Metal Reviews

On the Hitchens' train, as Frig is, fundamentalism is the logical outcome of all religion. There is no polite middle ground.

Heh, that's like saying communism is the logical outcome of all marxist doctrines, and socialism just a waypoint.

Which it is.

Marxism is far more dangerous than Islam, however.

I can already see the "MORE PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM ISLAM THAN FROM MARXISM" retort coming over the horizon.

That's the thing about socialism; it is meant to be a transitional stage towards communism.
At least according to Marx und Engels.

I'm sure you guys have heard about the stoning of that young couple in Asscrackistan recently.
That shit is barbaric.

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/chaos- ... z1CowCuNrE

Could get interesting.

It is. But you define communism as totalitarianism which has more to do with how countries define themselves as communist when they in no way reflect Marxist doctrine. If Marxist doctrine inevitably leads to totalitarianism which you are probably claiming then how does Hitler fall into the equation. There isn't a logical continuity between Marx and dictators; dictators happen and some just like to hop the Marxism train on the way to their own personal gain. If you say the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" I'm going to laugh because all that means is rule by the many to keep the definition concise.

Not exactly, but I'll let it go.

So how about the tyranny of the majority, the subjugation of the individual to the hive mind? I've argued this with Rio before - Marxists always gloss over the transition phases in their little social programs, and neglect to say what happens when faced with resistance. That, and what happens when those with private property/means of production decline to share it with everyone else.

"A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul."
-- George Bernard Shaw

And what about Mary?

Marxists are big on democracy believe it or not. The idea that the proletariat has a viewpoint that isn't heard and can't be properly understood by the bourgeois is a call for representation. The "dictatorship" by most contemporary theorists isn't seen as of the Hussein variety but one of where the government is framed in order to help those people to provide the basis on which equality can develop. People aren't leveled out as the Tea Party would say. Everyone is provided the same basis, a strong basis on which to begin their life projects. Albeit the same origin it doesn't have to produce the same results for everyone.

As for political resistance, I think most Marxists see their stance as common-sensical. Who really thinks that exploitation is a beneficial thing? When the level of appearances is removed, people will see that where they put in forty hours of work their return is as if they had worked ten. Some would say that the owner of the company deserves that surplus profit but no one can give a reason beyond "because they say so" or "they had it first". Rousseau points to private property's origins as the person who put up a fence first and said this is mine. There is no reason to subscribe to this notion except for a respect for selfishness. Dissent doesn't need to be liquidated. That bullshit arises when dictators are challenged on both sides. A true Marxist state would have enough popular support if people understood what was truly going on that they would be able to support the policies that are occurring. There is no need for strong-arm tactics if mystification is removed.

As for the initial battle over the means of production, I would love to see the people be able to use the state to provide opportunities for small business. Usurp the vast means of production through minor networks of support. Just cut the giant at the knees kind of a thing. No need for violent revolution when you have solidarity. The La Cochabamba water riots were violent and it got the foreign parties removed from the country but the people still had to solve their own water issues once that happened. If the state could've protected them from repercussions, they could've undermined the foreign privatization through local networking.

Dun get it.

Don't understand why Egypt is so pissed all of a sudden. But, sounds like protesters are in the right.

Interesting Beeb article on xenophobic Britain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... ut_im.html

THANKS, GUYS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... crets.html

Don't thank us, thank Zero. IMO, this is traitorous.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: this clown Zero has gotta go.

I really have tried to give Obama a fair chance, but am increasingly leaning towards V's view of the guy. I'm all in favour of multilateral disarmament and don't think the UK should be spending any money on buying US nukes, but giving the Russians details of this is ridiculous. Is Obama getting the same from the Russians? Is he giving them details of the US arsenal?

David Cameron echoes Merkel's "multiculturalism has failed".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -says.html

Yes please.

Hmph, sounds like another attempt at Nu Labour's godawful top-down cultural impositions to me. Governments should not arbitrarily decide what 'Britishness' is and then impose it upon its citizens - what's wrong with do as thy wilt, as long as no other is harmed?

Because Islam doesn't work that way. When we've got honor killings in Europe and North America, something is wrong. It's not deciding "Britishness", per se, it's establishing the importance of secularism and post-Enlightenment cultural values which are an essential necessity to maintaining the ethical standards that give us that very quality of life which attracts immigrants from barbaric shitholes in the first place.