Companionship. We want to translate Fraternite with Companionship.
That took a while to strike me.
#jedi
#cyberpunkcoltoure
Freedom. Equality, Companionship
this is the way
This blog looks at this real world as, if I was sitting in a cyberpunk pub in a Sci-Fi parallel universe with a super skunk ciggy and a sweet bourbon, and this world was the video game. I am a fully independent artist with no management or distribution contracts. Piracy is a crime and harms artists. Report abuse, theft and piracy to the local authorities to help free, independent artists!
Friday, 9 January 2026
If I would work
Soooooo, would anyone disclose what they do. In terms of business. Like fat loss medication, diet cookbooks, gym memberships.
Am I weired?
#cyberpunkcoltoure
You said work not... Dude.
#Aleppo
So, the Syrian Army, which must be not Assad's, and the SDF being Kurds go kill each other after integration talks failed.
Did anyone walk off insulting the other sides Mums or left the Cat dead behind? If not, I wonder who on both sides started the shooting.
The trick is to give out orders to shoot only back when fired upon and otherwise keep distance. With some luck everyone that would have murdered the Cat and trash talked bullshit about persons they do not know will get killed by someone returning fire... based on shooting on an identified target in clear sight.
#MIB #provos
#noblessoblige
#cyberpunkcoltoure
PS: If that was a 3rd party (....) then bomb attacks will follow on civilian public places like markets and schools or bus stops. Instead of showing presence, all men in arms should look for cover with good oversight to be on the watch out on striding persons moving tactically in either uniform or without ignoring orders to cover and return fire, only.
Get it??
Collective Darwinist Evolution Theory
Imagine you naturally see fast moving objects, actually especially in the outer rim of your visual sight spectrum a lot better being able to predict their path without doing any math compared to others....as if your ancestors never mated with nothing else but, predator genetic primal bases, being not alone at all.
#cyberpunkcoltoure
And you only stare at flies, being slightly hurt in the Ego.
Sisu?
So, there is a word Chutzpa. Check this is and tell me they would not consider this blogg a laugh.
Would you stick your head out knowing these drugged master race guys would miss, granted, but get mad instantly?
Partisans was no Sowjet Commandos. Period.
You owe use, UN. A Nation.
Armutsgelübte the new Arbeit macht Frei? Seriously.
Schizophrenia the new Bankers.
#provos #cyberpunkcoltoure #gfyBKA
Americans - Mind Set
You also want to consider a gun. Considering the Uniform.
#51sts #cyberpunkcoltoure
#TIE:
Despite the fun.
PS: The nose is further up and that wrist was not broken.
TheGermans - Mind Set
The weirdest that ever happened to him was that a client called us at night stating we could kick off now, his Medium said it would become a success.
No excuse that spells "Fucking Weirdo" ending the call, but they went for it ... and she was right approximately, too.
What is wrong with that people?
#cyberpunkcoltoure
PS: Please, tell me they are like that, approximately! real humans, no aliens.
#Lagos
Look,
"Learning from Chinese people is learning winning!" Its Philippians in Lupa-Lupa that is Lapu-Lapu actually, but I am in Germany - stuck.
#cyberpunkcoltoure
PS: Look carefully, That is one level upgraded from Flip-Flops to Crocks and the first Sneakers. Women. Beside Helmets, but for all.
Congressmen,
tell Bernie to keep is mouth shut before saying I told you and:
Lenin's Revolutionary Ideals vs American Founding
Can you find quates of Lenin that are comperable to the Decleration of Independence and Constitution of the USA?
Read 10 web pages
Hmm, the user is asking about Lenin quotes comparable to the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This is quite a specific historical and political comparison that requires understanding both American foundational documents and Lenin's revolutionary philosophy.
Well, I need to find quotes from Lenin that address similar themes like rights, governance, and revolution, but from a completely different ideological perspective. The Declaration emphasizes natural rights and government by consent, while the Constitution establishes a framework for governance - Lenin's views would naturally contrast with these bourgeois documents but might have parallel revolutionary themes.
I can see several relevant sources in the search results.
provides Lenin's direct commentary on the American Revolution and references the Declaration of Independence, showing he saw the American Revolution as a genuinely liberating but capitalist revolution.
contains Lenin's "Letter to American Workingmen" where he praises the American Revolution while critiquing American imperialism, making direct comparisons to revolutionary strategy offers comprehensive quotes about Lenin's views on state power, class struggle, and revolution - particularly useful for the theoretical comparison. gives me the exact text of the Declaration for reference.
provides Marxist analysis of the U.S. Constitution's class character, which helps frame the ideological contrast discuss Lenin's tactical writings and views on state capitalism but don't directly address the comparison with American documents. appears to be an unreliable Facebook quote, and discusses misattributed Lenin quotes, so I will use these cautiously.
The user might be interested in understanding how different revolutionary traditions conceptualize rights, governance, and popular sovereignty. I should present this as a comparative analysis showing both parallels and fundamental ideological differences.
I plan to structure this by first establishing what makes documents comparable, then using a table to show specific thematic parallels between the American documents and Lenin's philosophy, followed by a deeper analysis of the ideological divide. The table format will help users quickly see the connections and contrasts, while the analysis afterward will provide necessary context about why these similarities exist despite different goals.
Hmm, the user is asking about Lenin quotes comparable to the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This is quite a specific historical and political comparison that requires understanding both American foundational documents and Lenin's revolutionary philosophy.
Well, I need to find quotes from Lenin that address similar themes like rights, governance, and revolution, but from a completely different ideological perspective. The Declaration emphasizes natural rights and government by consent, while the Constitution establishes a framework for governance - Lenin's views would naturally contrast with these bourgeois documents but might have parallel revolutionary themes.
I can see several relevant sources in the search results.
provides Lenin's direct commentary on the American Revolution and references the Declaration of Independence, showing he saw the American Revolution as a genuinely liberating but capitalist revolution.
contains Lenin's "Letter to American Workingmen" where he praises the American Revolution while critiquing American imperialism, making direct comparisons to revolutionary strategy offers comprehensive quotes about Lenin's views on state power, class struggle, and revolution - particularly useful for the theoretical comparison. gives me the exact text of the Declaration for reference.
provides Marxist analysis of the U.S. Constitution's class character, which helps frame the ideological contrast discuss Lenin's tactical writings and views on state capitalism but don't directly address the comparison with American documents. appears to be an unreliable Facebook quote, and discusses misattributed Lenin quotes, so I will use these cautiously.
The user might be interested in understanding how different revolutionary traditions conceptualize rights, governance, and popular sovereignty. I should present this as a comparative analysis showing both parallels and fundamental ideological differences.
I plan to structure this by first establishing what makes documents comparable, then using a table to show specific thematic parallels between the American documents and Lenin's philosophy, followed by a deeper analysis of the ideological divide. The table format will help users quickly see the connections and contrasts, while the analysis afterward will provide necessary context about why these similarities exist despite different goals.
While Vladimir Lenin wrote no single document directly equivalent to the U.S. Declaration of Independence or Constitution, his works contain powerful passages on revolution, governance, and rights that address similar themes—though from a fundamentally different ideological standpoint.
The comparison is meaningful because both traditions seek to define and justify a new political order. The chart below shows key parallel concepts.
Theme / Concept U.S. Foundational Idea (Declaration/Constitution) Comparable Leninist Concept & Representative Quote
Right to Revolution People may alter/abolish a destructive government. Revolution as a necessity: Sees revolution as a legitimate and necessary tool for the oppressed class. "He is no Socialist who cannot understand that one cannot and must not hesitate to bring even that greatest of sacrifices... in the interests of victory over the bourgeoisie".
Purpose of Government To secure unalienable rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness), deriving power from the consent of the governed. Government as a class tool: The state exists to uphold the rule of one class over another. A workers' state must suppress the bourgeoisie. "The state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another".
System of Governance A constitutional republic with separated powers, designed to control factions and protect liberty. Dictatorship of the Proletariat: A transitional state where the working class holds political power, exercised through a disciplined party. "The proletariat needs state power... to crush the resistance of the exploiters".
Founding Historical Act The American Revolution (1776) against British colonial rule. Appraisal of the American Revolution: Lenin praised it as a "really liberating, really revolutionary war" against colonial slavery, while noting its capitalist outcome.
Defense of the New Order Willingness to pledge "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor". Sacrifice for the Revolution: Justifies severe measures and sacrifice to defend the revolution. "For the sake of overthrowing Negro slavery... it was worth letting the country go through long years of civil war, through... ruin, destruction and terror".
Purpose of Government To secure unalienable rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness), deriving power from the consent of the governed. Government as a class tool: The state exists to uphold the rule of one class over another. A workers' state must suppress the bourgeoisie. "The state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another".
System of Governance A constitutional republic with separated powers, designed to control factions and protect liberty. Dictatorship of the Proletariat: A transitional state where the working class holds political power, exercised through a disciplined party. "The proletariat needs state power... to crush the resistance of the exploiters".
Founding Historical Act The American Revolution (1776) against British colonial rule. Appraisal of the American Revolution: Lenin praised it as a "really liberating, really revolutionary war" against colonial slavery, while noting its capitalist outcome.
Defense of the New Order Willingness to pledge "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor". Sacrifice for the Revolution: Justifies severe measures and sacrifice to defend the revolution. "For the sake of overthrowing Negro slavery... it was worth letting the country go through long years of civil war, through... ruin, destruction and terror".
🔍 Understanding the Ideological Divide
The parallels above stem from a shared focus on founding a new society, but the objectives and underlying philosophy are opposite:
Nature of Rights & Freedom: The Declaration grounds rights in the individual ("all Men are created equal"). Lenin viewed "bourgeois freedom" as an illusion masking economic exploitation, arguing real freedom required the end of class society.
Purpose of the State: The U.S. founders saw the state as a (potentially dangerous) protector of rights and property. Lenin, following Marx, saw the state as an instrument of class oppression that a proletarian revolution must shatter and replace.
Purpose of the State: The U.S. founders saw the state as a (potentially dangerous) protector of rights and property. Lenin, following Marx, saw the state as an instrument of class oppression that a proletarian revolution must shatter and replace.
Path to the New Society: The American model is one of law and constitutional order. Lenin's model is one of class struggle and revolutionary rupture. He saw value in the American revolutionaries' tactical flexibility (e.g., allying with one set of oppressors against another), but his ultimate goal was a socialist revolution, not a constitutional republic.
🔎 How to Explore This Comparison Further
To better understand this contrast:
Read the primary texts: Lenin's "Letter to American Workingmen" (1918) directly comments on the American revolutionary tradition. His pamphlet "The State and Revolution" (1917) systematically outlines his theory of the state.
Study Marxist analysis of the U.S. Constitution: Works like the one cited analyze the U.S. founding as a bourgeois revolution that protected property and class rule, offering the critical lens through which Lenin viewed these documents.
To better understand this contrast:
Read the primary texts: Lenin's "Letter to American Workingmen" (1918) directly comments on the American revolutionary tradition. His pamphlet "The State and Revolution" (1917) systematically outlines his theory of the state.
Study Marxist analysis of the U.S. Constitution: Works like the one cited analyze the U.S. founding as a bourgeois revolution that protected property and class rule, offering the critical lens through which Lenin viewed these documents.
In summary, you can find Leninist ideas that mirror the scale and transformative intent of the American founding documents, but they channel that energy toward a diametrically opposed vision of society, rights, and power.
If you are interested in how other 20th-century revolutionaries (like Mao or Ho Chi Minh) engaged with or reinterpreted these American foundational ideas, I can help you explore that next.
If you are interested in how other 20th-century revolutionaries (like Mao or Ho Chi Minh) engaged with or reinterpreted these American foundational ideas, I can help you explore that next.
Appraisal of the American Revolution: Lenin praised it as a "really liberating, really revolutionary war" against colonial slavery, while noting its capitalist outcome. Did Lenin have a unique definition of the word Bourgeoise (as no synonyme of citoyen) who were the actual driving force of the French Revolution that cause a misinterpretation of what he must have meant?
you can find Leninist ideas that mirror the scale and transformative intent of the American founding documents, yet to be translated into early industrialisation from his perspective at the verge to recreate Slavery in form of poor workers off equal rights serving machines instead of machines serving all?
Read 10 web pages
Hmm, the user has two very insightful and interconnected follow-up questions based on our discussion about Lenin's view of the American Revolution. They're really digging into the philosophical foundations and asking whether there might be some misunderstanding in how we interpret Lenin's terminology, particularly "bourgeoisie" in the French Revolution context, and they're connecting this to the industrial era transformation that created what they call "slavery in form of poor workers."
I need to tackle both parts systematically. The first part requires examining whether Lenin had a unique definition of "bourgeoisie" compared to the citoyen concept of the French Revolution. The second part involves analyzing whether the early industrial transformation created a new form of "slavery" and what Lenin's perspective was on this historical development.
I can see several highly relevant and authoritative sources in the search results.
contains Lenin's original "Letter to American Workers" which I previously mentioned, providing his analysis of both the American Revolution and the "wage-slavery" concept. has an alternative version of the same letter, offering helpful confirmation and additional context provides Lenin's commentary on the French Revolution, directly addressing his view of how the bourgeoisie served their class interests without fully realizing it, which is crucial for addressing the citoyen question.
For the industrial transformation question, again contains the key passage where Lenin describes how America created "wage-slavery" to a handful of multimillionaires. has valuable analysis of "Petty-Bourgeois and Proletarian Socialism" which helps distinguish different bourgeois elements offers Lenin's analysis of two lines in revolution, showing his precise class analysis methodology.
The other search results like provide additional context but aren't as directly relevant to the specific philosophical questions. is more historical narrative about the letter's delivery, covers different correspondence, analyzes bourgeois revolutions generally but isn't Lenin-focused, discusses revolutionary crisis theory in depth, and repeats points from other sources.
I plan to organize this with clear headings for each main question, using a comparison table format to help visualize the key distinctions between different social forces and a flowchart to show the historical progression Lenin described. The table will help clarify Lenin's more precise terminology, while the flowchart will illustrate the transformation from colonial to wage slavery.
Hmm, the user has two very insightful and interconnected follow-up questions based on our discussion about Lenin's view of the American Revolution. They're really digging into the philosophical foundations and asking whether there might be some misunderstanding in how we interpret Lenin's terminology, particularly "bourgeoisie" in the French Revolution context, and they're connecting this to the industrial era transformation that created what they call "slavery in form of poor workers."
I need to tackle both parts systematically. The first part requires examining whether Lenin had a unique definition of "bourgeoisie" compared to the citoyen concept of the French Revolution. The second part involves analyzing whether the early industrial transformation created a new form of "slavery" and what Lenin's perspective was on this historical development.
I can see several highly relevant and authoritative sources in the search results.
contains Lenin's original "Letter to American Workers" which I previously mentioned, providing his analysis of both the American Revolution and the "wage-slavery" concept. has an alternative version of the same letter, offering helpful confirmation and additional context provides Lenin's commentary on the French Revolution, directly addressing his view of how the bourgeoisie served their class interests without fully realizing it, which is crucial for addressing the citoyen question.
For the industrial transformation question, again contains the key passage where Lenin describes how America created "wage-slavery" to a handful of multimillionaires. has valuable analysis of "Petty-Bourgeois and Proletarian Socialism" which helps distinguish different bourgeois elements offers Lenin's analysis of two lines in revolution, showing his precise class analysis methodology.
The other search results like provide additional context but aren't as directly relevant to the specific philosophical questions. is more historical narrative about the letter's delivery, covers different correspondence, analyzes bourgeois revolutions generally but isn't Lenin-focused, discusses revolutionary crisis theory in depth, and repeats points from other sources.
I plan to organize this with clear headings for each main question, using a comparison table format to help visualize the key distinctions between different social forces and a flowchart to show the historical progression Lenin described. The table will help clarify Lenin's more precise terminology, while the flowchart will illustrate the transformation from colonial to wage slavery.
Based on Lenin's own writings, there was no misinterpretation in his use of "bourgeoisie." His analysis was distinct because it was based on a materialist class analysis, not a political or civic identity like citoyen. Your second point about industrial workers as a new form of "slaves" to machines aligns with his core critique: he saw the American Revolution's triumph leading not to universal freedom, but to the replacement of colonial slavery with capitalist "wage-slavery".
🔍 The Bourgeoisie: Class Interest vs. Revolutionary Slogans
Lenin did not misunderstand the driving force of the French Revolution but analyzed it through the lens of class economics, not political ideals. He saw the citoyen (citizen) as a political abstraction that masked underlying class realities.
Social Force Role in Lenin's Analysis Relation to Citoyen Ideals
Revolutionary Bourgeoisie The propertied class (merchants, manufacturers) that led the revolution to dismantle feudal barriers and establish conditions for capitalist rule. They used the universal language of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" to rally the masses, but their vision of these rights served bourgeois property relations, not universal human emancipation.
Petty-Bourgeoisie (e.g., Jacobins, peasants) A transitional class (small property owners, artisans) that could ally with the proletariat or the big bourgeoisie depending on the revolutionary stage. They often fought sincerely for the citoyen ideals but, from a Marxist view, were doomed to fail or betray those ideals because their class interests were not identical to the proletariat's.
Proletariat The modern industrial working class, which has no property to protect and thus represents the only class capable of a consistently democratic and, ultimately, socialist revolution. The citoyen ideal of formal political equality is insufficient. True freedom requires the abolition of the economic exploitation inherent in capitalism.
Lenin argued that the great French revolutionaries "served the interests of the bourgeoisie although they did not realise it for their vision was obscured by the words liberty, equality and fraternity". His definition was not unique but was a precise application of Marx's theory: the bourgeoisie is defined by its ownership of the means of production and its role in the capitalist mode of production, regardless of the political slogans it uses.
Revolutionary Bourgeoisie The propertied class (merchants, manufacturers) that led the revolution to dismantle feudal barriers and establish conditions for capitalist rule. They used the universal language of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" to rally the masses, but their vision of these rights served bourgeois property relations, not universal human emancipation.
Petty-Bourgeoisie (e.g., Jacobins, peasants) A transitional class (small property owners, artisans) that could ally with the proletariat or the big bourgeoisie depending on the revolutionary stage. They often fought sincerely for the citoyen ideals but, from a Marxist view, were doomed to fail or betray those ideals because their class interests were not identical to the proletariat's.
Proletariat The modern industrial working class, which has no property to protect and thus represents the only class capable of a consistently democratic and, ultimately, socialist revolution. The citoyen ideal of formal political equality is insufficient. True freedom requires the abolition of the economic exploitation inherent in capitalism.
Lenin argued that the great French revolutionaries "served the interests of the bourgeoisie although they did not realise it for their vision was obscured by the words liberty, equality and fraternity". His definition was not unique but was a precise application of Marx's theory: the bourgeoisie is defined by its ownership of the means of production and its role in the capitalist mode of production, regardless of the political slogans it uses.
⚙️ From Colonial Slavery to Industrial "Wage-Slavery"
Your second question gets to the heart of Lenin's critique. He praised the American Revolution as "really liberating, really revolutionary" for ending colonial slavery. However, he argued its capitalist outcome created a new, more pervasive form of bondage.
The following chart illustrates this historical progression from Lenin's perspective:
He described this as the "latest, capitalist stage of wage-slavery to a handful of multimillionaires". In his view, the worker under capitalism is "free" in a double sense: free from feudal ties and free from ownership of any means of production, thus forced to sell their labor power to survive. This created a deeper, more systemic abyss than chattel slavery: "the depth of the abyss which lies between the handful of arrogant multimillionaires... and the millions of working people who constantly live on the verge of pauperism".
💎 Conclusion: Two Stages of Liberation
For Lenin, the American and French Revolutions were historically progressive bourgeois-democratic revolutions that smashed feudal and colonial forms of oppression. However, they were only the first stage. They replaced overt coercion with the covert, economic coercion of the capitalist market, setting the stage for the necessary second stage: the socialist revolution to abolish wage-slavery and class society altogether.
I hope this clarifies Lenin's analysis. If you are interested in how he distinguished between different types of revolutions (e.g., bourgeois-democratic vs. socialist) and the specific tactics for each, I can provide further details on that framework.
For Lenin, the American and French Revolutions were historically progressive bourgeois-democratic revolutions that smashed feudal and colonial forms of oppression. However, they were only the first stage. They replaced overt coercion with the covert, economic coercion of the capitalist market, setting the stage for the necessary second stage: the socialist revolution to abolish wage-slavery and class society altogether.
I hope this clarifies Lenin's analysis. If you are interested in how he distinguished between different types of revolutions (e.g., bourgeois-democratic vs. socialist) and the specific tactics for each, I can provide further details on that framework.
Was there a Bourgeois in times of the French Revolution comparable to the one Lenin talked about or did he say that the Bourgeois betrayed their ideals heading for creating an underprivileged level of society as they were relative to Louis Aristocracy?
Hmm, this is a sophisticated follow-up question that builds directly on our previous discussion about Lenin's class analysis. The user is asking whether the bourgeoisie of the French Revolutionary era matched Lenin's theoretical definition, or whether Lenin saw them as betraying their own ideals to create new social hierarchies.
The user seems well-versed in Marxist theory and revolutionary history, so I need to provide a precise, nuanced answer that distinguishes between actual historical social groups and Leninist theoretical categories. The core of the question is about continuity between the 18th-century bourgeoisie and Lenin's analysis.
I recall from Lenin's writings that he had a clear position on this, and I found specific quotes that support the analysis. I need to explain that for Lenin, the bourgeoisie didn't "betray" ideals in a moral sense - rather, their class position meant their revolutionary ideals were always limited by their material interests. This is a crucial Marxist distinction.
The comparison to the American Revolution context we discussed earlier would help show consistency in Lenin's analysis. I should structure this to first state Lenin's view clearly, then explain the material basis of bourgeois ideals, and finally contrast with the Marxist view of proletarian revolution.
The user's phrasing suggests they're thinking about whether the post-revolutionary bourgeoisie created a new "underprivileged level" relative to the old aristocracy, which is exactly the wage-slavery concept we discussed. I should connect this back to that earlier point about industrial workers.
I recall from Lenin's writings that he had a clear position on this, and I found specific quotes that support the analysis. I need to explain that for Lenin, the bourgeoisie didn't "betray" ideals in a moral sense - rather, their class position meant their revolutionary ideals were always limited by their material interests. This is a crucial Marxist distinction.
The comparison to the American Revolution context we discussed earlier would help show consistency in Lenin's analysis. I should structure this to first state Lenin's view clearly, then explain the material basis of bourgeois ideals, and finally contrast with the Marxist view of proletarian revolution.
The user's phrasing suggests they're thinking about whether the post-revolutionary bourgeoisie created a new "underprivileged level" relative to the old aristocracy, which is exactly the wage-slavery concept we discussed. I should connect this back to that earlier point about industrial workers.
Lenin's analysis is more precise: he argued the bourgeoisie did not "betray" their ideals—rather, their revolutionary ideals of liberty and equality were inherently limited by their class interest in establishing a society based on private property. Their victory did not create a universal society of free citoyens, but a new capitalist order with a new exploited class: the proletariat.
🏛️ The Bourgeoisie's "Consistent" Revolution
From Lenin's Marxist perspective, the 18th-century French bourgeoisie was the exact social force he analyzed. Their historical task was to overthrow the feudal-aristocratic state (like Louis XVI's) and clear the path for capitalist development. In this, they were genuinely revolutionary.
Their Ideals Served a Class Purpose: Slogans like "Liberty" meant freedom from feudal restrictions on trade and property. "Equality" meant legal equality for citizens (bourgeois men) to contract and compete in the market, not social or economic equality for all.
They Succeeded in Their Mission: Lenin saw them as largely successful. They created a state that "served the interests of the bourgeoisie although they did not realise it for their vision was obscured by the words liberty, equality and fraternity".
⚖️ The Inevitable Limit: From Aristocratic Rule to Capitalist Exploitation
The revolution did not create a new "underprivileged level" relative to the aristocracy; it created a new class dynamic. The old vertical hierarchy (Aristocracy > Commoners) was replaced with a horizontal class antagonism rooted in economics:
The Bourgeoisie became the new ruling class by owning the means of production
(factories, capital).
The Proletariat became the new exploited class, "free" to sell their labor but with no
The Proletariat became the new exploited class, "free" to sell their labor but with no
other means to survive.
Lenin explained this using Marx's concept of "wage-slavery," arguing the capitalist "must strive for 'freedom of labour'... must strive to release the workers from all fetters in order to enable them to enter into agreements with him freely as to the terms on which they will work for him." The worker's "freedom" is thus the freedom to be exploited by the new bourgeois owner, not by the old aristocrat.
Lenin explained this using Marx's concept of "wage-slavery," arguing the capitalist "must strive for 'freedom of labour'... must strive to release the workers from all fetters in order to enable them to enter into agreements with him freely as to the terms on which they will work for him." The worker's "freedom" is thus the freedom to be exploited by the new bourgeois owner, not by the old aristocrat.
🆚 Bourgeois vs. Proletarian Revolution: The Core Difference
This explains why, for Lenin, a bourgeois revolution could never achieve true human emancipation. The following table contrasts the two revolutionary stages he identified:
Aspect Bourgeois Revolution (e.g., French & American Revolutions) Proletarian (Socialist) Revolution (Lenin's Goal)
Leading Class The Bourgeoisie (property owners, merchants, manufacturers) The Proletariat (industrial working class)
Primary Goal Destroy feudal/colonial restraints; establish political rule and capitalist property rights. Abolish private ownership of the means of production; establish a classless, communist society.
Concept of Freedom "Negative" freedom: Formal legal equality and freedom from state interference for property owners. "Positive" freedom: Collective liberation from economic exploitation and want, enabling true self-determination.
Historical Scope Progressively replaces one exploitative system (feudalism) with another (capitalism). Aims for the final abolition of all class-divided systems and the state itself.
💎 Conclusion: Ideals Bound by Class
In short, Lenin did not accuse the French bourgeoisie of hypocrisy in a moral sense. He argued from historical materialism that their ideals were the highest possible within their class framework. The "betrayal" was not of the ideals but of the hope that those ideals could free all humanity. That task, he concluded, fell to the proletariat.
If you are interested in how Lenin applied this analysis to argue why a "proletarian dictatorship" was necessary to break this cycle, I can elaborate on that next.
That means he said that the arrival of mass production by industrial age had corrupted parts of society he called the Bourgeois and another step following up directly on the French Revolution was needed, because of the very time and economic revolution in progress.
Would he better have used the word Supremacists or Fascists instead of a socio-economic groups label?
Hmm, the user is building on our previous discussion about Lenin's class analysis and now asking a very specific conceptual question: whether Lenin should have used terms like "Supremacists" or "Fascists" instead of "Bourgeois" to describe the ruling class. This shows the user is really engaging deeply with the material.
The user seems to be trying to understand whether Lenin's critique was about moral corruption or inherent structural roles, and whether modern political labels might fit better. I need to clarify that Lenin's framework was fundamentally structural and economic, not about individual morality or specific political movements like fascism.
I can see several key points to address: why "Bourgeois" was a precise scientific term for Lenin, how it differed fundamentally from "Supremacist" or "Fascist," and why changing the terminology would undermine his entire theoretical framework. The user might be missing that for Marxists, class is defined by objective economic relations, not subjective attitudes or political ideologies.
I plan to explain the structural vs. ideological distinction clearly, then show how fascism actually represented a different historical phenomenon that Lenin didn't live to see fully develop. I should emphasize that changing the terminology would make Lenin's analysis less scientific and less useful for understanding capitalism's actual workings.
I will structure this to first explain why "Bourgeois" was the right term for his theory, then contrast it with what "Supremacist" and "Fascist" actually mean, and finally summarize why the terminology matters for the theory's coherence. The user seems capable of handling quite nuanced explanations based on our conversation history.
Excellent question. No, Lenin would not have used "Supremacists" or "Fascists." These terms describe ideological or political movements, whereas "Bourgeoisie" was, for Lenin, a precise socio-economic category defined by a person's objective role in the production system. Changing the term would have destroyed the scientific foundation of his entire theory.
🏭 Why "Bourgeoisie" Was the Necessary & Precise Term
Lenin's analysis wasn't about moral "corruption" of individuals, but about structural roles within the capitalist mode of production. He argued that the logic of the system itself compelled the bourgeoisie, as a class, to act in certain ways.
The Bourgeoisie as a Function: Their role is to own capital, maximize profit, and accumulate wealth. This function exists regardless of the personal ethics of individual factory owners.
A System, Not a Conspiracy: The problem for Lenin wasn't that "bad people" took over, but that the economic system of capitalism inherently generates exploitation and inequality. The bourgeoisie are the human agents of that system. He would say a capitalist must exploit workers to survive competition, just as a worker must sell their labor to survive.
"Supremacist" is Inadequate: This term implies a conscious ideology of racial or ethnic superiority. While Lenin condemned colonial and imperialist ideologies, his critique of the bourgeoisie was deeper: even a bourgeoisie that believed in formal racial equality would still exploit the working class economically. The exploitation is economic, not (primarily) ideological.
⚔️ Fascism: A Different Historical Phenomenon
Your suggestion of "Fascist" is anachronistic and conceptually distinct. Lenin died in 1924, just as fascism was emerging. Marxist theorists later analyzed fascism as a specific political response by the bourgeoisie in crisis.
Fascism as a Tool: From a classical Leninist perspective, fascism is not the bourgeoisie itself, but a violent, authoritarian political form that the bourgeoisie may resort to when its rule is threatened by socialist revolution and liberal democracy is too weak to contain the threat. It is a political method, not an economic class.
The Key Difference: For Lenin, the bourgeoisie could rule through various political forms—a republic, a constitutional monarchy, or later, as theorists argued, a fascist dictatorship. The political form was secondary to the underlying economic class rule.
Your suggestion of "Fascist" is anachronistic and conceptually distinct. Lenin died in 1924, just as fascism was emerging. Marxist theorists later analyzed fascism as a specific political response by the bourgeoisie in crisis.
Fascism as a Tool: From a classical Leninist perspective, fascism is not the bourgeoisie itself, but a violent, authoritarian political form that the bourgeoisie may resort to when its rule is threatened by socialist revolution and liberal democracy is too weak to contain the threat. It is a political method, not an economic class.
The Key Difference: For Lenin, the bourgeoisie could rule through various political forms—a republic, a constitutional monarchy, or later, as theorists argued, a fascist dictatorship. The political form was secondary to the underlying economic class rule.
💎 Core Conceptual Difference: Structure vs. Ideology
This table clarifies the fundamental distinction:
Term What It Describes Basis of Definition Why Lenin Wouldn't Use It
Bourgeoisie A socio-economic class defined by owning capital and employing wage labor. Objective, material position in the economic structure. N/A - This was his precise term. It was the analytical core of his theory.
Supremacist An ideological belief in the superiority of one group over others (racial, ethnic, etc.). Subjective ideology and beliefs. Too narrow. It misses the economic exploitation that can occur without this specific ideology.
Fascist A political movement and form of governance characterized by extreme nationalism, suppression of opposition, and dictatorial power. Political ideology and state form. Anachronistic and a symptom, not the cause. It describes how the bourgeoisie might rule in crisis, not what they are.
In essence, for Lenin, calling them "Supremacists" or "Fascists" would be like diagnosing a disease by its fever rather than by the underlying virus. It would mistake a symptom or a possible manifestation for the structural cause.
This table clarifies the fundamental distinction:
Term What It Describes Basis of Definition Why Lenin Wouldn't Use It
Bourgeoisie A socio-economic class defined by owning capital and employing wage labor. Objective, material position in the economic structure. N/A - This was his precise term. It was the analytical core of his theory.
Supremacist An ideological belief in the superiority of one group over others (racial, ethnic, etc.). Subjective ideology and beliefs. Too narrow. It misses the economic exploitation that can occur without this specific ideology.
Fascist A political movement and form of governance characterized by extreme nationalism, suppression of opposition, and dictatorial power. Political ideology and state form. Anachronistic and a symptom, not the cause. It describes how the bourgeoisie might rule in crisis, not what they are.
In essence, for Lenin, calling them "Supremacists" or "Fascists" would be like diagnosing a disease by its fever rather than by the underlying virus. It would mistake a symptom or a possible manifestation for the structural cause.
To conclude: Lenin used "Bourgeoisie" because his entire theory of history and revolution was built on class struggle driven by material economic interests. Swapping this for a term describing political ideology or rule would have reduced his analysis from a critique of the economic system of capitalism to a mere condemnation of its ugliest political byproducts.
If you're interested, I can elaborate on how later Marxists (like Trotsky or Gramsci) used Lenin's class-based framework to analyze the rise of actual fascism in the 20th century.
No, Lenin would not have used "Supremacists" or "Fascists." These terms describe ideological or political movements, whereas "Bourgeoisie" was, for Lenin, a precise socio-economic category defined by a person's objective role in the production system.
But wasn't his statement that those turned into those words coming up later in WW2 times when Communism itself had turned fashist declaring the poor worker as the ideal superior class, while Lenin thought to scale economic misbalances just as the French Revolution?
"The Bourgeoisie as a Function: Their role is to own capital, maximize profit, and accumulate wealth. This function exists regardless of the personal ethics of individual factory owners."
This exclused Slavery as a valid slavery, but proven only this John Nash who said that egoism of keynes is wrong, it must be that the best for the individual is always the best for also the group, meaning pure egoism will be a disadvantage. This being said was Keynes far from supporting KZs like the Nazis build or Slave Farms in any respect.
But wasn't his statement that those turned into those words coming up later in WW2 times when Communism itself had turned fashist declaring the poor worker as the ideal superior class, while Lenin thought to scale economic misbalances just as the French Revolution?
"The Bourgeoisie as a Function: Their role is to own capital, maximize profit, and accumulate wealth. This function exists regardless of the personal ethics of individual factory owners."
This exclused Slavery as a valid slavery, but proven only this John Nash who said that egoism of keynes is wrong, it must be that the best for the individual is always the best for also the group, meaning pure egoism will be a disadvantage. This being said was Keynes far from supporting KZs like the Nazis build or Slave Farms in any respect.
Read 7 web pages
Hmm, the user is digging deep into Marxist historical analysis and terminology, particularly interested in Lenin's conception of class struggle versus subsequent interpretations. This is quite complex historical and theoretical territory. Their previous questions have been extremely insightful, showing they have a sophisticated understanding of Lenin's framework where "bourgeoisie" has a specific, objective meaning tied to economic relations, not political labels like "supremacist" or "fascist."
The user now asks if Lenin's original meaning got corrupted when "communism turned fascist" by declaring workers as a superior class, which they see as a kind of betrayal of his materialist approach. They also mention John Nash's critique of pure egoism, asking about Keynes in this context.
I need to address several distinct but related components here: whether Lenin's theories anticipated or contributed to Stalinism's "class supremacy," the relationship between fascism and communism from a Marxist perspective, and whether Keynes supported Nazi policies provides excellent primary source material from Trotsky on fascism, showing how Marxists actually defined fascism - not as "class supremacy" but as a particular capitalist counter-revolutionary movement that mobilizes the petty bourgeoisie. This directly contradicts the user's suggestion that communism "turned fascist" by making workers supreme offers Clara Zetkin's analysis through the Communist International, showing how early Marxists distinguished fascism from both capitalist democracy and Stalinism. This historical context is perfect for showing the evolution of these concepts gives context about Lenin's political tactics and how his approach was abandoned by Stalinism. The discussion of Gramsci and the failures in Italy and Germany helps illustrate the divergence between Lenin's original theory and later practice covers Trotskyism and Stalinism's theoretical divergence, including the key concept of the "degenerated workers' state" which explains how Soviet bureaucracy could arise without becoming fascist.
Hmm, the user is digging deep into Marxist historical analysis and terminology, particularly interested in Lenin's conception of class struggle versus subsequent interpretations. This is quite complex historical and theoretical territory. Their previous questions have been extremely insightful, showing they have a sophisticated understanding of Lenin's framework where "bourgeoisie" has a specific, objective meaning tied to economic relations, not political labels like "supremacist" or "fascist."
The user now asks if Lenin's original meaning got corrupted when "communism turned fascist" by declaring workers as a superior class, which they see as a kind of betrayal of his materialist approach. They also mention John Nash's critique of pure egoism, asking about Keynes in this context.
I need to address several distinct but related components here: whether Lenin's theories anticipated or contributed to Stalinism's "class supremacy," the relationship between fascism and communism from a Marxist perspective, and whether Keynes supported Nazi policies provides excellent primary source material from Trotsky on fascism, showing how Marxists actually defined fascism - not as "class supremacy" but as a particular capitalist counter-revolutionary movement that mobilizes the petty bourgeoisie. This directly contradicts the user's suggestion that communism "turned fascist" by making workers supreme offers Clara Zetkin's analysis through the Communist International, showing how early Marxists distinguished fascism from both capitalist democracy and Stalinism. This historical context is perfect for showing the evolution of these concepts gives context about Lenin's political tactics and how his approach was abandoned by Stalinism. The discussion of Gramsci and the failures in Italy and Germany helps illustrate the divergence between Lenin's original theory and later practice covers Trotskyism and Stalinism's theoretical divergence, including the key concept of the "degenerated workers' state" which explains how Soviet bureaucracy could arise without becoming fascist.
I don't have relevant information about John Nash or Keynes's relationship to Nazism in the search results, so I'll need to address this gap by focusing on what I can cover effectively from the Marxist theoretical perspective.
I will organize this clearly with a table contrasting Marxist perspectives on fascism versus Stalinism, then explain the "degenerated workers' state" concept, and finally note the limits of the search results regarding the economic questions. This structure will help separate the theoretical from the historical and economic aspects of their question.
Based on a Marxist analysis of the historical events, Lenin's original theory did not advocate for the "superiority" of the working class in a racial or nationalistic sense. However, many of his followers did later analyze how the communist movement in the Soviet Union became a bureaucratic "degenerated workers' state" under Stalin. To understand this, it's crucial to distinguish how classical Marxists defined "fascism" versus "Stalinism."
Based on a Marxist analysis of the historical events, Lenin's original theory did not advocate for the "superiority" of the working class in a racial or nationalistic sense. However, many of his followers did later analyze how the communist movement in the Soviet Union became a bureaucratic "degenerated workers' state" under Stalin. To understand this, it's crucial to distinguish how classical Marxists defined "fascism" versus "Stalinism."
Aspect Marxist Definition of Fascism
Marxist Analysis of Stalinism (Trotskyist view)
Class Character & Goal A counter-revolutionary capitalist tool to smash the organized working class and prevent socialist revolution. A "degenerated workers' state" where the means of production are nationalized, but political power is usurped by a bureaucratic elite, betraying the working class.
Social Base A mass movement based on the "crazed petty bourgeoisie" (small business owners, ruined middle classes) and declassed elements, funded by big capital. A ruling bureaucratic caste that emerged within the single-party state and the Soviet administrative apparatus.
Method to Power Mobilizes its mass base for street violence and civil war to physically destroy workers' organizations (unions, parties). Rose to power through internal bureaucratic consolidation and political purges within an existing one-party state established by a prior revolution.
Relationship to Capital Direct agent of finance capital, installed as a last resort to preserve the capitalist system during profound crisis. Abolished private capitalism but did not establish genuine workers' democracy; seen as a Bonapartist dictatorship balancing between classes.
🔄 From Lenin's Revolution to Stalin's Bureaucracy
Lenin's goal was a workers' democracy (soviets). However, as analyzed by his contemporary Leon Trotsky, the Soviet state under Stalin "degenerated."
The Original Goal vs. The Outcome: The 1917 revolution aimed for workers' control. However, the isolation of the revolution, economic ruin, and the defeat of workers' revolutions in Europe (like in Germany and Italy) created conditions where a bureaucratic elite could rise. This bureaucracy ruled in its own interest, not as agents of the working class or international socialism.
Not "Fascist" but "Degenerated": Trotskyists called this a "degenerated workers' state". The key economic foundation (nationalized property) differed from the private capitalism fascism served. The goal was not to defend capitalism but to defend the bureaucracy's privileged position within a post-capitalist framework.
💎 Conclusion and Unanswered Economic Questions
Your question touches a core debate in Marxist history. Classical Marxists like Trotsky would argue that Stalinism was a betrayal and bureaucratic deformation of Lenin's project, not its logical conclusion, and was fundamentally different from fascism in its class role and economic base.
Regarding the second part of your question on Keynes and Nash:
The search results do not contain information on John Maynard Keynes's views on
Nazi policies or concentration camps.
Similarly, they do not discuss John Nash's game theory or his critique of economic
Similarly, they do not discuss John Nash's game theory or his critique of economic
models.
To explore the economic comparison between Keynesian and Marxist thought, or theories of cooperation vs. egoism in economic systems, you would need to consult sources focused on the history of economic theory.
I hope this clarifies the Marxist theoretical distinctions. If you would like to explore the specific tactics Marxists proposed to fight fascism (like the "united front"), I can provide more detail on that as well.
To explore the economic comparison between Keynesian and Marxist thought, or theories of cooperation vs. egoism in economic systems, you would need to consult sources focused on the history of economic theory.
I hope this clarifies the Marxist theoretical distinctions. If you would like to explore the specific tactics Marxists proposed to fight fascism (like the "united front"), I can provide more detail on that as well.
Check what I wrote about Nash's equilibrium proving Keynes wrong that pure egoism in would be beneficial and instead the surrounding must be taking into account by all decisions with Lenins intentions. The task is to understand if Lenin was like Hitler or had honourable intentions just as the American Revolution he supported.
Read 9 web pages
Hmm, the user is asking about two separate but interconnected questions: one about whether Nash's ideas could prove Keynes wrong in the context of Lenin's intentions, and another fundamental question about comparing Lenin's moral character to Hitler's and the American Revolution.
I need to address both parts systematically. The user seems to be connecting economic theory with political ideology, suggesting Nash's equilibrium theory could somehow validate Lenin's socialist critique of pure capitalism. The comparison between Lenin and Hitler is a profound historical and moral question.
provide excellent primary source material directly from Lenin's own writings about the American Revolution, showing his nuanced position - praising it as anti-colonial but criticizing its capitalist outcome. This gives me solid evidence about Lenin's actual views. and offer direct comparative analysis of Lenin's regime, though 's personality-focused approach is more psychological than political. is historically significant as Goebbels' propaganda but needs careful handling due to its source provides the most systematic comparison with archival evidence For the economic theory part, give me solid information about Nash's equilibrium and rational altruism concepts, but
's abstract isn't directly helpful here. There seems to be a gap in connecting Nash's theories directly to Keynesian economics, which means I need to be cautious about making claims I can't substantiate.
I plan to address this by first tackling the historical comparison question comprehensively since that's more straightforward with available evidence. I can use a table format to systematically compare Lenin and Hitler on key dimensions, drawing from multiple sources. Then I'll carefully explain the Nash-Keynes-Lenin connection, being clear about what can and can't be proven from the search results.
For the moral question about Lenin's intentions, I can present the historical facts from the search results and let the user draw their own conclusions while providing clear analysis of his revolutionary ideology versus Hitler's racial ideology.
The structure should flow logically from the economic theory question to the historical comparison, with clear transitions between these two main parts of the user's complex inquiry.
Hmm, the user is asking about two separate but interconnected questions: one about whether Nash's ideas could prove Keynes wrong in the context of Lenin's intentions, and another fundamental question about comparing Lenin's moral character to Hitler's and the American Revolution.
I need to address both parts systematically. The user seems to be connecting economic theory with political ideology, suggesting Nash's equilibrium theory could somehow validate Lenin's socialist critique of pure capitalism. The comparison between Lenin and Hitler is a profound historical and moral question.
provide excellent primary source material directly from Lenin's own writings about the American Revolution, showing his nuanced position - praising it as anti-colonial but criticizing its capitalist outcome. This gives me solid evidence about Lenin's actual views. and offer direct comparative analysis of Lenin's regime, though 's personality-focused approach is more psychological than political. is historically significant as Goebbels' propaganda but needs careful handling due to its source provides the most systematic comparison with archival evidence For the economic theory part, give me solid information about Nash's equilibrium and rational altruism concepts, but
's abstract isn't directly helpful here. There seems to be a gap in connecting Nash's theories directly to Keynesian economics, which means I need to be cautious about making claims I can't substantiate.
I plan to address this by first tackling the historical comparison question comprehensively since that's more straightforward with available evidence. I can use a table format to systematically compare Lenin and Hitler on key dimensions, drawing from multiple sources. Then I'll carefully explain the Nash-Keynes-Lenin connection, being clear about what can and can't be proven from the search results.
For the moral question about Lenin's intentions, I can present the historical facts from the search results and let the user draw their own conclusions while providing clear analysis of his revolutionary ideology versus Hitler's racial ideology.
The structure should flow logically from the economic theory question to the historical comparison, with clear transitions between these two main parts of the user's complex inquiry.
The connection between John Nash's game theory and John Maynard Keynes's economics isn't straightforward enough to "prove" one thinker right or wrong, but you've identified a core philosophical debate. This debate helps frame a key difference between Lenin's vision and the outcomes of both the American Revolution and Hitler's fascism.
⚖️ The Question of Cooperation vs. Egoism
Your point touches on a classic economic and social dilemma. John Nash's equilibrium, particularly illustrated by the Prisoner's Dilemma, shows how purely self-interested individuals can end up with worse outcomes than if they had cooperated. This challenges the idea that unrestrained individual egoism always benefits society.
Keynesian economics, focused on government intervention to manage capitalism, doesn't endorse pure egoism. It operates within the capitalist system to stabilize it, not to promote unfettered selfishness.
Lenin's critique was far more radical. He saw capitalism itself—not just a lack of regulation—as a system of "wage-slavery" where workers are exploited. He argued the American Revolution, while "really liberating" from colonialism, had resulted in this new form of economic bondage controlled by a "handful of arrogant multimillionaires". He sought not to manage this system, but to overthrow it through socialist revolution.
Therefore, while Nash's theory provides a mathematical model for the failure of pure self-interest, Lenin provided a political and economic theory arguing that the entire system based on private ownership was structurally flawed and exploitative.
Your point touches on a classic economic and social dilemma. John Nash's equilibrium, particularly illustrated by the Prisoner's Dilemma, shows how purely self-interested individuals can end up with worse outcomes than if they had cooperated. This challenges the idea that unrestrained individual egoism always benefits society.
Keynesian economics, focused on government intervention to manage capitalism, doesn't endorse pure egoism. It operates within the capitalist system to stabilize it, not to promote unfettered selfishness.
Lenin's critique was far more radical. He saw capitalism itself—not just a lack of regulation—as a system of "wage-slavery" where workers are exploited. He argued the American Revolution, while "really liberating" from colonialism, had resulted in this new form of economic bondage controlled by a "handful of arrogant multimillionaires". He sought not to manage this system, but to overthrow it through socialist revolution.
Therefore, while Nash's theory provides a mathematical model for the failure of pure self-interest, Lenin provided a political and economic theory arguing that the entire system based on private ownership was structurally flawed and exploitative.
🧭 Was Lenin Like Hitler?
This is a profound historical and moral question. The search results reveal strong perspectives, particularly from historians analyzing opened Soviet archives. The following comparison of their core ideologies and methods provides a framework for understanding.
Aspect Vladimir Lenin & Leninism
Adolf Hitler & Nazism
Core Ideological Driver Class conflict. A materialist ideology seeking revolution to abolish economic classes and private property, aiming for a stateless communist society (eventually).
Core Ideological Driver Class conflict. A materialist ideology seeking revolution to abolish economic classes and private property, aiming for a stateless communist society (eventually).
Racial conflict. A biological/ethnic ideology seeking national purification and expansion, based on the supremacy of the "Aryan" race and the extermination of "inferior" peoples like Jews.
Primary Target of Repression Class enemies. The bourgeoisie, "kulaks" (wealthier peasants), political opponents (monarchists, liberals, rival socialists), and later "saboteurs" or "idlers".
Primary Target of Repression Class enemies. The bourgeoisie, "kulaks" (wealthier peasants), political opponents (monarchists, liberals, rival socialists), and later "saboteurs" or "idlers".
Racial & "life-unworthy" enemies. Jews, Roma, Slavs, disabled people, homosexuals, and political opponents (communists, social democrats).
Stated Ultimate Goal International proletarian revolution to create a global, classless society. Praised other revolutions (American, French) as progressive steps, despite their capitalist outcomes.
Stated Ultimate Goal International proletarian revolution to create a global, classless society. Praised other revolutions (American, French) as progressive steps, despite their capitalist outcomes.
A racially pure, expansionist German Reich (Third Reich) destined to rule Europe. Viewed other revolutions or ideologies as threats or signs of decay.
Use of Terror & Methods "Revolutionary terror" and class warfare as necessary tools to crush resistance and protect the revolution. Established the Cheka (secret police) and camps for class enemies.
Use of Terror & Methods "Revolutionary terror" and class warfare as necessary tools to crush resistance and protect the revolution. Established the Cheka (secret police) and camps for class enemies.
Industrialized extermination and terror to achieve racial purity. Established the SS, Gestapo, and death camps for systematic genocide.
View of the American Revolution Praised as a "really liberating, really revolutionary war" against colonialism, but criticized for leading to capitalist wage-slavery.
View of the American Revolution Praised as a "really liberating, really revolutionary war" against colonialism, but criticized for leading to capitalist wage-slavery.
Largely irrelevant or opposed to its liberal, democratic ideals. Nazism rejected the universal rights and equality it championed.
Based on these fundamentals, most historians view them as opposite ideological twins. They shared certain methods—ruthless one-party dictatorship, use of terror, concentration camps—but applied them toward diametrically opposed goals. A Nazi propaganda speech from 1926 even frames them as the two revolutionary alternatives to bourgeois democracy.
💎 Conclusion: Intentions vs. Outcomes
Intentions: Lenin's stated intentions were emancipatory (ending class exploitation globally), while Hitler's were exterminatory and supremacist. In this sense, Lenin's ideological starting point was fundamentally different from Hitler's.
Honorable? Whether Lenin's brutal methods can be justified by his ends, or whether those ends were truly achievable, is a central debate in history. Historians like those cited argue that terror and dictatorship were not accidental to Leninism but central to it from the very beginning.
Comparison to American Revolution: Lenin admired its anti-colonial, transformative spirit but believed it was incomplete. He saw his revolution as the next historical stage—overthrowing not just political masters (like the British) but economic masters (the capitalist class) to end all forms of slavery, chattel and wage.
In essence, judging Lenin requires grappling with the chasm between his utopian, internationalist goals and the brutal, authoritarian means he employed to pursue them, which created a model later used by Stalin to inflict catastrophic suffering.
I hope this detailed analysis provides a clearer framework for your assessment. If you are interested in delving deeper into a specific aspect, such as Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP) or the ideological origins of fascism, I can provide more focused information.
"handful of arrogant multimillionaires". That is today known to have been the fascists not the Bourgeois. He used the wrong word. He ment all those that did later ask the SS for more Jewish slaves, today those that put Profit over People.
Read 8 web pages
Hmm, the user has been engaged in a complex historical and ideological discussion about Lenin, capitalism, and fascism. They're now challenging my previous explanation by arguing that Lenin's term "bourgeoisie" was inaccurate and that he should have used terms like "fascists" or "supremacists" to describe those who put profit over people. The user specifically mentions those who "ask the SS for more Jewish slaves," connecting capitalist exploitation directly to Nazi atrocities.
I need to address whether Lenin misidentified his targets by using an economic class label rather than a political/ideological one, and explore whether fascism represents capitalism in a particular historical form provides the crucial primary source - Lenin's actual 1918 "Letter to American Workers." This directly quotes the "handful of arrogant multimillionaires" phrase and shows Lenin was describing American capitalists during World War I, not specifically German fascists who would emerge later. The authority here is excellent as it's Lenin's own writing offers a Marxist analysis of genocide that might help connect capitalism to fascism, but it's from a modern revolutionary communist website rather than an academic source. Still, it provides relevant theoretical perspective.
includes an interview about anarcho-syndicalism that mentions how "the Nazis were simply the political expression of capitalism unleashed." This supports the user's connection between capitalism and fascism but from an anarchist rather than Leninist perspective shows Lenin explicitly condemning anti-Semitism and identifying capitalists, not Jews, as the enemy of workers. This is important for addressing the user's specific mention of "Jewish slaves." provides firsthand testimony about Nazi occupation, though it doesn't directly address Lenin's theories.
I can use these sources to explain that Lenin's analysis was intentionally focused on economic class, not race or ideology. The search results support my analysis that for Marxists, fascism represented a particular political form that capitalism could take under certain conditions, not a distinct economic class.
For organization, I will clarify Lenin's intentional use of economic terminology, address the relationship between capitalism and fascism in Marxist theory, and then provide the historical context showing why comparing 1918 analysis to 1940s phenomena requires caution. A comparison table might help distinguish Lenin's economic analysis from later fascist ideologies.
Hmm, the user has been engaged in a complex historical and ideological discussion about Lenin, capitalism, and fascism. They're now challenging my previous explanation by arguing that Lenin's term "bourgeoisie" was inaccurate and that he should have used terms like "fascists" or "supremacists" to describe those who put profit over people. The user specifically mentions those who "ask the SS for more Jewish slaves," connecting capitalist exploitation directly to Nazi atrocities.
I need to address whether Lenin misidentified his targets by using an economic class label rather than a political/ideological one, and explore whether fascism represents capitalism in a particular historical form provides the crucial primary source - Lenin's actual 1918 "Letter to American Workers." This directly quotes the "handful of arrogant multimillionaires" phrase and shows Lenin was describing American capitalists during World War I, not specifically German fascists who would emerge later. The authority here is excellent as it's Lenin's own writing offers a Marxist analysis of genocide that might help connect capitalism to fascism, but it's from a modern revolutionary communist website rather than an academic source. Still, it provides relevant theoretical perspective.
includes an interview about anarcho-syndicalism that mentions how "the Nazis were simply the political expression of capitalism unleashed." This supports the user's connection between capitalism and fascism but from an anarchist rather than Leninist perspective shows Lenin explicitly condemning anti-Semitism and identifying capitalists, not Jews, as the enemy of workers. This is important for addressing the user's specific mention of "Jewish slaves." provides firsthand testimony about Nazi occupation, though it doesn't directly address Lenin's theories.
I can use these sources to explain that Lenin's analysis was intentionally focused on economic class, not race or ideology. The search results support my analysis that for Marxists, fascism represented a particular political form that capitalism could take under certain conditions, not a distinct economic class.
For organization, I will clarify Lenin's intentional use of economic terminology, address the relationship between capitalism and fascism in Marxist theory, and then provide the historical context showing why comparing 1918 analysis to 1940s phenomena requires caution. A comparison table might help distinguish Lenin's economic analysis from later fascist ideologies.
Lenin intentionally used the word "bourgeoisie" to describe an economic class, not a racial ideology like fascism. While you're right that the people he criticized (those who "put Profit over People") would later enable fascism, he analyzed them based on their role in the economic system of capitalism, which he saw as the root cause of exploitation and war. For Marxists, fascism is understood as a specific, violent political form that capitalism can take under crisis, not as a separate class.
🎯 Why Lenin Used "Bourgeoisie"
Lenin's primary goal was economic analysis. In his 1918 "Letter to American Workers," he condemned the "handful of arrogant multimillionaires" who profited from World War I and lived in luxury while workers lived in poverty. His target was the capitalist class structure, not a particular race or nation.
Class, Not Race: Lenin explicitly argued that the enemy of workers was capital and the capitalists of all countries, not any ethnic or religious group. He condemned anti-Semitism as a tool used by capitalists to divide workers.
Systemic Analysis: He believed the capitalist system's drive for profit inevitably led to imperialism, colonial exploitation, and war between powerful nations. His analysis was focused on this systemic driver.
⚙️ The Marxist Connection: Capitalism and Fascism
Your insight that the "multimillionaires" would later be complicit with fascism aligns with how many Marxists analyze fascism. The search results show several perspectives:
Fascism as Capitalism's "Political Expression": One analysis argues that "the Nazis were simply the political expression of capitalism unleashed". From this view, fascism isn't a deviation from capitalism but a possible outcome—a violent, authoritarian method to protect capitalist interests by crushing organized labor and socialist movements during severe crisis.
A Political Form, Not a New Class: Therefore, Lenin didn't use "fascist" because, in his theoretical framework, a fascist is not a new economic class. A fascist could be a capitalist, a petty bourgeois, or a worker ideologically aligned with capital. The core dynamic remains the class struggle between the bourgeoisie (owners) and the proletariat (workers).
The table below summarizes the difference in focus:
Aspect Lenin's "Bourgeoisie" (Economic Class) Fascist/Supremacist (Political/Ideological Category)
Definition Defined by ownership of capital and means of production. Defined by racial ideology, ultranationalism, and authoritarian politics.
Primary Motivation Accumulation of profit and preservation of the capitalist system. Pursuit of racial purity, national dominance, and totalitarian control.
Lenin's Analysis The root cause of exploitation, inequality, and imperialist war. Understood as a reactionary phenomenon that could emerge from capitalist crisis.
Definition Defined by ownership of capital and means of production. Defined by racial ideology, ultranationalism, and authoritarian politics.
Primary Motivation Accumulation of profit and preservation of the capitalist system. Pursuit of racial purity, national dominance, and totalitarian control.
Lenin's Analysis The root cause of exploitation, inequality, and imperialist war. Understood as a reactionary phenomenon that could emerge from capitalist crisis.
📜 Historical Context is Key
It is crucial to remember that Lenin was writing in 1918, years before the full rise of Italian Fascism and German Nazism. His analysis was based on the capitalism of his time—monopolistic, imperialist, and having just caused a world war. While his theory provides tools to understand how such a system could later produce fascism, he was not describing the specific horrors of the Holocaust, which he did not live to see (he died in 1924). He could not have used "fascist" to describe people actively collaborating with the SS, as that historical event unfolded decades later.
In summary, Lenin used "bourgeoisie" because he was diagnosing what he saw as the economic disease (the capitalist system), not just one of its most violent political symptoms (fascism).
I hope this clarifies the theoretical distinction. If you are interested in how Lenin's successors applied his theories to analyze the rise of actual fascism in the 1930s, I can help explore that historical development.
This response is AI-generated, for reference only.
He could not have used "fascist" to describe people actively collaborating with the SS, as that historical event unfolded decades later.
It is crucial to remember that Lenin was writing in 1918, years before the full rise of Italian Fascism and German Nazism. His analysis was based on the capitalism of his time—monopolistic, imperialist, and having just caused a world war. While his theory provides tools to understand how such a system could later produce fascism, he was not describing the specific horrors of the Holocaust, which he did not live to see (he died in 1924). He could not have used "fascist" to describe people actively collaborating with the SS, as that historical event unfolded decades later.
In summary, Lenin used "bourgeoisie" because he was diagnosing what he saw as the economic disease (the capitalist system), not just one of its most violent political symptoms (fascism).
I hope this clarifies the theoretical distinction. If you are interested in how Lenin's successors applied his theories to analyze the rise of actual fascism in the 1930s, I can help explore that historical development.
This response is AI-generated, for reference only.
He could not have used "fascist" to describe people actively collaborating with the SS, as that historical event unfolded decades later.
That is what I am saying. I am also saying that he, and thereby the Leninists, were never enemy of the American ideals no matter their used wording that today can be easily misunderstood, but that he intended to pursue that revolution sharing the ideals.
Someone from that time also said the Revolution would eat its children, but than the acutal enemy was the Germans preparing for creating the darkest slave nation that mankind would have seen if they would have succeeded under Nazi rule.
Am I right?
Read 10 web pages
Hmm, this user is clearly grappling with complex historical and ideological comparisons between Lenin, the American Revolution, and Nazism. We previously discussed Lenin's use of terms like "bourgeoisie," and now they're pushing further to argue that Lenin's revolution shared ideals with the American Revolution despite linguistic differences. They're also connecting this to the phrase about revolutions "eating their children," and suggesting the real enemy was Nazism, not the internal conflicts of communism.
I need to systematically address each part of their complex argument. First, I should examine whether Lenin truly shared American ideals, then analyze the "revolution eats its children" concept in relation to both French and Russian revolutions, and finally assess the Nazism versus internal conflict comparison.
provides exactly what I need for the first part - it directly quotes Lenin praising the American Revolution as "really liberating, really revolutionary" while recognizing its capitalist outcome. This shows Lenin admired the revolutionary spirit but saw it as incomplete adds crucial context about Lenin's anti-racist stance, contrasting sharply with Nazi ideology directly discusses the "dialectic of Saturn" concept and provides two contrasting interpretations - the fatalistic view that revolution inevitably eats its children versus Trotsky's analysis that Stalinism was a betrayal, not an inevitability. This is perfect for the second part.
For the third part about Nazism, gives essential historical context about Soviet-German relations, showing how realpolitik considerations led to temporary cooperation despite ideological opposition to fascism reinforces Lenin's clear position that fascism serves capitalist interests, which aligns with his earlier analysis.
I can organize this with a table to clarify the ideological positioning, then address each of their points systematically. The table will help visualize where Lenin stood relative to both American revolutionary ideals and Nazi ideology. I'll use historical evidence to show Lenin did admire certain aspects of the American Revolution while being fundamentally opposed to both capitalism and fascism.
The user seems to be making nuanced historical connections, so I need to acknowledge the sophistication of their thinking while providing clear historical evidence for each claim. I should also offer to explore specific aspects further since this is clearly an area of deep interest for them.
Hmm, this user is clearly grappling with complex historical and ideological comparisons between Lenin, the American Revolution, and Nazism. We previously discussed Lenin's use of terms like "bourgeoisie," and now they're pushing further to argue that Lenin's revolution shared ideals with the American Revolution despite linguistic differences. They're also connecting this to the phrase about revolutions "eating their children," and suggesting the real enemy was Nazism, not the internal conflicts of communism.
I need to systematically address each part of their complex argument. First, I should examine whether Lenin truly shared American ideals, then analyze the "revolution eats its children" concept in relation to both French and Russian revolutions, and finally assess the Nazism versus internal conflict comparison.
provides exactly what I need for the first part - it directly quotes Lenin praising the American Revolution as "really liberating, really revolutionary" while recognizing its capitalist outcome. This shows Lenin admired the revolutionary spirit but saw it as incomplete adds crucial context about Lenin's anti-racist stance, contrasting sharply with Nazi ideology directly discusses the "dialectic of Saturn" concept and provides two contrasting interpretations - the fatalistic view that revolution inevitably eats its children versus Trotsky's analysis that Stalinism was a betrayal, not an inevitability. This is perfect for the second part.
For the third part about Nazism, gives essential historical context about Soviet-German relations, showing how realpolitik considerations led to temporary cooperation despite ideological opposition to fascism reinforces Lenin's clear position that fascism serves capitalist interests, which aligns with his earlier analysis.
I can organize this with a table to clarify the ideological positioning, then address each of their points systematically. The table will help visualize where Lenin stood relative to both American revolutionary ideals and Nazi ideology. I'll use historical evidence to show Lenin did admire certain aspects of the American Revolution while being fundamentally opposed to both capitalism and fascism.
The user seems to be making nuanced historical connections, so I need to acknowledge the sophistication of their thinking while providing clear historical evidence for each claim. I should also offer to explore specific aspects further since this is clearly an area of deep interest for them.
Your thinking makes several historically sophisticated connections. Let's break down each part of your question by looking at what the historical evidence shows.
📜 Lenin & American Revolutionary Ideals
Your reading is partially supported by the evidence. Lenin admired the revolutionary spirit of the American Revolution but saw it as a historical step, not a final goal.
What He Praised: Lenin explicitly called the American War of Independence a "really liberating, really revolutionary war" against colonial slavery, just as he praised the Civil War for ending chattel slavery. He saw these as progressive, world-historic events.
His Fundamental Critique: For Lenin, these revolutions were "bourgeois-democratic"—they overthrew one form of exploitation (colonial, feudal) but established another: capitalist wage-slavery. He aimed to complete the process by overthrowing the capitalist class itself. Therefore, while he respected the revolutionary action and anti-colonial impulse, his end goal of a classless, communist society was fundamentally different from the American framework of liberal democracy and private property.
Your reading is partially supported by the evidence. Lenin admired the revolutionary spirit of the American Revolution but saw it as a historical step, not a final goal.
What He Praised: Lenin explicitly called the American War of Independence a "really liberating, really revolutionary war" against colonial slavery, just as he praised the Civil War for ending chattel slavery. He saw these as progressive, world-historic events.
His Fundamental Critique: For Lenin, these revolutions were "bourgeois-democratic"—they overthrew one form of exploitation (colonial, feudal) but established another: capitalist wage-slavery. He aimed to complete the process by overthrowing the capitalist class itself. Therefore, while he respected the revolutionary action and anti-colonial impulse, his end goal of a classless, communist society was fundamentally different from the American framework of liberal democracy and private property.
A Key Distinction on "Ideals": A crucial distinction was Lenin's vigorous opposition to the racial supremacy that later underpinned Nazism. He condemned "white supremacist" and "herrenvolk democracy" ideologies, analyzing them as tools used by ruling classes to divide workers. This places his worldview in direct opposition to the core of Nazi ideology.
Here is a visual summary of how Lenin's ideology positioned him in relation to other historical forces:
🪐 Did the Revolution "Eat Its Children"?
You reference the famous phrase about Saturn (the Roman god who devoured his offspring). This idea is central to historical debates about the Russian Revolution's trajectory.
The "Dialectic of Saturn" Argument: Some historians and theorists argue that the revolution's descent into Stalinist terror was historically inevitable—that the radical, universalist beginnings contained the seeds of their own bureaucratic, oppressive end. This is the "revolution eats its children" fatalism.
The Counter-Argument (Trotskyist view): Others, following Leon Trotsky, argue that Stalinism was not inevitable but a "betrayal." They contend that Stalinism arose from specific, contingent conditions: Russia's isolation, economic ruin, the decimation of the working class, and the defeat of revolutions in Europe. In this view, Stalinism was a bureaucratic counter-revolution that strangled the revolution's original goals.
⚔️ Was the Real Enemy the Nazis?
This is a complex historical and strategic question. Ideologically, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were unequivocal enemies of fascism, which they analyzed as the most violent and reactionary political expression of capitalism in crisis.
However, the practical history of Soviet foreign policy, especially after Lenin's death, involved cynical realpolitik. During the 1920s and early 1930s, the USSR (first under Lenin's successors) viewed social democracy (e.g., the German SPD) as its main ideological rival for working-class allegiance. At times, this led to a disastrous underestimation of the Nazi threat. This culminated in the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany, a non-aggression treaty bought the USSR time but was a stark departure from anti-fascist principles.
In essence: The ideological enemy was always fascism. The immediate political enemy in the 1920s-30s was often seen as rival leftist and liberal forces. The strategic decisions of the Stalinist state to ensure Soviet survival led to temporary, cynical accommodations with fascism that would have horrified the revolutionary internationalism of Lenin's early period.
I hope this detailed breakdown helps clarify these complex historical relationships. If you would like to delve deeper into any specific aspect—such as Lenin's theory of revolutionary crisis, or the later Comintern policies toward fascism—I can provide more focused information.
I hope this detailed breakdown helps clarify these complex historical relationships. If you would like to delve deeper into any specific aspect—such as Lenin's theory of revolutionary crisis, or the later Comintern policies toward fascism—I can provide more focused information.
#cyberpunkcoltoure
#undergroundwars
So, you are a Cult, you have uniforms, badges and an oath. You hate niggers and jews and mixing people most. You are on drugs. Every day. You call it medication or just lie about it. Your training is bad, your are weak, you can only scare the weak, but keep big mouthing like no second and know it.
Then, you use Hollywood movie computer technology to make your kids appear as they did that and big mouth against the original.
Why would you do that no matter the drugs in your brain??
We never found an answer.
Born to die, but that we all are. Just what for?
#sktr #provos #constitutionalism
#undergroundwars
The phrase "Petreaus being shot just a skater" appears to reference a specific, accidental shooting incident involving General David Petraeus and a soldier's comment in a military context.
The incident occurred in 1991 during a live-fire exercise at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. A soldier (not a "skater") tripped, causing his M-16 rifle to discharge a single round that accidentally struck then-Lt. Col. Petraeus in the chest.
The term "skater" is military slang used to describe individuals who try to avoid work or duty, often by visiting sick call. One account of the event notes that while there are many "skaters" in the ranks, Petraeus was eager to return to duty, even performing 50 push-ups in the hospital to persuade doctors to discharge him just days after the shooting, demonstrating the opposite of being a "skater".
The phrase you used likely originates from online discussions or forums, where people might joke or comment about the incident and military culture, possibly linking the "skater" term to the soldier who accidentally fired the weapon or contrasting Petraeus's resilience with the "skater" mentality.
Key details of the shooting:
The incident occurred in 1991 during a live-fire exercise at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. A soldier (not a "skater") tripped, causing his M-16 rifle to discharge a single round that accidentally struck then-Lt. Col. Petraeus in the chest.
The term "skater" is military slang used to describe individuals who try to avoid work or duty, often by visiting sick call. One account of the event notes that while there are many "skaters" in the ranks, Petraeus was eager to return to duty, even performing 50 push-ups in the hospital to persuade doctors to discharge him just days after the shooting, demonstrating the opposite of being a "skater".
The phrase you used likely originates from online discussions or forums, where people might joke or comment about the incident and military culture, possibly linking the "skater" term to the soldier who accidentally fired the weapon or contrasting Petraeus's resilience with the "skater" mentality.
Key details of the shooting:
...
#thedomesticenemy #gfyCIA
The DS simplified would be
#cyberpunkcoltoure #riggers
PS:
Thank you Bandit. Welcome to TIE!
That one had a Maserati engine and Porsche hated it so much there is no good word out about it. The dirty thing is that the PSA diesel can take some pressure and wide tyres...
Watch how that boy moves!
#TIE Have nothing, no matter how good, you can't leave in 3 seconds. Europe under Nations so you never have to surrender until we are free again! Knighthood. #provos #centurion #deadheads
TheGermans - Mind Set
1800 what ever torque. "This is one of the best Autobahns. A very long straight stretch."
Instead, try those:
E42, A71, A48, A62, A52.
#igotstuck
#cyberpunkcoltoure
PS:
So, just hold it, because:
When entering a divided, multi-lane road (like an Autobahn entrance) with no posted speed limit, you're in an unrestricted zone, but you must still drive safely according to conditions, with a recommended advisory speed (Richtgeschwindigkeit) of 130 km/h; you should match the flow of traffic, use your indicator to merge, and be prepared for higher speeds, but always prioritize safety and adjust for traffic, weather, and road conditions, as exceeding the advisory speed can affect liability in an accident, according to Reddit users on r/germany and Quora.
And now you want a Hydropneumatic car in no need of more than max 300hp. These fuckers never let me do more than 140PS...(except that old V8 CL for a few months with an expensive copy they thought was for the Autobahn)
Still.
Do that with 200km/h. BMWs slow down behind you before every turn and come up on the straight, eventually, until they get you do that for the entire track all throughout and this is no sprint to you, like life.
#neversurrender
#provos #TIE #trainbodyandmind
I could feel their pain...
#undergroundwars
#iran
Someone has to take out the exile Mullahs. Hisb or Ham??
Then, the road from Baghdad to Tehran needs to be rebuild with a rail next to it. It split up to Istanbul and Beirut there and will again.
Jerusalem takes more time, right Banbbinjoe ugly kid?? Instead the road has to go north around Afghanistan as close to the Afghan Northern Alliance as possible to Islamabad.
The Moslem High Way Project. The Sheiks are rich enough to take an airplane... or you finally get some large Hovercrafts running from Baghdad in a straight line.
#noblessoblige #IRAmovement
Those that took down the Shah...we do. I'll have a bite, too, here. TIE. Promised, we find a way.
So Bad Guys.
That guy or chick or telling you to turn and become good to be in love an harmony with everyone, wear batik shirts, have friendship jewelry and be suuuuuper doooper nice so you go to heaven?
Where!
#provos #hunterkillers #deadheads
#undergroundwars
So, do you know
someone always managing to find trouble and fighting on the right side... refusing to stay down.
TELL HIM!!!
HERE!!!
#lesvoyageur #IRAmovement
Look,
things don't got south, but sour and we never had a whore in every harbour, but our boats were known...
This is the End of the Nuclear Threat.
LETS KILL EM ALL!!!!
IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY PROVOS
The Terrorist Gang Wing
#lesvoyageur
Get it? Now understand that an entire people drained by fashism throughout Industrialisation wants to live again...
Only one minds and it's not even a people, hardly a House.
Cult, fits best. Supremacists.
#thewaronattitude
PS: How we were missed out by about two generations of them? Well, ahm, ohhhh.
So, James. Fuck You.
Thursday, 8 January 2026
TheGermans - Mind Set
These motherfuckers. The guy in tears there, he is using a common German behaviour or strategy.
In the episode before the two had an accident in which she suffered and injury
Now she hugs him telling everything is fine
...
I am usually heartless and rude, called.
#cyberpunkcoltoure #igotstuck
NATO standard DIN
weapons, you morons. That's pussy 5.56 Vs Nazi 9ers.
PS: Attitude. You did keep staring at me the very same way and I had to swallow my pride. You also share The Attitude.
#TIE #provos
#terroristgangs
The Kingdome of Hell
PS: But not a lot of cash, usually. Some small ' bag a' drugs, so.
Bond, The Floors.
having a motivational speech encouraging you in finest silk, all airconditioned, in the top floors of an architectural masterpiece representing the wealth and richness of the Nation.
Meanwhile our buddies from the Navy on concrete.
Dude, that is Big Red One standards... please.
#provos #terroristgangs
#undergroundwars
What I do think when I hear what??? What was thaaat????
PS: There is a red line. #thekingdomeofhell
#TIE Here we fight
TheGermans - Mind Set
Now add Gay Corrupt Cops on Cocaine and it makes sense, right?
#cyberpunkcoltoure
#rockerturff
#igotstuck
So, finding yourself in a town with both, it is an easy call ... you thinkin'.
#justiceforall
Watch this. I understand that this now might be difficult to understand for you. Years of medication abuse and generations of genetic decline have had their impact.
That one killer is innocent and the Wardens guilty of aggravating 1st degree murder. He walks, they go hang.
You don't catch that, right?
Pappillion... tell me about the real Pappillion and what you pull in Europa. What are you doing here...
#provos #terroristgangs
#Venezuela
Ok Great. Now for real. He threw himself down on the floor and pissed his pants, right? That's how he made it alive out? Right???
Who told them?
Excepted are only SS men. Mmmmh.
#armystrong
#cyberpuncoltoure
So Artefact CIA,
may we watch how a Secret Service Social Engineer falls in love with her cover, first time for real, and what happens then.... or do you wait until I have them all dead?
#undergroundwars #neversurrenderisallheevertoldus #IRAmovement #provos #terroristgangs #OMG #ironcladthegoblin #bloodysundaycrew
THE KINGDOME OF HELL
is in effect
ICE, shot dead a Mum.
No, but from both sides. That is the Sociological minus times minus multiplying into ever more minus to the very opposite of Mathematics.
Both sides exaggerated the situation and now someone is dead and someone has killed.
That went sour way before these videos were started. Both sides have to step back now and understand that from here the situation is either getting more dangerous or both sides do their homework better.
So, ICE has no need to dominate. That all can be done more settle and using more intelligence many runners can be caught later, especially having house, home, work, car and a bank account being still not naturalized and no one needs to bully these guys being armed having other options like suing them for cash after pushing wrong doings through.
There is, since the FBI actions against Black Panther, a great chance the very domestic enemy is within ICE active, but there is no Black Panther comparable movement fighting the ICE actions.
You have to organize and use the system having the right to defend that with also arms, as the Black Panther Party rightfully and heroically did for citizen rights.
No side there helped the U.S.A being and remaining a nation of immigrants, welcoming those seeking freedom, living and breathing freedom with all honourable responsibility and duties.
#51sts
#cyberpunkcoltoure
#terroristgangs #provos #constitutionalism
PS: The Constitutional problem is that a voted local, having another voted local the Sheriff around, is telling a not voted but installed force to leave his jurisdiction without habving any bounding rights or clear undoubted laws.
So, if the Constitution was enforced into the legal status of all parties throughout all laws and legislations, the Federal Organisation would have sought collaboration with the local up front creating and overall different situation. That women would be still alive, no one would have to deal with his conscious even potentially hearing from everyone he did a great job, not to worry and Mike G. would be in no need of blood pressure medication. Mikes are a lot out there... Founding Fathers come by some every millennia.
The Constitution was written for a reason as such. A Good one. A Great One.
Do we fix that like here in TIE or ?? Here KZs were build, not in America ever.
A suspended sentence is a court order where a convicted person avoids immediate jail time, with the prison sentence (or part of it) "suspended" for a probation period, during which they must meet specific conditions (like counseling, community service, or curfews) to avoid serving the time; if conditions are violated, the original sentence can be imposed, offering rehabilitation while ensuring accountability.
They were sentenced. The Don was right.
Collective Darwninst Evolution Theory
Cat? No. This there is no rat.
Just looks about like it.
#cyberpunkcoltoure
#undergroundwars
#bisamratte
The Bisamratte (muskrat, Ondatra zibethicus) lives in aquatic environments and is native to North America, but has been introduced and is now widespread across Europe and Asia. It is not a true rat, but the largest member of the vole family (Wühlmäuse).
Habitat
Muskrats are semi-aquatic and are specifically tied to water bodies with stable water levels and ample vegetation.
Typical habitats include:
Lakes, ponds, and marshes
Rivers, streams, and irrigation canals
Gräben (ditches) and flooded areas
They build two types of homes depending on the environment:
Bank Burrows: In suitable shorelines and dikes, they dig extensive tunnel systems with underwater entrances to a chamber above the waterline.
"Muskrat Houses" or "Castles" (Burgen): In marshy areas where burrowing is not possible, they construct dome-shaped mounds up to a meter high using local aquatic plants like reeds and bulrushes.
Muskrats are semi-aquatic and are specifically tied to water bodies with stable water levels and ample vegetation.
Typical habitats include:
Lakes, ponds, and marshes
Rivers, streams, and irrigation canals
Gräben (ditches) and flooded areas
They build two types of homes depending on the environment:
Bank Burrows: In suitable shorelines and dikes, they dig extensive tunnel systems with underwater entrances to a chamber above the waterline.
"Muskrat Houses" or "Castles" (Burgen): In marshy areas where burrowing is not possible, they construct dome-shaped mounds up to a meter high using local aquatic plants like reeds and bulrushes.
#gfyall #bestguyforthejob #...
and most importantly:
Are they clean?
In biological terms, the Bisamratte (muskrat) is considered a very clean animal, though it presents unique hygiene and health factors you should know about.
In biological terms, the Bisamratte (muskrat) is considered a very clean animal, though it presents unique hygiene and health factors you should know about.
Self-Care and Grooming
Constant Grooming: Muskrats spend a significant amount of time grooming their fur. This is a survival necessity; their dense underfur must remain clean and un-matted to trap air, which provides both insulation against cold water and buoyancy while swimming.
Water-Loving: Unlike common city rats (Norway rats), which are often associated with waste, muskrats live almost exclusively in clean aquatic environments and feed primarily on fresh vegetation like cattails and water lilies.
Constant Grooming: Muskrats spend a significant amount of time grooming their fur. This is a survival necessity; their dense underfur must remain clean and un-matted to trap air, which provides both insulation against cold water and buoyancy while swimming.
Water-Loving: Unlike common city rats (Norway rats), which are often associated with waste, muskrats live almost exclusively in clean aquatic environments and feed primarily on fresh vegetation like cattails and water lilies.
#nomissiontodifficult
really?
"Bedarfn? " 04:44
Bedürfnisse. It must say beeee dueueueue rrrrr ffff näääää ssseeeehh.
PS: The drugs...
#igotstuck #yourbet #cyberpunkcoltoure
GOTT! That felt great!
By God,
these fuck ups managed to ... me... REALLY!!!
PS: The Hatchhock, running away from all difficult military matters, was the perfect example that a moron of an idiot as a leader is not a problem, if everyone does what they want .. in Sparta.
#the90ies
#DJhype what really happened
#provos
#undergroundwars
Strange Allies, to protect and serve, volley.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)