>Doesn't abolish wage labour, instead experiments with different wage systems multiple times (they all fail)
>Doesn't abolish commodity production, instead artificially sets prices but doesn't produce according to demand so there's a years-long waiting list for things like cars
>Does everything modern companies and regulatory bodies of stuff like wages do in capitalist countries but in a less efficient centralised manner
>Workers' meaningful democratic control over their workplaces: ?????
>Constant rationing, people registered to grocery stores
What the fuck? How was life any different or better in the USSR for working people than it is now? This is retardation(Rule 7)
>>2287854YOU MUST CONTRIBUTE TO FREE BALESTINE
BALESTINE OR BUST
>>2287886who said anything about if your petty bourgeois labor aristocracKKKa ass thinks socialism is desirable
it's inevitable
>>2287896Not really, that's what Marx says socialism is in the manifesto.
If Soviet central planning is more socialist than that now and is really not that different from life in capitalist countries except more retarded, why do so many so-called socialists love it so much?
>>2287902No, I was just memed on by Marxists about labour vouchers and then decided to actually look up how workers in the USSR were compensated for their work. Now I'm just sort of astonished.
Also, are you denying that people in the eastern bloc waited years to receive a car?
>>2287865>shithole large part of urban china is more modern and comfy than developed west
>996 work schedules illegal and diminishing
>suicide nets those were in taiwanese mega factories more than 10 (even 15 I think) years ago, which had a third of a million people working and living there
>embargoed how is that their fault
>fort island how the fuck are they a fort? their best deep water spot still ahs an american base on it
>people have to farm chickens in their apartments<and have better healthcare, life expectancy, education and work conditions than all similar wealth countries in the region despite the US effortsin short, update your propaganda, or rather kys you fucking glowing fuck
>>2287843the USSR was operating under specific historical circumstances.
imagine, for a moment, that the goal of the USSR was not socialism - but to put a satellite into space. you would understand that in 1917, in 1920, and in 1946 the conditions were not yet there, right? the technology and the institutional knowledge wasn't there yet - though it was closer all the time.
what the USSR was doing - often haltingly, ultimately confusedly, and then not-quite-at-all, was trying to establish the conditions for socialism. you could not, at the stroke of a pen, abolish wage labour, commodity production, etc, etc, etc, in the russia of 1917. the next best thing was to build a russia of 1920 that was better than 1917, and which could work towards the circumstances in which those ultimate goals could be achieved.
ultimately the project failed. nevertheless, you should understand the magnitude of the task they were undertaking. most communist parties write a manifesto and then sit around all day masturbating and splitting. they are not organizationally capable even of being a good grift.
>>2287847>you want to abolish the wage system? but then what wage system would we use!?lol >2287843
>>2287911>large part of urban china is more modern and comfy than developed westthis is only because major Chinese cities are not planet of the apes tier zones whereas Western ones are
>those were in taiwanese mega factories more than 10 (even 15 I think) years ago, which had a third of a million people working and living thereLiterally was in Shenzhen lol
>how is that their faultIt's not really
>and have better healthcare, life expectancy, education and work conditions than all similar wealth countries in the region despite the US effortsProbably because they are driven into the same wealth bracket as those "similar wealth" monkey countries only by the USA embargoing them.
Not to mention that Cuba massively focuses on training medical practitioners.
I guess in the case of Cuba ML probably actually was the better alternative to being a regular Latin American banana republic with a weak rule of law and patrimonial politics.
>in short, update your propaganda, or rather kys you fucking glowing fuckOk but why didn't the USSR try harder to meaningfully achieve socialism rather than spending decades being retarded, then collapsing and its corpse being taken over by organised criminals?
>>2287933>if it breaks instantlyyou've only read about soviet cars on wikipedia, haven't you
60 year old trabants are still on the road today and happy to be there
>>2287852USSR has a proletarian revolution but, degenerated after 7-8 years
None of those countries other than Cuba had proletarian revolution
Marx, Lenin, and Castro are good. Mao and Ho Chi Minh weren’t socialist.
>>2287967yeah because you (a fucking dumbass who sits and posts shit on /leftypol/ all day and doesnt even fucking work) is the fucking true socialist here and not the two of the greatest socialist revolutionaries of the last century you fucking loser.
hope yall are killed on a great purge when revolution happens
>>2287978>the greatest socialist revolutionaries of the last century Mao and Ho Chi Minh didn't lead socialist revolutions. Keep coping man.
>hope yall are killed on a great purgeReactionary and counterrevolutionary, I guess it's to be expected from people like you.
>>2287843>Doesn't abolishAufhebung
>wageslabor vouchers
>does everything modern companies dothe entrepreneurial state
>democratic control over workplacethat's for decentralized worker owned cooperatives
>rationing, registrationmakes it easier to plan
>>2288027>labor vouchersWages.
> that's for decentralized worker owned cooperatives If it isn’t controlled by the people, it’s not communist.
I also noticed your lack of Marx here. Only liberal “revolutionaries”. Typical.
>>2287969>central planning What a joke. Decentralized planned economies are the way, not your doomed garbage.
>>2287909Who had immediate access
>>2287868Yeah, that’s bad. Luckily, there actually has been some discussion on that topic. A stateless Palestine is a desirable one.
>>2287887There is no distinction between socialism and communism. They are the same thing. Socialism’s current definition is actually nothing more than revisionist corruption.
>>2287974You do realize the the decentralized planned economy position exists (council communism) and that your brand of “communism” isn’t the only game in town.
>>2287978Communists do not build utopias. And an end to forced labor is one of the points of communist society. Marx explicitly said so himself. You would know this if you weren’t such a revisionist.
>>2288054>that almost single-handedly saves the world from fascismYou couldn’t even say they saved the world because even you know that they failed HARD.
Also:
>Call me when your pet ideology turns a feudal shithole into an industrial powerhouseHey bud, that’s what liberalism did. You are using a liberal argument to defend against actual communist ideology.
>>2288057>>2288055You missed the completely. It’s not about the use of cars. It’s about the improper distribution of luxury goods. It’s about the fact that “rights” still exist and that things are still top down when the “top” should have been removed.
>>2287901The eastern bloc was inefficient in a way that's obvious and conspicuous because things seized up. The western bloc is inefficient in ways that are masked by convenience. The fact you could go out and get a lease on an SUV today is a mark of grotesque inefficiency. The
The tweak in the eastern bloc situation is, nominally, obvious (make more cars!) - what's the tweak in ours? Make less cars and (a) someone else will make more (b) the price of cars will go up, so the smaller number of cars will go to the greedy rather than to the needy, just about the only system
worse than them going to whoever turns up first.
>>2288050"communism" is a word that means lots of different things. "communism", the state of being in a "communist" country (e.g. a country governed by a communist party) has only tenuous connection to "communism", a classless stateless society yada-yada-yada.
if this confuses you or seems like ideological chicanery, try to rigorously define a squishier ideology like social democracy or conservatism and watch as you find yourself falling back to recursive nonsense (social democracy is whatever a socdem party does in power, a socdem party is socdem because it calls itself socdem, and because what it does in power is social democracy, because it's socdem…), or, for bonus points, rigorously define a chair.
"the USSR was heaven on earth and we just have to bring it back" is a stupid, childish outlook. "the USSR was hell on earth and discredited the entire idea of communism (under either definition)" is equally stupid and equally childish. both are fodder for clucking at one another on the internet under whatever the hell you want to call this miserable status quo, not serious ideas for how to get out of it.
>>2288083>blah blah blahSpoken like a true fool
>Lenin moggedLenin helped create a liberal state with some soviets mixed in, then died before finishing the job. Then the Soviets died a while later.
The USSR was never socialist per Lenin
>"If we take Moscow with its 4,700 Communists in responsible positions, and if we take that huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask: who is directing whom? I doubt very much whether it can truthfully be said that the Communists are directing that heap. To tell the truth they are not directing, they are being directed." -Lenin's last speech, 1922 Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.
<b-b-b-bbbut it was called socialist republic by Lenin!
>"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road, and our words will riot be empty words." - Third All-Russia Congress Of Soviets Of Workers’, Soldiers’ And Peasants’ Deputies, 1918
>"No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order." -The Tax in Kind, 1921
<b-b-b-b-b-b-bbu-
MLs upon learning this unironically think Stalin came in and pressed the socialism button by industrializing Russia and generalizing capitalist production
>>2288083>Lenin mogged you retards over a century agoDO NOT LOOK UP WHAT THE ITALIAN ICP THINKS OF LWCAID OR WHAT GERMAN-DUTCH ULTRALEFTISM IS
WORST MISTAKE OF MY LIFE
>Wanting to be subsized without working (or searching for work) is equal to stealing workers of their labour.
This is a purely liberal thought.
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
This is a phrase not to be taken lightly. Living is not stealing. Further alienation of the worker is unacceptable.
>For a lazy man to eat means to force another man to produce food for him
Your extreme individualist attitude deserves to die with capitalist society. Your concept that is “laziness” is a questionable one as well. I will now be posting quotes from the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 to dispel your revisionist nonsense.
>It goes without saying that the proletarian, i.e., the man who, being without capital and rent, lives purely by labour, and by a one-sided, abstract labour, is considered by political economy only as a worker. Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.
>But political economy knows the worker only as a working animal – as a beast reduced to the strictest bodily needs
>The political economist tells us that everything is bought with labour and that capital is nothing but accumulated labour; but at the same time he tells us that the worker, far from being able to buy everything, must sell himself and his humanity.
>To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment. The developments in the labour organism gain this time. Indeed, with new motive forces and improved machinery, a single worker in the cotton mills now often performs the work formerly requiring a hundred, or even 250 to 350 workers. Similar results can be observed in all branches of production, because external natural forces are being compelled to participate to an ever-greater degree in human labour. If the satisfaction of a given amount of material needs formerly required a certain expenditure of time and human effort which has later been reduced by half, then without any loss of material comfort the scope for spiritual activity and enjoyment has been simultaneously extended by as much…. But again the way in which the booty, that we win from old Cronus [Greek God associated with time.] himself in his most private domain, is shared out is still decided by the dice-throw of blind, unjust Chance. In France it has been calculated that at the present stage in the development of production an average working period of five hours a day by every person capable of work could suffice for the satisfaction of all the material interests of society…. Notwithstanding the time saved by the perfecting of machinery. the duration of the slave-labour performed by a large population in the factories has only increased.” (Schulz, op. cit., pp. 67, 68.)
>“Such an economic order condemns men to occupations so mean, to a degradation so devastating and bitter, that by comparison savagery seems like a kingly condition…. (op. cit., pp. 417, 418.) “Prostitution of the non-owning class in all its forms.” (op. cit., p. 421 f.) “Ragmen.”
>All these consequences are implied in the statement that the worker is related to the product of labor as to an alien object. For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects which he creates over and against himself, the poorer he himself – his inner world – becomes, the less belongs to him as his own. It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object. Hence, the greater this activity, the more the worker lacks objects. Whatever the product of his labor is, he is not. Therefore, the greater this product, the less is he himself. The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labor becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power on its own confronting him. It means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.
>>2288126> In both respects, therefore, the worker becomes a servant of his object, first, in that he receives an object of labor, i.e., in that he receives work, and, secondly, in that he receives means of subsistence. This enables him to exist, first as a worker; and second, as a physical subject. The height of this servitude is that it is only as a worker that he can maintain himself as a physical subject and that it is only as a physical subject that he is a worker.>(According to the economic laws the estrangement of the worker in his object is expressed thus: the more the worker produces, the less he has to consume; the more values he creates, the more valueless, the more unworthy he becomes; the better formed his product, the more deformed becomes the worker; the more civilized his object, the more barbarous becomes the worker; the more powerful labor becomes, the more powerless becomes the worker; the more ingenious labor becomes, the less ingenious becomes the worker and the more he becomes nature’s slave.)>What, then, constitutes the alienation of labor?>First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Lastly, the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.>As a result, therefore, man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions – eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, etc., are also genuinely human functions. But taken abstractly, separated from the sphere of all other human activity and turned into sole and ultimate ends, they are animal functions.
> We must bear in mind the previous proposition that man’s relation to himself becomes for him objective and actual through his relation to the other man. Thus, if the product of his labor, his labor objectified, is for him an alien, hostile, powerful object independent of him, then his position towards it is such that someone else is master of this object, someone who is alien, hostile, powerful, and independent of him. If he treats his own activity as an unfree activity, then he treats it as an activity performed in the service, under the dominion, the coercion, and the yoke of another man.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/wages.htm >>2288253>Communist commodity production The only form of commodity production that should exist in communist is low commodity production.
>and Communist wage systemDoes not exist.
>>2288169And yet, when you are not working, you are forcing another man to work for you so you can live, putting him under the same degrading circunstances that you are against to be submitted. It shows that you have a lack of interpretation skills when you think that alienation of work = work being iherently bad. Socialist culture proposes the reverse, a culture that promotes work as a dignifier. Lastly, when a man is forced to work so other is able to not work, that is the most alienating type of labour, firstly used to enrich the capitalists, but lastly used to subsidize anarchotards like you, because that is the ultimate labour of "self-sacrifice", you make him waste his lifetime so you can free yours.
>But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life. <Feuerbach. >>2288076reading that shit i've noticed that you cant even differ socialism from communism. no one is saying that ussr was communist, it was socialist, those are different systems.
thats why dumb retards like you would've been sent to coal mines in siberia.
>>2287843>Was the USSR even socialist?No because workers didnt ownership of the means of production nor ownership of the state.
>Was the USSR retarded?More like ahead of its times.
not in any way endorsing OP's shit thread and shit opinions these replies are independent of that
>>2288055american car based infrastructure and urban planning is profoundly destructive in many ways and contributes to awful self-propagating antisocial tendencies no argument there whatsoever. but that doesnt change the fact that there are very practical reasons for cars/trucks etc that actually exist, and individuals and localities being able to reliably access those practical functions is a tangible measure of autonomy, productivity, and self-fulfillment. obviously being able to reliably get to work and home and visit family and get to appointments is perfectly possible on buses and trains, and its a far more efficient and preferable way when and where possible. but if there is not infrastructure in place to make that possible for people, and if its a more isolated area or more specialized job, the benefits of having access to a car scale with the impracticality of reaching somewhere on public transit. like in more sparsely populated areas or places where you need to regularly cross a lot of distance despite low demand for the specific place youre going to. the US & the former USSR are places like that, as is most of the semi-industrial 3rd world – brazil, nigeria, indonesia, south africa. obviously the US has actively discouraged the use of more efficient and rational methods in a way that is absurd and actively harmful, but that doesnt mean the answer to the practical problem of transportation is solved by saying "it would be better if cars werent needed." it can be rural bahia, a town outside ulaanbaatar, mississippi delta, or the urals, the fact is that right now and for a long time now people living in semi-industrialized hinterlands greatly rely on access to cars.
which leads into
>>2287909. degree of access to something like cars is an actual problem, soviet light industrys relative underproduction of something like cars was an actual problem. just because you can argue effectively against low hanging fruit doesnt mean anything. people who argue against socialism by talking about consumer good shortages/relative inaccessibility compared to in a society psychotically based around it like the US, are almost always arguing in bad faith. but those points gain traction because they are referring to real concerns, and saying "actually cars are retarded and you dont need them" is responding on a different level of abstraction, it doesnt address those real concerns at all, and makes it sound like youre dismissive and/or unaware of the reality
>>2288295>AndAnd your revisionist being has once again ignored the works of Marx for their own delusions and narratives. Reducing a man to their work is unacceptable. Your mind has clearly been Polluted by capitalist propaganda as you say things in an extremely individualist manner.
>when you are not working, you are forcing another man to work for you so you can liveNonsensical statement based in liberal thought. Once more, you are gleeful about the dehumanization of man despite being shown texts that discourage such ways of thinking. Despite proclaiming yourself as communist, you still remain mentally stuck in our current system.
Marx has also discussed a solution to any scarcity problems during lower communism. This however is no excuse for the utilization of aggressively non materialist use of terms such as “laziness”. You reek of eugenicist thought.
>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
>work being iherently badBeing forced to work is inherently bad. Nothing you say will ever change this.
>>2288306Dumb. Just dumb.
>>2288336>Communist economy is going to be both decentral and centralThat makes literally zero sense whatsoever.
>Councils existed in every people's owned prduction facility in the USSRFor a short while. Then the word “Soviet” was corrupted to apply to higher authority, with the “Soviets” themselves subordinate to said higher authority. “All power to the Soviets” my ass.
>Because you're not here to promote "council communism". You're here to shit on the USSRWhat do you think council communists do? You think they actually like the USSR? And what do you I’m doing right now? The fact you even typed out the words “council communism” means I’m already doing a hell of a job getting the name around. And all the shitting on the USSR? A good way of directing you to an ideology that will actually get the job done.
>>2288388>That makes literally zero sense whatsoever.I'm sorry for you.
>For a short whileNo from Lenin to the late 1980s
The USSR got almost everything right for 80 years except not nuking the entire west including westoid anarshits, leftcoms, trots and similar pseudoleft anticommunist rabble into oblivion without warning. /leftypol/ mods kinda repeat that mistake by not deleting obvious liberal shit like this thread and your posts. I miss old BO.
>>2288311You paraphrased something from Marx in which you "draw from social stock" based on a "ammount of labour certificate", that is literally being "forced to work", as food is social stock and you will die if you not have enough ammount of labour. Do you even read what you are you posting?
Higher phase of communist society is post scarcity communism which obviously Soviet Union didn't have enough time to achieve.
>"He who does not work shall not eat"<Vladmir Lenin >>2288054> Call me when your pet ideology turns a feudal shithole into an industrial powerhouse that almost single-handedly saves the world from fascismThose sound like the historical tasks of the bourgeoisie and the keynesian non-fascist imperialists than anything else
Like how the fuck does getting out of feudalism considered a socialist task? Was the British Empire the first proletarian international?
This is the sort of shit I mean about MLs championing the achievements of capitalism as those of socialism lmao
>>2288441Well, Stalin said that under socialism:
<the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it.This means you can have socialism with wages.
>>2288458I don’t give a fuck what some manlet counterrevolutionary thought lmao
Next I ought to ask Diddy to define rape
>>2287843 (OP)
was your mother heavy drinking when she was pregnant with you?
>>2288428>I'm sorry for you.I’m sorry for YOU. centralization and decentralization is a one or the other deal. You can’t have both fool.
>No from Lenin to the late 1980sAbsolutely not. The word Soviet had been polluted long before then.
>LeftcomYou have no basis for your hatred.
>>2288429More foolish gibberish. Did you mistag idiot? Regardless, you were explicitly told that your idea of “stealing” was incorrect in the absence of any distinguished stages of communist society. You were also explicitly told to cease your glee at the thought of the worker being chained to their labor, for it is sourced from anti communist thought.
>that is literally being "forced to work", as food is social stock and you will die if you not have enough ammount of labour.That is correct. I do not disagree. You still applied your definition in a universal manner rather than specifically to one early stage of communist societal development. Also, you are still a lunatic who is gleeful about the worker being enslaved to their labor.
>>2288308Dumb fuck almost slipped by, but I didn’t forget in the end. Marx did not distinguish the terms socialism and communism. Anyone who says otherwise is a revisionist. End of story.
>>2288458>Well, Stalin saidStalin is a moron.
>>2288429>>2288480Also, I need to add real quick
>Higher phase of communist society is post scarcity communism Correct
>which obviously Soviet Union didn't have enough time to achieve.Time? More like capability. It had plenty of time to set up footholds for communist activity. Maybe next time don’t reject the idea of the international.
>>2288507>you are contradicting itselfI am not. The USSR clearly wasn’t capable enough in terms of critical thinking to avoid such a mistake.
>the USSR didn't had te capability to push for the advancedment of communism much less to spread internationalyOh believe me. I noticed. It had all the tools it needed, but still couldn’t do it.
>the spread of warsaw, yugoslavia and ChinaOh look. More examples on how not to expand communist ideology.
>>2288458 (me)
>Well, Stalin said that under socialismWhat follows is of course from Karl Marx, in the Critique of the Gotha Programme:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmWould anybody be retarded enough to fall for this, after all this piece was already referred to in this thread. Not only that, even the quoted passage is a repeat!
Weeeellllll:
>>2288470>I don’t give a fuck what some manlet counterrevolutionary thoughtand:
>>2288480Stalin is a moron
What needs to be done about these two posters? I propose public castration.
Unique IPs: 41