This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Smurfs - Marxist Utopia

Reply 20

SolInvictus

11

lady_daisychain

oh yes... because you *need* luxuries to be happy don't you? :rolleyes:

Actually you do. I don't think you would be happy living in a mud hut with two pieces of clothing you wear for the rest of your life, and no diversions or entertainment besides working in the fields.

I love how people think that they need little to be happy, but they all seem to forget how much they have.

Reply 21

Teehar

OP

10

SolInvincitus

Actually you do. I don't think you would be happy living in a mud hut with two pieces of clothing you wear for the rest of your life, and no diversions or entertainment besides working in the fields.

I love how people think that they need little to be happy, but they all seem to forget how much they have.

luxuries to you and me are a computer, a console, the internet, nightclubs, these are what we consider activities and objects that are'nt absolutely necessary, but we would rather have them

luxuries for the kid in Africa who has lost his family to AIDS and starvation is half a plate of rice.

subsequently, can we live without the items that we who are better off than most would class as luxuries? yes
can we live happily without luxuries full stop? No

Reply 22

Agent Smith

11

OK, following the example of Mr. Jones and his cronies in Animal Farm, I would suggest that Gargamel, if that's his name, represents the West, and his Cat the White Army.

In other news... define "luxuries". Do you mean anything that couldn't be obtained by one man with a sharp rock and a stick, or do you mean things like iPods that are fun but not greatly useful, or something inbetween?

Reply 23

tis_me_lord

14

Oh dear, we have been told by this oh so pure and innocent 16 year old girl that materialism is bad, and that we're selfish for wanting luxaries. What a good little communist you are.

Have you got no 'luxaries' then, as you don't need them? Of course you need them to be happy, and any commies in real life have maintained them. :rolleyes:

I want to watch the smurfs now, to see what crazy consiracy theory I can come up with about them.

Maybe we need a poll, marxism vs KKK/Nazi.

Reply 24

Teehar

OP

10

my marxism idea wins hands down, smurfs are blue, therefore cannot be white supremacists! :wink:

Reply 25

SolInvictus

11

Agent Smith

In other news... define "luxuries". Do you mean anything that couldn't be obtained by one man with a sharp rock and a stick, or do you mean things like iPods that are fun but not greatly useful, or something inbetween?

Something in between. I am talking about those things that are considerable unecessary for survival. A tasty meal, sweets, comfortable environment, well furnished domicile etc. NOt necessarily and ipod or mercades, but still things that are not necessary but make life worth living.

Reply 26

lady_daisychain

2

tis_me_lord

Oh dear, we have been told by this oh so pure and innocent 16 year old girl that materialism is bad, and that we're selfish for wanting luxaries. What a good little communist you are.

Have you got no 'luxaries' then, as you don't need them? Of course you need them to be happy, and any commies in real life have maintained them. :rolleyes:

I want to watch the smurfs now, to see what crazy consiracy theory I can come up with about them.

Maybe we need a poll, marxism vs KKK/Nazi.

when the telephone wasn't invented- people were happy. when it became a luxury- people became even 'happier'- but what happened 40 years after the invention, people took it for granted... and owning a telephone now doesnt mean you are 'happier' than someone in the 1800s who didnt own one.

same with ipods or whatever.... it may bring temporary joy.. but longer happiness is achieved through the people around you.. a comfortable and secure environment, etc..etc..

thats the problem with this world- its too materialistic, and the worst thing is, instead of seeing it as a sign of insecurity, as something negative.. people are proud they are materialistic...parade about showing off about their new mobiles or designer clothes -when any sane person can see that their pride in the things they have bought just hides their needs to please others..to seem superior in some way...

basically- you dont need luxuries to be happy- and im really trying not to sound preachful but the sooner you see that, the more fullfilling your life will be.

i didnt say those who want luxuries are selfish... just that they could be happier if they didnt hold luxuries in such high esteem.

Reply 27

tis_me_lord

14

teehar

my marxism idea wins hands down, smurfs are blue, therefore cannot be white supremacists! :wink:

Well they can be methaphorically white?

Reply 28

SolInvictus

11

perhaps they are so white that they become blue?

Reply 29

Carl

14

SolInvincitus

perhaps they are so white that they become blue?

Indeed: "whiter than white"

Reply 30

Teehar

OP

10

FAO: Thud

Reply 31

Thud

17

6+6=12

FAO: Thud

seen the idea before. but thank you anyway. :p:

tis_me_lord

They have houses!

and food!

Reply 32

LaurenFah

14

I'm thinking Gramsci would have a nigh-on fit if he saw the lack of Smurf intellects fighting against the evil force that is Gargamel.
Never shall I watch the Smurfs (full stop?) ... in the same light again.

Reply 33

Teehar

OP

10

see, reading back on this I swear I must have been high, but I wasn't using any substances back then fo' sho.

Reply 34

Segat1

16

Ok, so what's the significance of only one girl Smurf? Is she a concubine or does she symbolise women?

Cartoons are weird. Like DangerMouse which is so political.

Reply 35

Phantom Phoenix

13

lady_daisychain

thats the problem with this world- its too materialistic, and the worst thing is, instead of seeing it as a sign of insecurity, as something negative.. people are proud they are materialistic...parade about showing off about their new mobiles or designer clothes -when any sane person can see that their pride in the things they have bought just hides their needs to please others..to seem superior in some way...

LOL - never thought I'd agree with a teenage Communist in life...but you make a good point! People are far too obsessed with "stuff". However, in a society with rapidly decaying faith in religion, what else is there to believe in but the new Nokia? (Serious question.) If you don't occupy your mind with the here and now, by whatever means you can, it might occur to non-religious people that in eighty years or so (tops) they just won't exist any more. That's too scary to contemplate, so you just don't. In that event, what's wrong with materialism?

Reply 36

SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian

lady_daisychain

when the telephone wasn't invented- people were happy. when it became a luxury- people became even 'happier'- but what happened 40 years after the invention, people took it for granted... and owning a telephone now doesnt mean you are 'happier' than someone in the 1800s who didnt own one.

Yah, it's become part of the status-quo, but that's not really the point, is it? It, on its own, might not make you happier, but if you took it away, it'd make you sadder. Sure, it's never going to be the make or break of your happiness, but you don't think people are happier now that they can phone their brother on the other side of the country straight away than wait weeks for the letter to be delivered, then another few weeks for the reply? They might be used to it, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be less happy if they could only communicate with him every month, and not every day in a more personal way.

same with ipods or whatever.... it may bring temporary joy.. but longer happiness is achieved through the people around you.. a comfortable and secure environment, etc..etc..

This is my biggest gripe with communism, marxism and socialism. The idea that we (I consider myself the physical embodyment of capitalism) desire material possessions in lieu of relationships and "comfortable and secure environments". They are not mutually exclusive, and you'd be foolish to suggest so.

thats the problem with this world- its too materialistic, and the worst thing is, instead of seeing it as a sign of insecurity, as something negative.. people are proud they are materialistic...parade about showing off about their new mobiles or designer clothes -when any sane person can see that their pride in the things they have bought just hides their needs to please others..to seem superior in some way...

You don't think this would somehow manifest itself without modern material goods? You don't think these same people who think it's important to have the latest and greatest mobile phone didn't exist 200 years ago? You think the mobile phone created the lifestyle, and not the other way round?

basically- you dont need luxuries to be happy- and im really trying not to sound preachful but the sooner you see that, the more fullfilling your life will be.

i didnt say those who want luxuries are selfish... just that they could be happier if they didnt hold luxuries in such high esteem.

"Money doesn't make you happy, but it buys you a better class of misery" - The fact is, there's nothing you can do without material possessions and money that you can't do with them. You seem to be harkening back to a day when people were far more equal; they were also far more diseased, poor and unhealthy. Their lives were **** compared to ours, because back then they just had their family and friends - now we have our family, our friends and ipods.

Edit: Back to the point - Robin Hood was clearly the first fictional communist. Robbing the rich, giving to the poor? Redistribution of wealth? **** off!

Reply 37

Ozymandias

I think the problem is more commodity fetishisation than just material possessions per se. When you have something as basic as drinking water being sold at a quid a bottle and presented as a lifestyle accessory, there's a problem. When people genuinely believe that a certain item of clothing from a certain shop is 'must-have', despite its being near-indistinguishable from its Tesco equivalent costing a tenth of the price, there's a problem. Of course wealth and consumer goods improve quality of life - it's a complete strawman to say that any significant proportion of the left denies this. But a society that depends on consumption to function will naturally overstate the life-transforming capabilities of consumer goods, and when people start believing it, there's a problem.

Reply 38

Gilliwoo

what bothers me is how they reproduce: there is only one female smurf that I am aware of. Without putting her under enormous strain, I can't imagine how smurf future is assured.

Reply 39

Gilliwoo

Segat1

Ok, so what's the significance of only one girl Smurf? Is she a concubine or does she symbolise women?

Cartoons are weird. Like DangerMouse which is so political.

Ya, I like how in all the 80s cartoons the bad guys had Russian accents, and the good guys had US accents and were typically in the business of protecting freedom wherever it was threatened. Rambo and GI Joe were the most flagrantly political examples.

The Smurfs - Marxist Utopia

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated