[Whelp]

Dark Mac said:

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.

Main problem with democracy is its inherent liability for corruption, imho.
By theory I meant that noone ever has introduced "true" socialism.
Checks and balances fine in principle, not sure whether the practice is also efficient.
The problem with the universal suffrage is that votes can be bought easily... so the very notion of democracy is a bit wounded by it, imho.

[Dark Mac]

Every government is corrupt, regardless of the political system of the state.

You're right, we've never seen true socialism. Why? Because it's impossible, of course.

Checks and balances work well in reality. Republics rock.

It's harder to buy ten million votes than it is to buy a single appointment.

[Whelp]

Dark Mac:

Quote

It's harder to buy ten million votes than it is to buy a single appointment.

Pressure groups, lobbyists, companies,...
Even if I am in my most optimistic state, I consider republic a lesser of two evils (maybe I am just too much used to dictatorships?) Also, in times of crisis, the democratic way of decisionmaking is too slow.

Danyah:
I mostly agree, with one exception.

Quote

The art is now to avoid times of crisis, which seemed to have worked generally well in Europe for the last 60 years.

1956, Hungary; 1968, Prague; in the 1990s Bosnia; Serbia... Too large slips, imo.

[Dark Mac]

Whelp said:

Dark Mac:

Pressure groups, lobbyists, companies,...
Even if I am in my most optimistic state, I consider republic a lesser of two evils (maybe I am just too much used to dictatorships?) Also, in times of crisis, the democratic way of decisionmaking is too slow.

And how, exactly, what decision-making in a socialist state be faster? True socialist states have no governments, so making a concerted decision would be unimaginably difficult.

Quote

Danyah:
I mostly agree, with one exception.

1956, Hungary; 1968, Prague; in the 1990s Bosnia; Serbia... Too large slips, imo.

Psh, that's Eastern Europe. Being a Soviet satellite state is far from being a liberal-democratic republic.

[Ratlover]

 potsherds, on May 7 2006, 02:55 AM, said:

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.)

resurrecting an old topic here(hope nobody minds) but I too am reminded of the US whenever I read about Lether (I'm currently reading MT for the second time) I am tempted to ask if the US was Erikson's inspiration for the Letherii.
As to those who are debating the merits of capitalism and socialism it is my view that both are just two sides of the same filthy coin. Both define humanity in materialistic and economic terms and I think Erikson actually criticizes both the rampant pseudoindividualistic capitalism of the Letherii but also the hive-mind collectivism of the KCM and the Imass, he also clearly criticizes modern faith in technology and progress(thinking of Karsa's discussion with that woman he saves in tBH).
As to what kind of government is best I must say some form of monarchy, probably feudalistic, this is the most time tested form of government out there. Democracy and socialism both have terrible track records. Modern democratic and socialist states are notoriously unstable, prone to falling into tyranny and corruption, and are often more brutal and murderous than any crazy monarch has ever managed. They are just better at sanitizing and hiding their crimes. Equality and classless societies are utopian pipe dreams along with an assortment of buzzwords used by demagogues to rally the faceless mob: freedom, liberty, patriotism, human rights, blah,blah, blah. There is always an elite few who will come into power; the question is just what kind of system is most likely to create a quality elite. A well running monarchy creates leaders trained virtually from birth to rule and since a true monarch basically owns everything already he or she is by nature very hard to bribe. Ah well that's my two cents worth anyway.

[Urb]

 Ratlover, on Feb 15 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

As to those who are debating the merits of capitalism and socialism it is my view that both are just two sides of the same filthy coin. Both define humanity in materialistic and economic terms and I think Erikson actually criticizes both the rampant pseudoindividualistic capitalism of the Letherii but also the hive-mind collectivism of the KCM and the Imass, he also clearly criticizes modern faith in technology and progress(thinking of Karsa's discussion with that woman he saves in tBH).

But while he criticizes technology and progress through Karsa, he also mentions over and over again that the Malazan Empire is not Karsa's enemy. This is just my opinion, but I get the feeling SE wants to emphasize the simple point that: they are the better alternative.

 Ratlover, on Feb 15 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

Democracy and socialism both have terrible track records. Modern democratic and socialist states are notoriously unstable, prone to falling into tyranny and corruption, and are often more brutal and murderous than any crazy monarch has ever managed. They are just better at sanitizing and hiding their crimes.

I can't help but dissagree with this, except for the part about corruption (there is no such thing as a society without corruption). The way I see it, socialist democracies are about regulating the gap between rich and poor, and thus removing any potential for conflict, which makes them quite stable. But then again, as the picture gets more global, some countries are obviously way better off than others, so I guess it's not that simple.

And I'm not sure how they can be better at sanitizing and hiding their crimes, when they are generally much more open to the rest of the world than modern dictatorships.

I'm just generalizing here, since you didn't seem to be talking about any state(s) in particular. Also I am from Scandinavia, so obviously I am very biased towards socialism.

 Ratlover, on Feb 15 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

Equality and classless societies are utopian pipe dreams along with an assortment of buzzwords used by demagogues to rally the faceless mob: freedom, liberty, patriotism, human rights, blah,blah, blah. There is always an elite few who will come into power;

You do have a point that it seems somewhat unrealistic for a classless utopian society to exist. However, I can't help but wonder what it would be like if 99% of the adult population had a university degree, and the unemployment rate was less than 1%. The faceless mob shouldn't be underestimated in their potential just because they're not living up to it.

 Ratlover, on Feb 15 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

There is always an elite few who will come into power; the question is just what kind of system is most likely to create a quality elite. A well running monarchy creates leaders trained virtually from birth to rule and since a true monarch basically owns everything already he or she is by nature very hard to bribe. Ah well that's my two cents worth anyway.

A good point. Such a society would be very dependent on a benevolent and strong ruler though. And although he or she would be very hard to bribe, that doesn't mean he/she is incorruptible. It would depend largely on the size of the kingdom I guess.

To counter your reasoning, I could say that a society would be even better served by a democracy where all political leaders are expertly trained and very competent in their own responsibilites.



EDIT: Thanks for resurecting the thread by the way

This post has been edited by Urb: 15 February 2009 - 12:18 PM

[Ratlover]

 Urb, on Feb 15 2009, 08:02 AM, said:

 Ratlover, on Feb 15 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

As to those who are debating the merits of capitalism and socialism it is my view that both are just two sides of the same filthy coin. Both define humanity in materialistic and economic terms and I think Erikson actually criticizes both the rampant pseudoindividualistic capitalism of the Letherii but also the hive-mind collectivism of the KCM and the Imass, he also clearly criticizes modern faith in technology and progress(thinking of Karsa's discussion with that woman he saves in tBH).

But while he criticizes technology and progress through Karsa, he also mentions over and over again that the Malazan Empire is not Karsa's enemy. This is just my opinion, but I get the feeling SE wants to emphasize the simple point that: they are the better alternative.

 Ratlover, on Feb 15 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

Democracy and socialism both have terrible track records. Modern democratic and socialist states are notoriously unstable, prone to falling into tyranny and corruption, and are often more brutal and murderous than any crazy monarch has ever managed. They are just better at sanitizing and hiding their crimes.

I can't help but dissagree with this, except for the part about corruption (there is no such thing as a society without corruption). The way I see it, socialist democracies are about regulating the gap between rich and poor, and thus removing any potential for conflict, which makes them quite stable. But then again, as the picture gets more global, some countries are obviously way better off than others, so I guess it's not that simple.

And I'm not sure how they can be better at sanitizing and hiding their crimes, when they are generally much more open to the rest of the world than modern dictatorships.

I'm just generalizing here, since you didn't seem to be talking about any state(s) in particular. Also I am from Scandinavia, so obviously I am very biased towards socialism.

 Ratlover, on Feb 15 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

Equality and classless societies are utopian pipe dreams along with an assortment of buzzwords used by demagogues to rally the faceless mob: freedom, liberty, patriotism, human rights, blah,blah, blah. There is always an elite few who will come into power;

You do have a point that it seems somewhat unrealistic for a classless utopian society to exist. However, I can't help but wonder what it would be like if 99% of the adult population had a university degree, and the unemployment rate was less than 1%. The faceless mob shouldn't be underestimated in their potential just because they're not living up to it.

 Ratlover, on Feb 15 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

There is always an elite few who will come into power; the question is just what kind of system is most likely to create a quality elite. A well running monarchy creates leaders trained virtually from birth to rule and since a true monarch basically owns everything already he or she is by nature very hard to bribe. Ah well that's my two cents worth anyway.

A good point. Such a society would be very dependent on a benevolent and strong ruler though. And although he or she would be very hard to bribe, that doesn't mean he/she is incorruptible. It would depend largely on the size of the kingdom I guess.

To counter your reasoning, I could say that a society would be even better served by a democracy where all political leaders are expertly trained and very competent in their own responsibilites.



EDIT: Thanks for resurecting the thread by the way

Yes I would agree that he does make a point of emphasizing the benefits of Malazan rule, it should be remembered though that the Malazan empire is far from a modern capitalistic or socialistic society, it reminds me actually of maybe ancient Rome.
Of course no form of government is immune to corruption; in fact it is inevitible. But a monarchy , I think, is particularly resistant to it. And simply put: all societies and governmental forms depend on the leadership to be benevolent and strong.
Also we should not put that much faith in college degrees, they mean very little, just ask some of the PHDs working at McDonald's. I think you put too much faith in average people, most of them no matter what they may say don't really care enough about the political realm to bother participating in it until it affects them directly. One of the problems of democracy is that in order to work it depends on a populace that is both informed AND has the time and interest to participate. Realistically that is too tall an order. People are too worried about getting through their day to day personal lives to bother with who is going to solve the national debt.
It is highly unlikely in a democracy for an individual who is very qualified to lead to be elected. The rich are most likely to win based on their ability to influence elections through massive campaigns, gerrymandering, and blatant vote buying. So while it would be great if a democracy could have individuals who are trained to rule it is unlikely that this would work or last for very long.
I would argue that the US or USSR have easily caused more death and problems than any individual monarchy ever has.(How many millions dead? how many oppressed?) Democracy just replaces a tyranny of the few with a tyranny of the many and in more insidious ways. And yes actually the news media (at least here in the US) sanitizes the nightly news a great deal. And although theoretically the government guarantees freedom of the press in practice a large amount of censorship does occur. Part of that sanitizing may be caused by modern military technology, we no longer have to do the messy work of hacking someone to pieces on the battlefield when we can lob missiles at them from 2000 miles away. So the average American is very far removed from anything messy or brutal and modern states have access to technologies that allow them to maintain a huge amount of control over what people are allowed to see, something old monarchies and empires never had so the potential for tyranny nowadays is far higher.
It should also be noted that monarchs rarely have dictatorial powers even when (in theory) they have absolute power, a number of checks and balance do typically exist in the form of opposition within the aristocracy, the threat of rebellion, and in the case of constitutional monarchies the parliament as well.
I primarily speak from my experience of living in the US and my studies of history and philosophy. I don't know much about how socialism works in Scandinavia other than that you guys have socialized health care so I can't comment too much on that.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

The US/USSR examples are essentially invalid as no countries before that point had existed in an enviroment with such large population numbers and such advanced technology. The US killing hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima may seem statistically worse, but Charles I was largely responsible for a far higher percentage of the population through his belief in divine right.

Dont forget England at the time had a system of checks and balances on the King, he was raised knowing he would be an almost absolutely powerful monarch, and yet he acted without consideration of consequences. Even after rebellion, civil war and defeat, he refused to accept his shortcomings. Your belief in the supremacy of monarhs seems almost Kantian in the assumption that the sovereign will realise their duty and will be humbled by flattery and knowledge of their power. Unfortunately, people are not always rational, as evidenced by corruption in other systems, such as in democracies where MPs accept bribes knowing they are acting unlawfully and could be caught.

The Malazan system strikes me as almost Nozickian, there's no doubt people are left to their own economic devices generally, and any taxation appears to pay for the army, who maintain order. Other than that there doesnt seem to be any real restriction on economic activity, it's minimal government intervention.

[Urb]

I can see how the media are sanitizing the news, but still; China is probably a lot worse.

As for the election of politicians being dependent on whoever has the most money, that is pretty unfortunate. I'm a little curious though. How does it work in Canada? Are there only rich politicians there as well? Over here politicians usually have to make a career for themselves within a political party. There they have to win the favour of their fellow partymembers, and then we vote for the party, not the politician. We also have a lot more parties to choose from. But I sometimes think there should be an extra voting option: One that says you want all the parties to choose new leaders for their parties, and then run the election all over again.

Also, I didn't mean to compare the Malazan Empire with a modern democracy. I was just saying that it is better than no advanced society at all. I agree they remind me more of the Roman Empire (googles Nozickian...).

[Ratlover]

 Urb, on Feb 16 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

I can see how the media are sanitizing the news, but still; China is probably a lot worse.

As for the election of politicians being dependent on whoever has the most money, that is pretty unfortunate. I'm a little curious though. How does it work in Canada? Are there only rich politicians there as well? Over here politicians usually have to make a career for themselves within a political party. There they have to win the favour of their fellow partymembers, and then we vote for the party, not the politician. We also have a lot more parties to choose from. But I sometimes think there should be an extra voting option: One that says you want all the parties to choose new leaders for their parties, and then run the election all over again.

Also, I didn't mean to compare the Malazan Empire with a modern democracy. I was just saying that it is better than no advanced society at all. I agree they remind me more of the Roman Empire (googles Nozickian...).

Canada to my knowledge is modeled on the British style of government so its got a Prime Minister and is somewhat socialistic (at least in its healthcare). The US theoretically has multiplie parties but in practice only the Democrats and Republicans ever have a real shot at the Presidency and both of those parties are little different from each other and are both beholden to large corporations.
(also googles Nozickian)

and china is worse, it is also socialist mind you

This post has been edited by Ratlover: 17 February 2009 - 03:06 AM

[Ratlover]

 Thelomen Toblerone, on Feb 16 2009, 12:48 AM, said:

The US/USSR examples are essentially invalid as no countries before that point had existed in an enviroment with such large population numbers and such advanced technology. The US killing hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima may seem statistically worse, but Charles I was largely responsible for a far higher percentage of the population through his belief in divine right.

Dont forget England at the time had a system of checks and balances on the King, he was raised knowing he would be an almost absolutely powerful monarch, and yet he acted without consideration of consequences. Even after rebellion, civil war and defeat, he refused to accept his shortcomings. Your belief in the supremacy of monarhs seems almost Kantian in the assumption that the sovereign will realise their duty and will be humbled by flattery and knowledge of their power. Unfortunately, people are not always rational, as evidenced by corruption in other systems, such as in democracies where MPs accept bribes knowing they are acting unlawfully and could be caught.

The Malazan system strikes me as almost Nozickian, there's no doubt people are left to their own economic devices generally, and any taxation appears to pay for the army, who maintain order. Other than that there doesnt seem to be any real restriction on economic activity, it's minimal government intervention.

I fully admit that a monarchy can and probably will create a Charles I sooner or later, but a democracy can create a Hitler or a Stalin as well. I'm not saying monarchy is perfect, far from it I just think its better than democracy or socialism. There have also been excellent kings as well, I beleive it was Denmark who had one that, after seeing the deforestation caused by the need for ships had hundreds of trees planted so that there would be wood available 200 years from then. Compare that to modern leaders who often don't really think beyond the end of their term.
Another important part of making a monarchy work is having a culture in place that promotes ideals of honor and appropriate conduct especially amongst the nobility, this function ideally is the job of religion. (actually that's probably true of any government)

[Epiph]

 Urb, on Feb 16 2009, 06:26 AM, said:

As for the election of politicians being dependent on whoever has the most money, that is pretty unfortunate. I'm a little curious though. How does it work in Canada? Are there only rich politicians there as well? Over here politicians usually have to make a career for themselves within a political party. There they have to win the favour of their fellow partymembers, and then we vote for the party, not the politician. We also have a lot more parties to choose from. But I sometimes think there should be an extra voting option: One that says you want all the parties to choose new leaders for their parties, and then run the election all over again.

That is the way it is in the States too. In addition to selling your soul to special interest groups for financial support, you have charismatically worry your way into the party. In the Democratic primaries this time around, a lot of the Democratic leadership was basically saying to Obama, "Look, we know you're talented and charismatic and all that. You'll get your turn, but you have to put in your dues. Right now, it's Hillary's turn." And then, democracy triumphed over the political machine. Wheeee!

An effective democracy requires an educated and interested populace. I think the biggest failing of American democracy, atm, is the massive failures in our educational system. I know very few well educated people who don't vote and don't care about the leadership of our government (granted, I've only been paying attention since I turned 18 in 2000, and only really started caring once I was out of college...but I sort of think that validates my point about an effective democracy requiring an educated populace). This was in large part why the US developed a public school system in the 19th century.

[HoosierDaddy]

This thread is where political scientists go to die.

[Salt-Man Z]

The "uneducated populace" is why the US was conceived as a democratic republic, not a true democracy.

[Epiph]

 Salt-Man Z, on Mar 2 2009, 11:38 AM, said:

The "uneducated populace" is why the US was conceived as a democratic republic, not a true democracy.

Right, but I think I read somewhere that in the 19th century, the public education system got its start to 1) babysit the children who were no longer allowed to work in factories and 2) educate the voting populace.

[KeithF]

Quote

Am I being overly sensitive, or does the Letherii society seem a caricature of the U.S.?

I'm glad it's not just me - I thought that as well, pretty early on in the book too. I was relieved that the parallels didn't become too obvious and weren't belaboured - if anything, I'd now say that Lether is a more general portrayal of capitalist imperialism (taken to an extreme, where it's a clear philosophy rather than a modus operandi).

Erikson does seem to throw in possible parallels to the real world in places - the stuff about Bidithal's activities in HoC annoyed me slightly because it seemed like a too-obvious slam on real-world practices of female circumcision (which is of course bad, but I felt the real-world allusion was too strongly broadcast).

[zenMichael]

To get back to an earlier point made in this thread ....

IS the CG "evil"? I'm only about 150 pp into MT, so maybe stuff happens later that totally makes him obviously bad bad BAD, OR maybe it's possible that I'm completely missing some of the things he's done because keeping track of who's pulling whose strings is mind-blowing, even on a re-read, but one of the things I THOUGHT I was liking so far (tho maybe I'm wrong) is that the CG seemed very much not a "bad guy" bad guy. I like the fact that he seems to be choosing people for his champions who don't really give a damn about him or his agenda (Karsa specifically), and seems to prefer scarred, broken and beaten folk (even messing up that guy in MoI felt more like 'I want you to be like me!' than evil/cruelty, at least to me).

I'm asking this not because I think everyone who believes the CG is evil is stupid, but b/c I'm really wondering if I missed something. I kinda liked the guy because he seems to have just been dealt an unlucky hand and is kind of pro-revolution simply because anything must be better than what he's got. But I could be wrong (I feel so lost on so much of this stuff; at times I feel like I'm reading a sociology textbook rather than fiction).