Help
From Bidithal's speech to Karsa in HoC about wounded cattle with Ay closing in it seems that the CG's closest economic equivalent is socialism. Rhulad's sword rewards him for losing fights, rather than winning, Munug is only fit to paint the HoC because he hasn't managed to find fulfillment. Basically the CG seems to prefer losers to winners.
By contrast, the Letherii seem to be darwinistic capitalists. Only those without flaw can claim the Empty Throne. They essentially worship at the altar of merit. There is no crime if you are able to carry the weight of your sin across the river. They destroy other cultures, and assert that this proves that they are entitled to destroy other cultures. Their society worships the victor, and is utterly lacking in compassion for the vanquished.
It seems to me that the CG would loathe the Letherii's society more than almost any other. He's been defeated at the Chaining, and before that when he was brought to earth. According to Letherii beliefs he should be Indentured. He's a loser, and they have no mercy for any who have failed. Rhulad's musing about the destruction of the Toll's as a means to destroy the illusion of value may be inspired by his master. In addition, the Letherii culture is at this point uniquely vulnerable.
They have been defeated, and by their own beliefs this implies that they must now either culturally dominate their vanquisher, thus proving that their military thrashing was a roadbump on their road to glory, or accept that the Empire that was prophecied has nothing to do with them. If the Tiste Eduur don't get engulfed by the Letherii's way then from the Letherii point of view these six tribes of seal farmers have been chosen by destiny over them.
Culture war, Letherii vs. CG = Socialist vs. Capitalists?
#1
PannionDude 
- Lieutenant
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 24-April 06
Posted 04 May 2006 - 02:43 PM
#3
Serrat
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 06-December 05
Posted 05 May 2006 - 03:28 AM
I like to think the capitalism vs. socialism battle is not so black and white. Being of the belief that capitalism is itself the truly unfavorable economic structure I get uneasy when people equate socialism with a those who are "unclean" or incapable of higher reasoning.
Having said that I can at least see the manifestations of capitalism within the Letherii culture, the worship of the coin, determining who is really worthwhile by how much capital they have. The Edur are more of a feudalistic society, heavily stratified, united in land-based economic systems with a lord, or tribal chief as their leader.
As for the CG being equivicable with socialism I don't really see it. There is the whole choosing the down-trodden thing, but in truth that's not endemic to socialism, its more of an aspect of revolution than anything else. That is you need dissatisfaction to get people to rebel against the current state of things. But over all the CG's desire to put people in a Thralldom under himself and his favored tools(Rhulad, Mosag for a time, others in other books) this is not socialistic. Socialism dictates the destratification of society, the CG seems to desire the opposite. I would say the series is more Marxian than not, specifically he points out the evolution of culture from simplistic to complex, feudalistic to capitalistic. That is not to go so far as to say SE is a Marxist, but I wouldn't say he is making socio-philosophical generalizations, at least not about capitalism vs. socialism.
Just my thoughts there of course. You do make some fair points but I think you should look deeper, get the real flesh of the matter, I think there is something there. Just not so close to the surface. I enjoyed thinking about it though, so cheers for that.
Having said that I can at least see the manifestations of capitalism within the Letherii culture, the worship of the coin, determining who is really worthwhile by how much capital they have. The Edur are more of a feudalistic society, heavily stratified, united in land-based economic systems with a lord, or tribal chief as their leader.
As for the CG being equivicable with socialism I don't really see it. There is the whole choosing the down-trodden thing, but in truth that's not endemic to socialism, its more of an aspect of revolution than anything else. That is you need dissatisfaction to get people to rebel against the current state of things. But over all the CG's desire to put people in a Thralldom under himself and his favored tools(Rhulad, Mosag for a time, others in other books) this is not socialistic. Socialism dictates the destratification of society, the CG seems to desire the opposite. I would say the series is more Marxian than not, specifically he points out the evolution of culture from simplistic to complex, feudalistic to capitalistic. That is not to go so far as to say SE is a Marxist, but I wouldn't say he is making socio-philosophical generalizations, at least not about capitalism vs. socialism.
Just my thoughts there of course. You do make some fair points but I think you should look deeper, get the real flesh of the matter, I think there is something there. Just not so close to the surface. I enjoyed thinking about it though, so cheers for that.
#4
PannionDude
- Lieutenant
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 24-April 06
Posted 05 May 2006 - 07:22 AM
You've got a point, I'm sorry for thoughtlessly smearing socialism.
On second examiniation in MT it isn't so much capitalism vs. socialism as a charicture(spelling?) of capitalism vs. a charicture of socialism. The Malazan empire seems to offer a much more attractive option than either of these two. That is, simple feudalism is better for the inhabitants than economic darwinism or reverse feudalism.
On second examiniation in MT it isn't so much capitalism vs. socialism as a charicture(spelling?) of capitalism vs. a charicture of socialism. The Malazan empire seems to offer a much more attractive option than either of these two. That is, simple feudalism is better for the inhabitants than economic darwinism or reverse feudalism.
#5
Dark Mac
- Emperor
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 804
- Joined: 05-April 06
Posted 05 May 2006 - 07:53 AM
For whatever reason, no fantasy series have democracy, and without a democratic element, most political systems don't work very well. Personally, I think it's quite silly that we never see democracy, but I suppose that would result in less conflict.
Anyway, it's been pretty well established that both the CG and the Letherii are evil, so I assume that the lesson we're supposed to take is that it's best to use moderation, especially given Trull's ramblings on how important doubt is.
Anyway, it's been pretty well established that both the CG and the Letherii are evil, so I assume that the lesson we're supposed to take is that it's best to use moderation, especially given Trull's ramblings on how important doubt is.
#6
Whelp
- Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 13-March 06
Posted 05 May 2006 - 08:35 AM
PannionDude:
if you want to categorise the Malazan Empire, it should go under "benevolent dictatorship" imo, there are too much anti-feudal elements (show me just one feudal society, where an apprentice stonemason became a member of the military elite w/o a revolution)
Letherii worshipping merit? I find that hard to believe, that was not my impression from the books (rather, a distorted vision of XV-XVI century Spain came to my mind).
Letherii being darwinistic? Imho, pragmatist and egoistic.
Dark Mac:
Imho democracy is missing from fantasy books as it tends to be a highly decrepit way of government (personal opinion only). While some democratic elements are certainly useful for venting public annoyance, full-fledged democracies tend to be frighteningly inept (again, imho).
Btw, why are Letherii and the CG evil? Letherii simply want to amass wealth and power (egotist, yes, but no more evil than Joe Average). The CG wants to get rid of his chains - perfectly sensible notion to me, although his tools are extreme (but, who knows, maybe there is no other way). To me, the CG seems rather Machiavelli in the extreme (my goal justifies all my tools and actions).
if you want to categorise the Malazan Empire, it should go under "benevolent dictatorship" imo, there are too much anti-feudal elements (show me just one feudal society, where an apprentice stonemason became a member of the military elite w/o a revolution)
Letherii worshipping merit? I find that hard to believe, that was not my impression from the books (rather, a distorted vision of XV-XVI century Spain came to my mind).
Letherii being darwinistic? Imho, pragmatist and egoistic.
Dark Mac:
Imho democracy is missing from fantasy books as it tends to be a highly decrepit way of government (personal opinion only). While some democratic elements are certainly useful for venting public annoyance, full-fledged democracies tend to be frighteningly inept (again, imho).
Btw, why are Letherii and the CG evil? Letherii simply want to amass wealth and power (egotist, yes, but no more evil than Joe Average). The CG wants to get rid of his chains - perfectly sensible notion to me, although his tools are extreme (but, who knows, maybe there is no other way). To me, the CG seems rather Machiavelli in the extreme (my goal justifies all my tools and actions).
#7
Dark Mac
- Emperor
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 804
- Joined: 05-April 06
Posted 05 May 2006 - 10:35 AM
Why keep out democracy because it's a decrepit form of government? Tyranny is worse, and we see it all the time.
Thanks for playing into my point by talking about full-fledged democracies, though. As I said earlier, it's best to use moderation in government, and create a balance, which is why we have the wonder of liberal-democracy.
The Letherii are evil because they support genocide and slavery. The CG is evil because he pointlessly tortures people, also supports genocide, and is against freedom. He went for years without being chained, the Chainings only occured because of the evils he propagated.
Thanks for playing into my point by talking about full-fledged democracies, though. As I said earlier, it's best to use moderation in government, and create a balance, which is why we have the wonder of liberal-democracy.
The Letherii are evil because they support genocide and slavery. The CG is evil because he pointlessly tortures people, also supports genocide, and is against freedom. He went for years without being chained, the Chainings only occured because of the evils he propagated.
#8
Whelp
- Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 13-March 06
Posted 05 May 2006 - 11:09 AM
Dark Mac:
What I meant is that a full-fledged democracy is imho only a very short-lived state (on a historical scale, anyway).
On liberal democracy: well, it might work in some states (I guess in Canada, for example)
The moderation in goverment part is agreeable, definitely (although my logic dictates an "enlightened dictatorship" as an outcome).
Democracy's decrepitude: check out for example, old Hellenic city-states (supposedly democratic), they fell apart. Check out Rome: became an empire.
Italian city states had democratic elements, and they fell apart. France, during the Revolution... You get the idea.
Also, do not forget that democracies have a tendency to feature some demagogues (more in the classic sense); in case of fantasy novels, these individuals would definitely have the power (magic/army/intrigue/whatever) to usurp the seat of power - resulting in "tyranny".
Genocide: the Letherii assimilate first, genocide is only when its an 'us or them' situation - at least, that was my impression. Considering the CG, my impression was that genocide was (to him) an unfortunate side effect of him getting free; he is largely indifferent to this aspect of his followers (what I try to say is that its his worshippers like the Seer who propagate it, the CG simply accepts it).
Also, did Coltaine not fully eliminate some tribes during the Chain of Dogs? Do the Barghast not harbour a deep hatred of the Moranth and the Edur? Did the T'lan Imass not commit genocide? Are these evil as well?
tBH spoiler:
Slavery: Ok, the slavery issue is there in Lether, but that does not condemn a society to be 'evil'. Also, slavery in Lether is not as evil as it could be: to me, it seemed that slaves can buy their freedom (hard as it is, but the possibility exists). The CG might want to pull everyone down to his chained level - imho an all too human notion.
As for tyrants being evil: the Medici were tyrants (renaissance Firenze). Tokugawa Ieyasu (sp?) was a tyrant (XVIIth century Japan). Churchill during the war years had all the powers of a tyrant (Roosevelt as well).
What I meant is that a full-fledged democracy is imho only a very short-lived state (on a historical scale, anyway).
On liberal democracy: well, it might work in some states (I guess in Canada, for example)
The moderation in goverment part is agreeable, definitely (although my logic dictates an "enlightened dictatorship" as an outcome).
Democracy's decrepitude: check out for example, old Hellenic city-states (supposedly democratic), they fell apart. Check out Rome: became an empire.
Italian city states had democratic elements, and they fell apart. France, during the Revolution... You get the idea.
Also, do not forget that democracies have a tendency to feature some demagogues (more in the classic sense); in case of fantasy novels, these individuals would definitely have the power (magic/army/intrigue/whatever) to usurp the seat of power - resulting in "tyranny".
Genocide: the Letherii assimilate first, genocide is only when its an 'us or them' situation - at least, that was my impression. Considering the CG, my impression was that genocide was (to him) an unfortunate side effect of him getting free; he is largely indifferent to this aspect of his followers (what I try to say is that its his worshippers like the Seer who propagate it, the CG simply accepts it).
Also, did Coltaine not fully eliminate some tribes during the Chain of Dogs? Do the Barghast not harbour a deep hatred of the Moranth and the Edur? Did the T'lan Imass not commit genocide? Are these evil as well?
tBH spoiler:
Spoiler
Slavery: Ok, the slavery issue is there in Lether, but that does not condemn a society to be 'evil'. Also, slavery in Lether is not as evil as it could be: to me, it seemed that slaves can buy their freedom (hard as it is, but the possibility exists). The CG might want to pull everyone down to his chained level - imho an all too human notion.
As for tyrants being evil: the Medici were tyrants (renaissance Firenze). Tokugawa Ieyasu (sp?) was a tyrant (XVIIth century Japan). Churchill during the war years had all the powers of a tyrant (Roosevelt as well).
#9
Serrat
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 06-December 05
Posted 05 May 2006 - 11:18 AM
I tend to side with Plato on this particular issue(Democracy/Tyrany). Yes, Tyranny is worse, but only barely worse than democracy. The reason we see Tyranny in fantasy is because it is so bad, it embodies the final stage of corrupt government and is very easy to show as corrupt. On the other hand to show Democracy as evil is a) not a good idea given the current emfatuation industrialized nations have with it and 
simply more difficult because of how much more complex Democracy is.
Tyranny is so easy to represent because it is one will guiding others, if you have a corrupt Tyrant it shows. Whereas Democracy is the combined will of the inhabitants. At least when a state can actual refer to itself as a Democracy. The problem with this is that you have so many pieces that make up the whole. You have as many microcosmic representations of the state as you have individuals, and this is difficult to portray in literature.
Furthermore, because of this supremely divided center of power you simply cannot have a single will, thus the majority will. But even so, with the level of tolerance required for a Democracy to persist there is a natural inclination towards infighting. If we all have to make decisions instead of one person, then we all tend to choose sides based on our beliefs which drives a wedge between people within a culture. Ultimately this is an undesirable subject to write about if the story is not centered on it.
simply more difficult because of how much more complex Democracy is.Tyranny is so easy to represent because it is one will guiding others, if you have a corrupt Tyrant it shows. Whereas Democracy is the combined will of the inhabitants. At least when a state can actual refer to itself as a Democracy. The problem with this is that you have so many pieces that make up the whole. You have as many microcosmic representations of the state as you have individuals, and this is difficult to portray in literature.
Furthermore, because of this supremely divided center of power you simply cannot have a single will, thus the majority will. But even so, with the level of tolerance required for a Democracy to persist there is a natural inclination towards infighting. If we all have to make decisions instead of one person, then we all tend to choose sides based on our beliefs which drives a wedge between people within a culture. Ultimately this is an undesirable subject to write about if the story is not centered on it.
#11 Guest_Daemon_*
Posted 05 May 2006 - 02:55 PM
Don’t think the whole democracy/tyranny in constellation with good/bad question can be answered so easily. Letheras would not have been a much better state if it had been a democracy, would it? I don’t think they would have abolished slavery or stopped their imperialistic and capitalistic course. It was in the mentality and the attitude of the people.
I personally got one point from SE: he seems to be convinced that dictatorship or call it tyranny is under certain circumstances not the worst type of government. Karsa at the beginning hates the malazans and declares them his enemies but changes his mind later when he sees that the order of the malazan empire had its benefitss (i.e. more civilized) compared to the brutal rebellion on 7C.
I personally got one point from SE: he seems to be convinced that dictatorship or call it tyranny is under certain circumstances not the worst type of government. Karsa at the beginning hates the malazans and declares them his enemies but changes his mind later when he sees that the order of the malazan empire had its benefitss (i.e. more civilized) compared to the brutal rebellion on 7C.
#12
PannionDude
- Lieutenant
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 24-April 06
Posted 05 May 2006 - 02:58 PM
I believe that in a fantasy world the fundamental underpinning of democracy is missing. To use the Malazan world for examples: Emancipoor Reece and Silverfox are not "created equal".
#13
Dark Mac
- Emperor
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 804
- Joined: 05-April 06
Posted 05 May 2006 - 07:46 PM
Whelp said:
Dark Mac:
What I meant is that a full-fledged democracy is imho only a very short-lived state (on a historical scale, anyway).
On liberal democracy: well, it might work in some states (I guess in Canada, for example)
The moderation in goverment part is agreeable, definitely (although my logic dictates an "enlightened dictatorship" as an outcome).
What I meant is that a full-fledged democracy is imho only a very short-lived state (on a historical scale, anyway).
On liberal democracy: well, it might work in some states (I guess in Canada, for example)
The moderation in goverment part is agreeable, definitely (although my logic dictates an "enlightened dictatorship" as an outcome).
If you don't like liberal democracy, then take social democracy. I'm sure that would be far more agreeable to you.
Quote
Genocide: the Letherii assimilate first, genocide is only when its an 'us or them' situation - at least, that was my impression. Considering the CG, my impression was that genocide was (to him) an unfortunate side effect of him getting free; he is largely indifferent to this aspect of his followers (what I try to say is that its his worshippers like the Seer who propagate it, the CG simply accepts it).
Also, did Coltaine not fully eliminate some tribes during the Chain of Dogs? Do the Barghast not harbour a deep hatred of the Moranth and the Edur? Did the T'lan Imass not commit genocide? Are these evil as well?
Also, did Coltaine not fully eliminate some tribes during the Chain of Dogs? Do the Barghast not harbour a deep hatred of the Moranth and the Edur? Did the T'lan Imass not commit genocide? Are these evil as well?
Pannion's actions were all controlled by the CG, as are Rhulad's. That's why Pannion gets forgiveness.
Coltaine eliminated all the warriors of some tribes, but I don't think he killed civilians. The Barghast's hatred is evil, as is the T'lan Imass's. One of Udinaas's lessons is that genocide for any reason is evil, and that includes the T'lan Imass's. Is the world really a better place because of the Ritual?
Quote
Slavery: Ok, the slavery issue is there in Lether, but that does not condemn a society to be 'evil'. Also, slavery in Lether is not as evil as it could be: to me, it seemed that slaves can buy their freedom (hard as it is, but the possibility exists). The CG might want to pull everyone down to his chained level - imho an all too human notion.
You can't justify slavery.
Wanting to pull everyone down to his level is a socialist notion, not a human one.
Quote
As for tyrants being evil: the Medici were tyrants (renaissance Firenze). Tokugawa Ieyasu (sp?) was a tyrant (XVIIth century Japan). Churchill during the war years had all the powers of a tyrant (Roosevelt as well).
"Tyrant: A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. "
Now, tell me: how can a tyrant not be evil? A dictator and a tyrant are not the same thing.
Daemon said:
Don’t think the whole democracy/tyranny in constellation with good/bad question can be answered so easily. Letheras would not have been a much better state if it had been a democracy, would it? I don’t think they would have abolished slavery or stopped their imperialistic and capitalistic course. It was in the mentality and the attitude of the people.
So you're saying that if slaves had the vote, they'd vote for slavery?
Quote
I personally got one point from SE: he seems to be convinced that dictatorship or call it tyranny is under certain circumstances not the worst type of government. Karsa at the beginning hates the malazans and declares them his enemies but changes his mind later when he sees that the order of the malazan empire had its benefitss (i.e. more civilized) compared to the brutal rebellion on 7C.
Enlightened dictatorships are the perfect form of government. Unfortunately, sooner or later you always run out of enlightened dictators, and the system falls into tyranny.
#14
Serrat
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 06-December 05
Posted 05 May 2006 - 11:34 PM
Whelp:
not so much that I agree with Plato's hierarchy, but as you said it kinda fits the circumstance.
I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to democracy myself. It would work great if everyone would be fully educated in how it works, and everyone would retain and use said knowledge, but that is wishful thinking.
And yes Aristotle's concept is a little more useful than Plato's as Plato generalizes quite a bit. Though I tend to think the general hierarchy goes something like:
Tyranny(good, aka enlightened dictatorship)
Aristocracy(good, a la Plato's Republic)
Democracy(mediocre, by this time we have lost all real order and are ruled by too many people to be effective)
Timocracy(pretty dumb idea really, the words "impetuous nation" spring to mind)
Oligarchy(yeah stratification based on capital is a terrible notion)
Tyranny(bad, that is the tyranny Dark Mac is refering to with a bad, bad ruler)
Daemon:
You are right, had Lether been a democracy it would likely have been better, having a system that puts people higher on a scale based on how much money(oligarchy) they have is terrible, but look at what most democratic states really are... Perhaps not in law, but in fact: To run for office in most countries(mainly thinking US here, not really certain about Canada) you have to have cash to support the campaign and to get in the "right" circles. Is that right? I think not, it just seems to be the natural course of a capitalistic government.
Dark Mac:
starting with the Tyrant thing, we were speaking more of the general use of the word "tyrant" basically it is equivalent to emperor, it just sounds nasty.
Slavery in this case is also not really related to democracy, as has been pointed out, the slavery in Letheras is not based on "oh, hey they look different than us, let's import them and use them like property" it is a slightly self-serving form of amnesty: Letheras takes over a country and tells the people, "we'll be nice(ish) and not stick you all if you come back to our homes and make meals for us. Some of us will treat you well, some won't but hey, its better than us killing you right?" I know slavery is a backwards notion, I believe in a classless society, but unfortunately that scares most money loving folks to death. In most societies we may not have a slavery in name, but we enslave the underdog nonetheless, a de facto slavery forcing the workman to work for a fraction of the value of his labor. Capitalism at its best (sarcasm).
Finally, taking people down to your level is not a socialist idea, nor really a human one, more of a vindictive, "you hurt me, I hurt you back" one. The socialist concept is not bringing people down to your level, but eliminating the stratification all together. As I said "scary".
not so much that I agree with Plato's hierarchy, but as you said it kinda fits the circumstance.
I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to democracy myself. It would work great if everyone would be fully educated in how it works, and everyone would retain and use said knowledge, but that is wishful thinking.
And yes Aristotle's concept is a little more useful than Plato's as Plato generalizes quite a bit. Though I tend to think the general hierarchy goes something like:
Tyranny(good, aka enlightened dictatorship)
Aristocracy(good, a la Plato's Republic)
Democracy(mediocre, by this time we have lost all real order and are ruled by too many people to be effective)
Timocracy(pretty dumb idea really, the words "impetuous nation" spring to mind)
Oligarchy(yeah stratification based on capital is a terrible notion)
Tyranny(bad, that is the tyranny Dark Mac is refering to with a bad, bad ruler)
Daemon:
You are right, had Lether been a democracy it would likely have been better, having a system that puts people higher on a scale based on how much money(oligarchy) they have is terrible, but look at what most democratic states really are... Perhaps not in law, but in fact: To run for office in most countries(mainly thinking US here, not really certain about Canada) you have to have cash to support the campaign and to get in the "right" circles. Is that right? I think not, it just seems to be the natural course of a capitalistic government.
Dark Mac:
starting with the Tyrant thing, we were speaking more of the general use of the word "tyrant" basically it is equivalent to emperor, it just sounds nasty.
Slavery in this case is also not really related to democracy, as has been pointed out, the slavery in Letheras is not based on "oh, hey they look different than us, let's import them and use them like property" it is a slightly self-serving form of amnesty: Letheras takes over a country and tells the people, "we'll be nice(ish) and not stick you all if you come back to our homes and make meals for us. Some of us will treat you well, some won't but hey, its better than us killing you right?" I know slavery is a backwards notion, I believe in a classless society, but unfortunately that scares most money loving folks to death. In most societies we may not have a slavery in name, but we enslave the underdog nonetheless, a de facto slavery forcing the workman to work for a fraction of the value of his labor. Capitalism at its best (sarcasm).
Finally, taking people down to your level is not a socialist idea, nor really a human one, more of a vindictive, "you hurt me, I hurt you back" one. The socialist concept is not bringing people down to your level, but eliminating the stratification all together. As I said "scary".
#15 Guest_Daemon_*
Posted 06 May 2006 - 04:57 PM
Dark Mac said:
So you're saying that if slaves had the vote, they'd vote for slavery?
Enlightened dictatorships are the perfect form of government. Unfortunately, sooner or later you always run out of enlightened dictators, and the system falls into tyranny.
Enlightened dictatorships are the perfect form of government. Unfortunately, sooner or later you always run out of enlightened dictators, and the system falls into tyranny.
Democracy doesn't always mean that every one has voting rights ... just look at the US in the first half of the 19th century. Was there slavery? Would you deny them the status of a democratic and liberal state in the early 1800s? Whereas France then was ruled by a dictator (Napoleon) who abolished slavery? See my point?
And I don't think there is any good dictatorship. Sometimes a dictator is needed to clean up a totally corrupt and desolate system like Rome in the first century B.C. when Sulla had to march into Rome to restore the order. A German historian (Joachim Fernau) once wrote: "So if you ask me, is Sulla my ideal? No he is not, my ideal is a state that has no need of a Sulla." I absolutely agree with that.
#18 Guest_potsherds_*
Posted 07 May 2006 - 01:55 AM
I don't really know where else to post this, so I am posting it here, since its sorta' on topic. I'm a couple chapters until the end of MT.
Am I being overly sensitive, or does the Letherii society seem a caricature of the U.S.? The arrogance and the impetuous certainty in their own destiny and righteousness, the obsession with money, possessions, and debt.
There are specific paragraphs (one in particular that is spoken by Tehol to Rissarh, I think) that would seem to fit nicely into many a commentary on the actions of the U.S. in the world today.
Not to say that I don't agree mostly with Erikson. I'm not thrilled about pretty much everything the U.S. has done since that moron and his lackeys took office. And our general attitudes towards other countries, and our ignorance thereof is pathetic. But still... is Erikson being...dare I say it...preachy?
::hoping to not get flamed::
(And I was so looking to posting my own insulting comments on Goodkind, but damn, if Erikson preaches, then I have to be careful not to be hypocritical.)
Am I being overly sensitive, or does the Letherii society seem a caricature of the U.S.? The arrogance and the impetuous certainty in their own destiny and righteousness, the obsession with money, possessions, and debt.
There are specific paragraphs (one in particular that is spoken by Tehol to Rissarh, I think) that would seem to fit nicely into many a commentary on the actions of the U.S. in the world today.
Not to say that I don't agree mostly with Erikson. I'm not thrilled about pretty much everything the U.S. has done since that moron and his lackeys took office. And our general attitudes towards other countries, and our ignorance thereof is pathetic. But still... is Erikson being...dare I say it...preachy?
::hoping to not get flamed::
(And I was so looking to posting my own insulting comments on Goodkind, but damn, if Erikson preaches, then I have to be careful not to be hypocritical.)
#19
Whelp
- Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 13-March 06
Posted 08 May 2006 - 06:55 AM
Dark Mac:
Sorry, I distrust the very notion of giving power to the masses, as people in large groups tend to get more stupid and ineffective (imho).
Sorry, again, I think that humans are petty and vindictive enough to do just that. Besides, socialism (in theory) is not about pulling down, rather than lifting up.
Imho true democracy does not exist, as long as humans are humans. Sorry, I am pessimistic.
potsherds:
The Letherii seem a kind of twisted mirror to the US, imo. There is a certain amount of preaching, but not too much or overt, so it is tolerable.
Quote
If you don't like liberal democracy, then take social democracy. I'm sure that would be far more agreeable to you.
Sorry, I distrust the very notion of giving power to the masses, as people in large groups tend to get more stupid and ineffective (imho).
Quote
Wanting to pull everyone down to his level is a socialist notion, not a human one.
Sorry, again, I think that humans are petty and vindictive enough to do just that. Besides, socialism (in theory) is not about pulling down, rather than lifting up.
Quote
I know that in history not everyone got the vote, but that's not really true democracy.
Imho true democracy does not exist, as long as humans are humans. Sorry, I am pessimistic.
potsherds:
The Letherii seem a kind of twisted mirror to the US, imo. There is a certain amount of preaching, but not too much or overt, so it is tolerable.
#20
Dark Mac
- Emperor
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 804
- Joined: 05-April 06
Posted 08 May 2006 - 08:50 AM
Whelp said:
Dark Mac:
Sorry, I distrust the very notion of giving power to the masses, as people in large groups tend to get more stupid and ineffective (imho).
Sorry, again, I think that humans are petty and vindictive enough to do just that. Besides, socialism (in theory) is not about pulling down, rather than lifting up.
Imho true democracy does not exist, as long as humans are humans. Sorry, I am pessimistic.
Sorry, I distrust the very notion of giving power to the masses, as people in large groups tend to get more stupid and ineffective (imho).
Sorry, again, I think that humans are petty and vindictive enough to do just that. Besides, socialism (in theory) is not about pulling down, rather than lifting up.
Imho true democracy does not exist, as long as humans are humans. Sorry, I am pessimistic.
I'm talking about reality here, not theory. History has proven that only through democracy can peace prosper. And of course, we have many checks and balances on the power of the people to keep them from acting too capriciously.
By true democracy I meant universal suffrage, nothing more.
