I just watched 1984 again

[discojoe]

The scariest thing about is the movie is the total lack of knowable information about the state of world. The only things we know about Oceania and "the war" are shown as propaganda.

Oceania might occupy far less geographic territory than what is officially said, or far more.

It may be part of a secret world government that controls each super nation (the entire world) and stages war to maintain control.

We don't know if there actually is a war or not.

We don't know specifically how the government became the way it did.

We don't know who controls the government.

There is no way to obtain verifiable information on any of these issues.


This is what happens when government secrecy escalates.

[Darkstar]

Don't that just add to the excitement? =)

and now if you are masochistic and imagine something poorly done from the loose ends that's your mistake

Didn't know there was a movie though? Don't mind me until i've seen it

[discojoe]

I wasn't criticizing the movie. These were all things I found fascinating.

Hmm, I bet a lot of people have done book reports on this story.

[discojoe]

We also don't know if these super nations actually exist in any form, or if they are really called what we call them.

[Expat]

1984 was actually George Orwell's critique of Stalinism, and of Stalin's shift from Germany's ally to its enemy, then "socialist brotherhood" with China but then wary of it, all the time justifying it in restrospect -- so it has to be read as a caricature of that.

[discojoe]

1984 was actually George Orwell's critique of Stalinism, and of Stalin's shift from Germany's ally to its enemy, then "socialist brotherhood" with China but then wary of it, all the time justifying it in restrospect -- so it has to be read as a caricature of that.

You mean as a hypothetical result of that?

[Expat]

You mean as a hypothetical result of that?

Now you've lost me. I mean that was the context of what he was trying to achieve. Same with Animal Farm, which was a caricature of the Bolsheviks' rise to power in Russia.

[discojoe]

You mean as a hypothetical result of that?

Now you've lost me. I mean that was the context of what he was trying to achieve. Same with Animal Farm, which was a caricature of the Bolsheviks' rise to power in Russia.

Well, you said it was a critique of Stalinism, and I was asking if you meant that the story was critiquing via looking at the longterm consequences of Stalinism.

[Expat]

Well, you said it was a critique of Stalinism, and I was asking if you meant that the story was critiquing via looking at the longterm consequences of Stalinism.

Ah. Perhaps, not sure if he ever explained exactly want he intended. I still have to read one book by Hitchens called Orwell's Victory. I think it's both a satyre of Stalinism - Big Brother is very obviously Stalin - and perhaps, yes, a projection of what the world could be like should it ever be spread over the world. At the time, many communists said that world communism would mean an end to war, and Orwell also wanted to say that was rubbish. I think he was basically saying to his fellow leftists, "that is the kind of world you want to take us to, it is the logical consequence", but so but also mixed with .

[discojoe]

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

[olduser]

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

I think there is truth in this statement, but I think communism greatly greatly reduces jealousy with elimination of status items and luxuruies. Also, i don't think the motto is "No one can have more than me," as much as it is, "Why have more when you don't need more?" I think it's fatal flaw is its challenge to the nature of man.

[discojoe]

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

I think there is truth in this statement, but I think communism greatly greatly reduces jealousy with elimination of status items and luxuruies. Also, i don't think the motto is "No one can have more than me," as much as it is, "Why have more when you don't need more?" I think it's fatal flaw is its challenge to the nature of man.

In practice it does not work this well. Communism has to replace the population's self-esteem with something, and that something is state-worship. In a system where the people are not in control of a large part of their lives, they naturally adjust to this; their creativity falters, their ambitions falter, their pride falters, and in place of these they are told that the purpose of their lives is to better the state, and through several levels of propaganda they come to believe these lies and begin to love the state. This state-love literally becomes state-worship as the government begins to control religion, and people become more and more mindless. Just look at the brain-dead citizens of North Korea. The people are told, in many different ways, that they are worthless as individuals and that the government charitably protects them from the evils of their own selfish nature by "forgiving" them and letting them service the greater good. So we all become self-loathing state-worshippers who are miserable and pathetic. This is inevitable in a communistic society.

The ironic thing is that the leader of this kind of government is always a selfish egocentric tyrant.

[olduser]

But supposing the system works and goods are available to all citizens-- everyone is pathetic, but no one starves to death.

[discojoe]

But supposing the system works and goods are available to all citizens-- everyone is pathetic, but no one starves to death.

Well how about the government just disable all higher brain function and feed us intravenously? We'll all be vegetables, but no one will starve.

[Gilly]

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they?

[discojoe]

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they?

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

[KSpin]

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they?

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

It's in their interest for humanity to live in peace and mutual-prosperity.

[Gilly]

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they?

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

lolachoo.

[discojoe]

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they?

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

It's in their interest for humanity to live in peace and mutual-prosperity.

Which makes you wonder why they'd endorse communism.

[KSpin]

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they?

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

It's in their interest for humanity to live in peace and mutual-prosperity.

Which makes you wonder why they'd endorse communism.

Not at all, at least Marxism anyway.

[discojoe]

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they?

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

It's in their interest for humanity to live in peace and mutual-prosperity.

Which makes you wonder why they'd endorse communism.

Not at all.

Oh.

[KSpin]

Notice my edit. ^^

[tcaudilllg]

Well, you said it was a critique of Stalinism, and I was asking if you meant that the story was critiquing via looking at the longterm consequences of Stalinism.

Ah. Perhaps, not sure if he ever explained exactly want he intended. I still have to read one book by Hitchens called Orwell's Victory. I think it's both a satyre of Stalinism - Big Brother is very obviously Stalin - and perhaps, yes, a projection of what the world could be like should it ever be spread over the world. At the time, many communists said that world communism would mean an end to war, and Orwell also wanted to say that was rubbish. I think he was basically saying to his fellow leftists, "that is the kind of world you want to take us to, it is the logical consequence", but so but also mixed with .

Off-topic:
Are you saying here that is the observation of a timeline, and compensatory is the method by which alternative timelines are considered?

[Logos]

Well, you said it was a critique of Stalinism, and I was asking if you meant that the story was critiquing via looking at the longterm consequences of Stalinism.

Ah. Perhaps, not sure if he ever explained exactly want he intended. I still have to read one book by Hitchens called Orwell's Victory. I think it's both a satyre of Stalinism - Big Brother is very obviously Stalin - and perhaps, yes, a projection of what the world could be like should it ever be spread over the world. At the time, many communists said that world communism would mean an end to war, and Orwell also wanted to say that was rubbish. I think he was basically saying to his fellow leftists, "that is the kind of world you want to take us to, it is the logical consequence", but so but also mixed with .

Off-topic:
Are you saying here that is the observation of a timeline, and compensatory is the method by which alternative timelines are considered?

That sounds about right. uses the experiences of the past in some ways to determine consequences, which gives the appearance of foresight. looks more at different possibilities or directions which may exist at a given point in the present. So while may appear as a linear timeline, would probably be more like branching from a tree.

[olduser]

But supposing the system works and goods are available to all citizens-- everyone is pathetic, but no one starves to death.

Well how about the government just disable all higher brain function and feed us intravenously? We'll all be vegetables, but no one will starve.

Emotional problems are only a reality for people who don't have to struggle to live day in and day out. In cases where basic needs aren't being met people don't have time to complain of being pathetic or to study their individuality. I'm willing to sacrifice my petty emotional diatribes for being pathetic and the elimination of starvation. Of course, this is all idealized thinking, and I am assuming the system actually works as intended, if not better. I think there are many more serious issues to debate in communism besides the loss of individuality. Mostly in the practical implementation.

To the issue of your post: That would not be ideal for a government. A communist's government's purpose is to enable all citizens to have their needs met and provide them work. Who would build the supercars of future politicians if everyone is hooked into life support? They need their supercars, discojoe.

[Khamelion]

I've never seen it

[discojoe]

Emotional problems are only a reality for people who don't have to struggle to live day in and day out. In cases where basic needs aren't being met people don't have time to complain of being pathetic or to study their individuality. I'm willing to sacrifice my petty emotional diatribes for being pathetic and the elimination of starvation. Of course, this is all idealized thinking, and I am assuming the system actually works as intended, if not better. I think there are many more serious issues to debate in communism besides the loss of individuality. Mostly in the practical implementation.

No. Why is it more serious to discuss the implementation of communism instead of how communism is bad and shouldn't be implemented?

"Instead of talking about the petty ups and downs of my shitty system that will make everyone miserable, let's first decide how we're going to implement it."

See, that's shitty backwards thinking.

To the issue of your post: That would not be ideal for a government. A communist's government's purpose is to enable all citizens to have their needs met and provide them work. Who would build the supercars of future politicians if everyone is hooked into life support? They need their supercars, discojoe.

The point is that it's not ideal for the individual, because almost all of his freedoms are placed in the hands of the government, which historically cannot ever decide what is best for everyone.

[olduser]

Emotional problems are only a reality for people who don't have to struggle to live day in and day out. In cases where basic needs aren't being met people don't have time to complain of being pathetic or to study their individuality. I'm willing to sacrifice my petty emotional diatribes for being pathetic and the elimination of starvation. Of course, this is all idealized thinking, and I am assuming the system actually works as intended, if not better. I think there are many more serious issues to debate in communism besides the loss of individuality. Mostly in the practical implementation.

No. Why is it more serious to discuss the implementation of communism instead of how communism is bad and shouldn't be implemented?

"Instead of talking about the petty ups and downs of my shitty system that will make everyone miserable, let's first decide how we're going to implement it."

See, that's shitty backwards thinking.

I wasn't saying practicality was the only issue to consider or that it trumps individuality. But I think if we are going to debate communism's merits we need to look at it's economics and how it will tend to it's citizens practically(which if we consider the system to be well-adjusted, could be a 'good' point), not just emotionally and psychologically. Perhaps, practical implements is a better phrase than practical implementation.

To the issue of your post: That would not be ideal for a government. A communist's government's purpose is to enable all citizens to have their needs met and provide them work. Who would build the supercars of future politicians if everyone is hooked into life support? They need their supercars, discojoe.

The point is that it's not ideal for the individual, because almost all of his freedoms are placed in the hands of the government, which historically cannot ever decide what is best for everyone.

Even if they don't know what is BEST for everyone, they would be capable of providing what is GREAT for everyone-- food!

Anyway, I'm resting now because I have conflict with communism, and am probably incapable of understanding it having been raised in an individualistic society.

[Jimbean]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08[/youtube]

[Jimbean]

But I think if we are going to debate communism's merits we need to look at it's economics and how it will tend to it's citizens practically(which if we consider the system to be well-adjusted, could be a 'good' point), not just emotionally and psychologically. Perhaps, practical implements is a better phrase than practical implementation.

To the issue of your post: That would not be ideal for a government. A communist's government's purpose is to enable all citizens to have their needs met and provide them work. Who would build the supercars of future politicians if everyone is hooked into life support? They need their supercars, discojoe.

Even if they don't know what is BEST for everyone, they would be capable of providing what is GREAT for everyone-- food!

Anyway, I'm resting now because I have conflict with communism, and am probably incapable of understanding it having been raised in an individualistic society.

There is no mechanism for governments to do economic calculation, nor is there any incentive to be efficient. I will argue that if political dynamics were to leave people to live like individuals without manipulation, society would work fine.

If your stance is to take a system such as communism as a possible method to acheiving a better society, then if you would like, I will debate you on that stance.

[olduser]

Read the last sentence I wrote. In fact, you stated my conflict with communism in your paragraph. There is no system of incentive and reward besides 'doing it for fellow mankind.' This collectivist attitude conflicts with my entire(and most americans) upbringing whether at home or in an institution. Given this, it's very hard to concieve communism.

[Jimbean]

I apologize, I misunderstood what you said

I was gearing up for a semi-formal debate involving economic philososphy

[olduser]

ah no. I am interested in hearing what you have to say and I will debate you from a non-communist perspective. I've been thinking about a truly self-governed society and I have a few concerns: what are the incentives to maintain quality public institutions like roads and education? Would everyone build their own roads and then sell access to them? Do we have people who are born road-builders and remain road-builders/maintenance? How does it organize itself?

[Gilly]

How does it organize itself?

http://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Peng.../dp/0140431950

[Expat]

It's not a question of implementation -- communism, based on Marxism, is theoretically, fundamentally, bullshit. It's one of the worst jokes played on mankind. Marx wrote an immense number of pages on something that is simply wrong.

[Logos]

It's not a question of implementation -- communism, based on Marxism, is theoretically, fundamentally, bullshit. It's one of the worst jokes played on mankind. Marx wrote an immense number of pages on something that is simply wrong.

Why?

[Expat]

You can find a lot of that on the net, but to me two key points are:

- "scientific" analysis of history, which Marxists claimed gave their views the "inevitability" of history. The concept of class struggle as the key to historical, social, and economic development, as in their Manifesto. That's a typical (sorry) concept that is not supported by the facts. To this day, it makes Marxist historians write sheer nonsense about the fall of the Roman Empire or WWI or the economy of Africa under colonial rule etc. Marxist historians insist on attributing the fall of the Roman Empire to its "internal contradictions" such as slavery or imperialism, which is sheer nonsense and clearly disproved as the eastern Roman Empire survived for centuries. Apart from the absence of any meaningful slave revolts under the empire.

By the way, that is a view also defended in movie versions of Spartacus, as a class struggle -- that interpretation of Spartacus's revolt is, again, sheer historical nonsense, it serves as "fix" for the Marxists' illusions.

- the labor theory of value, which makes no sense to anyone who really understands how the market economy works, or even to anyone who actually worked in an industrial plant trying to produce something that customers actually want to buy. And that is the essential explanation why all communist economies failed and stagnated.

Marxism is sheer nonsense, it's not a question of "bad implementation" or whatever. Millions of people were killed, starved, enslaved in a futile attempt to make nonsense work.

[olduser]

It doesn't have to make sense to a market economy if a market economy does not exist. It is also not nonsense because it failed. It's impractical, but not nonsense. You make valid points conveyed with too much rhetoric. As for the Marxist illusion of history-- I don't know much about this, but it seems really interesting. I wouldn't discount it completely. History cannot be explained solely by one school of thought. There have to be multiple perspectives and criteria for such an expansive subject. A marxist who says all history is related to class struggle is just as foolish as someone who discounts class struggle in history altogher.

[Expat]

It doesn't have to make sense to a market economy if a market economy does not exist.

The problem is that Marx used the labor theory of value to explain the market economy. Marx himself wrote that, in terms of efficiency in producing things, there was nothing like capitalism (the one he knew, of the 19th century). Precisely because he thought he understood it, he believed it could also work under socialism and communism. That is the issue.

It is also not nonsense because it failed. It's impractical, but not nonsense.

I think it is sheer, total, utter nonsense and rubbish, with no redeeming feature whatsoever, with as much value as Isaac Newton's attempt to calculate the dimensions of Hell.

You make valid points conveyed with too much rhetoric. As for the Marxist illusion of history-- I don't know much about this, but it seems really interesting. I wouldn't discount it completely. History cannot be explained solely by one school of thought. There have to be multiple perspectives and criteria for such an expansive subject.

If you claim to have one "law of history", it has to survive the test of fitting what really happened. Marxism fails this, although they won't admit it. Other historians do not claim to have found any "law of history" -- they try to explain events individually, or to find general trends that nevertheless do not make Marx's claims of "inevitability".

[Expat]

A marxist who says all history is related to class struggle is just as foolish as someone who discounts class struggle in history altogher.

Then you rightly think that Marx and Engels were foolish, because that is what they said in the Communist Manifesto.