In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

@Mr. X In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

@Mr. X You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the owner of private property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

I took the compass

The problem i have with centrism is i feel like its a lost cause

Giving the state power is such a slippery slope

Are you being sarcastic?

There has to be a state, i just dont know how to do it right

Something with very little power

you take a look at minarchism?

sounds like something right up your alley

how can you deregulate that

all you need to own a firearm in america is to be over 18 and not have a felony on your record

oh I see your point now

pragerU plan?

Pug is Merkel lmao

I really dont think that the things that EU has done are due to incompetence...

Depends on what you define incompetent, if incompetent means not caring about civilians, ok

yea true

posted again bc I dont want nibbas seeing my name

on the certificate thingy

"not having the ability to do something as it should be done"

you're centre left liberal

Is the definition, the EU has its own idea how things should be done

I think Ive seen E's polcom

Of course it is not.

I guess we can look at it that way.

oof

Well, Putin is nationalist/populist you can look at it as you want, and so he puts his people, the Russian people first, he is great, strong leader and he is what Russia needs against NATO