Why not Socialism?

[nicephoras]

And as long as we are on the subject of judging economic and political structures (let alone terminologies) based on works of fictional satirical literature, have you ever read Starik Khottabych? 'Cause if you haven't you are barely qualified to even mention the word "capitalism".

Now that's quality discourse concerning the benefits of socialism as well as a critique outdated teaching method that suppresses knowledge of the no-headed people who live south of India.

[quentinc]

Why? Have you been to the Soviet Union by any chance? How about the author who wrote it?
Russians allowing pigs to survive long enough to build a complex political structure? Riiiiiight.
The author who wrote it is George Orwell, one of the most prolific authors of the 20th century.
If you have read the book, then you missed out on major symbolism. Let me point out the almost eerie symbolism that the book is based around.

Old Major is a pig that, at the beginning of the book discusses a dream about how one day the animals will overthrow the farm owner, Mr. Jones, and run the farm themselves. (Represents Lenin and Karl Marx)

Napoleon is a belligrent pig that ultimately takes over the reigns of Animal Farm and runs a deceptive regime mired in hypocrisy. All the while he touts the ideals of Old Major. (Represents Stalin)

Snowball is Napoleon's rival, but is run off by Napoleon's guard (the dogs). Initially, he proposed a more democratic rule and won the animal's support before he was chased away. Used as a scapegoat for all problems after that. (Represents Trotsky)

Boxer is a cart horse that works tirelessly, all the while to stupid to realize the problems around him. (Represents the Soviet Working Class).

Moses the Raven is used to represent the view of religion in the Soviet Union.

Molly is a white horse that represents the bourgeosie or the "White Russians."

Mr. Frederick represents the Soviet relations with Hitler.

Mr. Pilkington represents the Soviet relations with Churchill. Some believe that he could also represent the United States. But the character seems to be based off of Churchill.

Shortly after Old Major's speech to the animals, he dies. Then the animals revolt against Mr. Jones (Czar Nicholas II) and his workers (The Russian Revolution). The animals use Old Major's concept of "animalism" (the theory of communism) as their government. Snowball and Napoleon are the two primary candidates to lead the farm. Although many animals support Snowball, he is run off. Then Napoleon succesfully uses Snowball as a scapegoat for all troubles experienced by the farm. The animals (the working class is represented by everyone except the pigs) are too stupid to realize that Napoleon is telling lies that are perpetuated by Squealer (the propaganda machine). The pigs ultimately take away more and more of the initial rights enjoyed by the animals until, at the end of the book, the pigs begin to walk and the animals have trouble discerning a difference between when Mr. Jones led the farm and when the pigs lead the farm.

If you can't see the inherent symbolism, something is wrong. Also, you have to understand that before World War II, the Soviet Union was viewed in a much different light then it was during the Cold War.

[Matt in the Hat]

Capitalism is the blood of the American experiment. It harnesses the internal greed, fear and lust built into all and uses them for the good of society by the multiple wants of the individual.

No capitalism, no America.

Notice that the countries who are becoming more capitalistic are expanding while countries who are becoming more socailistic are stagnant. Was France's decision to increase the workweek a win for socialism or capitalism? I thought so.

[quentinc]

Capitalism is the blood of the American experiment. It harnesses the internal greed, fear and lust built into all and uses them for the good of society by the multiple wants of the individual.

No capitalism, no America.

Notice that the countries who are becoming more capitalistic are expanding while countries who are becoming more socailistic are stagnant. Was France's decision to increase the workweek a win for socialism or capitalism? I thought so.
When you use the word expand, do you mean physically expanding, as in size? Or do you mean the economy?

[Matt in the Hat]

When you use the word expand, do you mean physically expanding, as in size? Or do you mean the economy?
Economic. What would socialism/capitalism have to do with imperialism?

[quentinc]

Economic. What would socialism/capitalism have to do with imperialism?
Nothing, I just needed clarification.

[Matt in the Hat]

Nothing, I just needed clarification.
Please tell me your sig is ironic.

[quentinc]

Please tell me your sig is ironic.
How would it be ironic?

[Mel Brennan]

Why? Have you been to the Soviet Union by any chance? How about the author who wrote it?
Russians allowing pigs to survive long enough to build a complex political structure? Riiiiiight.

Bone up, free of charge (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/1/), and speak from a position of knowledge instead of ignorance.

...And as long as we are on the subject of judging economic and political structures (let alone terminologies) based on works of fictional satirical literature, have you ever read Starik Khottabych? 'Cause if you haven't you are barely qualified to even mention the word "capitalism".

How, besides being funny and well written, does a tale about a godd Soviet boy refusing gifts from a genie for the sake of an exam and a few ice-creams illuminate generally about "isms" at all, and particularly illuminate about capitalism? I'm interested in your take on it.

[Matt in the Hat]

How would it be ironic?
It's intrinsicly un-American. It is in direct opposition to Franklin's "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[quentinc]

It's intrinsicly un-American. It is in direct opposition to Franklin's "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It seems to be a correlation to me. It's saying that people are happy when they do not have to take the responsibility of freedom. And it is saying that most would rather be happy then free. It is a condemnation of those who blindly support the taking away of freedom for their happiness. I don't see how it's "un-american." And it falls directly in line with Franklin's quote. Orwell's quote makes perfect sense when placed in the context of the book.

[Matt in the Hat]

It seems to be a correlation to me. It's saying that people are happy when they do not have to take the responsibility of freedom. And it is saying that most would rather be happy then free. It is a condemnation of those who blindly support the taking away of freedom for their happiness. I don't see how it's "un-american." And it falls directly in line with Franklin's quote. Orwell's quote makes perfect sense when placed in the context of the book.
My bad. Sorry

[Shurik]

Bone up, free of charge (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/1/), and speak from a position of knowledge instead of ignorance.

Holy Lenin's enbalmed testicles! I see the light now! No shit, live and learn. And to speak of the courage of the British writer to criticize a foreign country with such a scathing commentary.
In what other ways are you going to educate me about the evils of socialism? The collected love poems by Winston Churchill?

How, besides being funny and well written, does a tale about a godd Soviet boy refusing gifts from a genie for the sake of an exam and a few ice-creams illuminate generally about "isms" at all, and particularly illuminate about capitalism? I'm interested in your take on it.

Take? What take.
Starik Khottabych, especially its portayal of the greedy American capitalist (Mr. Vanderbilt? Mr. Vanderschneider? Mr. Twister a former Minister?), is the direct equivalent of the Animal Farm. It took just as much courage to write, to say nothing about usefulness when studying the postulates of corresponding political and economic philosophies.
But it's better, 'cause it's got soccer in it.

[yasik19]

But it's better, 'cause it's got soccer in it.

LOL. In the case of the soccer game in that book, one team had the help of let's say "size" of the goal and "# of balls on the field". Basically, I think Graham Poll was the referee of that game, Starik Khotabich was the FA and Vol'ka was Roman Abramovich. :D

[Shurik]

By the way, when I was reading the book I heartily rooted for Shaiba, unlike all the "good" characters who seemed to prefer Zubilo.
Rooting for the unpopular losers. It's always my cross to bear.

[yasik19]

By the way, when I was reading the book I heartily rooted for Shaiba, unlike all the "good" characters who seemed to prefer Zubilo.
Rooting for the unpopular losers. It's always my cross to bear.

just in case some of you were wondering what book are we talking about here.

http://www.stpetersburger.com/prod_img/rus18.jpg

[DoctorD]

A better book to argue these points than either Animal Farm or Starik Khottabych is Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy by Schumpeter. Schumpeter, though an avowed capitalist, predicts that societies will naturally become more '"socialist" as time goes on. Or that without regulation, giant monopolies form which for all intents and purposes behave the same.

Forbes magazine once summarized Schumpeter's beliefs as saying Marx asked the right questions but came up with the wrong answers.

[Mel Brennan]

Holy Lenin's enbalmed testicles! I see the light now! No shit, live and learn. And to speak of the courage of the British writer to criticize a foreign country with such a scathing commentary.
In what other ways are you going to educate me about the evils of socialism? The collected love poems by Winston Churchill?

Well, I'm not commenting at all on socialism, but simply recommending that your points would have more strength if they sprang from a condition in which you'd actually read the book. I know, I'm out of my mind.

Take? What take.
Starik Khottabych, especially its portayal of the greedy American capitalist (Mr. Vanderbilt? Mr. Vanderschneider? Mr. Twister a former Minister?), is the direct equivalent of the Animal Farm.

Not really, and I find the individual characters more descriptive of a failed morality than of an economic system, but, see above; I'm out of my mind.

It took just as much courage to write, to say nothing about usefulness when studying the postulates of corresponding political and economic philosophies. But it's better, 'cause it's got soccer in it.

Everything's better when it's got soccer in it. :)

I find all "isms" wanting, in that they are crystalizations of assumed process and fail to codify answers to the larger questions that return to plague them all AS systems.

But don't forget; I'm out of my mind.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

I find all "isms" wanting, in that they are crystalizations of assumed process and fail to codify answers to the larger questions that return to plague them all AS systems.

http://www.80s.com/saveferris/images/ferris/lennon.jpg

Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus and I'd still have to bum rides off of people.

[Mel Brennan]

http://www.80s.com/saveferris/images/ferris/lennon.jpg

Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus and I'd still have to bum rides off of people.

I don't remember anything from that film but her:

http://bop.borderline-angel.com/02bfa580.jpg