reply to post by gdeed
Based on the videos, which I assume mimic your personal beliefs, it becomes clear that Lenin acted the way he did because he believed Darwin's theory
showed that humans were little more than evolved apes which to Lenin implied people could be conditioned like animals. Also the purist notion of
dialectical disagreement causing necessary conflict can also be seen as another motive for such harsh treatment of the Russian people with the
assumption being that the citizens must be forced, not argued with, to come to agreement.
Obviously Lenin was taking these ideologies to their extremes, eliminating all notions of morality, seeing difference as the enemy rather than as a
benefit to his people, and in general perverting the notion of the means of production being for the equal benefit of all people. It's not hard to
see that Lenin and Stalin's Russia was the product of several philosophies. The least of which seemed to be socialism, in the sense that the people
were taken care of, and more the idea that people must be forced to behave a particular way.
Clearly it was not the socialistic aspect of communism that was at fault, but rather a lack of compassion and common sense. People are not
homogeneous, nor does we want to be, which is why the US's capitalistic republic largely works. However where capitalism fails is it promotes
efficiency with complete disregard for the humans in the system that have stumbled along the way.
And surprise, surprise, the reason capitalists say this is good thing is because it promotes Darwin's survival of the fittest similar to what Lenin
was promoting during his reign of terror.
Now I'm not saying that the Darwinian notion of efficiency is bad in its own right (because its not), but I am saying what's needed is a balance
amongst all philosophies. People neither want to be managed by the state nor do we want to be destroyed simply because certain humans don't fit the
ideals of the paradigm they were born in to. As in every society there will always be people at the bottom of the food chain that still deserve basic
human decency despite not fitting in to the perfect design of society's goals.
For example, in a meritocracy, excellence being the ultimate goal-post, not all people should be
treated in accordance with the value they
contribute back to society. Because like any class-based system where social class is strictly defined, a meritocracy can just as easily be a dystopia
as it can a utopia (i.e. read Michael Young's, Rise of the
So the key take-away here seems to be this: no one philosophy is better than any other because over enough time-and-space any given problem addressed
by a philosophy will be conquered and thus a new challenge will emerge. In understanding this it's easy to see that efficiency isn't the
end-all-and-be-all because when we eventually get to a post 0-exigency world
either robotics, fusion, or any other host of technology) efficiency won't be as important because society through efficiency over time eventually
makes all people unnecessary.
[edit on 19-12-2009 by Xtraeme]