This is the first in a multiblog criticism of an ideology known as Neo-liberalism, to properly do a basic critique you should know abit of the ideology's background.
Neo-liberalism is closely linked to Thatcherism (for the Americans- Reaganism) and it is the governing way of thinking for the world. Since the end of World War 2 Liberalism (in general) has lost allot of its main opposition- Fascism, Communism and Socialism in addition to Imperialism. These ideologies have been destroyed in the eyes of the public, and although they haven't died off they have very much reduced in influence- Fascism due to the toppling of the German, Italian and Spanish regimes, Communism and Socialism due to America's genocide towards any Communist organisation around the global throughout the Cold War, and not to mention any "Communist" nation's gross bastardisation of the ideology, and then Imperialism because many ex-empire nations provided freedom to their former occupants and then attacked others for occupying nations/regions that don't belong to the aggressor.
With the simple history attended to, its time for the actual ideology. Neo-liberalism promotes (previously covered) Liberal freedoms and common sense, sounds great in theory- common sense is always desired. My fault with this (without going into previously discussed points) is that common sense is not always the best thing, sometimes logic is needed and in fact required, to some extend, for a person to think for themselves. A society run purely on common sense does not question beyond its daily life, why should it? Society is content and happily running along, why should it question what it feels doesn't concern it? A society and its people should always question, because in doing so it finds answers to questions and problems that will doubtless haunt it in the future. Those of previous generations didn't question pollution because it didn't affect them, or at least they didn't think it did, yet a society using logic would've questioned pollution and so sought to fix the issue earlier. A lack of questioning seems dominant throughout a society run by common sense, and without questioning those who run society; the financiers, large business leaders, government officials and anyone else in similar powerful positions can do what they wish unimpeded. Many in business follow through with ruthless competition, competition to which is designed to net them more money whilst taking as much as they can from those that work for them, and killing off other businesses in the process, making people unemployed and pennyless.
This ultimately pointless competition is common sense because in the short run it excels and drives business and technological advancement, in the long run however the cost of expanding so greatly adds up, but is forever forgotten about until the long run becomes a sudden stop- this is the nature of government spending and its debts, one overarching reason for the continuous financial problems of the world, our environment and its pollution, a major factor in homelessness, personal debt and so many more crises that threaten us. But most of this can be attributed towards capitalism and as Neo-liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, then capitalism is seem as common sense and so nothing of this is questioned by the public until it is too late. Capitalism and neo-liberalism by the aforementioned reasons follow a course of competition in contrast to co-operation and it is this competition where another neo-liberal trait rears its head- survival of the fittest.
The ideal of the strongest surviving is known as Darwinism, it is an ideal Neo-liberals believe in, not just for businesses but also society- Social Darwinism as its called and that shall be the focus of the next blog.
Friday 18 October 2013
Tuesday 8 October 2013
Misconceptions of Laziness in Communism
Well first things first- try and look at what I'm about to say through a Marxist stand point. With ALL political ideologies, when not looked at the in proper concept of society then it simply falls apart.
Proper concept- with people in a Marxist society following the jobs and professions they wish to then the following in enabled and radically promoted.
Laziness would not exist in a Communist nation due to a lack of financial gain through working, and a Nanny State type of coping mechanism for those unable to work. The reason this wouldn't occur is simply, people seek a higher form of "payment" if you will. The pursuit of intellectual enlightenment is very much more important than the salary a person earns, with the people adequately looked after it allows the population to work and fulfil a decent continuous education.
Many philosophers and political theorists, myself included, seek ways to enlighten the people of a nation, this can primarily be done through the education system of a nation. Instead of our education system as it is; teaching people to pass exams, communists aim to teach people to learn, it is through this that deeper levels of thinking and thought are sought, scientists, philosophers, theorists of all types are moulded through this way of thinking, as well as a greatly improved national education. Teaching people to learn is certainly more beneficial to society as then it allows and in fact stimulates the nation, and planet (when universally acted on) as a whole to endeavour for a better future, and in this endeavour more beneficial technologies are created, ideas and concepts that today are thought to be ludicrous and fruitless, actually hold purpose and meaning- they are not merely the imaginings of a "deluded child" or the dreamings of an idealist, but in fact solid reality.
This sort of future does not come around through laziness, it comes around through following ones intellectual wishes and pursuits and applying the knowledge gained to the collective people. The individual follows what they wish to help the collective, and in turn the collective helps and enables them to continue, this is a Soavist and generally held communist ideal, but as an ideal it is limited to the mind, this is what the modern society does, tells a people to dream small so their education for work doesn't seem as fruitless as it ultimately is. Learning for a sole job and not advancing, it is not a life I would wish on any, and it can be broken through education. It sounds harsh I admit, and many do contribute towards the wider aspect of society, but even more do not, and cannot for them lack the means to, a means held from them in an education system that has failed them.
Next I will elaborate further on the failures of the education system, and the structure which permits such a system; neo-liberalism, the ideology to which governs not only this nation, but almost all of the developed nations around the world.
Proper concept- with people in a Marxist society following the jobs and professions they wish to then the following in enabled and radically promoted.
Laziness would not exist in a Communist nation due to a lack of financial gain through working, and a Nanny State type of coping mechanism for those unable to work. The reason this wouldn't occur is simply, people seek a higher form of "payment" if you will. The pursuit of intellectual enlightenment is very much more important than the salary a person earns, with the people adequately looked after it allows the population to work and fulfil a decent continuous education.
Many philosophers and political theorists, myself included, seek ways to enlighten the people of a nation, this can primarily be done through the education system of a nation. Instead of our education system as it is; teaching people to pass exams, communists aim to teach people to learn, it is through this that deeper levels of thinking and thought are sought, scientists, philosophers, theorists of all types are moulded through this way of thinking, as well as a greatly improved national education. Teaching people to learn is certainly more beneficial to society as then it allows and in fact stimulates the nation, and planet (when universally acted on) as a whole to endeavour for a better future, and in this endeavour more beneficial technologies are created, ideas and concepts that today are thought to be ludicrous and fruitless, actually hold purpose and meaning- they are not merely the imaginings of a "deluded child" or the dreamings of an idealist, but in fact solid reality.
This sort of future does not come around through laziness, it comes around through following ones intellectual wishes and pursuits and applying the knowledge gained to the collective people. The individual follows what they wish to help the collective, and in turn the collective helps and enables them to continue, this is a Soavist and generally held communist ideal, but as an ideal it is limited to the mind, this is what the modern society does, tells a people to dream small so their education for work doesn't seem as fruitless as it ultimately is. Learning for a sole job and not advancing, it is not a life I would wish on any, and it can be broken through education. It sounds harsh I admit, and many do contribute towards the wider aspect of society, but even more do not, and cannot for them lack the means to, a means held from them in an education system that has failed them.
Next I will elaborate further on the failures of the education system, and the structure which permits such a system; neo-liberalism, the ideology to which governs not only this nation, but almost all of the developed nations around the world.
Thursday 26 September 2013
Historical misconceptions of Communism
It has long been thought a country that calls itself communist or socialist is communist or socialist- this is simply untrue.
In fact if anything, no communist or socialist state has ever existed. Left wing beliefs have been achieved but they have never truly made it through the mechanisms of an entire nation. By this I mean industries have been nationalised and health care has been made public, but private businesses still exist as does private health care. Steps have been taken, but they haven't gone through the entire walk.
The People's Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and other fancy sounding national titles all sound great and communist, but in reality they are a facade, a delusion created by the government of those nations. Every nation that has classed itself socialist or communist has done so through the wrong means, they haven't followed a Marxist path, and when in power they have gone against many ideals that the Left wing hold dear. Contrary to popular belief, Marxism isn't all encompassing when it comes to communism, and certainly not so when it comes to socialism, but I shall be using Marx to explain why all these fancy sounding nations where not true communist/socialist states.
Marx put forward that a nation will ideally not, but likely will endue a revolution to bring around communism- most of the nations we're talking about have done that, but what they missed was the time of when to alter the state. A state should only begin the transition to communism when its capitalist functions have depleted. Meaning that out of the dying remains of capitalism, comes communism. Our nations here did not do this, they waged revolutions in times of peasants and agriculture, not industrial capitalism (for that country). If you pay attention to many of the pictures from these nations, you'll often see people working in the fields and such. It is here where they initially differ from Marx.
This is why no communist state has ever been created, because the potentials grew from the wrongly timed ingredients. As for when the "communist" governments where in power, I shouldn't really need to say, but locking people in Gulags and undergoing purges is certainly not the humanity loving communism that theory speaks of. In practice the taking of a single life is inherently wrong in the eyes of communism, this does leave a contradiction with revolution, but as Marx pointed out Communism is also empiricalist (going off the numbers), and so if it costs 1,000 lives to save 1,000,000 then so be it, as cruel and harsh as it sounds, it is the case. Not a single person reading this should object to saving 1,000,000 over 1,000, and this merciless logic persists despite the figures, as long as one outweighs the other than the larger must be sought after.
Granted the numerical argument could be used in support of the Gulags etc. but in my opinion there is a difference between leadership paranoia and the collective good.
Next I think I'll go over laziness in a communist state, as that too is an understandable misconception.
In fact if anything, no communist or socialist state has ever existed. Left wing beliefs have been achieved but they have never truly made it through the mechanisms of an entire nation. By this I mean industries have been nationalised and health care has been made public, but private businesses still exist as does private health care. Steps have been taken, but they haven't gone through the entire walk.
The People's Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and other fancy sounding national titles all sound great and communist, but in reality they are a facade, a delusion created by the government of those nations. Every nation that has classed itself socialist or communist has done so through the wrong means, they haven't followed a Marxist path, and when in power they have gone against many ideals that the Left wing hold dear. Contrary to popular belief, Marxism isn't all encompassing when it comes to communism, and certainly not so when it comes to socialism, but I shall be using Marx to explain why all these fancy sounding nations where not true communist/socialist states.
Marx put forward that a nation will ideally not, but likely will endue a revolution to bring around communism- most of the nations we're talking about have done that, but what they missed was the time of when to alter the state. A state should only begin the transition to communism when its capitalist functions have depleted. Meaning that out of the dying remains of capitalism, comes communism. Our nations here did not do this, they waged revolutions in times of peasants and agriculture, not industrial capitalism (for that country). If you pay attention to many of the pictures from these nations, you'll often see people working in the fields and such. It is here where they initially differ from Marx.
This is why no communist state has ever been created, because the potentials grew from the wrongly timed ingredients. As for when the "communist" governments where in power, I shouldn't really need to say, but locking people in Gulags and undergoing purges is certainly not the humanity loving communism that theory speaks of. In practice the taking of a single life is inherently wrong in the eyes of communism, this does leave a contradiction with revolution, but as Marx pointed out Communism is also empiricalist (going off the numbers), and so if it costs 1,000 lives to save 1,000,000 then so be it, as cruel and harsh as it sounds, it is the case. Not a single person reading this should object to saving 1,000,000 over 1,000, and this merciless logic persists despite the figures, as long as one outweighs the other than the larger must be sought after.
Granted the numerical argument could be used in support of the Gulags etc. but in my opinion there is a difference between leadership paranoia and the collective good.
Next I think I'll go over laziness in a communist state, as that too is an understandable misconception.
Monday 12 August 2013
Misconceptions and over simplifications
This entry is going to be about exactly what the title says, common ideas that are frequently linked with communism and although based in slight fact they're completely off the mark.
So for starters- equality.
Equality as everyone knows is something communism aspires towards, but it has its limitations.
People over simplify the concept and try to fault the ideology on their misunderstandings.
The first common misunderstanding is financial equality, communism aims to provide greater equality in finances but not complete equality of outcome, we aim for complete equality of opportunity but not outcome. People in a communist society will get paid differently depending on the value of that job towards the country/society they are apart of, as such a doctor and a teacher (for example) will be paid more than someone in the entertainment business, like a footballer or singer.
Everyone will have the chance to be whatever they wish, without financial limitations- due to the nature of the system proposed- http://shadowsofavorlon.deviantart.com/art/The-Soavist-State-369683948, but once in a job of thier choosing people will be paid differently, based on merit and value. The gap between the rich and poor will be drastically reduced so everyone will be of the same living standards, with that commonality society can only improve its living standards as so making life better for everyone.
With what's been said above the same idea is put towards what people buy- clothing, cars, houses, food etc. People will obtain different material goods, as with what we do today- communism isn't a society of faceless identically dressed workers, it is a society for the people by the people so that people can follow thier desires and wishes whilst helping humanity along the way.
Another misconception based in this area is hierarchy. People will not have equality of responsibility, some will be apart of higher government, some will be in charge others will not be whilst everyone has the chance to become apart of those in change (should they desire to do so). A pecking order will exist, not the same as now but it does share similarities. And because the people are in charge it allows a transparency in government to which we cannot hope to achieve today, those with excessive wealth control what they wish today, those who have an elected consensus by the people they represent will have the control in a communist society, and even the control they have will be overseen and challenged (if necessary) by the represented.
Well that's all for this week, I am sorry its taken so long in getting this up but my internet connection is overly greater. The next entry will follow as long these lines of misconceptions in communism, the misconceptions of the history of communism is next up.
So for starters- equality.
Equality as everyone knows is something communism aspires towards, but it has its limitations.
People over simplify the concept and try to fault the ideology on their misunderstandings.
The first common misunderstanding is financial equality, communism aims to provide greater equality in finances but not complete equality of outcome, we aim for complete equality of opportunity but not outcome. People in a communist society will get paid differently depending on the value of that job towards the country/society they are apart of, as such a doctor and a teacher (for example) will be paid more than someone in the entertainment business, like a footballer or singer.
Everyone will have the chance to be whatever they wish, without financial limitations- due to the nature of the system proposed- http://shadowsofavorlon.deviantart.com/art/The-Soavist-State-369683948, but once in a job of thier choosing people will be paid differently, based on merit and value. The gap between the rich and poor will be drastically reduced so everyone will be of the same living standards, with that commonality society can only improve its living standards as so making life better for everyone.
With what's been said above the same idea is put towards what people buy- clothing, cars, houses, food etc. People will obtain different material goods, as with what we do today- communism isn't a society of faceless identically dressed workers, it is a society for the people by the people so that people can follow thier desires and wishes whilst helping humanity along the way.
Another misconception based in this area is hierarchy. People will not have equality of responsibility, some will be apart of higher government, some will be in charge others will not be whilst everyone has the chance to become apart of those in change (should they desire to do so). A pecking order will exist, not the same as now but it does share similarities. And because the people are in charge it allows a transparency in government to which we cannot hope to achieve today, those with excessive wealth control what they wish today, those who have an elected consensus by the people they represent will have the control in a communist society, and even the control they have will be overseen and challenged (if necessary) by the represented.
Well that's all for this week, I am sorry its taken so long in getting this up but my internet connection is overly greater. The next entry will follow as long these lines of misconceptions in communism, the misconceptions of the history of communism is next up.
Sunday 28 July 2013
The Soavist Theory of Entrapment
The Soavist theory of Entrapment, sounds rather boring doesn't it but if it gives you something to at least think about then I think its worth the possible boredom.
The theory basically states- For one to limit oneself to a single goal of freedom is to entrap oneself by that goal, and so forth be enshackled by it. To be enshackled and so oppressed by freedom holds no crueller irony, but it is an irony held by many.
Sounds abit too wordy so I'll break it down- basically what this is saying is that if someone strives for freedom (from an authority) then in their fight for their freedom they may very easily become lost and from that not stop fighting for their freedom because they cannot see straight. In ages since time began the concept of a freedom fighter has always been present, but a person shouldn't just fight for freedom- freedom is a concept, a way of thinking (as shown through the different understandings of freedom). At the end of the day you cannot hold freedom, you cannot lift it up as a trophy to signify you've won it- it is a state of mind, and if someone thinks they haven't achieved it then they'll keep fighting for it. The worst part of this is that these freedom fighters often turn into the very authorities they're trying to overthrow- take the Taliban; part of a force built to fight off Soviet invaders. The Taliban hated the fact that someone had said "you know what I want this bit of land", they hated the fact that someone thought themselves superiour to them and so treat them as lessers, oppressed them and stopped them doing what they wished. So the Taliban fought back and beat the Soviets, then not all of them grasped the fact they'd won- they where entrapped. They continued to see enemies to their freedom everywhere and so lashed out everywhere, they became the very thing they hated by oppressing people's freedom, preventing their choices and taking their land- the people they fought to protect and the Taliban thought themselves superiour. The Taliban sought freedom but did not see when they had won it, as to them they still haven't; the chaos brought upon them "peacekeeping" organisations- to which they further saw as foes and so attacked. A very viscous circle all caused by a concept, an idea. They sought freedom and in seeking it they lost their's.
A solution to this is simple, do not have one singular goal, have many and more. The more goals you have the more goals you will see completed through your fighting and so after enough are fulfilled you can be assured that your ultimate aim for freedom is gained. A fancy way of saying this is, materialise your singular goal into a plethora of ideals.
Its strange how fighting for freedom often means you lose your own, an irony not to be laughed at or ignored- it is a serious problem to which leads to the extremists of today, the ones you see on the TV who fight for whatever cause it is and you know full well they have lost their way, like with "Islamic" extremists- these people are simply extremists, they may call themselves Muslims but they are almost the furtherest from the ideal Muslim.
Freedom is worth fighting for, but try not to lose your way in doing so.
For my next entry I think I'll discuss something on the misconceptions of communism. I've talked quite abit on freedom now so yeah I think I'll move on to others concepts and ideas.
The theory basically states- For one to limit oneself to a single goal of freedom is to entrap oneself by that goal, and so forth be enshackled by it. To be enshackled and so oppressed by freedom holds no crueller irony, but it is an irony held by many.
Sounds abit too wordy so I'll break it down- basically what this is saying is that if someone strives for freedom (from an authority) then in their fight for their freedom they may very easily become lost and from that not stop fighting for their freedom because they cannot see straight. In ages since time began the concept of a freedom fighter has always been present, but a person shouldn't just fight for freedom- freedom is a concept, a way of thinking (as shown through the different understandings of freedom). At the end of the day you cannot hold freedom, you cannot lift it up as a trophy to signify you've won it- it is a state of mind, and if someone thinks they haven't achieved it then they'll keep fighting for it. The worst part of this is that these freedom fighters often turn into the very authorities they're trying to overthrow- take the Taliban; part of a force built to fight off Soviet invaders. The Taliban hated the fact that someone had said "you know what I want this bit of land", they hated the fact that someone thought themselves superiour to them and so treat them as lessers, oppressed them and stopped them doing what they wished. So the Taliban fought back and beat the Soviets, then not all of them grasped the fact they'd won- they where entrapped. They continued to see enemies to their freedom everywhere and so lashed out everywhere, they became the very thing they hated by oppressing people's freedom, preventing their choices and taking their land- the people they fought to protect and the Taliban thought themselves superiour. The Taliban sought freedom but did not see when they had won it, as to them they still haven't; the chaos brought upon them "peacekeeping" organisations- to which they further saw as foes and so attacked. A very viscous circle all caused by a concept, an idea. They sought freedom and in seeking it they lost their's.
A solution to this is simple, do not have one singular goal, have many and more. The more goals you have the more goals you will see completed through your fighting and so after enough are fulfilled you can be assured that your ultimate aim for freedom is gained. A fancy way of saying this is, materialise your singular goal into a plethora of ideals.
Its strange how fighting for freedom often means you lose your own, an irony not to be laughed at or ignored- it is a serious problem to which leads to the extremists of today, the ones you see on the TV who fight for whatever cause it is and you know full well they have lost their way, like with "Islamic" extremists- these people are simply extremists, they may call themselves Muslims but they are almost the furtherest from the ideal Muslim.
Freedom is worth fighting for, but try not to lose your way in doing so.
For my next entry I think I'll discuss something on the misconceptions of communism. I've talked quite abit on freedom now so yeah I think I'll move on to others concepts and ideas.
Tuesday 16 July 2013
Revolution and freedom's contradiction
Firstly I'd just like to say sorry for taking a while in putting this blog up, having lack of time and internet are appearing to be a continuing annoyance.
Well back to the point I was going to make- revolutionary action v.s. freedom- in particularly Marxist freedoms. These two form a deeply rooted contradictory point within the Marxist ideology, the point of fighting for everyone's freedom and maintaining a Marxist view of such freedoms.
The reason this is contradictory is because in a revolution, a state of war is declared and in such a civil war no one person can avoid it, should they be in that nation. This means people have to take sides and they will also have their lives taken if they're on the wrong side during an engagement. It doesn't matter who takes who's life, what matters is that civilians will be killed and lives are lost. This is a frequently forgotten point of the "glorious communist revolution"- people will die. As the revolution is fought by us, we are in essence killing those people- and it is this which goes against Marxist freedom, a person cannot live in freedom if they're dead.
Freedoms themselves must be fought for but not acted upon during a revolution. A dictatorship must be formed to effectively and successfully conduct a war, it is no place for communal debates or prolonged discussion. Time is life and death and tough decisions must be made during combat, decisions which must be made by revolutionaries- not the people who are to live in the post-revolutionary world.
A revolutionary can never live happily in the society they aim to bring around, this is why being a revolutionary requires the utmost sacrifice. A revolutionary is a warrior and a warrior can not live in peace- it is not right to expect that of warriors. A revolutionary brings about the society they cannot live in because it is their duty to help provide for mankind's future, they have done their bit and cannot do more. One can only hope the descendants of revolutionaries, know what they're made of when it comes to forming the new world to which they live in, warriors of peace- a more contradictory statement is rarely heard but it is true. People who fight for peace and freedom in the knowledge they will never live in it.
Being a revolutionary is to pursue revolution and uphold the ideal of freedom, this is how both are part of Marxist and Soavist theory. Either revolution or freedom may be pursued providing the ideal of the other is upheld. Those who is in the post-revolutionary freedom must still uphold the ideal of revolution should a darkness creep over their peaceful and free society.
Next week I intend to write further about revolution. It shall be on what to fight for and the Soavist theory of entrapment.
Well back to the point I was going to make- revolutionary action v.s. freedom- in particularly Marxist freedoms. These two form a deeply rooted contradictory point within the Marxist ideology, the point of fighting for everyone's freedom and maintaining a Marxist view of such freedoms.
The reason this is contradictory is because in a revolution, a state of war is declared and in such a civil war no one person can avoid it, should they be in that nation. This means people have to take sides and they will also have their lives taken if they're on the wrong side during an engagement. It doesn't matter who takes who's life, what matters is that civilians will be killed and lives are lost. This is a frequently forgotten point of the "glorious communist revolution"- people will die. As the revolution is fought by us, we are in essence killing those people- and it is this which goes against Marxist freedom, a person cannot live in freedom if they're dead.
Freedoms themselves must be fought for but not acted upon during a revolution. A dictatorship must be formed to effectively and successfully conduct a war, it is no place for communal debates or prolonged discussion. Time is life and death and tough decisions must be made during combat, decisions which must be made by revolutionaries- not the people who are to live in the post-revolutionary world.
A revolutionary can never live happily in the society they aim to bring around, this is why being a revolutionary requires the utmost sacrifice. A revolutionary is a warrior and a warrior can not live in peace- it is not right to expect that of warriors. A revolutionary brings about the society they cannot live in because it is their duty to help provide for mankind's future, they have done their bit and cannot do more. One can only hope the descendants of revolutionaries, know what they're made of when it comes to forming the new world to which they live in, warriors of peace- a more contradictory statement is rarely heard but it is true. People who fight for peace and freedom in the knowledge they will never live in it.
Being a revolutionary is to pursue revolution and uphold the ideal of freedom, this is how both are part of Marxist and Soavist theory. Either revolution or freedom may be pursued providing the ideal of the other is upheld. Those who is in the post-revolutionary freedom must still uphold the ideal of revolution should a darkness creep over their peaceful and free society.
Next week I intend to write further about revolution. It shall be on what to fight for and the Soavist theory of entrapment.
Sunday 23 June 2013
Freedoms
Freedom, a concept sought after by some many but what actually is it?
For a capitalist, liberal or conservative freedom is the ability to freely pursue one's self interests. Basically meaning you can do what you want, when you want. Now then in order to do this you kinda need money, with money comes power and so the aim of the capitalist is to gain as much power as they can, as in doing that they gain money and so from that the greater ability to be free and follow what they want to do. The capitalist's ability to do this off their own back is thought to be a great achievement.
But even though that is the most common definition of freedom, it is by far the only one. The Marxist, communist and Soavist definition follows as long the lines of a philosopher called Simone de Beauvoir (my current favourite- check out her works if you can, utterly remarkable), her philosophical teachings state that marxist freedom is actually the ability to do what you wish but with help. Co-operation and not money is the key to freedom in this case, the ability to gain what you wish by helping others, and allowing them to help you is the very core of marxist freedom.
You see its really the way in which its got that is the most important. Capitalists do it by themselves, and although that maybe great- what's the cost? If you're looking out for yourself, the sad truth is you rarely actually look where you're walking, you look forward to a brighter future but what is in your footfalls? Sadly capitalists often stand on people to gain their power and wealth, these may be employees they pay next to nothing so they (the owner) can gain a great profit margin, the owner may also stand on other and smaller competitors (small businesses) and put them out of business, they then start standing on the larger companies, putting their workers on the streets, or forcing their workers to have less wages because the larger companies owners want more profits. Its quite horrible because the workers lose all round- unless they join in on it, making them as bad as the owners.
Whereas through Marxist freedom everyone works together, no owners and no workers- just communes of people carrying out their jobs, helping one another. Sounds so utopic, a dream, a distant wished for fantasy- but is it so hard to grasp? In this day and age- yes. But its not out of our reach entirely. Communes exist, small but they do. If 1 person can change a mindset, then 1 person can change the world- its just whether or not YOU want to. I'm not suggesting some revolution, that's a last resort at the worst of times, simply talk, spread your dreams and from that your ideas; afterall you cannot kill an idea.
To continue with this theme of freedom, I'll discuss revolutionary action and freedom next.
Yours
~Soav
For a capitalist, liberal or conservative freedom is the ability to freely pursue one's self interests. Basically meaning you can do what you want, when you want. Now then in order to do this you kinda need money, with money comes power and so the aim of the capitalist is to gain as much power as they can, as in doing that they gain money and so from that the greater ability to be free and follow what they want to do. The capitalist's ability to do this off their own back is thought to be a great achievement.
But even though that is the most common definition of freedom, it is by far the only one. The Marxist, communist and Soavist definition follows as long the lines of a philosopher called Simone de Beauvoir (my current favourite- check out her works if you can, utterly remarkable), her philosophical teachings state that marxist freedom is actually the ability to do what you wish but with help. Co-operation and not money is the key to freedom in this case, the ability to gain what you wish by helping others, and allowing them to help you is the very core of marxist freedom.
You see its really the way in which its got that is the most important. Capitalists do it by themselves, and although that maybe great- what's the cost? If you're looking out for yourself, the sad truth is you rarely actually look where you're walking, you look forward to a brighter future but what is in your footfalls? Sadly capitalists often stand on people to gain their power and wealth, these may be employees they pay next to nothing so they (the owner) can gain a great profit margin, the owner may also stand on other and smaller competitors (small businesses) and put them out of business, they then start standing on the larger companies, putting their workers on the streets, or forcing their workers to have less wages because the larger companies owners want more profits. Its quite horrible because the workers lose all round- unless they join in on it, making them as bad as the owners.
Whereas through Marxist freedom everyone works together, no owners and no workers- just communes of people carrying out their jobs, helping one another. Sounds so utopic, a dream, a distant wished for fantasy- but is it so hard to grasp? In this day and age- yes. But its not out of our reach entirely. Communes exist, small but they do. If 1 person can change a mindset, then 1 person can change the world- its just whether or not YOU want to. I'm not suggesting some revolution, that's a last resort at the worst of times, simply talk, spread your dreams and from that your ideas; afterall you cannot kill an idea.
To continue with this theme of freedom, I'll discuss revolutionary action and freedom next.
Yours
~Soav
Thursday 13 June 2013
Revolution within Communism
As I said right at the start of this blog, revolution is not desired as many would have people believe.
Communism is considered an ethical and moral philosophy as it puts the needs of the many above the needs of the few, it places the values of people above finances and promotes universal education and health for all, whilst trying to provide as much equality and chance as possible. Due to this ethical and moral belief you would be right to think how stupid revolution sounds as that in-of-itself is quite the opposite, bloodshed of soldier and civilian, war, chaos and the obvious loss of life; but it is still part of our philosophy.
With Communism being so radically different from Capitalism in both practise and thinking, it is quite clear the two systems are quite incompatible in many areas, but bear in mind not all areas.With this radical difference it is quite clear that change from one to the other won't be a normal everyday thing, many changes in society and the very way we live will without doubt change, but this change can be done one of two ways; democratically and revolutionary. Communism by its natural democratic nature (everyone having a say and being equal) supports the democratic way of doing things, but this isn't always possible and it would be naive to think it is. Sometimes force is required, verbally, mentally and sadly physically. ut that is no true reason for revolution.
Revolution, especially from a Soavist standpoint, is the last act of the desperate, when all is lost it is the last thing we must fall back to, and even within it the bloodshed should be minimised as much as humanly possible. Today if we look across the world you will see civil wars and nation wide riots against governments. These governments are both democratic capitalist nations and those who have dictatorships in place, for many violence is seen as their only option, the people in power (democratic capitalist/dictatorship) enjoy their positions too much and so won't give them up to the people they should serve. And although that maybe a justification for revolution, it is not nor will ever be a good one.
Revolution means war, and that means the loss of life which is something a moral and ethical philosophy shouldn't promote. There are some as with all beliefs who desire bloodshed, but many live in a bubble of their own world, quite out of touch with reality and see things in a way others don't, believing the world to be threatening towards their very survival, as a Communist who believes in rational and logical thought, it shouldn't happen and yet some still appear every now and again. Violence maybe an answer but it is never a good one, as is the same with revolution, Marx understood this, Soavism preaches this and many other Communist beliefs follow this too.
If you can be democratic, do so with courage and wit but if you must be violent, be honourable, loving towards your fellow human and finally precise- as it is never right for the innocent to die, regardless of what they believe.
Next week a post will be on "democratic capitalism vs. democratic communism".
Yours
~Soav
ps. Sorry for the lateness in this blog been doing allot of long walks since being back in the countryside.
Communism is considered an ethical and moral philosophy as it puts the needs of the many above the needs of the few, it places the values of people above finances and promotes universal education and health for all, whilst trying to provide as much equality and chance as possible. Due to this ethical and moral belief you would be right to think how stupid revolution sounds as that in-of-itself is quite the opposite, bloodshed of soldier and civilian, war, chaos and the obvious loss of life; but it is still part of our philosophy.
With Communism being so radically different from Capitalism in both practise and thinking, it is quite clear the two systems are quite incompatible in many areas, but bear in mind not all areas.With this radical difference it is quite clear that change from one to the other won't be a normal everyday thing, many changes in society and the very way we live will without doubt change, but this change can be done one of two ways; democratically and revolutionary. Communism by its natural democratic nature (everyone having a say and being equal) supports the democratic way of doing things, but this isn't always possible and it would be naive to think it is. Sometimes force is required, verbally, mentally and sadly physically. ut that is no true reason for revolution.
Revolution, especially from a Soavist standpoint, is the last act of the desperate, when all is lost it is the last thing we must fall back to, and even within it the bloodshed should be minimised as much as humanly possible. Today if we look across the world you will see civil wars and nation wide riots against governments. These governments are both democratic capitalist nations and those who have dictatorships in place, for many violence is seen as their only option, the people in power (democratic capitalist/dictatorship) enjoy their positions too much and so won't give them up to the people they should serve. And although that maybe a justification for revolution, it is not nor will ever be a good one.
Revolution means war, and that means the loss of life which is something a moral and ethical philosophy shouldn't promote. There are some as with all beliefs who desire bloodshed, but many live in a bubble of their own world, quite out of touch with reality and see things in a way others don't, believing the world to be threatening towards their very survival, as a Communist who believes in rational and logical thought, it shouldn't happen and yet some still appear every now and again. Violence maybe an answer but it is never a good one, as is the same with revolution, Marx understood this, Soavism preaches this and many other Communist beliefs follow this too.
If you can be democratic, do so with courage and wit but if you must be violent, be honourable, loving towards your fellow human and finally precise- as it is never right for the innocent to die, regardless of what they believe.
Next week a post will be on "democratic capitalism vs. democratic communism".
Yours
~Soav
ps. Sorry for the lateness in this blog been doing allot of long walks since being back in the countryside.
Friday 31 May 2013
Freedoms
Well as promised a blog on different understandings of freedom.
Now freedom seems quite simple doesn't it, if one is free then one is free... But if its that simple and that straightforward, why on Earth would I focus on it? And no, the answer is not because I've a few screws loose.
The definition I gave above, if one is free then one is free is something called Liberal Freedom. Its the idea you've been brought up to believe in and follow, and it is the very foundations that capitalism is based on- one person using their freedom of choice to follow their wanting for more money etc- that's also called greed when it gets excessive. But in capitalism you're told greed is a good thing, something to be looked after and followed, follow your own personal wishes and desires.
But you see that maybe the society we live in today, but Marxism (the main form of Communism) and Soavism (the line of thought I follow) state a type of freedom known as Marxist Freedom. Now this is different to Liberal Freedom as it says you must look out for everyone around you. We say if one is free then ALL are free, we say you can lift yourself up by helping others left themselves up and by letting others help you do the same. Its all a matter of co-operation, not competition.
I mentioned competition because Liberal Freedom promotes greed, greed meaning you desire so much of something, now as is common, many people want many of that thing. Lets call the thing money. Many people want allot of money, and in doing so they compete to get the most money, even when it becomes pointless (by pointless I mean more money than they could ever spend to live comfortably). This competition is exactly what Marxists and Soavists say is completely unnecessary, if a group of people co-operate and work together, we think that is much healthier for humanity as a whole, than everybody out for their own interests and looking out for Number 1.
So that right there is freedom from a Liberal stance and from a Marxist stance. The former being looking out for yourself, the latter being looking out for everyone.
I hope that gives you something to mull over.
Yours
~Soav
Now freedom seems quite simple doesn't it, if one is free then one is free... But if its that simple and that straightforward, why on Earth would I focus on it? And no, the answer is not because I've a few screws loose.
The definition I gave above, if one is free then one is free is something called Liberal Freedom. Its the idea you've been brought up to believe in and follow, and it is the very foundations that capitalism is based on- one person using their freedom of choice to follow their wanting for more money etc- that's also called greed when it gets excessive. But in capitalism you're told greed is a good thing, something to be looked after and followed, follow your own personal wishes and desires.
But you see that maybe the society we live in today, but Marxism (the main form of Communism) and Soavism (the line of thought I follow) state a type of freedom known as Marxist Freedom. Now this is different to Liberal Freedom as it says you must look out for everyone around you. We say if one is free then ALL are free, we say you can lift yourself up by helping others left themselves up and by letting others help you do the same. Its all a matter of co-operation, not competition.
I mentioned competition because Liberal Freedom promotes greed, greed meaning you desire so much of something, now as is common, many people want many of that thing. Lets call the thing money. Many people want allot of money, and in doing so they compete to get the most money, even when it becomes pointless (by pointless I mean more money than they could ever spend to live comfortably). This competition is exactly what Marxists and Soavists say is completely unnecessary, if a group of people co-operate and work together, we think that is much healthier for humanity as a whole, than everybody out for their own interests and looking out for Number 1.
So that right there is freedom from a Liberal stance and from a Marxist stance. The former being looking out for yourself, the latter being looking out for everyone.
I hope that gives you something to mull over.
Yours
~Soav
Friday 24 May 2013
Woolwich And The Need To Think Clearly
Now then I know I'm not posting what I said I would, that being a blog on freedom but I will just likely later on this week, or maybe next.
I'm writing now to talk about the recent brutal killing of a British solider. This post is less on the incident but on the social and political repercussions of it.
I watched this 20 minute video about the killing- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7cmijwvpD4
And to the majority of it, this is my response. Now then its not completely in depth as I was just watching and not analysing, yet nonetheless here it is.
I'm writing now to talk about the recent brutal killing of a British solider. This post is less on the incident but on the social and political repercussions of it.
I watched this 20 minute video about the killing- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7cmijwvpD4
And to the majority of it, this is my response. Now then its not completely in depth as I was just watching and not analysing, yet nonetheless here it is.
"I won't lie I can agree with some aspects of the interview
but the vast majority of I dispute for its exaggeration, scaremongering and
general hypocrisy. Now granted as has already been put forward, re-wording and ignorance of him and
the EDL may be needed, so taking that into consideration you can rule out hypocrisy.
There is one thing I do strongly agree with him on; "we
are at war". Now before you go and think on that as a warcry, take into
consideration the atrocity he is talking about. Now I'm not condoning it in ANY
way shape or form as it is was truly horrific and that cannot be disputed, yet
on the same level we are at war and it was a soldier who was the victim here,
by the general rules of civilised warfare the act of killing an enemy soldier is justified, not by any means in the way to which it was done, but the actual
act itself. Granted I too agree that the government needs to do more about it
as we are at war, but who with? Radicalised Islam, in the same way with
radicalised religion in general, NOT all of Islam, nor all of religion.
He is creating a common enemy to which he wants a rallying
call- that enemy being Islam. That goes against the very nature of a
multi-cultural, free, democratic nation; scapegoating an entire religion. It is
this behaviour in-of-itself that catalyses radicals, this hatred breeds further
radicalism. This speech, himself, the EDL and ANY genuine supporter of all that
is said is part of the problem, not the solution because in neglecting your
logic you fuel the thing you're trying to attack. If you're going to attack
something then attack the threat- radicalised Islam, take away their fuel i.e.
British military intervention, take away the actual concept of the war to which
we are fighting and then proceed to take
out radicalised Islam through force and education- IF it has not died out in
this nation already by then."
Yours
~Soav
Friday 17 May 2013
The Means of Production Explained
As per a request by a friend I give you "the Means of Production".
So what are the "means of production"?
They are exactly what you assume, the industries and utilities needed for a company to produce the products it does.
Do you remember what I said about the definitions for communism? Of course you do!
The bourgeois/the owners, evident by name, own companies, businesses and industries in general- and it is these that are the means of production. They produce what you buy in the supermarkets and wherever else it is you shop, they also sell abroad and it is through all this that the companies, employees and government earn money.
Now then, as is commonly seen in companies the vast majority of the employees earn less than the people/person in charge. Those in charge quite often live very comfortable lifestyles due to the money they earn, those who work for them- at least the majority of those who work for them- do not have such lavish lifestyles, they are the workers and as such earn enough to class them as lower middle class; not poor but not well off either.
Communism heavily hates this system, why? Because for a company to work profitably it must have the majority of its workers, working in static (unmovable) positions. It is against a capitalist companies interests to not work for profit, and profit cannot be gained if all the workers in its employ keep getting promoted and moving up the wage ladder. In order to prevent that workers are kept in what is known as "dead end jobs". They stay in one place and cannot move forward of that position, and so cannot better look after their families or such other needs while the owners continue to increase their salaries for the companies success is their success too.
Workers are given a "competitive wage" meaning a wage just good enough to out do potential competitors but low enough to keep earning plenty of money.
Communism hates this capitalist ideal because it benefits very few people. Communism is all about trying to help everyone or at least as many people as it can, with the majority of people being workers it often puts its emphasis on that, but to do so solely represents a false belief as communism supports everyone, equally this even includes the owners (much to some's protest).
Communism wants to change this system and feels it can do so through a process known as nationalisation. Now then this means putting all industry and the "means of production" under governmental control. Government ministries run the companies and from that take the profits of the companies and put them back into the nation, instead of the owner's pockets. The government can put money back into the nation in many many ways, most evidently in local projects and pay raises for workers.
The Soavist ideology of which this whole blog is about promotes nationalisation in almost everything- we intend to leave charities and social businesses alone. Soavism considers charities can be best handled by themselves and the same with social businesses as both know the local area they're supporting and so know what ways they can help, such a localised understanding cannot be the same by a national government as so we leave them alone knowing they're helping their communities.
Now of course the government I've just described to you is not the present one, and that is because we live in a capitalist system, to take aspects of communism to look at it through the current system is to not give communism a chance as it is a completely different system and so needs to be looked at through different eyes.
Communism is all about the idea of "Marxist Freedom"- building yourself up with the help and co-operation of others. In building yourself you help build others up too as it is all through co-operation. In lifting yourself you lift, equally, all those that help you as you too help them. It is through Marxist Freedom many communist policies are based around, such as nationalisation- the public vote in a government who will nationalise, the government nationalises and so the profits gained benefit the public. You're helping others help yourself- Marxist Freedom.
In my next blog I'll talk about freedom in general, the capitalist viewpoint up against the communist viewpoint. If you have any requests please feel free to comment with them, I'll be happy to help if I can.
Yours
~Soav
So what are the "means of production"?
They are exactly what you assume, the industries and utilities needed for a company to produce the products it does.
Do you remember what I said about the definitions for communism? Of course you do!
The bourgeois/the owners, evident by name, own companies, businesses and industries in general- and it is these that are the means of production. They produce what you buy in the supermarkets and wherever else it is you shop, they also sell abroad and it is through all this that the companies, employees and government earn money.
Now then, as is commonly seen in companies the vast majority of the employees earn less than the people/person in charge. Those in charge quite often live very comfortable lifestyles due to the money they earn, those who work for them- at least the majority of those who work for them- do not have such lavish lifestyles, they are the workers and as such earn enough to class them as lower middle class; not poor but not well off either.
Communism heavily hates this system, why? Because for a company to work profitably it must have the majority of its workers, working in static (unmovable) positions. It is against a capitalist companies interests to not work for profit, and profit cannot be gained if all the workers in its employ keep getting promoted and moving up the wage ladder. In order to prevent that workers are kept in what is known as "dead end jobs". They stay in one place and cannot move forward of that position, and so cannot better look after their families or such other needs while the owners continue to increase their salaries for the companies success is their success too.
Workers are given a "competitive wage" meaning a wage just good enough to out do potential competitors but low enough to keep earning plenty of money.
Communism hates this capitalist ideal because it benefits very few people. Communism is all about trying to help everyone or at least as many people as it can, with the majority of people being workers it often puts its emphasis on that, but to do so solely represents a false belief as communism supports everyone, equally this even includes the owners (much to some's protest).
Communism wants to change this system and feels it can do so through a process known as nationalisation. Now then this means putting all industry and the "means of production" under governmental control. Government ministries run the companies and from that take the profits of the companies and put them back into the nation, instead of the owner's pockets. The government can put money back into the nation in many many ways, most evidently in local projects and pay raises for workers.
The Soavist ideology of which this whole blog is about promotes nationalisation in almost everything- we intend to leave charities and social businesses alone. Soavism considers charities can be best handled by themselves and the same with social businesses as both know the local area they're supporting and so know what ways they can help, such a localised understanding cannot be the same by a national government as so we leave them alone knowing they're helping their communities.
Now of course the government I've just described to you is not the present one, and that is because we live in a capitalist system, to take aspects of communism to look at it through the current system is to not give communism a chance as it is a completely different system and so needs to be looked at through different eyes.
Communism is all about the idea of "Marxist Freedom"- building yourself up with the help and co-operation of others. In building yourself you help build others up too as it is all through co-operation. In lifting yourself you lift, equally, all those that help you as you too help them. It is through Marxist Freedom many communist policies are based around, such as nationalisation- the public vote in a government who will nationalise, the government nationalises and so the profits gained benefit the public. You're helping others help yourself- Marxist Freedom.
In my next blog I'll talk about freedom in general, the capitalist viewpoint up against the communist viewpoint. If you have any requests please feel free to comment with them, I'll be happy to help if I can.
Yours
~Soav
Monday 13 May 2013
Communism in a few words
Communism.
What actually is Communism?
You see in modern day society communism is thought of as quite a dead belief. It had it's hay-day in the Cold War and has seen been vanquished in triumphant splendor by the brave and courageous victors that are the Western powers.
Well forgive me for being blunt, but that's a lot of rubbish. Yes the West are responsible for the massacre of countless communists and yes our name was spoken frequently during the Cold War, BUT we are not dead, we are not defeated and we are not what you saw in the Cold War.
Communism is not what you see over in China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba or any other nation you want to mention. Communism has never tried out, ask anyone who knows anything about political theory (and if they say Communism is in any of the above nations then they simply don't know what they're talking about).
So before I go any further, would you like to know why Communism is not practised in those nations? Sure you do or why else are you reading this?
Communism, as advised by Marx, is built on the back of Capitalism- this is arguable one the most fundamental aspects of Communist theory. Not ONE of those nations mentioned were built on a capitalist state, all infact were built on the back of semi-industrialised nations or those of predominantly agricultural based economy.
How many of you reading this knew that? Many of you wouldn't have, and that is because it is Communist ideology.
Another aspect of Communist ideology- revolution is NOT wished for. Another little shocker for people.
Communism in general quite widely promotes pacifism and non-violence.
So why is revolution linked to Communism so frequently? I'm so glad you asked.
We communist belong to a moral ideology, one of which we want to look after as many people as possible. To do this we want to get rid of the present system and redirect the government's attention from money to the people. Sadly though people who have money often have power. You've heard the saying "power corrupts" , well it's very true. Many people who go into government want power, those wants and desires are their own self-interests, self-interests being the very nature of capitalism. This is why we want to get rid of it.
Though as I said, sadly these types of people enjoy their power and do not want people like us taking it of them, as such one must refer to the use of force and this is our revolution.
As said, we belong to a moral belief and as such war goes wholly against our cause and yet it is considered the lesser of two evils; war or the neglect of the majority for the wants of the few.
In the modern day many communists actually alienate people and it is a terrible shame, and quite frankly I may well be doing it now without my knowledge. So I intend to clarify a few things here-
Proletariat- The working class, the majority of people that work. You're not rich and you're not quite poor. You don't have many treats but you do a few.
Bourgeois- The owners, those that own the mega companies or have high ranking jobs within them. They're very well off, and can afford many of their desires. These can range from the decently paid to those whose worth is in the billions.
Oppression- It is either neglect of people or the abuse of people by means of money. Many working people are kept in a place because they don't have the money to climb the "ladder of success".
How often are you told, if you want something and work hard enough then you'll get it? That is very often utter rubbish. People are kept in one place and not given the money to excel because if they had that money then they could threaten those in power. This is a cruel irony of the capitalist system, it says you can be what you want whilst keeping you trapped because others have got their first and don't want you to take their power off them.
I think that'll be all for now.
~Soav
What actually is Communism?
You see in modern day society communism is thought of as quite a dead belief. It had it's hay-day in the Cold War and has seen been vanquished in triumphant splendor by the brave and courageous victors that are the Western powers.
Well forgive me for being blunt, but that's a lot of rubbish. Yes the West are responsible for the massacre of countless communists and yes our name was spoken frequently during the Cold War, BUT we are not dead, we are not defeated and we are not what you saw in the Cold War.
Communism is not what you see over in China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba or any other nation you want to mention. Communism has never tried out, ask anyone who knows anything about political theory (and if they say Communism is in any of the above nations then they simply don't know what they're talking about).
So before I go any further, would you like to know why Communism is not practised in those nations? Sure you do or why else are you reading this?
Communism, as advised by Marx, is built on the back of Capitalism- this is arguable one the most fundamental aspects of Communist theory. Not ONE of those nations mentioned were built on a capitalist state, all infact were built on the back of semi-industrialised nations or those of predominantly agricultural based economy.
How many of you reading this knew that? Many of you wouldn't have, and that is because it is Communist ideology.
Another aspect of Communist ideology- revolution is NOT wished for. Another little shocker for people.
Communism in general quite widely promotes pacifism and non-violence.
So why is revolution linked to Communism so frequently? I'm so glad you asked.
We communist belong to a moral ideology, one of which we want to look after as many people as possible. To do this we want to get rid of the present system and redirect the government's attention from money to the people. Sadly though people who have money often have power. You've heard the saying "power corrupts" , well it's very true. Many people who go into government want power, those wants and desires are their own self-interests, self-interests being the very nature of capitalism. This is why we want to get rid of it.
Though as I said, sadly these types of people enjoy their power and do not want people like us taking it of them, as such one must refer to the use of force and this is our revolution.
As said, we belong to a moral belief and as such war goes wholly against our cause and yet it is considered the lesser of two evils; war or the neglect of the majority for the wants of the few.
In the modern day many communists actually alienate people and it is a terrible shame, and quite frankly I may well be doing it now without my knowledge. So I intend to clarify a few things here-
Proletariat- The working class, the majority of people that work. You're not rich and you're not quite poor. You don't have many treats but you do a few.
Bourgeois- The owners, those that own the mega companies or have high ranking jobs within them. They're very well off, and can afford many of their desires. These can range from the decently paid to those whose worth is in the billions.
Oppression- It is either neglect of people or the abuse of people by means of money. Many working people are kept in a place because they don't have the money to climb the "ladder of success".
How often are you told, if you want something and work hard enough then you'll get it? That is very often utter rubbish. People are kept in one place and not given the money to excel because if they had that money then they could threaten those in power. This is a cruel irony of the capitalist system, it says you can be what you want whilst keeping you trapped because others have got their first and don't want you to take their power off them.
I think that'll be all for now.
~Soav
Saturday 11 May 2013
Soavism
The aim of creating this blog is to try and promote the idea and theories behind Soavism.
Soavism itself is a left wing political theory that tries to address the flaws frequently seen in the left wing whilst providing an alternative to the capitalist system we live in today.
In reading this you may well think I'm another left wing nutjob, some sort of hippy free lovin' kinda guy. Well truth betold I'm not. All I am is a university student who's pretty sure he's got an half decent idea and wants to know what you think.
I'm not promoting revolution, in fact I openly oppose it more often than not.
I'm not a Stalinist or any other type of dogmatic dictatorial communist.
I'm certainly not a hippy as I actually have a cohesive ideology and can see the logic and need of war in given circumstances.
I am on the other hand a bloke from Lancashire who's a member of the modern day left wing. I am a communist and I do feel very strongly about and promote freedom and understanding.
So this is my new blog, think of it what you will.
~Soav
Soavism itself is a left wing political theory that tries to address the flaws frequently seen in the left wing whilst providing an alternative to the capitalist system we live in today.
In reading this you may well think I'm another left wing nutjob, some sort of hippy free lovin' kinda guy. Well truth betold I'm not. All I am is a university student who's pretty sure he's got an half decent idea and wants to know what you think.
I'm not promoting revolution, in fact I openly oppose it more often than not.
I'm not a Stalinist or any other type of dogmatic dictatorial communist.
I'm certainly not a hippy as I actually have a cohesive ideology and can see the logic and need of war in given circumstances.
I am on the other hand a bloke from Lancashire who's a member of the modern day left wing. I am a communist and I do feel very strongly about and promote freedom and understanding.
So this is my new blog, think of it what you will.
~Soav
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)