I… have chosen.  
 
Also these fine chap(o)s.

Doesn’t stirnerism kind of fly in the face of all that “other people matter just as much as you do” stuff that (true) communism was built on?

@Background Pony #D16B
AKA why have the living do work the dead can do for them?

@Background Pony #76E0  
Marxism-Leninism-Necromantism

@Genny You are such a bumbling idiot in regards to all the absolute BS that you’re spewing right now, I don’t even know where to BEGIN to start.

@Background Pony #411E
 
I think Thomas Paine would agree with you there.
 
Though arguably during his time “Government” was monarchy.

Politics is a spook.

@habitantunholycity  
I want to touch Kropotkins’ beard. It looks all fluffy and stuff.  

@AaronMk  
>implying i fell for the monogamy spook and not simply the fact that only Stirner is worth husbandoing

@habitantunholycity
 
>Adhering to the spookiness of monogamous husbando’ing/waifu’ing

@habitantunholycity  
Well, you’re partially right, Rosa, Emma and qts from Hungary and Catalunya aren’t husbandos, they’re waifus, but…  
>bread man  
>Apo  
>not husbandos

But only Stirner is husbando tier.

@raakamagna Jüche is pretty natsock-y actually. Though I’ll always wonder how much of that is literally reactionary towards the views of their Southron cousins. There’s a lot of “FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO, WE’LL DO THE OPPOSITE!!!!” between those two. Then you just add a limey twist of pseudo-monarchy and presto!  
Of course unlike in Argentina and elsewhere, there’s loads of cultural factors to pull into why it doesn’t work, as well as China being their only friend. Safe to say any ‘help’ they get is usually worse than the problem. (especially in regards to safe working conditions or viable crop yields, they can’t take all the blame for those!)  
Turns out they became a living example of why monarchism died out, though. Eventually some jealous ignorant spoiled little brat is going to come along and upend the family legacy by trying to be his dad without any of the discipline, skill, or subtlety. All is well and good in a monarchy until some insane idiot takes the helm.  
If it weren’t for the conditioning his father and grandfather put his people through I doubt they’d care to follow that fat dork. He simply has no respectable qualities that you could detect in his predecessors.  
(another failing of monarchy: since you know exactly who might replace you it’s really easy to rub them out)

@AaronMk  
Lenin was pretty much critical of Left Communism,  
Lenin believed that there should be a Vanguard Party to protect the workers from capitalism, thus ending capitalism completely, therefore criticized the left-coms’ views of an immediate dictatorship of the proletariat,

@Genny  

 
Except Rosa had called hers when the Bolsheviks had won out, or at least enough so that she could be critical of the Russian system when she spurred her uprising, a year after. Though the Russians and Ukrainians would have had to cross Poland anyways.
 
Never the less, it’s supposed that for the Bolsheviks that collapse of Rosa’s German Uprising was a good thing for them because it allowed them to assume a total or near-total monopoly on speaking for communism.

@AaronMk  

 
remember that Russia was still in a big civil war between Communists and Monarchist Capitalists, and the latter was still pretty ‘powerful’ so it would be obvious that Lenin couldnt support the German Revolutionaires,

@AaronMk  
ah, ok then

@Genny  

 
In the end it doesn’t much matter because the term was born from Russian tanks entering Hungarian streets to put down fellow communists fed up with Moscow’s shit.

@AaronMk  
Breznev wasn’t a tankie, nor was Krushchev they were pretty much revisionists

I should also add we shouldn’t forget the Council Communist uprising against the Soviet-backed regime of Hungary.
 
>tfw when people just want their communism but make the mistake of revolting next door to the power house of tankies, and thus your uprising gives birth to the invention of tankies.

Also tfw I had a long post written earlier but Derpi deleted that.
 
ffs.

@raakamagna  
since when did communism use coercion?  
and you still use ‘‘communist nations’’ whilst you have been proven that commmunism is stateless

@raakamagna  

 
Not really. It’s only come to be because the Soviet Union wanted to speak for everything and if you didn’t tow the Russian line you died. They melted down Revolutionary Catalonia for that reason, they didn’t assist Luxembourg or show any support to her German revolution when it happened. The only nation that that managed to survive Soviet pressure with a more libertarian model was Tito’s Yugoslavia, where the economy was actually ran by the workers who ran the factories and not the state itself. Though this “libertarian” is only in comparison to the then-existing Soviet structure and might be more comparable to the same level of authority as the west in terms of breathing room.
 
Otherwise, now that the Soviets are gone we can actually have the Rojava experiment and Southern Chiapas without sectional interference. Both are widely supported; Rojava to the point they had to ask foreign volunteers to please stop coming to help them.

@Genny  
The explain why all communist nations are authoritarian states. Because communism is impossible without coercion.

@raakamagna  
>north korea  
>implying its not a totalitarian semi-monarchist dictatorship  
ok  
>tfw you actually believe communist state aint an oxymoron  
okay  
“The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state.’’ – Engels
 
’’But it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary.’’ – Also Engels
 
’’The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not “abolished”. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase “a free people’s state”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand.” – Again, Engels

@Genny  
Tell that to North Korea.