Were the Smurfs just a way to bring Communist ideology into the US?
154319
I've heard that before.  Its an interesting theory.  Papa Smurf is supposed to be Stalin.  SMURF is actually an acronym for Socialist Men Under Red Father.\n\nI found an interesting site on the subject with an argument on the subject - here is some of what I found:\n\n\n\nFirst of all, you must take away all pre-programed thoughts you might already have about communists. Forget all that big bad Russian stuff that the 80's taught us, that doesn't exist anymore. Think of communism as just a way of life, a social order, an economic standpoint. Take all the visions of sickles and hammers out of your head for awhile, and then you will be able to see it. \n\nFirst of all, the Smurfs shared everything. The food in the Smurf village was stored away in those mushrooms the minute it was harvested and then equally distributed to all the Smurfs throughout the year. No one "farmer smurf" sold his crop to one smurf or another. It was understood that the crop was for the entire Smurf population, not for the sale or profit of one smurf alone. \n\nThen there were the jobs each smurf held. There was Handy Smurf, and Painter Smurf, and Brainy Smurf, ect.. Each smurf had his own job and was not allowed to try other fields. There actually was an episode where each smurf tried to do another one's job, and failed. The moral of the story was apparently "Stick to what you do Best" or in another view, what the society has chosen for you. Handy Smurf was always building. Painter Smurf was always painting. Everyone accepted what they were and didn't ask questions. \n\nThen there comes the somewhat obvious stretches. Papa Smurf wore a red cap. All the Smurfs were the same color and sang the same song everywhere they went - stressing unity. Didn't you catch yourself singing that song as a kid? Everyong did. \n\nThe most outstanding arguement that the smurfs were communists comes from their arch-vilain Gargamel. If you remember, the only thing that Gargamel wanted the smurfs for was for his own profit. In the first four or five seasons, Gargamel's master plan was to catch the Smurfs, boil them, and turn them into gold. For some reason, in the later years when the show was dieing, they started saying that he wanted to eat the poor blue creatures, but for the most part he wanted to turn them into gold. He didn't care about the Smurfs themselves or thier culture or wellbeing. All he cared about was getting gold. He was only interested in how to get rich and nothing, nothing would get in his way. \n\nGargamel was a capitalist. \n\nThe evil antagonist on the Smurfs was the ultimate capitalist, terrorizing the peaceful good little communist Smurf community. It all starts to fit together doesn't it? \n\nAccording to the Feigelsonian Theory of Smurfian Communism in the Post-War Era, the Smurfs television show was created as part of a Soviet plot to brainwash the children of the free world, as part of the USSR long-range strategy for world domination. To wit: \n1) Note that all the Smurfs look exactly the same (with the exception of Papa Smurf--see below). They are all blue-skinned and have white hats and white tails. This reflects the classless society Marxist theory proposes, in which all men and women are comrades. \n\n2) Note which Smurfs are focused on: Hefty, the soldier and Handy, the worker. Note which Smurfs are portrayed negatively: Greedy, who simply eats all the time; Vanity, who contributes nothing to the society and is lost in his own Narcissism; and particularly Brainy (a thinly-veiled caricature of Trotsky), who thinks too much for himself and undermines the Smurf state. He is repeatedly thrown out of the colony (Trotsky, of course, was assassinated in Mexico). \n\n3) Papa Smurf is the only Smurf who wears any clothing other than the standard-issue white uniform. Instead his outfit is RED. (Need we say more?) Furthermore, Papa Smurf's unique facial hair is clearly meant to conjure up images
214668
Are they advocating communism? No. Are they advocating polices that will lead to communism? No. \n\nYou could more readily support that the Administration is one step from totalitarianism.\n"Common to all definitions, totalitarian regimes characteristically regimes mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political ideology, and do not tolerate activities by individuals or groups such as labor unions, churches and political parties that are not directed toward the state's goals. Further, they maintain themselves in power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, and widespread use of violent and arbitary terror tactics."\n\nDo I believe this? No, but I think a better case can be made of our proximity to totatlitarianism via Bush than communism via "liberals."
751003
Great website indeed.\n\nI believe that this is telling of the democrat nutjobs.\nhttp://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/\n\nThis shows that many democrats are the enemy and there are many communists imbedded w/in the DNC.\n\nMcCarthy was correct.  He had a great nose at sniffing out the commies.  He was just ahead of his time.
946656
Absolutely.\n\nBut subversive factions have learned that students at college are experiencing more freedom then at any time in their life and prey upon them while their minds are still impressionable. A friend of mine was furious one day at work after a holiday. He said his son came home and while they were talking he started spouting very indignant pro communist propaganda. My friend later took a week of vacation and drove to the college and confronted the dean in person. The dean supported the teacher it came from and my friend packed his son in the car and the boy never went back to that school. \n\nTHAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!
1139477
I think that the Bush administration may be trying to do something like that, but the public is much more cynical than it was in 1980 when the Reagan adminstration pulled off theirs.  If they did it, they might see a boost in their base, but the backlash might hurt them even more.  I could see the Dems saying, "well, why didn't you find them earlier?" and the public dismissing it off as a political stunt.  \n\nIt also wouldn't surprise me if the public believed that the Bush adminstration planted them there as a trick.  I could definitely see it happening, because the lack of trust in the adminstration right now is an all-time low, and I doubt a trick like that would work in this election.
1094721
She was created by Gargamel to corrupt the Smurfs, but the overwhelming goodness of the Smurfs made her good too.  They don't have genitals.  Ask Donnie why that's stupid.
1069212
I hope so, since it is a Communists society - Russia, Germany under Hitler, Japan during WWII. \n\nI do think we lack respect & pride in our country.
352000
You mean like China (they limit Internet usage)?  They have plenty to gain.  If you can keep a population ignorant, you can control them, and that is what communism is all about.
37483
Yes, actually, I believe I do. If I remember correctly, they are part some kind of secret society of very wealthy people such as the Rothchilds, who worship satan and stuff like that. There are some political implications and the demonic influences are involved, but that's about all I can remember of what I have read about them.
293204
Well, in a nutshell, keeping American backyard free of communist tentacles spreading through the world. Almost all of the interventions in LA were based on some of this propaganda.\n\nInterests of the US in LA were various though, but mainly to protect US companies (especially banana producers) and to guarantee free entry to LA resources. That would be it.
178773
That sounds like a recipe for class warfare (which is basically marxism in disguise). Besides their leaders (and many of them) are helpless pessimistic little whiners.
1182161
yes, in the smurf world he was the only one with a beard. If you are thinking of smaller characters with beards - the whos from Dr Seuss are the tinyest of all since the are smaller then the dust found it a snowflake.
736363
Lucky Charms and his cronies are a bunch of revolutionary socialist, promoting class struggle and a crazed idea of turning the country into the New Soviet States of America, the NSSA.  \n\nDon't get me started on the Ghostbusters.  Bunch of radicals!
145067
its just another way a communist government tries to control its people.
176814
If you believe that "communism is as communism does," and you use those shoddy tyrannies as the only possible socialist models, than the answer is no. On the other hand, if you consider the basic proposals of communism (actually socialism), then it gets more interesting. \n\nFirst let's get rid of the sillyness that equates socialism with tyranny. That's a little like saying that because Pinochet was dictatorial and pro-capitalist, then capitalism is dictatorial. And even though it's true that the democratic socialist movements were invariably short-lived, it's also true that their lives were most often cut short by their opponents - e.g., from Allende to Pinochet,  from Arbenz to a succesion of military dictators, etc. In short, there is nothing in socialist theory that prohibits democracy - in fact, many of its proponents have made the case that democracy is necessary in order to have the deliberation necessary to create a productive society. And capitalism, the real opposition to socialism, has done very well under a plethora of dictatorial forms, thank you very much.  \n\nThat being said, I do agree with the writer who implies that perhaps our species is not ready to deliberate on its own economic future. As a whole, we may not be intellectually or ethically equipped to get much past our present dismal state of quasi-anarchy. There's the "rub." Just as the population of the Soviet Union was told, "don't worry about the economy ... the party will look after it," capitalist regimes say, "don't worry about the economy, the 'invisible hand' and the captains of industry will look after it."
128473
It makes a nice story, but it is a myth. \n\nA close look will clearly show the fall of the Soviet Union resulted almost entirely from internal political struggles. The correlation with Reagan’s "anti-Communist" rhetorical stance was merely coincidental, not causal. If you review the available US intelligence documents you will see that the fall of the Soviet Union was completely unexpected--certainly not in any way the result of a planned campaign or strategy.\n\nUnfortunately these self-serving myths are usually more popular than reality, even though the correct information is easily available to anyone who bothers to look. Unfortunatly their understanding of economics appears to fall into the same pattern.
1068206
No!! That is not our job, nor a very good way to spread democracy!! If the Communist were doing the same thing wonder what our position would be then?\n\nThe ironic thing is we are NOT a democracy!! If we were George Bush would have lost the 2000 election as he did not win the majority of the votes, Gore did!