RIP Fidel Castro
Out of context: Reply #34
- Started
- Last post
- 50 Responses
- pr2-9
Fundamentally you need to ask yourself why someone goes to such lengths to establish a new system. Yes, a cynic might answer it's for personal power but i believe Fidel and Che fought for the new world order because of deep believes that they are trying to change the world for the better. The flaw in their thinking comes from the fact that to make a better society requires also better people. They assumed that the sheer power of the movement can force the mediocre people to shape up. For people to freely choose the better option (as was the ultimate intention of all socialist movements) people need better education. And here Cuba has succeeded splendidly. They have created a mass of people who have the fundamental knowledge to make the "best" choice (even though by limiting economy their choices become limited). The revolutionaries have forgotten about the tremendous influences of the outside forces. When people see their neighbors have something - they want that too or more. This is a fundamental human psychology that socialist revolutionaries never came to grasp. The masses they needed for a successful revolution is made up of mostly mediocre people why don't necessary want to sacrifice their personal comfort for the abstract goals of a better society. More, often they will work to undermine the revolution and their own self interests when lazily choosing not to participate in the debates that will shape the future. Ultimately socialism is an elitists (in good meaning of the word) movement where a small and well-meaning group of people is imposing their values on a brutish crowd with hopes that they will give up the selfish striving for personal gains and comforts for the sake of the better world. The capitalism doesn't have this ambition, it believes that everyone is free to make up their mind right now. But is the imbecile spending the night to wait in line of some superstore before the Black Friday really that free? Can that simpleton see that the dreams he's fulfilling are not those of his but were imposed by the avalanche of the advertising machine? Of course not. His freedom is allowed to extend to the borders of consumption - he has freedom to choose what to buy but not if he should engage in the consumption in the first place. Here is where the Socialists didn't get it right - vast majority of people don't care that their freedom is so limited. They are absolutely comfortable with the "free" choice of which TV they will buy this year - they have no concern for the freedom that gives them the choice to even desire that TV in the first place. So yeah, don't blame the "Commies" for wanting to change the world but rather that they got the human psyche wrong.
- fuck me, i need to break shit up next time.pr2
- you made some insightfull points in that wall of text, bravoterry_cloth
- well said._niko
- yupmoldero
- Grey areas man. At least 50 shades. You can't over look it.pango
- of course they had good intentions no matter how fundamentally flawed that also coincided with their own egos. same can be said of any dictatordeathboy
- i think most men want to do good but never confront the natural nature of selfishness. instead they find ways like greater good to justify any selfish intentiondeathboy
- a little bit of logical fallacy and they can have their cake and eat it too. It is strange how people confuse consumerism with capitalism.deathboy
- The murdered people. Wtf is wrong with you people? Che and Castro murdered people they disagreed with.Hayoth
- just think about the consumerism of ideology. what is the "label" of being a socialist, or libertarian. the branding and how we think in associationsdeathboy
- hayoth id like to think it goes without saying they are class A cunts. but the why and ideas of how cunts came to power is worth investigation and debatedeathboy
- personally i think pr2 is wrong if the way i read this is that peoples ability to choose is the problem, so we just need to find a better way to control choicedeathboy
- that's just a simple excuse to the age old problem of control. and wether education a certain central way can makes things work. back to deweydeathboy
- who which with all his mind didnt understand the nature of capitalism, which is like a more moral survival of the fittest that promotes individualism vs tribaldeathboy
- This is what you call a strawman argument and progressive ideology, ends justify the meansHayoth
- yup that is fact. simple as that, but why does it happen? discussin the reasoning of why it happen. a hypothesis is a much better than a yay or neydeathboy
- i think its interesting mans pack mentality vs reason. the individual high concept vs original collectivist thinking. is it nature vs nurture?deathboy
- deathboy whilst i agree with what you are saying about motivation i think you misconstrued pr2's main point that is communisms flies in the face of human natureterry_cloth
- and yes, historically speaking, all these communist leaders wit their good intentions wind up as mass murderers who never turn over the power to the people as tterry_cloth
- -hey first promise. the lofty ideals go straight out the window as soon as they get their dictatorshipterry_cloth
- im not entirely sure of pr's point. but it is hard to suggest communism is against mans nature. i actually think many seek it. our idea of family has samerootsdeathboy
- added a response bellowpr2
- I liked your analysis very much. Thanks for sharing.since1979
- In the end all power corrupts. Communism is fundamentally a system of inclusion and fairness just as capitalism can be. its the top guys that always fuck it up.sothere
- great post, but this is a design forum:
break up your text in paragraphsdrgs - Hayoth. The US murder people they disagree with.microkorg
- A bag of turd, you know, a flaming turd bag.soundoftreason