Guest_EntropicAngel_*
There is a "think" because communism is not an analog for the Qun for multiple reasons therefore it is not legitimate to say that "since communism didnt work, neither would the Qun". Plus it doesnt matter whether that hypothetical situation would work in reality because in the world of Thedas, it does. So again, calling it stupid only because you THINK a fantasy society wouldnt work in reality, is not a legitimate criticism.
I would argue that it is a...type, in that the state decides things like professions (which is more "the dictatorship of the proletariat" than final communism, but I'm not aware of a specific term for it separate from communism).
However, the problem is, without context our conclusions are meaningless. Anyone can create any society in fiction and make it appear to work there, but that has no bearing on whether it works in reality--the discussion isn't practical. I draw comparisons to reality to give the discussion context.
Ironically, communism failed in large part because of its draconican authoritarianism while socialist nations thrive better than many capitalist ones so the world is a strange-strange place.
But I'm not sure Bioware disagrees with you that following the Qun is impossible for everyone. The Tal-Vashoth seem to be a LOT larger group than Sten let's on (and Sten says they're a fairly HUGE group in his homeland if you get his approval rating high enough) and they have to do a LOT of brainwashing on a regular basis to keep Qun society functioning. The Qun is not an idealistic state because dissent seems to be a constant on-going thing they suppress.
If we ever visited their homeland, we'd probably find a massive resistance movement in the countryside.
Interesting. Which socialist nations are you thinking of? The only one I can think of offhand is China, whose economy has many hints of capitalism.
I think we could stand to take a closer look at how the Qun actually works, the politics and the economy, rather than just "they wage war to convert all to their beliefs but allow all to share those beliefs." I think we need more information.
No. Capitalism is founded on the idea that everyone's wants do not necessarily conflict with eachother, otherwise economic growth would be impossible. (people would simply steal from eachother, there would be no wealth produced because nobody would contribute to the living conditions of society as a whole).
Yes, people like Adam Smith or Ayn Rand have postulated a glorification of selfishness as a virtue, but they did not invent capitalism. It's an a posteriori justification. Capitalist economy doesn't even work the way they thought it did in reality.
I also wonder why authority would even exist in a human society if it was in the nature of every single human being to oppose it. Authority, in the social and political sense, probably has nothing to do with human nature. It's just a social mechanism that we learn through education, same for wether we oppose it or not.
Historically speaking, feudal societies existed for much longer than democracies. In a typical medieval monarchy, for example, private property doesn't even exist and there is almost zero social mobility. If you were born a poor peasant in "Village X", you'd very likely die a poor peasant in "Village X".
Does that mean that humans are inherently similar to the framework of such a society? Not at all.
Oh, and, back on topic, the Qun is not a historical allegory for Soviet communism. It is based on Plato's Republic.
If there was an attempt to emulate Plato's Republic in reality, and it failed, that would not mean that any attempt to emulate it would always fail too. There were several states whose adoption of free-market capitalism was a huge failure.
Does that mean it is a flawed ideology? No, it only means that their economic system, in their specific context, was inadequate for them at that time.
Free market capitalism is somewhat adequate for occidental countries in our period of history. That may last a long time, or we may find something that works even better depending on how our societies change and how we adapt, who knows.
I thank you for this post, because it has caused me to delve a little deeper into it myself.
What you're saying is oblique to my statement. Being "greedy" =/= everyone's wants conflicting with one another. It's entirely possible for people's wants to coincide with one another, and those people still be greedy. it looks like we're talking past each other at this point. It's entirely possible for both to be a part of the founding ideals (though I'm not finding a place that actually describes those ideals, offhand).
Amusingly enough, I'm reading Atlas Shrugged at the moment and I find myself disagreeing with Objectivism. However, regarding your point--is there a single way that capitalism works? Capitalism encompasses several variants, does it not? Are you saying that Smith or Rand's version of capitalism does not coincide with any of the variants of capitalism?
The fact that it's in our nature to oppose something does not mean that we don't understand its value, or in some cases necessity.
On Plato's Republic--interesting. I had no idea about that. Thank you for mentioning it. On it's relation to communism, however:
"Leo Strauss identified a four-part structure to the Republic, perceiving the dialogues as a drama enacted by particular characters, each with a particular perspective and level of intellect:"
"Books V–VI: The “Just City in Speech” is built from the earlier books, and concerns three critiques of the city. Leo Strauss reported that his student Allan Bloom identified them as: communism, communism of wives and children, and the rule of philosophers. The “Just City in Speech” stands or falls by these complications."
(if I'm missing something here, point it out to me--you're clearly much more knowledgeable here than I am).
I'm not saying that the failure of a specific state means that all others like it will fail. I'm saying that the ideals that state is founded upon are flawed, and as such the state cannot stand. It fails intrinsically, not as a function of the specific conditions.
I'm arguing that things like "the good of the state is paramount" is flawed, as an example, or that "absolute order is optimal."
Retour en haut
