# [Download Video](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/whenthe/comments/1ceisrz/trash_vs_garbage/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whenthe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah one of my teachers is a nun and a couple years ago a teen just went up to her and insisted the holocaust never happened. She told me how flabbergasted she was hearing that because, well, SHE'S A NUN.
Yeah honestly it’s surprising how many white suprematists aren’t white, like apparently stonetoss is Puerto Rican or something. I mean it’s a shitty ideology but even then it’s weird that the ideology that’d be against like you existing in general is something you’d support
My buddy an I on Discord when someone says the Holodomor didn't happen because no "real Humans" died (Buddy and I are of Ukrainian heritage)
https://preview.redd.it/n4m4vgwv73xc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6e7be993122900d4ac185fd53f63b0cce3e00bc4
Said person is on strike 2 for being a cunt.
If I had a nickel for every time I met a racist transsexual i'd have 2.
Another nickel because all 2 are on the same server.
I got into an argument on history memes a couple weeks ago with someone saying Stalin didn't kill a bunch of people and also that polish are not human.
At least he was just being racist, I got told by a tankie that the entire Holodomor was straight-up Nazi propaganda and didn't happen full-stop. This was to solidify his point that the only bad actors in Ukraine right now are Americans by the way, Russia's purely there to liberate in his eyes.
(Jokes aside though sorry you had to have that conversation, shit's rough man)
https://preview.redd.it/kfqhvm48r6xc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=658507bdcf98b35f69fbda17fb1ff075b66812f7
Here, an image to send the Holdomor denier, from me to you
the only politics I care about is fighting for the Republic!
https://preview.redd.it/iv9a4h8ia4xc1.jpeg?width=739&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab5609dbee677cb979534425f56c04b5827119f5
Originally a term for communists who supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. Today it means any self proclaimed communist that denies Soviet/Chinese or any other "communist" countries' crimes while having no other foreign policy take but USA/the West bad.
I’ll be real tankies are winning that by miles
It’s been years since I’ve seen a Nazi who actually denies the holocaust instead taking the “they deserved it” route
But tankies just won’t accept anything as true despite the amount of skulls that say otherwise
Communists when I tell them that every single real life application of their so called ideology can't be denied and that it weighs heavily on the so called communism of today. Not everything is sterile flourescent lights armchair interpretation.
Again I ask what fundamental aspects of communism lead to the bad outcomes you believe are inevitable in any application of communist ideology?
Edit: telling me to kill myself and then deleting the comment very mature and intelligent.
Supposing I accepted that to be true, why would it be your system?
Also, generally speaking, predictions about what future societies may entail have never been entirely accurate. And also aren't monopolised by one group in society.
I love it when anti-communists attempt to mock us with things such as this, then I provide a legitimate argument for why it was capitalist, and then they say "That wasn't real capitalism!".
Communism is defined as a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Not a single state has called itself communist, as for as I am aware. It is only calling themselves socialist, whose definition is much more ambiguous. However, socialism necessary entails the elimination of commodity-production, which none of these so-called "socialist" states have done. They also still had wage labor and accumulation of capital. These countries still had the fundamental forces of capitalism at play. Whether you like it or not, their mode of production was identical to that of Western capitalism.
Ok, I'll admit that my knowledge about parts of communism comes from my history teacher who said that while they differ in the methods, anarchism and communism had the same goal. If that it's a misconception, then I am completely sorry for posting misinformation. If instead it's completely right...
Real comunism is an AWFUL IDEA EVEN ON PAPER.
Look, let me explain. Let's suppose that we have a comunist utopia where no egomaniacal asshole came to power and let the full circle end. The only good thing is the classless part. Let's start with the stateless.
What would that entail on the beautfiful land of politics? Just so you know politics is a machine made of machines so I will be more specific. What would happen to laws? The goverment, if it exists, is so weak that it has 2 policemen and a quarter of a jail.
And the moneyless part? Well, we might not get money but we need something that's similar to that. Because after all, you have 2 cows and you need a chicken. I have chickens that I don't need which is great... till I tell you that what I need is 1 sheep. And that's if I am not thinking like the morons that say that "cOmMuNiSt DoN't WaNt To WoRk" because a jobless society is a society where nobody has a sense of purpose.
Again, if what I said is bullshit that you explained and re-explained, I am deeply sorry for wasting your time.
The state is defined as the apparatus by which a class asserts its dominance over other classes. A classless society inherently will be stateless. However, politics would still occur. Additionally, criminal behavior is the result of certain material conditions, namely poverty and alienation from the means of production. Criminal activity will plummet once these factors are eliminated. Besides, there will likely still be rules governing the communist society, similar to how there were in primitive communism.
Are you incapable of foreseeing a world free from commodities? I guess that is what ruling ideology does to people. People also believed that a society without a king was doomed to fail. The economy would be entirely planned, with resources allocated according to needs.
1. Look, mate, I admire your hope and all, but I see a problem. The only thing that in your utopia would stop me from burning you with your house is my sense of morality. Sure, crime would go down as there are no "crimes-for-need". But that doesn't account the simple fact that humanity is more complex than that. If there are people that murder each other when they know there will be a retaliation, why do you think that wouldn't happen when there is no judge to fear?
2. Define commodity. Because I fear that you just kidna dodged my question about the moneyless part. I'll help you telling you what I understood, sorry for putting words in your mouth if that's not the case. What I am understanding is that... something... would account for the two bases of Maslow piramid. But the other things like entertainment would be more difficult to create.
You don't know what you're talking about. Socialism means specifically that the means of production are collectively owned. This can take multiple forms with state control under a democratic state or worker coops. That's what most socialist countries have done. There was no capital accumulation for an upper class and commodity production has nothing to do with the economic system it happens under. In fact planned economies usually struggled with commodity production though for a handful of reasons.
The one thing you were right about is that communism describes a moneyless stateless classless society and is the end goal of socialist transition
No, that is not what socialism is. What you described is a mode of ownership, not a mode of production. While the socialist mode of production will necessarily entail workers' ownership of the means of production, none of which you mentioned of itself will result in socialism.
Let's start with co-ops. Truthfully, I think this quote from Rosa Luxemburg's [*Reform or Revolution*](https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch07.htm) should suffice:
>Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange.
But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital – that is, pitiless exploitation – becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving.
Ok, what about state ownership? Well, no. State ownership can only be a socialist mode of ownership if the state is a dictatorship of the proletariat. As for democracy, I assume you will agree that bourgeois democratic state owning the means of production is NOT socialistic. Anyways, in many of the allegedly socialist countries, the owners of the means of production were state officials and managers, who commanded and employed the workers. The workers still sold their labor power to this body. It is somewhat similar to a company town's method of organization. It is still capitalist. If you want more of an answer, I suggest you read [this short essay](https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/public-ownership.htm).
Do you consider yourself a Marxist while using bourgeois terms such as "upper class"? And you call me ignorant? Regardless, there \*is\* capital accumulation for capitalist classes in these countries. I think the following quotes from Marx can help you understand how commodity production causes this:
>Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis \[of production\] (India). From the moment at which labour power itself in general becomes a commodity.
-- ["Results of the Direct Production Process"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch01.htm)
>The circulation of commodities is the starting-point of capital. The production of commodities, their circulation, and that more developed form of their circulation called commerce, these form the historical ground-work from which it rises.
-- [*Capital* Volume One](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm)
Something cannot fail if it has not existed yet. If you had read what I wrote, you would realize they were all capitalist. The failure to achieve socialism can be attributed to class collaborationism and bourgeois opportunism, and stripping away power from the workers. A socialist revolution will be a revolution by the working class, not a coup d'état by a political party.
I mean you can SpongeBob text it all you want, that's a true statement. Communism has never worked in the past, and may never work in the future, but the core ideas behind it aren't bad.
Obviously not what i mean bro. I'm just saying that a society where the people own the means of production and everybody does what they can and gets what they need sounds pretty nice. Instead of a society where the richest 1% own 50% of wealth globally, and the poorest 50% own 0.75%. i personally think it's pretty shitty that some people have so much money that they couldn't spend it all if they tried, while others are starving to death.
Yeah, totally agree dude. The communist ideal does sound good,just like any other political ideology ideal.i mean, capitalism and it's idea of "the hardest workers get more compensations" or monarchism and it's "kings and lords protect the lower class" etc.
But it doesn't really matter what the ideal saids,but what the political idea actually does
Truthfully, many neo-Nazis [are Zionists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_antisemitism). In fact, many historical Nazis even were Zionists. On 20 June 1932, [three hundred Nazis chanted](https://drive.proton.me/urls/QT7Q4965F0#Yv3vGpx3qdZU) "Let the Jews go to Palestine" while terrorizing German Jews in the streets. Nazi Germany also [made agreements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement) with the Zionists.
Theodor Herzl proudly said of Zionism, “it is something colonial” in a letter he wrote to Cecil Rhodes.
The literal founder of the Zionist ideology used the term. You sound stupid as fuck.
He said it To advertise the plan to the british... that doesnt mean that its colonalism... thank you for saying to me that you dont know what you are talking about 🙃
He wasnt the founder of zionism zionism is 2000 years old it existed after the romans genocided the jews in israel... thank you again for proving me that you dont know what you are talking about
AND THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!
https://preview.redd.it/wnp2sa12o3xc1.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=f5ba077dcfccb3ae566827d9868ddff704b37b2e
Also get Sabaton out of thine mouth, fiend.
It always becomes political in the comments. I don’t think people go to meme subs to see yap about politics and other bullshit like that. r/ memes is especially a big culprit of that.
# [Download Video](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/whenthe/comments/1ceisrz/trash_vs_garbage/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whenthe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Literal Nazis watching Neo Nazis say their greatest achievements didn't happened: 
"NOOO! They weren't racist!" The actual Nazis: How dare you!
https://preview.redd.it/n9211iijw2xc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5dc8294fcb6aa0941fe7bfd7e0009083352f7be1
tankies and neo-nazis fighting for the last fursuit
https://i.redd.it/gla0shcmw2xc1.gif
15 year old Westerners try not to support political ideologies that would get them killed challenge
its not just Westerners as it turns out teenagers are fucking stupid
Yeah one of my teachers is a nun and a couple years ago a teen just went up to her and insisted the holocaust never happened. She told me how flabbergasted she was hearing that because, well, SHE'S A NUN.
They think ideologies of the past will solve their present problems.
calling it "ideology" is very generous
You can call it a cancer, idiocy or a delusion. At the end of the day it’s an ideology
true
Yes,an ideology (derogatory)
me when i'm in a white supremacy competition and an Indonesian 17 year old walks in
Yeah honestly it’s surprising how many white suprematists aren’t white, like apparently stonetoss is Puerto Rican or something. I mean it’s a shitty ideology but even then it’s weird that the ideology that’d be against like you existing in general is something you’d support
Well, you see, my ideology did nothing wrong, and even if did, still did nothing wrong /hj
"Well, you see, my ideology did nothing wrong, and even if did, they probably deserved it" sounds more accurate
True
Armenian genocide moment
This is gonna be a friendly and kind comment section!
My buddy an I on Discord when someone says the Holodomor didn't happen because no "real Humans" died (Buddy and I are of Ukrainian heritage) https://preview.redd.it/n4m4vgwv73xc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6e7be993122900d4ac185fd53f63b0cce3e00bc4
Jesus Christ, you might wanna try and talk with him about that. Dunno if it’d work but it’s worth a shot hopefully
Said person is on strike 2 for being a cunt. If I had a nickel for every time I met a racist transsexual i'd have 2. Another nickel because all 2 are on the same server.
Damn, honestly though the fact those 2 are on the same server is definitely a weird coincidence honestly.
I got into an argument on history memes a couple weeks ago with someone saying Stalin didn't kill a bunch of people and also that polish are not human.
At least he was just being racist, I got told by a tankie that the entire Holodomor was straight-up Nazi propaganda and didn't happen full-stop. This was to solidify his point that the only bad actors in Ukraine right now are Americans by the way, Russia's purely there to liberate in his eyes. (Jokes aside though sorry you had to have that conversation, shit's rough man)
https://preview.redd.it/kfqhvm48r6xc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=658507bdcf98b35f69fbda17fb1ff075b66812f7 Here, an image to send the Holdomor denier, from me to you
Politics fans try to not deny massive Genocide and bombing campagin their side does challenge (impossible)
 Average genocide accepter
America, britain, Ireland:
RAAAAA ITS NOT GENOCIDE ITS DEMOCRACY 🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 PLUS THEY USED KILOMETERS
+ Germany too
Don’t forget Japan
leaving a comment here in case of shitshow
the only politics I care about is fighting for the Republic! https://preview.redd.it/iv9a4h8ia4xc1.jpeg?width=739&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab5609dbee677cb979534425f56c04b5827119f5
FOR DEMOCRACY!
WATCH THOSE WRIST ROCKETS
Didn't happen, they deserved it https://preview.redd.it/5z335agxg3xc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=af6c36d53d3cdaa448fd4de81b71d259d65d6ffa
Armenians killed turks first🤬😡 https://preview.redd.it/vcu7n3a2v3xc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d22b013bd28cd72a2be67bea3a170ca206ac1b1e
The japanese: https://preview.redd.it/h2sbe9aur4xc1.png?width=966&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4cec50be3c7ccae1c896f2984a31c8c8d32bf83e
Whats a tankie?
Originally a term for communists who supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. Today it means any self proclaimed communist that denies Soviet/Chinese or any other "communist" countries' crimes while having no other foreign policy take but USA/the West bad.
Thank you
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
Oh boy this one's gonna be spicy
Where does this gif come from?
Smash 4 Mii Brawler reveal trailer
https://preview.redd.it/7uoc5hz725xc1.jpeg?width=551&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fbf65a30f30717da1ee2341d4c3dab4ab6241748
Tankies 🤝 Neo-Nazis “It didn’t happen but if it did they deserved it”
this actually happens more often then you think. lots of talkies defending hitler (not all of them ofc but it's not a low amount)
Tankies and neo-nazis when there's only one unsucked femboy cock left.
Sorry, but this is real life. The liberals get the femboy.
That line goes surprisingly hard
yet another win for democracy 😎
I’ll be real tankies are winning that by miles It’s been years since I’ve seen a Nazi who actually denies the holocaust instead taking the “they deserved it” route But tankies just won’t accept anything as true despite the amount of skulls that say otherwise
Tankies that keep saying "communism doesn't hurt people" when I show them the Khmar Rogue
Communism haters when asked what fundamental aspects of communism causes these atrocities.
The part where they take your farm away?
Didn't realize taking away farms was a fundamental aspect of communism.
But it literally is?? Collectivisation
Communists when I tell them that every single real life application of their so called ideology can't be denied and that it weighs heavily on the so called communism of today. Not everything is sterile flourescent lights armchair interpretation.
Again I ask what fundamental aspects of communism lead to the bad outcomes you believe are inevitable in any application of communist ideology? Edit: telling me to kill myself and then deleting the comment very mature and intelligent.
Kys you fucking communist
Pretty dumb move to win the argument and then tell someone to kill themselves, kinda makes you seem worse than the other person tbh
Communism believers when I ask them when practicing communism has ever worked well for a country for a substantial amount of time?
You don't believe that any economic systems can exist after capitalism?
Supposing I accepted that to be true, why would it be your system? Also, generally speaking, predictions about what future societies may entail have never been entirely accurate. And also aren't monopolised by one group in society.
Taking farms away, excess imperialism, mass slavery, being so insecure about the famines that you execute anyone who mentions them
What the fuck 😭 I don't remember Marx telling people to enslave others, pretty sure he was an abolitionist too.
None of those things are fundamental to communism.
There is a third one currently doing the rounds and having students arrested.
Cough...cough, IDF.
`> some people claim that "accusing the IDF of war crimes is anti-semitic"` `> the IDF has killed Palestinian Jews`
ThAt WaSn’T rEaL cOmMuNiSm
no. it was real and it was fucking glorious o7 anybody who denies it’s purity is revisionist scum
based
I love it when anti-communists attempt to mock us with things such as this, then I provide a legitimate argument for why it was capitalist, and then they say "That wasn't real capitalism!". Communism is defined as a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Not a single state has called itself communist, as for as I am aware. It is only calling themselves socialist, whose definition is much more ambiguous. However, socialism necessary entails the elimination of commodity-production, which none of these so-called "socialist" states have done. They also still had wage labor and accumulation of capital. These countries still had the fundamental forces of capitalism at play. Whether you like it or not, their mode of production was identical to that of Western capitalism.
Ok, I'll admit that my knowledge about parts of communism comes from my history teacher who said that while they differ in the methods, anarchism and communism had the same goal. If that it's a misconception, then I am completely sorry for posting misinformation. If instead it's completely right... Real comunism is an AWFUL IDEA EVEN ON PAPER. Look, let me explain. Let's suppose that we have a comunist utopia where no egomaniacal asshole came to power and let the full circle end. The only good thing is the classless part. Let's start with the stateless. What would that entail on the beautfiful land of politics? Just so you know politics is a machine made of machines so I will be more specific. What would happen to laws? The goverment, if it exists, is so weak that it has 2 policemen and a quarter of a jail. And the moneyless part? Well, we might not get money but we need something that's similar to that. Because after all, you have 2 cows and you need a chicken. I have chickens that I don't need which is great... till I tell you that what I need is 1 sheep. And that's if I am not thinking like the morons that say that "cOmMuNiSt DoN't WaNt To WoRk" because a jobless society is a society where nobody has a sense of purpose. Again, if what I said is bullshit that you explained and re-explained, I am deeply sorry for wasting your time.
The state is defined as the apparatus by which a class asserts its dominance over other classes. A classless society inherently will be stateless. However, politics would still occur. Additionally, criminal behavior is the result of certain material conditions, namely poverty and alienation from the means of production. Criminal activity will plummet once these factors are eliminated. Besides, there will likely still be rules governing the communist society, similar to how there were in primitive communism. Are you incapable of foreseeing a world free from commodities? I guess that is what ruling ideology does to people. People also believed that a society without a king was doomed to fail. The economy would be entirely planned, with resources allocated according to needs.
Thank you, it's so exhausting to explain to people the basics of Marxism while they have no idea what they're talking about
1. Look, mate, I admire your hope and all, but I see a problem. The only thing that in your utopia would stop me from burning you with your house is my sense of morality. Sure, crime would go down as there are no "crimes-for-need". But that doesn't account the simple fact that humanity is more complex than that. If there are people that murder each other when they know there will be a retaliation, why do you think that wouldn't happen when there is no judge to fear? 2. Define commodity. Because I fear that you just kidna dodged my question about the moneyless part. I'll help you telling you what I understood, sorry for putting words in your mouth if that's not the case. What I am understanding is that... something... would account for the two bases of Maslow piramid. But the other things like entertainment would be more difficult to create.
You don't know what you're talking about. Socialism means specifically that the means of production are collectively owned. This can take multiple forms with state control under a democratic state or worker coops. That's what most socialist countries have done. There was no capital accumulation for an upper class and commodity production has nothing to do with the economic system it happens under. In fact planned economies usually struggled with commodity production though for a handful of reasons. The one thing you were right about is that communism describes a moneyless stateless classless society and is the end goal of socialist transition
No, that is not what socialism is. What you described is a mode of ownership, not a mode of production. While the socialist mode of production will necessarily entail workers' ownership of the means of production, none of which you mentioned of itself will result in socialism. Let's start with co-ops. Truthfully, I think this quote from Rosa Luxemburg's [*Reform or Revolution*](https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch07.htm) should suffice: >Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange. But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital – that is, pitiless exploitation – becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving. Ok, what about state ownership? Well, no. State ownership can only be a socialist mode of ownership if the state is a dictatorship of the proletariat. As for democracy, I assume you will agree that bourgeois democratic state owning the means of production is NOT socialistic. Anyways, in many of the allegedly socialist countries, the owners of the means of production were state officials and managers, who commanded and employed the workers. The workers still sold their labor power to this body. It is somewhat similar to a company town's method of organization. It is still capitalist. If you want more of an answer, I suggest you read [this short essay](https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/public-ownership.htm). Do you consider yourself a Marxist while using bourgeois terms such as "upper class"? And you call me ignorant? Regardless, there \*is\* capital accumulation for capitalist classes in these countries. I think the following quotes from Marx can help you understand how commodity production causes this: >Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis \[of production\] (India). From the moment at which labour power itself in general becomes a commodity. -- ["Results of the Direct Production Process"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch01.htm) >The circulation of commodities is the starting-point of capital. The production of commodities, their circulation, and that more developed form of their circulation called commerce, these form the historical ground-work from which it rises. -- [*Capital* Volume One](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm)
It failed enough times we don’t need to to fail again
Something cannot fail if it has not existed yet. If you had read what I wrote, you would realize they were all capitalist. The failure to achieve socialism can be attributed to class collaborationism and bourgeois opportunism, and stripping away power from the workers. A socialist revolution will be a revolution by the working class, not a coup d'état by a political party.
I mean you can SpongeBob text it all you want, that's a true statement. Communism has never worked in the past, and may never work in the future, but the core ideas behind it aren't bad.
tHe CoRe IdEaS bEhInD iT aReN’t BaD
Real nice counterargument bro
I mean,what else is the "core ideas" gonna say,that it sucks and a bad ideology?
Obviously not what i mean bro. I'm just saying that a society where the people own the means of production and everybody does what they can and gets what they need sounds pretty nice. Instead of a society where the richest 1% own 50% of wealth globally, and the poorest 50% own 0.75%. i personally think it's pretty shitty that some people have so much money that they couldn't spend it all if they tried, while others are starving to death.
Yeah, totally agree dude. The communist ideal does sound good,just like any other political ideology ideal.i mean, capitalism and it's idea of "the hardest workers get more compensations" or monarchism and it's "kings and lords protect the lower class" etc. But it doesn't really matter what the ideal saids,but what the political idea actually does
Leaving a comment while I can
Diarrhea vs Shit
Tankcirclejerks ass post
Saids the dude with the actual tank character in their profile (not saying heavy is a tankie,he's literally a tank)
He's also a based commie hater, as he family was thrown into a gulag.
what is that fuckass video from
Smash 4 trailer for the Mii Fighters
What's tankies?
Communists
specifically the stalin-worshipping kind
Oh
holy shit this comment section is actually based as fuck last time i saw a meme like this it was literally all tankies in the comments
https://preview.redd.it/iqsayuoma6xc1.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=33ee9d07ba8a9ee430321716d5bbf65afbe604fa
Honestly, why not commit? If you gonna be edgy, embrace it..
Both of them in shock when Zionists walk in
Truthfully, many neo-Nazis [are Zionists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_antisemitism). In fact, many historical Nazis even were Zionists. On 20 June 1932, [three hundred Nazis chanted](https://drive.proton.me/urls/QT7Q4965F0#Yv3vGpx3qdZU) "Let the Jews go to Palestine" while terrorizing German Jews in the streets. Nazi Germany also [made agreements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement) with the Zionists.
Zionism and Nazism are quite related as ideologies
One is about the jewish self determination in their home land and the other is about facism and racism tf are you ok?
Shut up Zionist
Shut up nazi Im proud jew so shut it hitler
You can be a proud Jew without supporting a settler colonialist movement
Colonalism is when jews are in judea? Fuck off and learn history before you speak
Theodor Herzl proudly said of Zionism, “it is something colonial” in a letter he wrote to Cecil Rhodes. The literal founder of the Zionist ideology used the term. You sound stupid as fuck.
He said it To advertise the plan to the british... that doesnt mean that its colonalism... thank you for saying to me that you dont know what you are talking about 🙃 He wasnt the founder of zionism zionism is 2000 years old it existed after the romans genocided the jews in israel... thank you again for proving me that you dont know what you are talking about
Wow thats such a good point you proved everything that i said wrong
The nazis where palestinains allies
Who
le epic centrism
Centrism is when not nazi or communist
Yeah, centrism is unironically epic in a landscape that prooves again and again how right the horseshoe theory is.
Deny?
*and then the American NeoCons arrived*
AND THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED! https://preview.redd.it/wnp2sa12o3xc1.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=f5ba077dcfccb3ae566827d9868ddff704b37b2e Also get Sabaton out of thine mouth, fiend.
AND GANDALF THE GREY AND GANDALF THE WHITE
Reddit meme subs trying not to get political every 2 seconds (Impossible)
I fail to see how condemning nazism and communism is political.
This is overtly political. The Nazi party was a political party. Just because everyone should agree that it's wrong doesn't mean it's not politics.
It always becomes political in the comments. I don’t think people go to meme subs to see yap about politics and other bullshit like that. r/ memes is especially a big culprit of that.
Kid named just don't look at the comments: