Eternal Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 I'm sure some of us in our 20's remember watching Smurf's as kids. I really liked the show back then. Little did I know that I was being fed communist propaganda : See any similiarities (not to mention the red hat)? A greedy capitalist, trying to turn smurfs into gold (note the hooked nose): The utopian society at work: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Nate Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Ah, but if they were communists, why would the UN attack them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Posted March 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Ah, but if they were communists, why would the UN attack them? I'm guessing it has something to do with the towels on their heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Plus, if they were Communists, they would have sent Greedy to Smurf-beria! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JordanLand Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Here's an interesting take on it, maybe you will like it: Communism exists, and is useful today. (Wait, stop screaming at me, and hear me out for a second!) Communism exists and is useful in REALLY SMALL GROUPS. Like a family. Your spouse has an itch, you scratch it. Your kid is sick, you take care of them, no questions asked. As groups get larger, communism is less and less effective. About the largest effective communist group is the kibbutz-thing in Israel, a collective farm with maybe 50 or 100 people, and even then it often has problems. All the 1960s hippy communes fell apart over individualism and incentive. Anyway, what does this have to do with Papa Smurf? He's the leader of a giant family, I guess. He's maxed out on his communism. If there's a community of Green Smurfs in the next valley, they must necessarily compete with each other. It can be friendly competition, but it must be competition, because it is too large for communism. Like it? Whenever I debate communism, I use this argument, it takes away their thunder because I *agree* with them, for small cases. I just show it is utterly inapplicable for larger cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iouswuoibev Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Here's an interesting take on it, maybe you will like it: Communism exists, and is useful today. (Wait, stop screaming at me, and hear me out for a second!) Communism exists and is useful in REALLY SMALL GROUPS. Like a family. Your spouse has an itch, you scratch it. Your kid is sick, you take care of them, no questions asked. Communism is strictly a theory of government; that of a slave state where all private ownership is abolished. Your examples have nothing to do with it (unless your "no questions asked" part means "No questions asked because you'll be shot if you do ask them"). They do however raise the question: "is this action altruistic or selfish?". What do you know of the Objectivist ethics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Communism exists and is useful in REALLY SMALL GROUPS. Like a family. Your spouse has an itch, you scratch it. Your kid is sick, you take care of them, no questions asked. A family works because its members value each other as individuals. It is not a collectivist institution. Communism demands you to live for the collective--for your "brothers"--regardless whether you value them or not. It's not a question of size, it's a question of voluntarily chosen values vs. commanded sacrifice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JordanLand Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 A family works because its members value each other as individuals. It is not a collectivist institution. Communism demands you to live for the collective--for your "brothers"--regardless whether you value them or not. It's not a question of size, it's a question of voluntarily chosen values vs. commanded sacrifice. Meh, I disagree a little. Families and friendships are *often* lopsided relationships. How many of us have a troubling or draining relative who contributes much less than they take? Do we dump them on the side of the road? Usually not, unless they go way overboard. What about kids, one is good and self-sufficient, the other has learning disabilities and behavior problems? We stick with them, and put MORE effort into them. It's classic communism. That's not a bad thing, though, on the samll scale of the family. If you want to make it more self-serving, you could say we place an extremely high internal value on having a family, and on having members with their basic needs met, above the value we place on our own needs. It's due to biology, our need to support our own family, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iouswuoibev Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Meh, I disagree a little. Families and friendships are *often* lopsided relationships. How many of us have a troubling or draining relative who contributes much less than they take? Do we dump them on the side of the road? Usually not, unless they go way overboard. What about kids, one is good and self-sufficient, the other has learning disabilities and behavior problems? We stick with them, and put MORE effort into them. It's classic communism. What an evil thing to say. "I don't love you kids, I have no selfish interest in your welfare. It's just communism." That's not a bad thing, though, on the samll scale of the family. If you want to make it more self-serving, you could say we place an extremely high internal value on having a family, and on having members with their basic needs met, above the value we place on our own needs. It's due to biology, our need to support our own family, of course. Now you're violating the forum rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JordanLand Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Just using an illustration, that's all. I use it against those who argue communism, to show that scale is their ultimate downfall. It's my way of analyzing relationships, you don't have to agree with it. And of course I lovem the kidlings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
session Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 I'm guessing it has something to do with the towels on their heads. Those "towels" are called Phyrgian caps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 (edited) Yeah, I remember the cartoon. My sister used to be fond of it and I would find myself watching it with her from time to time. Of course back then I did not notice all the things that could be taken to indicate Communism in any way . But the article does point out various links, some which do make one wonder, and some that are a little more shaky. I think it is quite possible that the creator (Peyo) might have been trying to promote the whole Communism thing, despite the few flaws in this theory pointed out (most of which are could just be relatively neccessary adaptions given the shows/comics setting). Edited March 11, 2006 by Prometheus98876 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Those "towels" are called Phyrgian caps. Hmmm ... ... to this day the national emblem of France, Marianne, is shown wearing this cap. So the Smurfs are the French. Just look at this image. Looks like Smurfette, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 How many of us have a troubling or draining relative who contributes much less than they take? Do we dump them on the side of the road? You bet I do. What about kids, one is good and self-sufficient, the other has learning disabilities and behavior problems? I tell the bad one to behave. So the Smurfs are the French. I don't recall them surrendering to the invading "capitalist forces," so they can't be French. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
session Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Hmmm ... ... to this day the national emblem of France, Marianne, is shown wearing this cap. So the Smurfs are the French. Well, considering they were created by a Franco-Belgian artist, this isn't too far off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_Connery Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 How many of us have a troubling or draining relative who contributes much less than they take? Do we dump them on the side of the road? If they are a net negative on my life, and I see no reasonable chance of that changing, they are gone. I have done this too, this isn't a baseless hypothetical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew J Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 Point in Case: Hank Reardon vs Momma and Brother Reardon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.