Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconskargill: More from Skargill




Details

Submitted on
December 17, 2013
Image Size
149 KB
Resolution
800×600
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
206
Favourites
4 (who?)
Comments
25
Downloads
4
×
Huxley on Politicians by Skargill Huxley on Politicians by Skargill
Note, I've interpreted idealism to mean "used ideology to justify repression" I'm aware several of them criticised the liberal concept of idealism.

From left to right we have, Mao Ze Dong, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Antonio Salazar, Joseph Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, Francisco Franco, Ruhollah Khomeini, and the woman is Sirimavo Bandaranaike responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of Sri Lankan youth. libcom.org/history/ceylon-jvp-…


Add a Comment:
 
:iconcosmic--chaos:
Cosmic--Chaos Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
...on the other hand, I have a new dartboard.
Reply
:iconcosmic--chaos:
Cosmic--Chaos Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Verily. People who hide behind the cloaks of ideology, patriotism, and/or religion to justify brutalizing others are among the most dangerous of all. Anything to gratify their lust for power.
Reply
:icontwistedunreality:
TwistedUnreality Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2013
I think all of those leaders disgrace the name of communism. They all went against what the system's original intentions were. They were all fascist if you ask me, not communist.
Reply
:iconskargill:
Skargill Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I agree with you up to a point (that's why there up there) except  for them being Fascists. Fascism is an ideology with a codified criteria it doesn't mean "Things I don't like". If anything they all traced there roots in Authoritarianism. In fact all the people up there were Authoritarian ideologues, you could even say its a pattern.
Reply
:icontwistedunreality:
TwistedUnreality Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013
Yeah, I guess you're right.
Reply
:iconskargill:
Skargill Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Well I do try.
Reply
:icontwistedunreality:
TwistedUnreality Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013
XD
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
So... pretty much every Communist leader ever.

Maybe...

And, just putting this idea out there...

Maybe Communism is a really, REALLY bad idea.

Just sayin'...
Reply
:icontwistedunreality:
TwistedUnreality Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013
I'll have to strongly disagree with you there. It's not communism, it's the authoritarianism. There is such a thing as anarcho-communism and anti-authoritarian communism. Communism is a socio-economic ideology that calls for the equal sharing of goods, property, and pretty much everything. That's called collectivism. A dictatorship has nothing to do with it. And besides, billions of other people have been killed under the sake of the "free market." People without homes, food, or anything for that matter. There are many more forms of communism than you may think, and a majority of them haven't even been tested yet.

Just saying.
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Here's a brain bender for someone who thinks Communism is The Way...

First, who decides who gets what? And if we're all equally entitled, then what is the definition of standard of living the government is obligated to provide? If everyone wanted to have a car, the government would have to give everyone a car, but people have different tastes. Who decides who gets what car? What if everyone wants a house and not an apartment? Vast tracts of land would need to be mowed down to build houses OR people would be *forced* to live in apartments. The regular workers paradise. If health is the government's business, then is it any wonder why governments that claim to have 'universal health care' have such strict laws on dangerous recreational activities from anything as mild as skateboarding to as extreme as skydiving?

I think you can see where I'm going with this.

So what do you say in defense of Communism?
Reply
:icontwistedunreality:
TwistedUnreality Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013
:iconfacepalmplz:

My god, I think I lost a few brain cells reading that.

Since when did communism ever force people to live in apartments? :lol: And what the hell does universal healthcare have to do with skateboarding? You actually think that healthcare that's paid for by the government, nothing else, will somehow let them restrict you from skateboarding? :lol: It doesn't matter if people have "different tastes" in cars. They should be happy they even have a car in the first place. People should be thankful for what they have, and not automatically assume it's worthless just because it doesn't fit your "tastes." And for the property thing, the same goes for that. They should be thankful they actually have shelter in the first place. For a second time, not all communists are authoritarian. If you hate sharing so much, then move to Latin America, Africa, or Asia. There's plenty of capitalism over there, and I'm sure you'll be happy with barely affording to buy food or pay rent just because you don't have enough little slips of paper to pay for it. Money is nothing but an illusion. People somehow think they're superior to each other just because they have more slips of paper than the other. Capitalism isn't human nature. How can something artificial be human nature? And no, I'm not an anarchist, I don't think the government should be able to spy on you in your own home, I don't support a police state, I don't support the horrible things Stalin did under the Soviet Union, I don't support China, I don't support North Korea, and I don't support authoritarianism. Please, get that through your thick skull.

Not all communists are like Stalin, Mao, or Kim Jong-Un. Get over it already. 

Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Who said any of those things I mentioned had a thing to do with Stalin, Mao, or Kim Jong-Un?

Did I bring up the farmers thrown in gulags? No. Did I mention North Korean parents being forced to ghoulishly devour their own children? No.

I'm not attacking the tyrants. I'm attacking Communism itself ^_^

And since you're skating around my questions, let me ask a few different ones...

1: If people DON'T want to take part in Communism, what's to be done about them?

2: If people do not wish to do the work assigned them because their desire and/or proficiency lies elsewhere, what are they to do?

3: Are people entitled to free entertainment? And if so, is it the government's job to fill that role?

4: If certain kinds of entertainment undermine or attack the idea of Communism in the worker's paradise and people are starting to agree, what's to be done?

5: Explain exactly how Communism is any less artificial since even going back as far as the tribal societies here in the Americas, people didn't just share *everything*. If someone wanted something from someone else, they traded for it.

And for your further educational purposes, let me clarify something...

Money is not an illusion. It is, at its essence, distilled human energy. Now I won't deny the fact that foolish people put altogether too much value on acquiring money through any means and I do not believe that excess is the key to happiness, but as long as someone *provides* a good or service, they have every right to gather money and grow their business.

Money is nothing more than a transactional medium. Something that helps a person, if they stop and do the math, how much time they're willing to invest in working in order to acquire goods or services. It's the sweat of their brown turned into notes.

Now, I believe the gold standard should be brought back in order to curb this out of control debt climb, but that's another story for another day.
Reply
:iconcomradesch:
ComradeSch Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
No, you're not attacking Communism. You're attacking the dictators.

My friend you are so rudely insulting does not agree with anything any of those leaders have to say- In fact, there are people who don't follow the views of any of those dictators. I have about as much connection to Joseph Stalin or Kim Jong-Un as Benito Mussolini has to Donald Trump..

And now, your other points:

"What if people don't want to take part in Communism?" The core belief of Communism is collectivized means of production. That is open to interpretation. Again, it's communism if the workers of factories own it and share the wealth they collectively generate. Communism is an economic system, not neccesarily a complete system of government. Socialism is very open to interpretation.

"What if they don't want to do the work assigned to them?" Two words: Self-ownership. Two more words: Direct democracy. Communism says nowhere in it that the goal is to assign workers or to create dictatorship. The view is collectivized means of production, which, as stated before, is open to interpretation.

"Are people entitled to free entertainment?" This should be flipped around. Are they entitled to free neccesities of life? Everyone has an equal right to live. Thus, bills and other such methods of control by the capitalist system are injust to a socialist.

"If certain kinds of entertainment undermine or attack the idea of Communism in the worker's paradise and people are starting to agree, what's to be done?"

In a direct democracy, such as I believe in, there is no overarcing hierarchy to fear it. If someone representing them by their consent ends up destroying them somehow, then it's perfectly just to have that person removed from power, which is the advantage of any democracy. Again, collectivization and propaganda are worlds apart.

"Explain exactly how Communism is any less artificial since even going back as far as the tribal societies here in the Americas, people didn't just share *everything*. If someone wanted something from someone else, they traded for it."

Explain why ancient governments are a poor choice. We cheer on Athens for creating a democracy that seems very similar to tribal governments in the Americas. Less parts, less complication, less to go wrong.

"money is not an illusion"
Money is paper and ink, which is NOT connected to the wealth of the nation. Wrap your head around that.

"We should re-enact the gold standard"
If gold, a nearly useless material has value because someone said it does,  then Obama can put up the "bologna standard" and decree that all money printed will be based on how much bologna his nation exports. In any case, money will always pile up, especially when it comes to counting expendible goods as a base. Expendible goods are counted as goods, but once they're used, that money stays in the system, causing inflation either way.
Reply
:icontwistedunreality:
TwistedUnreality Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013
Until you quit being such a monumental ass and calling people you disagree with 'stupid', we're not debating. A debate between us two would go nowhere, considering you're absolutely convinced that only YOU are correct.
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
It's not that I think I hold all the answers. It's that I have chosen, on my experience and observations with personal and historic, that Communism is a road paved with good intentions that leads to ruin.

If you don't want to debate because your fluffy Communism can suffer no critique, then... by skippy, whatever pleases you.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontwistedunreality:
TwistedUnreality Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013
On the first point, what if people don't want to take part in capitalism? It goes both ways. You either live with one or live with the other. I'd prefer to live with the other, but that's my preference.

For the second point, communism isn't about the government choosing the job for you. With free access to education, people could choose whatever job they wanted. And there would be worker's self-management, so if they didn't like their current occupation, they can find another without the stress of bosses or company CEO's rejecting them of a job. 

"And for your further educational purposes, let me clarify something..."
So, you're calling me an idiot just because I don't agree with capitalism? You seem to think only your views are correct, am I wrong? So, you're somehow smarter and superior than me just because you agree with something I don't? :lol: That's pretty big talk coming from someone who's face is hidden behind a computer screen.


Reply
:iconskargill:
Skargill Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
"So... pretty much every Communist leader ever."

Really? Please tell me how exactly is Marx a Fascist? or Engels? or Rosa Luxembourg? Or Pannenkoek? or Debord? or Antonio Gramsci? Or De Leon? Or Bordiga?

And, just putting this idea out there.....

Commenting on things you don't really know about is a really, REALLY bad idea.

Just sayin'....
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Did I say fascism? No. I said Communism.

It's a system that encourages people to be seen as putty, devoid of individuality.

And what do you do with putty that doesn't mold to the shapes you want it to?

You dispose of it.
Reply
:iconskargill:
Skargill Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
"Did I say fascism? No. I said Communism."

But you were agreeing with Twisted's comment and he did say Fascism. You do know how language works right?

"And what do you do with putty that doesn't mold to the shapes you want it to?

You dispose of it."

So I guess my comment still stands.
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
What...?

Could you possibly try to make a little sense, please?

And stop with the condescension. If you're trying to persuade me to embrace The Worker's Paradise then you're doing a poor job.
Reply
:iconskargill:
Skargill Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
"What...?

Could you possibly try to make a little sense, please?"

You agreed with a statement, then said it applied to every Communist leader. I gave you a list of leaders and asked you to explain how the statement you agreed with applied to them. Not that hard to figure out really.

"And stop with the condescension."

Look whose talking, how about you start and I'll follow.

"If you're trying to persuade me to embrace The Worker's Paradise then you're doing a poor job."

Well it's good then that I'm doing nothing of the sort then. I'm asking you to back up an argument you made of your own free will. So far all you've done is try to weasel out of it.
Reply
Add a Comment: