Well Yea Forums?

Well Yea Forums?

Attached: an-argument-between-these-six-would-be-priceless-5625606.png (1200x1465, 385K)

>Marx
Why?

What do you mean why?
Are you an idiot? Maybe a brainlet?

You just jumped to a conclusion.

Missing Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.

Why not?

His ideology fails everywhere it is tried. Call it "not real Socialism/Communism/Marxism" all you want. Every time it is ATTEMPTED... it fails. By all means, have him speak, but if Marx were alive today he'd be seen as an unimaginable historical failure by the general population.

I just think it'd be more productive to have someone else. What about John Locke? Thomas Jefferson? Hell, there's Jesus in the pic, how about we hear what pedophilic wife-beating warmonger Prophet Muhammad would have to say.

I actually heard that Aisha wasn't actually 6 when he married her. Imam Tawhidi says that she was actually in her 20s... and was also not a virgin. In short, historic Muslims would prefer their prophet were a child-fucking pedo than someone who married grown women who weren't a virgin. That in and of itself is pretty messed up, but anyhow most Muslims believe Aisha was a child so I tend to stick with that.

Another interesting one would be Sigmund Freud or Karl Jung. Or how about that woman who was openly racist and founded Planned Parenthood? Might be good for a laugh. Why waste time with someone who's ideology lead to the world's greatest suffering and failed everywhere it's tried in any form of purity whatsoever. For ANY degree of Socialism to work, it needs a firm foundation of a system that actually functions; Capitalism. It's by the excesses generated by Capitalism that Socialist policies have any chance at longterm success.

Who's bottom left?

>His ideology fails everywhere it is tried
except it worked in USSR, it worked in China, it worked in Cuba, it worked in Yugoslavia, it worked in Nicaragua and it worked in Burkina Faso. Socialism gave the inhabitants of these countries massive improvements of living standards, of life expectancy, of medical care; it provided literacy programs, job programs, vaccines and affordable housing to millions of people.
Socialism DID work for millions of people, many who since the fall of socialism have suffered from unemployment, homelessness or drug addiction.
That is not to say that there were no problems in the aforementioned countries, or that the atrocities committed by the governments in those countries, including the suppression of unions and free speech, are to be defended, or that they are blueprints for any future society.

Attached: rtpoll.png (1000x933, 1.18M)

So would you prefer Marxist ideology over Capitalism? because let's assume for a moment that all those benefits you mentioned DID happen... seems to me that Capitalist nations have and are doing substantially better than those failed Socialist/Communist/Marxist nations did, and without the hundred million murders/starvations.

Christ and Marx form an unlikely tag team and absolutely destroy Stirnier's pitiful gibs me philosophy

Christ's ideology failed, though

How so? Elaborate.

>communist
>marxist
>nations

Attached: 1549221845976.jpg (611x630, 68K)

Almost none of these countries actually had implemented communism as capitalistic methods were still used,even the countries that managed to implement it didn't last for long, an example being the USSR which had to establish the N.E.P. in 1921 which allowed private industry due to the failure that the communist economy was

>christendom now so insufferably meek they are now choosing to ethnically replace their own population in fear of being seen as evil and selfish for not wanting to do it.
sounds like a complete success to me.

>seems to me that Capitalist nations have and are doing substantially better than those failed Socialist/Communist/Marxist nations did
Sure if you compare the USA in 1985 to USSR the same year, the USA did a lot better, if you ignore stuff like unemployment, homelessness and drug abuse. But it isn't like this was an equal race. In 1945 USSR and eastern Europe were in ruins after ww2, while the USA profited massively from the war (not because they were "evil, cynic cappies", but simply because of the geopolitical advantages). East germany was similarly in a worse position than west germany. It is really hard to make accurate comparisons between countries like that, and it is just as easy to make comparisons that makes the socialist countries seem favorable, for instance has Cuba fared better than most other Caribbean islands like Haiti ever since the revolution, Burkina Faso under Sankara did way better than Niger or Somalia has ever done, and so on.

Attached: 4f9af27bb9bd562204ad5121251eb8171cd80d9e4a8a22f27e1e0e077893d4e4.jpg (1285x2777, 552K)

>without the hundred million murders/starvations
I love how neoliberal shills depict communism as this murderous ideology, but when people are killed directly due to capitalism and liberalism, it's always mistakes or the free choice of people or something.
The ideas of John Locke unironically killed hundred millions of people. The USA and the UK have waged countless wars to spread "democracy" and sell opium to the Chinese. The search for profits routinely create industrial disasters like in Bhopal or Minamata. Yet none of you take offense at that. You are hypocrites.

this post is so based

Who's bottom left

This

Pentti Linkola

yes, by definition, marxism needs to develop in one nation first. In a world where marxism prevails, this necessarily happens.

>functional society w some bad shit
VS
>dysfunctional Marxists anarchist hell hole
gee i wonder

How would Stirner vs Jesus debate would be?
I reckon stirner will call everything Jesus says, a spook

>Stirner: God is a spook. There are no filthy higher ups.
>Jesus: I am God.
>Stirner: and yet, still a spook.

Somalia wasn’t really all that bad prior to the retarded war with Ethiopia.

Maybe shit and cum?

cue sermon on the mount 2 electric boogaloo

Attached: 1550539171176.jpg (502x414, 77K)

Do your job mods

Cringe

In the breakout motion picture of the summer

>it's another dialectics episode

Attached: 1550901087350.gif (329x353, 162K)

Which fucking system didn't spawn wars for profit and resources? If anything liberal democracies are comparatively more peaceful than others, though the case can be made that this is also due to MAD.

Locke is more of a cretin than the ecomeme man.

I'm willing to buy the argument that "real communism hasn't been tried" if the people advancing those arguments would also admit that they aren't real communists, advocating for the dissolution of both private ownership of resources and the state, but rather totalitarian socialists seeking to use the state to bludgeon their opposition into submission. The forces of socialism has a problem with the combined clusterfuck of a monopoly of power and a concentration of capital that ensures the replacement of the old bourgeoisie elite by a new, but equally oppressive, bureaucratic and partisan elite.

And to be honest? I don't think you can avoid having a powerful state if you plan to impose "workers owning the means of production" across a wide swathe of territory while also preserving the logistical chains of a modern economy. Not every worker can be involved in constructing, maintaining, and coordinating the fundamentals of the economy. At some point, you will have to elect representatives for the workers who own the means of production to do this job... which is where the problems will reappear. Under this system of government, both political and economic power is concentrated in the hands of a very few, so its no surprise that these regimes have committed some of the most atrocious and systemic abuses against human rights in history.

Pertti Linkola,a finnish radical deep ecologist.