The Kalashnikov Party Needs You!

Welcome to the Kalashnikov party site, the area of the guide dedicated to well thought out (well I try) Marxist philosophy. We are dedicated to real communism, NOT Stalinist, dictatorial neo-fascist impearialistic personality cults at the wheel of a state run capitalist machine. A truly communist society as predicted by Marx and defined by him and Engel's and which nobody has yet managed to replicate, although Lenin tried and Castro come close, even the Kibbutz system in Israel is not without it's faults (namely the way in which they oppress the Palestinians).

Our Stuff

Menu of Marxism!Democratic Anarchy!Is The Modern World Democratic?CommunismRage Against The MachineMenu of Randomidity!Cheese!Heros Of the revolution!The guild of naked astronauts!Random!CIAMI5FBINSAUSSSNinjaburgerSandline InternationalSmileys!The Naked Astronauts

Kalashnikov Party!

The Kalashnikov Party is run by me, Big Bad Bolshevik Bob, and my good friend C<+>vert B<+>B. The purpose of our movement is to educate people in the true meaning of communism, not the front Stalin used to hide his fascist dictatorship or the corrupt messenger of evil and bearer of all things ill as spouted by the American multi-media propaganda machine. This is not an attempt to indoctrinate people but a description of the world as I see it, untainted by any preconception or prejudice, it could be claimed that I see the world this way because I am a Marxist but I believe it is the opposite. The only reason I am a Marxist is because the world is the way it is, I have seen this and realised that there is another way and only became a Marxist in my own search for a new and better way. By putting my opinions on this site others may have an insite into this and will be able to make their own decision with both sides of the argument.

Viva the Revolution! (yeah right)

Although my ultimate dream would be a worldwide revolution bringing about the final stage in social development in which all mankind will be able to live in peace and harmony unbothered by the evil money grubbing machinations of the global capitalist regime and their incredibly naff coca-cola adverts I know that the likelyhood of a revolution occuring is only slightly above nil. This I because nobody but me and a few others actually gives a pair of foetid dingo's kidneys about the whole affair.

Truth is Mr Joe Public, (also commonly known as Joe king of the morons, at the risk of alienating my target audience), does not actually give a proverbial, is quite content with whatever the powers that be fob him off with and is too busy lapping up the mass media propagandist illusion that everythings all right really, despite the raw facts that it really isn't. Therefore the revolution ain't gonna happen as the very people who are supposed to rise up from under the oppressive jackbooted heels of the scum up top can't see the point in having one. After all two guys with one AK47 between them and a stick with nails in it hardly counts.

However I remain hopeful that with time the people will wake up to whats happening around them and refuse to live in poverty and under the power of states run by whoever is currently golfing pals with the supreme court judges and can afford to finance the biggest multi-media election campaign and do something about it.


If you do not have an open mind then don't bother reading on. I would request anyone to keep an open mind while reading this, that does not mean believing everything I say, but to read all the evidence and to look at as many sources as possible, treat all sources in a cynical fashion and use all the information available to you to come to your own conclusion, if you agree with me, even in part, then great, if not then thats your choice. Unlike most other political and sociological formats the important thing with (real) communism is freedom, therefore even if I disagree with your beliefs you still have the perfect right to hold these beliefs.

However no matter how much of a right to these individual beliefs you may have nobody has the right to press these views on others. Sadly this is done in many ways, religious indoctrination from early childhood, threat of reprisals, illegality or persecution of other view points, and refusal to properly educate people to make an independent decision for or against a particular view point. For these reasons there are several systems, governments, organisations and even individuals whom I and the Kalashnikov party oppose.


The Misconception

A large number of people believe the traditional Amrican myth that communism is the great satanic denizen of all evil on earth sent by the forces of Beelzebub to plague humanity. To work all this out without even addressing what it actually is, means or entails is quite impressive. As well as this most people believe communism is somehow linked to Stalin. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! Stalin was about as communist as Heinrich Himmlers cofee table, the Stalinist system and the abject pain, misery, oppresion, torture, paranoia and murder associated (quite correctly) with ‘comrade’ Stalin has nothing to do with communism. Stalin was an egotistical megalomaniac who ran an imperialistic dictatorial fascist personality cult. Such dictatorships have nothing to do with true socialism, and as for being communist the Russian revolution actually resulted in a society much as before except that the economy was run entirely by the government, which is not how communist economics are supposed to work. While communism is supposed to work for the common good it is not an attempt to make everyone the same. What kind of person would reject the belief that everbody is equal and deserves an equal chance in life, there is a difference between wanting to make everybody to be treated equally and making everybody the same.

Is The Modern World Democratic?


Democracy is something in which I believe in and something which the Kalashnikov party will support to the last. After all communism is control of economy and society by the people, so surely the people must actually have control of the society and its economy. Democracy is required for this. But what is democracy? Even without an organised governmental body elected to govern, democracy can still be maintained by direct democracy in which the people themselves make decisions and govern themselves collectively.

The Nature Of Democracy

As I have evaluated the nature of democracy and of government, and contemplated the actual definitions of both, as separate entities and as combined issues, (which are much broader than the traditional preconception of the 2-party electoral system resulting in an organised body of beaurocrats.) It has become more and more apparent to me that modern government is not democratic.

For a government of any kind to be democratic certain criteria must be met:

  • All laws and policies by which the governed society lives must be created and implemented by the people or their elected representatives.
  • Authority to rule must come from the people as a whole (or a majority thereof) or from an electorate formed of those members of society who fulfill certain criteria required (in the case of an organised beaurocracy)
  • The aforementioned electorate must actively exercise direct control over the decisions made by and activities of the government, ie by referendum, voting of officials in and out of office or by direct democracy.

On first appearance it is all too easy look at these criteria and answer “yes” to the question this text asks. A question which attacks the foundation of our society and our civilisation. It is all too easy to avoid even asking and to assume that even the politicians at least can’t lie about something this fundamental. To actually stop, weigh the facts and look deeper is to enter a very different world indeed.

Democracy By Beaurocracy

Democracy by elected representatives has many flaws. The most obvious and consequently the most widely noticed problem is the reliance on politician but that will be covered later, as the issue covered in this section is the problems caused by the beaurocratic element, this will be dealt with on a point by point basis. The Law of the Bearocrats

In our system of democracy we have politicians, so that we don’t have to make any important decisions or do anything more strenuous than doodle a cross on a piece of paper and put it in a box, an activity that most people still find too politically challenging and, as America recently famously proved, doesn’t have much effect (Unless you happen to play golf with the supreme court judges of a weekend). Therefore as all laws by which our society lives are governed are created and enforced by the elected representatives, this allows politicians to effectively decree how everybody must act and could at its worst give free license for politicians to tailor legal systems to their own benefit, change the foundations of the society to such an extent they make themselves ultimately unquestionable dictators (in the exact manner as Hitler who became Germany’s dictator by passing the enabling act of 1936 through the Reichstag), or create a police state, or at the very least make some of the “honourable gentleman” feel above the law, (Mr Archer. Want to sue me for libel? Go ahead make my day.) and practically all self righteous busy bodies who believe they know what's best for us.

While the worst case scenarios may seem far fetched they are more realistic than you may imagine (though by no means at the worst that could be) However regardless of the situation the mere fact that this kind of power is available to anyone is frightening and should make us all sit up and think, regardless of its degree of use. All it would take is one charismatic despot willing to take advantage of these resources to attain power (if Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Batista etc can do it who’s to say it can’t happen again? Course not cries George “welcome to my Daddies fourth term in office” Bush from the last bastion of democracy. Right.) Or for someone at the top to snap or become corrupted (ie more than the average politician. A horrifying thought in itself.).

The law is in fact a law unto itself (this may seem obvious but is still wrong) The police have effectively an ability to do whatever they want and infringe your civil liberties seemingly on a whim. Sounds like paranoid crazy man rant but is more accurate than you might think. (See: I fought the law and the law won) Many of our laws are unpopular but necessary, as our governments are dedicated to the pointless edifice of the global economy and the international advancement of capitalism we all have to pay taxes to stop the whole of society crumbling about us, we can’t steal or hurt people for no reason. These laws protect society (or are at least supposed to) but there are others that are pointless ridiculous, farcical leftovers of the white middle class rule of the late 1800’s and the early half of the 20th century. A rule that still continues in much the same manner as it did back then. There are laws all over the globe that have been in action since the dark ages which have never been officially repeeled pertaining to what streets you can drive your carriage down, and how often you have to hurl effluent from 3rd storie windows on to unsuspecting members of the straw chewing peasant fraternity. These laws are pointless and although they are ignored by our legal system they should be removed.

This is however of little importance compared to the many laws which infringe our civil liberties or are just pointless (although modern, in use and not related to the straw chewing peasant fraternity) the laws which seem to limit the power of the police to do anything they want, but are so full of loop holes that the only reason for them to exist is to keep the people from realising the extent of their power (for more on this and other unrelated topics see I Fought The Law And The Law Won), the laws which allow us to become parents and poison the unborn children with cigarrete smoke while giving ourselves lung cancer at 16, but not drink a pint in a pub until 18, the international laws which protect the interests of the white middle class Americanised capitalist west and make us all feel like ”the good guys” with laws which while supposedly protecting the third world (which we are responsible for creating) just get ignored as soon as one of us wants to kick the hell out of some poor defenceless bunch of muslim Chechennes/Vietnamese commies/black South Africans, and leave genocidal machetti wielding maniacs to get on with their butchering of women and children because “it’s none of our business”.

There are countless unjust laws within our society but we can’t change them because they are the law. The only way for them to be changed is to wait for the following process to be completed.

  1. Wait for the message to get to the politicians.
  2. Wait for the politicians to start caring.
  3. For the same said politician to draft a bill to change the law.
  4. For this bill to get proposed in the house of commons.
  5. For this bill to get the chance to be voted on.
  6. For the failed bill to be re-drafted and brought again to the attention of the commons.
  7. For another vote on the aforementioned re-draft of the bill.
  8. For the failed bill to rally the support of the people of the country and to be spear headed by a powerful politician (he won’t understand it but it’ll gain him a chance to boost his career and retire early).
  9. For this politician to resign after the press find out about his trio of gay lovers in Essex and his wifes fondness for crocheted thongs.
  10. For the politicians mate to take up the campaign.
  11. For this politician to get ostriscised for smoking a joint in college, and then fired for coughing in an irritating fashion in the back benches during an important (at least to somebody) speech.
  12. For someone else to take up the campaign and change it beyond recognition.
  13. For this bill to be passed through the house of commons.
  14. For the bill to then be rejected by the lords.
  15. For the commons to threaten to disband the house of lords and take their titles away.
  16. For the Lord’s to have a sudden change of heart.
  17. For the queen to be convinced that it won’t actually effect her or let Phillip out in public ungaged on a more regular basis.
  18. Of course after all this nobody can even remember or care what the whole damn thing was about in the first place.
The only way to speed up this process is to protest. This just gets you hospitalised by some club wielding thug who gets away with it because all the nice judges like a man in uniform. The truth is the public can vote for the politicians who claim to intend changing the way we live but they can change their tune as soon as they are in power, or not have any real noticeable effect despite their best attempts anyway. As the conservative party proved after the last election if your crusade of righteousness on which you will never relinquish your morals doesn’t gain you additional political power, it gets replaced with something that will. The public therefore have almost no control over the laws of their society. In this respect our world is not democratic.

The 2 Party Dictatorship

The Western system of democracy allows the society to vote for the politicians they want (or at least hate to a lesser degree than all the others) but how free are you to choose really? Our democracy is often refered to as a 2 party system. Now slap me with a moistened halibut and call me Geoffrey if I’m wrong but 2 parties is not much of a choice (especially considering the 2 parties in Britain) and besides, there are many other parties. How can a system where you can vote for any party you want but are wasting your time as only 2 of them stand a ferret in a pressure cookers chance of attaining any power. So in affect we get a ½ chance or nothing. Even the liberal democrats, the third largest party in the country really have no power to speak of.

With the new labour party now about as socialist as

    Mussolini’s sock draw
and the Tories practically on the verge of sending Anne Widecombe in an S.S uniform to rubber truncheon all illegal immigrants and anybody even suggesting that we should check out the fiscal effects of the Euro before deciding whether or not to join it. Is this the result of people agreeing with New Labour and the Conservatives policies? Well in a way yes but then again these 2 parties have more money to promote their policies and drum them into people with their multimedia campaigns, while the smaller parties with less money have a smaller following and can only afford to print a few thousand leaflets, this is far too pronounced an effect to be a mere coincidence.

Although saying that it was terribly nice to see the scum from the B.N.P losing their deposits in almost every election (although worrying to see their large slice of the vote in some areas).

Also with the government having the power to define the criteria you must fulfill to be a member of the electorate this effectively gives them a mandate to deny the vote to anyone who will not vote for them. Usually these criteria are only limiations on minmum age of voters and nationality of the voter limited to only being able to vote in your own state. However limitations on the members of the electorate can be changed to exclude women, non home-owners, certain religions, skin colours, people not considered important enough to vote, or anyone. All these examples have at some point been excluded from the electorate. Most of these examples will have been excluded in your own country, and until more recently than you might think.

The fact is that the voting system is corrupted, most people don’t vote, those that do only vote for the parties they vote for because they always have and always will regardless of what they stand for, or because they are drawn in by their shiny multimedia campaigns and have never heard of the other parties. With the political system in this state voting is rendered meaningless as it is no longer representative of it’s purpose; the people having control of their government and society. In this way, most importantly, our society is undemocratic.

These points encompass the points listed above in The Nature Of Democracy and many others which are no less important. You may still disagree with the opinions and conclusions in this article but then all of the actual information from which these conclusions are drawn is pure fact. As always Myself and the Kalashnikov party welcome constructive criticism and any intelligently written arguments against this article as well as agreements with it.

Democratic Anarchy

This may sound odd, that’s because it is. Sorry but I can’t really do much about that. This is my specialty, theories which appear to be the product of a deranged mind (and are, I freely admit.), but are actually perfectly reasonable, (well according to me anyway, whatever the hell kind of gauge that is). All I ask of you is that you read this work with an open mind with no preconceptions and formulate your own opinion. To understand this theory you first have to understand what democracy is, everybody thinks they do but, like the majority of things most people think they understand not many people actually do, (“Is The Modern World Democratic?” gives more insight into this.). Whether you are average Mr Joe Public or a practicing M.P (not likely but we can hope right) I present here a repeat of The Nature of Democracy, to be found in Is The Modern World Democratic, for the purpose of reference/background.

The Nature Of Democracy

As I have evaluated the nature of democracy and of government, and contemplated the actual definitions of both, as separate entities and as combined issues, (which are much broader than the traditional preconception of the 2-party electoral system resulting in an organised body of beaurocrats.) It has become more and more apparent to me that modern government is not democratic.

For a government of any kind to be democratic certain criteria must be met:

  • All laws and policies by which the governed society lives must be created and implemented by the people or their elected representatives.
  • Authority to rule must come from the people as a whole (or a majority thereof) or from an electorate formed of those members of society who fulfil certain criteria required (in the case of an organised beaurocracy)
  • The aforementioned electorate must actively exercise direct control over the decisions made by and activities of the government, ie. by referendum, voting of officials in and out of office or by direct democracy.

The Original Democracy

This is the most important piece of background information to be linked in to this work is the early history of democracy. The very first democracy.

Democracy was originally invented by those inventors of virtually everything, the Greeks. The first ancient Grecian democracies were as close to the ideal democracy as anyone has ever come in many important ways (slavery and equality between the sexes excluded, it’s the organisational side I’m refering to here). The system used was that of direct democracy, in which everyone voted on everything (excluding women and slaves but applied in the modern world these conditions would obviously not apply!), by placing a vote for or against a proposal, to abstein you simply didn’t bother. In effect the whole country became a parliament. To me this is the ideal system as everyone can have their say and the society can truly direct its own course without politicians corrupting the system to meet their own ends.

Sounds paranoid ha? Well if politics is a career, and one with a damn good salary to, then why should we not expect the politicians to be in it for the money? And to do whatever is best to advance that career. However very obviously this system is impossible to administer in countries with such high populations as are found today.

Ironically the world spanning revolution of the proletariat uniting the nations of man and freeing all humanity, of which we can only dream as no-one actually cares but me, would completely and irreperebly spanner this system, there's no justice. Although with the wonderful new internet technology at our very fingertips (Sorry about the blatant sarcasm) this could theoretically be arranged apart from problems with hackers defrauding the system for their own ends overload of data crashing the system etc (which basically gives us a centuries wait for technology to catch up) it is a system of direct democracy that would give us the most truly democratic government, but for direct democracy to exist the government must be dispensed with in order to place control of society in the hands of the people via the system of direct democracy.


“I am an anarchist!” to qoute the ever cute and fluffy Johnny Rotten, but there is a lot more to anarchy than the Sex Pistols. Most people have the preconception that anarchy is utter chaos and disorganisation, mostly as some idiot decided at some point to use the word “anarchy” as a synonym for disorganisation and chaos. The advent of a state of chaos is one theory of the result of anarchy. The actual meaning of anarchy is “the absence of any government” but over time and with extreme misuse has been taken against as a term generally used to define everything cocking up in a shocking fashion.

Real anarchists want a world without government, whilst those that disagree believe that government is necessary as without it society would dissolve and be reduced to a “state of nature” in which there would be a “war of all against all.” I find it rather arrogant of those in power to assume that the human race after so many centuries of evolution are only kept from a return to barbarianism by their presence, giving themselves a reason to rule over us that is not far from the excuses for the British occupation of South Africa during the years of the apartheid regime; they couldn’t run their lives themselves poor things everything would be chaos, crime depravity etc. I would ask how the hell do they know if they won’t even let us try? How can any one be this self righteous and arrogant? To assume that their own presence in a ruling position is the only thing keeping an otherwise population of scum and criminals from living in a destructive fashion in which crime and depravity would ensue is truly worrying. These people must be on a luxury 5 star ego cruising.

Sadly there is some truth to this as the human race as a whole is a very greedy and self-destructive force. However how much does government limit this? As I can see not much. You can’t leave your property unattended without fear of theft, it’s unsafe to walk the streets at night, and a surprisingly large section of the populace would, if given half a chance, steal anything and everything that wasn’t actually nailed down. This is however in some ways the fault of the government. How can any government that allows a man to be so poor that he can’t eat then punish him for taking what he requires to survive? We all have the right to have what we need to survive and therefore if we cannot gain access to it, despite our best efforts, by legal means then why should we not turn to crime to even the balance. How can you hang a man for being hungry? The truth of the matter is that the majority of crime around the world is caused by poverty, and the government does nothing to reduce poverty as anyone stuck unable to gain employment through no fault of their own, and fobbed off with the pitance the government is willing to give out to keep the populace from outright revolt will only too readily tell you. The fact of the matter is that our governments are capitalist governments that are dedicated to the advance and management of the economy. Our governments throughout history have sought to create better conditions for businesses to thrive and prosper, often at the expense of their own people. Look at the treatment of unions, the miners, slave labour and western backed use of child labour at below poverty rate pay in the third world. Most governments spend a majority of their time advancing the interests of commerce to the deficit of their people. If this is what government is achieving for the people, sacrificing them for the sake of better and bigger business, then why not dispense with them?

The Original Revolution

Karl Marx’s original belief was that there would come a time when the capitalist Bourgeois would have pushed the working Proletariat too far. They would become fed up with doing all the work and receiving a very limited amount of the profit and being mistreated, abused, taken for granted and treated over al like a subclass of society. When this time came Marx predicted that there would be a revolution of the Proletariat, who being a vast majority against such a small group as the rich capitalist fat cats, would win. After this revolution there would come the final age of man, Communism. Unlike most peoples misconceptions communism is not a political system, it is a method of economy.

In the Marxist-Lenninist world of post october revolution Russia things were much different. In the advent of the upheaval of the civil war Lennin and the red army had to resort to “war communism”, wich was little better than the tyrranical Tsarist feudalism that had preceded it. However Russia was not developed econommically to the right degree for a succesful revolution of the proletariat leading to the beginning of a communist state and so, with Lennin’s death died the revolution as the era of Stalin’s dictatorial neo-fascist impearialistic personality cult at the head of what was just another capitalist country but with total governmental control of all economic forces, came to power.

This state run capitalism with Stalin’s masquerade as a communist leader could not have been further from the vision of Marx and was no more communist than Himmler’s favourite rubber truncheon. My idea of communism is very different from that of Stalinist Russia. A society where everybody does what they can for the whole society and takes what they need for themselves and their family to live a happy comfortable life, free from fear want or oppresion.

The Theory Bit

Yeah I actually managed to get to it! Impressed? You should be! Anyway here follows my vision of a perfect society.

In my vision of the ideal post-Marxist revolutionary communist world there would be a state of democratic government by anarchy.

Many may think that this is ridiculous but if the whole of the human race or the vast majority thereof agreed to have a society in which everyone would return either to their pre-revolution jobs or to a different job of social worth (ie not management conultation or the like), not be payed for their work, and take from the resources the society would thereby create through this work what they needed to live without need or want of the essentials to survive and to live happily. With society “getting on with it” without wasting time on pointless meaningless concepts such as money then there would be no need for a government of any kind once society was back on its feet. If everybody agrees to lack of government then the state of anarchy has been reached democratically and as the people are conducting their own lives, and thereby governing themselves, this while not having an organised group of power-trippin’ yuppies to tell us all what to think and do there would still effectively be a form of government in the absence of government.

This my friends (and would be assasins) is the theory of democratic government by anarchy.

Big Bad Bolshevik Bob. The Kalashnikov Party.

We are Members of the Zaphodista Army of Cybernautic Liberation

The Revolution will not be Tele-Tubbied. Zaphodistas A520769.

The Credits

I would like to thank: Covert Bob, my fellow conspirator/revolutionary psychopath, Vicky, for adding some sense of balance and providing me with the opposite end of the argument, a certain individual (who will remain nameless) for unwittingly feeding me the repugnant views of the right wing scum of British nationalism so I can argue against and destroy them, Emma and Dan who provided me with a large helping of inspiration and made me realise I’m not the only one out there who gives a damn, every well meant attempt at Marxism, at least you tried, Che Guevara, Ghandi, Dr King, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, and all others who have fought and/or died for the freedom of others.

The Kalashnikov party would also like to thank fascists everywhere for not being bullet-proof.


Title Status



This user has no Entry subscriptions

Someone You Know(GrandHighMaster Of All Things Unsanitary And In Need Of A Good Clean Before The Neighbours Come Round)

Researcher U171922

Work Edited by h2g2


h2g2 is created by h2g2's users, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of Not Panicking Ltd. If you consider any Entry to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please register a complaint. For any other comments, please visit the Feedback page.

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more


This user has no Bookmarks

See all Bookmarks