» Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:31 am The conflict begs questions about property norms and entitlement. How many times here have you seen someone make the argument "the resistance deserve as much in not more because they do all the hard work," etc etc.
So this sort of ethical divide- who do the resources belong to, rightfully? The person that owns the property from whence they came (capitalism), or the people who put the work in to produce them, coupled with who needs them more (communism)? Does ownership of property entitle you to any and everything that is produced on that property thereafter, or, are people entitled to what they produce themselves, regardless of title?
Keep in mind that state communism doesn't and never has functioned like the real hardcoe Marxists that are still around today want it to. It's not real communism to them unless there is no state. It's not really a matter of egalitarian division of resources and the old sickle and hammer junk, it's all about worker-owned means of production now, with no hierarchies politically, socially or otherwise.
And yes, it is just as messed up and muddy as any other path of idealism. -_-
So this sort of ethical divide- who do the resources belong to, rightfully? The person that owns the property from whence they came (capitalism), or the people who put the work in to produce them, coupled with who needs them more (communism)? Does ownership of property entitle you to any and everything that is produced on that property thereafter, or, are people entitled to what they produce themselves, regardless of title?
Keep in mind that state communism doesn't and never has functioned like the real hardcoe Marxists that are still around today want it to. It's not real communism to them unless there is no state. It's not really a matter of egalitarian division of resources and the old sickle and hammer junk, it's all about worker-owned means of production now, with no hierarchies politically, socially or otherwise.
And yes, it is just as messed up and muddy as any other path of idealism. -_-
Fair points, there. I suppose the Resistance could be considered practically communist, Marxist, or socialist. They call for equal distribution of resources, but we know nothing of their leadership system. If they support one all-powerful charismatic leader then they'd be communists like how they have played out in the real world. If they have zero influential figures, but all pitch in a part to keep the Ark going, then they'd be Marxists. Socialism is a broad scope, though, basically the middle ground between the two. I think they'll probably turn out to be democratic socialists.
Although, maybe not. With the founders being dictators and all, maybe they wont represent democracy. If they did that, then most people would take sides with the Resistance, most likely. I donno. It's a toughie to call. We'll have to play the game to see.
there's barely a forum on the internet where you can discuss the political and religious intentions of a video game without being flamed to death. I salute you, Bethesda's Brink Forum!! 
