Nolan's View

have dedided to go ahead and post the last article in this series despite some criticisms I have recieved about the length and content of these aritcles. From friends of course, and we still are. I refuse to dumb down my paper. If I did that I would be guilty of doing the very thing I hate mainstream media for. I know, it's just a game, blah blah blah. Future articles will be shorter but their content will not be "dumbed down" or tailored for the apporval of "the masses." I don't care if only one person reads and enjoys and or understands the content of this paper. If there is only one person that enjoy's this paper, then this paper is for him/her. It's not like I need media mogul gold. I'm an eSocialist with a capital S. Enjoy it, or don't read it : )
And yes, future articles will be concentrated on in game issues. But I have already said that this was a three part series so I'm going to follow through because I am stubborn and rebellious. Hence my being a leftist, lol.


Part Three of the Red Idealist’s Series on the Truths and Myths of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism



There are many obstacles for the realization of a socialists/communist based economy in the world. One of which is the world itself.

Due to the fact that economics affects everyone on the planet in a very personal way, the thought of changing the mode of production that is absolutely necessary for our survival as a species is a scary subject. People tend to gravitate to what they know and, likewise, tend to resist change. Capitalism has been the dominant mode of production for most of the world for close to three hundred years. Its ability to manufacture technology that completely changes the way the world works and the way its inhabitants exist is undeniable. Evidence of this is all around us everyday. It is our televisions, our central air and heat, our cars, and our cell phones. It is the ability to play this game and interact with each other everyday despite the fact that most of us live oceans apart. All of this has come to pass because of capitalism’s need to constantly innovate itself to survive. But this fact also comes with a dark side. The increase in industry has led to pollution, climate change, animal extinction, deforestation, the threat of overpopulation, and some even claim dehumanization due to increased reliance on technology which leads to people forgetting how to be self-reliant. This theory suggests that we are becoming dependant on our modern way of life as a species (mostly in western culture) and would be unable to adjust in a world without a wal-mart or even an internet. Computers run everything. Calculators do our math. Microwaves cook our food we buy ready made on a shelf in a convenient store. Capitalism has truly revolutionized the way the human race exists on this planet. We are becoming ready made, instant messaging, multi tasking, time constrained workaholics. The pace of life has unarguably increased on a world scale. Is this a good thing? Sure, I do enjoy the conveniences of technology. I enjoy this game. I enjoy my computer and the ability to delete without using white out. No, I am not old enough to remember typewriters. Apple Computers were all the rage when I was in elementary, if that tells you anything. I really can’t imagine living as they did in the early 1900’s. No central heat or air. No wal-marts or best buys. No cell phones or computers. No television. You had to read for entertainment. Or socialize with your family to pass time. And you absolutely had to go to bed at night, simply because it was dark outside. I know! That’s insane! We’ve all heard our grandmother’s stories. You can’t tune them out all the time.


What is my point in saying all this? My point is there is a dominant belief that without capitalism the innovation of technology will cease and we will ultimately revert back to an agricultural based society that must be self reliant and live off the land. This is a common argument against socialist and/or communist economics. This most likely comes from a misunderstanding or even a deliberate manipulation of what socialist economics really are. Not that it is easy to actually pin down a collective definition. There are so many different theories.

In order for socialism to ever stand a chance in the real practical world of economics, socialists would have to come up with a way to prove that an economic model can operate on a level that can provide equal and fair compensation for labor without decreasing the current standard of living that we have all become so used to. It is obvious that the upper class will resist this since socialism is not a system that will cause one to become rich in the current definition of wealth and success. But it needs to be proven that the standard of living will not be brought so low that it has created an equal class of starving, needy workers that live in leaky shacks and eat moldy bread. This viewpoint, unfortunately, is a common assumption. It also needs to be proven that socialism is capable of advancing technology in a positive way and is likewise capable of sustaining current technologies and luxuries enjoyed under capitalism.


Karl Marx believed that all of a societies institutions come from their mode of production. So based on this theory it could be said that the introduction of socialism itself will solve all of its problems. As the world adjusts to this new mode of production, institutions will inevitably be created in response. But what about the rest of the world? It isn’t likely that the whole world will simultaneously embrace a socialist mode of economics. Would a nation based on socialism be able to compete or defend itself against the rest of the world? And I don't mean semi-socialism as we see today. Or perhaps the definition needs to be redefined altogether based on current issues and standards of living. Marx and Engels constantly stressed the importance of a theory's relevancce inside it's historical time of creation and how this can tend to become outdated as time goes on. For instance, they considered Robert Owen an innovative genius of his time and called his utopian theories revolutionary, where as they viewed later followers of Owen as merely reactionary sects. Could the same be said for modern day followers of Marx? Would Marx support this viewpoint that his economical theories and philosophy should be revised to fit the times? Or is his scientific method of abstracting the way we view the relationship between people, commodities, and currency and/or his views on the dialectic unfolding of the world as a series of interchangable and inevitable cause and effect relations (although not necessarily deterministic as viewed by Hegel) universal and relevant in any time period? These are all big questions and questions that I believe must be considerd and decidedly answered before socialist economics could ever be truly realized. Until they are, this will be a debate that will continue into the unforeseeable future.



There it's done. The series is over. Subscribe if you wish and be ready for the next issue written on whatever I decide to do next. And yes, it will be game related.