A West Point Grad Wrote 'Communism Will Win' in His Cap

Can you be a committed Communist and still uphold the values of the American Military? Interesting question.
Well, the military lifestyle is about the most communist scheme possible. Think about it: it's funded 100% by the state. Guys in the army give up a bunch of rights to follow orders. They eat, sleep, and shit in communal barracks. They constantly refer to each other as "comrades in arms."

It's just the actual wars that are for profit.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but has he actually talked about communism in an economic sense?

Kaep doesn't seem to understand economics in any concrete sense.

He just opted out of a contract with the 49ers for $14.5 million for this year in order to explore free agency. Now he's earning bupkis. Even if he can be forgiven for not foreseeing that he would be shunned (or blacklisted) by NFL teams, it was obvious to everyone but Kaep that no team would even come close to offering him that much at this point in his career.
 
DKmL3v4VYAEF7DZ.jpg
 
Is it too late to retract my previous statements? Not because of the whole communist hula baloo, but because he just has a uniquely punch able looking face. Distinguished uppercut medal with jab cluster.
 
Well, the military lifestyle is about the most communist scheme possible. Think about it: it's funded 100% by the state. Guys in the army give up a bunch of rights to follow orders. They eat, sleep, and shit in communal barracks. They constantly refer to each other as "comrades in arms."

It's just our wars that are for profit.
Interesting point and way of looking at it.
 
Hmmmm...

1. Go to college for free.
2. Like the free degree, but don't like the responsibilities that come with that free degree: possibly heading to war in Syria, Yemen, North Korea, etc.
3. Do something that will not physically harm anyone, but still get you kicked out AFTER graduation.
4. Keep the free degree, but no longer have to complete the mandatory responsibility that comes with that degree.
5. Get a job with a new organization, company, non-profit that has stood up for your opinion whether they are genuine or not.

Followup questions:

1. Did he really want to go to West Point as a high school student, or did he feel forced by a relative?
2. When did he start aligning himself with a political philosophy that is completely different than the environment he is attending? If during his time at West Point, why not transfer?
3. I have no more questions since I have not had my coffee yet. Can someone please add more questions?
 
Kaep doesn't seem to understand economics in any concrete sense.

He just opted out of a contract with the 49ers for $14.5 million for this year in order to explore free agency. Now he's earning bupkis. Even if he can be forgiven for not foreseeing that he would be shunned (or blacklisted) by NFL teams, it was obvious to everyone but Kaep that no team would even come close to offering him that much at this point in his career.
You should also know that the 49ers were going to cut him if he didn't opt out anyway, it was smarter to opt out than to get cut because opting out would have given him more time to find a team than getting cut would have.
 
The Final GoT book's release date is: The Rapture



Not to be a dick but Martin is getting slightly up there in age. According to the internet, Martin is currently 69 years old.

I hope that he lives for a long time and (more importantly) I hope that he is physically able to work for a long time.

It sounds selfish but I am still angry that The Spectacular Spider-Man never had the ending that it deserved.



4be810bc8314e.jpg
 
Dear sir. I don't know if you can here me. I'll be brief. Let's be honest, in some ways you were kind of a douchebag.

And yet . . .

691_1496512257.jpg
 
Last edited:
BCD or DD and be required to repay for his education.

Fuck him .

Play stupid games.
 
Not to be a dick but Martin is getting slightly up there in age. According to the internet, Martin is currently 69 years old.

I hope that he lives for a long time and (more importantly) I hope that he is physically able to work for a long time.

It sounds selfish but I am still angry that The Spectacular Spider-Man never had the ending that it deserved.



4be810bc8314e.jpg

Yeah, his age is the worry. Especially so considering how long it has taken him on this current book, which is the second to last. A Game of Thrones released in 1996, so it's safe to say he's been working on Game of Thrones for about 25 years.
 
Is it too late to retract my previous statements? Not because of the whole communist hula baloo, but because he just has a uniquely punch able looking face. Distinguished uppercut medal with jab cluster.
Lol, I didn't say it earlier, but I was thinking it would be nice to see someone wipe that smirk off his face.
 
Yeah, his age is the worry. Especially so considering how long it has taken him on this current book, which is the second to last. A Game of Thrones released in 1996, so it's safe to say he's been working on Game of Thrones for about 25 years.



Hypothetically speaking, if Martin dies in the year 2019 and Nuclear Doomsday takes place in the year 2020, I might actually have to resort to...

*shudders*

...FAN FICTION ON THE INTERNET.
 
I think it's more of a curious coincidence that in the time of widespread Communist rule, you also had an abundant number of Capitalist countries essentially conducting an economic and philosophical war against those Communist countries. You can definitely point to the failure of Marxist political experiments, but ignoring the efforts of Capitalist countries is akin to ignoring the actual cancer affecting a cancer patient. Trotsky had a good observation regarding this phenomenon:

The peasantry thus played a gigantic role in the Russian Revolution. It will also play a great role in other countries, for example, in France where the peasantry still constitutes a bigger half of the population. But those comrades are mistaken who assume that the peasantry is capable of playing an independent, leading role in the revolution, on equal rights, so to speak, with the proletariat. If we conquered in the civil war, it was not solely and not so much because of the correctness of our military strategy. It was rather because of the correctness of our political strategy on which our military operations were invariably based throughout the civil war. We did not forget for a moment that the basic task of the proletariat consisted in attracting the peasantry to its side. However, we did not do it after the SR fashion. The latter, as is well known, enticed the peasants by dangling an independent democratic role before them and then betrayed them hand and foot to the landlords. We were positive that the peasantry constitutes a vacillating mass which is as a whole incapable of an independent, and all the less so, leading revolutionary role. By being resolute in our actions we made the peasant masses understand that there was only one choice open to them – the choice between the revolutionary proletariat on the one side, and the officers of noble birth at the head of the counter-revolution, on the other. Failing this resoluteness on our part in tearing down the democratic partition, the peasantry would have remained confused, continuing to vacillate between the different camps and the different shades of “democracy“ – and the revolution would have ineluctably perished. The democratic parties, with the Social Democracy in the van – and there is no doubt that the same situation in Western Europe, too, will arise – acted invariably as the bell-wethers of the counter-revolution. Our experience on this score is conclusive in its character. You know, Comrades, that a few days ago our Red Army occupied Vladivostok. This occupation liquidates the last link in the long chain of the civil war fronts during the last half of a decade. Apropos of the occupation of Vladivostok by the Red troops, Milyukov, the well known leader of the Russian Liberal Party, has written in his Paris daily a few historico-philosophic lines, which I am prepared to term classical. In an article dated November 7, he sketches briefly the imbecilic and ignominious, but steadfast role of the party of democracy. I quote:

“This sad history – it has always been a sad history (Laughter) begins with a solemn proclamation of the complete unanimity of the anti-Bolshevik front. Merkulov (he was the chief of the counter-revolution in the Far East) acknowledged that the ‘non-socialists’ (that is, the Black Hundred elements) owed their victory in great measure to the democratic elements. But the support of democracy”, continues Milyukov, “was used by Merkulov only as a tool for overthrowing the Bolsheviks. Once this was achieved, the power was seized by these elements who in the main regarded the democrats as concealed Bolsheviks.”

This passage which I have just called classic may seem trite. As a matter of fact, it only repeats what has more than once been said by Marxists. But you must recall that this now is being said by the liberal Milyukov – six years after the Revolution. It ought to be borne in mind that he is here drawing the balance sheet of the political role of the Russian democracy on a vast arena – from the Finnish Gulf to the shores of the Pacific. This is what happened in the case of Kolchak, next with Denikin, and then with Yudenich. This is what happened during the English, French and American occupations. That is how it was during Petlura’s reign in the Ukraine. All along our frontiers the one and the same wearisomely monotonous phenomenon kept recurring. The democracy – the Mensheviks and the SRs – drove the peasantry into the arms of reaction, the latter seized power, unmasked itself completely, thrust the peasants aside, whereupon the victory of the Bolsheviks followed. Among the Mensheviks there ensued the chapter of repentance. But not for long – till the next temptation. And thereupon, the same history was repeated in the same sequence in some other – theatre of the civil war. First, betrayal, and discredited as it appears to be, we can nevertheless be sure that it will be repeated by the Social Democrats in all countries whenever the proletariat’s struggle for power becomes fierce. The primary task of the proletarian revolutionary party in all countries is to be implacably then semi-repentance. Yet, extremely simple as this mechanics is, and resolute once the issue is transferred to the arena of civil war.

Europe has offset the advance of Marxist philosophy due to embracing social traditions that serve to benefit working classes, even to the detriment of ruling classes (and the state itself in many cases). They effectively took the "best" parts of Marxist philosophy and used it to better their societies for the benefit of potentially disaffected classes. This is good. The US has done the opposite. We extended those provisions, and slowly chipped away at them until they were but a shadow of themselves. Ironically, our gripping of power has done nothing more than drive disaffected populations to Marxist philosophy and hasten our own economic shift. Propaganda has done a great deal to slow down this transition, but it can only do so much when presented with tangible wrongs inflicted by our increasingly more unjust system.

bla bla bla...

its quite easy, during the cold world half the world was communist, half was capitalist, who where the ones risking their life to cross the border? is really that fucking easy.

Yeah communist countries suffered from economical warfare of the capitalist world, ever wonder why the capitalist world never suffered from the communist economical warfare

a bunch of philosophical crap, thats whats comunisim is, its an utopia, in a ideal world, which doesnt nor will ever exist, it goes against the nature of the human being, quite simp
 
The "realities of mankind" are that everyone has base needs. Communist societies simply attempt to address those needs through expenditures of social capital from the masses to those who go without. It's an economic philosophy, attempting to "smooth out" inequalities only go so far as the base economic needs of disaffected populations. That's the entire basis of a Communist society, so i'm finding it extremely hard to understand how you can say that Communism fails to address it. If anything, the profit motive (the basest element of Capitalist philosophy), ignores the needs of the individual in favor of the needs of the corporation. As we're seeing now, when the scales are tipped too far in favor of the corporation (wage suppression, automation, at-will employment) you risk alienating workers, which pushes them toward egalitarian philosophies like Communism. Capitalism takes this inequality as a necessary result of a system where the "wheat is separated from the chaff", Communist societies understand that there's more than enough to go around, it's just a matter of how to allocate it. You'd be hard pressed to say that command economies don't work when all inputs are available, so why is it so hard all of a sudden when you attach the name Communism to it?

This is abundantly clear when we discuss automation with respect to low paying, working class jobs. You guys say "fuck em all" for wanting a living wage and replace them with robots. As capitalists, you're well within your right to do so. However, for those of us not so attached to capitalist dogma, we see the storm brewing on the horizon for those disaffected workers as they're increasingly drawn toward Marxist philosophy. That's why Communism is being more accepted, our emphasis on "more and more productivity" while fucking over workers is pushing our economics left at an alarming pace. Keep alienating workers, and 'all of a sudden' (to you), you're going to have a problem on your hands.

I don't really recognize myself as a "capitalist" so you're barking at the wrong tree here. I'm looking at a future beyond crude capitalism as we know it. A future where we, hopefully, aspire to compete with one another over matters more meaningful than merely "capital".

Nonetheless, with the capitalist system, we have a system in place which can be developed into something. A society which encourages innovation, competitive drive and individualism, where individuals have incentive to better themselves, rather than to rest on their laurels, and collect checks that better men than themselves have earned, and shared with them, out of pity, or compassion, or, in most cases, due to law enforcement.

A society that is built upon capitalist foundations, is going to find itself developing much, much further, in the coming centuries. A society that is built upon satisfying people's "base needs" and imposing equality, is going absolutely nowhere. We have already seen this, I do not see any reason why we should see it again. Marx's ideas were influenced by his own personal short-comings, as a man, as a father, as a provider, an utter failure of a man in most regards, and he created a "fantasy" ideal, an "escape" from our world's often harsh realities, knowing it would appeal to many of his kind. But even he knew that it was nothing more than fantasy, a construct created by a clever man, to satisfy his psychological need for an alternative reality.

Rather than reviving the dead ideal of a man who himself came to despise it and its followers, what we ought to be concerned with, is how to build upon the capitalist model in a way which allows fair and just competition all across the board, without discrimination and obstacles. Instead of destroying the effective (but incomplete) model and replacing it with the perhaps emotionally comforting, but physically crippling fantasy land of "communism", we should seek to enhance what we already have, which has clearly functioned in our behalf, as we can attest to at this very moment, sitting on our computers, or smart phones in hand, for some. Communist experiments and their required mass production, are only enabled by capitalist innovations somewhere else. By itself, the model cannot continue to be sustained. Communism can only work "hand-in-hand" with a capitalist society, offering its workers as cheap productive labour for capitalist innovators, like China.
 
Last edited:
Well fighting on the side of the communist has long history in the US military.
Communism would have been a very short lived not much talked about ideology if the US didn't step the Reich in the back twice.
 
Back
Top