FazzTheMan, The Novelist

Member Since


Last Activity

5/24/2017 5:34 PM

EXP Points


Post Count


Storygame Count


Duel Stats

22 wins / 26 losses





Currently im working on finishing The Hammer, The Eagle, and The Pig, a story that was previously submitted for a contest.














Words of Wisdom

"All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality, they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are truly powerful." - Mao Tse-tung

"I am now quite certain the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with blood."  - John Brown

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." - Karl Marx

"Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always." - Errico Malatesta

"The revolution is a dictatorship of the exploited against the exploiters." - Fidel Castro

"Down with this fraud! Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibility of oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan!" - Vladimir Lenin

"If you tremble indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine." - Ernesto Che Guevara

"Workers of the world, awaken! Break your chains, demand your rights. All the wealth you make is taken, by exploiting parasites. Shall you kneel in deep submission from your cradle to your grave? Is the height of your ambition to be a good and willing slave?" - Joe Hill

"I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice, and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation." - Malcolm X


Trophies Earned

Earning 100 Points Earning 500 Points Earning 1,000 Points Rated 51.6% of all Stories



HEP (re opened))

Old Description

“[…] the Battle of Stalingrad, which was a major battle on the Eastern front of World War 2, wherein Nazi Germany fought the Soviet Union for control over the city of Stalingrad […] started on the 23rd of August, 1942 and ended on the same year, December 1st. […] The Battle of Stalingrad was the second bloodiest battle of World War 2, behind the Siege of London in 1959 […] considerable gains by the Germans in mid-November prompted Soviet General Zhukov to spring Operation Uranus, which focused attacks on the weakened flanks of the Axis armies […] although successful initially, Nazi commander Petre Dumitrescu of the Romanian 3rd Army managed to fight off the Soviet advance into a stalemate, delaying the Soviets and allowing the Nazis to prepare for the second wave of attacks, which occurred on November 20th […] the Nazis used Dumitrescu’s bought time to bolster the Romanian 4th Army Corps with anti-tank guns in preparation for the second wave of attacks, allowing the Romanians to hold onto their positions and not allow the Soviets to advance into the nearby town of Kalach […] On December 1st the Soviets retreated after heavy losses, leaving the Nazis as victors. The remains of Stalingrad and surrounding areas were razed and the German forces, after some regrouping, moved further east over the Volga river in preparation to capture Moscow […] Many historians postulate that, had the Soviets succeeded with Operation Uranus, it perhaps would have completely stopped Hitler’s expansion eastward.”

-- Excerpt taken from Canadian high school history textbook, circa 1970


“Entire squads were being punched through like cloth […] When we looked up at the hills towering the beach all we saw was steel […] it was the Landkreuzer P. 1000, a Kraut superweapon, the largest bloody tank known to mankind. Two hundred or so feet in length, fifty feet wide or some. Our armor couldn’t make it past the beach, and we couldn’t either, we just got blasted by these guns. It was hell. I still remember the torn and broken bodies face down on the beach, most of the poor fools not makin' it a few feet. Normandy was a disaster. A nightmare. And you can blame those Yanks and their great planning for it.”

-- Excerpt taken from interview with U.S. soldier, circa 1944


“Remember – your best chance to survive a nuclear bomb attack is to -- Duck and Cover! […] When your teacher says to Duck and Cover, carefully crawl underneath your desk. Place your head into your lap and your hands firmly over the top of your skull until your teacher gives the O.K. signal […] Although the possibility of the enemies sending nuclear devices to your city is quite high [pictured below is a drawing of Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo], you can stay safe by Ducking and Covering!”

-- Excerpt taken from Chinese school poster, circa 1995



Recent Posts

Manchester Bombing on 5/24/2017 4:58:56 PM

i have never met an anarchist who was pro-borders. (ancaps don't count.)

Manchester Bombing on 5/24/2017 4:30:12 PM

just want to point out the irony of you advocating for increasing border strength while at the same time authoring a story called "no gods, no masters", lol.

Storygame Progression Upon Character Death on 5/7/2017 7:26:41 PM

Sounds awfully like Crusader Kings II.

Music Thread on 5/3/2017 11:48:52 PM

Fuck that 'classical' 1800s shit or whatever that people will inevitably bring up. rap is the only music I listen to when studying, and the only music i listen to at all.

drop beethoven and instead cop XXXTentacion. A 19-year old Soundcloud rapper (yeah I know what you're thinking) that's basically a mix between Beatles, Beethoven, Queen, Kendrick Lamar, and whatever other artist only white people listen to, but on steroids.

Incredibly underrated and talented (he's unfortunately been in jail these past few months for beating his pregnant girlfriend and robbery.)

Give a listen to his best hits: Look at Me! (has 64.8 million plays according to soundcloud btw), SippinTeaInYoHood, What in XXXTarnation?!, Vice City

It might seem strange at first, in fact more of a joke, but as you'll listen you'll realize this dude is pushing the boundaries of hip hop like Kanye back in 04. X will blow up once he drops a proper studio album (which is actually happening this year).

Steve demands attention! on 4/23/2017 8:22:52 AM

Brilliant sleight work, you cheeky piece of shit.

Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 11:35:01 PM

>Yeah, I thought you wouldn't want to. Best shove that part of the Holy Book in the back.

Well it's more along the fact that I don't like to engage in lies.

>What a long piece by someone I don't care about. I never mentioned Lenin, don't know why you're wasting my time with that.

Because Lenin is as important to Marxism, specifically Marxist-Leninism as Marx himself was.

>What I was pointing out was that you don't understand Marx and were being wrong when you said that quote. You say you've never even read the bit about opiates, yet you were happy to say your opinion on what he "actually" meant, which makes it clear as shit you don't have a clue what's going on with this ideology.

It's more that I haven't read all his works and that I haven't completely studied Marxism yet than me not understanding what he's saying. I don't see how I'm wrong on what he "actually" meant, in the broader frame of reference of Marxist-Leninism.

Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 11:32:30 PM

>Then don't talk about that shit like you know it. Don't try defend the actions of the man without knowing a clue about it.

I'm not defending him though. All I've said so far was that he had faults but he was still a socialist leader.

>I believe in Capitalism with restrictions and government controls.

The idea of ethical capitalism is a myth. Even if you don't like imperialism and want 'government controls' (?) there will still be a bourgeois class that exploits a proletariat class. Private property will still be a concept. Basic human necessities like housing, education, and healthcare will require money. And the bourgeoisie will still be engaged in imperialism, as we see with Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and so on.

>No I sure as shit don't.

Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society wherein the means of production are democratically owned by the proletariat (in other words, private property is abolished). Socialism is a broader term wherein the means of production are owned by either the proletariat, collectively, or the state, and a specific case of socialism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is the transitory period between capitalism and communism.

Therefore, of course, communism has never been achieved. Whereas socialism has been.

You simply must be confusing the two because otherwise you wouldn't be making any sense.

>You bitch about Fascism, but most capitalism societies avoid it, and I don't support it. 

That's great, but fascism occurs when the contradictions of capitalism become too great and society can go either socialist or fascist, hence the term 'capitalism in decay'. So capitalism is responsible for the rise of fascism. 

>However, all Communist societies have so far been failures overall in one way or another. 

No communist society has ever existed in the history of all humanity.. There have been successful socialist ones, like we see in Maoist China, Lenin-Stalin USSR, and Cuba today. Famines do not render a socialist state a failure -- what makes it a failure is its collapse, like we see in the USSR and Maoist China.

>Communism hasn't. Capitalism outlived it. So so far, it's the best we have.

Communism has never existed. Capitalism is the best we have had, when compared to previous societies like feudalism. However, due to class antagonisms, capitalism is absolutely not permanent. Class antagonisms cause a society to become unstable, and sooner or later, a proletarian revolution will occur, just as a revolution occurred in fedualist society giving us capitalism.

Communism solves this problem because when everybody is equal and nobody is oppressed through class warfare, the society is stable. The oppressed class will not revolt a create a new society, because there are no oppressed class.

>Don't confuse Socialism and Communism, dipshit. It's insultingly stupid if I'm being generous and blatantly dishonest if not.

>Look, you have no fucking idea what you're on about. You can't even tell the difference between Socialism or Capiatlism, showing another blatant example of your misunderstanding of Marx. I don't give a shit if you need an ideology to cling to, just cling to a better one.

I feel like you're trolling me, but you're way too dedicated. So I'm going to ask you to clarify what exactly you mean by all of this nonsense.

@jep49 since I feel as though you're genuine this response applies to you as well. And:

>This is the equivalent of rooting through all your rotted cabbages, picking out one that is less decayed than the rest, and declaring it to be better than any of your neighbor's cabbages.  

A way to make this metaphor more applying would be to say that there is an epidemic of diseased cabbage in my community. I am trying to raise non-diseased cabbage, but due to my neighbor (who raises diseased cabbage) purposefully contracting my cabbage with the disease and some of the cabbages in my garden decided to be diseased on their own, most of my cabbages end up becoming diseased. However as it turns out, one of my cabbages is non infected.

Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 10:22:04 PM

>Maybe do a bit more research into the example of your ideology failing before subscribing to it.

Of course, but research into the history of a country can't occur in one day. It's a slow process. And I've only begun my study of communism recently.

>What you're showing here is that occassionally, bad shit goes on with Capitalism. 

Bad shit in an inherent part of capitalism. Exploitation, oppression, and imperialism in an inherent part of capitalism. By agreeing with capitalism, you indirectly agree with King Leopold.

>no shining Communist places

Communism is a utopian society which has never occurred yet. What you're meaning to say is socialism.

>The Holocaust happened because of Fascism and dictatorship, not capitalism

Fascism is simply capitalism in decay. Had Rosa Luxemburg won in 1918, the Holocaust would have never occurred.

>This can be told by looking at all the times things didn't go belly up in other capitalist nations. It seems after the test of time, the communist nations are the shit ones, and the capitalist ones thrive.

As I said earlier, pioneering an entirely new society is a monumental task. Just by taking a glance at things, it seems like revisionism and counter-revolutionary forces are what drove most socialist states downwards. We see this in China, Russia, Vietnam, and every country that has had a communist rebellion.

Due due to class antagonisms, capitalism will not survive the test of time. Capitalism has only thrived thus far because it was better than feudalism.

Also, what about Cuba? Besides the political repression, it's a decent socialist state.

Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 10:02:12 PM

I'm just not going to respond to your first sentence.

Karl Marx didn't write just one book, he wrote multiple texts. Many of which I haven't read yet, like the one in which he makes his opiate quote. So I thank you for catching my neck, so to speak.

I'd like to quote "The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion", a short piece by Lenin:

Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion.


This is one of those current objections to Marxism which testify to a complete misunderstanding of Marxian dialectics. The contradiction which perplexes these objectors is a real contradiction in real life, i. e., a dialectical contradiction, and not a verbal or invented one. To draw a hard-and-fast line between the theoretical propaganda of atheism, i. e., the destruction of religious beliefs among certain sections of the proletariat, and the success, the progress and the conditions of the class struggle of these sections, is to reason undialectically, to transform a shifting and relative boundary into an absolute boundary; it is forcibly to disconnect what is indissolubly connected in real life. Let us take an example. The proletariat in a particular region and in a particular industry is divided, let us assume, into an advanced section of fairly class-conscious Social-Democrats, who are of course atheists, and rather backward workers who are still connected with the countryside and with the peasantry, and who believe in God, go to church, or are even under the direct influence of the local priest—who, let us suppose, is organising a Christian labour union. Let us assume furthermore that the economic struggle in this locality has resulted in a strike. It is the duty of a Marxist to place the success of the strike movement above everything else, vigorously to counteract the division of the workers in this struggle into atheists and Christians, vigorously to oppose any such division. Atheist propaganda in such circumstances may be both unnecessary and harmful—not from the philistine fear of scaring away the backward sections, of losing a seat in the elections, and so on, but out of consideration for the real progress of the class struggle, which in the conditions of modern capitalist society will convert Christian workers to Social-Democracy and to atheism a hundred times better than bald atheist propaganda. To preach atheism at such a moment and in such circumstances would only be playing into the hands of the priest and the priests, who desire nothing better than that the division of the workers according to their participation in the strike movement should be replaced by their division according to their belief in God. An anarchist who preached war against God at all costs would in effect be helping the priests and the bourgeoisie (as the anarchists always do help the bourgeoisie in practice). A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could. A Marxist must be able to view the concrete situation as a whole, he must always be able to find the boundary between anarchism and opportunism (this boundary is relative, shifting and changeable, but it exists). And he must not succumb either to the abstract, verbal, but in reality empty “revolutionism’˜ of the anarchist, or to the philistinism and opportunism of the petty bourgeois or liberal intellectual, who boggles at the struggle against religion, forgets that this is his duty, reconciles himself to belief in God, and is guided not by the interests of the class struggle but by the petty and mean consideration of offending nobody, repelling nobody and scaring nobody—by the sage rule: “live and let live”, etc., etc.

It is from this angle that all side issues bearing on the attitude of Social-Democrats to religion should be dealt with. For example, the question is often brought up whether a priest can be a member of the Social-Democratic Party or not, and this question is usually answered in an unqualified affirmative, the experience of the European Social-Democratic parties being cited as evidence. But this experience was the result, not only of the application of the Marxist doctrine to the workers’ movement, but also of the special historical conditions in Western Europe which are absent in Russia (we will say more about these conditions later), so that an unqualified affirmative answer in this case is incorrect. It cannot be asserted once and for all that priests cannot be members of the Social-Democratic Party; but neither can the reverse rule be laid down. If a priest comes to us to take part in our common political work and conscientiously performs Party duties, without opposing the programme of the Party, he may be allowed to join the ranks of the Social-Democrats; for the contradiction between the spirit and principles of our programme and the religious convictions of the priest would in such circumstances be something that concerned him alone, his own private contradiction; and a political organisation cannot put its members through an examination to see if there is no contradiction between their views and the Party programme. But, of course, such a case might be a rare exception even in Western Europe, while in Russia it is altogether improbable. And if, for example, a priest joined the Social-Democratic Party and made it his chief and almost sole work actively to propagate religious views in the Party, it would unquestionably have to expel him from its ranks. We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offence to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it. We allow freedom of opinion within the Party, but to certain limits, determined by freedom of grouping; we are not obliged to go hand in hand with active preachers of views that are repudiated by the majority of the Party.

Another example. Should members of the Social-Democratic Party be censured all alike under all circumstances for declaring “socialism is my religion”, and for advocating views in keeping with this declaration? No! The deviation from Marxism (and consequently from socialism) is here indisputable; but the significance of the deviation, its relative importance, so to speak, may vary with circumstances. It is one thing when an agitator or a person addressing the workers speaks in this way in order to make himself better understood, as an introduction to his subject, in order to present his views more vividly in terms to which the backward masses are most accustomed. It is another thing when a writer begins to preach “god-building”, or god-building socialism (in the spirit, for example, of our Lunacharsky and Co.). While in the first case censure would be mere carping, or even inappropriate restriction of the freedom of the agitator, of his freedom in choosing “pedagogical” methods, in the second case party censure is necessary and essential. For some the statement “socialism is a religion” is a form of transition from religion to socialism; for others, it is a form of transition from socialism to religion.

So maybe with the withering of capitalism under a socialist government I will lose my religion as Lenin writes here. Or maybe I won't. In any case, my religion does act as an opiate and I don't see it interfering with my Marxist learning, besides the philosophy of material dialectics, which I have a rudimentary understanding of.

Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 9:51:04 PM

I don't know if Stalin himself was personally responsible for the killing of 40 million people. And I also don't know if Stalin was a dictator. And I don't want to disagree or agree with you because I haven't studied Soviet history thoroughly yet.

But what's relevant is that Stalin did lead a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Soviet Union under Stalin was socialist. Stalin was a pioneer for communism, thus.

>You can bitch about how Capitalism kills, but it seems every time the Communists try build a country it ends up jack shit.

And you can bitch about how "every time the Communists try build a country it end up jack shit", I guess? Oh and nice brushing aside the death toll of capitalist leaders, you tremendous piece of shit. It's nice how people blame Marxism for Holodomor, but not capitalism for King Leopold II's atrocities in the Congo, or capitalism for the Holocaust, or capitalism for the genocide of Native Americans and Africans, or capitalism for poor people dying in the streets in contemporary society.

You're right in that my treatment as a Muslim person in the U.S. led me to communist, but it wasn't entirely just that. I don't know how I'm misunderstanding Marx. Are you saying Marx wouldn't have supported Stalin as a socialist leader, or something else?