What "Ayn Rand" shit? Hell, I've never even read any of her books. Granted I do kinda get the gist of where she was coming from, but I just picked a name off the top of my head. I figured it would give you leftwads fits, and apparently it does.
Well, using that name without knowing her shit books and "philosophy" makes you honestly even more stupid than I imagined.
Exactly why I stated I didn't need to hear your World Police arguments, yet again.
So tell me then: Which one would be considered more of a "shit book"? Atlas Shrugged, The Communist Manifesto, or Das Kapital?
Which book(s) would have been responsible for the murders of hundreds of millions of people throughout history? I mean in real life.
Atlas Shrugged, of course. And the other books had nothing to do with the purges, especially the last one, which is three volumes BTW.
Das Kapital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You just stated that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had nothing to do with Communism. BY your logic, Hitler's Mein Kampf also had nothing to do with the murder of 6 million Jews.
Un-*******-believable. (Insert rolleyes.gif here)
I stated no such thing, and nothing in communism requires that people be killed, nothing at all. And we, and others, let Hitler slaughter the Jews. It's not like we didn't know what he was up to.
I dunno, sounds pretty violent to me....
Quotes from "The Communist Manifesto:
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But
not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians....
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where
the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.”
“If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such,
sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”
“Hence, They reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.
Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position, correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by
the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite”
