
07 Sep 2013, 17:48
I don't think the Block countries had particularly high rates of depression ( except maybe Hungary as it's a national disease there ) but life could certainly be quite depressing in the East. There might be some truth to the Western stereotype of ( both pre and post 1989 ) E. Europe as a grim, depressive and oppressive place.

07 Sep 2013, 18:07
I find those types of arguments the weakest and in some sense the most evil. I can get into a debate about the utilitarian grounds of which is more economically efficient socialism or capitalism.
But what I really hate are the Nietzscheans, who say well yes maybe your little Utopia can work and all can be equal and prosperous, but man has a drive to dominate, to be better than others, to put down the weak, and if you take that away you take away the human spirit. Its basically a sadist complaining that there wont be anyone weaker than him for him to lord it over and gloat over. There needs to be pain and suffering or life will lose its spice. But these wannabe Ubers always imagine the pain on their lessers, and the glory for themselves.

07 Sep 2013, 19:22
I don't see how this is supposed to invalidate Marxism. Obviously the ruling class is the strongest one, and right now the capitalists are stronger than the working classes, otherwise we wouldn't be living in capitalism. But the working class is perfectly capable of owerthrowing the bourgeoisie, it's only a matter of time and of course struggle.
That humans are naturally competitive doesn't contradict with communism, where the emancipated men would be completely free to compete in anything they want, from arts to sports to science.

07 Sep 2013, 20:06
If we weren't capable of building Marxism we wouldn't be capable of formulating it from the onset.

07 Sep 2013, 20:18
Just to be sure, I do not support the position that communism is biologically impossible. I was just stating the position many followers of social biology take regarding Marxism and communism. It related to heiss93's post on why some people are opposed to communism on the grounds that it somehow reduces the human spirit, and particularly the spirit of those who wish to do "great things." This is essentially the position Ayn Rand and others take and it ties in with the stereotype of the Eastern Bloc as a grey, depressing dystopia.

07 Sep 2013, 20:40
Arguments of biology are somewhat spurious, since collective organization is a major factor in human survival, and has been the corner stone of every inch of human development.

08 Sep 2013, 01:23
I would also add that those who worship the creativity of individualism are usually conformist hacks in their actual lives. Ayn Rand worshiped Victor Hugo, who was a great Jacobin Socialist, and I think it is impossible to separate Les Miserables as Romanticist literature from Hugo's collectivist politics. But if we look at the great thinkers of history from the Philosophes of the French Revolution, to the Victorian Fabian intellectuals, the Popular Front artists of the 1930s, Albert Einstein, to even the Hollywood liberals of today we find that those with a truly artistic, creative, scientific spirit usually tend towards collectivism and see their individual greatness as connected to social struggle. Those who celebrate so-called individuality are the first to denounce the degeneracy of bohemians, intellectuals, and weirdos, anyone who is different.
Those atomistic individuals who cut themselves off from society, usually produce works of trash, valued only for their political propaganda. Those who make a cult out of individuality are usually the least interesting individuals. The individuality of the 'human spirit' that capitalism celebrates, is that of the American teenager to be the first on the block to have the newest sneakers or I-Pod. It is a purely quantitative measure of individuality, in which one is 'unique' by possessing more shiny rocks than anyone else.

08 Sep 2013, 02:35
Haha, that was very well said, but Nietzsche wasn't exactly a boring conformist hack. I'm not even saying you're wrong, just that there are exceptions.

08 Sep 2013, 17:32
Nietzsche tried his hand at epic soldiering, and failed. He then volunteered as a stretcher bearer so he could be closer to the battlefield. His legendary case of syphilis (if that's what it was) kept him from continuing on as a professor of classical subjects, so he dropped out. He then spent the rest of his sane years wandering around Italy and Switzerland. He lived the life of a lonely boarding house bachelor. If anything, his attempts to advise princes and Chancellors on "grand politics" was a desperate attempt to stay relevant, and remind himself that he existed, and had a part to play in social discourse. Nowadays, Nietzsche would be an ultra-conservative Monarchist or Libertarian media figure, probably with a blog, attempting to get his spot on the European equivalent of Fox News.
Back to topic: central Europe has a very snowy climate. Rainy summers, dark, cloudy winters. So it's always going to be a bit depressing, no matter what economic system prevails. Plus, Communism in these areas was founded by very hard nosed, no nonsense, materialists who weren't overly fond of frivolity. And it's hard to laugh when you can walk a few miles down the road into the forest, and come across the remnants of a Nazi death camp. So these were all countries whose national sense of humor needed a few more decades to fully recover.

12 Sep 2013, 16:11
Maybe life in the east was depressing. I doubt it could have been as depressing as contemporary Western life though.

14 Sep 2013, 05:39
Millions of people lived happy, full lives in the East without ever concerning themselves with what they were "missing" in the West. Likewise, plenty of people are perfectly content to live in North Dakota, regardless of the fact that there are thousands of more "exciting" places they could inhabit. Some people are miserable in places like England because of the constant overcast weather. Others love the constant rain. "Happiness" consists in your ability to accept and adapt to your surroundings. In essence, you're happy anywhere that you can comfortably "fit in".

16 Jul 2014, 22:05
Sorry for being rude, but comunists need to know the theory, else our struggle will be much harder.
Any argument, question, whatever, that compares ideal entities is ideology and should be rejected as such.
That question compares ideal persons living in ideal circunstances under an idealized model of capitalism and socialism.
You can only compare hard, real events.
For one :
At what time period ?
In wich country ?
Under wich circunstances ?
Wich job ?
etc.
For example. Here in Brazil there are a lot of favelas. We live in a capitalist country, and i believe i would be pretty depressed if i had to live in one of those favelas even for a week.
Another point to argue against the question is that it makes a lot of presumptions.
1 - That in a socialist system - an ideal one - the state runs everything. Thats wrong.
2 - That the human being can only be driven by materialistic demands. IE.: if you have a house, food, car etc, you having nothing else to strive for. What happens to love, spiritual development (in the sense of finding answers to profound existential questions etc) ?
The soviet system, derived from a bolchevique model of revolution, exacerbated by the consequences of the civil war (where most of the middle class of the former russian empire died) became an state aparatus where the free thinking was refrained.
In a true - at least, as idealized by Marx - socialist state, everything is run by the assemblies (soviets), wich becomes the center of the intelectual life of a socialist country. IE.: you dont concentrate in egocentric activities as demanding the best car, or best house to show your opulence to your peers, but, you strive to win arguments, to convince and be convenced of new ideas. You take part, your small part, in the building of socialism, by voting, by discussing ideas, etc.
Your life becomes full of vitality, because instead of the fetiche of the marchandising (dont know how to translate that to english : "Fetiche da mercadoria") you have a true, direct link, to reality and to politics. You are not opressed, either materially nor intelectually, because the yoke of ideology is removed, and you deal with your peers, not as competitors (because thats what happens in a developed capitalist country) but as true peers, constructing a new world order.
So, basically, if you want to compare ideal things, you should first know what are those ideal things that are being compared.
The ideal capitalist model is a kind of never-ending social darwinism, while the ideal socialist model is a construction made by friends, brothers, peers.