Communism: The ideal ideal

Whenever we think of Communism we imagine impoverished slaves regimented unto the big brother notion of being permanently invaded and commanded what to do for the sake of keeping the natural order of hierarchy with equality in mind, alive. The reason for this is simple, we imagine that freedom is solely found in making ones own choices, and that the ones living in a Communist state have no choice to live in such a state. Which is untrue of course, and also besides the point. How can one live in the state of freedom through the exemplification of choice being unlimited, infinite, allowed? Once one makes a choice, it is the choice. The only one what one wants, and not the other. No one wants to possess everything. No one wants to consume everything. Perhaps as a society we want to, but I will get to that later. Basically choice is not freedom expressed. Choice is found in a limited sphere. One cannot do what one wants always, hence there is no real freedom being experienced since it is limited in the foundations of truth. For example: why would a person experience freedom if he is aware of slavery and captivity in the lives of others? Wouldn't that fulfill the notion that freedom is merely a state of mind, or situation, and rather an experiential thing instead of a literal truth? We think the Communist states enforce doctrine of government permanently and that all expenditure is found through the state permanently and that the citizens have no choice but to submit to the propaganda which is supposedly sprout out by the union of leaders founded and created by a godlike human deity. That religion is banished, another freedom which we believe is given to us by our Church, hence the reason why Communism is the ideal that Capitalists want to squash, since Capitalists are Fascists, and once we see the relation we have towards Communism, the relation principles, one does realize that Communism being the enemy of freedom is the closest to freedom one can find. That is what Joseph Stalin believed anyhow.

Communism cannot be expressed as a system of control, or at least, "the system of control". Fascism is the system of manipulation and exploitation, so why is Communism seen in the same light? For one, Fascism is about domination and control, a notion which Capitalism is only now being seen in the light as. Though it's a fruitless cause seeing, but I'll get back to that later. Either way Communism being a motive militaristic in the eyes of Democratic Capitalists, who is always on the lookout to prevent and measure up to the possible broadcast of war and violence done systematically upon them, is only that which is being represented by the Fascist machine as to what they want us to believe. Hence the reason why these ideologies directly suppress each other for the sake of some communal aspect we call prosperity and peace. As you may have noticed the definitions of these ideologies do overlap and somehow construct a response only from the educated mass of men subordinated by education and literacy and customs and manners. Culture in short. For example: Fascism, having been defeated by Democracy is the creation of evil in our society of justice and the greater good. That all will prevail if we rise up for society of freedom and equality. Though why would Democracy be considered to be Fascism in itself? Well the ideal of Democracy is to promote equality and freedom, but nonetheless it also suppresses that which it advocates, mostly, but not all, those who oppose these values, like "criminals" in the eyes of the public, which Democracy legally represent, and "terrorists" and "dictators" who wage an eternal war on Democracy because, supposedly, Democracy is the wrong alley in their neighborhood where change will be made and directly affect the populace of these Communist and Fundamentalist nations. Especially the case of North Korea, and some Islamic nations, at this stage in our history.

Then some advocates of this liberal system of diplomacy and tolerance is actually enforcing their mode of existence solely for their own benefit, but who directly and abruptly deny this. That is what some people consider to be activism, resistance, the seeking of revolution and change, as well as Anarchism (the doctrine of unity through chaotic tumbling). Chaotic tumbling being a theory of law and order found in chaos, where yes is no, and no is yes, and chaos is order, and that order is chaos, also the recognition that history brings about chaos and function at the same time. Where tales of the unexpected is only seen in books, but is actually alive outside of them always. The only thing that exists in the theory of chaotic tumbling is the present, and even scientists find it hard to agree whether the past and even the future matters since it doesn't exist anymore, though it is a function in the state of the present, which could, to some, be considered as the future. Clarity is not found in meaning, for we all know the beauty of Fynbos and the Galapagos Islands for example. Even ignorance has meaning, therefor bliss is only found in reality, and not in ones hopes and desires. We always see forward, but we refuse to look into the present. We do things for the future to correct the past, but fail to realize that in itself resistance, the ideal state, is only found in nothingness as Sartre proclaimed; "Fascism may live forever, but I won't!". Basically the victor relishes in the past for it is mentioned constantly in its records for the sake of upholding power and control over the ignorant masses believing the history told by their masters, which coincidentally is not only found in Communist and Fascist states, but also Democratic societies, which is also coincidentally found to be very similar in other aspects to violent state institutions such as prisons and prisoner of war camps where torture and other inhuman aspects are tested and reacted upon by these peaceful leaders and advisers to humankind. The average philosopher is now being seen as ignorant and selfish, and perhaps dealing with the esoteric (that which cannot be proven) and conspiratorial (that which doesn't exist).

Theoretically activism is a form of subsiding with norms and codes practiced by the society these activists live in. In some way they have to relate to their oppressor to be able to communicate with them. Whether the oppressor recognizes this or understands and acknowledges that they are in the wrong is irrelevant, because the notion of resistance and change is illusory. Human existence has become nullified by the findings of science and technology where corporations determine political doctrine and how methods of resistance and acceptance is perceived. One example is the notion of the rebellious teenager which is merely a television soap opera's explanation on why parents fail to impress their children going through puberty and adolescence, whilst creating the impression that yes children are aware and conscious of the world they find themselves in, and that the rest of us need to realize that there are other people on this planet younger than us wanting something other than nothing, which a lot has resorted to, though it brings the realization in people such as myself that change is not inherent in man, and that change is not necessarily good, also that the key figure here is that change is subjective and objective at the same time, manipulated by the political elite through the media and advertising of corporations.

Whether we submit to exclaim tyranny and fraud, we must also take into account always that meaning is not determined, and that reality is not a conscious affair though humans believe it to be. Within secularism, fanaticism has taken a hold on our daily lives and preaches the effect of consumption of assumption. Basically man is here only for so long, whilst killing himself and the rest of the planet due to him being in denial and absolutely evil. Be my guest and prove me wrong, but I see her as a misinformed fraud not interesting anyone but the ones believing in the lies sold by corporations and governments wanting to gain investment and profit in their Amway-type “business” schemes.

I mean largely through and through, Democracy gives people the illusion of having a voice, for it bears no significance upon the nature of reality. The nature of reality is to some extent anti-human, and we've been led to believe, even by ourselves, or especially by ourselves, that our voice, our Democratic voice matters unto the nature of reality. As if, the more people who vote the better the result as to how we ought to live our lives.

Communism though is more relevant today than when it started, because it actually gives man a voice. Even if it is only to manipulate himself. But don't come and tell me, that your voice matters due to us being in a Democratic state, or nation, or mentality, and don't tell me that my voice doesn't matter because I'm a minority, and for my idea is different than yours, or even opposing it, that my opinion doesn't seem to matter, to you, for it does. Even if that opinion is that since you are of an opinion, in a Democratic state or nation, that that opinion matters more than mine, because there are more people who believe the shit that you do. I mean come on, you make me sound like David Icke. But am I? Is this really what Democracy has brought about, shouting lunacy for those who disagree? Alienation, from our lives, for those who disagree?!

Communism doesn't condone that. Communism doesn't even notice the individual. The individual doesn't protest or differ in opinion. The individual understands that he is merely a simplified version of society, and if he submits, as Democrats equally do upon this Capitalist landscape, to be an example for the whole he is law abiding, tax paying, and comfort obeying.

Yet we as the liberal West sees the world of the Communist East as downtrodden, forgotten, abused, scarred, unfair, wrong. Yet my idea is, how do we differ? And how does it even matter if we do? As in, ought we to matter more if we believe the same thing, and live the same life, and do the same thing, even differently? This is a philosophical idea, and a good one at that. Portraying man as a zombie, an imbecile, a lazy twat. Mind the language of course! But can man be what he believes himself to be, if he is fully aware of difference? Is that what Democracy is, and has become? A witch hunt! And that being the Orwellian idea, of women beseeching men into vandalism of their soul. The suffocation of bondage. The deliverance from evil. The kneeling in front of the great master. Communism the great idea of evil. Yet how do we tolerate each other, except ignoring? How do we see each other, except as livestock? Surely some in the free world will assume that these extremities are only there due to misinformation spreading, miscommunication in a globally “aware” world, or education not being as effective as it can be in the communes of those who fail to understand and pursue, correctly, the Democratic ideal of equality and fairness. But hang on! Are you saying that we ought to behave a certain way even in a Democratic world? That isn't freedom, and not even a worthy sacrifice for all the wrong this liberal machine is doing in the world to the world.

When someone tries to assume, in a landscape of economic and cultural unrest, the major qualities of life, then one can see or notice the inherent brainwashing that has taken place, prioritizing certain creeds and ideals ahead of some others. We can for example be united under a philosophy of embracing the self in its most natural form allowing man to not suffocate or be alienated from himself through education and the permanency of thought used by even Democratic notions of the acceptance of the removal of free-will for the greater good. The social contract.