10-29-2011, 02:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2011, 02:57 AM by FireIceTalon.)
(10-29-2011, 12:43 AM)Taem Wrote:(10-28-2011, 11:10 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: no government or otherwise has a right to force private citizens what they can or cannot watch in their own home [...] It is up to the people to decide what is good to watch and what isnt. This is why critical and free thinking is so important, so that people can differentiate between propaganda and reality.
After a bit of study on Communism today, I think in a fully Communist society, everyone must watch the same things at the time to promote total equality.
wikipedia Wrote:Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions.
what-is-Communism? Wrote:“From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
In a true Communist society, there is no government. Only a ruling party to establish guidelines and enforce equality. Everyone who can work does their part and in return, gets their fair share of the pot. Of course there are no true communist societies that adhere to all the rules of Communism as established by Karl Marx, and a little corruption goes a long way when you don't really own anything... Regardless of the issues with true Communism (which can't work because of the proven fact that individuals are of a greedy nature), it is clear that in order to make sure everyone is equally informed, and nobody is left out of the social loop (i.e. classes, groups, gatherings, etc.), then everyone MUST watch the same shows on the same channel at the same times, else inequality will occur. This would not be considered oppression in a true Communist society, but enforcing the no-class divisions rule, free of alienation. It is clear to me that a Communist society must enforce TV censorship just as it would stop anything else that might start a fringe power group. If all the social elite starting watching Opera, then heaven forbid they might exclude those not in the circle of trust from their conversations, starting a coo. Very dangerous stuff. Although, I think the Chinese are a little more paranoid of their citizens becoming lazy, non-helpful slobs, which is their reasoning for enforcing this new law. In this case, then it is considered oppression, but not in the spirit of Communism. I will admit however, that I may be completely incorrect, and my opinion is based solely on what I read off of wikipedia and two biased websites.
Indeed, you are incorrect. For by the time society evolved into a full communist one, the populace would have long been educated during and after the revolution in the intermediary stage of socialism. In a complete communist society everything is done for the sake of itself, and not as a means to an end. Individuals being greedy by nature is very debatable, and certainly not fact (people still debate whether Hobbes or Locke was correct to this day). Self interest, yes (meaning their natural will to survival), but there is a pretty clear distinction between this and greed. Capitalism, on the other hand, both fosters and promotes greed, and is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. You also forget that humans have an altruistic nature as well, and logically, I think the type of society we are raised in really manifests which of those sides is more dominant (in a capitalistic one, the self interest is dominant, in a communist one, the altruistic one). And because everyone's basic necessities would be met, this would greatly temper human greed, if we are indeed greedy by nature, much in the way capitalism tempers our altruistic side. The history of a nations culture, political system, and relationship with other nations in the international system will also greatly influence the result anytime there is a revolution and a new political system is born out of it. For example, if a communist revolution had taken place in Great Britain or Germany instead of Russia, the end result would almost certainly have looked completely different, though this is also dependent on other extrinsic variables. Im not saying a full blown communist society would be totally perfect, and many Marxists have their own ideas about what would work and what wouldn't. But nevertheless, to use past examples of nations which attempted to do it and came up short; to completely dismiss it as never being able to work, is not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest. It would be quite narrow minded too.
I don't see what this whole law has to do with communism though. China is more capitalist than we are, but this law has nothing to do with capitalism either. Economic systems are not relevant here. This law is very undemocratic, and as a strong advocate of democracy, I oppose it.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)