#1 2010-12-20 19:27:11
From Gibson's Pattern Recognition, an Russian character speaking:
Everything Lenin told us about communism was a lie. Everything Lenin told us about capitalism was the truth.
Offline
#2 2010-12-20 19:47:35
We're fucked either way. Next!
Offline
#3 2010-12-20 20:19:29
Grass is greener...Lenin's view on capitalism was based in theory whereas the character's view on communism was based in experience. If the character had equal experience in both, he would agree with Taint.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#4 2010-12-20 20:27:18
I see capitalism as being a beautiful thing at its core. When two people meet and voluntarily exchange value for value both people win or they wouldn't do it in the first place. I think that what the quote is referring to is the highly perverted thing that people call "capitalism" today. I'll even go so far as to say the same thing about communism in that at it's core it's a beautiful thing. Where both systems go to shit quickly is when you make them state capitalism or state communism. The state is force and when you inject force into anything you turn it into something that will harm a lot of people and eventually fail. Just ask yourself what the difference is between sex and rape and you'll quickly get my point. I do believe capitalism is a lot more efficient, thus preferable, of a system to communism. With that being said I still don't care if a person is a communist or not, as long as they don't use political force to make me live under it.
Offline
#5 2010-12-20 20:31:02
It's really quite simple... all of these systems are doomed because of one basic human flaw - greed. Gets 'em every time.
Offline
#6 2010-12-21 10:25:28
Both are great in theory, messy in execution and doomed in perpetuity.
Throughout history, the only form of human organization that has succeeded the test of time has been the benevolent dictator model. One person in total control of every aspect of society.
Here is something that came up while I was reading a book with my daughter yesterday. We were reading about Cleopatra and she asked me about the great pyramids. What I realized was that the great pyramids were built as far before Cleopatra's birth as we are living after her death. It kind of put me in a mind of what a governmental system that must have been to support a fully functioning society without major change or revolution for over 2000 years.
Offline
#7 2010-12-21 10:35:04
Offline
#8 2010-12-21 11:45:47
GooberMcNutly wrote:
It kind of put me in a mind of what a governmental system that must have been to support a fully functioning society without major change or revolution for over 2000 years.
A Theocratic Monarchy where education of the masses was prohibited.
Offline
#9 2010-12-21 14:42:12
Emmeran wrote:
A Theocratic Monarchy where education of the masses was prohibited.
Can't knock it for staying power. Also to wit the Christian Church's lock on learning from 300 AD until about 1500 AD. Not quite the same run, but respectable none the less.
Makes our paltry 234 years a mere flash in the pan.
Last edited by GooberMcNutly (2010-12-21 14:43:27)
Offline
#10 2010-12-21 14:47:55
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
A Theocratic Monarchy where education of the masses was prohibited.
Can't knock it for staying power. Also to wit the Christian Church's lock on learning from 300 AD until about 1500 AD. Not quite the same run, but respectable none the less.
Don't forget that there were multiple internal coups during those runs, history was also frequently re-written removing entire periods of fact and replacing them with fancy.
Offline
#11 2010-12-21 20:48:31
Emmeran wrote:
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
A Theocratic Monarchy where education of the masses was prohibited.
Can't knock it for staying power. Also to wit the Christian Church's lock on learning from 300 AD until about 1500 AD. Not quite the same run, but respectable none the less.
Don't forget that there were multiple internal coups during those runs, history was also frequently re-written removing entire periods of fact and replacing them with fancy.
Is that how we ended up with a blond, blue-eyed messiah from the Middle East?
Offline
#12 2010-12-21 22:26:17
sic wrote:
Is that how we ended up with a blond, blue-eyed messiah from the Middle East?
Nah, that was caused by the zombifying process.
Offline
#13 2010-12-21 23:02:08
sic wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Can't knock it for staying power. Also to wit the Christian Church's lock on learning from 300 AD until about 1500 AD. Not quite the same run, but respectable none the less.Don't forget that there were multiple internal coups during those runs, history was also frequently re-written removing entire periods of fact and replacing them with fancy.
Is that how we ended up with a blond, blue-eyed messiah from the Middle East?
Blasphemers.
Offline
#14 2010-12-22 01:03:36
Roger_That wrote:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/cgr/lowres/cgrn119l.jpg
I thought you disliked politics, madam.
Offline
#15 2010-12-22 08:53:40
sic wrote:
Is that how we ended up with a blond, blue-eyed messiah from the Middle East?
This guy?
And back to the original quote, I think that what Gibson refers to as the "truth" is really just a comment on how well Communism vis-a-vis Capitalism lives up to it's advertising.
Capitalism advertises it's self as a way to get ahead, a way for a man to lift himself up, to achieve a higher standard of living along with all of the privileges that allows. It neither guarantees the lifting or describes exactly how you should go about it. On the other hand, Communism implies either A) The spontaneous uplifting of all workers by popular acclimation out of the goodness of our combined hearts or B) The rigid central planning of every aspect of your life, subverting your humanity beneath your value as a cog in the workers machine.
The real difference is that Communism has always promised something good for everybody, regardless of effort, and was unable to deliver. Capitalism only promises opportunity for something good, but the desire to achieve it must still be yours.
Whether you think Capitalism a fair and viable system usually depends less on where in the financial spectrum you find yourself than if you are rising or falling.
Offline
#16 2010-12-22 20:33:53
Slight digression: I always chuckle at the analogy that free market proponents often use of the person pulling themselves up by their bootstraps; it is something that by definition cannot be done.
Offline
