Late night blogging and Communism

It seems to be happening more and more these days. I get more distracted despite the fact that I'm not doing anything. Very odd. But anyways.

Work was interesting today Ewout had a meeting with his supervisors out of which came the decision that he needs to do coding, OK I realise that his internship plan says he probably should but now I'm unofficially off coding duty. And it sucks ass to be honest. Ewout is great, he really is. But... my project really isn't my baby anymore, when we working together it was fine but now someone else is going to be changing stuff without me. So very - ugh! PLUS! There's a possibility that he might be doing some google location integration with it, later on. Which was my frigging idea anyway! And it would be so interesting, such a head banging challenge. But we don't know for sure, and I'm totally not blaming him not in the slightest. And I guess I can't blame the supervisors either it's just so darn unfair. And yes I know the universe is like that, does that mean I can't rant? I think not.

Today I also read Animal Farm (all in one day - very short book) as part of the forum book club. I understand a lot more of it than I did when I was eleven! My teacher made up this ridiculous scheme of making everyone read a bit, but he'd set a complex layout to make sure everyone was paying attention. And we were, but not to the book, how I ever wrote a (semi) decent essay on that book I'll never know.

It's much more interesting now though. It really gives me a better (though still limited) understanding of the Russian Revolution etc. I mean obviously Napolean (the pig(Stalin)) was a bit iffy from the start but Snowball (Trotsky) really wasn't, he was really enthusiastic about the equality thing, probably an idealist but then, which communists aren't? Communism is a lovely theory but it just won't work until we completely change our nature. And it's interesting to wonder whether, had Snowball not been run off the farm, if he'd stayed, he would have been courrupted too. By virtue of being a pig, more intelligent and able to read and write he's already in the "more respected" party (shall we say) of all the equal individuals. And it would be nice to think that he wouldn't have been corrupted too but after all, even from the first days the pigs took a few liberties - the milk and stuff. But would he have stayed at that level? Would he have realise how evil Napolean was, tried to overthrow him but in succeeding might he not have had to take up the leadership of the comrades himself? And then, with his new found leadership would he have still be all about equality?

And therein lies the issue. There's no way of finding out sensibly. I mean sure, we could cause a whole bunch of revolutions just to see but that's a bit of a waste! For every equality-first potential leader there are thousands who merely think that they're good enough. And for everyone of those there's one or two who have no delusions and just want power however they can get it.

Can anyone say for sure that the power wouldn't go to their head, even a little? How many dictatorships started out with a man backed by some people just trying to make things better? Franco didn't even want to take up the reins, he believed in the Spanish Revolution but he had the leadership thrust upon him in some ways. And look what happened. Did life get better? Maybe some bits did and others got worse. And the problem with leaders of the revolution is that the power goes to their head, but *all* the power, over a whole country goes to their head. No wonder they don't want to let it go. No wonder they choose to become dictators for life, even if it doesn't actually help the people they were trying to save. Now were they inherently bad men? Corrupted or corruptible?

Personally I dislike buying banners or posters or w/e that have symbols or mottos I don't understand on, in case someone asks me about it and I have to admit I'm ignorant! But there's a lot of Che Guevara merchandise out there and so I looked him up one day. And, I might be misinterpreting this, it seems to me that he was a revolutionary - vive la revolution! - and he helped lead a revolution. He helped overthrow the corrupt cuban leader, he died in the process I believe. And who replaced this corrupt leader? Fidel Castro. So Che Guevara - the great revolutionary, man of the people - helped to put in power a man with whom many countries won't trade with. They've had two economic collapses? (Do correct me if I'm wrong, please please do) I had some friends went to Cuba and apparently they have free schools for the arts and things and some other nice stuff. Almost fifty years later. But it hasn't always been so wonderful in between. Is that what Che Guevara had in mind? Should you still support him and wear his merchandise just because he was a revolutionary? Should you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't envision dictatorship, trade embargoes and economic decline? Probably. But does that mean you should still go around advertising something you don't understand? Probably not. Is it even what Fidel Castro wanted? Did he think "I'm going to lead a revolution, pretend to all my fellow cubans that I'm a good man and then the minute I grasp the power from Batista's hands, I'll do with this country whatever I please?" I hope not. Otherwise that man is a *very* good liar.

That was a more thoughtful post than I thought it was going to be...

Night all. 8 sleeps till Christmas!