusing economic models for systems of governance.

I think you're confused about what capitalism and socialism are

Posted in response to this I'm content with what I have and communism would take those things from me.

But capitalist society is deteriorating per your own admission

Nope, here you go,

socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

britannica.com/money/socialism

Not even totally correct (under socialism, property is abolished, not publicly owned and if you need me to explain the difference I will), but we'll take it just for sake of argument.

Your reformist position still puts the means of the production in the hands of class of individuals. It is, by definition, a capitalist position.

That's legitimate source Anon.
You don't know what you're talking about.

Marx is a legitimate source, anon. And we accepted your definition regardless. So do you have no defense?

only if you help me set up a smtp

No you're argument is still wrong,

social democracy, political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the second half of the 20th century, there emerged a more moderate version of the doctrine, which generally espoused state regulation, rather than state ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs. Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism. Social democracy was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, primarily in the former’s repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society.

britannica.com/topic/social-democracy

Even in the context of Marx, there's still regulation but not a change or "abolishment" in the means of production.

Right, but that doesn't mean I shoud be blackpilled about it. It certainly doesn't make me want to support a system that would be far worse than what we have now.

Marx has written volumes against social democracy anon

Marx isn't the only authority in economic/political theory.

Nah, I'm not evil, so I'll stay anarchist and not trust communists like any sensible person would.

That's fine, communism is way too big a a pill for you to swallow right now. I'm meeting you where your consciousness is at. I actually find it easier to discuss communism with conservatives because they're aware of society's tragectory, they just have silly explanations for that decline like hordes of brown people or Jews or something equally retarded

No but he is the main one on socialism, which is why you should get off Wikipedia and actually read a fucking book

I'm meeting you where your consciousness is at.

Oh brother lol.
But you can't even grasp basic definitions?

Just hand all of the power over everything to this tiny group of people and then they will hand it away eventually, promise".

That's capitalism, anon

It's not something I would ever be interested in due to the violent nature of it and the tendency for it to devolve into oligarchy/dictatorship.

The people bringing up browns actually have a point. Communism views society through only a class lens disregarding that some cultures and ethnic groups can not coexist in the same region.

It's not Wikipedia.
And academia is a legitimate institution where warranted criticism and adoption of previous philosophical works gives us a more robust paradigm that explains phenomenon in the world.
It's like believing you understand all of evolution and modern biology because you read Charles Darwin.
I suggest you branch out and challenge your ideas.

No, that is communism as history has shown communism as acting ever since communism was used as a governing ideology.

That's why I also read Lenin and other marxist theorists, none of which you've read btw and somehow you think you know more because you just looked up these definitions for the first time on Google.

Quick assign him some homework and refuse to argue your own point because you've decreed yourself as eternally correct.

You're just appealing to foundational works because despite your understanding of them, you still lack the proper context and intellection breadth to see the bigger picture.
If you were arguing with me how Marx influence the 21st century, I would be taking you more seriously.
But you're just an idealogue using those thinkers to push your agenda. And I'm not buying.
Like Neo Nazis telling me "Mein Kampf" changed their life or some bullshit.

Someone needs to assign him homework, christ

still lack the proper context and intellection breadth to see the bigger picture.

Yeah you're right Google had given you that intellectual breadth rather than the experts that I've read, that again, you haven't. You sound like antivaxxers.

You're such a self impressed useful idiot, it's insane.

No you're just being cynical because I proved your premise was wrong.
If you're so well read them why can you keep your interpretations of socialism and capitalism current?
It takes just a Google search after all lol.

You sound nothing like someone who has read all of the experts anon, you make no arguments that show that and you're about as deep as a puddle when it comes to your depth of discussion topics.

Anon I accepted your definition for the sake of argument and still proved you wrong. At this point you're just trying to recover from your humiliation, and I'm being kind enough to give you a chance to reconstruct your position. That is my bad

That's not how you have a debate Anon.
A much better move on your end would have been to argue the merit of social democracy given the aforementioned definitions of capitalism and socialism.
As a deconstruction, respectively.
Instead you fixated on the means of production because that's what Marx talks about.
You sound young honestly. Not that that's a problem but you have a lot to learn about the world and people.

That's because ownership of the means of production is central to the debate of capitalism versus socialism. I get that you're uncomfortable with that topic because you are not well-read, but in that case just don't debate or admit you have more learn.

The state worshiping the economy and wealth is not good (what we have now)

The state micromanaging the economy is not good either (under communism)

I would like a somewhat free market with intervention to ensure that the poor and middle class always get wealthier, that the environment is not destroyed, and that things like healthcare are available to all.

Being well-read doesn't mean swallowing Marx wholesale. Ownership of the means of production sounds noble until you realize in practice it meant gulags, bread lines, and zero innovation. Central planning crushes incentive and human freedom; history already tested this and flunked it.

I would like a somewhat free market with intervention to ensure that the poor and middle class always get wealthier, that the environment is not destroyed, and that things like healthcare are available to all.

What a healthy, balanced, and mature outlook to have.
This is what we need more of.

If that is your position, again, you are not a socialist.

Socialism isn’t a purity cult. If my position aligns with social democracy or market socialism, that’s still within the socialist tradition. Unless you're the gatekeeper of Marx’s ghost, don’t pretend there's only one correct flavor.

Social democracy is capitalism, as we've just established, since ownership of the means of production are private. You've just lost again and you were even given the opportunity to amend your initial argument. How do you fail the same way twice?

Social democracy regulates capitalism to serve broader social aims: healthcare, education, worker protections using democratic power. That’s not a loss, it’s a pragmatic evolution.
Clinging to rigid definitions while ignoring outcomes is how theory beats itself.

That's fine if you believe that, but don't call yourself socialist. By your own admission, you just want reformed capitalism.

Then call me a reformist if it helps you sleep. But gatekeeping the term 'socialist' ignores its diverse history from Marx to Bernstein to modern democratic socialists.
Wanting economic justice without abolishing markets isn’t betrayal it’s strategy.

you should be a dirty jew

Nah, fuck off shitskin

I'm calling you what you are and you should to. Markets require the commodity-form and private ownership, again another deviation from Marx. It is a complete betrayal of socialism.

You’re clinging to Marx like doctrine, not theory. Marx analyzed capitalism he didn’t canonize a single path forward.
Socialism has evolved because the world has. If preserving markets while democratizing power gets us closer to justice, that’s not betrayal. It’s adaptation.

Just read any bit of Marx, I'm begging you

"Stop treating my religion like an evolving ideology".

"Worship and praise Marx already!"

I am forced to accept your concession

I have, and I also read history. Marx offered powerful critiques, but he didn’t solve for human nature, incentive structures, or institutional decay. Blindly quoting Marx in 2025 is like trying to fix a smartphone with a steam engine manual.

Ask me how I know you haven't read Marx

I'm not even the anon you were discussing with, you're just acting religious about Marx.

Go ahead, ask.
But spoiler: if your litmus test for 'reading Marx' is total doctrinal agreement, you're not debating ideas you're policing belief. That’s not Marxist. That’s just sectarian.

We know anon, you think that if people have read Marx they claim to know better and hand people homework, while refusing to argue their own points.

It was in the image anon. Open Kapital and control+f human nature. The truth is you don't even know the fundamentals of marxism

Marx didn’t believe in fixed human nature, that’s exactly the point. He saw it as shaped by material conditions. But denying human tendencies like self-interest or ambition doesn’t make you more Marxist, it just makes your theory brittle in practice.

So, what sort of vicar outfit does a communist priest wear?

Marx doesn't deny those elements, in fact it is precisely because of those characteristics that the current relationships around the means of production are so troublesome! Anon, you don't know shit about Marx

If Marx acknowledged self-interest and ambition, then any viable system has to channel them productively, not suppress them with rigid collectivism. That’s the flaw: Marx diagnosed a problem, but his cure often kills the patient.
Knowing Marx isn’t the same as worshipping him.

The "war machine" is less than 12% of the national budget. Wtf are you talking about?

Communism like capitalism doesn't reward the mediocre and pathetic. You'll still have to work and produce to get out of the same situation you're in.

But you don't know his position, that's the crux of this whole argument, and frankly you're wasting my time

Thinks Russia, Cambodia, and Venezuela are communist.

China and Cuba are the only two that are communist in any way. Cuba was but has gone through heavy reforms. China is a hybrid economy of capitalism with socialist policies. The other three are capitalist economies with authoritarian governments. Typical dumb MAGA with "Everything I don't like is communism."

“while the Soviet Union is no more and communism has been discredited in most eyes for many years, it is hard even now to grasp the sheer scale of agony imposed by the brutal ideology of collectivism.”

You assume ignorance because I reject orthodoxy. Knowing Marx doesn’t mean agreeing with every premise or prescription, it means understanding him critically.
If that threatens your worldview, maybe you're the one wasting time.

I know you're ignorant because you keep misrepresenting Marx's position

Pointing out that Marx's theories struggle in practice isn’t misrepresentation it’s critique. You’re mistaking disagreement for ignorance, which is convenient but lazy. If your argument can’t survive outside a seminar room, maybe it's not my grasp that's lacking.

No matter where it was tried, communism has always resulted in mountains of dead bodies. As for socialist economics, it has always resulted in shortages, inefficiency, poverty, and desperation. The verdict of history is clear, but only if people are willing to see it.

But you don't understand Marx's theories so how can you criticize them? We haven't even gotten that far anon because you're too embarrassed to admit at this point that maybe you don't understand him as well as you think.

Understanding a theory doesn’t require agreeing with it, it requires engaging with it critically.
I’ve done that. You're mistaking confidence in your interpretation for monopoly on truth. If Marxism can't be questioned without cries of ignorance, it's not analysis it’s dogma.

It's not my interpretation, it's Marx's. You would know that if you read Marx lmao

Quoting Marx isn’t the same as understanding Marx and demanding orthodoxy sounds more like gatekeeping than debate.
If your whole argument is 'read the book' while dodging real-world outcomes, maybe you’re not defending Marx. Maybe you’re hiding behind him to avoid questioning whether the theory actually holds up off the page.

Let me guess. You think the Uyghur genocide is fake despite Chinese officials publicly admitting to it.

Once again, I am forced to accept your concession. Read Marx.

If pretending you’ve won helps you sleep at night, go ahead. But repeating 'read Marx' like it’s a spell doesn’t make your argument stronger it just proves you’ve got nothing left but a bookshelf and a bruised ego.

I do feel like I've won, and quite decisively

But repeating 'read Marx

First time trying to debate commies?
That's literally all they say. If it's not "Read Marx" it's "Read Mao" or "Read Lenin" or "Read Bobo the Circus Clown"

it's all they got. You're better off trying to debate with a brick wall.

You made a good go at it anon, but this op simply refuses to argue his own points and just prances around in his communist priest outfit telling people to read Marx.
He refuses to engage anyone in good faith if they don't have their lips sown onto the anus of Marx.

Then enjoy your imaginary trophy. If victory means dodging critique and declaring yourself right by fiat, you’re not debating you’re roleplaying a dialectic.
Marx deserved better readers.

Lol.

Out of all of the people in this thread, you are the only one who thinks that op, to everyone else you embarrassed yourself and claimed victory based on it.

Alright you're right I'll stop.
I think I've made my point to the intelligent lurkers.
Good luck OP.

Marx deserved better readers.

Too bad you're not one of them lmao

Better to be a critical reader than a blind disciple. If your whole identity hinges on parroting Marx without reflection, you’re not doing theory you’re doing cosplay.
Have a good one.

Critical reader

You have to be a reader first kek

Now do three hail Lenins and one prayer to Marx.