the strong laborer who makes a fiery speech to his fellow serfs can be dominant in the same way that others could be

That's a very good point. Ideas can be more powerful than status if the conditions are ripe enough.

i think it is wrong to automatically assume any ruling class is responsible

this could potentially do your own movement harm, or discredit a genuine movement, simply by making the assumption

Can a rich man start a revolution for the poor, and a poor man start a revolution for the rich?

Well Zhou enlai came from the rich in Manchuria and helped Mao

that depends

or well, it doesn't depend

but you should clarify

is this "revolution" intended, or is it a byproduct of something else?

is a rich man specifically doing it to better the lives of the poor, and vice versa?

Yes, I am talking about potentiality. Is it ever possible for someone to make a speech to inspire against his personal, material interests, regardless of intent?

yes, but the motive could just as easily be unrelated

To tie this up then, often the ruling class or dominant individuals will be responcible for using armies in their own interests, but it is not always the case. It is also possible they can do the opposite.

mhm

If this is truly tied up I would like to bring up unifying global languages and my design plan for how we could try to do it

why would you do that?

It interests me as I know alot about linguistics

One last thing before you move on too far, to return to the example of terrorism and the psychological obsession in the West. Is this a ruling class ideology or do the masses also use it for their benefit?

well, you're excluding those who, in the minority of a population, through whatever means, reach dominance and can acheive the same thing

without being among the ruling class

an example could be a foreign coup

or a bunch of fringe radicals who somehow get the government to bend knee

Oh, I forgot that ruling class and dominance are different things.

I really just want to understand the phenomena and the reasons behind it.

@Evan Are you are representative of the great Aryan race, sir?

@Deleted User I see no benefit to the masses in the us from this mindset, being a member of the masses, I can't speak for all proles across the US though

@Evan Certainly the White Race has better means than spam and incoherent images?

I don't associate with dirty cumskins

I don't associate with exterminators of Slavs

@Evan Lack of diplomacy is the mark of a primitive worldview. You are welcome to it, but do not spread it amongst those who respect intelligent discourse.

@Evan Are you white trash or Aryan superman? Is this how the elite of your people spend their free time?

I already told you I'm not white

https://www.youtube.com/user/randytaylor69/videos

I like you ^

Why

too bad

FREEZE PEACH!

like putting images of black rioting...

like if inequalities didn't exist

or the image of the kid and minecraft, like if communism was egalitarianism

Do you know what communism is?

yes

" Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat."

>like if communism was egalitarianism

No apparently you dont

It's when cultural Marx eats all the white babies and sterilizes white men and mixes white people with Jewish transvestite manlets from Nigeria

communism isn't about redistributing the wealth

is about taking the means of production so workers can get the labour they produce

Communism is materialistic/economic egalitarian

What

There's no arguing that lmao

it's not egalitarian; but removing the bourgeoisie makes a more egalitarian world since there's no exploitation

Why do it's follower countries not follow such a model then

it doesn't want to redistribute the wealth between the workers

the same workers

In the Soviet union you got money based on how much you work and how much your work is worth

What do you guys have to say about communism failing so much?

It's a genuine question

The Soviet Union failed because of internal market liberalization

Most Russians wish for it to be back

"We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. "

Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

personal property isn't abolished

those saying that it didn't work are trotskyists, we aren't; it worked and we say that revisionism entered culminating in the restoration of capitalism

Some things you may cite against us aren't actually communist and i can explain

Ie Venezuela

Or the dprk

I.E.*

@Evan are you going to say anything?

To put it simply Venezuela was only ever democratic socialist, meaning to acheive socialism democratically with reform

Anybody can see that they have a large private sector

And the dprk has gone towards juche because of the threat of south Korea and imperialism, it was last socialist in 1972 although it is not as poor as portrayed it still suffers from poverty

Venezuela was the richest country in South America before Chavez

Only socialism can fuck something up that bad

Are you autistic and did you read what I said

Only an autistic man would think reform can build socialism

even in that they reduced poverty

The private sector can't do anything because of the government

the private sector must be entirely expropriated or they aren't socialists

>reduced poverty

yes

>gained one do the highest crime rates in the world

>tolerating financed opposition

What do you say against the argument that communism is not yet suitable for human nature?

that argument emerges in the view that to make communism people have to be altruist, or that they'll be worse; they won't be able to trade

the workers, who are the majority; would have improvements in their work, healthcare and education; they'd feel less alienated and therefore they would be able to fill their emotions better

so it's more compatible with "human nature"

Bullshit.

if they point out scientific management under in the period of war they have to realize that they needed to speed up the production because they were in the backward compared to other countries