5 ms·

Turns out it's a Brave New World instead of 1984. And I am not surprised. A semi-totalitarian government based around ideology. If China's idealistic goal is se

Turns out it's a Brave New World instead of 1984. And I am not surprised. A semi-totalitarian government based around ideology. If China's idealistic goal is set to be achieving communism through socialism, then what's better than vox populi?

pmlnr 10y ago
http://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/ http://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-v... (source: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ourselves-to-death/ http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours... )
- Maken 10y ago
  What I always wonder about Brave New World is if Huxley was right when he portrayed the people in charge of the BNW's system as being convinced they were doing the right thing, as opposite to the 1984's "evil" party.
Angostura 10y ago
Oh, I think a little bit of both, don't you?
messel 10y ago
Soma carried the brunt of that load, not unlike modern pain killers
realusername 10y ago
I'm not even sure if they still have any communist goal, it looks just like any other authoritarian government now, it's probably only communist by name.
- sievebrain 10y ago
  It's a totalitarian government with massive state ownership of businesses. That's pretty much the definition of communism. The fact that they got less extreme on their economic policies whilst remaining extreme on their social/control policies doesn't make it not communism.
  - danharaj 10y ago
    The definition of communism is a classless society where workers have direct control over the means of production.
    - adventured 10y ago
      No, that's the fake claim that nobody believes these days. Which is why no nations are rushing out to become Communistic: as an ideology it didn't just lose, it got completely demolished. The ideology espoused was never actually sincere in any regard, it was merely a fraudulent cover for a power grab by the party elite, which is why the claims of Communism have always contradicted the reality perfectly. There has never been a single implementation of Socialism - including Communism and Fascism - that has delegated any power to the workers. It has always and will always be held by the party dictatorship. No property, including the means of production, is ever held by the workers, it is always controlled by the elite of the party dictatorship for the purpose of plundering profit and enslaving the workers. Which simultaneously explains the extreme poverty Socialism has produced every time it has been attempted.
      - danharaj 10y ago
        You're conflating Marxist-Leninism (and Stalinism, Maoism, etc. they tend to get named after their dictator) with communism. You've just demonstrated that most of the countries that call themselves communist or socialist... weren't. That doesn't change the word or its definition. The Free Territory and Catalonia were libertarian socialist communities. They were betrayed by Bolsheviks and Stalinists respectively. > Which simultaneously explains the extreme poverty Socialism has produced every time it has been attempted. Britain forcibly deindustrialized India, reducing it from the most productive region of the world to one of the poorest. This, somehow, is not an indictment of capitalism, but all the dictatorships that call themselves communist are an indictment of communism. I don't care at all to defend the likes of the USSR or their satellite puppet governments, but you're drunk on propaganda if you think any of these criticisms you've leveled cannot be made against the so-called "free world".

pmlnr 10y ago

http://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/ http://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-v... (source: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ourselves-to-death/ http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours... )

Maken 10y ago
What I always wonder about Brave New World is if Huxley was right when he portrayed the people in charge of the BNW's system as being convinced they were doing the right thing, as opposite to the 1984's "evil" party.

Angostura 10y ago

Oh, I think a little bit of both, don't you?

messel 10y ago

Soma carried the brunt of that load, not unlike modern pain killers

realusername 10y ago

I'm not even sure if they still have any communist goal, it looks just like any other authoritarian government now, it's probably only communist by name.

sievebrain 10y ago
It's a totalitarian government with massive state ownership of businesses. That's pretty much the definition of communism. The fact that they got less extreme on their economic policies whilst remaining extreme on their social/control policies doesn't make it not communism.
- danharaj 10y ago
  The definition of communism is a classless society where workers have direct control over the means of production.
  - adventured 10y ago
    No, that's the fake claim that nobody believes these days. Which is why no nations are rushing out to become Communistic: as an ideology it didn't just lose, it got completely demolished. The ideology espoused was never actually sincere in any regard, it was merely a fraudulent cover for a power grab by the party elite, which is why the claims of Communism have always contradicted the reality perfectly. There has never been a single implementation of Socialism - including Communism and Fascism - that has delegated any power to the workers. It has always and will always be held by the party dictatorship. No property, including the means of production, is ever held by the workers, it is always controlled by the elite of the party dictatorship for the purpose of plundering profit and enslaving the workers. Which simultaneously explains the extreme poverty Socialism has produced every time it has been attempted.
    - danharaj 10y ago
      You're conflating Marxist-Leninism (and Stalinism, Maoism, etc. they tend to get named after their dictator) with communism. You've just demonstrated that most of the countries that call themselves communist or socialist... weren't. That doesn't change the word or its definition. The Free Territory and Catalonia were libertarian socialist communities. They were betrayed by Bolsheviks and Stalinists respectively. > Which simultaneously explains the extreme poverty Socialism has produced every time it has been attempted. Britain forcibly deindustrialized India, reducing it from the most productive region of the world to one of the poorest. This, somehow, is not an indictment of capitalism, but all the dictatorships that call themselves communist are an indictment of communism. I don't care at all to defend the likes of the USSR or their satellite puppet governments, but you're drunk on propaganda if you think any of these criticisms you've leveled cannot be made against the so-called "free world".