@Borzo you try to artificialy overcome process of creating united communist humanity

Yes

We live together or we die alone

It is the orthodox Marxist way

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

This is clearly not the case, however.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.?

No this is abstact cosmopolitism as this process is dialectical also about national question

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products

National question is objective problem we can't reject it

It is a problem

Gorbachev most certainly destroyed the country with it

But, just as to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

By utilising the internationalism of class, we can use this to our advantage

And instead of focusing in socialism in one country, we should point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality

@Musketar (Alex) Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation,

Are women entitled to sex?

@Musketar (Alex) National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, anyway, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to the internet, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

@bussy destroyer But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

@bussy destroyer The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

@bussy destroyer He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Production of offspring yes.

@bussy destroyer but our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

@Borzo I see

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women.

For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

@Borzo you talk like a twat

woowowowo

The twat calls me a twat

lmao

it's unbearable lmao

Then fuck off

kys

Lmao

slav=slave race

LOL

Ok buddy

kys