Ya know, I can't remember the last time I saw a SF show that didn't posit military dictatorship as the answer to every problem.
Yea! Go Fascism! The cure for what ails ya!
|
Well, in all fairness,
But the fact is where people are concerned, you are pretty likely to have folks grab up power when they can if there is no check and balance system in place and the folks most able to do this are the folks who lead the folks with guns. Just sayin'.
whats the alternative? People for the most part are free to leave but why would you
I remember at least two major sf shows that proposed the opposite. :P
While they were being invaded? I could understand if the world ended and you didnt want to joing a millitary society but they are still under attack? The walking dead may not have the millitary theme but its the same concept. You group together, have a chain of command, everyone has a role but your not a prisoner. What were the major shows?
Well, SF and fascism go way back. Starship troopers, anyone? To be fair, there are quite a few works of SF that take the opposite standpoint. Babylon 5 is a pretty clear example. Generally, I think people like the concept of fascism and other totalitarian societies primarily because they have no experience with it, no insight, and insufficient imagination to understand the problems it's saddled with. If that sounds harsh... well, tough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A military dictatorship isn't automatically Fascism.
Fascism is a very specific form of governance which often requires a dictatorship.
For example, there have been Communist dictators in history, and Fascism and Communism are on two different ends of the economic scale.
There's also been religious dictatorships without Fascist economic policies.
Sure, most people use the term Fascism the same way you're using it, but mis-representation of political ideals is what leads to a political system where no one has any clue what anything really means anymore.
<Trying not to rant>
I could list all the various individual reasons why I despise this particular trope so much (lazy writing, insulting to veterans, a rejection of the very principles that Western Democracy is built on, just plain factually wrong, etc., etc., ad infinitum), but it really comes down to this: It's dangerous. Memes matter. If you tell people enough times that military dictatorships are where you turn in times of crisis, then, eventually, they'll believe you.
On a related note, look up Marine Corps General "Chesty" Puller to see how closely we've come to losing our (in the U.S.) democracy in the not-so-distant past.
i dont want to get into real world poilitics here but realistically the people in falling skies have only one hope and thats to band together and apply hit and run tactics. These tactics seem to happen regularly in the real world although women and children are not in the caravan with them. Even then i'm not sure how long they would last. The one episode in which there was a pilot and a bi-plane was not possible. She should have shown up right away on their computer systems regardless of how high she is flying (there would be no other air traffic to hide her from them). The show at best is a c-/d+ sci-fi show.
I would like some examples of how they could survive other than the millitary style?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually, I think we saw multiple (at least 1, but I think there were more) where the Gate became public knowledge, with bad results.
That said, Stargate was very bad about the effects of alien tech and what it could do being moderately released.
- Asgard tech to cure genetic disorders
- G'ould tech should be able to be reverse engineered into modern healing tech.
- Intars would revolutionize law enforcement. Easier to explain than Zat guns, though they'd be useful too.
- There were some hints of energy tech being made available to the public. Imagine just the geographic footprint of this being replaced by this.
- Ring technology would make colonizing and mining the moon (and to a lesser extent Mars) easier.
That's not counting things like drones, puddle jumpers, and all the other goodies. Most of the above are pretty easy to 'pass off' as advanced tech breakthroughs.
|
|
Well, SF and fascism go way back. Starship troopers, anyone? To be fair, there are quite a few works of SF that take the opposite standpoint. Babylon 5 is a pretty clear example. Generally, I think people like the concept of fascism and other totalitarian societies primarily because they have no experience with it, no insight, and insufficient imagination to understand the problems it's saddled with. If that sounds harsh... well, tough.
I'm pretty sure that Starship Troopers is a spoof/satire. Verhoeven has form with Robocop too.
Wait a minute. Yes, the trope of the military taking over, or some other kind of dictatorship coming into play is a common one in a post-apocalyptic setting. But who says anybody is "positing" it as a "solution" to anything?
Most Sci-Fi I watch depicts the military as being a bad guy, or in cahoots with the cause of the disaster, or a thing to be struggled against, or at best, an uneasy ally. The only time the Marines are really good guys, is when they are depicted as doing everything they can to save normal people, ala Battlefield: Los Angeles, or Independence Day.
Well, SF and fascism go way back. Starship troopers, anyone? To be fair, there are quite a few works of SF that take the opposite standpoint. Babylon 5 is a pretty clear example. Generally, I think people like the concept of fascism and other totalitarian societies primarily because they have no experience with it, no insight, and insufficient imagination to understand the problems it's saddled with. If that sounds harsh... well, tough.I'm pretty sure that Starship Troopers is a spoof/satire. Verhoeven has form with Robocop too.
Ah... sorry. I should have been more clear. Starship Troopers, the BOOK. Compare, if you will, with Bill the Galactic Hero. The book Starship Troopers is, sadly, NOT a satire.
Starship troopers really wasnt a Military Dictatorship. All of the characters were in the military. Armies arent run by concensus. The mayor in Charleston seems to be too cautious and doesnt have any real plan. He is running a sociological experiment which is why he gets ousted. For him the war isnt important.
1) It's military science fiction. What do you want?
Actually, I'm a big fan of military SF. Since when does military SF = cheer leading for a military coup?
2) General "Chesty" Puller and losing our democracy? A quick search didn't come up with anything relevant.
Sorry, got my generals confused. That should have been: Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler and the "Business Coup."
I don't recall civilians being free to swan through the star gate without the military dictatorship's consent. Frankly I would have loved the idea that a bunch of homeless people discover the Star-gate beneath New York City...
Wait...what?!!! There was a Star-gate beneath NYC?
How many damned Star-gates were there on Earth???
I don't recall civilians being free to swan through the star gate without the military dictatorship's consent. Frankly I would have loved the idea that a bunch of homeless people discover the Star-gate beneath New York City...
Wait...what?!!! There was a Star-gate beneath NYC?
How many damned Star-gates were there on Earth???
I am not a Stargate fan, but I have vague memories of that being a big hole in the show's plot.
Ah, didn't even know that Starship Troopers was a novel. Don't mind me, as you were, carry on...
It was a novel written by a pretty crazy dude who believed military fascism was a good thing. He was also pro nuke, to give you an idea of how crazy. Though he wasn't Ayn Rand crazy.
Then Verhoeven basically made the movie a mockery of the authors actual ideals.
So, you're right, Starship Troopers is a joke, but it's a very targeted joke with a specific target in mind, that being the author.
Heinlein had great ideas in that book...that would never work.
It wasn't fascism, it was a meritocrasy. You earned citizenship by serving in the military. Non-citizens had everything citizens had, iirc, except the ability to vote.
Starship Troopers (the book) itself was a very targeted joke as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I am not a Stargate fan, but I have vague memories of that being a big hole in the show's plot.
I don't recall civilians being free to swan through the star gate without the military dictatorship's consent. Frankly I would have loved the idea that a bunch of homeless people discover the Star-gate beneath New York City...
Wait...what?!!! There was a Star-gate beneath NYC?
How many damned Star-gates were there on Earth???
<geek mode>
Two gates on Earth.
1st gate, the ancient gate was in Antartica. At some point it got iced over and severed. Ra knew about it (there were frozen Jaffa in the ruins) This gate and DHD was recovered by the US and stored (for a while) in Area 51. The USAF continued to use the dialing computer because they had more control over it than the DHD.
Second gate Ra brought with him. That's the gate from the movie and the initial series. It was discovered and collected by the Germans. The DHD was in taken to Berlin and seized by the Russians, while the US got the gate. (This becomes important later). This gate was 'lost' when O'Neill and crew 'borrowed' it to get off of Thor's ship and the ship crashed into the pacific.
When the second gate was lost (this is where it gets complicated) the Antartic gate was taken out of storage and used. Eventually the Russians were able to recover the second gate and started their own program. Since they were using the second gate *and* the DHD, it could 'lock out' the Antartic gate/Dialing computer combo. The US found out, and the Russians shut down their program in exchange for a share in the US program. (likely because the US already had allies and knew more.)
In the episode 48 hours (incoming plot hole) the US has to get the DHD from the Russians to save Teal'c. Wait! But the US already had a DHD in Area 51! Yeah, you remembered that. The writers admitted they forgot. This destroyed the Second gate's DHD.
Finally in the premier where Anubis uses his super weapon to overload the active (antartic) gate. The US is able to get the gate off world to keep the earth from going boom. They then need to 'rent' the second Gate to keep the DGC going. The US gives the Russians the X302 and Koralev(sp) to pay for the gate.
So earth did have two gates on it, but only one was active at once, and they came from two seperate sources (The Ancients and Ra)
Heinlein had great ideas in that book...that would never work.
It wasn't fascism, it was a meritocrasy. You earned citizenship by serving in the military. Non-citizens had everything citizens had, iirc, except the ability to vote.Starship Troopers (the book) itself was a very targeted joke as well.
That's the thing though, the meritocracy he showed is actually pretty close to the true definition of political Fascism.
It's just that we used the word terribly today to describe anything remote oppressive, where as Fascism itself actually doesn't require oppression.
As an example, by the strictest interpretation of Fascism, the US is a Fascist state. Or, at least, it's the closest definition that fits.
The only big difference is that usually the Government runs the corporations instead of how it is in the US where the corporations run the government.
Other than that, it's got all the tropes of classic Fascism.
A Fascist state can be an okay place to live, it's the super oppressive, dictatorial Fascist states that suck hard.
|
Actually, I think we saw multiple (at least 1, but I think there were more) where the Gate became public knowledge, with bad results.
That said, Stargate was very bad about the effects of alien tech and what it could do being moderately released.
- Asgard tech to cure genetic disorders
- G'ould tech should be able to be reverse engineered into modern healing tech.
- Intars would revolutionize law enforcement. Easier to explain than Zat guns, though they'd be useful too.
- There were some hints of energy tech being made available to the public. Imagine just the geographic footprint of this being replaced by this.
- Ring technology would make colonizing and mining the moon (and to a lesser extent Mars) easier.
That's not counting things like drones, puddle jumpers, and all the other goodies. Most of the above are pretty easy to 'pass off' as advanced tech breakthroughs.
Deep down you know that was just propaganda that supports military control of the star gate tech.
Ah, didn't even know that Starship Troopers was a novel. Don't mind me, as you were, carry on...It was a novel written by a pretty crazy dude who believed military fascism was a good thing. He was also pro nuke, to give you an idea of how crazy. Though he wasn't Ayn Rand crazy.
Heinlein from what I've read in his other books was quite the opposite of fascist
Heinlein from what I've read in his other books was quite the opposite of fascistAh, didn't even know that Starship Troopers was a novel. Don't mind me, as you were, carry on...It was a novel written by a pretty crazy dude who believed military fascism was a good thing. He was also pro nuke, to give you an idea of how crazy. Though he wasn't Ayn Rand crazy.
Only if you use the popular modern definition of Fascism.
The traditional political form of Fascism is very similar to the society outlined by Heinlein in SST, and he appeared to portray it as positive.
Oppression isn't a necessary aspect of Fascism.
Fascism is:
Totalitarian, but not necessarily Autocratic.
The merging of state and corporate interests.
Extreme Patriotism
Pro-Military
Belief in the indoctrination of children into a pro military, patriotic mind set.
Anti-immigration
Often racist or culturalist (race and culture are often used as a factor to help tie the people together)
You'll notice many countries can fit that description today, including the US.
Remember, the commonly used definitions of political ideologies are so far from being accurate it's ridiculous.
Most people can't define the differences between Communism and Socialism, and some people seem to think you can be a Communist and a Fascist at the same time, which requires one being on both the left and right economic axis simultaneously.
Remember, the commonly used definitions of political ideologies are so far from being accurate it's ridiculous.
Most people can't define the differences between Communism and Socialism, and some people seem to think you can be a Communist and a Fascist at the same time, which requires one being on both the left and right economic axis simultaneously.
To be accurate, I think you have to abandon the notion of Fascism and Communism as being economic opposites.
The opposite of complete control of economic activity by a central government would be its complete absence, which has not existed in any functioning nation state.
Historically fascist governments were very involved in their economies, whether through direct subsidies or patronage of favored interests, the rationing of goods and resources, or the seizure/closure and reallocation of disfavored interests. Meanwhile, most contemporary governments which self-identify as Communist promote some degree of non-centralized economic activity.
Worldwide, the range of government economic involvement tends to fall somewhere between the authoritarian centralized control of utopian North Korea and the laissez-faire paradise of 1990's Somalia.
Oppression isn't a necessary aspect of Fascism.I disagree while acknowledging that oppression may not be overtly visible to most people living under a totalitarian regime, regardless of its philosophical underpinnings.
This is what can be really insidious about it. To those who are members of the favored group, who don't know anyone abused, arrested or 'disappeared,' daily life goes on normally.
I just meant on the common 2 axis political compass, it would require being on both sides of the economic axis at the same time.
Both Fascism and Communism sit on the same side of the Freedom/Authority axis, but they are on opposite sides of the Individualism/Collectivism axis, which is the economic axis. Fascism retains the idea of private property, Communism does not.
It's like that old saying that Stalin and Hitler would have got along famously as long as they never discussed economics, as it was one of the only things they disagreed on.
Though Hitler's Fascism wasn't super far right economically, he was actually to the economic left of both the US Democratic and Republican parties (currently), but that's just because they're both running along the far right edge of the compass.
I have the unfortunate situation of being to the far left on both axis.
An Anarcho-Collectivist in a world of authority and ownership. No party exists on earth that agrees with me.
Hell, I'm significantly to the left of Gandhi on BOTH axis.
An Anarcho-Collectivist in a world of authority and ownership. No party exists on earth that agrees with me.
I know that feeling partway at least, being very pro-less centralized authority, we just differ on the Individualist/Collectivist axis. There's a reason I refer to myself as an urban hermit.
I'm pretty hermit-y too, by collectivist I just mean I don't believe in the concept of private ownership of things like land and resources.
It's the Ayn Rand/Gandhi spectrum, and I definitely land on the Gandhi side... though I see eye to eye with Rand on religion and less so with Gandhi.
I believe in Marx's end goal, stateless communism, just not the parts between capitalism and there.
I don't think we're naturally selfish, I think it's a function of living in a world of scarcity.
I believe if we can eliminate scarcity, we will naturally fall into a form of stateless communism, or at least a less-state communism.
And even communism is the wrong word there, because communism is an economic reaction to scarcity. Without scarcity, neither communism nor capitalism can exist, it would be something with the soul of communism but not the same form.
Took one of those online test thingies, I came out more centrist, leaning slightly to the right, but almost near the bottom (Freedom/Authority was vertical, Freedom at bottom and Authority on top, while Collective/Individualist was left/right respectively of course). Amusingly I'm your reverse on the religious issue.
I'm very torn on the property issue. I have a very strong mindset of "it is not right to take someone's stuff they've made, earned, or gained and give it to someone who hasn't, issues of need irrelevant" (I just lean very heavily on the idea of "willing charity is a darn good thing, screw you Rand; unwilling generosity isn't generosity at all"). On the other, I can see very much how things such as land and resources should be less ... iron-fistedly clenched? For lack of a better term?
90% of my issues with politics, I'm coming to learn, are less about left/right and more about collective/individual. But it's taking my knee-jerk reaction reflexes a little while to catch up to my brain.
Yeah, see, I agree with you on things like something I built, or earned, or was gifted to me. The ownership of these items is more concrete because they were constructed, made, or took some energy to find (like a rare rock).
Land is land, resources are resources. It's just always seemed a little unfair to me that guys were able to buy land before I was ever born, and there is no way for me to use that land unless they give me permission.
Usually, we get to agree or disagree to rules. We have options to walk away from situations where we disagree.
Land ownership was thrust upon me without a choice, and all the land on earth is owned by someone.
I'm also aggressively anti copyright.
I should be able to improve on someone else's product, and then they can feel free to improve on my improvement. That was the nature of human innovation for centuries. Human progress was iterative, now a lot of time gets wasted "reinvented the wheel" because some simple idea (like two finger zooming on an iPhone) gets patented so other companies are supposed to invent new finger motions for zooming when we have a perfectly good method already.
Something akin to copyrights must exist, but not in the form they exist now.
Usually, we get to agree or disagree to rules. We have options to walk away from situations where we disagree.
Land ownership was thrust upon me without a choice, and all the land on earth is owned by someone.
Man, that last part I know I've said verbatim before.
I'm also aggressively anti copyright.
I should be able to improve on someone else's product, and then they can feel free to improve on my improvement. That was the nature of human innovation for centuries. Human progress was iterative, now a lot of time gets wasted "reinvented the wheel" because some simple idea (like two finger zooming on an iPhone) gets patented so other companies are supposed to invent new finger motions for zooming when we have a perfectly good method already.
Something akin to copyrights must exist, but not in the form they exist now.
Amen. At the very least, it needs to be trimmed back down to the original, pre-Disney perimeters. Give the original creator some time to enjoy the fruits of their labor exclusively before others can begin tweaking it, that I would be okay with. Then after they've had their short time of exclusivity, let the improvements begin. And nix this ability to chain-copyright stuff where all older-version copyrights are extended when the original maker comes out with a new version, leave each one to expire at its own pace.
This topic went off the rails. Its too bad.
So for land ownership how would you solve it? first come first serve? traveling nomads?. If i leave my house to go to work and you come along and live there so now its yours? I'm assuming same would go with gaming materials? pets? etc. If you wanted it back how would you take it. Waht about your children?
Copyright protects someones invention so that you cant steal it. Some of these people have spent their whole lives coming up with an idea and we shouldnt protect them? If you want to improve the idea of say the touchpad why not submit your idea directly to the company, etc. Come up with a unique better idea. Right now someone (say Apple) is at the top but thats not always going to be the case.
Your ancestors came willinging or unwilling to society. They took your vote. People agreed that there should be land ownership/laws etc. If you get enough like minds start a revolution or leave. Happens all the time.
Your ancestors came willinging or unwilling to society. They took your vote.
Yeah, this is what I get told every time this comes up. It's getting irritating hearing it all the time. I really don't like the idea that just because my ancestor(s) made a decision that I and all those that follow (not that it'll be a problem for me, I won't be having kids) are shackled into it.
At the moment, not much I can do, other than work on getting all my debts paid off so I don't owe anybody anything, then work on getting the heck out of dodge.
This topic went off the rails. Its too bad.
So for land ownership how would you solve it? first come first serve? traveling nomads?. If i leave my house to go to work and you come along and live there so now its yours? I'm assuming same would go with gaming materials? pets? etc. If you wanted it back how would you take it. Waht about your children?
Copyright protects someones invention so that you cant steal it. Some of these people have spent their whole lives coming up with an idea and we shouldnt protect them? If you want to improve the idea of say the touchpad why not submit your idea directly to the company, etc. Come up with a unique better idea. Right now someone (say Apple) is at the top but thats not always going to be the case.
Your ancestors came willinging or unwilling to society. They took your vote. People agreed that there should be land ownership/laws etc. If you get enough like minds start a revolution or leave. Happens all the time.
I choose to exist in the cracks left over when the rules were formed.
The number of "double lefts" in the world is rising, the anticopywrite movement is basically going forward just because the technology is outpacing the laws.
I think we're going to naturally end up a society more to my liking simply by allowing technology to continue to expand.
Just like copyright is now impossible to enforced in the media marketplace, the rise of three dimensional printers will start to do the same in physical goods.
Eventually, and I mean probably 20 years+ from now, I'll be able to "pirate" physical objects using a 3D printer.
I'm basically living a life of "If you won't let me choose the laws, then I'm just going to break the ones I disagree with."
In the event it should interest anyone, definitions of fascism by two observers and three leading scholars on the subject.
|
|
Ah, didn't even know that Starship Troopers was a novel. Don't mind me, as you were, carry on...Gods now I feel old.
Did you know there was a Doctor Who before 2005? Or that John Carter is over 100 years old? (j/k, I hope)
I'm 32 and I'm British. My first Doctors were repeats featuring Peter Davidson and Tom Baker.
I hadn't heard of John Carter before I became a Paizonian.
Starship Troopers was released in 1959, it never became a famous book over here and the film itself was not a big-deal-with-loads-of-publicity film in the UK
You should also consider that things which are/were big/common/popular in your nation might not be so elsewhere.
The problem with fascism and communism and the like is not really in the specific economic principles used. It's that these ideologies are totalitarian. In and of itself, that brings most or all of the things that make those ideologies wrong, and societies built around them horrors to live in.
Totalitarianism, as I learnt it, means that the entirety of a country's policies and processes have a specific goal, and are designed to pursue that goal.
This means that the government has set a goal, whatever it is, and this goal is the Most important thing. In pursuit of this goal, then, anyone and anything can be sacrificed. People who speak out against this goal become traitors. Politicians, having the advantage of interpreting this goal, can motivate any sort of corrupt decision by merely stating that it will promote the goal.
But maybe that goal will be worth all the suffering?
The idea is never to actually REACH that goal. That would mean giving up the perpetual state of exception. Society gets closer, but the work is never done. Having talked to quite a few people who lived in the Soviet Union, this was very much the case. People called the radio stations and asked "If we're a communist country, why do we suffer and why is there no food in the stores?" The answer was always the same: "We are not in the Classless society yet. We are fighting and sacrificing to reach there, but we are not there."
Given the above, it doesn't really matter if the Goal is called the Classless society, or the Sustainable society. Totalitarianism, no matter its goal, is poison in and of itself.
This topic went off the rails. Its too bad.
As the OP, I'm actually okay with it. I like it when conversations veer off course. You never know where you're going to end up.
That being said, Tera Nova was another example of this inexplicable yearning for military authoritarianism (which I will hereafter refer to as "Fascism"). Physical torture, indefinite detention, forced drugging, absolute military control, mental abuse, complete and total absence of civilian oversight. And those were the "good guys."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ah, didn't even know that Starship Troopers was a novel. Don't mind me, as you were, carry on...Gods now I feel old.
Did you know there was a Doctor Who before 2005? Or that John Carter is over 100 years old? (j/k, I hope)
I'm 32 and I'm British. My first Doctors were repeats featuring Peter Davidson and Tom Baker.
I hadn't heard of John Carter before I became a Paizonian.
Starship Troopers was released in 1959, it never became a famous book over here and the film itself was not a big-deal-with-loads-of-publicity film in the UK
You should also consider that things which are/were big/common/popular in your nation might not be so elsewhere.
32? Why you're a baby still! :P
I was mostly kidding. Besides I had an, odd, childhood of reading.
My first Doctor was Tom Baker, my first companion Sarah Jane. (amusing note, Lis Sladden said in her autobiograpy she never saw The Hand of Fear until the 90's)
I have wondered (sadly) how many people were exposed to the literary figures I cut my teeth on for the first time in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
I have wondered (sadly) how many people were exposed to the literary figures I cut my teeth on for the first time in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
I was, partially. I'd read 20,000 Leagues and Dracula prior and knew of Jekyll/Hyde (mostly from Looney Tunes). But I made it a point to read Dorian Grey after seeing the movie.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Scintillae
Well at least someone got something out of the movie. :-)
I was shocked when I found out a kid my friend's son games with actually hunted down the John Carter books and read them (and liked them!) after the movie. Gave me hope for the human race. *sniff*
Movies are a good way of stirring interest in books. I might not have gotten around to LotR so early had the movies not come out when they did, but I wanted to read all three before seeing the movies.