Activist Cash

[Bud Struggle]

Here's an interesting website about the people and the organizations behind the animal right movement.

http://www.activistcash.com/index.cfm

Here's an example of what these people think:

“To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,’ I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.’ Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off.”--Bill Maher.

[Trystan]

That site is clearly run by butthurt bourgeois. :lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

“To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,’ I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.’ Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off.”--Bill Maher.


When he's on the recieving end of a life threatening disease that requires treatment that stemmed from animal research he will soon change his tune.

Animal rights movement can fuck off as far as i'm concerned. Primitivists in privilege.

[Trystan]

^^ I agree.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Humans>dogs

[Chapter 24]

I hate to be parroting what others have said, but yes, human needs and rights go before other animals' needs and rights. The "Animal Liberation Front" can just fuck off.

[Incendiarism]

I love trolling people acting like a self-righteous and irrational animal welfare activist

[Dust Bunnies]

So I guess they would hate me since I eat meat? (actually eating a stew right now with meatballs)

[jake williams]

Animal rights are probably less important than humans' because we have deeper and more complex thoughts and feelings. But they should still exist. It's better not to abuse animals than to do it.

[Ken]

When he's on the recieving end of a life threatening disease that requires treatment that stemmed from animal research he will soon change his tune.

Animal rights movement can fuck off as far as i'm concerned. Primitivists in privilege.

hmm

no thanks.

[bcbm]

From the Adbusters section:
"Advertising does not exist to inform or persuade, in their view, but to coerce and control. The idea that advertising is essential to a free society -- that without it, markets would collapse and consumers would be information-starved -- is alien to them."

Hear that guys? Without advertising we would be information staved. Sounds fucking serious.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That site is clearly run by butthurt bourgeois. :lol:

Yeah, like this bourgeois scum:

http://momgadget.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/barker-bob.jpg

Just kidding. Bob kicks Drew Carrey's ass.

But while were on the subject, I got pretty pissed at this presentation I had to sit through at college.

I'm sitting there listening to one activist kid after another (safe to assume all come from money) come to tears about the plight of the something Gorrilla. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't want any species, especially a vertebrate animal, to go extinct. But the "evil" people who are harming this endangered species aren't European poachers or American tourists. It's natives who need to eat. Finally I interrupt the presentation and remark that instead of spending money on a video and presentation to be made, why don't you all simply find a way You (and we, I suppose) can send those people food and/or cash? Is my signature on a piece of paper really better?

And by the way, should we (society) care about Michael Vick's actions, for example?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sitting there listening to one activist kid after another (safe to assume all come from money) come to tears about the plight of the something Gorrilla. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't want any species, especially a vertebrate animal, to go extinct. But the "evil" people who are harming this endangered species aren't European poachers or American tourists. It's natives who need to eat. Finally I interrupt the presentation and remark that instead of spending money on a video and presentation to be made, why don't you all simply find a way You (and we, I suppose) can send those people food and/or cash? Is my signature on a piece of paper really better?

Right, because gorillas are the only source of meat in the area. :rolleyes:

[Trystan]

There aren't many gorillas left . . . they must be pretty hungry. I pretty much agree otherwise though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There aren't many gorillas left . . . they must be pretty hungry.

That's why the whole "they're only hunting gorillas so's they can eat!" line is bullshit.

[Sendo]

That's why the whole "they're only hunting gorillas so's they can eat!" line is bullshit.

but stuff in a similar vein happens all the time.

The demonization of Brazilians for felling their Amazonian trees while rich whiteys take the benefits from it.

A smart person would ask WHY poor people cut down trees and then say "well, these people need a sustainable livelihood. The free market won't off that, hence we need......."

But the rich activists never say socialism. They just highlight problems and talk about non-political change (not left or right but in front!......WTF?!!!!)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Right, because gorillas are the only source of meat in the area. :rolleyes:

Right, because concerned conservationalists got butthurt in a place were some butcher shops have more meat than some villages, these natives should stop eating the best meat available to them :rolleyes:

If you want to stop it, fine. But don't do it like a college leftist. That doesn't accomplish jack shit.



There aren't many gorillas left . . . they must be pretty hungry. I pretty much agree otherwise though.


These weren't Mountain Gorrillas, of which it is illegal to kill for any reason. There were quite a few in this video.

I'm not saying we should kill all the gorrillas. I just can't stand the compassionate reaction.

[Ken]

Yeah, like this bourgeois scum:

http://momgadget.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/barker-bob.jpg

Just kidding. Bob kicks Drew Carrey's ass.

But while were on the subject, I got pretty pissed at this presentation I had to sit through at college.

I'm sitting there listening to one activist kid after another (safe to assume all come from money) come to tears about the plight of the something Gorrilla. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't want any species, especially a vertebrate animal, to go extinct. But the "evil" people who are harming this endangered species aren't European poachers or American tourists. It's natives who need to eat. Finally I interrupt the presentation and remark that instead of spending money on a video and presentation to be made, why don't you all simply find a way You (and we, I suppose) can send those people food and/or cash? Is my signature on a piece of paper really better?

And by the way, should we (society) care about Michael Vick's actions, for example?

i wonder if you would have told them that if revleft didnt exist.

[RGacky3]

Let me ask you something, if Gorrillasa are killed off, is'nt that natural selection (this is not how I think I'm just bringing up questions for arguments sake). You might say "well humans are doing it" yes but humans are part of nature, Animals go extinct.


And by the way, should we (society) care about Michael Vick's actions, for example?

We should'nt, If we can eat a cow, and a chicken, people should be allowed to watch dogs rip each other up. The reason people don't like it is because dogs are "pets" i.e. we are basing animals life value on how we view them, to me it universal, it has to be, I'm ok with killing animals, so I should be allowed to wear a (cow) leather jacket, and a puppy jacket if I so choose.

[IcarusAngel]

Animals are not "property" in communism, since in communism nothing is property, especially the ecosystem. Animals are determined for human use based on need, that is why dogs and so on would likely be protected in most first word countries, since the majority of people are against the cruelty towards dogs. Communism is a democratic theory, after all.

Anyway, for all of Maher's faults, he's one of the last people on the mainstream media to ever get anything out there that is worth listening to. Keith Olbermann is all right as well, although he falls into the distinction "liberal vs. conservative." However, he's good because he reports on right-wing criminality.

Here is Maher with his latest panel: Ben Affleck, Barner Sanders (who is a socialist), and Martin Short (who is hilarious):

Interestingly, Affleck as well brings up the very socialist point that accepting the belief that individuals must pursue profit at the expsense of everyone else, and at the expense of the individual, leads to the great inequality of a capitalist society:

iL6YS-8rBnE

Any restricted members want to address the distinction between democratic-socialism and the psuedo-socialism that existed in the USSR.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

i wonder if you would have told them that if revleft didnt exist.

Nope. Got my orders from the General Secretary of the Commie Club that morning.



We should'nt, If we can eat a cow, and a chicken, people should be allowed to watch dogs rip each other up. The reason people don't like it is because dogs are "pets" i.e. we are basing animals life value on how we view them, to me it universal, it has to be, I'm ok with killing animals, so I should be allowed to wear a (cow) leather jacket, and a puppy jacket if I so choose.


That's how I feel.

"Now I live under the bridge
and all the animals have become my friends.
so mostly I eat what falls from the ceiling,
but fish are food because they have no feelings"

[pusher robot]

Animals are not "property" in communism, since in communism nothing is property

Wait a minute - I've been assured that things that are not means of production, like my toothbrush, are personal property of a sort that is still permitted under communism. Why wouldn't the animals I raise, feed, and shelter be my personal property as well?

[Bud Struggle]

Wait a minute - I've been assured that things that are not means of production, like my toothbrush, are personal property of a sort that is still permitted under communism. Why wouldn't the animals I raise, feed, and shelter be my personal property as well?

That's how Communism works--first they came for the means of production so that it could be shared by the whole community, but since I had no means of production, I did nothing. Then they came for dogs to be shared by the whole community, but since I owned no dog, I did nothing. Then they came for my toothrush to share among the whole community...

[RGacky3]

Animals are not "property" in communism, since in communism nothing is property, especially the ecosystem. Animals are determined for human use based on need, that is why dogs and so on would likely be protected in most first word countries, since the majority of people are against the cruelty towards dogs. Communism is a democratic theory, after all.



No one every said animals are property, but basing life value or life rights on democracy or need is rediculous, either something has human rights, or a right to have its life protected or it does'nt, if your gonna base in on need or democracy, then animals don't have a right to life (because it can be taken away with a vote or hunger which means its not a true right), and if thats the case, it does'nt matter if you kill them.

[Plagueround]

Wait a minute - I've been assured that things that are not means of production, like my toothbrush, are personal property of a sort that is still permitted under communism. Why wouldn't the animals I raise, feed, and shelter be my personal property as well?

I'm kind of baffled by that one as well. I'm not a pet owner, but if I was I'd be pretty pissed off if someone killed my dog and claimed "no such thing as property lolz".

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I'm kind of baffled by that one as well. I'm not a pet owner, but if I was I'd be pretty pissed off if someone killed my dog and claimed "no such thing as property lolz".

This.

[IcarusAngel]

It would be illegal to kill other humans in communism as well. That doesn't mean that the justifications is that humans are someone else's property, rather, humans are given protections based on fundamental rights.

[IcarusAngel]

No one every said animals are property, but basing life value or life rights on democracy or need is rediculous...

Human rights continually vary over time, usually progressively, and I see no reason why human rights wouldn't be based on democratic principles in communism as well.

For example, women used to be considered unequal compared to men, but that now violates human rights.

How else would you base rights on in communism?

And who ever said that torturing the ecosystem was a part of Communism? Marx said the world belonged to everybody.


either something has human rights, or a right to have its life protected or it does'nt, if your gonna base in on need or democracy, then animals don't have a right to life (because it can be taken away with a vote or hunger which means its not a true right), and if thats the case, it does'nt matter if you kill them.

No. Life especially would be subjected to democratic values.

All plant life, for instance, would be implemented to increase its abundance. If someone figured out a way to hoard plant life, they would be violating the tenants of communism, as people would not be receiving according to their need. Unless, of course, he is successfully providing according to need and the community agrees with it.

It has nothing to do with whether they can vote or not.

Communism requires that people receive according to need. Anything else would be up to the communities.

[Mindtoaster]

Let me ask you something, if Gorrillasa are killed off, is'nt that natural selection (this is not how I think I'm just bringing up questions for arguments sake). You might say "well humans are doing it" yes but humans are part of nature, Animals go extinct.



We should'nt, If we can eat a cow, and a chicken, people should be allowed to watch dogs rip each other up. The reason people don't like it is because dogs are "pets" i.e. we are basing animals life value on how we view them, to me it universal, it has to be, I'm ok with killing animals, so I should be allowed to wear a (cow) leather jacket, and a puppy jacket if I so choose.

I don't really understand people grouping all animals into the same category.

The reason people don't put up with killing puppies is because they are able to relate to dogs. Dogs show more emotion, intelligence, and self-awareness then most other animals. Because of that, humans are able to relate to them. "Man's Best Friend" ring a bell?

The same applies to gorillas and primates.

Cows show little sign of personality, emotion, or intelligence. They pretty much eat grass and shit all day, thus they become a food source.

Makes total sense to me.

[IcarusAngel]

Wait a minute - I've been assured that things that are not means of production, like my toothbrush, are personal property of a sort that is still permitted under communism. Why wouldn't the animals I raise, feed, and shelter be my personal property as well?

Well, I don't equate possessions to property. Possessions are items that can be personally owned that the community cannot infringe on. What constitutes possessions I think would be decided by the community as well.

This is kind of like in capitalism, where what constitutes "property" varies from capitalist ideologue to capitalist ideoluge.

For example, some extreme capitalist believe ideas, theories (intellectual property), English grammar and names, human genes, and so on, can be owned and patented. Other capitalists do not. Some capitalists claim corporations can own things, I've heard Libertarians say they cannot.

The difference between my theory and your theory is that you want the government to tell you what can and cannot be owned by people, to the exclusion of everyone else's ideas, who are pressured (in your case) by a select free of far-right ideoluges. This is considered "oligarchical" in political theory, especially because of the consolidation that occurs in capitalism.

For example, in your system, land (which is essential to survival) is taxed, in order to pay the government for protection of it, and usually in order to fight wars to prevent invading countries from threatening it. In communism, everybody would have at least SOME land, because land is required for survival.

I don't see why any communist community would ever implement anything like the idea that animals are personal possessions. I want this to be a decision that people make in decentralized communities.

Animals are either food, in which case what to do with it would most certainly have a lot to do with maximizing availability, or companionship, where it would be recognized that they have some rights at the communities' discretion. I've never heard of animals being considered property in communist theory.

You see, communism puts faith in the people, to do the right thing. That's why it's called an ideology of the people.

Your system puts faith in the government, because you believe people are too stupid, to do the right thing, and that only people who have worked they way up in the arbitrary market are capable to lead. That's why capitalists take a negative view of human nature, and communists take a positive one.

Unfortunately, most systems have tended to agree only certain people should lead, not that people should lead themselves.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't really understand people grouping all animals into the same category.

The reason people don't put up with killing puppies is because they are able to relate to dogs. Dogs show more emotion, intelligence, and self-awareness then most other animals. Because of that, humans are able to relate to them. "Man's Best Friend" ring a bell?

The same applies to gorillas and primates.

Cows show little sign of personality, emotion, or intelligence. They pretty much eat grass and shit all day, thus they become a food source.

Makes total sense to me.

I rather think dogs exhibit behavior that LOOKS like emotion, intelligence and self-awareness. They are behaving in a pack mentality that has all the signs of being sympathetic to humans who also have some pack mentality. Cows--not so much.


Cows and dogs and chimps are quite similar in reality, they behave as their instincts tell them to behave--but some of their behavior is more sympathetic to human behavior than some others. It's our perception of the animal not the animal's behavior that make some of them more like us than others.

That being said--I love my animals.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't really understand people grouping all animals into the same category.

The reason people don't put up with killing puppies is because they are able to relate to dogs. Dogs show more emotion, intelligence, and self-awareness then most other animals. Because of that, humans are able to relate to them. "Man's Best Friend" ring a bell?

It's also explicitly anti-communist. In communism, you can't simply take things and destroy them. Because at a certain point, you'd be taking the needs away from other people. Some people actually need dogs, some people want dogs, and thus you'd be the last person to get them if you're going to destoy them.

Plus dogs are part of the environment, something that's owned in common - to try and destroy them is to try and destroy the species, it's different from destroying items.

So of course, that is a community decision, anyway, and it's incredibly stupid to try and force people to accept a kind of "personal property" that they don't even except here in capitalism, and a good way to turn people off to valid criticisms of capitalism.

Torturing aniamls is a right-wing, Libertarian thing, where you must accept it because the environment belongs to industry (which, again, is an anti-communist belief).

[pusher robot]

Well, I don't equate possessions to property. Possessions are items that can be personally owned that the community cannot infringe on.They are two slightly different things. "Possessions" are things that are simply objectively under your control for whatever reason. "Personal property" is "possessions" backed up by some kind of recognition of your right to possess them.
What constitutes possessions I think would be decided by the community as well.
So all those other communists are liars and they can take my toothbrush away?


This is kind of like in capitalism, where what constitutes "property" varies from capitalist ideologue to capitalist ideoluge.
Your talking conceptually, I'm talking practically. In this place called reality, we have one "consensus" definition of property.


For example, some extreme capitalist believe ideas, theories (intellectual property), English grammar and names, human genes, and so on, can be owned and patented. Other capitalists do not. Some capitalists claim corporations can own things, I've heard Libertarians say they cannot.

So what? There is only one authoritative definition.


The difference between my theory and your theory is that you want the government to tell you what can and cannot be owned by people, to the exclusion of everyone else's ideas, who are pressured (in your case) by a select free of far-right ideoluges. This is considered "oligarchical" in political theory, especially because of the consolidation that occurs in capitalism.

The authoritative definition of property is defined by the laws as passed by the elected representatives of the citizens.


In communism, everybody would have at least SOME land, because land is required for survival.

But not all land is equal - or haven't you noticed this?


I don't see why any communist community would ever implement anything like the idea that animals are personal possessions. I want this to be a decision that people make in decentralized communities.

Funnily enough, that almost perfectly describes the status quo, where animal cruelty statutes are almost all local ordinances or state statutes.


I've never heard of animals being considered property in communist theory.

So - as long as you don't violate the dog's rights, you can just steal someone else's dog? Steal someone else's milk cow? Their draft animal? If all the rights accrue to the animal and none to the owner, that would seem to be the logical implication.


You see, communism puts faith in the people, to do the right thing. That's why it's called an ideology of the people.

That's why it's utopian.

Your system puts faith in the government, because you believe people are too stupid, to do the right thing, and that only people who have worked they way up in the arbitrary market are capable to lead.
Wrong, there's no "faith" involved. Institutions are carefully crafted so that peoples' natural impulses to do what's right for themselves is channeled into socially productive behavior. It never relies on anybody to act solely for someone elses's benefit.


That's why capitalists take a negative view of human nature, and communists take a positive one.

Not "negative" and "positive," "realistic" and "utopian."
Unfortunately, most systems have tended to agree only certain people should lead, not that people should lead themselves.[/quote]

[pusher robot]

The way this thread has gone has reminded me of this old saw:

FEUDALISM
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
PURE SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.
FASCISM
You have two cows. The government takes them both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM
You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
REAL WORLD COMMUNISM
You share two cows with your neighbours. You and your neighbours bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
DICTATORSHIP
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Yours neighbors pick somone to tell you who gets the milk.
BUREAUCRACY
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other one and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows. In triplicate.
ANARCHY
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors take the cows and kill you.
CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

[pusher robot]

ICARUSANGEL COMMUNISM:
Two cows exist. You can't, like, own cows, man.

[IcarusAngel]

They are two slightly different things. "Possessions" are things that are simply objectively under your control for whatever reason.

They're not the same thing at all. The idea of possessions could never reach a point where holding them causes the means of production to be controlled by elite hands, where you can thus manipulate a market, an economy, or a government.

This is because possessions are based on items that are needed individuals, of which there is an obvious abundance of. If a possession was something that was limited in quantity, the people who use it for the public good would be put up front in receiving it. However, most items can be widespread.


So all those other communists are liars and they can take my toothbrush away?

The only way they could take your toothbrush away is if you were somehow hoarding them, preventing people from receiving according to their need.

However, no one would take an item that is absolutely needed from you. That is the idea of possessions in the first place.

Animals, in my view, are a different matter. I know in libertarianism that animals are property and can be tortured for fun, as the ecosystem in capitalism is property. In communism, the idea was that the world belonged to everybody, which is actually an old classical-liberal idea found in the writings of numerous liberals who opposed massive land ownership nearly as much, perhaps even more (Rousseau for instance) than the communists do.


Your talking conceptually, I'm talking practically. In this place called reality, we have one "consensus" definition of property.


We have never had a "consensus" on property in the United States and the property that exists now is completely different from the property that existed in 1776, for example.

For example, corporate property. For example, intellectual property rights. For example, copyrights.

These were entirely different then and now, and in the case of incorporations were different in form as well, and even today the definition of property changes: genes were once considered off limits in terms of property, now about one-fifth of them are patented.


So what? There is only one authoritative definition.


There are a lot of authoritative definitions of property in the US, just as there were definitions of property in other tyrannies. It really shows the fact just how much "property" varies over time.

Feudalism, for example, while similar to capitalism had completely different concepts of land ownership and property.


But not all land is equal - or haven't you noticed this?

This is true. And certain kinds of land will be given to those who are most apt at using it, such as farming land and arable land.

However, there is enough land in the world where everyone can have decent land where communities could be built and constructed, and food could be shipped in.

This could probably be done 10 to 50 times over, given the ratio of land to people.

The biggest problem with land is that capitalistic economic systems have been total failures for the third world, and have only succeeded in the third world because of the way first world countries built themselves up from slavery and colonization of other countries, especially Africa.

Resource wise, most poor countries ought to be flourishing.


Funnily enough, that almost perfectly describes the status quo, where animal cruelty statutes are almost all local ordinances or state statutes.

Which are done by pseudo-democratic means.

But I agree here with local communities. I never said our system was totally faulty. If anything, local communities and ordinances and so on are good things, so long as they don’t violate fundamental human rights, human rights that are easily recognizable.

Our system has improved because of democracy and democratic values, which mainly occurred in the twentieth century, a lot of which was due to left-wing groups, such as workers’ rights.


So - as long as you don't violate the dog's rights, you can just steal someone else's dog? Steal someone else's milk cow? Their draft animal? If all the rights accrue to the animal and none to the owner, that would seem to be the logical implication.

This clearly violates the logic posted above. The dog has a right to be in possession of someone else.

The dog does not have the right to be destroyed, so that the person can continually request new dogs.

As for food, you can't steal someone else's fundamental needs, which, in communism, would even be worse than stealing their possessions.


That's why it's utopian.


Yes, this is one of the more valid criticisms of communism, especially since communism has never existed.

Rousseau predicted that democracy (which might as well be called communism or socialism) has never existed and thus will never exist. He may or may not be right, but this is a cynical view of human beings.


Wrong, there's no "faith" involved. Institutions are carefully crafted so that peoples' natural impulses to do what's right for themselves is channeled into socially productive behavior. It never relies on anybody to act solely for someone elses's benefit.

Wrong.

Capitalist institutions are a series of mistakes and leftover ideas from past tyrannies, namely feudalism.

Capitalism is maximized to keep the social structure in power, just like in the old Soviet Union or in Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. Of course, totalitarian societies will tailor their laws and institutions to what works, and what keeps the majority of people happy - nationalism or consumerism, whatever - in order to keep functioning.

Our society is based upon a lot of government inventions that the public pays for, a lot of corporations where profit is privatized and risk is nationalized, a lot of protectionism, a hell of a lot of exploitationism, slavery, and expansionism.

Again, capitalist America, at the core is no different from any other past society, such as the Roman Empire.

But if this was human nature, how come all this slavery and wars, indoctrination (which capitalist even admitted they were doing in the 1920s etc., openly calling it propaganda, now it's much more "free-market done), expansionism, force, and so on was needed?

The fact is, human nature itself can be tailed to support any system, from the ancient empires and slave states to the modern wage-slave societies.

[Plagueround]

I don't really understand people grouping all animals into the same category.

The reason people don't put up with killing puppies is because they are able to relate to dogs. Dogs show more emotion, intelligence, and self-awareness then most other animals. Because of that, humans are able to relate to them. "Man's Best Friend" ring a bell?

The same applies to gorillas and primates.

Cows show little sign of personality, emotion, or intelligence. They pretty much eat grass and shit all day, thus they become a food source.

Makes total sense to me.

While I'm not an animal rights activist, pigs kind of shatter that logic since their intellect has been observed to be higher than that of a dog.

[IcarusAngel]

ICARUSANGEL COMMUNISM:
Two cows exist. You can't, like, own cows, man.

The "cow theory of politics" is full of logical errors and misrepresentations and was likely written by a right-wing troll on the internet, not a political scientist.

But thank you for informing the forum of where you received your political education - right-wing weblogs.

[pusher robot]

The "cow theory of politics" is full of logical errors and misrepresentations and was likely written by a right-wing troll on the internet, not a political scientist.

But thank you for informing the forum of where you received your political education - right-wing weblogs.

Sorry, let me revise.

ICARUSANGEL COMMUNISM:
Two cows exist. THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry, let me revise.

ICARUSANGEL COMMUNISM:
Two cows exist. THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

Brother Pusher you wisely point out that Icarus Angel, for all his wonderful insights seems to be one of the more challenged member of the RevLeft community in the area of his sense of humor. He seems to be one of those posters that alway seem "angry." :cool:

[Algernon]

To be honest I can't think of any known communist leaders who were known for having a great sense of humour. COMMUNISM IS SERIOUS BUSINESS:marx::hammersickle:

[jake williams]

To be honest I can't think of any known communist leaders who were known for having a great sense of humour. COMMUNISM IS SERIOUS BUSINESS:marx::hammersickle:
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels? Have you ever read anything they've written?

[Mindtoaster]

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels? Have you ever read anything they've written?

This.

Marx had a great sense of humor if I'm not mistaken.

[Algernon]

Fair enough and I may very well be mistaken. And yes, I have read just about all of Marx's writings other than Das Kapital.

But then, where does the stereotype come from of stiff, humourless, expressionless communists?

[jake williams]

But then, where does the stereotype come from of stiff, humourless, expressionless communists?
Russia.

[pusher robot]

I would have said East Germans.

[Bud Struggle]

I was thinking RevLeft. :lol:

[Ken]

I was thinking RevLeft. :lol:

no wai, the people on revleft are incredibly funny.


anarchism is bad mmkay.


what an argument! i'm going to give up on anarchism and become a maoist :D

that is an example of a RevLefter joke, doesnt it just crack you up?

[Bud Struggle]

no wai, the people on revleft are incredibly funny.


Actually, the RevLefters are pretty decent people if you give them half a chance.

[Killfacer]

I doubt marx was very funny, id like to see something funny that he has said or done, if there is i apologise. I mean funny aswell, not the occasional slightly amusing thing, but something actually funny.

[jake williams]

I doubt marx was very funny, id like to see something funny that he has said or done, if there is i apologise. I mean funny aswell, not the occasional slightly amusing thing, but something actually funny.
It's sort of dry humour. I don't have the time to find quotes, but they're out there.

[Bud Struggle]

From what I remember the Soviets had a pretty good sense of humor, most of it went like this:

When Nixon visited the USSR, Brezhnev showed him a Soviet phone of the latest technology in which it was possible to call Hell. Nixon called the Devil. The conversation cost only 27 Kopecks.
Upon returning to America, Nixon told everyone about the Soviet marvel. But as it turned out such a phone had been invented in America a long time ago. Nixon again called Hell, but this time the conversation cost 12 thousand dollars!
Nixon, understandedly upset, cried, 'But in the USSR a phone call to Hell costs only 27 kopecks!'
'Yes sir, but there it was a local call.'


Why is the Soviet Sun so joyful in the morning ?
Because it knows that by evening it will be in the West.


One East German policeman asks another:
'What do you think of our regime?'
'The same as you.'
'Then it's my duty to arrest you!'


Under the specified theory of historical materialism between Socialism and Communism the intermediate stage is inevitably-alcoholism.


A socialist, a capitalist and a communist agreed to meet. The socialist was late. 'Excuse me for being late, I was standing in a queue for sausages.'
'And what is a queue?' the capitalist asked.
'And what is a sausage?' the communist asked.


'Is it true that because of communism products can be ordered by phone?'
'It's true. But they will be given out by TV.'

Will there be KGB in communism?
No, by then people will have learned to arrest themselves.


'Is communism a science?'
'No. If it were a science, it would have been tested on dogs first.'


What's the real ratio between the Pound, the Rouble and the Dollar?
A pound of Roubles is worth a Dollar.

[Plagueround]

^
My favorite one was the Yakov Smirnov one that went like this:

In America, everyone hates the American President.
In Soviet Russia, everyone hates the American President too. He's an asshole!

[Trystan]

To be honest I can't think of any known communist leaders who were known for having a great sense of humour. COMMUNISM IS SERIOUS BUSINESS:marx::hammersickle:

Marx used to get drunk and smash up London street lamps. I think he had a pretty good sense of humour, but his followers, no so much . . .

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

This.

Marx had a great sense of humor if I'm not mistaken.

Yep. Das Kapital is the great comedic masterpiece.

lame joke, couldn't resist.

As for communists with a sense of humor.........George Habash maybe?

[RGacky3]

Marx used to get drunk and smash up London street lamps. I think he had a pretty good sense of humour, but his followers, no so much . . .

I don't think getting drunk and smashing up London street lamps is nessesarily a sign of having a good sense of humor.