Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Five Easy Steps To Becoming A Commie

Posted by
Step 1: Be very intelligent in an idiot savant sort of way, becoming attracted to a philosophy or worldview that appeals to youthful idealism. Read Ayn Rand and become an Objectivist.

Step 2: Move slowly away from the orthodoxy of your belief system and one day announce that you are really a market anarchist but that Ayn Rand was still pretty great.

Step 3: Declare one day that "capitalism" wasn't what you thought it was.

Step 4: Discover that there is something called "mutualism".

Step 5: Make sure you are working for a low wage in a menial job (preferably at a supermarket) and realize that in spite of all your talent you'll always be poor under the rotten, exploitative capitalist system.

Congratulations! You're now a commie!

at 2:25 AM
Labels:

25 comments:

  1. *LOL*

    Wow, is it really that easy?

    That's amazing; I can really be a Commie too?

    I can have my life long Commie dreams realized?

    I can become one of the glorious living brain dead by following these 5 easy steps?

    Oh happy day!
    ReplyDelete
  2. do i really have to like Ayn Rand?
    ReplyDelete
  3. LOL. Just...LOL.

    Franc's "evolution" never made much sense to me. I suspect it might just be some kind of phase he'll be embarrassed about later on.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Yea, everyone who disagrees with you is a commie, right?

    Do you even know what the terms communism and mutualism mean, you retard? You claim to write about these issues and you don't even know the difference?

    Get my blogs off your blogroll, if your friends are as retarded as you are, I don't want them on my blog.

    And that goes double for you Cork. I am tired of you fucking ancap anklebiters. Go back to Austria.
    ReplyDelete
  5. "realize that in spite of all your talent you'll always be poor under the rotten, exploitative capitalist system."

    Why the fuck are you attacking me? I NEVER claimed that I "deserve" to not be poor. I NEVER claimed that I didn't want to be poor. You made up this slight against my character on the basis that you think I'm like you: a retarded greedy bastard.

    And so funny of you to laugh at exploitation! What are you, a fucking CEO? Get off your high horse, you fucking class traitor.
    ReplyDelete
  6. I posted a reply:

    http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/yea-im-declared-a-commie-again/

    From now on, all ancap comments will be banned on sight, so don't expect to have your say on this.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Tremblay, I didn't mention your name or link to your blog in this post. I was having a bit of fun, sure, but aside from Cork, I doubt if any of my other readers made the connection. But that's beside the point.

    If you don't like being called a commie, stop spouting the rhetoric, such as the tired Marxist equivocation with the word exploitation, the stupid "class traitor" bit and all the rest.

    I don't need to "slight" your character, you've done it yourself.

    Like a true collectivist, you want to dictate to others, but sorry I'm not going away and I'm not going back to anywhere, and I really don't care if you won't let me or others have our say on your blog. It only shows what a lying hypocrite you are.

    I don't have time for fools like you, so I'm done responding to you (though I am tempted to make a blog post out of this later).

    Oh, and Francois, thanks for all the extra traffic!
    ReplyDelete
  8. "If you don't like being called a commie, stop spouting the rhetoric, such as the tired Marxist equivocation with the word exploitation, the stupid "class traitor" bit and all the rest."

    I'm sorry that you're too stupid to realize that agreeing with some concepts of class theory does not make one a Marxist. Hell, even Konkin talked about the "ruling class" and the "ruled class."

    Tell you what: you stop spouting your tired anti-commie rhetoric, then we'll talk.


    "Like a true collectivist, you want to dictate to others"

    I'm not dictating anything to anyone. I'm pointing out that you're retarded, which is a fact. There's a big difference.

    Oh yea, I did request of you to take me off your blogroll. This is not a wholly unusual sort of request. If you refuse to do so (although I have no idea why you'd keep someone on your blogroll when they despise you, unless you're a masochist), then keep the links up. I'll just have to deal with more of your retarded friends, that's all.


    "It only shows what a lying hypocrite you are."

    How am I a lying hypocrite? Have I called you something you're not? No! You actually are retarded!


    "I don't have time for fools like you"

    But you had more than enough time to post this retarded entry against me. No time to justify its lies and misrepresentation though! Go hide in the sand, you capitalist coward!


    "Oh, and Francois, thanks for all the extra traffic!"

    Finally, SOME recognition. You're fucking welcome, asshole.
    ReplyDelete
  9. You're always welcome to have your say here, Franc, and that's the difference between me and you.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Yea, too bad you don't know the difference between *basic* concepts of the area of knowledge you're supposed to be blogging about! Otherwise your invitation might actually be worth something! As it is, the only difference between me and you is that I like to ram my head on brick walls- testified by the fact that I am still commenting on here.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Well that was interesting... I'm guessing that I'm missing something rather large?

    LOL I have no idea what's going on or who Fran is, or really anything at this point...

    Just so ya know, my comment was meant to be funny, and in no way was it meant to show a deep understanding of actual communism, I was just being my funny little self, I think I'll just go back into my little rabbit hole now ;)
    ReplyDelete
  12. I've always wanted to do John Galt. Do I get a membership card?
    ReplyDelete
  13. Kerri, you're not missing much.

    Franc is super sensitive, but he has got a brilliant mind. However, I'm not the first person he's reacted hysterically to, and I won't be the last.

    As to being funny, I always welcome that, but to be honest, Franc's comments were much funnier than yours.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Gee, I seem to recall that it was free-market libertarians (mainly in France and England) who first developed the concepts of class war and exploitation, before Marx borrowed them and got them all messed up.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Gee, I seem to recall that it was free-market libertarians (mainly in France and England) who first developed the concepts of class war and exploitation, before Marx borrowed them and got them all messed up....

    That may be so, but Tremblay clearly, in context, means "exploitation", not exploitation. Or do you agree with him that he's being exploited by his employer because he voluntarily agreed to take a job at a certain wage?
    ReplyDelete
  16. Or do you agree with him that he's being exploited by his employer because he voluntarily agreed to take a job at a certain wage?

    I would first ask if there are cooperatives in his line of work. Or such other arrangements where labor reaps its fruit, instead of something like 7% of it. (But let's not call that exploitation.)

    If there aren't, then pointing to the 'voluntary' 'agreement', the one that occurred in the absence of any meaningful alternative to the system that he repudiates, is a pretty shallow point to make. You agreed to what you had no choice to refuse, so duh, that's not exploitation. It's only exploitation if no choice at all is involved.
    ReplyDelete
  17. "I didn't mention your name or link to your blog in this post. I was having a bit of fun, sure, but aside from Cork, I doubt if any of my other readers made the connection."

    This is not a honest approach, fucking assclown!
    ReplyDelete
  18. You're always welcome to have your say here, Franc, and that's the difference between me and you.

    Maybe you make a legitimate point here, but I understand Franc's reaction.
    ReplyDelete
  19. "You're always welcome to have your say here, Franc, and that's the difference between me and you."

    Maybe you make a legitimate point here, but I understand Franc's reaction.
    ReplyDelete
  20. "Franc is super sensitive, but he has got a brilliant mind. However, I'm not the first person he's reacted hysterically to, and I won't be the last."

    Oh yeah, and your fucking post is SURELY NOT a hysterical reaction! (sic)

    "That may be so, but Tremblay clearly, in context, means "exploitation", not exploitation. Or do you agree with him that he's being exploited by his employer because he voluntarily agreed to take a job at a certain wage?"

    If he's obligated to do that fucking job, the answer is yes!

    Vulgar libertarianism...

    "Gee, I seem to recall that it was free-market libertarians (mainly in France and England) who first developed the concepts of class war and exploitation, before Marx borrowed them and got them all messed up."

    Great point, Roderick!


    "Like a true collectivist, you want to dictate to others"

    Always the same fucking rhetoric! All other anarchists than ancaps are violent commies, duh!
    ReplyDelete
  21. This is not a honest approach...

    I'm willing to accept this criticism, but then again, I did say that the fact I didn't mention his name was beside the point (or didn't you read that part?)

    I do find it amusing though that someone whose whole position is intellectually dishonest from start to finish would speak of someone elses honesty.

    Oh yeah, and your fucking post is SURELY NOT a hysterical reaction!...

    No, it's not.


    If he's obligated to do that fucking job, the answer is yes!

    There are always choices available, even if the choice is to work somewhere for a time in order to gain some longer term goal. No one forces anyone to work anywhere, but the leftist view of freedom is so perverted that it leads to childish nonsense like this. Grow up already!
    ReplyDelete
  22. Gee, I seem to recall that it was free-market libertarians (mainly in France and England) who first developed the concepts of class war and exploitation, before Marx borrowed them and got them all messed up.

    Gee, I seem to recall that it is exactly this "borrowed" and "messed up" exploitation theory that Franc subscribes to.
    ReplyDelete
  23. SE said: There are always choices available, even if the choice is to work somewhere for a time in order to gain some longer term goal.

    Did someone say work somewhere in order to gain a longer term goal ? From Mutualist.org:
    Mutualism, as a variety of anarchism, goes back to P.J. Proudhon in France and Josiah Warren in the U.S. It favors, to the extent possible, an evolutionary approach to creating a new society. It emphasizes the importance of peaceful activity in building alternative social institutions within the existing society, and strengthening those institutions until they finally replace the existing statist system. As Paul Goodman put it, "A free society cannot be the substitution of a 'new order' for the old order; it is the extension of spheres of free action until they make up most of the social life."
    ReplyDelete
  24. And, if you're working to survive, and that's not always the case, then there's no 'longer term goal' you can achieve. And while you call mutualists 'commies' for trying, you use the same possibility of an alternative, and of people actively seeking it, to attack the charge of exploitation; so what, is mutualism stupid, useless, crazy, communist, marxist, or is it an understandable endeavor ?

    In any case, as I said, you still have to prove there's always an alternative (is this a peremptory assessment, or is it the result of centuries of research ?), and even then, you have to explain how men are not exploited for seeing most of the fruit of their labor go to someone else. Whether they agreed to it in form, whether a German agrees to a Nazi government, doesn't make the government any less criminal, doesn't make wage labor non-exploitative.

    From Claire Wolff, cited in chapter 15 of Organization Theory:
    But if anybody should rail against the Job Culture and endeavor to bring it down, it should be libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and true conservatives....

    The daily act of surrendering individual sovereignty – the act of becoming a mere interchangeable cog in a machine – an act we have been conditioned to accept and to call a part of “capitalism” and “free enterprise” when it is not – is the key reason why the present Job Culture is a disaster for freedom.

    James Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights, wrote:
    “The class of citizens who provide at once their own food and their own raiment, may be viewed as the most truly independent and happy. They are more: They are the best basis of public liberty, and the strongest bulwark of public safety. It follows, that the greater the proportion of this class to the whole society, the more free, the more independent, and the more happy must be the society itself.”

    Madison was speaking specifically about independent farmers, but he was also a believer in the independent entrepreneur – and for the same reasons.

    Madison (and his like-minded friend Jefferson) knew that people who are self-sufficient in life's basics, who make their own decisions, whose livelihood relies on their own choices rather than someone else's, are less likely to march in lockstep. Independent enterprisers are far more likely to think for themselves, and far more capable of independent action than those whose first aim is to appease institutional gods.

    Well, that's weird. We're commies but we're citing such things in our books. Whatever happens in our little brains, it must be extremely deranged.
    ReplyDelete
  25. Cork said: Gee, I seem to recall that it is exactly this "borrowed" and "messed up" exploitation theory that Franc subscribes to.

    This is about adopting the terms, not adopting the theory. That's a terribly subtle distinction by the way, and one that has already been illustrated by Roderick and Francois. In fact, I even seem to read that you committed this conflation just under a citation of Roderick's intervention, as if, even though sense was before your own eyes, you couldn't see it.
    ReplyDelete

Spam will be filtered out or deleted.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts with Thumbnails