Adog, the corrupt, the deceptive, and the truth [Exposed!]

Adog. Adog sounds like Afrog. Frog. Frogs are amphibians. Is Adog also an amphibian? I don't know. But we are going to find out. Adog is a communist. Do you know who else is a communist? That's right. Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a German. Germany. Germany is apart of the EU. Do you know who else is apart of the EU? That's right U.K., oh wait no they're not they voted brexit. Brexit. Was brexit more than just an eu referendum? Let's find out. Brexit referendum occurred in the U.K., the U.K. Contains people. Do you know who else contains people? That's right. North Korea. Adog is suspected to be a 69 year old female from North Korea. North Korea has approximately 24 million people. 24 is the atomic number for chromium. Chromium is used in supplements. Isn't it a coincidence that adog takes supplements? No it isn't. Adog makes maps, do you know who else makes maps? That's right john senex. John senex has a total of 9 letters in it. Adog has 4 letters in it. Let's see what happens when you subtract 9-4. You get 5. 5 is the atomic number for boron. Boron is used in rocket fuel igniters. Rocket fuel. Jets. 9/11. Does this mean adog was a conspirator for 9/11. Maybe. But let's find more evidence. 9/11 was sad. Adog is also sad. But why is adog sad? Oh wait I know. It's because of the panda being close to extinct. So adog decided to take out his emotions on the people in the World Trade Center. Adog = Islamist extremist confirmed. Islamic extremists work for the illuminati. Adog = illuminati confirmed

Ps: If this post gets removed or locked that confirms another suspicion I have that the mods/admins are fellow Islamic extremists from the illuminati who are trying to cover up the truth

I'll have what your having.

Who cares

Lol

LMFAO

Kys

Gavin Menzies would be proud of this impeccable research

It's official, we are Illuminati Confirmed.

Karl Marx was not communist.....

Escrito por Oleg, 18.07.2017 at 12:59

Karl Marx was not communist.....

Like Jesus was not Christian...

Escrito por Columna Durruti, 18.07.2017 at 22:02

Escrito por Oleg, 18.07.2017 at 12:59

Karl Marx was not communist.....

Like Jesus was not Christian...

Yeah..jesus is a muslim

Escrito por Columna Durruti, 18.07.2017 at 22:02

Escrito por Oleg, 18.07.2017 at 12:59

Karl Marx was not communist.....

Like Jesus was not Christian...

You hate when people compare communism to socialisn, and call you commie, and now you tell that Karl Marx is communist... Karl Marx was socialist, communism was separated from socialism 50years after his death

Citação:

Escrito por Oleg, 19.07.2017 at 03:23

[Dquote author=117047 date=2017-07-18 22:02:31]

Escrito por Oleg, 18.07.2017 at 12:59

Karl Marx was not communist.....

Like Jesus was not Christian...

You hate when people compare communism to socialisn, and call you commie, and now you tell that Karl Marx is communist... Karl Marx was socialist, communism was separated from socialism 50years after his death

Noob learn to quote

Citação:

Escrito por Oleg, 19.07.2017 at 03:23

[Dquote author=117047 date=2017-07-18 22:02:31]

Escrito por Oleg, 18.07.2017 at 12:59

Karl Marx was not communist.....

Like Jesus was not Christian...

You hate when people compare communism to socialisn, and call you commie, and now you tell that Karl Marx is communist... Karl Marx was socialist, communism was separated from socialism 50years after his death

Actually, you're a bit wrong. Marxism-(Leninism is pretty much the "scientific" term representative of Communism. Communism isn't exactly the ideology itself, but the production stage/era that Marxists-(Leninists) defended, that would succeed Capitalism. So Marx and Engels were indeed defenders of Communism and thus Communists.
Socialism arose in the II International with Bernstein's revisionistic socialism or something like that, where he countered the Marxist narrative of a violent revolution for instating a communist production model. Instead he proposed a peaceful, progressive evolution to a truly socialist/communist society. This whole proposal of his was based on Germany's very progressive social policy during its Imperial Era.

Citação:

Escrito por Al Fappino, 19.07.2017 at 07:49

Escrito por Oleg, 19.07.2017 at 03:23

[Dquote author=117047 date=2017-07-18 22:02:31]

Escrito por Oleg, 18.07.2017 at 12:59

Karl Marx was not communist.....

Like Jesus was not Christian...

You hate when people compare communism to socialisn, and call you commie, and now you tell that Karl Marx is communist... Karl Marx was socialist, communism was separated from socialism 50years after his death

Actually, you're a bit wrong. Marxism-(Leninism is pretty much the "scientific" term representative of Communism. Communism isn't exactly the ideology itself, but the production stage/era that Marxists-(Leninists) defended, that would succeed Capitalism. So Marx and Engels were indeed defenders of Communism and thus Communists.
Socialism arose in the II International with Bernstein's revisionistic socialism or something like that, where he countered the Marxist narrative of a violent revolution for instating a communist production model. Instead he proposed a peaceful, progressive evolution to a truly socialist/communist society. This whole proposal of his was based on Germany's very progressive social policy during its Imperial Era.

You have probably read some critic about Karl Marx, read his books to understand Marxism yourself.

Citação:

Escrito por Oleg, 19.07.2017 at 09:20

Actually, you're a bit wrong. Marxism-(Leninism is pretty much the "scientific" term representative of Communism. Communism isn't exactly the ideology itself, but the production stage/era that Marxists-(Leninists) defended, that would succeed Capitalism. So Marx and Engels were indeed defenders of Communism and thus Communists.
Socialism arose in the II International with Bernstein's revisionistic socialism or something like that, where he countered the Marxist narrative of a violent revolution for instating a communist production model. Instead he proposed a peaceful, progressive evolution to a truly socialist/communist society. This whole proposal of his was based on Germany's very progressive social policy during its Imperial Era.

You have probably read some critic about Karl Marx, read his books to understand Marxism yourself.

Actually I studied Marxism as part of my nation-wide History exam, hence why I jumped in on this subject xd

Marxism was the historical theory that Human History is characterized by a series of production models. Esclavagism, during roman era for instance, Feudalism during most part of the medieval era, and now Capitalism.

Marxism also showed how the transition to each production model wasn't peaceful and was always done through revolution/wars/conflict. You can see that with the fall of Roman Empire and culture and institutional backgrounds which meant a transition from Esclavagism to Feudalism for example. So, having proved that the transition was done through conflict and violence, Marxism concluded that we now lived in a different production model, Capitalism, where bourgeois exploited the proletariat, similar to in Feudalism, where the landowners and lords exploited the peasantry.

From this, they concluded that Capitalism was a bad production model, because there man exploited other man, and thus defended that the passage from Capitalism to a classless society (Communism), would be necessary, and could only be done through violence, and if the proletariat were to take political power from the bourgeois and begin a period of Proletariat Dictatorship, on which they would begin the necessary reforms and actions to transition from Capitalism to Communism, since this dictatorship would be a temporary stage, for the true establishment of Communism, a classless society with no private property and where ultimately, the State would no longer have a purpose, and could be abolished, just like Proudhon defended, in a way.

This topic was made almost a year ago, I'm surprised people still comment on it.

Escrito por Oleg, 19.07.2017 at 03:23

Escrito por Columna Durruti, 18.07.2017 at 22:02

Escrito por Oleg, 18.07.2017 at 12:59

Karl Marx was not communist.....

Like Jesus was not Christian...

You hate when people compare communism to socialisn, and call you commie, and now you tell that Karl Marx is communist... Karl Marx was socialist, communism was separated from socialism 50years after his death

Correct. Like Jesus, who wasn't Christian. Christianity was invented long after Jesus' death (if he existed at all).

Escrito por Al Fappino, 19.07.2017 at 09:33

From this, they concluded that Capitalism was a bad production model, because there man exploited other man, and thus defended that the passage from Capitalism to a classless society (Communism), would be necessary, and could only be done through violence, and if the proletariat were to take political power from the bourgeois and begin a period of Proletariat Dictatorship, on which they would begin the necessary reforms and actions to transition from Capitalism to Communism, since this dictatorship would be a temporary stage, for the true establishment of Communism, a classless society with no private property and where ultimately, the State would no longer have a purpose, and could be abolished, just like Proudhon defended, in a way.

The model that you explained is socialism, not communism, do you even understand the difference???

Escrito por Oleg, 19.07.2017 at 12:56

Escrito por Al Fappino, 19.07.2017 at 09:33

From this, they concluded that Capitalism was a bad production model, because there man exploited other man, and thus defended that the passage from Capitalism to a classless society (Communism), would be necessary, and could only be done through violence, and if the proletariat were to take political power from the bourgeois and begin a period of Proletariat Dictatorship, on which they would begin the necessary reforms and actions to transition from Capitalism to Communism, since this dictatorship would be a temporary stage, for the true establishment of Communism, a classless society with no private property and where ultimately, the State would no longer have a purpose, and could be abolished, just like Proudhon defended, in a way.

The model that you explained is socialism, not communism, do you even understand the difference???

Communism was the final stage of production ( )

Escrito por Al Fappino, 19.07.2017 at 14:36

Escrito por Oleg, 19.07.2017 at 12:56

Escrito por Al Fappino, 19.07.2017 at 09:33

From this, they concluded that Capitalism was a bad production model, because there man exploited other man, and thus defended that the passage from Capitalism to a classless society (Communism), would be necessary, and could only be done through violence, and if the proletariat were to take political power from the bourgeois and begin a period of Proletariat Dictatorship, on which they would begin the necessary reforms and actions to transition from Capitalism to Communism, since this dictatorship would be a temporary stage, for the true establishment of Communism, a classless society with no private property and where ultimately, the State would no longer have a purpose, and could be abolished, just like Proudhon defended, in a way.

The model that you explained is socialism, not communism, do you even understand the difference???

Communism was the final stage of production ( )

The main difference between socialism and communism is that in communism, everything is owned by state and state is important, workers/people work for good of their state, and in socialism state is just a service for people (not important In daily life), people work for themselves, for their own good.
I can easily say that there was never ideal communist country, nor ideal socialist country.
USSR, as the most common example of communist country, was bolshevik system, even more pro-state form of system than communism (exploiting people for country's growth)
North Korea, communist country, but not respecting worker's rights of being, more or less, able to decide about their own lifes (controling its people)
China, its system is mixture socialism and communism, state is important, but not the most important. Workers and government are both important. (i will explain, state is important, as a representative of its people outside of the country, but, in country, people work for their good, they aren't exploited from country, companies aren't owned by country.)
Yugoslavia, i will say, was the most socialist country ever existed, but again it was not fully socialist, government was important, but companies were owned by state, just as controling factor, companies were runned by its workers, something that ideal socialism policy is. Again, like in China, Tito was representative of country, of workers, as dictator. (Let's remember Karl Marx now, he was telling about the need of dictator in his ideas.)
You, as someone who got scored so hghly in its nation-wide exam, should know the difference between socialism and communism, and stop calling communism as final form of socialism, because it isn't. Marx talks about the final move from socialism to communism, but communism isn't final form of socialism, it's completely new system. I can see that you have learnt about Marxism from critics, I will talk to you about Marx's only mention about communism(from "The Communist Manifesto"):
The program described in the Manifesto is expressed as socialism or communism. This policy includes, among other things, the abolition of land ownership and the inheritance right, advanced taxation, and the nationalization of production goods and transport. The Manifesto also mentions the controversial policy of abolishing the traditional (bourgeois) family and the introduction of a community of women. This policy, which the revolutionary government (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") would accomplish, would precede the obstinate and classless society predicted by the Socialists. The term "communism" is also used to denote the belief and practice of the Communist Party, bearing in mind the diversity of the Soviet Union from the basis of the concept of Marx.
"When, during development, class differences disappear, and all production is concentrated in the hands of numerous associations of the entire people, public power will lose its political character. Political power, therefore, is the only organized power of a class that impairs the other. If the proletariat loses the battle with the bourgeoisie, by force of circumstances, it will organize itself as a class; If, by revolution, it becomes the leading class, and abolishes the old mode of production, then in accordance with such conditions, the conditions for the existence of class contradictions and classes in general will be removed, and therefore by itself abolished its own class distinction. "
This is a way of transition from socialism to communism that many of the Manifesto critics, especially during the Soviet era, have been very prominent. Anarchists, liberals, and conservatives have wondered how an organization as a revolutionary state can ever (as Marks claims elsewhere) die out. Both traditional understandings of the attractiveness of political power and recent organizational behavior theorists say that the group or organization of political power will rather seek to preserve privileges than to allow the state to abolish the state without benefits-even if privileges are given in the name of revolution and equality. Again, communism, by Marx, isn't state free system, how many critics, about Manifesto, say.
Modern Marxists respond that the socialist state must always be democratic, and that the extinction of the state is done by assigning great power directly to the people (the power previously held by the elected representatives of the national government). In other words, socialism goes into communism when the representative democracy of socialism goes into a far-reaching democracy of communism.
The Manifesto passed numerous editions from 1872 to 1890. It is partly written for lay people, when it addresses workers, and partly for the ruling class, when it attacks the bourgeois readers. Historically speaking, it provides the basis for understanding the motives and policies of communists at the beginning of their movement.
"The Communists despise the secrecy of their views and goals. They openly say that their goal can only be achieved by the powerful destruction of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble before the communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose from their fetters. They must win the world. "" Proleters of all countries, unite!

I will stop here, I am wasting time talking about this xD In my secondary school, we've had few hours about Marxism, on both history and literatrue classes. We needed to read both "The Communist Manifesto" and "Capital".

NOBODY gives a single DAMN About This RETARDED ideology you guys are trying to discuss

Communism is cancerous.
DROP THE STUPID SHIT.

Escrito por Columna Durruti, 19.07.2017 at 12:03

Escrito por Oleg, 19.07.2017 at 03:23

Escrito por Columna Durruti, 18.07.2017 at 22:02

Escrito por Oleg, 18.07.2017 at 12:59

Karl Marx was not communist.....

Like Jesus was not Christian...

You hate when people compare communism to socialisn, and call you commie, and now you tell that Karl Marx is communist... Karl Marx was socialist, communism was separated from socialism 50years after his death

Correct. Like Jesus, who wasn't Christian. Christianity was invented long after Jesus' death (if he existed at all).

too much commie conspiracies as i see....

Escrito por L.I.N, 07.09.2017 at 06:07

NOBODY gives a single DAMN About This RETARDED ideology you guys are trying to discuss

Communism is cancerous.
DROP THE STUPID SHIT.

>Claims nobody cares about this.

>Bumps on a thread from 1 year ago to make it relevant again.....

#HeatedDebats
#ThisGotOutOfSubjectQuickly

#mygodlookatthis

Escrito por Al Fappino, 19.07.2017 at 14:36

You seriously try to debate with mentally ill people? Can't you see your opponent can't construct simple sentence...

Escrito por L.I.N, 07.09.2017 at 06:07

Ideology doesn't matter, all sides can create poverty. And socialism have some goods sides, like state-owned healthcare and education, which all countries have for the last 100 years. It's idiotic to discard some policies just because some people says so even though scientifically proven they work.

Escrito por Columna Durruti, 19.07.2017 at 12:03

Correct. Like Jesus, who wasn't Christian. Christianity was invented long after Jesus' death (if he existed at all).

I don't believe in Karl Marx, he never existed.

This needs to be known.

Escrito por Acidus, 30.04.2020 at 20:42

This needs to be known.

agree