jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like January 29, 2014 - 7:51pm

It was totally germane. Totes germotes.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated January 29, 2014 - 7:57pm

Socialism is the only dirty word.

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal January 31, 2014 - 8:45am

I always saw socialism is more of a spectrum, and communism is one one extreme of it.

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like January 31, 2014 - 9:07am

I've heard people refer to socialism as nothing more than state ownership of businesses and resources. (E.g. the government owns the coal mine and the power plant and the hospital.) I've heard people say it's more an approach to equality, being a system in which everyone is treated the same, in which privilege is rendered impossible. (E.g., everybody gets the same health care and pays the same for energy.) The most common way people have attempted the latter is by initiating the former. [I think.] Communism was a specific idea (which mutated in practice), whereas socialism was a more general way of thinking, more akin to something like populism or libertarianism than to a clearly defined form of government such as democracy or monarchy. [I think?] I think socialist ideas predate Marx & Engels, so it might not be out of line to consider communism an instance of socialist thinking. [Maybe.] Of course, there are communist thinkers besides those two, and there is probably a spectrum of communist thought, just as there is of socialist though.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated January 31, 2014 - 8:20pm

@JYH & Thuggish - Not really a spectrum per say for communism, so much as two types. Lower case, regarding government own property/means of production.  It does have a spectrum.  Then there is capitalized Communism, which is a specific socioeconomic theory regarding moving form feudalism to capitalism to socialism to dictatorship to communism/statelessness.  I suppose you could say there is a separate spectrum of 'what he meant' interpretations.

OtterMan's picture
OtterMan from New Jersey, near Philadelphia USA is reading Ringworlds Children February 1, 2014 - 1:45pm

This article showed up today on Yahoo and hits directly at the AI debate held earlier in this topic. I realize Yahoo doesn't meet the same level of rigorous scientific scrutiny as say Scientific American, but it does appear well written. Most of the real scary stuff talked about doesn't yet exist, but the current developments are impressive on their own.

http://news.yahoo.com/machines-learn-034045461--politics.html?soc_src=copy

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 1, 2014 - 2:22pm

@ Dwayne

No, no, socialism is the spectrum... in which communism falls, on the more extreme side.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 1, 2014 - 6:17pm

Not really.  Marxist theory would be from feudalism to capitalism, and it only sometimes encourages the privatization of the means of production.

 

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 2, 2014 - 10:19am

theory and application are different though, so i look to all the forms of communism in practice.  surprise, surprise, it results in dictatorship, lack of private control over just about anything.  (i admit i am not familiar with anything marx or engles ever said that encouraged the private ownership of production?)

you could argue that one of the truest forms of communism was the early pilgrims' setup, which failed miserably, because literally no one actually owned anything, they all contributed to the central pot, from which they also took.  what a failure.  privatization ended all that, they became capitalists, and look how well it went.

i suppose the vatican is the exception that proves the rule?  aaaanyway.

Renae Gee's picture
Renae Gee from Australia is reading All the words! February 2, 2014 - 10:36am

Can it all be sorted with anarchy?

an·ar·chy  (ăn′ər-kē)

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

OtterMan's picture
OtterMan from New Jersey, near Philadelphia USA is reading Ringworlds Children February 2, 2014 - 11:48am

Can it all be sorted with anarchy?

an·ar·chy  (ăn′ər-kē)

1. Absence of any form of political authority.

 

Anarchy is pretty much the polar opposite of Communism. Irrespective of theoretical ideals, the actual expression of communism relies on strict political control of almost every aspect of it's society. 

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like February 2, 2014 - 12:00pm

"Sorted", haha.

--------------------

In an ideal communist society, it'd be more like everyone owns everything, not nothing. [I think?] The way it was to be achieved was through workers' control of production rather than a capitalist business owner. Therefore, (hopefully without conflating 'control' and 'ownership') one could say that the main difference in "possession and power" over industry is that all is shared "communally" rather than owned and traded for by individuals according to their personal means and desires.

In practice, the goods produced were gathered by representatives of the state and then distributed (or not) at the overseers' wills. Did they think that there would eventually be no need for overseers? Some did, I'm sure; but the fact is they were there, and the whole affair may appear as a bit of a scam, or (at best) a viable idea of which some people made a real balls.

Renfield's picture
Renfield from Hell is reading 20th Century Ghosts February 2, 2014 - 12:32pm

i just put this here now

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 2, 2014 - 4:17pm

anarchy isn't just the opposite of communism, it's the opposite of everything!  it's outside the spectrum, literally.  it's when things break down, and there is no government, while when talking systems we're talking types of government that have to exist.

OtterMan's picture
OtterMan from New Jersey, near Philadelphia USA is reading Ringworlds Children February 2, 2014 - 4:50pm

anarchy isn't just the opposite of communism, it's the opposite of everything!  it's outside the spectrum, literally.  it's when things break down, and there is no government, while when talking systems we're talking types of government that have to exist.

By the second definition yes. Anarchy however is also a "utopian" style of society. In a perfect utopian anarchy, no government is needed. All members of the society cooperate to the benefit of all. All disputes are resolved by mutual agreement without the need of a set of imposed laws. It's about as likely as pirahnas going vegan, but that's the idea.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 2, 2014 - 5:57pm

anarchy isn't just the opposite of communism, it's the opposite of everything!  it's outside the spectrum, literally.

That statement is totally incorrect.  It falls to the far end of the individualism spectrum and the central focus. There are other names for those, lots of others things you can throw in, and many ways to set that up but you get the idea.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Political_spectrum_graphic.svg

Renae Gee's picture
Renae Gee from Australia is reading All the words! February 2, 2014 - 8:19pm

Dwayne  That graph thing is great.  Explains it all.  

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 2, 2014 - 11:26pm

Thank you, but I feel you give me too much credit. It is a very toned down 2d version, but it is a good start.

Flaminia Ferina's picture
Flaminia Ferina from Umbria is reading stuff February 3, 2014 - 6:19am

A happy communist society is actually as utopian as an anarchist one. The same goes for a happy capitalist society. We stop taking up our responsibilities when somebody else constantly does it for us, and we can't really control what we don't actually use. Plus it is a good thing to maintain innovation-driven dissent and at the same time a natural distrust of new endeavours.

When all rules are so effective that everybody follows them willingly and there's no need for tribunals and police anymore cause we're all aware that an acceptable level of order comes from collaboration and understanding, then there's also no need for a central government (which, by the way, only tends to reproduce need for its services -- see Seven Samurai). We aim to a level of shared dependability that is virtually unattainable, yet it also feels like the only reasonable way out of misery. There is something like social evolution (sans the eugenics, of course).

The anarchist that parks his or her car in the differently abled spot, because fuck the rules, did not get the whole thing at all.

Personally, I think I could do well without much useless structure. I also think Marx kinda screwed up, because he didn't seem to foresee that the proletariat would end up lost in entertainment forever like it did.

I believe that we could start imagining something new and different and better, cause Marx analyzed politics 150 years ago and even Plato was more modern already. And they were all white men with long beards who never had to dust their computers anyways. How do we trust them? Ideologies are so limited.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 3, 2014 - 6:31am

But you're making the same assumption that Marx and Plato and everyone else did; that humans can improve and life can be wonderful. I'd venture that there is little or no evidence for that.  And the idea of a stateless world is silly.  About 10 minutes after you do away with the state some tyrant or do gooder will reinvent it as a way to gain control.  There won't be paradise in this life, for us or our children or anyone.

Or to be more poetic, you can't fix the rain.

Flaminia Ferina's picture
Flaminia Ferina from Umbria is reading stuff February 3, 2014 - 6:42am

Well, humans can improve. Just not in a way you or me or anybody else can decide. That's no paradise.

OtterMan's picture
OtterMan from New Jersey, near Philadelphia USA is reading Ringworlds Children February 3, 2014 - 7:01am

A happy communist society is actually as utopian as an anarchist one. The same goes for a happy capitalist society. We stop taking up our responsibilities when somebody else constantly does it for us, and we can't really control what we don't actually use. Plus it is a good thing to maintain innovation-driven dissent and at the same time a natural distrust of new endeavours.

Most societal constructs are utopian in nature. A monarchy or the so called benevolent dictatorship work as well as the republic or libertarian democracy. The fatal flaw in each is not the underlying theory but the flawed humans who enact it. Like you Flamina, I believe humans can improve. Like Dwyane, I see little evidence it will happen anytime soon. 

I have to say here, this topic was started with very humble aspirations. It has branched into a completely unintended area and I am very impressed with both the lucidity of the statements made and the restraint shown in making them. This would have collapsed into name calling and hysteria long ago on most message boards I'm familier with. One of the biggest problems I am having in trying to envision the story I want to write is how to construct the society which it resides in. I'm getting a ton of ideas here.

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 3, 2014 - 7:58am

@ Dwayne

I like the infograph, I know what you're saying, but I don't classify it that way personally/philisophically.  Too much difference even between a Libertarian's wet dream and true lawlessness.  Potato, po-tah-to...

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 3, 2014 - 2:20pm

@FF - A human can improve, humans collectively?  Not so much.

@Thuggish - Well Libertarian is used to cover about 10 different ideas that are sort of related to each other. so depends what you mean.

The fatal flaw in each is not the underlying theory but the flawed humans who enact it.

I think you are missing my point; I think the underlying theory is flawed because it doesn't address the fact that humans are flawed and collectively unchangeable. 

OtterMan's picture
OtterMan from New Jersey, near Philadelphia USA is reading Ringworlds Children February 3, 2014 - 3:19pm

I think you are missing my point; I think the underlying theory is flawed because it doesn't address the fact that humans are flawed and collectively unchangeable.

That's not generally how political theory works, but fair observation I suppose. 

 

Well Libertarian is used to cover about 10 different ideas that are sort of related to each other. so depends what you mean.

As is democracy, communism, anarchy, pretty much any system is fair game for an opportunistic politico. It kinda always depends on 'what you mean'. It's the big problem between a 'real' science like physics and 'soft' science like poilitical theory. If you are expecting a Unified Political theory they haven't built a Large Hadron Collider powerful enough to find that one yet.

 

Flaminia Ferina's picture
Flaminia Ferina from Umbria is reading stuff February 4, 2014 - 1:56am

Why can't we collectively improve? If I improve, and you improve, and we all improve then a collective improvement is happening.

The problem is not so much if we can improve or not. The problem is, the way we improve now is not necessarily fit for tomorrow. Another problem is that we are not so good at knowing what's a real improvement and what not, so that alone leaves us with a huge ground for improvement.

Ideally, we could tentatively reach a fair compromise about the collective direction said improvement should take in the current living conditions on earth. In this I converge with what you say, Dwayne, because our present characteristics don't seem to allow us to fate-breaking change. 
But I don't like the implied fatalism. It can be paralyzing.

Is it really a matter of expansion/contraction only? Or is there a linear direction too?

We could try and embrace change. We could try and be fluid in the face of chaos. Be too rigid, and chaos will break us anyway. Be too soft, and we dissolve.
Humanity alternatively feels the need to fight chaos or just let it decide for us. Call it state, call it religion, call it nihilism.
What if we start dancing with it? It would be an improvement, wouldn't it? 

Here, now I sound like a hippy.

 

Wait, that means Dwayne is right. There's no hope for humans.
Damn.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 4, 2014 - 6:57am

@Otter - That is why I'm pro capitalism and pro freedom, as much as I bother with having a political ideas.  It accepts human greed and that we will never all get on the same page.

Why can't we collectively improve? If I improve, and you improve, and we all improve then a collective improvement is happening.

Well that sounds great but what evidence do you have that humans do improve collectively and keep such gains for any meaningful length of time?

But I don't like the implied fatalism.

Prefernece isn't evidence.  I don't see evidence of a arching 'secular fate' (for lack of a better term) of humans as a group. People just live.  Not to rain on everyone's geopolitical theory parade, but life is not a math problem.  There is no solve for x, no solution.  Water is wet, fire burns, songs are for signing, and you can make up a bunch of stuff that sounds great, but falls apart when you think about it.

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 4, 2014 - 10:17am

@ Flaminia

Why can't we collectively improve?  Glib answer: we're mammals, not ants.

OtterMan's picture
OtterMan from New Jersey, near Philadelphia USA is reading Ringworlds Children February 4, 2014 - 11:55am

Humanity has advanced, maybe not as quickly or as far as we should, but we are better collectively then we have been in the past. I think advancements in political theory have a great deal to do with the improvement of the human condition and will continue to better humanity in the future. Humans themselves won't change much, we need advances in social/political theory to continue in order to survive. Writers and literature can have great influence on political thought. Politicians themselves will almost never advance new ideas on their own, they can't take that risk. Only when popular opinion demands revisions to old ideas will the politico suddenly find a new idea palatable. Who drives that opinion change? Writers and the media. 

That's what drives me right now to want to not merely write, but to write with a purpose. I don't want to write something so a reader will think, "That was a good story". I want to write something that will make a reader say, "That is a good idea!"

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 5, 2014 - 5:04am

Humanity has advanced...

How?  What problems do what not have from a 1,000 years ago?  Rape, murder, theft, war, poverty, disease, bigots, arson, and assault are all still around.  

Humans themselves won't change much...

My point!

, we need advances in social/political theory to continue in order to survive.

Just seems like one more thing to fight about.

Other stuff.

That isn't something you really see happen. Maybe it is part of a movement that fixes a specific problem (group X is being treated unfairly in area Y) but To Kill A Mocking Bird might have helped MLK Jr., but it didn't have that much impact.  I'm not decrying the impact of literature, I just think it tends much more to the personal.

Also have you read Ayn Rand? 

 

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 5, 2014 - 9:59pm

No, come on, humanity has advanced from 1000 years ago.  Rape, theft murder- those have always been, and will always be.  But their acceptance, their prevelance, their use...  Not like 1000 years ago, at least not in many places.  Poverty is not only less common, but defined by people having a roof, cable TV, and being fat, as opposed to literally dying of hunger.  Literacy is much higher, too.

Plus, we have shampoo and air conditioning now.  That's pretty neat, isn't it?

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 6, 2014 - 1:46am

But you say those like they are permeant changes.  Right now, in the western world, they are frowned upon. But sooner or later that seems like it will change.

Dmcleod's picture
Dmcleod from Florida is reading Molloy February 6, 2014 - 3:20am

Just had a scary thought (and this might just be the residual lsd in my brain talking), but what if the government had a plan to subdue the masses by steadily staging "terrorist" bombings at live events (Superbowls, Olympics, concerts...) in order to make the general populace too scared to leave their houses. The effect being we all retreat to our docile domiciles and view the real world on screens, where it's safe, giving the people with power free reign to align and make the world a giant prison. Think about it: there would be so few people walking the streets that if a person decided to go take a stroll they would be looked at as suspicious by the rest of the folks that are holed up at home. A possible terrorist off to blow something up. We would govern our own enslavement, and demise. We would openly welcome gestapo-style patrolling of our cities.

I apologize if this comes off as nonsensicle babbling. I am running off 4 hours sleep. Goodnight.

OtterMan's picture
OtterMan from New Jersey, near Philadelphia USA is reading Ringworlds Children February 6, 2014 - 3:49am

Also have you read Ayn Rand?

Have not! Hear the name from time to time, not just here. What are the bullet points?

My point!

The points you make, while valid, often lack for a certain intellectual 'risk' in my view. Water wet, fire hot, rock hard... Difficult to disagree with, but not much in the way of insight. Take a risk once in awhile, you might even be wrong once or twice but sometimes it can be exhilarating!

I am refering to humans in the genetic sense when I say there is no real change. In the social/political sense the change I have seen in my lifetime as well over the course of history may be small, but it is not insignificant. And yes, I do believe it is sustainable. All change is often very much a two step forward, one step back affair. No where is this more obvious than in political theory. 

We are having a disagreement, but we are not fighting. This in itself is evidance of a new social paradigm, just go back to this topic on the golf forum to see the flip side of this example. The beta males started showing their fangs almost immeadiately as they jockyed for dominance. No blood was spilled but the message was clear enough. "We don't allow such talk round these here parts"

I am going to take a small intellectual risk here and guess that you are under 30, possibly under 25. I think it takes a couple of things to understand and acknowledge the change I'm talking about. Perspective is one, reading history is valuable but living some of it helps to gain a little of that perspective. The other thing that I find crucial is hope! It's very easy to look around or turn on a TV and notice how bad things can be. Watch the news sometime and notice how they always sprinkle in a cute 30 second story about a puppy being rescued before hitting you with the rest of the half hours worth of murder and mayhem. It's not very balanced is it? Is that because of a lack of cute puppies to save or is it just that mayhem sells more newspapers? 

 

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 6, 2014 - 4:55am

Have not! Hear the name from time to time, not just here. What are the bullet points?

She wrote to forward a political agenda.  Even people who agree with her often wish she hadn't.

The points you make, while valid, often lack for a certain intellectual 'risk' in my view. Water wet, fire hot, rock hard... Difficult to disagree with, but not much in the way of insight. Take a risk once in awhile, you might even be wrong once or twice but sometimes it can be exhilarating!

The insight you are missing is that things are much simpler than most people would like, and humans may not be good at accepting that.  And that risk, in and of itself, has no value.

...sustainable...

Anything to back that up, despite all the evidence to the contrary? 

I am going to take a small intellectual risk here and guess that you are under 30, possibly under 25. 

I'll be 35 in June, so no.

I think it takes a couple of things to understand and acknowledge the change I'm talking about. Perspective is one, reading history is valuable but living some of it helps to gain a little of that perspective.

I understand your point.  Western style democracy and certain technological events have allowed for a vast reduction of prejudice regarding economic status, gender, race, and other factors.  It has done so in a way that reduces daily violence and allows more freedom (both political, and from disease, starvation, etc) in most places.  Concern for those still living in dangerous or poor conditions in those nations and abroad seems to be on a upswing.  This, combined with many other things such as improvements in education, concern for the environment, and what not combine to give what you consider evidence of longterm improvements in the human condition. I'm saying you need some logic behind that idea, which I don't see, for me to accept it.

...hope...

All disappointment starts as hope.

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 6, 2014 - 9:13am

@Dwayne

I say it observing that it's a verrrry slow evolution.  And certainly not a straight, unidirectional line, or smooth curve.  But to assume we're not more civilized than a thousand years ago is equally as folly as to assume we don't have the same tendencies from those darker times somewhere in our psyches.  Still, the Holocaust and WWII is viewed as the most evil thing in modern times.  In the days of Caesar, Hannibal, Genghis Kahn?  Meh, it happens.

Answer's almost always in the middle.

OtterMan's picture
OtterMan from New Jersey, near Philadelphia USA is reading Ringworlds Children February 6, 2014 - 12:37pm

She wrote to forward a political agenda.  Even people who agree with her often wish she hadn't.

Pretty much how I felt reading Heinlein, I agreed with a lot of his ideas but after awhile it felt like being hit over the head.

Anything to back that up, despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not sure which specific contrary evidence you are refering to but a really smart guy said something to me once that might help.

Western style democracy and certain technological events have allowed for a vast reduction of prejudice regarding economic status, gender, race, and other factors.  It has done so in a way that reduces daily violence and allows more freedom (both political, and from disease, starvation, etc) in most places.  Concern for those still living in dangerous or poor conditions in those nations and abroad seems to be on a upswing.  This, combined with many other things such as improvements in education, concern for the environment, and what not combine to give what you consider evidence of longterm improvements in the human condition.

I thought I was being overly generous in my age estimate BTW, that paragraph is the first thing I've read here that's caused me to reconsider. Would it be fair to say that you see this your way and I see it mine and we could continue this exchange for weeks without either one of us altering our opinion one iota? I'm perfectly OK with leaving this one lay right here and if the chance arises, picking it up elsewhere down the line.

All disappointment starts as hope.

Water is wet, fire is hot, what's your point...

 

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 6, 2014 - 3:25pm

@Thuggish - It still kind of is just 'whatever'.  Just since WWII we've had the Cambodian genocide, Stalin genocide, The Chinese famine of 1959-1961 (which wasn't just a normal food shortage at least somewhat government caused from what I've read), Rwanda genocide, former Yugoslavia's ethnic cleansing, Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50), Kim Il Sung in North Korea, and cannibals in the Liberian civil war.

@Otter - I'm not worried about the age thing.  People often have trouble with the idea of an older person who views the world as a simple place.

My point is the evidence, which I thought was fairly obvious. We aren't the first people to think we were a big step forward.  The Romans, the Vicotrians, and I'm sure lots of other cultures that aren't coming to mind at the moment.  And after each of those groups you have horrible events like the dark ages or WWII.  If you get lucky sometimes you live in good times.  If you don't you live in horrible times.  Often those who live in good times like to think that we are different, that the bad times are over, that the bad times are less common, or something has really changed.  I don't buy it.  But yeah, you can change the subject or whatever.

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 6, 2014 - 8:20pm

^ I didn't say everyone was doing so well as us.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 7, 2014 - 4:32am

Define 'us'.

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 7, 2014 - 10:58pm

western culture

Crescendo2020's picture
Crescendo2020 from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them. February 8, 2014 - 4:25am

If Ayn Rand had an alive dick, half of the participants of Facebook would suck it. I might even say that if she had a dead dick, they still would. I think we can all be thankful that she doesn't have a dick.

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 8, 2014 - 6:47am

Sign of the times, eh?

Dmcleod's picture
Dmcleod from Florida is reading Molloy February 8, 2014 - 9:03am

For some reason i imagine her clit grossly protrudes, and is shaped like a small dick. Like that Chyna lady.

Crescendo2020's picture
Crescendo2020 from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them. February 8, 2014 - 1:43pm

It was a Capitalist clit that was proportionately dominant over the uncharted, wretched loins. Labias Minora and Majora were left cramped on the unruly outskirts due to such wasteful proportions and could do nothing but watch as the clit expanded its empire to prime anal real-estate.

Crescendo2020's picture
Crescendo2020 from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them. February 8, 2014 - 2:18pm

But Ayn's clit didn't stop there. Even after the passing of its beloved host it marched forward with its humanitarian efforts, swallowing several apartment complexes in the early-to-mid eighties,and displacing the lazy parasites, or "people", if you will, to a more appropriate location of who cares. Toward the end of its life, and amidst a bout of depression, it waged a campaign and promise to help the slightly-less-disgustingly-wealthy-due-to-evil-taxes people of the world. Finally, on a beautiful January day, 1992, Ayn's clit suffered a severe realization that being sentient was impossible and passed that evening; never having felt the love of a penis. 

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated February 8, 2014 - 9:51pm

You guys need to get out more.

And who doesn't have Facebook following?  An account I made for a job, that I've literally never used, has like 300 followers.

Crescendo2020's picture
Crescendo2020 from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them. February 9, 2014 - 4:33am

You're probably right, Dwayne. Unfortunately I have an unforgiving work schedule that allows me almost zero "getting out" time and nearly infinite roasting Ayn Rand time. Such is life, eh?

Thuggish's picture
Thuggish from Vegas is reading Day of the Jackal February 9, 2014 - 8:09am

You can save your time from roasting a pro-capitalist and instead roast the female bodybuilders if you want to talk about enlarged clits.  Do you know what excessive testosterone and testosterone-like substances do to that thing?  Google it...

OtterMan's picture
OtterMan from New Jersey, near Philadelphia USA is reading Ringworlds Children February 9, 2014 - 9:43am

I have to comment, I have seen forum topics run off the rails before but this is a corker! Well done!!