Rex Fallout said:
Baradiel said:
Thats quite the statement there. Art and culture would not cease to exist, they would evolve with society. Love would be exactly the same. Technology would still be developed, and religion... well...
If you take the stance that religion is used to manipulate and control, a system that keeps the status quo, and leads to oppression and intolerance, losing religion could be considered a good thing.
Art is what the individual artist decides it is. Art is the portrayal of ones ideals, ideas, loves, hates and influences on to a single canvas, sculpture or, dare I say? Video Game. In a capitalist society, you can have Bioshock, a story about a pro capitalist world in a city under the sea, AND the story about the opposite. This would not happen in a Marxist society simply because capitalism would be viewed as wrong, it would probably even be outlawed flat out. There might still be art but it wouldn't be the same, a gallary full of portraits standing for exactly the same thing over and over again. In Anthem you can see that a Marxist society could devolve into something less without love where the men work seperate from women and get together once a year to mate and move on with their lives. No love. Technology would be less likely to be developed because first: Most intellectuals would be dead, and second: No incentive for their work. A marxist society can move forward- sort of, but the elites must direct the little skill they have to a single area. The USSR worked on the space race, and little else prospered during this time. Whereas in the US, everything kept moving forward, INCLUDING the space technology. Not just one thing. And Religion would die becasue Marx flat out says that the only true religion of a Marxist state is Atheism, and like said earlier, (and later on in this post) religion create a sense of morality. Without it it would be a sad world indeed, (never mind if a creator turned out to be real).
Marxism doesn't necessarily mean that the individual is removed. You can be individual in your thoughts, feelings etc, but you all work for the common good. Yes, that might not be considered 'individual' to the extent you perceive it, but living in a Marxist society doesn't make you a mindless drone or slave.
Don't get me wrong, the economy of the Soviet Union very rarely matched the economy of the USA, let alone the combined efforts of the entire Western Bloc. The industrial heartland of the USSR was devastated during the Second World War, so that had to be repaired, which already placed them behind the West. One thing I will grant unbridled capitalism is that it is very good at making money. That is the sole reason for it to exist.
I could go into how the economy of the Soviet Union was inferior to the US, but basically it comes down to; less trade, recuperating after WW2, a still-largely agrarian economy. It simply couldnt compete with the economic efficiency of capitalism without sacrificing ideology.
This point comes down to whether you believe in nature or nurture. I personally think that the way a child is brought up influences their personality more than simply being born. In a truly marxist society, children would be exposed to the ideas of equality and fairness from an early age. You could consider that propaganda, and you'd be right, but propaganda is used by every government, even capitalist governments like the US.
And Marx believed that once the bourgeoisie were overthrown, the system would change from capitalist to socialist, and then to communist. Once in the communist state, there would be no more revolutions, because there would be no reason to revolt.
This comes down to opinion. Is a relatively brief period of chaos and death worth a much longer period of peace and equality?
There have been many bloody transitions throughout history that have eventually resulted in a better situation. Just depends how long you'd be willing to wait...
To a degree a child is affected by how they brought up, but eventually in their life they become their own individuals. People constantly go against the way they were raised, take the hippy generation for instance. Eventually we create our own thoughts and ideas, and even though they may have some of the foundations of what we were taught when we were young, many times that foundation isn't even there. [/quote]
You make a fair point. Young people almost always express some sort of rebellion against their upbringing, but it is temporary. I'm not sure where I'm getting this from, but apparently people are more open minded and more easily swayed when they are young, but when they start to mature their opinions become more fixed.
Its interesting that you bring up the hippy generation. Thats a perfect example of rebellious youth. But, like I said, it was a temporary phase. How many of those hippies are still hippies, compared to those that settled down and 'fulfilled their role' in society?
Rex Fallout said:
That was my point; self preservation is inherently selfish, as it is about helping yourself rather than others, and like you said, it isn't considered a bad thing in our society. Yet self sacrifice (not necessarily to the point of death, but more a willingness to suffer for other people) is hailed as a worthy cause, one to be respected.
Then selfishness is not a bad thing. Without self preservation humanity wouldnt be alive today. To risk your life for others, (by choice) is to be hero, to risk your life for other by force is to be a slave. Willingness is the key word here.
But, being selfish is taught to children as being wrong, as being immoral. If you are selfish, that is seen as a bad thing, is it not? Being selfless is seen as good, selfish is wrong.
Although I see your point about willingness. However, if everyone did what they wanted, without concern for anyone else, the world would be anarchy. People
have to be forced to do things to make society work. That is the true flaw with communism; true communism would require no government. People would work for the benefit of the whole. The problem is that people aren't like that.
Rex Fallout said:
Children need to be educated, but people don't need to be medically treated without worrying about the bill? What if someone is being taxed for children they don't even have? What is their interest in educating someone elses sprog? Why is socialised medicine off limits? Why is that wrong? Why am I writing so many rhetorical questions? Why?
The thing is that you need to be careful, give the government to much power, and like the men that it is composed of it will become selfish and want more.
I remember you made this point earlier in this discussion, about not trusting the government. Personally, I would trust the government, an organisation designed to work for and for the betterment of their population, more than a company or corporation, which exist to make money, to benefit of their customers. This is especially true in a service like Health Care, where cost cutting can cost lives.
Rex Fallout said:
I propose something different, it maybe stupid but here is an idea I had:
What if when you are young, (0-18) the state took care of your healthcare, then when you were an adult and could take care of yourself, you had to get on your own and care for yourself? It could even work on an individual basis that if you went to a 4 year college or university after high school the state would take care of you for a bit longer? And when you did get off they would slowly ween you off so you took care of yourself? Everyone would at least have the chance to create something for themselves and not be bound to their parents insurance and cause extra problems. Still this was just a random idea I had, feel free to tell me its stupid if it is.
Thats slightly similar to the current system in the UK, but it still comes down to this; if someone didn't have enough money, they would die. Personally, in my opinion, that seems wrong. How much is a human life worth?
The NHS means that question rarely has to be asked. If you are ill, you get treatment, regardless of how much you earn. If you have the money, you can get treatment faster, so it still gives an advantage to being rich (which is not necessarily wrong)
Rex Fallout said:
No, communism wasn't what made them that way. Their situation is what made them that way, or their own personal flaws.
Perhaps to a degree it did but then during the transition period they had to force their ideas on the people, and by exposing them to that system you made them the horrible men they became. Maybe Chairman Mao would have ended up as the next Ghandi rather than the greatest mass murderer in human history if things had been different?
Ghandi didn't have to fight a civil war, and maintain rule over one of the largest countries on Earth while in constant fear of nuclear and conventional attack from foreign powers.
You're right. Mao could have been remembered as a philanthropist, if the country he led hadn't been industrially backward, recovering from occupation by the Japanese and suffering the results of a decades-long civil war.
Simply put, Mao did not have the resources or the time to do things 'the nice way'. His being Communist had very little to do with what he had to do to his people.
Rex Fallout said:
This paragraph confused me. You seem to be saying that owning land, and enjoying the power, is a bad thing.
And the elite isn't part of the marxist system, the elite is part of the previous system. The elite are landowners, capitalists, factory workers, the bourgeoisie. Marxism aims to remove them. However, an example of the Soviet Union shows how the Communist Party itself became corrupted by power. That is a human flaw.
Thats not really what i meant, I meant that people naturally enjoy power, thats why owning land is such a popular thing, and Marxism will never work.
And of course the elite are part of Marxism even if he doesn't mention it. Otherwise it would be anarchy with no government whatsoever. Plus they wouldn't want to risk those selfish Capitalist pigs from coming back to power would they?
True Communism, Marx's final (and most unreachable) dream, was such that it did not require governing. People did what they could for the betterment of all. It wouldn't be anarchy, because people would not want to effect others. This idea is extremely unlikely, and certainly won't happen in the near, or even long term, future, unless something extreme happens.
The idea of 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' comes from Lenin, who took over a country that was just starting to industrialise. Marx believed that the revolution would come when technology was such that the Proletariat would never need to work so hard again. Russia was largely agrarian before the revolution. Lenin believed that the working classes we A) Too small a group to maintain a country (he didn't consider peasants to be working class, by the standards of Marx) and B) Too uneducated, which they were.
Rex Fallout said:
And here we agree. Religion is not a completely negative entity, but it is rather what people do in the name of their religion that causes problems. There are definite pro's to religion. It can lead to generosity and unity, but there are also examples of when zealotry has led to atrocities.
The same is true of any ideology, including communism. Communism is not a pure evil, but it is rather what certain people have done, using communism as a reason for it.
Religion by itself is rarely negative at all. If you read the bible you'll find that it does not tell you to fight unless you have to and to be tolerant and show love to others. The same can be said of many other religions, (still unsure about Islam, but I come from a part of the country where everyone screams, "ISLAM EVIL!" and stuff so I'll have to do my own research on that in my own time). Religion teaches morality, and CHOICE, philosophy, well, doesn't always do the same. The fact is that so far, NO good has come out of Marxism, whereas Religion can say other wise.
I'd disagree over religion rarely being negative. Taking Christianity as an example; religion restricts development, either philosophical, scientific or industrial. Darwin was faced with so must hostility and resistance to his Theory of Evolution, because it directly contravened the Bible, which stated that Humans and animals had been the same way since God created them in seven days. I'm not sure whether you are religious or not, but I'm agnostic, and the idea that everything we know was essentially created by magic is ludicrous to me. There is far too much evidence and theory about the origins of our planet, the Human Race, etc etc.
Rex Fallout said:
You're right. It does say the old system must be removed, because the old system is corrupt and a method of control.
And there is plenty of good to come out of marxism. Revolutions only occur when the people are truly tired of being oppressed. The new Cuban government nationalised American companies that basically had a stranglehold over the island, and the people. In Guatemala, land reforms took unused land that was owned by private, foreign companies (mainly the United Fruit Company) and gave it to the peasants (sortof worth mentioning that this act led to the democratically elected Arbenz being removed by a CIA led coup, and replaced by Colonel Armas).
Actions perpetrated under the guise of "Communism" have sometimes been terrible, but saying that Marxism is an evil ideology, and only causes suffering, is incredibly closeminded.
Yes it could bring some 'good' I suppose but by the death of the individual and the countless millions that must die in the revolution and transition period? It's not really worth the limited things it offers.
Guatemala was not communist. It wasn't even socialist. Arbenz simply used Marxist principles to make general life for the masses better. Individualism was not destroyed. People were actually more free, as the foreign companies restricted where they could go, where they could work, and where they could live.
And taking Cuba as an example; very few people died, compared to the many thousands that were executed under Batista. Those who were executed under Castro were 'war criminals' from the Batista-era, people who had actively oppressed the people, through torture and execution.
Rex Fallout said:
I haven't read Anthem, but I have read 1984, and the key thing about 1984 was that the government isn't marxist. They claim to be, but once the main character (whose name has abandoned me) reads the book (the name of which has also lost me) he realises that the three superstates all say the same thing, but there is no intention of making life for the people any better. The constant state of war and poverty are easy ways to keep control.
Oh, and Orwell was a socialist. He just didn't agree with the totalitarian socialism of the Soviet Union.
Anyways, second, There is no way Orwell was a socialist! Did you not read Animal farm? He flat out tells you what happens not only in a soviet marxist state but ANY marxist state. The whole, "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." thing, are you honestly trying to tell me he was socialist? You'll need to provide some strong evidence to prove that to me.
George Orwell was most definitely a socialist. He coined the term 'democratic socialist' to describe himself, as he believed that the best way society could be run would be socialism
alongside freedom of speech and elections, sortof how the UK is now, but not as much.
Animal Farm was a parody of the Soviet Union's totalitarianism. The comparisons are obvious; Napoleon as Stalin, Snowball as Trotsky etc. Animal Farm was a criticism of how the Russian Revolution ended up betraying the causes it had been fought for. The fact it is written and published as a children's book just shows how ludicrous he considered it, and that the betrayal of principles was so obvious that even children could understand it. 1984 was more a criticism of Stalinism itself.
Seriously, look it up. Have a read of "The Road to Wigan Pier". He was a self-confessed Socialist. [/quote]
Rex Fallout said:
[possible spoiler of 1984]
A bit off topic but were you as depressed by the ending of 1984 as I was? For some reason I kept thinking everything would be ok and then... yeah.
It was a heartbreaking ending. I knew it couldn't have ended well, but I actually felt for Winston as everything he knew was destroyed. It is an incredibly bleak book, but Orwell wrote it spectacularly.
Also, I love how more than half this page is from us. Thats an incredible amount of text!
