How did modern communism get completely co-opted into an ideology of resentful third-worlders non-white ethnonationalists sexual minorities and women when it was originally created and purely intended as an ideology for working class men in western europe?
>>18531592but enough about the 2012 wall street protests.
>>18531592It will always be an ideology for the most oppressed and downtrodden just like Christianity was when Rome was powerful. When modern western civilization enters steep decline more people everywhere will convert to communism.
>>18531592Because getting rid of private property is gay and retarded. When the world watched the USSR either throwing people out of their homes or moving families into them it collectively realized communism was for the weak and pathetic. >>18531607You're underage.
>>18531596OWS was a nothingburger honestly
Because western Europe even in the late 1800s had existing socialist parties for the communists to compete with. That's why even when there was massive unrest and the opportunity for a revolution (Germany 1919, France 1968, etc.) that support and those votes went to other left wing movements, not communism. The kind of violent proletarian revolution Communists call for is going to get a lot more traction when you're preaching it to scared starving peasants. The governments in countries like Russia, China, French Vietnam, etc. were a special mix of incompetence and cruelty that made it easy for communists to find willing recruits.
>>18531592It is designed to overthrow existing systems by dividing people into classes and then pitting those classes against each other. Working class men just happened to be the first target.
>>18531592Blame Lenin and the slavoid subhumans who corrupted the idea and spread its perverted form all across the world.If it was first adopted and popularized by a white country, we would be living in an utopia today.
>>18531996See>>18531777
>>18531592It wasnt, read Marx
>>18531920I don't know how many people here have actually tried to read Lenin but he was really demagogic and venomous. I did not get a good impression. Everyone who was an enemy of his (which was mostly other socialists) were phrase-mongering lackeys or "renegades." No sense of humor whatsoever. Apparently in practical politics however he would behave this way and then completely flip to the other side if a person he denounced in the most merciless and vile terms yesterday was useful the next day. That's actually not so bad because it was never personal for him, he was completely instrumental, but it's not pleasant.Probably a good politician though. Also rhetoric if you're a Russian revolutionary politician in 1917, for sure. Like maybe it's a Russian thing (they're great at silver-tongued insults) but I'm not sure what contribution really was for socialists beyond that in terms of understanding the world. Like some confused pamphlets on hot topics in which he contradicted himself whenever it was necessary and/or convenient? That was just awful but it's more a political style and organizational form (the party-state) that had an influence. The problem is that Westerners will look visibly insane trying to copy it.
>>18531592Third Worlders used Communist Revolution as a vehicle to transition to a form of Republicanism. That's why they'll often call themselves some variant of "People's Republic of Thirdworldistan". They didn't have the Classical Liberal framework that the western world had for achieving proper Republicanism. Marx himself actually warned people about this.
>>18532108>That's why they'll often call themselves some variant of "People's Republic of Thirdworldistan"."People's democracy" was also a term that was used a lot. It's like covering Michael Jackson in Russian:https://youtu.be/xX-6KxMuQn0
