• Me:It's permissible for working class people to shoplift essential items they need for their survival.
  • Reactionaries:nO but uh what about uhm dont u kno the job creators will get sad maybe !?!?!
  • Me (WAVING COMMUNIST FLAG):lmfao fuck it it's permissible for the working class to shoplift fucking anything labor is entitled to all it creates
every conversation with a communist
  • person:communism doesn't work
  • communist:yes it does
  • person:okay how does it work without stripping people of their freedom or not historically killing many people?
  • communist:okay but have you like???????? seen how bad capitalism is???????/// checkmate

anonymous asked:

what's the difference between anarchy and communism?

Communism is commonly understood as a point of arrival of the socialist revolution (the dictatorship of the proletariat), and it is a society without classes and without a state very similar to the (left libertarian) idea of Anarchy.

Anarchy is a rather generic term for a decentralized and spontaneous (voluntary) form of organization.

Although anarchist communists struggle for a communist (based on equality) as well as anarchist society (they are against the state and the armed forces), there are also anarchists who reject this type of solution, such as some individualists, primitivists and mutualists.

From an anarcho-communist point of view communism and anarchy are pretty much the same concept: a stateless, classless society in which no one rules over others. The aim of libertarian socialists is then to establish (Libertarian) Communism as a direct result of the revolution without a dictatorship of the workers state.

Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune.
—  Karl Marx, Capital, Volume One

mattykinsel asked:

Wouldn't we need a military to defend us if something else happened and another country attacked? Like who would hold all of the weapons and means of self defence in the time being kinda thing, how would people be trained to effectively defend themselves from an external threat (bombs, etc.) thank you !

No, we wouldn’t need military because anarchists are generally opposed to nations and borders. We envision one world united by solidarity and mutual aid where there is no space for military violence. The public order will be organized by the people for the people in a more or less spontaneous way, self managed and appropriate to their needs.

But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

Doubtless the Bolsheviks would have proceeded in this very way were it not that they suffered under the frightful compulsion of the world war, the German occupation and all the abnormal difficulties connected therewith, things which were inevitably bound to distort any socialist policy, however imbued it might be with the best intentions and the finest principles.


Everything that happens in Russia is comprehensible and represents an inevitable chain of causes and effects, the starting point and end term of which are: the failure of the German proletariat and the occupation of Russia by German imperialism. It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics. When they get in there own light in this way, and hide their genuine, unquestionable historical service under the bushel of false steps forced on them by necessity, they render a poor service to international socialism for the sake of which they have fought and suffered; for they want to place in its storehouse as new discoveries all the distortions prescribed in Russia by necessity and compulsion – in the last analysis only by-products of the bankruptcy of international socialism in the present world war.

—  Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution (1918)
The tremendous and still accelerating development of science and technology has not been accompanied by an equal development in social, economic, and political patterns…We are now…only beginning to explore the potentialities which it offers for developments in our culture outside technology, particularly in the social, political and economic fields. It is safe to predict that…such social inventions as modern-type Capitalism, Fascism, and Communism will be regarded as primitive experiments directed toward the adjustment of modern society to modern methods.
—  Dr. Ralph Linton

Newly refurbished Jangchon Vegetable Co-op Farm. The entire town was rebuilt, with a health complex, science center, sports park, and theatre constructed. The town’s buildings are all equipped with solar water-heaters, solar panels, and methane gas supply systems.