So after Xenmas and Ard decided to make their self-proclaimed 'blogs', it has dawned upon on me that the easiest way to horde attention from this point will to be make another "blog" - but not call it one. Bet you didn't expect that, suckers.

However, it is as they say, hope is the first step on the road to disappoitment, and I fear this attempt at attention whoring will lead me down an all too familiar path, for I believe my bad grasp of spelling and the contents of the following posts will be too... none-conformist. Personally, I believe that these none-conformists thoughts stem from a ruse for attention... Still, it is healthy at this point to go through with this thought - it's the effort that counts.

I really should stop psychoanalyzing myself. Dayum...


Where to begin... where to begin... Well, first I must state that I'm a radical left wing communist, pleased to meet you too. Let me give you some time to let that statement sink into to your fragile, puny mind...




communist





communist






communist






freedom-hating nazi





communist




communist




No use of subliminal messages in this post. Honest!



At this point, I believe without any help of mine, you will in no doubt be thinking "damnit this guy wants to take our pie and kill our freedom", and that I'm some sort of big nazi. Funny thing that, American propoganda in the late 1940s till the end of the cold war made the image of the nazi and the image of the communist the same. Funny thing, history, it seems so distant, yet, when you look it's very close by.

But, as it is apperant to a vigiliant reader by this point, that I beg to differ. A communist is not a nazi. Let me blow away that misty cloud of historical american propganda in your mind and leave behind a misty taste of doubt and confusion with the following sentence; communism can be democratic. In fact, communism supports democracy. God damnit how many times do I have to tell this to people...

Allow me to expand... I mean eleborate. You boys are in for a boring HISTORY LESSON. I'm pretty sure the half you don't know the basic principle of communism. More than half, I suspect all of you in fact, don't.

As I am sure you know, Engels and Marx pionered the concept of communism, or at least, the first well known communistic ideals. Well, if you don't know at least that... I mean then I'm afraid that my head will find itself very quickly in the palm of my hand.

So, the idea was actaully pretty simple ; and god forbid, it draws upon what you youngsters hate, history. Economical history, as a matter of fact. Let me explain; Marx/Engels saw a big development in the 19th century that forever changed the face of the econemy. I'm talking of the machine. Before the machine workers worked on the fields - all by themselves, and well, they owned the stuff they produced, and they owned the stuff that they used to produce it, in short, they owned everything. Well, that is, until the goverment came with their 90% taxes and took most if it away. But that's a diffrent matter. And then there was also the exception of slavery and serfs - but then again, details, details.

Now, however, as we all know, humans are ingenious bastards when it comes to trying to find a way to kill someone more effeciently. Sometimes, when humans try to find a more effecient - a cheaper - or whatever stick, they sometimes make things which do stuff other than poke people in the eye. For example, a thing which could store pointy sticks. Early man even dreamed of a pointy stick which could make other pointy sticks! But today, it is not called "pointy stick research" but rather it is called "technological advancment", a rather romaticized term for what is esseintally the creation of pointy sticks.

One such "technological advancment" was the creation of steam power - and with it followed the idea of machines quite quickly. Incidently, the whole idea of steam power was founded on a quest to find a way to be able to make big, wooden ships move faster, so that they could transport men more quickly in order for them to be able to use their contemporary pointy sticks (at that time "muskets" and "riffles") on other people quicker. One can see how far pointy stick research has gone, no?

Anyways, the machine was of course, first set off to make huge pointy sticks for the "good of humanity", as everyone always said with a flinching grin, but eventually pointy stick researchers realized that if they used "machines" to make stuff like toys, clothes, etc. then less people would have to work in none-poking-sticks-into-people's-eyes jobs, which would open up loads of people for the poking-sticks-into-people's-eyes jobs ("Soldiers"). So the machine thrived. The economy (a vast system determining just how many pointy sticks a country can afford) shifted focus from an argilcutural point of view to a more mechnicals point of view, as was only natural.

Now machines aren't cheap - nor were they ever - and only the richest of rich could afford such machines. Now, of course, since there was a huge demand for factories, the rich decided they wanted to become even richer and decided to go and invest in a factory, and then to "hire" people to work in them.

Now, hiring was not a common term or idea at that time, let me expand;

As I said before, people owned what they made before the time of the machine - except for slaves - thus meaning that there really was no such thing as "hiring", since everyone was self-employed, execept for slaves, of course (the diffrence between slaves and employes is that slaves are property - while employes are not).

What hiring essentially meant, and means, is that you pay someone 0.00001% of the profit (most of the time - can be higher) that the machine makes with the help of such an employee. This meant that people worked their blood and sweat off - and all they got in return was almost nothing. This is where I'm going to tell you my first communist vocablary in an effort to look smart, the ones who get 0.1% of the profit are called the proletariat and the ones who get their stinking asses rich off of this are called the bourgeoisie.

Marx and Engels lived in this era - and both of them got really really drunk one night, and they needed something to be pissed off at - well they decided to be pissed at those big bourgeoisie - and thus they wrote the communist manifesto. A book where they describe the downfall of the bourgeoisie from the first steps of a proletariat to a very graphic explination of the torture the said bourgeoisie will have to endure before being castrated.

Suprisingly, for two drunk Germans, the two were actaully quite logical. Fairness was their main objective - that the proletariat should get what he makes - that he should own the factory he works in - that he should not get paid coupouns for doing all the work while the man at the top of the hierachy gets everything. Of course, most people argue that this was a dumb idea and that there is no such thing as "fairness". For those people, I have a message right here, read only if you're a liberterian/strong free market supporter: Ayn Rand is fucking dumb stop reading her you dumb liberterians. Aristotles has a more modern grasp on politics then her, and his philosophy was there before Christ, freaking hell.

*cough*

Sorry, couldn't hold it in me any longer.

Anyways - where was I - ah right - so because Marx/Engels wanted fair treatment of workers - and a fair salary for those same workers, they decided
it was time to fuck those bourgeoisie and rape their mothers. Literally. They reasoned that the army was made of proletariat and proletariat only - since those rich f***s are too busy making profit off of the wars - and that any proletariat who saw what was happening to him and with a concept of fairness would rebel (ironically, America has one of the worst educations in 1st world countries, the capatalists want to stop everyone from thinking for themselves lol). And of course, the proletariat could not trust anyone to assume the rank of a bourgeoisie at this point - since in this tradtional system, a bourgeoisie and proletariats are required in order to run factories - marx and engels decided that they needed a true proletariat at the top of the ladder and to give people fair treatment.

And one should not trust one man in this postion - nor a small, or even large group of men - but rather, the whole damn country. The whole damn country should decide the salaries - and everyone gets their fair cut for working. Since there are no bourgeoisie at this point to organize stuff here - it falls to the goverment to ensure stuff such as education, health insurance, property, etc.

That is communism. Now tell me, where the hell is the "freedom-hating nazi" in that? True communism, or anything striving to be close to it, is a god damn democracy people. If any one of you compares communism to Stalin again - which I'll rant on more throughly in one of my next posts - then I'll kick you in the groin and sell your organs to the bourgeoisie for 10 bucks.

That is all.






Oh and on a ligher note josemi, the ex-pandora member we kicked out, wishes to say "hi" to you all, he still thinks pandora is cool and stuff.

Orly?

Read his post properly and figure it out for yourself.

What a suprise, what a suprise, after a day from first blog post no one replied other than the clan jester. I should have known this would've happened - but perhaps it is better to scream at the walls when they do not have ears. And so I shall scream - and hold those who need to be held in contempt in contempt. Funny thing, grammar, it just allowed me to say the same set of words twice in a row.

Grammar is a species of concepts that I fear for. For you see, the USA makes a mockery of it in its culture, its ways, and its langauge. Funny that, this hate of grammar has gone to such an extent, that it has already been equated with the facist movement, as the degenerate term "grammar nazi" implies. This once again proves that Godwin's law applies, and not only to internet debates, but also to the real world. As I have no doubt mentioned, the socialist/communist has also been equated with the nazi in an attempt by the capatalist goverment to mantain power. Supresingly it has worked - as less and less people in this world think for themselves, due to the cultural ideas of teenagers these days that "school sucks". I am inclined to agree in some aspects - the new "modern" way of teaching, indirrect teaching via group work, is vastly inferior and only annoying when compared to the old, tradtional system of teaching.

But that is beside the point - I was speaking of Godwin's law. This makes one think what sort scapegoat was in place before the exsitence of the nazi ideaology. Anyone vested in history will know the answer quite quickly, and sooner or later the core of the problem, if one is wise enough to be able to spot it. But forgive me, I am speaking too abstractly, let me explain;

In those early days when someone wanted to justify a war, a conflict, or whatever (from now on this is called group A), they took the other group which was particpating in this conflict (group B) and found an attribute of group B that is the complete opposite of one of group A's attributes. Such as group A loves pie and group B hates pie, prefering carrot cake instead (btw carrot cake is awesome - despite how horrid it sounds). Group A then identifies itself as "good" and puts the said pie/carrot cake attribute in front of everybody faces, which will makes everyone believe that group B is the complete contrast to group A. This is quite easy as people overgeneralize quite easily. This means, if group A is "good", that group B is "evil" because the people now believe that group B is a complete opposite of group A.

Funny enough, this sort of thinking happens today as well. However, people are now too lazy to go through the whole procedure mentioned above - as they have already tied "the good" against "the evil" with capatalism vs facism. This means all that one has to do is to tie a group to facism in order to make that group sound bad.

Funnily enough, people were also lazy before the nazis. The common scapegoat ("group B") in those times was the jew. For obvious reasons the jew can not be used in this comparison anymore (since the jew stands in contrast to facism, making him "good"). By the way, the hate of the jew was because that christains were not allowed to opperate banks in the middle ages - they relied instead on a jew, who opperated the banks - and few people wanted to pay the debts which a jew would tell them to pay. This was also why jews were/are attributed to "caring only about money".

But once again, I have gone off topic. As I have demonstrated a scapegoat is required in order to justify ones causes. This also makes unbiased historical work very hard - since many people attributed countries in way that they actually weren't. As I was saying, the scapegoat principle is very common. This is where my point comes crashing in - why is the scapegoat principle so common? Why do people feel the need to use a scapegoat? Why is it so damn effective?

My answer lies in philosophy - a science which I hope you will become as dear to you as it is to me - so it will require quite a bit of thought on your part, and it is only a theory, which might be wrong for all I know. But, I feel that it's a good answer, so let me make my answer;

The problem is with our current morality system. Now you might be thinking, where the hell I got that one from. I assure you, it is not from my ass. Let me give you arguments for this hypothesis;

The first argument stems from the analysis history of morality, which is again, a theory, which incidentally, I borrow from Friedrich Nietzshe, a crazy german philosopher. As such I must give you a short overview of this theory, and from there I will draw my argument;

Let us assume that humans formed a village in order to enchance the survability of every indivual human (either in self interest or group interest). This union was made through rational thinking, or as something else - this matters little for us right now. Now, of course, there will be a "strong" man. Better in strength, sweet-talk, science, or such. He will undoubtally attempt strive to rule over his village - a dominiant part of psychology, a want for power, a "will to power" - and he will. However, the weaker members of the village will also have a will to power. They will also want to rule - and they will see the stronger one as the enemy. A couple of these weaker members of the village will be able to supress these thoughts - and if properly trained and kept under a leash, then most of them can also be restrained. However, in early times, the leaders of the villages will not have the knowledge that people will try to overthrow him if he does not give them restraints - due to a lack of experience - and soon enough the weak will band together and overthrow the strong one. At this point they will of course see themselves in contrast to the strong one - because the strong one wronged them. The group of the ex-weak ones will then teach the village to not be like the former master, in order to prevent another master like that again. Morality is born at this stage. However, soon enough, the master, or his memory and direct legacy, passes away, and people are left without a person to base morality on. As such they will seek other figures to do this on - and a smart leader at this stage will understand that this can be a very manipulative too. Through careful speech the leader might be able to manipulate morality to his fitting - in order to fill a "mental gap" for the people. This in esscence is the scapegoat principle that happens so often.


The second argument stems from the subjectivity of our current morality; it is a rather simple one as compared to the first. Our current morality is not based on an objective idea that can not be manipulated. The morality the bible and other religions teach are too vague and can easily be interpeted in one way or another - there is no one "rule", and the "golden rule" (don't do upon others which you do not want upon yourself) is also easy twisted and can very quickly ignored. As such it's easier for morality to be shifted - and thus scapegoats can be very quickly shifted - because as shown in the first argument, the scapegoats principle come from morality.


But enough philosophy, I don't believe many of you have understood what I said. If you are intersted on further reading I suggest searching for master-slave morality as per Nietzsche.

Perhaps no one replied, but you have 37 views, someone read it. ;)
I only read the first post, you guys write too much, and I am lazy as fuck.
Good blog though.

Perhaps instead of this philosophical (for loss of a better word) bullshit, you should talk about your day or something.
Whatever you do, clan jester approves.

I read the first post.. Too lazy to read the second one. And I know I shud read it all before posting anything but fu all :<

To me it seems like you are defending the theory of Marx and Engels rather than the actual communism. Although I might have somekind of a concentration disorder or something and I might miss the point.

the main theory of marx and engels is communism xd

or you mean the historical examples of 'communism' - the USSR/Cuba/China/to a lesser extent, Venezuela? I could rant on that too xd

@Xenmas - well I don't think my life is that exceting and this is more for mah thoughts - although I might do a day if it's interseting enough xd

@Sidi thanks

I am saying that the theory indeed is humble and all, but as far as I know it didnt work as Marx and Engels had presumed.

Im not such a great oracle of history though.. :/

The following inspired this entry;


This, along with stuff like "communism as an idea is great, it just doesn't work in practice", "capatalism is better because it works", and other common liberterian phrases make my blood boil. Literally, my temprature just went up 5 degrees. Celcius.

I was less of a witty communist in my last post - and more of an existential, serious philosopher - I seek to change that with this entry, do not worry, I will not bore you again.

As a communist it is once again my duty to bash the hell out of a libertarian's jizz after he read some of Ayn Rand's dreaded works (*COUGH* shesdumb *COUGH* ). So I'll do this like the germans did it to the jews - I'll chronicle every single detail and do it systematically. Especially if it means more work. So hello world, prepare to be smacked in the head.


Alright - first off I'll take the first argument and tear it to pieces - let me rephrase it so that I may make a strawman out if the argument so it's easier to tear apart. (google "strawman fallacy" if you don't get it)

"Communism is not as great as Karl Marx made it out to be, it will always turn out as a dictatorship."

O'RLY?!

O'RLY?!

O'RLY?!

O'RLY?!


I just... planted my face into the palm of my opened hand. Don't make me have to do a double facepalm. I say we take it to history and examine the sources in a diffrent way, no? I'm sure you've all heard of the soviet union.

You haven't?!

GTFO

The soviet union was co-founded by "GLORIOUS GREAT" revolutionary "KING OF ALL COMMUNISTS" Lenin from old "IMPERALIST" czarist Russia. Now if you remeber Marx's ideals of how communism is to be formed - then you should hopefully (gah I'm being too optimistic here) remeber that for communism to be even possible the state where it is to be attempted has to be industrialized - in possesion of many machines.

Guess what Russia was before the november revolution.

Come on guess.

.
.
.
.
.


IT WAS THE MOST UNINDUSTRIALIZED SUPERPOWER IN THE FREAKING WORLD.

*cough*


And Lenin was no dumb bitch. He understood that in order for communism to even have a chance of sucess in the soviet union was that the soviet union needed to be industrialized. And quick.

Joy of joys, but how did Lenin decide to industrialize the soviet union.

.
.
.

With capatalism.

No wait, that's not a big enough of a font, let me try again;


WITH CAPATALISM

I'm not fucking kidding. Here's the source if you don't believe me;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

I'm super serial, one of the biggest "communits" in the world was a god damn capatalist pig. A CAPATALIST PIG I TELL YOU, ONE THAT SWAM IN ITS OWN MUD!

Then Lenin died after the end of the fighting with the white army (anti-communist miltia in russia that fought for a long time with the red army) - and then it was unknown who was to take his place. Stalin got lucky and went to the top of the ladder - instead of Trotsky - who was second in command after Lenin before he died.

Guess what Stalin did to Trotsky.

.
.
.

He exiled him from the soviet union and then had him assassinated. I mean come on people, Trotsky was the most communist of communists and Stalin owned him and then teabagged him just because Trotsky competed with him for power?!

At this point everyone knew that Stalin was a big power-hungry maniac. Even Lenin knew before he died, I quote wikipedia:

About the Communist Party’s General Secretary (since 1922), Josef Stalin, Lenin reported that the “unlimited authority” concentrated in him was unacceptable, suggesting that “comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post”, because his personal rudeness would be “intolerable in a Secretary-General”.

And guess what Stalin did to Lenin then?

No, he didn't kill him like Trotsky, rather he censored Lenin's speeches and works in the soviet union. Lenin died rather quickly after his strokes so there was no need for Stalin to kill him off...

Now with what you know of Stalin - would one really think that any country would not turn into some sort of evil power-driven goverment? What if Stalin were the president of the USA?

Now the point I want to draw here is that the soviet union could never have been a "true" communism - ever since from its start it was fucked and got overtaken by dictators with very little compasion for the ideals of communism. Instead the soviet union turned itself into a dictatorship which called itself "communistic" in the same way your average 3rd world african country calls itself "fair and democratic".

Hypocrites.

Still, at least there were many socialist elements in the soviet union, so it was not all that bad as one would like to think in terms of their closeness to communism.

Oh! And while we're still on the point of Russia/the soviet union, I wonder what happened in the decade after the dissolvation of the soviet union in Russia...

One would think that Russia would slowly make itself to prosper economically after the implentation of the free market, since it is superior as everyone says, right?

Wrong, Russia faced a huge economic depression in which millions of Russians died due to hunger, crime, etc. A dictatorship also managed to form in Russia even with it's new westernized goverment, why am I not suprised?! Even today Russians are very poor - only the rich are very rich - and this is coming from someone who saw it on facelevel and from the horse's mouth - I am Russian.

China - it's a god damn free market there basically with a dictator in rule who couldn't care less for his people.

The only real attempts at communism - which aren't yet completely through with - are the ones made by Cuba and Venezula. Guess what - those two countries aren't governed by maniacs who want to stay in power - the two rather care for their people. Cuba, for example, has one of the better eductional and health care systems in the world.

Oh, by the way, did you know that Fidel Castro, communist leader of Cuba, was targeted for assination by the USA. Not once. Not twice. Not thrice. But SIX HUNDRED THRITY EIGHT TIMES. (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006...uncancampbell2 ) And that they're still at it?!

If that's not an attrocity... I don't know what is. Capatalism and it's "democratic" goverment has done very little in order to stop attrocities.

Do I even have to mention all of the war crimes commited by the USA in WWII, all of the times they used drug traficking in order to "stop the spread of communsim", where they armed and trained many diffrent groups in the middle east in order to fight communism, which they now fight and use literally every method to do so, including torture?

Do I?!

My point being - again - western forms of goverments have done just as much evil as the soviet union, it is not just publicized. If one were to count the number of black ops the CIA has been issued to do... well...

Let's just say you'd be unpleasantly suprised.


Now let me come to my last two points - that the statement that capatalism is "better for the econamy" is completely false and that it was shit to live in communism by providing you with two links.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty..._United_States - Arround 15% of Americans, who live in one of the most properous and most free markets in the world, live in poverty. If you had six random friends in the USA - chances are one of them live in poverty, meaning they can't provide themselves with the food,shelter, clothing, and health care they need.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/...634122,00.html - People who lived formerly in communism prefering communism over new capatalistic goverment - in Germany, which is not a shithole atm

What do you have to say about that, you liberterian gun nuts?!