Political correctness, politics and women (occassionally)

[krellen]

There's never been a true communist state, as far as I'm aware.

I am a communist (the lack of capitalisation is meaningful, here), and I don't believe a communist state can exist. Humans are too untrusting, and too untrustworthy, to truly share things on that sort of scale. On a local scale, communism can work beautifully - almost all people view their circle of friends as a commune at some level - but once you get beyond the "Monkey Sphere", it becomes virtually impossible to keep that communist spirit alive. It's hard to trust and share with strangers.

[ffordesoon]

It's hard to trust and share with strangers.

The entirety of the internet is a massive testament to that fact. Thankfully, it's not always so hard, sometimes.

[Drool]

There's never been a true communist state, as far as I'm aware.

I am a communist (the lack of capitalisation is meaningful, here), and I don't believe a communist state can exist.

Actually, it happened. The Plymouth Colony based their organization on what would be communist ideals, specifically the "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" with respect to crops and such. It was a spectacular failure and was abandoned after just 3 years. While not specifically communist (as in, matching all of Karl Marx's tenants), but it was certainly communalism.

Of course, I heard this story from Paul Harvey, so it may have been embellished a little.

[krellen]

I wouldn't call "failing after 3 years" strictly "existing".

[Woolfe]

There's never been a true communist state, as far as I'm aware.

I am a communist (the lack of capitalisation is meaningful, here), and I don't believe a communist state can exist. Humans are too untrusting, and too untrustworthy, to truly share things on that sort of scale. On a local scale, communism can work beautifully - almost all people view their circle of friends as a commune at some level - but once you get beyond the "Monkey Sphere", it becomes virtually impossible to keep that communist spirit alive. It's hard to trust and share with strangers.

Also people aren't equal.

The thing is, on a local scale almost all systems can work really well. Capitalism, Communism, etc.

As you said, local scale is easy, it is the state scale that it begins to blur, because you are no longer dealing with your neighbour Fred, who you have known since you were a boy. You are now dealing with entity XYZ who you have never met, and is currently trying to do you out of a job.

Frankly capitalism fails at this just as badly as communism. Its just not quite as obvious, and takes longer to happen. (Which is why in some ways Communism is more "honest")

Oh and how the hell did this thread get here

[krellen]

Oh and how the hell did this thread get here

Some guy posted a screed about political correctness ruining society, which led to a general attack on left-wing ideology, which led to an attack on communism (and Communism) specifically, which led to a defence thereof.

[Mandemon]

Yeah this thread has been nothing but derail after derail.

Tough at least argument over Talis character was related to her being female and her being a character. This new political correctness, left wing ideology and communism debate has no connection to anything discussed in this thread.

[Tagaziel]

Lenin had right idea, he saw that his original vision didn't work and fell back. That's now USSR had NEP, which served population better. Stalin, who never was Lenins favorite or even intended successor, warped whole USSR into society build on fear, paranoia and state control of every single thing in life.

Lenin didn't have the right idea: he wanted a bloody revolution and a communist state built upon the blood of thousands. He was a pure extremist, to the point that the original leader of the failed revolution in Odessa from 1905 refused to work with him, terrified of his methods.

EDIT: Topic split in the interest of clarity.

[Mandemon]

Lenin had right idea, he saw that his original vision didn't work and fell back. That's now USSR had NEP, which served population better. Stalin, who never was Lenins favorite or even intended successor, warped whole USSR into society build on fear, paranoia and state control of every single thing in life.

Lenin didn't have the right idea: he wanted a bloody revolution and a communist state built upon the blood of thousands. He was a pure extremist, to the point that the original leader of the failed revolution in Odessa from 1905 refused to work with him, terrified of his methods.

EDIT: Topic split in the interest of clarity.

I meant right idea in sense he backed off when things didn't work exactly like he wanted. Doesn't mean he had right ideas on everything...

[b0rsuk]

Communism fails, because it assumes all people would be willing to work for common good.

Democracy (at least partially) fails, because it assumes everyone can make a good decision and is interested in the matters of the state. In my country, slightly above 40% vote in elections.

Monarchy has a flaw that sooner or later a stupid, incompetent, or a tyrant starts to rule.
--------------

See a pattern here ? Various forms of rules fail in various degrees, because they all assume people are good, smart, etc. If there can ever be a perfect rule system, it must take into account that humans are imperfect and work around that.

[Oktobermensch]

But it is. Automatically. PC equals BAD. No exceptions.
Banning some opinions, just because there is a group that may find it offensive. How can it be a good thing??

I can see why such a sentence can raise some hackles. So what? Raising hackles is good. PC means that every nonconformist, questionable, spicy component gets culled into bland, tastelss pulp, that sure is palpable for every moron and his mother, but exciting for no one.

Political correctness isn't bad by definition. It raises standards in society, so for example, calling dark skinned people niggers is no longer acceptable, as is casual sexism, racism and other such elements. Being PC means that you aren't being a casual asshole.

Likewise, if anything, Wasteland should be politically correct, ensuring that potentially controversial elements serve a higher purpose, to estabilish the setting, develop the backstory or provide commentary on sociopolitical issues. Fallouts are great precisely because controversial elements, such as prostitution, drugs, violence etc. have a purpose in the plot and the game's story. They aren't included for the sake of being controversial, which is very, very bad game design/cheap marketing ploy.

I think this is it. More or less, all of the stuff mentioned should be included but as a part of the world-building and establishing the tone of the game. Society as it was before does not exist, sexism, drugs, racism and so on are bound to be rampant or at least run highly unchecked, and its your job as a ranger to fix it (or indulge yourself or make it worse, you sick bastard!)

If we think of the ranger theme, not only physical enemies but also social problems should stand in your way and it would be your job to fix it.
Be wary though, its not all down to thinking or prejudice. A lot of these bad things might have their roots in bad survival situation: people do drugs and prostitution because there is no alternative or world is simply too bleak for them to be bothered to do anything else. So you job should not only consist of telling people that those things are bad, but also making sure that they know what they are doing and improve their situation.

[Woolfe]

I think this is it. More or less, all of the stuff mentioned should be included but as a part of the world-building and establishing the tone of the game. Society as it was before does not exist, sexism, drugs, racism and so on are bound to be rampant or at least run highly unchecked, and its your job as a ranger to fix it (or indulge yourself or make it worse, you sick bastard!)

If we think of the ranger theme, not only physical enemies but also social problems should stand in your way and it would be your job to fix it.
Be wary though, its not all down to thinking or prejudice. A lot of these bad things might have their roots in bad survival situation: people do drugs and prostitution because there is no alternative or world is simply too bleak for them to be bothered to do anything else. So you job should not only consist of telling people that those things are bad, but also making sure that they know what they are doing and improve their situation.

Agreed

I forsee my rangers as being the sort to try and raise people up from the issues of their situation. Help them get back their self respect and help them find the tools to become more than just another waste of water.

Of course, thats my rangers, maybe someone elses Rangers wants to drive these people into the ground so that they can take advantage of them to ensure Ranger dominance.

[ravenshrike]

Anyway, you see my point. Whatever else you want to say about "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood", it's directly descended from Jeffersonian thought, not communism.

Ahem, bullshit. "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" are descended from directly competing ideologies. Specifically, the ideologies of John Locke and J.J. Rousseau(Thank god for spellcheck) respectively. Which are inherently at odds with one another being pretty blatant examples of Constrained Man vs Unconstrained Man first principles.


http://doqz.livejournal.com/339882.html

Note, the above link is not mine.

[cmagruder]

Source from Thomas Sowell, not livejournal, if you're going to go there. You should probably also note Sowell's idealogy.

While I wouldn't say both views go exactly hand in hand, Rousseau was most certainly influenced by Locke and the French Revolution by the American.

[ffordesoon]

@ravenshrike:

Rousseau and Locke were both influences on Jefferson, as I recall. Even if that's incorrect, though, my point was that it's not Communism. And that point stands.

Also, Thomas Sowell is a known dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and I know of at least a few occasions when he's stretched the truth to fit his ideology. Not saying he couldn't be right about that - in fact, he probably is, as I believe there was a schism between the followers of Locke and the followers of Rousseau. But I'd still check some secondary sources if I were you.

[ravenshrike]

Source from Thomas Sowell, not livejournal, if you're going to go there. You should probably also note Sowell's idealogy.

While I wouldn't say both views go exactly hand in hand, Rousseau was most certainly influenced by Locke and the French Revolution by the American.

The link has little(And by little I mean nothing) to do with the constrained/unconstrained argument. It merely points out that Johnny Boy and JJ were not bosom buddies.

[Tagaziel]

Also, Thomas Sowell is a known dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and I know of at least a few occasions when he's stretched the truth to fit his ideology. Not saying he couldn't be right about that - in fact, he probably is, as I believe there was a schism between the followers of Locke and the followers of Rousseau. But I'd still check some secondary sources if I were you.

Wasn't he the guy who stated that Obama is dismantling democracy much like Hitler did? If so, any statement he makes should be taken with a grain of salt.

[cmagruder]

Source from Thomas Sowell, not livejournal, if you're going to go there. You should probably also note Sowell's idealogy.

While I wouldn't say both views go exactly hand in hand, Rousseau was most certainly influenced by Locke and the French Revolution by the American.

The link has little(And by little I mean nothing) to do with the constrained/unconstrained argument. It merely points out that Johnny Boy and JJ were not bosom buddies.

My point, in turn, was that this opposition tended to be a conservative argument (not saying that I entirely agree or disagree.) You could also see Locke as leading to Rousseau and even a fair degree of Rousseau's thought in the American Revolution. Rousseau, in spite of everything, argues for a strong Executive force, that people needed a leader to guide them to their real will. America flailed about under the Articles of Confederation and did a lot better once the Constitution came into play and it got a real Executive branch as opposed to Presidents working for Congress.

Much like in LOST, I think different philosophies about humanity coming into play would be damn interesting in the Wasteland (with the Rangers able to nudge things in different directions).

[pomor]

How old have you been, when communism collapsed?

I was born in 1988. Which gives me the ability to rationally analyze the past, without bias inherent to living under the particular regime.

So you know communism about that much, as American lefist.

I just want to point out that whatever was called "communism" in USSR and in Eastern Bloc, was not. It was mockery of true communist ideology, as well as socialism in general.

Oh please. Not this tired, old nonsense, again. Sure it has been the true communism, as true as it can get in real life.
Every single one society, calling itself communist, and initially approved by western lefists as the real McCoy, turned out as murdeous regime, often on the scale of genocide.
Western Left at first spotted Real Communism in Soviet Union. When, during the 50s, they could no longer turn the blind eye for Soviet genocide, they have found the Real Communism in China of Mao, then in Yugoslavia of Tito, Cuba of Castro, Romania of Ceausecu, Nicaragua of Ortega... At the end, instead of Haven on Earth, they just found more corpses in pool of blood. True Communism seems be just as evasive as unicorns, honest polititians, and Elvis.
To date, Communism had lways lead to repression and murder. Be it in Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America. Both in industrial countries, and agrarian ones. In ethnically homogenous nations, and the diverse ones. In ex monarches, former colonies, and ex-democracies. Whatever the starting conditions, Communism was consistently turning up as murderous, criminal regime, regardless of pre existing geographical, historical or cultural conditions. How much more chances Communism is entitled to, still? How many more victims?

[ffordesoon]

Uh, I don't think anyone's saying "Hey, give Communism one more chance!" Nor are we saying it's a system that has ever worked. I don't think most Communists believe it actually works. We're saying that "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood" is not "commie-speak", as you said it was, but rather a credo inspired by democratic ideals.

But please, continue to beat on your straw man. We'll wait.