You joke around, but population do not vote unless they are discontent.

A revolution does not happen in a society that has its opium.

There will never be an end goal of communism in a socialist state.

revolutions almost always end in a shit storm

Oh really?

And yet we hear of them more in a lifetime of our lives.

World War 1 started the revolution of monarchies into republican states.

The shitstorm that follows can either be tamed or unleashed.

well the kind of revolution i think you are talking about is going to end in a massive shit storm

Is it now?

with the rich standing up to the poor and slaughtering them with ease

And yet with the fervor of communism

The poor stood up to the rich in great numbers.

North Korea did not fall.

North Vietnam did not capitulate.

Afghanistan did not tremble.

Even if it was so easy, why is the war in the middle east for the west been so difficult?

Perhaps there is something more than the direct eye.

this was all due to rules of engagement and humane warfare

War is good for business

Peace is good for business

as well

At least this incel has the right idea.

nou

and all of these rules were set in place by the rich to create longer wars

Do not lecture me on what the rich do and do not.

The poor have always stood up to the rich in varying degrees of success.

but in a war were the rich need to fight for survival things will be a lot different

The rich however provides its opium.

The rich tames the poor with its opium.

The rich use religion as institutions to distribute these opium.

But some have backed away from religion.

The rich then uses academia to distribute the same opium that religion distributes.

But let go of the opium.

Forget what religion has told you.

Forget what science has told you.

And you'll find that there is nothing dividing the poor and the rich aside from the chains that you have voluntarily allowed yourself into.

Point..?

@Techpriest was the union of Soviet SOCIALIST republics communist or socialist did the DPRK have communism in its constitution or SOCIALISM, Cuba is run by a communist party but it has a SOCIALIST economy. What you’re saying makes no sense according to Marxism. Socialism as stated before is a workers state Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, the abolition of private property and commodity production. A state with only proletarians and no bourgeois (there is no such compromise between classes as in capitalism) It is the translational phase from capitalism to communism. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society which will happen after socialism has achieved a global victory over the imperialist powers. If you want to get rid of the state immediately you are an anarchist and thereby anti Marxist, if you are just pretending that socialism is social democracy and communism is socialism then you are doing the left as a whole a great disservice and feeding into bourgeois lies

Karl Marx viewed history through what is known as dialectical materialism, greatly oversimplified dialectical materialism states that the material conditions for slavery is what caused feudalism to rise as a response to the issues in slavery, as were the material conditions for fuedalism such that capitalism would arise as a response to the issues in feudalism, the internal contradictions within the capitalist mode of production would then give way to a new society that being a workers state, socialism and that would eventually give way into communism which is stateless. Marx heavily disagreed with anarchists in that we could immediately go from capitalism into statelessness and thereby kicked them out of the 1st internationale. Honestly knowing the difference between socialism and communism is pretty basic stuff, to be anti socialist as a marxist is an oxymoron because he uses the two words interchangeably in his writings (though my aforementioned statement about him wanting a transitional state into statelessness is true regardless of semantics)

Damn commies fighting commies