FrehleyCarr's Profile Comments

Comments: 56, viewing 1 - 20

IdkWhatImDoing wrote on Mar 13th, 2011 10:48pm

And why do you say that?


Kumanji wrote on Mar 12th, 2011 9:47am

Population controls - often associated with 'communist' regimes such as China. In reality, the world can support a hell of a lot more people than exist - it's merely that industrial capitalism has created a completely unsustainable consumerist lifestyle which is seriously environmentally damaging. The resources for feeding everyone, for clothing everyone, for giving everyone a good standard of life already exist in the world! They're just concentrated in the hands of the tiny tiny minority - according to the UN, 1% of the world's population control 40% of its wealth. Environmental harmony and healthy wealth distribution both completely contradict capitalism, either way.


Kumanji wrote on Mar 12th, 2011 9:43am

FrehleyCarr wrote on Mar 12th, 2011 at 3:25am :
I also have another question, what do you think about gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion, population control, death penalty, and making drugs legal? I personally like all of them, except death penalty. Wouldn't making drugs legal end the war on drugs?
So many questions! :p Gay marriage - yes. Gay adoption - yes. Abortion - gives control of women over their own bodies. Drugs - yes. Conservative ideology requires 'others' to oppress and subjugate, such as women and homosexual people. With the death of capitalism, the prospect of true human freedom and liberty becomes possible. I'll give population control a separate post because it'll end up going on too long :p Death penalty is the last resort of an oppressive regime - if we're having to resort to using the death penalty, we've fundamentally stepped away from any kind of humanity. It's totally wrong in all circumstances.


Kumanji wrote on Mar 12th, 2011 9:39am

FrehleyCarr wrote on Mar 12th, 2011 at 3:18am :
Why do communists hate fascists?

Well, I'd say that fascism is the last throw of the capitalists' dice. Fascism is the merging of business interests and the state, in order to pursue nationalist and/or racist goals. In all cases - Spain, Italy, Germany - fascist governments have been aided and colluded with by the business classes. Basically fascism is capitalism with extra state power, since it leaves business elites in control of capital, merely with state direction. It superficially takes some ideas from socialism, such as collectivised industry, but applies them to hugely non-socialist goals. Hence fascism and capitalism, from a Marxist point of view, aren't really all that different since they don't resolve underlying class conflicts.


Kumanji wrote on Mar 9th, 2011 12:09pm

FrehleyCarr wrote on Mar 8th, 2011 at 9:32pm :
Should I read it?
I think it's the perfect place to start for anyone who's interested in socialism, anarchism or communism. Definitely read it. But don't take all it says for gospel, be critical! :)


Kumanji wrote on Mar 8th, 2011 9:57am

FrehleyCarr wrote on Mar 8th, 2011 at 1:26am :
Have your read The Communist Manifesto?
Yes, it's an excellent summary of socialist ideas. Always healthy to read other stuff, though, no single work is perfect.


Kumanji wrote on Mar 2nd, 2011 12:34am

FrehleyCarr wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:31pm :
The reason why I asked a question about Gaddafi, is because I see all these socialists/communists in the world but none worthy of admiration (FARC, the Japanese Red Army, and many others) Most of the ones I lately see are corrupt drug dealers, and violent assholes. Doesn't this trouble you?

Honestly, it doesn't. Just because someone calls themselves a communist or a socialist doesn't mean that they have the welfare of the working class via democratic means at heart. Look at the Socialist Party of Spain - like all other 'left-wing' parties in Europe, it's having to cut public services and cause mass unemployment at the demands of the financial markets. Look at the Communist Party of practically every country since the Second World War - almost universally they have been authoritarian totalitarian parties spouting Russian propaganda.


Kumanji wrote on Mar 2nd, 2011 12:33am

In short, existing 'socialist' and 'communist' states cannot be said to be truly either because of their undemocratic nature, their massive abuses of human rights and their state-capitalist tendencies. This I put down to the comparative immaturity of international capitalism - it's barely 200 years old and has not yet (or is perhaps only just beginning to) create conditions which make a truly socialist change in society possible.

Does that make some kind of sense?


Kumanji wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 10:48am

It's fine, tis my pleasure!

Like any sane person, I think Gaddafi is a disgusting authoritarian dictator, hell bent on maintaining power no matter who he has to slaughter. His government is basically a pretty sickening faade of socialism, disguising military dictatorship, corruption and oil wealth in the hands of the few. As Trotsky wrote, Socialism without democracy is utterly hypocritical - and Gaddafi pays barely the merest lip service to socialism.

Also, Gaddafi has basically been kept in power by Western governments. Italy, France and the UK have been his main supporters - it's no coincidence that the Italian stock market nose-dived when riots broke out in Libya, and the UK had been consistently selling military hardware and expertise to Gaddafi.


Kumanji wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 10:46am

They have been keeping him there for lucrative oil deals and as a supposed bulwark against 'terrorism', at the expense of thousands of lives and the repression of the Libyan people.

What the Libyan people need is a true socialist revolution, based upon accountable democratic organisations, a nationalised planned economy and an end to the horrific Western-caused massacres of Libya people.

Pictures like this give me hope : gecache/BlogsMainImage/LibyaBlogOutsde.jpg


Kumanji wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 2:43pm

FrehleyCarr wrote on Feb 4th, 2011 at 9:17pm :
Do you like Che Guevara? Is it true he was racist? I would like to know about him, my dad has a book of him laying around the house but it might be complete BS so I'm not sure if I should read it.

Many people point to his bigotry in The Motorcycle Diaries as evidence that he was a racist. What he actually expresses is nothing more than the attitudes typical of the Argentine middle-classes. His attitudes and opinions in his later life were vastly and completely different - he was a pan-American internationalist, a commited socialist and a true revolutionary. Some of his political theories are pretty interesting. Definitely a few good biographies out there, treat your book with scepticism.


Vd Hamster wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 11:13pm

FrehleyCarr wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 12:06am :
you know what i like about you motherfuckah? that you aint got no avatar

I've got it on bluray though.


Kumanji wrote on Jan 31st, 2011 7:28pm

FrehleyCarr wrote on Jan 31st, 2011 at 5:24am :
Do you think Egypt will end up like Iran? From a bad leader to another bad leader?

Very interesting question. I think the Egyptian people are a hell of a lot more politically conscious than the Iranian people were at the time of the Iranian people, and the Muslim Brotherhood is nothing like as insane as the revolutionary forces in Iran...


Kumanji wrote on Jan 29th, 2011 11:26am

FrehleyCarr wrote on Jan 29th, 2011 at 1:48am :
What is the diffrence between communism and socialism?

Socialism describes an economy run by and controlled by workers; communism describes a classless society in which Man's fundamental nature is can become altered to encompass the fullest possible being.


Kumanji wrote on Jan 16th, 2011 7:21pm

FrehleyCarr wrote on Jan 16th, 2011 at 9:27am :
do you like lenin?
I know very little of his political theory, never read any of his books. It seems to me that the early years of the Russian Revolution were a gigantic clusterf*ck, leaders such as V. I. Lenin and Trotsky had rather less influence than most people seem to think - most of the political killings and murders were carried out by the Cheka under the control of local workers' soviets.


justinb904 wrote on Jan 15th, 2011 11:09am

FrehleyCarr wrote on Jan 13th, 2011 at 4:23am :
does justin b stand for justin bieber?
Obviously, what else could it stand for?


Kumanji wrote on Jan 14th, 2011 10:11pm

Pt 1.

As I've said elsewhere (have a glance through the Youth Politics thread, I've answered lots of people's questions there) China and Russia cannot be thought of a communist state because the state machinery had no accountability to the workers. They were both totalitarian regimes which abused the rhetoric of communism. (note this is only what I think as a Trotskyite - any other socialist will give you a different answer :p)

I think that the creation of a socialist economy based on satisfying social needs rather than the market is entirely possible. The revolution in Spain in 1936 shows a perfect example of how workers in the form of trade unions can create a mass movement and thoroughly overhaul the means of production, all under democratic control of workers' committees.

The main obstacle to the overthrow of capitalism is not the capitalists themselves directly, the main problem is in raising class consciousness within the working class itself. People have been brought up with capitalist orthodoxy.


Kumanji wrote on Jan 14th, 2011 10:10pm

Pt 2

Hence why the current global financial crisis is so important - it is patently obvious that capitalism is failing, and that when it fails, the poor get laid off in droves, and the bankers receive marginally smaller bonuses. The threat to the material lives of ordinary people will lead people to question the orthodoxy of the invulnerability of capitalism, and will see that capitalist interests are necessarily those of the rich.



Kumanji wrote on Jan 14th, 2011 6:16pm

Hey Fresh,

China are generally thought to be a state-capitalist regime - that is, although the state may superficially have socialist attributes, in that it collectively owns most industry, its behaviour is like a large capitalist corporation, generating a profit for a bureaucratic elite.

Personally, I find this maybe even more monstrous than a system where there is no state monopoly, but it is certainly no better, because the workers' interests are completely opposite to those of the state-capitalist machinery.

It's always very important to look beyond what countries call themselves - China calls itself the logical conclusion of communism, which it blatantly is not; Russia called itself a democratic peoples' republic - yet the people were denied any kind of political representation, were kept deliberately in poverty under Stalin's regime, and were subject to mass terror and slaughter.

Hope that makes some kind of sense!



I.O.T.M wrote on Dec 31st, 2010 3:16am

FrehleyCarr wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 2:09am :
fack u man ratm is awesome

Na bro


1 2 3 read next
Post your comment :