Nope, I'm not going to say anything about Marx

But that's how revolutionary forces usually form

You can technically call any of these organizations a gang

Criminals are the only ones desperate enough to cling to marx

it says so in the wikipedia article for lumpenprole

Doesn't mean it's actually one, and knowing that COINTELPRO operated against it, it's pretty obvious what's happening here

>it says so in the wikipedia article for lumpenprole

yeah, they didnt want the chinks using the ricans as puppets

that's obvious af

What are the other options besides private and public ownership as a political framework?

community ownership

but only when the community cares for itself

So basically what I said

which is not the case in socialist systems

the community only cares for the bureaucracy which keeps it dependent

How does community ownership differ from public ownership?

Great, not only you're mentally challenged, you also don't understand what socialism is and have to resort to copying

public ownership is by permission of the state

community ownership is by collective agreement to the spirit of the community

this, and bowing to the politboro are _NOT_ the same thing

Well that's more than clear

At least you're making some sense now

im playing in the framework by pure improv ^_^

this is getting fun

when do i get to shoot someone

Collective ownership is small-scale public ownership, a sub-set not a separate category.

administered by whom?

Self-appointed by the community, or conventions agreed by the community that distinguish ownership from private individuals to the collective.

thus creating micro-power structures who's collective intent will always be subordinate to the state

sounds like PTA bullshit to me fam

not a solution to community property

Citizens of a state are always subordinate, unless they revolt.

So you come here trying to debunk communism and you're talking about a state

poor excuse

This is pure gold

no, im trying to figure out if commies are human

debunking it in your mind is a tangental giggle

Your statement "collective intent will always be subordinate to the state" is actually correct.

More one-liners, I see that you've exhausted all your intellect with those previous two lines

Which is why you have to smash the state and communalism is stupid.

ok what if the state is functional