Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
I've run into this as an argument rather frequently on DA, and online in general.  "Communism has never worked, and therefore can never work."  I ask them to prove the claim, and they give the Soviet Union as the primary example, although some do give North Korea, China, or Cambodia as examples.

Before I get into specific reasons as to why "communism never works", I would like to clarify a few things.
-Communism  =/=  Totalitarianism
-Communism  =/=  Soviet Union
-Communism  =/=  Stalin

There are two reasons in particular that explain why communism has "never worked" which I have deduced and would like to bring up.

1)  Firstly, communism has only existed as an ideology since the 19th century, and has only been attempted a handful of times since then.  Capitalism, or at least some form of free-market system has existed for thousands of years in hundreds of different civilizations like:
---Numerous city states during the Sumerian Renaissance (2111 BCE - 2004 BCE), 
---Intrastate trade within the Achaemanid Empire and later the Hellinistic Kingdoms (550 BCE - 63 BCE)
---All across the Mediterranean region in Greek/Phoenician city states and later within the Roman Republic (500 BCE - 500 CE)
---The Silk Road in antiquity and Pax Mongolica (100 BCE - 1400 CE)
---Medieval Islamic Caliphates and Post-Medieval Europe (660 CE - 1650 CE)
---Possibly numerous other, unrecorded times in historical regions such as Mesoamerica, North America, the Andes, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and Polynesia.

The modern incarnation of capitalism is merely the most recent elaboration on a system which has been in place for centuries.  There have been numerous times in history where the system of capitalism has led to the downfall of civilizations, such as governments that fell to economic collapse in Indonesia and Indochina during the Medieval Period.  Some of these civilizations were ultimately destroyed because of their free market economic system, and yet the free market is still widely viewed as a successful system.  So, communism itself has not been given enough opportunity to become successful, or have the same time for it's infrastructure to develop into an effective system.

2)  Widespread communism was spawned in a time of conflict.  The very idea of communism was under attack by ideological disagreement from the first world.  But not only that, each individual nation which adopted communism was either at war, or undergoing a harsh time economically, more often than not, both.

---The Russian Revolution occurred while Russia was at war with the Imperialist Germans, and the contemporary Russian Empire had suffered more than 2 million military deaths and over 3 million civilian deaths due to military action and famine (this amounted to approximately 2% of the population at the time).  Mass starvation was already a rampant problem when the Bolsheviks took over and with the rise of the White Army that same year, a further million+ Russians, so in the course of ten years, from 1914 to 1924, Russia had lost millions to both war and famine.  A country which had lost millions, and continued to lose millions, and was constantly under attack needed strong leadership.  Even capitalist countries have only endured war through strong military leaders (Churchill, etc.), and with the premature death of Lenin, there was a call for strong leadership.  The call was answered, fortunately or unfortunately is up for debate, by Joseph Stalin.  A few years later, the Soviet-Japanese Wars in the 1930s and 1940s, and of course, World War 2, resulted in a further nearly 24 million civilian and military casualties.  My purpose in this, is to point out that the Soviet Union was born into a time when constant death and war was commonplace, a theme which will be found in these other examples.
---China became communist during the Second Sino-Japanese war which was one of the bloodiest wars, in terms of total casualties, in all of recorded history.  The Imperialist Japanese tortured China for eight years and killed an estimated 2 million Chinese.  Also notable is that, while the Chinese government was struggling to remain intact during this time, it was divided between two major parties: the nationalists, and the communists.  So, even after the Japanese surrendered to America in 1945, those two parties continued to fight among each other, resulting in further conflict during the onset of the Cold War.
---In the aftermath of the Pacific War, anti-European sentiments in French Indochina had grown, and when they were denied independence, they did what almost every group did when denied independence from overseas rulers: they fought for independence.  And the French, who were only just recovering from the damage done by the Nazis, called for foreign aid, which was not immediately answered.  But when the revolutionary leader, Ho-Chi-Minh, adopted communism as the ideology for the fledgling nations emerging in Indochina, America sprang into action to prevent the further spread of communism.  This ultimately resulted in some of the longest, most expensive and taxing wars for both sides, of the twentieth century as America tried its best to suppress communism in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
---Korea had been under imperialist occupation by Japan for over thirty years, and when the Allies advanced into Japanese-occupied Korea, the land was divided according to which ally "liberated" the region.  The North went to the Soviet Union, and the South went to the United States.  The already devastated Koreans were further divided by the ideological differences of their benefactor superpowers.
---Cuba was the only officially communist country in the entire western hemisphere, and when the Cuban Revolution occurred, the United States placed a trade embargo on Cuba, which essentially ended any chance Cuba may have of economic growth, and with the US already on a paranoid defensive because of the Cold War, Cuba had to devote its entire focus to military protection, which led to the government vying for absolute power, which was not a difficult accomplishment in the already fractured Cuba.

No country under the circumstances I've listed above can flourish, regardless of their economic system.  There are capitalist countries under similar conditions all around the world in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, but people don't consider this grounds for the invalidation of capitalism itself, so considering this grounds for the invalidation of communism is ignoring a lot of facts.

I hope that I've shed some light on this subject for communists and anti-communists alike, and hopefully opponents of Marxism who have used this argument before can understand my point of view on the issue, and maybe have a bit more open of a mind.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmenapia:
menapia Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2014
Good job on the essay.  Ireland could have become communist or anarchical.  During our revolutionary period there were over 300 so called "soviets" where workers took over businesses such as creameries and assorted light industries and ran them as worker co-operatives. 

In Limerick city when the British army occupied the locality, the citizens overthrew the old city council and temporarily ruled the city with an open council and directory of trade representatives.  They opened workshops to keep people occupied or teaching workers how to cobble their shoes and repairs clothes.  They also rationed food so that women and children wouldn't suffer, this regime short as it lasted was nicknamed the "Limerick Soviet".  Unfortunately the IRA routinely attacked strikers and anyone else whose definition of freedom differed from theirs.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Interesting. I am thinking if rewriting it (its a bit lacking in my opinion) since it doesn't even adress the Paris Commune, Rosa Luxemburg, Yugoslavia, or the Spanish Republic. Plus everything I listed is an attempt at socialism rather than communism to begin with.
Reply
:iconmenapia:
menapia Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2014
Rosa Luxemburg and our James Connolly seemed to be thinking along the same lines. Connolly warned about what could happen if a state had communism or socialism that was not democratically accountable, he himself used the term democratic unionism. 

I have his 1913 Edition of his book The Workers Republic in my rare book collection, he paints an interesting picture of an Irish socialist commonwealth where you would have local democratically run worker co-ops owned by the community they served with strong local government, he also used the term "one big union" to describe how society would be run.

Many of the Irish rebels had some socialist ideals, I've just put up some old black and white photos of the Irish Citizen Army which was a workers militia founded years before the Red Guards or Red Army in Russia. 

All members had to practice a trade and be recommended by the City Trades Councils who helped train people, most were veterans of the 1913 Lockout where factory owners locked out the majority of workers out because they dared to start a trade union in Dublin, the bosses also used hired thugs to attack strikers and their homes, after people died in police truncheon charges the army was founded to protect workers and their families
Reply
:iconjmoc1:
Jmoc1 Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014
A well written argument. I would like to point out that Lenin did come to with gained freedoms like gay marriage before Stalin came around. Other than that, extremely well written.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks.
Reply
:iconspiritswriter123:
Spiritswriter123 Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
It saddens me that you forgot one thing: Communism has worked, but under only one man: Josip Broz Tito's Yugoslavia (if you consider him a Communist). After he broke off from Stalinist ideology in 1949, Yugoslavia just thrived, and then basically went down the toilet after Tito died. Gotta love Tito
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You're right there, but my main purpose here was to illustrate the logical fallacy in using the USSR, PRC, PDRK, etc as arguments against communism.
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Your essay disregards the factors in these civilization's downfalls present other than Capitalism in and of itself. That's as intellectually dishonest as your opponents claiming Stalin is indicative of Communism as a whole.

I would argue that Capitalism at its most untainted is better than Communism at its purest because people are afforded *choice*, first and foremost. And a Communist state would require extensive bureaucracy to operate and maintain. And you know as well as I do that bureaucracy opens the grates wide for people to fall through.

In recent history, attempting to hybridize Capitalism with Socialism has been leading to utter disaster. Detroit, being chief and foremost. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_4…

The video is four years old. Since then, Detroit has declared bankruptcy and the response time for emergency services is *four hours*.

Sit down and watch nine episodes of The Office on Netflix. That's the time it takes for someone to arrive.

Capitalism would work (As it has up until recent times in America) if there were a *balance* between freedom for the companies and sensible, no-nonsence policies and restrictions that protect the little guy and environment without crippling a company's ability to function.

Now I admit that Capitalism may not work in all countries. But in America, whose culture and foundation is that of liberty and freedom of choice, anything that represses that will never work.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I did not claim that these civilizations fell due to capitalism. No civilization has collapsed exclusively because of its economic system, which was the general purpose of this essay.

I do agree that an extensive beaurocracy is not a good idea, but I believe that communism does by require such an extensive social system. An example of a society that came very close to true communism was Kronstadt, near modern day St Petersburg which was unfortunately captured by the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. It still serves as a Russian naval base on the Baltic Sea. Also, I would again like to point out that communism has not had the same time and effort put in to develop it as capitalism.

Also, the "choice" of capitalism was also made by the people who "chose" slavery, institutionalized sexism and racism, both encouraged and enacted imperialism, and created a beaurocratic oligarchy under the guise of democracy.

Regarding Detroit, a hybridization of socialism and capitalism would obviously be a failure, as the two ideologies exist in opposition with one another. Also, Detroit is not, by any means, self sufficient, or a democracy, which are two things required for a society to evolve into socialism.

America's foundation is an oligarchy, as the original government was set up so that only wealthy, white, men could attain power. So, if anything that represses choice can never work, then capitalism, by essence cannot work.

Also, you seem to be under the misconception that communism represses freedom of choice and liberty. This is not true, as the goal of communism is to create an equal, classless, moneyless, stateless, peaceful, and entirely self-sufficient society.

Also, you claim that capitalism can't work everywhere. If it can't, then why is it practiced? It exists in both wealthy First World countries, and poor Third World countries, but it seems to only be "effective" in the wealthy ones. If it can only work in wealthy countries, then this leads to socio-economic Darwinism, which is another fundamentally flawed ideology, and if capitalism can only exist in a social Darwinist world, then it must suppress other, non-wealthy and non-capitalist countries in order to further it's own practice.
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Communism would have slaves if the definition of what constitutes a human being said some people are more human than others.

Slavery is not the fault of capitalism, but instead is the fault of the notion that some human beings are lesser and are little more than a disposable workforce.

That's why Capitalism is best when it has a government that enforces the law.

I also strongly disagree with the notion that America was founded to make wealthy white men wealthier. That's complete and utter reformist, ivory tower academic, bullshit nonsense if ever I heard it.

The country was formed with a principle in mind. Freedom.

Has it taken is a couple centuries to master that notion? Oh yeah. We still struggle with it. But the foundation of the country gave us the *ability* to improve upon it. We've done a hell of a lot of growing in the last centuries and the growing pains are clear. Our start had blood, misery and sorrow, but it also brought out the best of us just as surely as the worst.

You've yet to sell me on the idea of Communism as a workable government.

How would people get food? Who's in charge of giving out food? Why would some be allowed to drive nice cars while others have to settle for jalopies? Who enforces this all? How is a person's effort in work gauged?

I'm telling you right here, right now, the goal of Communism is a pipe dream. It can't work as a system because it leaves out fundamental facets of human nature.

Communism works well for ants because there's no variety of individual from ant to ant.

But we're talking about people here. Not ants.

Tell me, how exactly is Communism supposed to work if you have no basis for measuring human energy and work? (That's currency.) How does it work if people desire to live a certain way and are willing to work hard for it, but can never get there because the state deems it unfair? How does one *ENFORCE* this kind of society?
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I did not claim that slavery was the fault of capitalism, as the existence of slaves by far predates the existence of capitalism, my point is that you claim capitalism is the "choice" people have made, and is therefore right.  I was pointing out that the same people who chose capitalism also chose slavery.

I agree, America was formed with freedom in mind, but freedom for whom?  For women?  For Africans-Americans?  For Native Americans? For poor farmers?  For child workers?

"You've yet to sell me on the idea of Communism as a workable government."

Communism is not a system of government.  It's an economic ideology designed to create a society devoid of a state.

People would get food from farmers, just as they do today, and have since the earliest human civilizations.  Food would be given out according to whomever needs food, which is everybody.  Wide useable of cars is bad for the environment, and travel could be done faster, more efficiently, safer, and more environmentally safe with mag-lev trains, or simply by walking.  Nothing is "enforced" as you imply.  The "enforcers" are the same people who live within the system.  People work because people need to work.  People would work interdependently, all to provide for each other based on the needs of the collective.

As I explained, communism can, and has worked at Kronstadt.  www-personal.umich.edu/~mhuey/…

Currency is the universal medium through which goods and services can be exchanged without having to barter another good or service.  It is therefore, the ultimate commodity, and the goal of everyone underneath a capitalist system to accumulate the greatest amount of currency possible, so that one could have access to any good or service that they may require/desire.  There are numerous viable theories to replace currency, and I have yet to decide which is the most plausible.

"...people desire to live a certain way..."

I will assume that, by that, you mean if someone wants to live in luxury, and is willing to put in the labor to gain wealth in order to do so.  However, I would like to point out that, under capitalism, there are many such people who are forced into poverty regardless.  Therefore, even if communism is "incapable of solving this problem", capitalism is certainly just as unfair as you see communism as.

Again, the closest thing to a "state" existing under communism would be the entirety of the population's collective interests.
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Circular logic.

And Capitalism's shortcomings are all easily rectified. The problem is that it's never been given the chance.

It starts to work, and poverty starts to slip, but then someone gets impatient and says it doesn't work anymore.

We have all the pieces available here to make it happen, and ideologues continue to throw monkey wrenches in. Now I'm not talking about sensible regulation. I'm talking about full-on neutering.

The biggest indictment I can levy against Communism is its inability to generate wealth. Let's not beat around the bush here... wealth allows a country to take better care of itself and its people.

Under a Communist system, people are not allowed to pursue the goals they want. And you immediately assume that I mean earning enough money to buy a mansion and a gold-plated shark-bar.

No.

I mean that kids who want to be doctors, growing up to be doctors, kids who want to work in engineering having that option, kids who want to entertain for a living being able to and so on and so forth.

Communism dictates that human life is putty to be molded and applied where society dictates it must.

Capitalism lets people make choices and work towards the life they wish to lead and allows society to adapt.

With Communism, somebody else determines what you do with your life.

Capitalism trusts the fluid nature of humanity to adapt. Demand for broccoli rises? There are more growers! Demand lessens, there's less. Demand for iPhones swells and so production is increased to meet demand.

And as soon as something is no longer in demand at all, that business ends or adapts to a new model or product.

That's a model that responds to the ebb and pulse of humanity. Not something that tries to box it in under the pretenses of fairness for all since really, the living conditions would *NOT* be good. They would simply, and at all times, simply be *adequate* as defined by some distant office of regulations.

Further, Kronstadt really doesn't prove anything in favor of Communism. It's a town and municipality, not an entire country home to hundreds of millions.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"And Capitalism's shortcomings are all easily rectified. The problem is that it's never been given the chance."

And communism's shortcomings are all easily rectified.  The problem is that it's never been given a chance.

Wealth.  It's an interesting concept.  Another interesting thing about it, is that there's no reason for it to exist.  We could just as easily get all of the necessities and luxuries without money.  Money itself has no hand in the production of these items, and the only reason it has any value is because it has value.  Money is worth something because money is worth something.  That's why people want money: so they can spend money.  There's no reason it needs to exist.

Your argument is that under a communist system, people are used where their skills are needed.  It is the exact same way under any other system, just without the medium of currency.  People are allowed to pursue that which they are talented at.

When you say that "With Communism, somebody else determines what you do with your life," you imply that "you" are different than "everybody else".  Everybody else, is the exact same as you, just on a larger scale.  Everybody decides how everybody lives.

What I'm gathering from your argument is that you believe that communism would create a society with total social stagnation where the standard of living is menial and nobody has any individual rights.

This is simply not a description of a communist society.  The only way for a communist society to be effective would be to constantly be improving the way the society operates through continual reform.  The standard of living would, if anything, improve.  Without the wealth limitations caused by a business-dominated society, people would not need money in order to live, and could have not only necessities, but also whichever luxuries are available.  The widely believed misconception is that everyone having the same rights is in some way oppressive to the individuals who had all the rights which minorities did not have access to.
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
You have yet to explain why a currency-free system would work. Do you have any idea how difficult it was to perform trade?

Currency is simply a representation of distilled human energy. People would probably spend their money much more responsibly if they thought (As I think when I go shopping) 'how much time am I willing to spend earning this?'

As for luxuries, that's another big hole. What's to be done with luxuries that are too scarce to spread? Joe wants to buy his fiancee a diamond ring to propose to her and has put in the time and effort required to buy it. He's had to eat Beenie Weenies a few nights, but she's worth it. Under Communism, 'Sorry Joe, but didn't you hear? We're a self-sufficient country now! Sure we can't mine for diamonds here and nobody will trade with us because we can't place value on our goods and services, but I have some nice pieces of glass that look like the real thing!'

Your stance that people have no individual qualities is grievously flawed. And having 'everybody' decide how a person lives is no way to live. It's majority rule. What happens when disagreements occur? What about religions freedoms vs. State edicts? What about people CHOOSING what they want to do with their life? If Joe wants to be an artist, but everybody wants him to be an exterminator, were does that leave Joe? Crushed as a human being. Ground up in the soulless cogs of your Communism.

Capitalism doesn't make promises it can't keep. All American Capitalism says is 'You have more or less the same chance as everyone to make it big, a really good chance to chase your dreams and a GREAT chance to survive.'
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
There obviously needs to be some form of representation of human labor, but not a currency. Currency is what creates inequality in a society, so the idea is to have a medium of exchange that looses value after it is spent, preventing inflation and oligarchies.

"Joe wants to buy his fiancee a diamond ring to propose to her and has put in the time and effort required to buy it."

---There are a lot of things that look just like diamond, but are much cheaper (I.e. cubic zirconia).

"We're a self-sufficient country now! Sure we can't mine for diamonds here and nobody will trade with us because we can't place value on our goods and services."

---The idea is that communism would be a worldwide system with an internationalist, cosmopolitan economy, and there would be no "other countries".

I don't claim that people don't have individual qualities. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to set specific people apart from everybody else. You keep saying that 'everybody' decides how 'you' live, but 'everybody' decides how 'everybody' lives.

"What about religions freedoms vs. State edicts?"

---Again, no state exists. In addition, if everyone is receiving the same education, hopefully religion will cease to exist as people become intelligent enough to move past it. But, if they choose to be religious, there will be no system in place to prevent them from being so.

"If Joe wants to be an artist, but everybody wants him to be an exterminator, were does that leave Joe?"

---Then Joe can be an artist exterminator. But, the answer is far more complex than that, of course. Neither artist not exterminator are jobs that require constant attention, and they are not incompatible, but if he chooses to be adamantly opposed to the job of exterminator, then he will not have to do so, provided it is not urgently needed. If, for example, there is a killer bee infestation (like what has happened in Egypt and Israel in recent times), then all able individuals (that is to say, everyone who is not allergic to bees) will become temporary exterminators in order to remove the urgent problem. But also, there is no saying that everyone couldn't be artists, should they so choose, provided that it does not cause direct or indirect harm to anyone else.

This "capitalism doesn't make promises it can't keep" is bullshit. I know people who work two or three jobs and are still barely able to make house payments. "You have more or less the same chance as everyone?" Thats true as long as you're born into a family that's already well-off enough.

Capitalism does work, but who does it work for? It works for the rich, and the intelligent, and the talented, and the best of the best. But not for the ordinary, the dull-witted, or the ordinary people with little or no special skills.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconcomradelither:
ComradeLither Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I personally like bringing up the French Revolution. Rule by the bourgeoisie didn't work very well then, but eventually the ideology was implemented in such a way that it is as we are today.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That's certainly a good example, and there are numerous others all throughout history, such as Spartacus' slave rebellion, the Haitian Revolution, etc. In this short essay, I just made it a point to bring up examples relating specifically to communism.
Reply
:iconrenjikuchiki1:
renjikuchiki1 Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2013  Student General Artist
glorious
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks.
Reply
:icondgveil:
DGVeil Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013  Hobbyist
Very well written. There are a few errors but not much to affect the message. You have given wonderful support to your beliefs. And honestly, there really might be something to communism IF given the chance to develop like capitalism has.

I applaud you.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you.  I'll make sure to fix those errors.
Reply
:icondgveil:
DGVeil Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013  Hobbyist
No problem. 
Reply
:iconmido557:
mido557 Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
An excellent little essay!
You gave a perspective in which these countries emerged with good intentions through revolution, but eventually succumb to the massive multitude of problems that would be difficult enough to deal with, with all the imperialistic aggression going on and whatnot. I hope that both anti-Communists and even some Communists would keep that in mind.

However, what about Democracy?
Since Socialism itself cannot develop without Democracy, why didn't you state it here?
(The above is kind of a personal point, since I'm sick of the "Communism equals dictatorships hurr durr 60  trillion peopels dead hueheuheue")
Consequently, the above is an accurate description of misinformed "anti-Communists".

Also, great point regarding that Communism hasn't had the time to develop yet, most people don't seem to realize that.
Great work you've done here! :D
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks, I'm glad people appreciate the work I put into this.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013
Reality is going to give you a very harsh lesson if you keep ignoring it.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You seem to say that a lot, and I don't really care if that's what you believe, but if you're just going to post random copy/paste negative comments on every pro-communism article that you come across without providing any sort of argument on a factual basis, then please refrain from doing so.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013
In case you've forgotten, bub, you still owe me an answer in our debate.  Or are you admitting defeat?
Reply
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
:iconfinnishecosocialist:
FinnishEcoSocialist Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013  Hobbyist Interface Designer
R u a communist
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
According to my political test, I am a cosmopolitan social democrat but I do identify myself as a communist.
Reply
:iconfinnishecosocialist:
FinnishEcoSocialist Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013  Hobbyist Interface Designer
Ok, I got egolocigal social democratic. But still, nice theory.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks, I'm glad you appreciate my work here.
Reply
:iconfinnishecosocialist:
FinnishEcoSocialist Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013  Hobbyist Interface Designer
:3
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
December 28, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
579
Favourites
14 (who?)
Comments
54
×