Are they Communists?
I've read some quite interesting theories about the Smurfs' political agenda. Can someone confirm this?
- Fascism is the Future
the smurfs live in an "ideal society", where the strong look after the weak. Much like the creators of the smurfs, the belgians, like to achieve, when they created their social security system. If you can't pay/look after yourself because you are too sick or weak, more rich people do it for you. I think it is a very beautiful idea. Is that being a communist? Fine, then we are communists. Americans can be so paranoid about any "socialist" idea, they think it is the devil talking.
Where does this paranoia come from?
Fascism, socialism ,and other evil extremist agendas are all bad and we shouldn't fall for it like we do time and time again. Extremist beliefs are all crap ,and no one wants to be involved with that crap. The Smufs aren't communists but Gargamel and their other foes are.
share"Fascism, socialism, and other evil extremist agendas …"
You clearly have no idea what these words mean.
you don't have a clue what socialism means. It is actually a very good thing! It means the community takes care of everybody. If anything it is capitalism that is evil: more for me, me, me, and screw anybody who is poor.
How can a country call itself civilised if it doesn't even WANT to take care of the weakest and the sick.
By actual definition, the smurfs are socialists. Papa Smurf is actually probably the only actual good socialist leader who did not turn things into a dictatorship.
However it's easy to confuse it with communism when in the real word we've seen lots of socialists who try and pretend they are communists when they are not. Some schools really don't teach this to well.
I remember in a college geography class some students were actually surprised when the professor said "there is no real communist state on Earth" Proves to show that some people don't know what the words really mean.
I refuse to argue on IMDB until the general populous actually uses their brains
Oddark123,
Others have tried communism without it devolving into a dictatorship. The pilgrims tried it, but when it resulted in starvation, they abandoned it.
The problem with communism is that it runs counter to human nature. Many people do not work very hard without some kind of incentive. That incentive can come in the form of economic rewards, social rewards, or avoidance of death or prison (avoiding punishment can't really force innovation or any kind of mental work though). The first two are unacceptable in a society where everyone is the same. That leaves the third, which can come from internal or external threats. In other words, either the society must be at perpetual war, or must assign power to someone to inflict death or punishment. Either way, you've just made someone more powerful than everyone else.
Another aspect of human nature. Some people in power tend to desire more power. Worse, the kind of people who desire power tend to be the ones who will abuse it. Even worse, those who are willing to do the shady things sometimes necessary are the ones who will earn favor from the leaders who require it from them. Those who curry favor will naturally rise. Therefore, the prospect that a corrupt leader will take over is an inevitability rather than an if.
The irony is that capitalism, the "greedy" economic system, fosters individualism that promotes egalatarianism... Individual property rights and separation of government from means of production spawned all the great economic and social rights leaps in the past 250 years. The more involved the govt becomes in daily business activities, the more room for corruption. In all the third world nations in the world, we see a lack of individual property rights and we see government heavily involved in the means of production.
Of course, communism is much more intuitively appealing. For the child mind in all of us, "fair" seems a lot easier to understand then the somewhat complex concept that individual property rights promote freedom. So tried and failed social experiments keep getting brought up every few decades by those who dream, and those willing to exploit the "useful idiots". That is why The Smurfs seems like such an ideal society to some, and so repulsive to others.
The way I see it, the smurf village worked as well as it did because of four reasons.
1: As much as the smurfs could be jerks some times, none of them was actually evil or a criminal.
2: There were only like 100+ inhabitants in the tiny village, so it was possible for the smurfs to just share everything that they needed.
3: Albeit a benevolent dictator by modern standards, nobody can ever deny that Papa Smurf was a good leader.
4: Although everybody was supposed to work together for the greater good for the small community, you had every right to find an occupation according to your own personality and interests.
Really, the same thing can pretty much be said about the Gaulish village in "Asterix".
Except a chief and a druid shared the role, that Papa had to take on alone in "The Smurfs".
Capitalism is not bad as long as you have laws against abuse towards the workers.
Capitalism and socialism have lived happily together since 1932 here in Sweden.
"Americans can be so paranoid about any "socialist" idea, ..."
Most primitive societies take care of the "weak", but not the slackers. The church used to do so.
Euro lefties are so brainwashed they think the state has to do everything that the community used to do!