Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

arisaka    

arisaka Avatar Level 145 Comments: Faptastic
Offline
Send mail to arisaka Block arisaka Invite arisaka to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Interests: "Philosophy", "Art"
Date Signed Up:12/05/2011
Last Login:6/27/2014
Location:Canada
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 1431 total,  1574 ,  143
Comment Thumbs: 456 total,  956 ,  500
Content Level Progress: 31% (31/100)
Level 114 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 115 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 60% (6/10)
Level 145 Comments: Faptastic → Level 146 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:0
Content Views:50114
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:1102
FJ Points:1916
Favorite Tags: tags (2)
It's you and I vs. everybody.
It's us vs. the squares.
You're my Bernadine Dorhn.

latest user's comments

#59 - maybe the should have coated the titanic with these things 04/04/2013 on Must do! 0
#35 - can we get a ******* red star burst appreciation … 04/02/2013 on Pain. +2
#26131 - Most 'communists' aren't actually communists. They're reaction… 04/01/2013 on Politics - politics news,... +1
#26127 - Possible but also really stupid. I disregard that ent… 04/01/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#26123 - I have friends who used to live in former Yugoslavia during TI…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/01/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #26431 - oxan (04/07/2013) [-]
Socialism in one country is better than in none.

What, when a single country experiences a revolution, if the rest of the world doesn't follow immediately should they just pack up and hand control back to the capitalists? Spontaneous, global, simultaneous revolution is impossible.
User avatar #26439 - arisaka (04/07/2013) [-]
Socialism in one country only produces a spectacular society.

It is, as you would call it, 'false consciousness.'

#26122 - No self-respecting anarchist would ever associate themselves w… 04/01/2013 on Politics - politics news,... +2
#48 - Hardest part about becoming a vegetarian was having to stop ea… 03/30/2013 on yum 0
#93 - When I was little I nearly set my house on fire several times.… 03/28/2013 on Lighting a match in slow... 0
#25883 - Communists want total human emancipation. Slavery nee… 03/26/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#25880 - I will refer you to my first point. Engles was an early advoca…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/26/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #25881 - oxan (03/26/2013) [-]
I do believe you previously stated that the OWS was 'the first step'.

Anyway, abolition of slavery was progressive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the communist struggle is the struggle against all forms of slavery, whether it be absolute or wage slavery.
User avatar #25883 - arisaka (03/26/2013) [-]
Communists want total human emancipation.

Slavery needed to be abolished so they could become full proletarians a necessary stage in historical development.

So far the bourgois have been much more revolutionary than any class in history. OWS is the first step but that doesn't make it revolutionary or progressive. Dissent is not progressive or necessarily revolutionary either: it is an objective force.
#25862 - Reification also tears appart the concept of race (also, natio… 03/25/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#25861 - Also if you're a non-marxian socialist than anything goes. You… 03/25/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#25860 - Why do you think its okay to accept marxian concepts but rejec…  [+] (4 new replies) 03/25/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #25878 - oxan (03/26/2013) [-]
Accepting a concept totally is, often, very foolish. It's like selecting a party and sticking with them no matter what, instead of recognising the policies you like and those that you don't.

Liberation may very well be progression, theoretically, but in reality it's not. Looking at lessons learned from OWS, a movement with the goal of generally improving the lives of the lower classes was usurped by feminazis who basically wanted to turn everything into a muh vagina festival.

Feminism, no matter how honourable its intentions, has become simply a distraction.
User avatar #25880 - arisaka (03/26/2013) [-]
I will refer you to my first point. Engles was an early advocate of women's rights. I guess the abolition of slavery was counter revolutionary too? And when it comes to scientific socialism, or things based on empirical evidence, picking and choosing is actually VERY foolish. You don't pick and choose what parts of the theory of evolution you accept - you either accept the research and theory or you don't.

OWS on the other hand was never 'revolutionary' or 'progressive' in the slightest.
User avatar #25881 - oxan (03/26/2013) [-]
I do believe you previously stated that the OWS was 'the first step'.

Anyway, abolition of slavery was progressive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the communist struggle is the struggle against all forms of slavery, whether it be absolute or wage slavery.
User avatar #25883 - arisaka (03/26/2013) [-]
Communists want total human emancipation.

Slavery needed to be abolished so they could become full proletarians a necessary stage in historical development.

So far the bourgois have been much more revolutionary than any class in history. OWS is the first step but that doesn't make it revolutionary or progressive. Dissent is not progressive or necessarily revolutionary either: it is an objective force.
#25858 - Feminism outside revolutionary contextualization is false cons…  [+] (8 new replies) 03/25/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #25859 - oxan (03/25/2013) [-]
I'll just start with this:

>then I have to say you are not a communist, or a Marxist.

Remember that non-Marxist forms of communism exist, and that I've never called myself a Marxist.

Next, women's liberation is false consciousness because it makes an illusion that society is progressing whilst the proletariat hasn't actually made any gains in the class struggle.

You make a good point that ascribing things to them is reification (I'm really starting to like that concept), so I'll concede you're right, at least in the sense it isn't their 'duty'.
User avatar #25862 - arisaka (03/25/2013) [-]
Reification also tears appart the concept of race (also, nationalism as you describe it is a n actual force of false consciousness.)
User avatar #25861 - arisaka (03/25/2013) [-]
Also if you're a non-marxian socialist than anything goes. You might as well be an owenite, drowning in some idealistic indulgence.
User avatar #25860 - arisaka (03/25/2013) [-]
Why do you think its okay to accept marxian concepts but reject it in totallity? Its either all or nothing.

Secondly, the liberation of women is the progression of society. It is a necessary step in the development of the proletariat, just as the transformation of serfs into proletariats. I think your concept of false consciousness is, ironically, misunderstood.
User avatar #25878 - oxan (03/26/2013) [-]
Accepting a concept totally is, often, very foolish. It's like selecting a party and sticking with them no matter what, instead of recognising the policies you like and those that you don't.

Liberation may very well be progression, theoretically, but in reality it's not. Looking at lessons learned from OWS, a movement with the goal of generally improving the lives of the lower classes was usurped by feminazis who basically wanted to turn everything into a muh vagina festival.

Feminism, no matter how honourable its intentions, has become simply a distraction.
User avatar #25880 - arisaka (03/26/2013) [-]
I will refer you to my first point. Engles was an early advocate of women's rights. I guess the abolition of slavery was counter revolutionary too? And when it comes to scientific socialism, or things based on empirical evidence, picking and choosing is actually VERY foolish. You don't pick and choose what parts of the theory of evolution you accept - you either accept the research and theory or you don't.

OWS on the other hand was never 'revolutionary' or 'progressive' in the slightest.
User avatar #25881 - oxan (03/26/2013) [-]
I do believe you previously stated that the OWS was 'the first step'.

Anyway, abolition of slavery was progressive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the communist struggle is the struggle against all forms of slavery, whether it be absolute or wage slavery.
User avatar #25883 - arisaka (03/26/2013) [-]
Communists want total human emancipation.

Slavery needed to be abolished so they could become full proletarians a necessary stage in historical development.

So far the bourgois have been much more revolutionary than any class in history. OWS is the first step but that doesn't make it revolutionary or progressive. Dissent is not progressive or necessarily revolutionary either: it is an objective force.
#25857 - Ladycops in Japan will kick your ass just as hard as men. 03/25/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#25852 - That's a loaded question. For that I scorn you. Moving on... … 03/25/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#25834 - plz read engles he talks about this essenti…  [+] (10 new replies) 03/24/2013 on Politics - politics news,... +1
#25854 - oxan (03/25/2013) [-]
By post-revolution world, I presume you mean after pure communism has been achieved, based upon previous discussions we have. If I'm correct, people can work however they want and there's no state to say otherwise, of course. However, I still think that women should think of their first duty as caring for their family. Arguing gender roles and the existence of gender aside, since you're an Orthodox Marxist and I'm not and we're not going to agree, feminism, at least in the sense of working being a liberation of women, is false consciousness.

I say this because of what we've discussed previously, and how it dwarfs class struggle.

But in summary, I still think women should be able to have careers, but they shouldn't need to work (notice the emphasis on 'need' in the OP) and that promoting more women working as a liberation is simply and lie to cover the fact that women with children only really began working to increase household income and household expenses increased dramatically. Pic related, towards the bottom.
User avatar #25858 - arisaka (03/25/2013) [-]
Feminism outside revolutionary contextualization is false consciousness.

False consciousness is the deriving of the proletariat of his revolutionary characteristics. I am not entirely an orthodox marxist because I read other people besides Marx.

A womans first duty is to not take care of the home. They can do whatever it is they want. Saying that is bad is oppressive, and borderline sexist. Different 'cultures' have difference concepts of feminity, and across the globe women have different 'roles'. Ascribing things to them is an act of reification, which is a central tenant to Marx. If you don't agree with that, then I have to say you are not a communist, or a Marxist.


Also it should be noted that the dictatorship of the proletariat was only mentioned twelve times in over 50 works - not very much. So this concept of amending things through the state in a Bolsevik fashion is preposterous.
User avatar #25859 - oxan (03/25/2013) [-]
I'll just start with this:

>then I have to say you are not a communist, or a Marxist.

Remember that non-Marxist forms of communism exist, and that I've never called myself a Marxist.

Next, women's liberation is false consciousness because it makes an illusion that society is progressing whilst the proletariat hasn't actually made any gains in the class struggle.

You make a good point that ascribing things to them is reification (I'm really starting to like that concept), so I'll concede you're right, at least in the sense it isn't their 'duty'.
User avatar #25862 - arisaka (03/25/2013) [-]
Reification also tears appart the concept of race (also, nationalism as you describe it is a n actual force of false consciousness.)
User avatar #25861 - arisaka (03/25/2013) [-]
Also if you're a non-marxian socialist than anything goes. You might as well be an owenite, drowning in some idealistic indulgence.
User avatar #25860 - arisaka (03/25/2013) [-]
Why do you think its okay to accept marxian concepts but reject it in totallity? Its either all or nothing.

Secondly, the liberation of women is the progression of society. It is a necessary step in the development of the proletariat, just as the transformation of serfs into proletariats. I think your concept of false consciousness is, ironically, misunderstood.
User avatar #25878 - oxan (03/26/2013) [-]
Accepting a concept totally is, often, very foolish. It's like selecting a party and sticking with them no matter what, instead of recognising the policies you like and those that you don't.

Liberation may very well be progression, theoretically, but in reality it's not. Looking at lessons learned from OWS, a movement with the goal of generally improving the lives of the lower classes was usurped by feminazis who basically wanted to turn everything into a muh vagina festival.

Feminism, no matter how honourable its intentions, has become simply a distraction.
User avatar #25880 - arisaka (03/26/2013) [-]
I will refer you to my first point. Engles was an early advocate of women's rights. I guess the abolition of slavery was counter revolutionary too? And when it comes to scientific socialism, or things based on empirical evidence, picking and choosing is actually VERY foolish. You don't pick and choose what parts of the theory of evolution you accept - you either accept the research and theory or you don't.

OWS on the other hand was never 'revolutionary' or 'progressive' in the slightest.
User avatar #25881 - oxan (03/26/2013) [-]
I do believe you previously stated that the OWS was 'the first step'.

Anyway, abolition of slavery was progressive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the communist struggle is the struggle against all forms of slavery, whether it be absolute or wage slavery.
User avatar #25883 - arisaka (03/26/2013) [-]
Communists want total human emancipation.

Slavery needed to be abolished so they could become full proletarians a necessary stage in historical development.

So far the bourgois have been much more revolutionary than any class in history. OWS is the first step but that doesn't make it revolutionary or progressive. Dissent is not progressive or necessarily revolutionary either: it is an objective force.
#46 - I have been beaten, OC sprayed, tear gasses, the works. … 03/24/2013 on well is it? 0
#25750 - Pretty much sums it up. We are wage slaves. No matter how much… 03/22/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#314 - Media focuses on the turds to warp public opinion. It's sad. … 03/21/2013 on feminism 0
#25716 - We must discuss this in further detail elsewhere. I got school…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/21/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #25717 - oxan (03/21/2013) [-]
Ha, I'm in class.

Goodbye, friend.
#25714 - When it comes to Marx though, it's really all or nothing, as M…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/21/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #25715 - oxan (03/21/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say Bolshevik supporter per se... Some things they did I would approve of more than others. Like I said in another thread, I don't think the USSR was perfect, but I do think it was a step in the right direction. And maybe Yugoslavia was a further step.

I don't really consider myself a utopian socialist either.
User avatar #25716 - arisaka (03/21/2013) [-]
We must discuss this in further detail elsewhere. I got school tomorrow at like 8.

Ciao!
User avatar #25717 - oxan (03/21/2013) [-]
Ha, I'm in class.

Goodbye, friend.
#25711 - Yeah, I kind of see that now. But even still, he was a fantast…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/21/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #25713 - oxan (03/21/2013) [-]
I agree. And I do agree with most of what I've read from Marx. But as you can see, I haven't read enough. I know what Marxism is, in a general sense, but I'm still unaware of a lot of the details. That's the main reason I won't call myself a Marxist.

I really just take bits and pieces from various ideologies (and by that, I think you know what I mean) depending on what I agree with most. That's why I don't call myself anything specific, just a socialist, or maybe even a communist.
User avatar #25714 - arisaka (03/21/2013) [-]
When it comes to Marx though, it's really all or nothing, as Marx was a social scientist and came to conclusions based on sociological inquiry. I find people who make compatibility with Utopian and scientific socialism are like those who support the theory of evolution but take parts of intelligent design.

But yeah. You're still dabbling, which is understandable. I, at one point, was a Bolshevik supporter. That was a long time ago.
User avatar #25715 - oxan (03/21/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say Bolshevik supporter per se... Some things they did I would approve of more than others. Like I said in another thread, I don't think the USSR was perfect, but I do think it was a step in the right direction. And maybe Yugoslavia was a further step.

I don't really consider myself a utopian socialist either.
User avatar #25716 - arisaka (03/21/2013) [-]
We must discuss this in further detail elsewhere. I got school tomorrow at like 8.

Ciao!
User avatar #25717 - oxan (03/21/2013) [-]
Ha, I'm in class.

Goodbye, friend.
#140 - I read the first few boxes as YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO CUT ME OFF 03/21/2013 on Rock the Casbah +1
#25709 - Marxism is NOT a set of ideals! "Ideologies are systems o…  [+] (7 new replies) 03/21/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #25710 - oxan (03/21/2013) [-]
We'll leave this topic until then, then.

I should point out, just while we're at it, that I'm not actually a Marxist. That might immediately resolve any future misunderstandings.
User avatar #25711 - arisaka (03/21/2013) [-]
Yeah, I kind of see that now. But even still, he was a fantastic sociologist.
User avatar #25713 - oxan (03/21/2013) [-]
I agree. And I do agree with most of what I've read from Marx. But as you can see, I haven't read enough. I know what Marxism is, in a general sense, but I'm still unaware of a lot of the details. That's the main reason I won't call myself a Marxist.

I really just take bits and pieces from various ideologies (and by that, I think you know what I mean) depending on what I agree with most. That's why I don't call myself anything specific, just a socialist, or maybe even a communist.
User avatar #25714 - arisaka (03/21/2013) [-]
When it comes to Marx though, it's really all or nothing, as Marx was a social scientist and came to conclusions based on sociological inquiry. I find people who make compatibility with Utopian and scientific socialism are like those who support the theory of evolution but take parts of intelligent design.

But yeah. You're still dabbling, which is understandable. I, at one point, was a Bolshevik supporter. That was a long time ago.
User avatar #25715 - oxan (03/21/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say Bolshevik supporter per se... Some things they did I would approve of more than others. Like I said in another thread, I don't think the USSR was perfect, but I do think it was a step in the right direction. And maybe Yugoslavia was a further step.

I don't really consider myself a utopian socialist either.
User avatar #25716 - arisaka (03/21/2013) [-]
We must discuss this in further detail elsewhere. I got school tomorrow at like 8.

Ciao!
User avatar #25717 - oxan (03/21/2013) [-]
Ha, I'm in class.

Goodbye, friend.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2500

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/06/2013) [-]
Hey decided to take a couple ***** on your comments, don't really know why but enjoy.
User avatar #3 to #2 - arisaka (06/07/2013) [-]
thank you
User avatar #1 - airguitar (07/17/2012) [-]
First!! :D
 Friends (0)