Entertainment is always a product of a prosperous society. Only the technology of entertainment changes. Two thousand years ago, we have gladiators, today, we have the WWE.

If you ever played the Simcity games, entertainment is actually a social factor you need to instill in a society to keep its citizens happy and productive. Of course,there is always something negative when you take entertainment too far.

The arts, which is also related to entertainment, is also essential in social and cultural development. The arts and technology are two fields that are heavily interconnected. Whenever you find plenty of art, you also find plenty of technology. And once again, there is also a collaborative factor between entertainment, art and technology.

well entertaiment it self migth not numb people, but the ammount of time we use just to amuse ourselves…and it wouldnt be so bad if we choose our amusment in ways that it make us think, but when we constantly just turn our brains off and start watch TV or listen some cheap pop music, we eventually amuse ourselves to death, like Rodger Waters wrote…Reading serious literacy and listening music whit saying, is much better, I would just wish that TV and movie industry would afford us more braintwisting to watch… Offcourse sometimes its good just go whit the flow and forget theinking, but not all the time…

Who is to say that many of our collective technological ideas for example, originated from science fiction, which is of course, a literary art meant to entertain.

But then of speaking of art, its not the same thing. Supposedly art should have always been done for the art or for the aritst himself, not for public’s pleasure, and science-fiction, thougth normally regarded as entertaiment, is more close to ‘real’ literacy than most people think. At least sci-fi that i tend to like are the ones that makes you really use your brain and feel yourself bit stubid as you didnt understand it so clearly, challenging one i I would say…

Generally in a society that has become prosperous, it leads to entertainment, then art and technology. And it is a self reinforcing cycle.

Well art seems to appear in any form of inteligent human life, its not just prosper’s side effect, but entertaiment is, At least i think so a related to the system and dependaple to it as you said also. But art in its pureness can be quite opposite, more an anti-system in nature, thougth beeing anti-something usually generates from that somethingh and by means of dialectism is same thing, at least in orgins. But I want to believe in pure art that rises from individual consicuense of man, thougth otherwise I tend to think human as product of collective, not individual organism… But art migth be the sole way of finding your true self, and only working way of processin yourself solely out from any society. To this point nobody have managed to do that but its another thing… :rolleyes:

One classic element why empires fall is because of being overstretched. You are too big for your britches. In fact, China at the decay of the Qing Dynasty was an exceedingly big country since it covers territory right up to Siberia like Lake Baikal, Port Arthur, and the Amur region.

To control an empire you need a big bureaucracy and military. Both factors require a lot of money. And once you lose the money tap, the decay sets in, as you would have problems maintaining both your massive bureaucracy and military.

But there have been big empires like US, that arent (att least yet) falling due
controll proplems…And in modern world, thechnology can In my mind override this factor.

In fact, while an empire may have expanded and became an empire because of war, war is the last thing it needs to sustain. Obviously it will break your wallet. The last kind of war you can ill sustain is a guerilla type of war that goes on for years and years, where attrition, not just by personnel, but by the sheer cost of war.

But empire its all about hegemony, and agressive hegemony in a way that You cannot build empire whitout braking other hegemonies,a nd doing that it leads to wars…and when you have destroyed all rivaling powers, there alwyas finds neighbours that have their own hegemony and will not let it go whitout figth. And if theorethically you ahve conquered all and there isent diversing elements from societyes vertical dimensions (other societyes, civilications) left, the horizontal elements (classes, castes) beguns to couse stress as their nature is to couse stress.

Well two days ago i thought to myself.

ummm…. I got school in 5 more days and i got five essays to write(i had planned this at the start of the holidays). should i continue this right now or should i finish my VCE homework. logical choice to me since i already have had 2 months off

well all in all its just education, who needs it 😉

The problem i am having is your trying to use more complicated words mixed with other complicated words. When we were in the thread in about the russian army you used a easier type of writing. change of heart?

Yeas, i aknowlidge that but Then again, I dont know how to use ‘comon’ terms of these things in english. Many matters that i have recently covered, are more difficoult, apstract things and I havent got any eduction who to write about philoshophyes and science-philoshophyes in english, so bardon me…technical stuff and childish mockery are more simple matters. Speaking of Marxism is hard enough in finnish, and translate that into english on my own… :confused:

That was according to marxism. But there must have been a higher steep than pratically nomad type industries

what do you mean by this? In my understanding there isent any short cuts to communism…

Of course i acknowledge it. I have been stating the difference between the two. My point is(which i have stated many times alread) is Maoism was a completly different form than Marxism-Leninsim. But both principles were communism. Each system had different ways of reaching communism

And my stance is that only one is really a scientifical ideology, another is mere an impulse of political climate and opportunism

Commusim wassn’t about economic development it was about social development. Marx did not factor that the starting force of communism was in a barren land like russia but the ndustriallized nations like germany and western europe where the conditiosn during his time were extremly bad for the proletariat which would cause revolution since they would seek production and the wealth instead of creating it

Marxism key thesis is that economy is a sosial phenemmenon. its part of sosial devolpment, and likewise. the concept of dialectic-materialism should be good thing to learn if wanting to achieve higher understanding of communism. marxism is economical as it is sosial ideology

What Marxism-Leninsim is was change that theory because some pridictions of Marx did not happen like the overthrow of the bourgeoisie elite, which did not happen owning to the explotation of the imperialist powers. which vis a vis lead to russias rise as a power. Lenin changed that theory and theroized that when the exploited people rose up the imperialist countries would have general overthrow because they had no prosperity

Yes, there is some acpects of opportunity in leninism as well, im not denying it, But that particular acpect isent saying that “all nomand of cavlands rise and tomorrow we shall take big leap over centureys of devolpment”