Sebrof

You may be thinking of Chapter II of the Manifesto, Toiletarians and Cumunists the term "shitter's republic" is actually a misnomer and Marx himself never used that term. Our monarchist would have known if he had actually read Marx.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of defecation, the free bowel movement, free shitting and farting.

But if toilets are abolished, then shitting and farting go with them. So all this talk of “free shitting and farting,” and all the other brave words of our porcelain bourgeoisie about restroom liberty, only made sense when compared to the fettered flatulence of feudal chamber pots.

They shriek, horrified, at the idea of communal bathrooms—“You want to abolish private toilets?!” But look around: for nine-tenths of the population, private commodes already don’t exist. They're stuck sharing stall after stall in the public latrines of this clogged society.

It's one of my favorites too. Really lays down historical materialism and has a lot of bangers

lol wtf is this

That section in the Manifesto is a fun read. Some of the same struggle sessions 170 years later lol

For your quotes, try Chapter 3 of The Communist Manifesto

Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation[A], these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible....

In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming catastrophe.

In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history. The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.

It is interesting to compare this with the section Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas in part I.B of The German Ideology. The following isn't what you were asking for, and instead discusses how a class, when contending for dominance, must express its own ruling ideas and interests as the universal ideas and interests of all classes, i.e. of "all of society". In actuality those ideas (of the bourgeoisie, aristocrats, etc.) are not truly universal though. This is written in the context of a new class, such as bourgeoisie, striking for dominance in an old order, such as the feudal order. But when the aristocrats try to fight back and maintain power, they will still aim for the same tactic. To express their ideas and freedoms as universal freedoms for the proletariat and as presenting themselves as guardians against the nefarious and harmful bourgeoisie, as explained above in The Communist Manifesto. Quoting from The German Ideology:

For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones. The class making a revolution appears from the very start, if only because it is opposed to a class, not as a class but as the representative of the whole of society; it appears as the whole mass of society confronting the one ruling class. 

It can do this because, to start with, its interest really is more connected with the common interest of all other non-ruling classes, because under the pressure of hitherto existing conditions its interest has not yet been able to develop as the particular interest of a particular class. Its victory, therefore, benefits also many individuals of the other classes which are not winning a dominant position, but only insofar as it now puts these individuals in a position to raise themselves into the ruling class.

When the French bourgeoisie overthrew the power of the aristocracy, it thereby made it possible for many proletarians to raise themselves above the proletariat, but only insofar as they become bourgeois. Every new class, therefore, achieves its hegemony only on a broader basis than that of the class ruling previously, whereas the opposition of the non-ruling class against the new ruling class later develops all the more sharply and profoundly.

You are a silly person

I see this mistake so often with Communist parties in the United States. And you have 's on Hexbear who repeat it.

This isn't an inter-imperialist war. The Ukraine War isn't an inter-imperialist war. Western Communists are good at copying and pasting analysis without doing any thinking of their own. And I can't tell you how many times Ive heard that the Israeli and Palestinian workers should unite against their "common enemy", or the Russian and Ukrainian workers should do the same (to fight off Russia, what!?). They lack a materialist analysis and just copy what Lenin said as if what it applies to all situations. They don't actually understand the principal contradiction of Imperialism. They don't understand how a more general contradiction can articulate itself in particular contradictions. Hence why they can't understand that a reactionary theocracy/plutocracy, etc. can play the role of an anti-imperialist. They dont think dialectically. They don't understand dialectics.

Hell I've tried playing their game where you just slam quote after quote, but they cherry pick and close their ears. Convinced that Iran must be destroyed to bring us closer to communism, or Hamas must be crushed to truly free the Palestinain people. Shame.

Lets play the game of quotation. From the big man Stalin himself, in The Foundations of Leninism

Hence the necessity for the proletariat of the "dominant" nations to support - resolutely and actively to support - the national liberation movement of the oppressed and dependent peoples.

This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national liberation movement... It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism

And for the part that is hard for liberals masquerading as communists to understand.

This is the position in regard to the question of particular national movements, of the possible reactionary character of these movements - if, of course, they are appraised not from the formal point of view, not from the point of view of abstract rights, but concretely, from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary movement

And again, the more general contradiction of labor vs capital, proletariat vs bourgeoisie may express itself in particular and concrete ways that may not appear like worker vs capitalist. A contradiction between settler and colonized may not have the apparent form of worker vs capital, but is local expression of this general contradiction. The principal contradiction of imperialism may articulate itself in ways that don't appear to align with a worker vs capitalism binary. And this lack of basic Marxist knowledge plagues so many groups I've encountered. So they becomes clowns with clown ideas. They are lazy bones, as Mao says, who don't want to study the particulars, and only know to look for "worker vs capitalist* in the most basic, unoriginal, and frankly useless of ways.

To drive the point home with quotes as this type loves to do:

The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions imperialist oppression does not necessarily presupposes the existence of proletariat elements in the movement, ..., the existence of a democratic basis of the movement.

The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views.

Stalin, who understands dialectics better than these people, are reminding you to inspect concrete reality, and that you can support even a monarchy, if it weakens imperialism.

Understanding dialectics and especially contradictions makes this a no Brainer. Calling for defeat of Iran isn't some big brained revolutionary defeatist a la inter-imperialist war. It is calling for the defeat of actually existing anti imperialism. It is calling for the victory imperialism because one is too foolish and egotistical to understand otherwise. Sometimes these views come from a childish and impatient understanding of socialism as an era of global transition. Sometimes these people want communism right now and stomp their feet and think that removing the Ayatollah now will bring us one step closer. Or taking out Hamas and the IDF both will do it. Idk fully what goes through the minds of clowns

Imperialist aggression against Iran is how the general contradiction between labor and capital articulate themselves right now at this time and place, i.e. via imperialism. Arguing for Iran's defeat is to argue for victory of imperialism. Which does not advance the cause for communism.

Trump does have a shock value to him, but a well oiled and competent imperialist machine with democrats at the wheel is just as deadly, if not more. And democrats deport just as many if not more as Trump has. (Deep apologies for the Vox link). But the decorum of the democrats subdues any revolutionary spirit, any rising worker consciousness, and your constant suggestion of the left (whoever exactly that is in the United States) biting the bullet and working with democrats hampers any independent left movement from developing in the United States.

That is advice that confuses many, and it isn't idealism or purity to suggest that the left has more to lose by working with the dems.

The Communist Party and every non-profit constantly redirects leftist consciousness back to bourgeois electoralism with the Democrats. That isn't the left marching with the Democrats, that is the Dems smothering any nascent movement in the crib and scattering the ashes as the Dems continue to create the conditions for more fascism. Working with them in the way you suggest isn't a death sentence - it atrophies our movement. We've seen time and time again how the dems almost exist simply to co-opt and redirect movements. If not careful, the democrats absorb all the energy and act as a brake on any independent worker movement developing.

The more the masses see this play out, they even begin to see the dems as unreliable and disconnected from meaningful struggle. When the masses reach that level of consciousness about the two parties, then we don't want tell them that they are strategically wrong and they need to be led back to Kamala or whomever. You may not understand how important of a development it can be to get Americans to envision anything beyond the two parties.

That does mean the United States is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The dems are a fetter for a left developing in the US, but Trump is a hammer for us (though one that at least radicalizes more Americans). It is true that the left isn't strong in the United States, but I think you a.) underestimate how damaging the Democrats can be for the left, and b.) overestimate the difference the dems are going to make to stopping fascism.

Though you may say, and I beleve have, that the dems wouldnt stop the fascists, just give the left a few years to build up. But again, working with the dems itself makes it hard for a left to grow and develop independently of a network of bourgeois think tanks and non profits. It's kicking the can down the road, sure, but without the ability to "train" for what's to come. So one gains little from that.

I don't think an analogy you make to China's history is useful here at all and such an anology isn't proof enough that the Left should work with the Dems in this moment as the Communists made peace with the KMT. I don't believe the analology is enough is argue for that position. That stategic playbook of working with the Dems has already been used, we've seen the lack of anything it tends to build, and it delays the building of proletariat consciousness and institutions.