This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Smurfs - Marxist Utopia

Reply 40

12

Gilliwoo

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 80s was a terrible decade for action films. All you would have is one tough action hero taking on the Soviet Union. The guy could either be a patriotic American or a former communist betrayed. :rolleyes:

My Uncle loves Red Scorpion and Rambo 3.

Reply 41

Agent Smith

11

Marxist Utopia!? There's only one woman, for God's sake!

Reply 42

lamenter

12

Agent Smith

Marxist Utopia!? There's only one woman, for God's sake!

Maybe her job was to have children. So that when she gave birth no one would know who the father was and the community could take care of the smurf babies.

Reply 43

Tory Dan

11

Agent Smith

Marxist Utopia!? There's only one woman, for God's sake!

Equal share for everyone?

I always knew Smurfette was a slut and I agree yes the Smurfs with communists and its plainly a conspiracy to promote Marxism and therefore you should be banned.

I'm making my tin foil hat now.

Reply 44

L i b

19

lamenter

Maybe her job was to have children. So that when she gave birth no one would know who the father was and the community could take care of the smurf babies.

It may be the booze, it may be the fact that it's five o'clock in the morning and broad daylight outside or it might be that I've gone mad... but that actually sounds like a bloody clever theory.

Reply 45

Catsmeat

13

Was there not trouble bubbling under the surface, in this smurf utopia? Whilst the wise 'sage' of Papa Smurf had the meritocratic role of interlocutor or arbiter, what would happen if a challenge was made against his relative merit to lead the Smurfs? If a particuarly militant branch of Smurfist ideology were to surface (say, with tactical placement of warheads against Gargamel's incursions) or a coup directed against Papa Smurf (which does in-fact occur in several episodes), what would be the reprocussions? Would we see an increase in arbitrary laws against other smurfs in the interests of the 'state' (or 'collective'). I believe, however, that it is much more representative of primative communism as opposed to the active following and implementation of doctrine. It could also be a representation of anarchy, with a centrally planned economy but an absense of monetary exchange or even a barter economy. Capital, as manifested in Gargamel's plots, is seen as destabilising.

Also, the clothing that the Smurfs wear includes a Phrygian bonnet - the very hat worn by the Sans Cullottes during the French Revolution in 1789!

Reply 46

decola

8

Smurfette was a heffer who had plastic surgery.

Reply 47

_jackofdiamonds

10

Smurfette was created by Gargamel and sent to the smurfs to corrupt them, except Papa Smurf worked a spell to turn her into a good smurf.

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

Yes you do, which is why murderers in prison must be given San Andreas because otherwise they might be sad and we wouldn't want that now.

Reply 48

Goddess Fury

8

That John Lennon song "imagine" was in my view the biggest promotion of marxism via the media in Britain(and most people thought it was nothing more than a nice song)

Reply 49

frankie_sez_relax

Haha

I love this.

Lets compare Soviet russia to Smurf town.

Reply 50

Shaun39

Agent Smith

Marxist Utopia!? There's only one woman, for God's sake!

Obviously the radical consequence of a strictly enforced one child policy skewing the gender balance.

Reply 51

Shaun39

lady_daisychain

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.

You are in a sense right.

The utility derived from a given level of material consumption is entirely dependant upon the perceptions of consumers. After the satisfaction of the most basic survival related wants, further material prosperity results in only intermittent happiness, as our expectations and minimum standards rise in line with (although marginally behind) improvements in our condition.

That is also to say however that continuous and ever accelerating development and distribution of new luxuries may lead to general happiness levels rising ever further above equilibrium levels as it were. That is also to say that any retraction of the luxuries, even those we fail to enjoy, will lower the happiness of humanity.

That said, is the mere pursuit of physiological happiness, (perhaps supported by the development of perfect drugs such as soma - Brave New World) worthwhile as the sole pursuit of humanity?

Or should individuals pursue a deeper form of personal achievement, involving scientific, medical and engineering development, artistic creation, religious commitments and/or optimal raising of offspring? Where individuals hold in high esteem such pursuits, which by their nature involve self-sacrifice, a persistent happiness and strong self worth can be developed, as any material suffering (or low social status) can so easily and effectively be inflected as virtue (the price paid for pursuit of a worthwhile cause).

Admittedly, the contentment would be less pure than that arising from the consumption of a perfect drug such as soma. But then, with such a drug not yet developed, perhaps "achievement" in some sense is the best means of maximising physiological happiness.

Another possibility: some might consider the ends of such "deeper personal achievements" to have a higher value in some sense, than physiological happiness itself. If so, you must ask yourself whether you qualify that value in terms of survival of the species, your zealous commitment to such a principle as the enhancement of human understanding, your faith, or by some other standard.

None of the above would really lead to the conclusion that whole sale abandonment of capitalism would be the best way forwards (with some exceptions, such as those who see a religious fanatic state as the best means both for puruit of physiological happiness, and the attainment of some underlying pious value even more worthwhile pursing). Rather, an acceptance of the above combined with the realisation that peoples have differing values and beliefs, would support a socially liberal government. Perhaps government could contribute to happiness by better fostering public esteem for and ambition in pursuit of scientific, medical etc developments, or by encouraging and facilitating deeper involvement by parents? All open questions.

Note that all the above listed forms of "achievement" are distinct in their nature from that associated with gains in power, material wealth or high social status. Such forms of personal achievement really are part of a zero sum game, as the sense of personal achievement, or lack thereof, associated with material wealth, social status or power is always judged in relation to those of others in society.

The Smurfs - Marxist Utopia

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated