Did Russians and other soviet peoples in the late 80s/early 90s really want the...

Nathaniel Jones
Nathaniel Jones

Did Russians and other soviet peoples in the late 80s/early 90s really want the collapse of of the Soviet System, or was it something forced to them?

Attached: LON88144.jpg (172.48 KB, 1000x822)

Other urls found in this thread:

politicsresources.net/docs/comrule.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Georgian_demonstrations
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis
outline.com/Z4nNWF
chinadigitaltimes.net/2013/01/leaked-speech-shows-xi-jinpings-opposition-to-reform/
work-way.com/blog/2013/09/12/krizis-kommunisticheskogo-dvizheniya-i-kak-iz-nego-vybratsya/

Samuel Stewart
Samuel Stewart

Did Russians and other soviet peoples in the late 80s/early 90s really want the collapse of of the Soviet System
the majority of Soviet citizens wanted to preserve the USSR, but wanted aspects to change. the problem occurred when liberals, nationalists, and other anti-communist groups hijacked these movements. similar things happened in countries like the DDR for example, where many of the protesters in 1989 said that they didn't want to get rid of socialism.
was it something forced to them?
in a way, yes. there demands for positive changes were not met and instead a small clique headed by Yeltsin basically had the final say and dissolved the Union despite over 75% of citizens opposing it (as seen in the 1991 Soviet Referendum), which resulted in the Soviet people not only not receiving the actual changes they may have wanted, but also lost all the benefits socialism gave them as their countries turned into shitholes run by oligarchs, mafia, and western corporations who were more than ready to exploit the new investment opportunities of 90s Eastern Europe.

Attached: 6a8af7cb49c73dcfdd329359ba5846675f628a246326db26f53298355e80d989.jpg (450.56 KB, 950x751)

James Roberts
James Roberts

Most people probably didn't care about politics.

the polls that showed a majority wanted X is just out of the people who actually care about politics which isn't much tbh

Dylan Robinson
Dylan Robinson

There was also a poll which specifically asked about the socialist economic system, not just keeping the USSR together as a single state. I can't seem to find it but a majority of people either said that they wanted the ML system to stay intact or that they wanted a more democratic form of socialism.

Jonathan Flores
Jonathan Flores

more democratic form of socialism.
Look at this nigga buying into spooky, capitalist propaganda.

Charles Ortiz
Charles Ortiz

unironically thinking the USSR was a genuine worker’s democracy

Attached: 796575DF-A191-4BB0-8E1A-D9059C58F118.jpeg (58.36 KB, 460x733)

Joseph Ward
Joseph Ward

Attached: yyROloe.jpg (58.49 KB, 1136x574)

Ethan Thomas
Ethan Thomas

Even anecdotes don't hold up here.
The most "evil" thing I've heard somebody IRL complain about, was some Pole complaining about having a rationed amount of M&M's.

Brayden Reed
Brayden Reed

single party state
faction ban
extensive repression
retarded approach to democratic centralism that shuts down open criticism of party line
only time a rank and file member of the party has any chance at influence is during the party congress, only once every five years
appointed factory management (no workplace democracy)
The USSR was based on many ways, but it wasn't a genuine DotP.

Attached: 467.JPG (40.36 KB, 262x400)

Kayden Martinez
Kayden Martinez

asking someone to prove a negative

Attached: come-on-boy.png (108.57 KB, 355x369)

Aaron Garcia
Aaron Garcia

46 percent of popular masses for some form of socialism
76.7 percent of party "elites" for capitalism

Attached: 06942426a39451ff0ea253a91c09b63db0950729.png (90.48 KB, 600x1050)
Attached: kim-jong-il---abuses-of-socialism-are-intolerable.jpg (1.1 MB, 1170x1590)
Attached: 25-december-1995-respecting-the-foreunners-of-the-revolution-is-a-noble-moral-obligation-of-revolutionaries.png (930.85 KB, 1720x895)

Leo Rodriguez
Leo Rodriguez

Ty based Juche user.

Attached: 752.JPG (95.85 KB, 540x536)

Xavier Martinez
Xavier Martinez

single party/union state
good, it minimizes infighting, and stops it from weakening the workers
faction ban
That didn't even work, and there's no reason for it to exist, if everybody is non sectarian.
extensive repression the workers
Reactionaries aren't people, and Hungarians, and Czechs were planning to ally with NATO. Bat'ko was hogging the Ukraine as well
only time a rank and file member of the party has any influence
doyouhaveasinglenonimperialistsource.jpg
appointed factory management (no workplace democracy)
They had a say in who appointed them, and that's democratic, but ok.
retarded approach to democratic centralism that shuts down open criticism of party line
They deserved it

Adam Powell
Adam Powell

Tbh it is pretty damning that only 10% supported the status quo and only 30% viewed the CPSU favourably. Also that an elite chosen partly for its supposed loyalty to socialism would prove so fickle That was a disaster waiting to happen.

Evan Phillips
Evan Phillips

good, it minimizes infighting, and stops it from weakening the workers
No, it stops the workers from being able to hold their leaders accountable. Riddle me this user, if you have a guine inner party democracy, then why have a party at all?
That didn't even work, and there's no reason for it to exist
It did work in the sense that it was used to shut down dissent and organized opposition from within the party. See: the disbanding of the left and right opposition in 1927.
Reactionaries aren't people
I'm not talking about reactionaries. I'm talking about alternative approaches to socialism and alternative policies promoted by opposition.
and Hungarians, and Czechs were planning to ally with NATO
I can't speak for the Czechs, but in the case of Hungary the farthest they went was demanding neutrality on the Yugoslavian patter, while keeping socialism intact. Even the most right-wing elements of the 1956 revolt never expressed an interest in joining NATO.
doyouhaveasinglenonimperialistsource.jpg
Read the CPSU constitution. IIRC the party congress elected the central committee and the politburo, but it only met every five years. The rest of the time the politburo held pretty much all the power, and could only be held accountable by a party congress or the CC.
They had a say in who appointed them, and that's democratic, but ok.
If the managers weren't elected directly by the workers then its not workplace democracy.
They deserved it
Do you unironically think that all opposition from within the party is reactionary?

Benjamin Bell
Benjamin Bell

Hungarians, and Czechs were planning to ally with NATO
Do you have single non-imperialist source to back that up?

John Gutierrez
John Gutierrez

It's living proof that anti-revisionism from above can never work. No matter how many of them you purge, some of them will always make their way through. Take Albania as an example. Hoxha was perhaps the most solidly Stalinist leader ever, and conducted numerous purges of alleged revisionists. At the same time he groomed a handpicked successor, who immediately implemented market reforms the second Hoxha died. Revisionists always worm their way through, and when they do they emerge in possession of a massive repressive apparatus that was originally designed to attack them. They always then proceed to use it to attack anti-revisionists, see: Tiblisi riots of 1956, modern day China cracking down on Marxists, etc. The only check on revisionism is the working class itself. If we aren't willing to trust that they can lead themselves down a socialist path then we don't really believe in socialism then do we?

Brandon Jones
Brandon Jones

Do you unironically think that all opposition from within the party is reactionary?
I really doubt that he is serious.

Nicholas Clark
Nicholas Clark

Do you have single non-imperialist source to back that up?
Staying neutral after breaking up with the USSR only hurts it, and benefits them (their socialism becoming more prominent, and successful). That's the same thing as actively working against them.
No, it stops the workers from being able to hold their leaders accountable. Riddle me this user, if you have a guine inner party democracy, then why have a party at all?
source me, and don't say "hurr durr, elections only every five years=state capitalism"
It did work in the sense that it was used to shut down dissent and organized opposition from within the party. See: the disbanding of the left and right opposition in 1927.
Having the wrong opinions hurts people other than you, and this prevents that.
If the managers weren't elected directly by the workers then its not workplace democracy.
Workplace democracy is the application of democracy in all its forms (including voting systems, debates, democratic structuring, due process, adversarial process, systems of appeal) to the workplace, does that not sound like what they had? It wasn't perfect but they had to transfer to communism, and they couldn't do that yet thank Wikipedia for the definition
Do you unironically think that all opposition from within the party is reactionary?
Nah, but revisionist/liberal opposition is autistic
*sorry for the reddit tier meme**

Attached: anarcho-tankie-anarchist-tankie-i-wont-lie-i-am-literally-37582736.png (31.54 KB, 500x362)

Nathaniel Phillips
Nathaniel Phillips

Staying neutral after breaking up with the USSR only hurts it, and benefits them (their socialism becoming more prominent, and successful). That's the same thing as actively working against them.
If the USSR didn't want the Hungarians to leave the Warsaw Pact then they shouldn't have invaded them in violation of their agreement with Nagy's government, and in opposition to the advice of their agents in Hungary. Hungary declared neutrality only after the Soviets began re-deploying troops to the country on November 1st, while denying that they were doing so.
source me, and don't say "hurr durr, elections only every five years=state capitalism"
The supreme organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is the Party Congress. Congresses are convened by the Central Committee at least once in four years.
The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union elects a Presidium to direct the work of the C.C. between plenary meetings
Ah four years my bad.
politicsresources.net/docs/comrule.htm
Also state capitalism has nothing to do with it. The USSR was socialist, it just wasn't democratic. The structure of the party and the way party congresses were handled would be the equivalent of a bourgeois state only allowing parliament to convene once ever four years.
Having the wrong opinions hurts people other than you, and this prevents that.
That assumes that you are right, which can never really be known until it has passed through the crucible of debate and criticism.
Nah, but revisionist/liberal opposition is autistic
The CPSU repressed far more than just revisionists and liberals.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Georgian_demonstrations

Anthony Myers
Anthony Myers

It wasn't perfect but they had to transfer to communism, and they couldn't do that yet
Spoken like truly enlightened opportunist high-ranking part member. Don't remember to add
Comrades believe in the party! Too initiative comrade is worse than class enemy!

Ayden Clark
Ayden Clark

Power was still bottom up (democratic) btw (That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected.
That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organizations.
That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority.
That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members -declaration in 1917)
If the USSR didn't want the Hungarians to leave the Warsaw Pact then they shouldn't have invaded them in violation of their agreement with Nagy's government, and in opposition to the advice of their agents in Hungary. Hungary declared neutrality only after the Soviets began re-deploying troops to the country on November 1st, while denying that they were doing so.
Nagy was wrong because of the reasons I listed about multi party democracy, i.e allowing sectarian infighting retardation from mega autists, like SocDems, and ISO level Trots.
The CPSU repressed far more than just revisionists and liberals.
mfw literally Krushchev
That assumes that you are right, which can never really be known until it has passed through the crucible of debate and criticism.
I've factored debate, and we're doing it again, fren
Spoken like truly enlightened opportunist high-ranking part member. Don't remember to add
Socialism isn't as good as communism, and is a stepping stone, but I guess saying that makes me a liberal caricature of Stalin.

Attached: 915NvYRQcvL.-UX385-.jpg (27.6 KB, 385x385)

Wyatt Nelson
Wyatt Nelson

Power was still bottom up (democratic) btw
Except all democratic elements of the party that did exist were severely compromised by the other measures I described. The ban on factions meant that any organized opposition in the party could easily be expelled and neutrilized. Their interpretation of democratic centralism (the submission of the minority to the majority) effectively meant that the minority was not allowed to openly criticize the existing line. In addition to this media was firmly under the control of party leadership, so opposition figures had no means of publishing their views for consideration by the workers.
Nagy was wrong because of the reasons I listed about multi party democracy, i.e allowing sectarian infighting retardation from mega autists
So your view of democracy is one in which people don't actually debate issues and come into conflict as they naturally should, but instead all just agree on the same thing and anybody who doesn't is a "revisionist"? A democracy requires the free exchange of criticisms, otherwise the population has no real choice in what path to take, and thus no political power.
You should also change your flag if you're going to make these arguments tbh. The IWW is dominated by libsocs and anarchists.

Thomas Stewart
Thomas Stewart

One of the USSR's biggest failures was not having a rigorous enough form of genuine proletarian democracy. It's not "capitalist propaganda" to criticize the notion of democracy in the USSR. There is nothing inherently "Marxist" about a one-party state and complete party domination of political life, bureaucracy, etc. I think the USSR was socialist but there is plenty of room for criticism

Josiah Reed
Josiah Reed

Socialism isn't as good as communism
Spooky

Leo Wilson
Leo Wilson

all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected
This would be great if direct democratic principle existed
Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organizations.
which were corrupt as fuck and nobody was accountable unless really great corruption scandal was revelead
That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority.
In other words, subordination of younger, more progressive elements by established conservative line
That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members
Back to point 1
Nagy was wrong because of the reasons I listed about multi party democracy, i.e allowing sectarian infighting retardation from mega autists, like SocDems, and ISO level Trots.
Comrade, countries of washaw pact were constitutional republics. Just like we see infighting between liberal parties in our government - each representing different section of oligarchs - we can assume that multi party goverment in socialist republic would be infighting between different sections of proletariat. Freedom ain't free, sure, some retarded socdems and trots might be able to get some minuscule support which could bring people headaches, we could have seen also raise of leftcoms criticizing schooling system and """marxist education""", cybernetics calling for more efficient planned economy and so on and on
Socialism isn't as good as communism, and is a stepping stone
I agree, but politburo used this reasoning to get rid itself from any real progress of society.

David Harris
David Harris

The ban on factions meant that any organized opposition in the party could easily be expelled and neutrilized. Their interpretation of democratic centralism (the submission of the minority to the majority) effectively meant that the minority was not allowed to openly criticize the existing line. In addition to this media was firmly under the control of party leadership, so opposition figures had no means of publishing their views for consideration by the workers
The system was definitely exploited sometimes (Stalin purging random un envolved artist niggas who disliked his harshness), and I'm not denying that, but with effective debate, the majority faction should outnumber autists that aren't willing to change their views.
So your view of democracy is one in which people don't actually debate issues and come into conflict as they naturally should, but instead all just agree on the same thing and anybody who doesn't is a "revisionist"? A democracy requires the free exchange of criticisms, otherwise the population has no real choice in what path to take, and thus no political power.
We should have already arrived at a sensible conclusion, due to the socialism coming into that nation that's fit for that type of socialism(Russia needed Bolshevisms appeal to Russians,on top of it's history and the U.S needs the IWW's Americanism, and it's history), and the large strides in left unity this conclusion helps you arrive at.
If you don't acknowledge some people won't
change their minds, you are utopian (pic related people)

Attached: DR-l-JgXUAUWd6u.jpg (48.18 KB, 512x396)

Landon Hall
Landon Hall

I agree, but politburo used this reasoning to get rid itself from any real progress of society.
Fuck them then
In other words, subordination of younger, more progressive elements by established conservative line
Nikita, and Gorbachev are two examples of why you need this, and why the union wasn't perfect, but you can improve the system of purges, and general governance (the rest of your points).
Tankies acknowledge the union had a stupid amount of flaws.

Landon Taylor
Landon Taylor

Wasn't there a period in Russian history where Nazbols, and white nationalists almost couped Yeltsin?
I want to do some reading on it.

Aiden Wood
Aiden Wood

Tankies acknowledge the union had a stupid amount of flaws.
I always thought that "tankie" is term for person which can't comprehend the idea that USSR was not absolute perfect paradise which did absolutely nothing wrong.

Parker Garcia
Parker Garcia

Dubcek was a SocialDemocrat who later came out to support the Social-Democratic party of Czechia (Refusing to even support the by then Eurocommunist Czech and Bohemian Communist party)
There was various factions in Hungary so simply saying that "The Hungarians" were planning on joining NATO is false
Nagy and his faction of the Hungarian socialist party pretty much just wanted Tito - Albo style neutrality but yes there were some Ultra-Nationalists and liberals mixed in who probably would have supported NATO

Joshua Parker
Joshua Parker

What the fuck happened here?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis

Julian James
Julian James

tl;dr:
Yeltsin, elected president of Russian SSR during Perestroika period, declares Russia independent of USSR higher authority in 1991
Imposes neoliberal shock therapy privatization program
Poverty, hunger, and crime soar, standard of living and life expectancy plummet
People revolt by electing deputies to Russian congress and Supreme Soviet to reverse the shock therapy program
Yeltsin launches coup to impose it anyway
Dissolves congress and SS by decree, new constitution imposed with extreme presidential authority
Situation repeats in 1996 presidential election with CPRF candidate Zyuganov insurgent, Yeltsin "wins" by pouring millions in IMF money into campaign (US looks the other way), universal support of porky media, veiled threats of launching another coup, and probable electoral fraud

Daniel Rivera
Daniel Rivera

I should add that this book is excellent for anyone looking for a leftist history of the dissolution of the USSR:

Tyler Sanchez
Tyler Sanchez

The beginning of the worst timeline

Elijah Foster
Elijah Foster

…so czechs nor hungarians didn't want to join NATO, is that what are you trying to say?

Hunter Morgan
Hunter Morgan

"Did Americans want the Great Depression in the 1930s?"

Can you see the problem with posing the question the way you did. No one had any control over the collapse of the Soviet Union any more than they had control of the collapse of the Great Depression.

Ethan Garcia
Ethan Garcia

but planned economy?

Owen Clark
Owen Clark

Every capitalist factory has planned production. The Soviet Union was just a really really big factory with its own government and private army. Planned production actually made the SU collapse faster because it was so efficient in exploiting wage labor.

Benjamin Harris
Benjamin Harris

Fired: Prussia was an army with a country
<Wired: The USSR was a factory with an army

William Rodriguez
William Rodriguez

Nationalists in satellite states wanted independence from Russian oppression and Russians wanted democratic socialism with more freedoms.

Daniel Russell
Daniel Russell

Mostly this, the world needed more Titos not more Rakosis.
Also tbh I'd take desires of Russians for socialism with a hint of salt since for a lot of people it merely means "Russia being strong and pensions and shit". Not that is inherently bad but still.

Jack Moore
Jack Moore

The downfall of the USSR was literally caused by a cult that wormed its way into power called The Nine who claimed to be the avatars of the Ancient Egyptian Gods.

No…really.

Chase Reed
Chase Reed

Idk about the Czechs but the Hungarians by and large did not. Anti-socialist elements in the Hungarian uprising were always in the minority, and while many people in the worker’s councils were demanding that Hungary leave the Warsaw Pact and become neutral, nobody was saying they wanted to join NATO. Nagy himself didn’t declare neutrality until the Soviets reneged on their promise to withdraw troops from Hungary and lied about it to his face.

Hudson Lee
Hudson Lee

No.
should have ended your sentence there, that didn't happen

Adam Garcia
Adam Garcia

read Cockshott

Jaxson Morris
Jaxson Morris

The Communist Party of China says that the USSR collapsed not because "people wanted a collapse" but because the Communist Party of the Soviet Union lost faith and/or betrayed the USSR and Eastern Europe by introducing political reforms (glasnost). I tend to agree with their point because as alludes to it, most Russian people, like most Americans, are herdlike normies who don't care much about politics aside from standard jingoism and idiotic fairy tales like their renewed faith in Orthodox Christianity and all it takes is for a weakened, pacifistic political establishment and a large enough minority of separatists/nationalists to destroy everything.

"The Soviet Union didn't fall apart because of the communist system itself, but because of individuals who betrayed it, especially Mikhail Gorbachev." - Chinese compulsory propaganda film for government officials

outline.com/Z4nNWF

“Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party collapse? An important reason was that their ideals and beliefs had been shaken. In the end, ‘the ruler’s flag over the city tower’ changed overnight. It’s a profound lesson for us! To dismiss the history of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else is to engage in historic nihilism, and it confuses our thoughts and undermines the Party’s organizations on all levels.”

“Why must we stand firm on the Party’s leadership over the military?” Xi continued, “because that’s the lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union where the military was depoliticized, separated from the Party and nationalized, the party was disarmed. A few people tried to save the Soviet Union; they seized Gorbachev, but within days it was turned around again, because they didn’t have the instruments to exert power. Yeltsin gave a speech standing on a tank, but the military made no response, keeping so-called ‘neutrality.’ Finally, Gorbachev announced the disbandment of the Soviet Communist Party in a blithe statement. A big Party was gone just like that. Proportionally, the Soviet Communist Party had more members than we do, but nobody was man enough to stand up and resist.”

chinadigitaltimes.net/2013/01/leaked-speech-shows-xi-jinpings-opposition-to-reform/

“My father thinks Gorbachev is an idiot.” - Deng Zhifang, Deng Xiaoping’s son, 1990

Don't forget that Jiang Zemin & Deng Xiaoping of China, Kim Il-sung of North Korea and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya supported the 1991 coup attempt against Gorbachev.

Attached: tiananmen.jpg (429.38 KB, 864x487)

Gabriel Foster
Gabriel Foster

Those are two cuties in that image 💓💓💗💗💓💝💞💓💗💗💖💖💖💘💕💘💖💗💞

Luis Evans
Luis Evans

calm your gynomastia afflicted male breast cancer having tits having pedo.

Logan Roberts
Logan Roberts

Kill yourself pedofaggot.

John Smith
John Smith

As someone who lives in a post soviet country I can safely say: YES!
but voters were asked
And you believe people told the truth in the soviet union.

Gavin Bell
Gavin Bell

u comrade? C:

Camden Bennett
Camden Bennett

The ruling elite decided they would be better off as capitalists than bureaucrats.
The people wanted to stick with socialism, the problem was a lack of freedom, not economic woes.

Michael Price
Michael Price

And you believe people told the truth in the soviet union.
people keep using this argument when it doesn't mean anything. it was a proper referendum, the very liberal by that time Soviet government weren't going to punish those who voted "no" (and they didn't for the minority of people who did). and furthermore, what was the point in creating some rigged poll in support of the USSR if they ended up pulling the plug anyway? talk about 4D chess.
also lmao at the cliche "i'm from a former soviet country therefore i can speak for all nearly 300 million of even though i was never alive during socialism and haven't even provided evidence to prove that i'm telling the truth!"
simply saying you're from x country doesn't make you an authority figure on these things, especially when you haven't even proved you are from a former Soviet country. anyone can lie on the internet, bucko.
and once again, even if you were, that doesn't give you the soapbox to decide what hundreds of millions of people think, including the majority of Russians who still regret the collapse of the USSR.

Jayden Adams
Jayden Adams

I eat up oligarch propaganda that the reason I live in a shithole now is because of the USSR and not because it was broken up
if only you had any idea of what you're missing

Attached: Soviet-Union-GDP-per-capita.gif (37.82 KB, 952x565)
Attached: utilities-in-ussr.png (25.3 KB, 231x465)

Brody Robinson
Brody Robinson

And you believe people told the truth in the soviet union.
the people who wanted to dismantle the SU rigged the polls to 90% approval

Attached: 395f9d6e009add23a1dad0d8c82af71119ec34742b095e0d7c7c5226235dd597.jpg (70.56 KB, 638x1000)

Ayden Stewart
Ayden Stewart

In my opinion, the reason USSR lost is the weakening of the proletariat class as a whole, in both CCCP and the world. Anyway, when research any problem, we should find primary materials, which came from ex-USSR themselves.
I find this analysis quite detailed (in Russian, google translate is your friend):
work-way.com/blog/2013/09/12/krizis-kommunisticheskogo-dvizheniya-i-kak-iz-nego-vybratsya/
While not agree wholeheartedly with work-way, but I think they have arrived at a somewhat right answer: one of the reason USSR collapsed is that WW2 had reduced the rank and (political) quality of the proletariat significantly, while the middle-class mostly stayed away from the front. It also expressed in the philosophy education of USSR, philosophy before 1953 focused on history of ideological struggle and their reality basis, while philosophy after 1953 focused on the study of dialectical categories, which is nothing but Hegelism in Marxist shell. In fact, congress XX was the coup of middle-class, USSR after Stalin was socialism under the vision of middle class, not proletariat. This, leaded to enlargement of shadow economy and finally the 1991 counter-revolution which restore capitalism, because a part of higher middle class felt they were too constrained by the socialist super structure.

Christian Jackson
Christian Jackson

AHH LE NOT MAINING MEMe :)

le charlie epic random wildcard fake vidya xd tv/ editon ;^^^)

gentleman :—)

XD
D
LOL
O

[YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed) [Embed] [Embed] [YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed) [Embed] [Embed]
[YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed) [Embed] [Embed] ]

PIZZA ROLLS r DONE!!!
le epic so ebin dae le epin win xD pwn’d ftw le bacon narwhale xP
*unsheathes katana*
wellllllllll m’goodsir, I think u thought u had me beat, but wacht this !!!!
*charges up energy*
*goes super sainant*
*raises paw*
hhmmmmmmmmm…….

XD NINJAS RAWR PIE CAKE IS A LIE XDDD

xD xD
[YouTube] eiffel65 im blue 10 hours (embed) [Embed] [Embed]

AYYLMSOOOO
Y
YY
YY
Y
YY
Y
Y
L
M
A
OAYYYYLMAO

le epic so ebin dae le epin win xD pwn’d ftw le bacon narwhale xP

le epin troll i coax youed int o al e ruxze xD D D tfw no gf xD ayy lmao! :p
/y/o>>>/lgbt/isten>>>/u/p>>>/h/eres>>>/a/>>>/s/tory>>>/a/bout>>>/a/>>>/lgbt/ittle>>>/g/uy>>>/t/hat>>>/lgbt/ives>>>/i/n>>>/f/eelings>>>/t/hat>>>/lgbt/ive>>>/i/nside>>>/m/e>>>/i/m>>>/b/lue>>>
upboated good sir i tip my fedora to you, fine gentlemen le real men have class xD real human bean!!1 dae cake is a lie lel
epic fail!!!!!!!! ;p for YOU!! :DDD XD we r :)isijwjwmsd