References to Communism in Futurama.

[Reply #40 on:]

Nothing.
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
answer these questions:
what is a scientist?
what is scinece?
how many futurama episodes are there?
AND!  when we bought Alaska, how much did it cost us an acre to buy it?

[Reply #41 on:]

 

Originally posted by gaschief:
 I agree totally, there have been far more right wing dictatorships throughout history!

Does it really matter what ideological icing you can assign to a dictatorship? The operative word is "dictatorship", everything else is semantics.

[Reply #42 on:]

No I agree, it was just a case in point for all who specifically seek to discredit communism alone by accusing all known examples of it as dictatorships.

My point: as an ideology it hasn't really had a fair shout on the world stage.

   

Originally posted by Organazation14:
Nothing.
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
answer these questions:
what is a scientist?
what is scinece?
how many futurama episodes are there?
AND!  when we bought Alaska, how much did it cost us an acre to buy it?

A scientist is someone who develops hypothesis about events in the observable world then seeks to validate them through the process of gathering empirical evidence to support their hypothesis ( I just made this up when drunk so it may be inaccurate )

Scinence, presumably meaning Science, is the body of work concerned with the above work. Notably there are 16,100 google listings for science mispelt as scinence.

72 Futurama episodes + 4 movies in the making.

WE didn't buy Alaska because 'WE' is Scottish! On the other hand The United States did purchase Alaska from Russia in 1867 at the Behest of Secretary of State William Seward at a price approximating to 1.9 cents per Acre.

[Reply #43 on:]

 

Originally posted by Pitt Clemens:
Best communist reference remains the socialist revolutionary greeting card.

I second!

[Reply #44 on:]

 

Originally posted by gaschief:
... A scientist is someone who develops hypothesis about events in the observable world then seeks to validate them through the process of gathering empirical evidence to support their hypothesis...

Scinence, presumably meaning Science, is the body of work concerned with the above work. Notably there are 16,100 google listings for science mispelt as scinence.

72 Futurama episodes + 4 movies in the making.

WE didn't buy Alaska because 'WE' is Scottish! ... The United States did purchase Alaska from Russia in 1867... at a price approximating to 1.9 cents per Acre.

[Justice Souter]
He shut you up O’14!
[/Justice Souter]
 

[Reply #45 on:]

Okay, I'll shut up.
I'll just go in my room and cry.
And laugh at your stupidity! HAW HAW!

No I'm just kidding your pretty smart.

[Reply #46 on:]

Let's get back to the topic now!

[Reply #47 on:]

 

NB: Dictatorships aren't necessarily communist in nature, and vice versa.

Scratch the vice versa. Your boys Marx and Lenin both made quite a big deal of the requirement of one-party rule being a vital step in the eventual establishment of true communism.

You have read their stuff, haven't you..?

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
Nazi Germany, of course.

You mean the one ruled by the National Socialist German Workers Party..?

[Reply #48 on:]

 

Originally posted by gaschief:

WE didn't buy Alaska because 'WE' is Scottish! On the other hand The United States did purchase Alaska from Russia in 1867 at the Behest of Secretary of State William Seward at a price approximating to 1.9 cents per Acre.

You looked that up. 

[Reply #49 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ben:
You have read their stuff, haven't you..?

Yes.

Marx only ever described a transitory phase known as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', never intended to last very long from the point of revolution. Later, the state would then 'wither away' and the proletariat was supposed to be replaced by the proper communist society, which supported a form of direct democracy.
This is not a contridiction - actual communism is in direct opposition to capitalism, not democracy.

Lenin, on the other hand, was a little more of a bastard (in Interesting Times, it could be argued), but you must admire his stance against racism, which was quite progressive for the time.


 

Originally posted by Ben:
 You mean the one ruled by the National Socialist German Workers Party..?

That's what they were called. Ain't what they were. A steaming pile of shit with a pleasent name-tag don't smell any better. Fascism is not communism. In fact, historically one of its integral components has been anti-communism.
To make a tired point, right is not left. It's wrong.
Ha, see what I did there? Wordplay. Good times

[Reply #50 on:]

This is just from memory but I believe Marx described his theory in terms of what he called 'dialectical materialism' about the workers revolution leading to the dissolution of the state and private property.
Yes, one thing that is always annoying is when people confuse fascism with communism. And come on, it's not like the Nazis  were socialist. "Racial purity" and ethnic cleansing is not exactly socialist!

[Reply #51 on:]

Yes, Marx's main thrust was really a classless society. Too bad scumfucks took his name in vain, so to speak.

Fascism is basically the polar opposite.

[Reply #52 on:]

 

Originally posted by Xanfor:
 You looked that up.   

Yeah, there's no way you could remember all that when you're an Alcholic.  I thought It was 2 cents an Acre!

[Reply #53 on:]

You are right, I wouldn't even have bothered if i hadnt been drunk at the time!

[Reply #54 on:]

Probably the best example of a "right-wing dictatorship", if you include modern-far-right laissez faire economics in your definition of "right-wing", is Chile under Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet was economically backed by US forces because they were threatened by the previous ruler.

Which brings us to Marxism and dictatoships - Chile under Salvador Allende was the first ever state with a democratically-elected Marxist Head of State. In which case, it becomes obvious that communism - even Marxism (while a subset of communism, Marxism is often equated with communism) - is not necessarily autocratic. Hell, boys - communism is derived from a society probably best described as anarchistic. You have read their stuff, havent you Ben... ?

Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat", as understood even by his harsh critics such as Mikhail Bakunin, was not a dictatorship in the sense understood today - what he most certainly meant was that the working class would dictate to the ruling class the conditions of the new society. This would be a vast majority oppressing a small minority who basically deserve it from a Marxist perspective. "True communism", "true socialism" or "communism", depending on the writer, is by definition stateless and hence the polar opposite of a dictatorship. Marx, Engels and Lenin all were clear on this.

The Nazis were not socialist, even if Hitler would disagree. They were closely aligned with Italy's fascism, and while influenced by the revolutionary socialist current of syndicalism, the Fascists were explicitly and absolutely anti-socialist. One of their slogans was "Less socialism! More fascism!" - fascism was not a loaded word at the time, of course.

Syndicalism, interestingly, is a joining point between many radical doctrines of the earlier half of the 20th Century; anarchism, fascism and Marxism all took influence from syndicalism; syndicalists eventualy became either Marxists, anarcho-syndicalists or National Syndicalists, who were proto-fascists in Italy and Spain.

Marx's thrust was a classless society, to be developed by the abolition of capital, but he missed. The state can never liberate the people! Capital and the state have to be removed together, in one fell swoop, if any permanent progress is to be made.

(Sorry! Just a small rant from your friendly neighbourhood anarchist. I'll be up front with Subcomandante Marcos and Noam Chomsky when the revolution comes.)

By the way, Zed 85 - you're thinking of the National Bolsheviks.

[Reply #55 on:]

If anything's gonna lead to a classless society, it's the proliferation of bad reality TV.

This conversation was getting way too serious.

[Reply #56 on:]

 

Originally posted by Kryten:
If anything's gonna lead to a classless society, it's the proliferation of bad reality TV.

Hehehe - ZING!

[Reply #57 on:]

That's right. I went there.

[Reply #58 on:]

Please, stop making such silly anachronistic comparisons like caling ancient monarchies "dictatures", they are rationaly called "traditional regimes", they are rooted in primitive natural ideas how the society should be ruled not on elaborated ideology and also please stop playing dumb when talking about communism between it´s idealistic and practical sense. From what I´ve understood Marx himself was pretty much uncertain how the final communist sociaty´ll be exactly organized and also he was absolutely wrong with regards how the class evolution of society ´ll progress. That being said, this is the internet and political disscusions are the least staqbile material so take it easy.         

[Reply #59 on:]

Opinions are like arseholes - everyone's got one.

[Reply #60 on:]

 

Originally posted by Kryten:
If anything's gonna lead to a classless society, it's the proliferation of bad reality TV.

Bad reality TV? Isn't that redundant-?

[Reply #61 on:]

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
Opinions are like arseholes - everyone's got one.

And everyone just knows theirs is better than anyone elses... 
Human nature I s'pose...

[Reply #62 on:]

Unless perhaps one was a big fan of buggery!

Can the tone possibly get any lower!

[Reply #63 on:]

 

Originally posted by Rhodan:
Please, stop making such silly anachronistic comparisons like caling ancient monarchies "dictatures", they are rationaly called "traditional regimes",

What, because all ancient and pre-ancient societies were monarchies? That's... um... not true.

 

they are rooted in primitive natural ideas how the society should be ruled not on elaborated ideology

What's the difference? They were still autocratic.

 

and also please stop playing dumb when talking about communism between it´s idealistic and practical sense.

There have been plenty of democratic/anarchic communist societies in the past. Salvador Allende's Chile wasn't communist, but it was ruled by a Marxist who openly supported the eventual establishment of communism so it was "communist" in the same sense as Russia or Cuba. Then there is the original Paris Commune, the Tolstoyan communes in Russia, Chiapas since the EZLN, and plenty of ancient/primitive societies that never established autocratic rule or private property. They are all examples of decentralised, democratic communism in practice.

And please, stop conflating Marxism and communism.

[Reply #64 on:]

I suggest we take the Communist apologetic debate to the politics thread, considering it's off-topic in this thread.

[Reply #65 on:]

second

[Reply #66 on:]

So, basically, what you did today was repond to every thread you could whether you had anything intelligent to say or not.

Don't do that anymore.

[Reply #67 on:]

 

Originally posted by Kryten:
So, basically, what you did today was repond to every thread you could whether you had anything intelligent to say or not.

Don't do that anymore.

Best suggestion I've heared all day.