|
Post by neospooky on May 28, 2011 22:35:55 GMT -5
Having read a bit of dystopian lit, I realized something pretty harsh.
The stories where societies had grown so large and technologically advanced that social problems plagued mankind (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Neuromancer, for example) are based on capitalism gone too far. Megacorps are born, corruption is rampant, but the standard of living isn't really all that bad. Freedom still exists in some form.
Control dystopias (Anthem, 1984, Brave New World, etc), however, are socialism gone rampant. People are encouraged to be sheep, the world is still corrupt though controlled by a few, and everything that can be regulated is.
Which left me wondering if there was a case to be made that socialism is really a method of control where capitalism is a method of exploitation. Both lead to corruption due to the hierarchical development of societies under their systems but one eliminates choice - or freedom - as we know it.
I'm not sure I like either choice. But I know I'd choose one over the other.
|
|
Morg308
Raider
Tired of being tired.
Posts: 490
|
Post by Morg308 on May 30, 2011 23:59:42 GMT -5
I think socialism is direct control, while capitalism is indirect control. Either way, you have people eventually who will manipulate you. It's human nature, and not the best part of our nature. Even people with the best of intentions can contribute to the downfall of a society. Obama for example, just extended the Patriot Act, which is the biggest infringement on our rights in our nations history. I brought it up with people several times, but no one seemed to care that during the last election NONE of the candidates brought up the Patriot Act at all. Once they get the power, they will want to keep it. Eventually however, the system will begin rotting under it's own weight and a revolution will happen. If anything, we may be headed for another revolution like the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. Two distinct classes are being created in this country, the rich and the poor, with very little in between. As long as people have microwaves, the latest cell phones and a fairly new SUV, things will be fine, but this last economic crash has made people at least look at things a little differently. It wouldn't take much to push a lot of people over the edge. Eat the rich!
|
|
|
Post by KevinTheCynic on Jun 1, 2011 5:49:59 GMT -5
I tend to agree with Morg, I see capitalism as indirect control. Capitalism requires you to "buy into the dream" so that you go out and buy all the "lifestyle accessories" to prove you're one of the in-crowd. It's crap you don't need and it costs big bucks but the media, modern entertainment, your peers and so on all try to convince you that you need it. And why? So that the corporations can make the big bucks. They manipulate the populace so that they can continue to get the big bucks - for example, how much choice do you really have in a supermarket these days between breakfast cereals considering there's something like only four companies that make them all.
|
|