Socialism must be global, anything short of world revolution is a failed revolution.

Attached: World Socialsit Republic.png (275x183, 9.69K)

Other urls found in this thread:

based and leftpilled

I don't know if op is a tankie being ironic but he's right.

Attached: 3497e93bcd3c970ac1242e10a543d7d635c9b717.png (374x581, 328.57K)


Is that from this comic where a poncho and sombrero wearing Stalinist kills Trotsky with a pickaxe

Because hurr durr no borders no nations. It's true that the proletariat has no borders but an argument can easily be made that huge resource-rich countries like the USA or Russia can easily facilitate autarkic socialism.

No one disagrees with this.

I don't know, but you can have the picture

Because we can't compete in a long run with human stupidity, so we must wipe the capitalist cancer quickly and permanently before it eats and corrupts the revolution like every other before, you can't rest while there are enemies in the planet.

I think I remember that a guy and his conservative bureaucrats friends exiled and killed another guy for this reason among others.

Attached: fe0e043402fba12f8d144f859c5592d135097e2b.png (548x674, 596.23K)

The theory of "Socialism in one country" was pretty much an admission of defeat; the european countries had failed to rise up. Now what do we do? Do we just dissolve the soviet union and let capitalists rape the land? Or do we build a strong power to aid future revolutions?
t. Lenin

ok CONTELINPRO lets hold hands and say kumbaya.

It isn't waiting to magically a world wide revolution occur, it's actively promoting it to happen after a smaller revolution happened.
I'm not saying that the soviet union just isolated themselves of the world and just focused on their own country, but they didn't interfere enough, the capitalist potencies didn't hesitated to do it at extremes. After the war, when the communism was at its firmest they should have went to war, the cold war should have been the third world war, and the final war.

I agree, but I would say that after WW2 the USSR did pursue a more aggressive foreign policy, and hindsight is 20/20, the soviet leadership was still hoping for western revolutions for a long time, and I can't be too mad at them for doing what they could to avoid nuclear warfare.

I'm gonna need more details. Sorry for being demanding and not contributing any content, but I really want to understand.





And honestly, if you wanna throw sticks at communists for not pushing for global revolution, you should be shitting on Mao. The Sino-Sovjet split was a huge tragedy for the revolution.

Mao based.
Trotsky gay.

Better to be no one upon a someone's world than b a globalist for one day.

Reminder that if you are not a Gnostic Pol Potist you are not even trying.

Attached: polpot.jpg (600x450, 82.02K)


Cambodian anime waifus. Gibs.

Attached: 5375-63116-original.jpeg (1600x900, 88.17K)

What is the opposite of ☘️International☘️ Socialism?



Thanks, I hadn't heard of it.. Also, is there a System of Socialism that successfully integrates a Meritocratic model of Pay?

Thank God for Adderall, and Ritalin to cure Autisms

t. Margs

Attached: 1453276580394.jpg (510x430, 18.66K)

Internot socialism is an oxymoron. Relations between nations inevitably are relations of commodities.

Meritocracy is retarded. He who merits the more is who that needs the less.
Marx was really stupid sometimes.

No duh, seeing how capital immidiately leaves for other countries along with braindrain it is obvious. Just like it happened to USSR. You can't sieze the means of production if they pack up and leave you. Also a one world socialist government could theoreticly stop populationmigration of the better social benefits type.

What rot. Economies are not delineated along national lines. Relations between nations are military.

What is the rationale behind this claim?

Because we lost the Cold War and if it happens again we might lose again.

Meritocracy is an abstract consept.