The Politics of the Scene
Written by Warlock
I feel like writing, so why not do so? I'm pretty sure I'm going to get a lot of feedback about this article or at least I'm hoping so.
Oh well, let's get started. I would lie if I said that I didn't like the fact that the demoscene and the Internet are so far away from the real world. The reason is simple: the real world doesn't really work that well. By contrast, the demoscene and Internet are full of rebellion, fresh ideas, intelligent people and anarchy. I'm really afraid of the day when they find a method of monitoring what people are doing on the net. Looking at the demos that have something to say about politics I came up with two productions (both of them are among my favourites).
- Rebel by Complex (as perceived?)
- State of mind by Bomb
Now what kind of statement do these make?
Rebel has all (?) the famous, even symbolic figures of the politicians who have been an inspiration for many. We can, as far as I remember, spot many pictures of "the hero of work" (a Soviet concept), J.F.K., Martin Luther King and at the end Ernesto Che Guevara, also known as El Commandante. There are also many other figures that I can't identify so I would be thankful if someone told me who they are. Well, looking at this, one can't help to wonder. In case you don't know who these people are I'll explain it to you.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was maybe the greatest president in the history of the United States. He was a young man with many good ideas. I think he was going to end the Vietnam war, for example. The point is he was assassinated, probably by the government. Martin Luther King was assassinated too. His accomplishment could have been the end of Afro-American slavery. Then Che Guevara who liberated Cuba and was executed while trying to do the same for his home country, Bolivia. There could also be for example Jasser Arafat (have you seen any picture of him when he was young?) but he wasn't assassinated and thus hasn't achieved the status of a martyr. Well, Rebel doesn't state its opinion as clearly as State of mind but the way I interpret it, its pro communism and human rights. Because almost all the historical figures are in some way positively affiliated with communism. I'll explain the less obvious ones. J.F.K. was trying to end the war, so? The Vietnam war was purely a consequence from the American fear of communism and "the domino theory". It was a completely useless war and also the first war that the U.S.A. lost. Che Guevara on the other hand liberated Cuba, which has been a communistic country since then (before that it was a place for rich Americans to be on vacation). Fidel Castro still leads Cuba, I guess you've heard of him too.
Then there's State of mind. It is very clear in its message. There's a mantra: "Work, buy, consume, die", the spinning galaxy with McDonald's, Coca Cola, and dollars. Doesn't this pretty clearly state that it's against capitalism? They don't offer an option though.
Also, on the Internet I've bumped into a lot of people who are very communist (half of our group too).
So, now to the point. Anyone could argue against communism like this:
"Look at the Soviet Union, it couldn't exist, so a communist country probably cannot exist. Also the communist countries in the world like Cuba and China are becoming more and more capitalistic and Cuba has a lot of problems."
To this I'd answer:
"Look at the Soviet Union now. It changed to capitalism and now it's even worse. Many people would like to change back. Cuba's problems are mainly because the United States of America refuse to trade with it. This leads for example to problems getting drugs, and sick people can't get proper medication even though it is completely free in Cuba. So the U.S.A. are like committing murders all the time. At the same time they've got no problem trading with China which is breaking human rights all the time."
Now I'm not saying that communism were the answer. The biggest problem of communism is that it seems to generate cruel dictators (as if there was any other kind of dictators). Another one is that it lets everyone decide about a country's matters. Well, whether you like it or not, most people are stupid. So I've always liked Plato's idea of the perfect State. Philosophers make the decisions in it. Now don't take it literally. I'm sure he meant that the ones who have no interest in money should be in charge. Money should only be a means of achieving something, not the object of achievement. Remember that Plato lived in ancient Greece. In those times there were no scientists. Well a thing that greatly influenced Plato was the death of his tutor Sokrates. He died because he was seen as a threat, when he was inspiring so many people. By a democratic decision too. So democracy isn't that great because most of the people are stupid like I said earlier.
So. Should we have a communist system that would have only philosophers and scientists in positions of power? It sounds crazy and that's exactly what it is. People want to decide what's good for them. Children can't because they're immature. In my opinion, almost all adults are immature too. So we would need a voting system where an individual's opinion should be multiplied by an "intelligence factor". How would this factor be defined? Who should define it? What is intelligence anyway? I don't know. And this would also compromise a lot of important things...
I probably have achieved the status of a lunatic in your minds by now but I won't stop before I have once more proven (?!) that capitalism is not the answer at all, speculated a little more and who knows what else!
Capitalism can't be right because its main objective isn't to ensure the well being of all citizens but rather to get as much money for the government as possible. This leads to big differences between social classes (Celine Dion has 400 pairs of shoes, while some people don't have shoes or even food), wars and poverty. So they introduced social security, which is a very good thing. But it doesn't remove the illness of the main concept. People can't get the education they want without much money. The Greenhouse effect could be reduced easily, maybe even stopped, but this would cost a lot of money. So businessmen exchange our future for money. These are just a few examples.
Now I would like to uncover a little secret that all of you probably know. Star Trek is communist and yet so popular in the U.S.A. Is there an irony in there or what?
Now I'm going to stop. Please don't hate me. I hope that my message got through. Where's the moral of this world!?
(Ed.: We want to mention once again that all articles present their respective author's opinion, which is not necessarily shared by the staff.)