missing the point


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. I looked up some images of the communist riot leader, nelini stamp – there were plenty of pics. She seems to either be rioting or a speaker at various lefty conferences. In several pics she’s at some confab sitting next to the fake conservative, david brooks! I guess brooks thinks he’ll be one of the leaders or wise men in nelini stamp’s brave new world. I don’t think so. I’d put my money on brooks being a guest of honor at a future nelini stamp firing squad.

    Comment by bo1921 — February 14, 2017 @ 5:43 pm

  2. I believe this is the Che theory of revolution, that if one creates the right conditions for revolution, revolution will follow.

    (I wikipediaed Che and according to his book, the revolutionary vanguard can create the conditions for revolution even if all of the necessary elements are not present. Since it’s Wikipedia, YMMV. Although, I suspect this is accurate, again, because it’s Wikipedia)

    Comment by Blake — February 14, 2017 @ 6:20 pm

  3. I guess the douche bags in our neck of the woods didn’t read that study.

    Comment by Peggy U — February 14, 2017 @ 6:31 pm

  4. bo ^1
    Yep. He’ll be “dealt-with” during the second wave.

    Might be a good time to re-post…

    DougM’s Two-Minute Theory of the Marxist Political Vector
(or Why You Can’t Get There From Here)

    Marxist revolutions can never achieve true communism, because the political process must always pass through a stable form despotic Socialism (e.g. Stalinism). There are no paths from that miserable and cruel abyss up to the cloud-city of communism.
    The power and ruthlessness required to succeed in a revolution of the masses requires strongmen. Strongmen don’t cede power once acquired, so after the initial revolution, everything is about maintaining power. First, the opposition must be dealt with, and that gets ugly. As a result, the True Believers™ become appalled by what’s going on, so they must be dealt with, too. Rivals within the regime and possible future rival groups and incubators must then be deal with.
    As a result, “dealing with” becomes the main business of the regime. That despotism is, historically, a fairly stable condition, so all that remains of the revolution is the label “Socialist.” Socialism is the relatively stable, despotic stage preceding an idyllic Marxist communism that can never come.
    However, the regime can’t maintain power by simple despotism forever, so it evolves into a kind of organized-crime state. That’s a parasitic condition which functions for a while; but it survives only by consuming its host, eventually discarding its rotten, partially consumed parts, and invading a fresh host. Sometimes this parasitic regime recognizes the impossibility of continuing that way, so it eases the reins allows the host to heal a little (e.g. Lenin, China) … after which it resumes its parasitic, despotic nature in order to sustain the regime’s power. Of course, if this easing of the reins goes on too long, the people will get a taste for the good life, and the Socialist regime may collapse.
    That’s why Socialism has never evolved into true Marxist communism. Not only is it a fundamentally flawed as a theory of government (based on Marx’s bad history, bad economics, and bad psychology), it is ultimately impossible to achieve, politically.

    Comment by DougM (side-eyed so-and-so) — February 14, 2017 @ 6:55 pm

  5. ^ Good explanation, Doug.
    …it is ultimately impossible to achieve, politically.
    I would add “…because they always run out of other people’s money.”

    Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — February 14, 2017 @ 7:22 pm

    Caps off

    Comment by Dave — February 14, 2017 @ 7:31 pm

  7. dick ^^
    Yeah, that’s why it evolves into an organized-crime state, to deal with that leech phase.

    dave ^
    Just be glad I’ve grown out of my too-many-elipses phase.

    Comment by DougM (side-eyed so-and-so) — February 14, 2017 @ 7:38 pm

  8. This chick is all we need to know about anything.
    She embodies this post.

    Comment by SondraK, Queen of SondraKistan — February 14, 2017 @ 9:31 pm

  9. Sondra, I’d heard of this gal, knew she was bad, but she’s even worse than I imagined. She’s a true believer and obviously cares not if people are killed as long as “the right people” die.

    One might almost call her a fanatic. Screw that, the woman is a fanatic and a menace.

    Comment by Blake — February 14, 2017 @ 9:47 pm

  10. SK@8 — eyes like a snake, that one…

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — February 15, 2017 @ 7:53 am

  11. She’s got Charles Manson eyes.

    Comment by SondraK, Queen of SondraKistan — February 15, 2017 @ 9:00 am

  12. Or, to paraphrase Bernie Sanders in a recent debate, you got stuff, and we want it.

    Or… (NSFW – language)

    Comment by Fawkes News (Moar Cowbell) — February 15, 2017 @ 10:25 am

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.196 Powered by WordPress