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

hide menu

captainreposty    

Rank #37733 on Subscribers
no avatar Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to captainreposty Block captainreposty Invite captainreposty to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/13/2013
Last Login:1/11/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 882 total,  1127 ,  245
Comment Thumbs: 1664 total,  3069 ,  1405
Content Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 88 Content: Srs Business → Level 89 Content: Srs Business
Comment Level Progress: 82% (82/100)
Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:82633
Times Content Favorited:249 times
Total Comments Made:856
FJ Points:2573

latest user's comments

#6 - Lol, OP, I heard you once opened a door and got raped by your …  [+] (5 new replies) 07/15/2013 on Welcome aboard -12
User avatar #33 - finblob (07/15/2013) [-]
That rhymed. Green thumb for you.
#45 - captainreposty (07/15/2013) [-]
Orange.
User avatar #60 - finblob (07/16/2013) [-]
Fritter.
#61 - captainreposty (07/17/2013) [-]
Turnip
User avatar #62 - finblob (07/17/2013) [-]
is awesome Susan Boyle,
#144 - Picture 07/15/2013 on Am i the only one? -2
#137 - Because it clearly wasn't self-defense. Are you genuinely …  [+] (2 new replies) 07/15/2013 on Am i the only one? -2
User avatar #139 - bitchitroll (07/15/2013) [-]
he was being beaten and shot and killed a person in self defense in a state where it is legal to use lethal force to defend yourself.
you are also genuinely upset about a self defense trial that in no way has any affect on you. if this was a black man shooting a white man in self defense and being found innocent you would probably run through the streets screaming "OH LAWDY DEY DUN TOL HIM HE AINT DUN NOTIN WRONG! SOMEBODY BUST OUT DA DANK SHIT AND FOWTYS"
#144 - captainreposty (07/15/2013) [-]
#166 - What in holy **** are you on about!? Did…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/15/2013 on Reality of war +3
User avatar #187 - thecopyninja (07/15/2013) [-]
and also i did not say that is america gave up its army im saying if it were to disappear, im aware that america is a large trade partner to most of the world and has multiple other assets, as well as the fact that most countries abhor america, however if the country did not have a military defense im certain another country would wage war on it.
User avatar #182 - thecopyninja (07/15/2013) [-]
Hiroshima, a manufacturing center of some 350,000 people located about 500 miles from Tokyo, was selected as the first target. After arriving at the U.S. base on the Pacific island of Tinian, the more than 9,000-pound uranium-235 bomb was loaded aboard a modified B-29 bomber christened Enola gay (after the mother of its pilot, Colonel Paul Tibbets). The plane dropped the bomb--known as "Little Boy"--by parachute at 8:15 in the morning, and it exploded 2,000 feet above Hiroshima in a blast equal to 12-15,000 tons of TNT, destroying five square miles of the city.

Hiroshima's devastation failed to elicit immediate Japanese surrender, however, and on August 9 Major Charles Sweeney flew another B-29 bomber, Bockscar, from Tinian. Thick clouds over the primary target, the city of Kokura, drove Sweeney to a secondary target, Nagasaki, where the plutonium bomb "Fat Man" was dropped at 11:02 that morning. More powerful than the one used at Hiroshima, the bomb weighed nearly 10,000 pounds and was built to produce a 22-kiloton blast. The topography of Nagasaki, which was nestled in narrow valleys between mountains, reduced the bomb's effect, limiting the destruction to 2.6 square miles.

At noon on August 15, 1945 (Japanese time), Emperor Hirohito announced his country's surrender in a radio broadcast. The news spread quickly, and "Victory in Japan" or "V-J Day" celebrations broke out across the United States and other Allied nations. The formal surrender agreement was signed on September 2, aboard the U.S. aircraft carrier Missouri, anchored in Tokyo Bay.
#130 - I'm not American, and I'm certainly not a 'Murican, but it's c…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/15/2013 on Am i the only one? -4
User avatar #136 - bitchitroll (07/15/2013) [-]
how does legal self defense show racism?
#137 - captainreposty (07/15/2013) [-]
Because it clearly wasn't self-defense.
Are you genuinely going to call it legal as well?
Wow, I knew there were zombies, but I didn't know they were infecting FJ to this extent.
User avatar #139 - bitchitroll (07/15/2013) [-]
he was being beaten and shot and killed a person in self defense in a state where it is legal to use lethal force to defend yourself.
you are also genuinely upset about a self defense trial that in no way has any affect on you. if this was a black man shooting a white man in self defense and being found innocent you would probably run through the streets screaming "OH LAWDY DEY DUN TOL HIM HE AINT DUN NOTIN WRONG! SOMEBODY BUST OUT DA DANK SHIT AND FOWTYS"
#144 - captainreposty (07/15/2013) [-]
#236 - Lol, you can't handle our superior education. Sir. 07/13/2013 on OH! BURN -2
#18 - You bloody wanker.  [+] (2 new replies) 07/12/2013 on Sorry wrong section +14
User avatar #131 - masterboll (07/12/2013) [-]
u wot m8?
User avatar #134 - illusiveshade (07/12/2013) [-]
And it was such a splendid streak of jolly English.
#178 - We can all be equal and retain our individuality, that is some…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/11/2013 on Diversity 0
User avatar #205 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
True, but I don't want this to happen.
Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans and Europe for everyone. We were the guardians of civilisation and might, now we are just cock sucking faggots who have no job nor a wife. And as long as I live I will not let them take away my home.
There is no peace in the future, only war, bloody war, they won't give up and we won't give up. It is in our DNA to behave like that. So you are left with your brothers and guns to fight or to give away everything you have made to a bunch of power hungry barbarians. Rome is did not make itself, it's glory and might , Rome is the people, and the people are Rome, and as long as we live man kind will survive.
And we don't want this to happen:
www.youtube.com/watch?
v=fbT1fCHOjfI&lc=Bvw5rwfxuSyGV2BSkbVUUkcSfIHZF3pfA82aLptfgQ&lch=emailreply&lco r=1&feature=em-commentreplyreceived
One vision, one purpose.
#59 - That's why one must appease all the pallets in ones literary b…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/11/2013 on Tale of two cows 0
#60 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I live in the UK most the year but for the rest of it I live in Russia, before that I lived in Ukraine, and yes it's quite normal for people to cater to their audiences.
#58 - I never mentioned, in the original post, any state/country tha… 07/11/2013 on Tale of two cows +1
#146 - Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. - Rousse…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/11/2013 on Diversity 0
User avatar #148 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
Look, we are not all the same. We have diffrent things that seperate us, not god given, but given by progress.
#178 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
We can all be equal and retain our individuality, that is something that modern schooling seems to overpass for many of its students.
User avatar #205 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
True, but I don't want this to happen.
Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans and Europe for everyone. We were the guardians of civilisation and might, now we are just cock sucking faggots who have no job nor a wife. And as long as I live I will not let them take away my home.
There is no peace in the future, only war, bloody war, they won't give up and we won't give up. It is in our DNA to behave like that. So you are left with your brothers and guns to fight or to give away everything you have made to a bunch of power hungry barbarians. Rome is did not make itself, it's glory and might , Rome is the people, and the people are Rome, and as long as we live man kind will survive.
And we don't want this to happen:
www.youtube.com/watch?
v=fbT1fCHOjfI&lc=Bvw5rwfxuSyGV2BSkbVUUkcSfIHZF3pfA82aLptfgQ&lch=emailreply&lco r=1&feature=em-commentreplyreceived
One vision, one purpose.
#34 - I've studied Russian history, fairly extensively over the last…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/11/2013 on Tale of two cows 0
#37 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I just see in the west a lot of historical revisionism around stalin.
#59 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
That's why one must appease all the pallets in ones literary banquet.

I have quite a few friends who have moved to Russia for a few years now, and they send me (translated) news from over there.
#60 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I live in the UK most the year but for the rest of it I live in Russia, before that I lived in Ukraine, and yes it's quite normal for people to cater to their audiences.
#144 - Yes, indeed. However, they are not a race. They are be…  [+] (7 new replies) 07/11/2013 on Diversity +3
User avatar #145 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
They are the Semite race.
Please don't tell me all people are equal hurr durr.
#169 - riposter (07/11/2013) [-]
Semite also includes most of modern arabian people... so they are not the semite race, they are part of the semite race. That's different.
User avatar #170 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
Well, they are not pure, but they would like to keep their semite purity, not mixing with any other race only with theirs, but they just keep putting immigrants in Europe in hope to destroy the white race. And please don't tell me how multiculturalism is good. It has destroyed Rome, it has destroyed The Seleucid Empire, it has destroyed almost all countries it has been introduced to and even my own.
#146 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
- Rousseau.

Don't be blinded by hate friend.
User avatar #148 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
Look, we are not all the same. We have diffrent things that seperate us, not god given, but given by progress.
#178 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
We can all be equal and retain our individuality, that is something that modern schooling seems to overpass for many of its students.
User avatar #205 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
True, but I don't want this to happen.
Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans and Europe for everyone. We were the guardians of civilisation and might, now we are just cock sucking faggots who have no job nor a wife. And as long as I live I will not let them take away my home.
There is no peace in the future, only war, bloody war, they won't give up and we won't give up. It is in our DNA to behave like that. So you are left with your brothers and guns to fight or to give away everything you have made to a bunch of power hungry barbarians. Rome is did not make itself, it's glory and might , Rome is the people, and the people are Rome, and as long as we live man kind will survive.
And we don't want this to happen:
www.youtube.com/watch?
v=fbT1fCHOjfI&lc=Bvw5rwfxuSyGV2BSkbVUUkcSfIHZF3pfA82aLptfgQ&lch=emailreply&lco r=1&feature=em-commentreplyreceived
One vision, one purpose.
#30 - Look man, as you can clearly see, I abhor Capitalism. But …  [+] (6 new replies) 07/11/2013 on Tale of two cows 0
#31 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
Well, let's take a look at what Stalin did for the Russian people;
1. He pretty much brought Russia from being a backwards peasant nation to a superpower whilst spreading the socialist revolution which he'd earlier said would have to wait (See socialism in one country).
1.1: Industrailized Russia and made it on a par with most western nations in terms of Industrial capacity.
1.2: Socially liberated a lot of people, Eg Abortion was legalized, then illegalized then in the end they just taxed you for not having children.
2. Kept socialism going, despite the constant threat of invasion from the capitalists, although his successor was a traitor who really should've been purged, you've got to remember Stalin never touched the Marxist-Leninist he just occasionally purged from other factions.
3. Lead Russia through World war 2, arguably he fucked up at first but still Russia won.
4. Complemantary Stalin did nothing wrong, and one thing you have to realize about socialism and the whole holodomor "genocide" is that Ukrainian nationalists went and burned crops and slaughtered live stock, so they effectively contributed nothing so naturally they received nothing.
User avatar #47 - thelastamerican (07/11/2013) [-]
Had more people killed off than Hitler...
#34 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
I've studied Russian history, fairly extensively over the last 5/6 years, and I know all the mentioned facts you have highlighted, and I am not really arguing against any of them, except 1.2.
But what you're identifying here is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", a necessary step that preludes the Socialist step. Stalin did indeed modernize the USSR, and in a remarkable time as well.
But obviously you know about the borrowing of US Tractors (Caterpillars), etc. that aided them in such progress, which would be the antithesis of Communism.
I hope this has cleared things up? I can go into more detail, but it seems you already know the history, but you've just misplaced the philosophical piece to this jig-saw; a piece which could be presented as either without the proper knowledge behind it.
#37 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I just see in the west a lot of historical revisionism around stalin.
#59 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
That's why one must appease all the pallets in ones literary banquet.

I have quite a few friends who have moved to Russia for a few years now, and they send me (translated) news from over there.
#60 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I live in the UK most the year but for the rest of it I live in Russia, before that I lived in Ukraine, and yes it's quite normal for people to cater to their audiences.
#123 - Lol, classing the Jews as a race. Wouldn't that make them …  [+] (15 new replies) 07/11/2013 on Diversity +4
User avatar #240 - keatontheghostfox (07/17/2013) [-]
Same with Muslims and Catholics then. Middle Eastern religions are kind of fucked up imo. But then again there are some Buddhists who think the same way.
#241 - captainreposty (07/17/2013) [-]
I agree.
All organized religions are tools of oppression.
You cannot, however, group Buddhists with those hate mongers.
User avatar #242 - keatontheghostfox (07/17/2013) [-]
Well that's the difference. Middle Eastern religions actually claim that they are superior, however believers of those religions are meant to be peacefully attemping to convert non- believers but are instead radical groups are using violence. With Buddhism it is a relatively small group bending and perverting the belief to their will. However I believe that even if Islam and Christianity is correct radical groups such as Al-Qaeda and Westboro Baptist Church will not recieve paradise. A true believer would try to spread their beliefs peacefully so others can join them in paradise or heaven or whatever you want to call it, not by killing.
User avatar #243 - keatontheghostfox (07/17/2013) [-]
I grew up in a Christian household and I have always thought that the belief that one person is better than the other based on their belief is just wrong. I am agnostic btw and I believe that everyone should have the right to practice their belief without persecution as long as it does not negatively affect anyone else.
#244 - captainreposty (07/17/2013) [-]
I used to have a very similar belief; allow people to worship whomever they wish to.

However, on my journey through education I found a plethora of philosophers, poets, even some politicians who all pointed out the extreme negatives of allowing such a process to continue.

All religion, and even nationalities, does is divide and segregate us. In religion it's "us" v. "them".
Religion points out non-believers as a sub-species (so to speak), who deserve to "rot in hell" (or something similar).
This is part of the "divide and conquer" technique of rule that has been in use for centuries. By filling people's minds with segregationist and xenophobic thoughts, the elites divert our attention away from the horrors they commit daily.


Here's a question I've been playing with for a few weeks; what if the God/Heaven that people seek is actually the earth we inhabit?
User avatar #142 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
I dont't actualy see the problem in racism, it's natural
#144 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
Yes, indeed.
However, they are not a race.
They are believers in a religion.
I think Mr. Atkinson sums it up best:
User avatar #145 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
They are the Semite race.
Please don't tell me all people are equal hurr durr.
#169 - riposter (07/11/2013) [-]
Semite also includes most of modern arabian people... so they are not the semite race, they are part of the semite race. That's different.
User avatar #170 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
Well, they are not pure, but they would like to keep their semite purity, not mixing with any other race only with theirs, but they just keep putting immigrants in Europe in hope to destroy the white race. And please don't tell me how multiculturalism is good. It has destroyed Rome, it has destroyed The Seleucid Empire, it has destroyed almost all countries it has been introduced to and even my own.
#146 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
- Rousseau.

Don't be blinded by hate friend.
User avatar #148 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
Look, we are not all the same. We have diffrent things that seperate us, not god given, but given by progress.
#178 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
We can all be equal and retain our individuality, that is something that modern schooling seems to overpass for many of its students.
User avatar #205 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
True, but I don't want this to happen.
Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans and Europe for everyone. We were the guardians of civilisation and might, now we are just cock sucking faggots who have no job nor a wife. And as long as I live I will not let them take away my home.
There is no peace in the future, only war, bloody war, they won't give up and we won't give up. It is in our DNA to behave like that. So you are left with your brothers and guns to fight or to give away everything you have made to a bunch of power hungry barbarians. Rome is did not make itself, it's glory and might , Rome is the people, and the people are Rome, and as long as we live man kind will survive.
And we don't want this to happen:
www.youtube.com/watch?
v=fbT1fCHOjfI&lc=Bvw5rwfxuSyGV2BSkbVUUkcSfIHZF3pfA82aLptfgQ&lch=emailreply&lco r=1&feature=em-commentreplyreceived
One vision, one purpose.
User avatar #143 - schnizel (07/11/2013) [-]
don't
#28 - Who was teaching you these things? Did you pay them? If yo… 07/11/2013 on Tale of two cows 0
#9 - You can't morph a philosophy and still masquerade it as what i…  [+] (11 new replies) 07/11/2013 on Tale of two cows +1
#65 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
#29 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
Stalin didn't tarnish the name of communism, capitalists tarnished Stalin and then people started putting two and two together.
#30 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
Look man, as you can clearly see, I abhor Capitalism.
But as a history/political scholar I must intervene.
Stalin did some terrible, terrible fucked up paranoid shit.
He was never meant to succeed Lenin, but still managed to.
He was a manipulative piece of shit who never had Communism at heart.
#31 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
Well, let's take a look at what Stalin did for the Russian people;
1. He pretty much brought Russia from being a backwards peasant nation to a superpower whilst spreading the socialist revolution which he'd earlier said would have to wait (See socialism in one country).
1.1: Industrailized Russia and made it on a par with most western nations in terms of Industrial capacity.
1.2: Socially liberated a lot of people, Eg Abortion was legalized, then illegalized then in the end they just taxed you for not having children.
2. Kept socialism going, despite the constant threat of invasion from the capitalists, although his successor was a traitor who really should've been purged, you've got to remember Stalin never touched the Marxist-Leninist he just occasionally purged from other factions.
3. Lead Russia through World war 2, arguably he fucked up at first but still Russia won.
4. Complemantary Stalin did nothing wrong, and one thing you have to realize about socialism and the whole holodomor "genocide" is that Ukrainian nationalists went and burned crops and slaughtered live stock, so they effectively contributed nothing so naturally they received nothing.
User avatar #47 - thelastamerican (07/11/2013) [-]
Had more people killed off than Hitler...
#34 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
I've studied Russian history, fairly extensively over the last 5/6 years, and I know all the mentioned facts you have highlighted, and I am not really arguing against any of them, except 1.2.
But what you're identifying here is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", a necessary step that preludes the Socialist step. Stalin did indeed modernize the USSR, and in a remarkable time as well.
But obviously you know about the borrowing of US Tractors (Caterpillars), etc. that aided them in such progress, which would be the antithesis of Communism.
I hope this has cleared things up? I can go into more detail, but it seems you already know the history, but you've just misplaced the philosophical piece to this jig-saw; a piece which could be presented as either without the proper knowledge behind it.
#37 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I just see in the west a lot of historical revisionism around stalin.
#59 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
That's why one must appease all the pallets in ones literary banquet.

I have quite a few friends who have moved to Russia for a few years now, and they send me (translated) news from over there.
#60 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I live in the UK most the year but for the rest of it I live in Russia, before that I lived in Ukraine, and yes it's quite normal for people to cater to their audiences.
User avatar #10 - Kennyalways (07/11/2013) [-]
no the philosophical part remained the same, but the political part is a different story. The political rule i was taught was Marxism if followed through, but is known as Communism if run asit has throughout history
#28 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
Who was teaching you these things? Did you pay them?
If you really want me to, I could give you a fairly detailed explanation of Marxism, or if you don't fancy listening to me, I could provide a few short videos explaining Marxism/Communism & their differences.
Not knowing something is hardly a reason for me to have a go at you, and I apologize. And I believe education is more nurturing than condemnation.
But I don't think you've quite got a grasp on the differences.

(Where you from?)
#16 - I've only ever heard of these "elitist" metalheads. … 07/11/2013 on Death to belibers 0
#7 - Stalin took, and maintained, Russia in the "Dictatorship …  [+] (13 new replies) 07/11/2013 on Tale of two cows +2
#8 - Kennyalways (07/11/2013) [-]
Stalin morphed communism into what it is today, what your referring to is now considered Marxism, at least from what i was taught.
#9 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
You can't morph a philosophy and still masquerade it as what it has become.

Marx and Engels, following in the Hegelian tradition, brought history into their philosophy, believing that the world was going to go through stages, the "dialects".
Russia NEVER achieved the Socialist stage as it was wrenched down by the ego of Stalin. But in all honesty the Revolution and the hopes of Communism were marred when the Bolsheviks limited dissent among the revolutionaries.

You mean by "Stalin morphed communism into what it is today"; "We have been taught that anything other than Capitalism is grim, look at how badly Communist leaders treat their citizens, look how poor Communist countries are".
Stalin certainly tarnished the name of Communism, but he could, literally, NEVER morph its philosophical contents.
#65 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
#29 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
Stalin didn't tarnish the name of communism, capitalists tarnished Stalin and then people started putting two and two together.
#30 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
Look man, as you can clearly see, I abhor Capitalism.
But as a history/political scholar I must intervene.
Stalin did some terrible, terrible fucked up paranoid shit.
He was never meant to succeed Lenin, but still managed to.
He was a manipulative piece of shit who never had Communism at heart.
#31 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
Well, let's take a look at what Stalin did for the Russian people;
1. He pretty much brought Russia from being a backwards peasant nation to a superpower whilst spreading the socialist revolution which he'd earlier said would have to wait (See socialism in one country).
1.1: Industrailized Russia and made it on a par with most western nations in terms of Industrial capacity.
1.2: Socially liberated a lot of people, Eg Abortion was legalized, then illegalized then in the end they just taxed you for not having children.
2. Kept socialism going, despite the constant threat of invasion from the capitalists, although his successor was a traitor who really should've been purged, you've got to remember Stalin never touched the Marxist-Leninist he just occasionally purged from other factions.
3. Lead Russia through World war 2, arguably he fucked up at first but still Russia won.
4. Complemantary Stalin did nothing wrong, and one thing you have to realize about socialism and the whole holodomor "genocide" is that Ukrainian nationalists went and burned crops and slaughtered live stock, so they effectively contributed nothing so naturally they received nothing.
User avatar #47 - thelastamerican (07/11/2013) [-]
Had more people killed off than Hitler...
#34 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
I've studied Russian history, fairly extensively over the last 5/6 years, and I know all the mentioned facts you have highlighted, and I am not really arguing against any of them, except 1.2.
But what you're identifying here is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", a necessary step that preludes the Socialist step. Stalin did indeed modernize the USSR, and in a remarkable time as well.
But obviously you know about the borrowing of US Tractors (Caterpillars), etc. that aided them in such progress, which would be the antithesis of Communism.
I hope this has cleared things up? I can go into more detail, but it seems you already know the history, but you've just misplaced the philosophical piece to this jig-saw; a piece which could be presented as either without the proper knowledge behind it.
#37 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I just see in the west a lot of historical revisionism around stalin.
#59 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
That's why one must appease all the pallets in ones literary banquet.

I have quite a few friends who have moved to Russia for a few years now, and they send me (translated) news from over there.
#60 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I live in the UK most the year but for the rest of it I live in Russia, before that I lived in Ukraine, and yes it's quite normal for people to cater to their audiences.
User avatar #10 - Kennyalways (07/11/2013) [-]
no the philosophical part remained the same, but the political part is a different story. The political rule i was taught was Marxism if followed through, but is known as Communism if run asit has throughout history
#28 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
Who was teaching you these things? Did you pay them?
If you really want me to, I could give you a fairly detailed explanation of Marxism, or if you don't fancy listening to me, I could provide a few short videos explaining Marxism/Communism & their differences.
Not knowing something is hardly a reason for me to have a go at you, and I apologize. And I believe education is more nurturing than condemnation.
But I don't think you've quite got a grasp on the differences.

(Where you from?)
#4 - Sorry to burst the propaganda bubble, but Communism involves n…  [+] (22 new replies) 07/11/2013 on Tale of two cows 0
#42 - angelusprimus (07/11/2013) [-]
Philosophy major, right?
As a philosophical idea communism works with no state.
As a practical option communism is possible as a fully distributed post need society model. Which means you need collectors, organizers and distributors, which however you call them function as a government bodies.
#69 - mr skeltal (07/11/2013) [-]
But all those things are performed by each person itself, so each individual would be a government.
#27 - iluvharrypotter (07/11/2013) [-]
It's impossible and revisionary non-sense to believe communism works with no state, you are essentially saying that people are inheritably good and will work together without an collective organize force to actually achieve anything and keep people in check.

There needs to be a strong authoritarian government for communism to be achieved in a nation, many issues which faced the early Soviets with famines were farmers not willing to work together with the government with giving up their crops, and when you have a nation working together and the producers of your food are failing to do so it causesa wide variety of issues.
Stalin's authoritarian actions were necessary for the survival of his nation, how he reacted to the organize farming and his purges were dumb though, but he was a realist. Unlike your retarded bastardized theory which is derived from closed minded simpletons crafted in your head in a war against American Conservatives.

North Korea, Cuba, Soviet Union are all prime examples of Communism will ever get achieved besides in small communes. I believe the Western media has portrayed their examples bad though, as they focused on famines not how they improved their own quality of life, became industrial, and imrpoved literacy and education rates in all examples, I think Cuba is the best prime example right now
#80 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
#78 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
#79 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
#58 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
I never mentioned, in the original post, any state/country that claimed to be Communist.
What you just described was the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", which was a necessary step on the way to Socialism, which was just one step behind Communism.

Marx's definition, ergo THE definition, of Communism was based on these dialectics.
I agree with everything you've said, & I think Cuba will be the next place I visit (after Japan), but on the actual details and not deeds, Communism cannot work with a state.
The people of a certain country would all realise the actions needed to maintain their society and would do so willingly, but only after modernistation (a process which must, in Marx's writings, begin in the Capitalist dialect)
#6 - Kennyalways (07/11/2013) [-]
Tell that to Stalin
#7 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
Stalin took, and maintained, Russia in the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
Russia never achieved true Communism, nor Socialism for that fact, due to the affronted fact.
But this is going purely of political philosophy, not Fox News.
#8 - Kennyalways (07/11/2013) [-]
Stalin morphed communism into what it is today, what your referring to is now considered Marxism, at least from what i was taught.
#9 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
You can't morph a philosophy and still masquerade it as what it has become.

Marx and Engels, following in the Hegelian tradition, brought history into their philosophy, believing that the world was going to go through stages, the "dialects".
Russia NEVER achieved the Socialist stage as it was wrenched down by the ego of Stalin. But in all honesty the Revolution and the hopes of Communism were marred when the Bolsheviks limited dissent among the revolutionaries.

You mean by "Stalin morphed communism into what it is today"; "We have been taught that anything other than Capitalism is grim, look at how badly Communist leaders treat their citizens, look how poor Communist countries are".
Stalin certainly tarnished the name of Communism, but he could, literally, NEVER morph its philosophical contents.
#65 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
#29 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
Stalin didn't tarnish the name of communism, capitalists tarnished Stalin and then people started putting two and two together.
#30 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
Look man, as you can clearly see, I abhor Capitalism.
But as a history/political scholar I must intervene.
Stalin did some terrible, terrible fucked up paranoid shit.
He was never meant to succeed Lenin, but still managed to.
He was a manipulative piece of shit who never had Communism at heart.
#31 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
Well, let's take a look at what Stalin did for the Russian people;
1. He pretty much brought Russia from being a backwards peasant nation to a superpower whilst spreading the socialist revolution which he'd earlier said would have to wait (See socialism in one country).
1.1: Industrailized Russia and made it on a par with most western nations in terms of Industrial capacity.
1.2: Socially liberated a lot of people, Eg Abortion was legalized, then illegalized then in the end they just taxed you for not having children.
2. Kept socialism going, despite the constant threat of invasion from the capitalists, although his successor was a traitor who really should've been purged, you've got to remember Stalin never touched the Marxist-Leninist he just occasionally purged from other factions.
3. Lead Russia through World war 2, arguably he fucked up at first but still Russia won.
4. Complemantary Stalin did nothing wrong, and one thing you have to realize about socialism and the whole holodomor "genocide" is that Ukrainian nationalists went and burned crops and slaughtered live stock, so they effectively contributed nothing so naturally they received nothing.
User avatar #47 - thelastamerican (07/11/2013) [-]
Had more people killed off than Hitler...
#34 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
I've studied Russian history, fairly extensively over the last 5/6 years, and I know all the mentioned facts you have highlighted, and I am not really arguing against any of them, except 1.2.
But what you're identifying here is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", a necessary step that preludes the Socialist step. Stalin did indeed modernize the USSR, and in a remarkable time as well.
But obviously you know about the borrowing of US Tractors (Caterpillars), etc. that aided them in such progress, which would be the antithesis of Communism.
I hope this has cleared things up? I can go into more detail, but it seems you already know the history, but you've just misplaced the philosophical piece to this jig-saw; a piece which could be presented as either without the proper knowledge behind it.
#37 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I just see in the west a lot of historical revisionism around stalin.
#59 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
That's why one must appease all the pallets in ones literary banquet.

I have quite a few friends who have moved to Russia for a few years now, and they send me (translated) news from over there.
#60 - valeriya (07/11/2013) [-]
I live in the UK most the year but for the rest of it I live in Russia, before that I lived in Ukraine, and yes it's quite normal for people to cater to their audiences.
User avatar #10 - Kennyalways (07/11/2013) [-]
no the philosophical part remained the same, but the political part is a different story. The political rule i was taught was Marxism if followed through, but is known as Communism if run asit has throughout history
#28 - captainreposty (07/11/2013) [-]
Who was teaching you these things? Did you pay them?
If you really want me to, I could give you a fairly detailed explanation of Marxism, or if you don't fancy listening to me, I could provide a few short videos explaining Marxism/Communism & their differences.
Not knowing something is hardly a reason for me to have a go at you, and I apologize. And I believe education is more nurturing than condemnation.
But I don't think you've quite got a grasp on the differences.

(Where you from?)
#79 - In the initial response I was not refering to any political st…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/10/2013 on Childhood Saved 0
User avatar #81 - doodogger (07/10/2013) [-]
Yeah I see your point, but because we have greedy people in power and they are backed by greedy (lobbyists, they are all in bed together) it's not very likely that that'd happen in America (which would be awesome and I agree that it'd really help the problems we have here). It'd take some very very moral founding fathers status people to slowly come into power for that to happen in my opinion. Either that or a violent revolution, which probably would be much more difficult in these times.

Yeah it's a shame that most people think the federal reserve is a federal agency, which is just too powerful.
#73 - I'll explain why you missed the point. Firstly, everyone i…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/10/2013 on Childhood Saved 0
User avatar #77 - doodogger (07/10/2013) [-]
Okay I get your first paragraph now, your emphasis is the "veil of ignorance". Everyone signs it, no one knows who will get what role, including themselves.

I think socialism would have been a more appropriate word to use. Communism is basically the final stage of how a country would run according to Karl Marx, right? First, capitalism, then socialism, and then communism.

Are you suggesting communism? Because it's nearly if not impossible to not have people in poverty in a capitalist or even socialist state to my understanding.

If you were suggesting communism, are you aware that the current way humans' brains work wouldn't allow "Ideal" communism, but only "actual" communism; which would be full of corruption, which seems to cancel out the pros of having communism in the first place and that you might as well have capitalism.

Oh and I apologize if you weren't suggesting communism.
#79 - captainreposty (07/10/2013) [-]
In the initial response I was not refering to any political stance, just outlining John Rawls' philosophy, the fact that you identified equality with communism speaks for itself though.

Capitalism requires that some be at the bottom, not domestically, but universally. This could include the Third World Countries, the Asian Tigers, China, etc. Look at how rich and (over)powerful the Rothchilds are, and look how impoverished Nigeria/Tunisia/etc. is.

If we were more punitive of greed, instead of rewarding it, we could condition it out of humanity. If we reserved capital punishment purely for those who steal/kill for financial gain, i.e. The American Government (especially the Bush & Obama DJ 4DM1Nistrations), all the World Bank leaders, especially those in charge of the Federal Reserve, then surely after generations being a banker would be as redundant as being an 18thC Chimney Sweep.
User avatar #81 - doodogger (07/10/2013) [-]
Yeah I see your point, but because we have greedy people in power and they are backed by greedy (lobbyists, they are all in bed together) it's not very likely that that'd happen in America (which would be awesome and I agree that it'd really help the problems we have here). It'd take some very very moral founding fathers status people to slowly come into power for that to happen in my opinion. Either that or a violent revolution, which probably would be much more difficult in these times.

Yeah it's a shame that most people think the federal reserve is a federal agency, which is just too powerful.
#66 - You've missed the point. It's not the tricky. There do… 07/10/2013 on Childhood Saved 0
#64 - Which Social Contract speaks to you most, as it is also my fav…  [+] (6 new replies) 07/10/2013 on Childhood Saved 0
User avatar #65 - doodogger (07/10/2013) [-]
I agree with that, but it seems like people ho signed it should be granted a guaranteed non bottom part of the hierarchy, but then again that would seem unfair, but then again, not everyone can be on equal ground in a hierarchy, because that'd be like communism if I'm correct. Could we get everyone to sign it, if so, then who would be at the bottom if anyone who signed it wouldn't be at the bottom.

It's pretty tricky.
#73 - captainreposty (07/10/2013) [-]
I'll explain why you missed the point.
Firstly, everyone in the contract is going to be in the society; everyone has to be able to agree to sign it who will be a part of that community.
Secondly, when thinking of things to put in the contract Primary Liberties (liberties that everyone needs, i.e. freedom of speech/association/free press), all these need to be guaranteed to all members, not just some. These could include Secondary Liberties, such as agreeing that no man can earn in a month what another man cannot in a year.
Thirdly, when you're behind the "Veil of Ignorance" you don't know where you are in society, you are already a person with your skill set, but you jsut don't know what it is. You could be a builder or a doctor, bin-man or footballer. The point is that you don't want to fuck over yourself by gambling on the liberties and denying some to others, who could turn out to be yourself.
Fourthly, while there must be some sort of hierachy, it wouldn't be the one we're made to suffer under in this capitalist system. The idea is to look after those on "the bottom" as much as possible, so that if you were forced to live their life, it wouldn't be uncomfortable, or even impossible.

Also, I don't think you've got a very good understanding of what Communism is. (As a hint, Communism involves ZERO State functions as there is no State).
User avatar #77 - doodogger (07/10/2013) [-]
Okay I get your first paragraph now, your emphasis is the "veil of ignorance". Everyone signs it, no one knows who will get what role, including themselves.

I think socialism would have been a more appropriate word to use. Communism is basically the final stage of how a country would run according to Karl Marx, right? First, capitalism, then socialism, and then communism.

Are you suggesting communism? Because it's nearly if not impossible to not have people in poverty in a capitalist or even socialist state to my understanding.

If you were suggesting communism, are you aware that the current way humans' brains work wouldn't allow "Ideal" communism, but only "actual" communism; which would be full of corruption, which seems to cancel out the pros of having communism in the first place and that you might as well have capitalism.

Oh and I apologize if you weren't suggesting communism.
#79 - captainreposty (07/10/2013) [-]
In the initial response I was not refering to any political stance, just outlining John Rawls' philosophy, the fact that you identified equality with communism speaks for itself though.

Capitalism requires that some be at the bottom, not domestically, but universally. This could include the Third World Countries, the Asian Tigers, China, etc. Look at how rich and (over)powerful the Rothchilds are, and look how impoverished Nigeria/Tunisia/etc. is.

If we were more punitive of greed, instead of rewarding it, we could condition it out of humanity. If we reserved capital punishment purely for those who steal/kill for financial gain, i.e. The American Government (especially the Bush & Obama DJ 4DM1Nistrations), all the World Bank leaders, especially those in charge of the Federal Reserve, then surely after generations being a banker would be as redundant as being an 18thC Chimney Sweep.
User avatar #81 - doodogger (07/10/2013) [-]
Yeah I see your point, but because we have greedy people in power and they are backed by greedy (lobbyists, they are all in bed together) it's not very likely that that'd happen in America (which would be awesome and I agree that it'd really help the problems we have here). It'd take some very very moral founding fathers status people to slowly come into power for that to happen in my opinion. Either that or a violent revolution, which probably would be much more difficult in these times.

Yeah it's a shame that most people think the federal reserve is a federal agency, which is just too powerful.
#66 - captainreposty (07/10/2013) [-]
You've missed the point.
It's not the tricky.
There doesn't need to be anyone at the bottom.
#27 - >Ken M's face when 07/09/2013 on Ken M 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2300

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - mr skeltal (04/30/2013) [-]
I love how you think you're above and morally superior to what seems to be most of the world when any really moral person would find you and your views disgusting.
#2 to #1 - captainreposty (05/01/2013) [-]
You could have signed in.
But I bet you're as spineless as the next Jew. Yes I am indeed morally superior to all those who negate responsibility to a "higher being", and I've never lent anyone money and then asked them for "interest", because that is simply the dirtiest way of making money.
I don't know who you are, nor do I care who you are. All I know is, that 4 Jewish families control the Federal Reserve, and all American taxes go not to the American government, but to the privately owned Federal Reserve (something unconstitutional).
User avatar #5 to #2 - alfjnn (05/04/2013) [-]
>Rothschild
>Jewish.
Ok.jpg
#4 to #2 - spineless (05/01/2013) [-]
No, I am as spineless as the next Jew!
#3 to #2 - rieskimo has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)