>can't win over blacks>can't win over poorfags>outright enemies of blue collar workers>not taken seriously/ seen as useful idiots by their intellectually inferior middle class liberal pragmatic allies >can't/won't win over the armed forces>can't/won't win over the intelligence agencies>can't/won't win over the politicians>decent success rate with middle class children (dropped by junior yr), academics, homosexuals and trannys.Is there a book which explains how this leads to revolutionary success or should i just see all the le-science-of-hisory 2-more-weeksism from the past 200 years?
You should note that you are talking about the US. In Europe communism is mostly liked by the elderly, chuds, poor people, blue collar workers. While middle class and intellectuals as well as gay people absolutely hate it.
>>24950477Communism is a millenarian religion that thinks revolution is just one contradiction away
>>24950477I'm my country (Italy) communism is mostly popular with nostalgic boomers. They're also the biggest russia cocksuckers around.
Maybe read why it emerged in the first place. You can read Tragedy and Hope, for example, if you're interested in the 19th century financial history. In the early 19th century the international bankers, or merchant bankers as they were still called, made a huge amount of money by lending money to industrialists whose factories were rapidly expanding and that required capital for that. However, at the end of the 19th century, the bankers started to notice that the industrialists and big steel corporations etc started to have so much money that they could finance their expansion from their profit margins alone, and no longer needed the services of the merchant bankers. Worried that they'd get cut out from the wealth generation, the merchant bankers started shifting to public sector, by providing liquidity to the governments. They quickly noticed that the most wasteful politicians were the socialists who promised welfare programs to the poor, which of course required a lot of money that the bankers were more than willing to lend. This way they basically made the governments pay taxes to the bankers ensuring the the bankers were at the top of the game once more instead of the industrialists. This is of course 19th century reality and a bit outdated by now, but it still explains why socialists are so eager to seize the means of production, ie the assets of the industrialists. It also explains the early 20th century conflicts between the often protestant industrialists and the often jewish merchant bankers. And why the industrialists tended to lean towards fascism while hitler accused jews for supporting communism. After the world wars the corporate and banking world kind of fused together and this stopped being such an issue for the elites. Though I suppose a new schism is emerging now that the tech giants are threatening the old financial sector with their services, and I guess that explains things like bitcoin, DOGE and all those tech libertarians who try to challenge the big banks with their services. Bankers supporting high taxes is of course nothing new. They can move their assets from place to place with a stroke of a pen, so they often support high taxes on others because they know they can avoid them unlike their rivals. In the republic of florence the medici already realized that, and supported high taxes on the rich aristocrats to gain the support of the lower classes.
>>24950477Based Zerg macro > micro scrub
>>24950477See >>24950509>>24950514Commies are mostly consists of stalinist oldfarts in basically everywhere outside of angl*sphere
>>24950477>can't win over blacksTell me “I haven’t watched DuRaRaRa” without saying “I haven’t watched DuRaRaRa”
>>24950519Interesting. Will read. Do you have any other books or sources?
