Post Serenity: Is the Fireflyverse even remotely pro-government anymore?*warning: spoilers* by chrisisall

Joss's politics seem to be a bit left of centre, to put it mildly...

I remember a thread in which someone argued that the Alliance wasn't really all that bad, we just saw it from the crews point of view. Guess the movie kind of wrecks that idea

.

I think as much as anything it’s a warning to not let the government get away with things. Question, question and if in doubt question, and don't forget to question the questioners.

But big government is always going to big trouble for some individuals, and not just criminals and 'undesirables', merely people who 'fall through the cracks' for instance. Not saying big government is particularly bad, just not perfect.

As for truth and history... when has that not been the case? The history books are never written by the loser, cause, you know, the losers are dead. The winners aren't going to tell anything but the truth from their own POV, at best. At worst they'll just outright lie to make them look like the righteous hero's.

Likewise truth is very subjective. To some the American people are righteous fighting the good fight, others see them as the devil incarnate, and some see them as well, people, sometimes doing bad, sometimes doing good.

But where do we get our vision of the truth? Our idea of the world around us is nearly entirely formed by society. We add our own colour to a degree, which lets societies views change gradually, but still, our ideas of truth are formed by society. That, in a way, is all part of our culture. A culture is fifty percent ways of doing things and fifty percent ways of looking at things. Politicians have been changing truth for their own ends for sometime, its called spin. They kiss babies, so that they look caring, they spin the truth in their favor, it happens all the time.

Basically the Alliance is a caricature of some of the worst traits of modern society (or indeed pretty much any society), IMHO.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 12:54 PM

Very perceptive, as always.
But I wouldn't use the word caricature, I would say that it is a focus on the worst traits.
Less science fictiony versions of the events depicted in the BDM have happened for real.
Sadly.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 5:19 PM

I tend to think that the Alliance was always meant to be viewed as an evil antagonist, but Whedon doesn’t seem to leave anything as completely one-sided. Certainly what the Alliance is depicted as having done is an example of totalitarianism gone horrible wrong, but it wasn’t depicted as having been done for evil reasons. Totalitarianism can exist as a pure selfish motivation as in the case of Saddam’s Iraq, but most of the really scary stuff are those governments that are based on an utopian ideology, as in the case of Nazism or Stalinism. When a government decides that a utopian society can exists, they can become the most dangerous and deadliest form of government. A people motivated by belief in a utopian future can feel that as long as their deeds result in that utopian world anything is justifiable. Truths are distorted for the “common good.” Human life becomes meaningless when it is compared to a fanatic vision of a utopian future. What is one death if it leads to world where everyone is happy and peaceful? What is one war if it results in the end of all wars? This is the bases of Marxism and extreme religious fanaticism. Bin Laden is one such “visionary.” He, like many fanatical Wahhabist (if he’s still alive) believes that a true utopian world is one in which lives are spent in disciplined devotion to a religious cause. A more insidious and dangerous form of the utopian belief is seen in people who seek to recreate a utopian world as an secular absolute in society. These are your Marxists, Nazis and Stalinists. The people who believe that “the dictatorship” is a necessary step on the path to a world in which all people are equal in the eyes of society; the government should “provide” for the people so that the people do not have to be bothered by providing for themselves. This kind of philosophy can seem very appealing to people. Who doesn’t want some all-powerful government helping them out? Providing for the common good? So what if the government holds absolute control over its people, so long as the people are well provided for and blissfully ignorant of how little freedom is left when the government is done providing. And isn’t in the greater good to maintain this peaceful and providing relationship at any cost? This is, I think, what the Alliance represents. Much of the dialogue from the “Operative” was very revealing of this kind of thinking or “belief.”

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 5:54 PM

http://homepage.mac.com/merussell/iblog/B835531044/C1592678312/E200509
16182427/index.html

Quote:
Q. "Firefly" and "Serenity"'s political and cultural underpinnings are unusually well thought-out. You've obviously developed a whole system of planets, a Sino-American political system, a mix of languages. How long did the concept fester in your head before you started writing?

A. It festered for a while. It was probably two or three years after I came up with the idea that I made the TV show, a year-and-a-half doing that, and then a couple of years to write the movie. So it's had time to bake.
And people are always like, "They're fighting an evil empire!" And I'm like, "Well, it's not really an evil empire." The trick was always to create something that was complex enough that you could bring some debate to it -- that it wasn't black-and-white. It wasn't, "If we hit this porthole in the Death Star, everything will be fine!" It was messier than that, and the messiest thing is that the government is basically benign. It's the most advanced culturally….

Q. And [the government-sponsored assassin] The Operative has an honorable point of view -- in his way.

A. Oh, he totally does. Mal is somebody that I knew, as I created him, I would not get along with. I don't think we have the same politics. But that's sort of the point. I mean, if the movie's about anything, it's about the right to be wrong. It's about the messiness of people. And if you try to eradicate that, you eradicate them.

I think if he had the opportunity to develop the Firefly verse, he would show that Browncoats were not all good, and Alliance was not all bad. The same shades of gray were repeatedly highlighted in Buffy and Angel characters. I think if there were a message that Joss likes to send, it is that nothing is black-and-white, evil-vs.-good, all-benefit-no-cost. Joss provides an anti-thesis of the messages of Star Trek and Star Wars, where everything is easily identified as good or bad.

Another mistake people make is thinking that Joss' work must reflect his personal politics. (I admit I thought the same.) Libertarians see the anti-authoritarian themes and think, Joss must be a libertarian! Democrats like to point out that Joss is a well known liberal, a fellow Democrat. ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/29/22437/2481) Therefore, the Firefly verse must be liberal too.

I think the above interview shows that Joss is deeper than anyone expects. I love Mal, and identify the most with this character. Now I know I'm the kind of folk Joss probably would not get along with. And I respect him all the more for it.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 5:57 PM

STAKETHELURK

I tend to think the Alliance is not inherently a bad thing, just something gone astray. Here's why:

The Operative is right, the Alliance is not an “evil empire.” It’s not the Federation either. It is what it is, a government. It has its good qualities and its bad qualities, like all governments. Every nation on Earth has its own dirty little secrets (some noticeably dirtier than others), but that doesn’t make every government inherently evil. The Alliance doesn’t even seem to be a dictatorship; the film implies that this Parliament is an elected body. So it’s a democracy. It seems interested in improving the lives of everybody and feels its system is the answer. And it could do a lot of good on the border planets, which (admittedly in the post-war setting) appear to be plagued with bandits (the crew, Badger, Fanty & Mingo, Ott, etc), a wealthy and domineering overclass that oppresses the poor (Magistrate Higgins, whatshisname from "Heart of Gold"), violent religious fundamentalism ("Safe"), and slavery ("Shindig," etc). The fact that the Alliance doesn’t seem to be doing much about many of these problems suggests that either A) they’ve stretched their resources too thin (very plausible, especially considering the subcontracted law enforcement mentioned in the movie) and/or B) they ignore the poor and backwater parts of the system (making them the first and only government in the history of mankind to do such a callous thing).

Where the Alliance crosses the line is in trying to force its system on everyone else, rather than trying to persuade them. The Alliance probably looked upon the outer planets like we would look upon some impoverished and brutalized nation under a corrupt dictator. They would have the same thought: “Why doesn’t somebody do something about this?” And so they did. Miranda was the second part of this, this desire to make everybody “better.” The Alliance wanted peace, universal peace, which could only be gotten by changing human nature, by forcing a drug upon people without their consent.

Then came the cover-up, which, let’s face it, is a normal government action to undertake. It may not be right, but both democracies and dictatorships do it. And that’s where the Parliament became so paralyzed with fear that their accidental genocide would be uncovered, they refused to deal with the Reavers.

One thing I feel supports me here is in the dialogue of the film. In the series, the characters would always refer to “the Alliance” and imply it was the source of all things bad. But in Serenity, they frequently referred to “the Parliament” as the ones responsible for Miranda, not “the Alliance.” What this does is distance the Alliance as the larger whole from the blame, instead saying only a subgroup within the Alliance--its present rulers--are the problem. Like saying “the Administration” rather than “the United States.” The Alliance as a whole is not implicated, it is the leaders who took its ideals too far. Listen for that at the next showing you go to (and you WILL go to another showing, preferably this weekend) and see where they say “the Alliance” and where they talk about just “the Parliament.” Even the Operative at the end says that they’ve weakened the Parliament’s regime--not the Alliance.

I’ll end this by saying that a political reading is only one way to look at this. As an existentialist, Joss values free will above almost all else. Even if your utopia is great, forcing people to live in it rather than letting them decide is bad. If the Alliance simply let people choose, most would still live in it. Where it goes wrong is in forcing folks like Mal to conform. So, big government is only bad when it doesn’t let you choose whether or not to take part in it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 7:55 PM

RUXTON

Chris, I suspect the large numbers of citizens who are p/o'ed at our government might just take a fancy to the movie, which ends up doing us all a lot of good.

BTW, I have yet to see the movie, so please don't tell me anything about it. My little town, 40-odd miles down the road, is about to acquire Gone With the Wind as a first-run movie....

Actually, it's showing the Jodie Foster movie and also 40-yr.-old Virgin.

Duh....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 7:56 PM

RUXTON

So when does the DVD come out? Anyone know?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:03 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Chris, I suspect the large numbers of citizens who are p/o'ed at our government might just take a fancy to the movie, which ends up doing us all a lot of good.

I agree. But then I see the characters as almost uniformly conservative (at least the conservatives minues the religeous right) as are the movies themes and messages. Sure there's a mix of liberalism for flavor, but the lets face it, the crew of Serenity would have a lot more in common with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush then with LBJ, Jimmy Carter, or any Democratic Senator/Presidential candidate.

Now Clinton is an interesting character. Mal would have hated him, because Clinton would have been a valued client for Inara. I think they would have otherwise liked him until he got out of office and they found out his lax (or lack thereof) policies had helped empower the Reavers...er... terrorists.

Perhaps Firefly/Serenity is actually pro-ditatorship. Mal runs the ship. One man, one voice, one opinion. Follow him or get the hell off. Now he's not all bad, but the the rules stay the same, its Mal who changes. Perhaps his ultimate problem with the Alliance is that he's not running the show...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:22 AM

DRROB

While Serenity ahs been called a Libretarian Western in Space... it's hardly Joss' view of the world.

The characters are misfits... former soldiers on the losing side (Mal, Zoe), Mercenary outlaw (Jayne--who at first was the only real 'bad guy' on the crew,,, that changed in teh film), Simon & River (fugitives, right or wrong from the authorities), Kaylee (runaway), Inara (space hooker)Wash (anyone else wonder about Wash's drug habit re: teh plastic dinosaurs?)and finally Book (the shepard who shoots people.

Noone on board Serenity, except maybe River and Kaylee are 'innocent.' River isn't because she's been made into a killer by the blue hands...

It's an exciting character study.. the characters make the show. If the characters always made the 'right' decisions it wouldn't make for good drama. Setting the universe/government slightly on it's end (take what you know and turn it up to eleven) makes for a good backdrop for these folk to interact.

Any political party could take what they LIKE about Serenity/Firefly and say 'this is ours' and they are likely all equally wrong... except maybe the Libretarians... Mal seems like a Libretarian to me. Joss wouldn't like him. Fair enough, we can pretty much say Mal isn't a Liberal.

"Guess you broke into the wrong rec room."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
So what if the government holds absolute control over its people, so long as the people are well provided for and blissfully ignorant of how little freedom is left when the government is done providing. And isn’t in the greater good to maintain this peaceful and providing relationship at any cost? This is, I think, what the Alliance represents. Much of the dialogue from the “Operative” was very revealing of this kind of thinking or “belief.”

You seem to be suggesting that the Alliance is a Socialist totalitarian government. This doesn't fit the facts, as far as I can see, for various reasons. The Alliance doesn't seem to provide much of anything as a right, at least there’s no evidence to suggest that they do. Not to drag us too far off topic but rightwing societies/governments also have these failings. America meddles in others affairs all the time, and not always for the better...

My point is, and I'm prepared for the fact that I didn't make it well, that the alliance could be either way, liberal or conservative, especially given the fact that its based on the governments of China and America, obviously very leftwing and very rightwing societies respectively.

However your point regarding utopia is well founded, and on the whole I agree.

I remember reading a book which was an abstraction of current trends into the future. It's actually set in 2040, if I remember correctly, and was written between the late 1970's and early 1980's. The amazing thing is how much closer we seem to have moved to the society in the book from the one we were in when the book was written.
But I digress. The reason I bring this up is that the Miranda thing reminds me of a passage from the book.
One of the main characters is visiting America, and is very impressed by his greeting from his host companies rep's. He notices these cone-shaped structures...

Quick transcript slightly abridged:
As they drove slowly through the thourghfares towards the Beautiflora headquarters Bottomley noticed a number of cone-shaped structures...
"There's quite a story behind those, sir," the aide said. "It goes back a couple of years. We were getting an abnormally high increase in the number of riots...
Bottomley nodded. "Yes I do remember it being in the news for sometime but it died down didn't it?"
"Yes sir, exactly, and it's due to those cones. As you know riots are inevitable in a highly civilised society and we've had our fair share, but two years ago things were getting out of hand. Then some scientist came up with this new tranquilliser... it's tasteless and colourless. Those cones can pump it out in great quantities...
"is that what they are doing now then?...
The aide grinned. "No sir, that's only half of it. At the moment they are doing just the opposite, pumping out a very mild form of stimulant... Too much stimulant and people go berserk and riot. But a subtle constant stream into the atmosphere and you send sales figures rocketing...

Its then explained to him that the rep's he saw used a similar system, which is why he was so impressed...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DrRob:
Mal seems like a Libretarian to me. Joss wouldn't like him. Fair enough, we can pretty much say Mal isn't a Liberal.

Mal does what needs to get done, which takes him out of contempory politics as we know it, left or right.

Chrisisall, first member of the 'Get It Done' party

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 12:21 PM

RUXTON

HERO said,
"But then I see the characters as almost uniformly conservative (at least the conservatives minues the religeous right) as are the movies themes and messages. Sure there's a mix of liberalism for flavor, but the lets face it, the crew of Serenity would have a lot more in common with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush then with LBJ, Jimmy Carter, or any Democratic Senator/Presidential candidate."

I agree. Good points, in all of your post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Now Clinton is an interesting character. Mal would have hated him, because Clinton would have been a valued client for Inara. I think they would have otherwise liked him until he got out of office and they found out his lax (or lack thereof) policies had helped empower the Reavers...er... terrorists.

But of course its the heavy handed policies on Miranda that went beforehand that created the Reavers in the first place...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 12:31 PM

DRROB

Quote:
Mal does what needs to get done, which takes him out of contempory politics as we know it, left or right.]...

This is one of the few 'western' themes left in Serenity... and one of the things I like the most about the series and characters.

"Guess you broke into the wrong rec room."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You seem to be suggesting that the Alliance is a Socialist totalitarian government. This doesn't fit the facts, as far as I can see, for various reasons. The Alliance doesn't seem to provide much of anything as a right, at least there’s no evidence to suggest that they do. Not to drag us too far off topic but rightwing societies/governments also have these failings. America meddles in others affairs all the time, and not always for the better...

I don’t know what facts you’re referring to. I’ve seen or read most of the information available on Firefly and I have yet to see many explicit examples of the Alliances’ policies on social or fiscal issues. So I don’t know how one can define it explicitly as sitting on one side of the fence or the other. My guess is that Joss made the Alliance sufficiently vague so that the audience can imprint whatever particular political side they don’t like onto it. My post does not attempt to define the Alliance as a socialist totalitarian government. But I did give a few examples of the more gruesome totalitarian philosophies that have existed in history (Marxism, Nazism and Stalinism) to illustrate how totalitarianism is related to a utopian idealism. I think it is quite clear that the danger of a government’s fanatical devotion to a utopian future was a principle theme in Serenity. That most of the historical examples of such totalitarian regimes are generally very Left-wing is something that shouldn’t be lost. You make this comment about America as having the same failings as if there were some moral equivalence between the US and Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, and somehow I left them out. Well, I didn’t mention the US in my post because the US is not a totalitarian regime and doesn’t need to be mentioned in the same breath with philosophies that seek to implement dictatorships in furtherance of world domination and genocide.

I don’t know what motivations Joss had in choosing the US and China as the basis of the future interplanetary government, but my guess is that it probably had more to do with simple extrapolation then ideology. First of all, the Alliance has remained extremely androgynous, so to speak. I don’t think it is very clear where it stands in relation to current politics/economics; it could go either way. But there is also the case that the US and China are seen as powerful and growing world influences today. It’s not difficult to believe that the choice of Sino-American Alliances was made purely for that reason.

I agree with Hero that most of the characters and stories tend to be following Conservative lines. Joss seems to have written the story and the characters to reflect his vision of “anti-heroes (heroines),” the darker side of the hero, so to speak. Joss being a rather Left-wing dude has constructed his vision of the anti-hero as being a very Conservative minded (politically), short-tempered and even militant rogue. My guess is that I don’t see Firefly from the same perspective as Joss. I’m not picking up on the same distasteful vibe that Joss believes he has written into Mal, because I see Mal as being a very likeable guy. Someone I might could possibly get along with, in fact. A person whom I may shares many of the same ideals with. I think in attempting to create what Joss, perhaps, believes is the ultimate unsympathetic hero, he has effectively created what I would see as a genuine hero.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Mal does what needs to get done, which takes him out of contempory politics as we know it, left or right.

Not so fast. Contemporary politics is made up of much more than just left and right. Libertarianism, for the record, is neither left nor right.

It is not farfetched to see Mal as largely libertarian. Joss is a liberal. Mal's libertarian streaks are totally consistent with Joss' comment that he and Mal wouldn't get along.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know what motivations Joss had in choosing the US and China as the basis of the future interplanetary government...

I read an interview in which Joss said something about picking Chinese as the language to swear in because his wife speaks Chinese. Personally, he liked Japanese better. Maybe this had some influence too.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 6, 2005 6:56 AM

Sorry Finn, if I was too vague. You seemed, to me, too be suggesting that the Alliance was a socialist totalitarian society, and your point in your later post was the exact point that I was trying to make. There’s no evidence that the Alliance is either way.

My comment on the US was in no way trying to put the US as a dictatorship, I was merely trying to point out that there’s good and bad in both leftwing and rightwing politics if taken purely...
You seemed to be arguing the point (I stress seemed) that Totalitarian regimes are leftwing. Also, Nazism and Fascism is not identifiable leftwing.

As for dictatorships/totalitarianism being mainly leftwing, I could argue that point too, but I really think its a topic for another thread, so I won't.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 6, 2005 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Also, Nazism and Fascism is not identifiable leftwing.

Since Nazism is a form of socialism, which is identifiably Left-wing, I would say that’s not necessarily true.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 6, 2005 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Since Nazism is a form of socialism

Quote:
The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state. Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader. Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state. Nazi fascism's ideology included a racial theory which denigrated "non-Aryans," extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all German-speaking peoples, the use of private paramilitary organizations to stifle dissent and terrorize opposition, and the centralization of decision-making by, and loyalty to, a single leader.

http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html
That article sets out Nazism as rightwing. I wouldn't go that far, however. I'd say nazism didn't have a political left/right ideology. They were far centre if you will.
Nazism took from both left and right in order to produce a totalitarian state with was neither identifiably totally left nor totally right.
The fact that Nazism is a contraction of National Socialism (Nationalsozialismus in the German) does not mean left-wing.
National Socialism arguably stems from the citizen to nation relationship within Nazism, where as Socialism is more traditionally defined as "public ownership over the means of production".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 6, 2005 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The fact that Nazism is a contraction of National Socialism (Nationalsozialismus in the German) means nothing.

Except that it was a socialist state where economic power was centralized on the government, social programs were nationalized, and the class warfare was politically exploited, like in most other Left-wing government.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 6, 2005 1:34 PM

Finn, the point you responded to was clarified shortly after I posted it.
Your arguing how Nazism resembles left-wing politics in some ways. Did you read my post?
I'm not refuting that, I'm saying it is neither left nor right, it takes aspects of both.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
and the class warfare was politically exploited, like in most other Left-wing government.

Yes, they also politically exploited the populations irrational fears, like in most Right-wing governments.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 6, 2005 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think in attempting to create what Joss, perhaps, believes is the ultimate unsympathetic hero, he has effectively created what I would see as a genuine hero.

I don't know if that was his aim, Mal is TOTALLY in line with what I think of as a sympathetic, viable hero, and I could get along w/him just fine.

Just remember to call him sir Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 6, 2005 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think in attempting to create what Joss, perhaps, believes is the ultimate unsympathetic hero, he has effectively created what I would see as a genuine hero.

I don't know if that was his aim, Mal is TOTALLY in line with what I think of as a sympathetic, viable hero, and I could get along w/him just fine.

Just remember to call him sir Chrisisall

Maybe you’re a closet conservative?

I really don’t know what Joss thinks. I find the complexity of character rather impressive, though. I read some article that compared Han Solo and Indiana Jones to Mal, but even if you combined them together into the uber Handiana Jolo, he still would lack the complexity of Malcolm Reynolds, I think. It's just pure genius.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 6, 2005 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Finn, the point you responded to was clarified shortly after I posted it.
Your arguing how Nazism resembles left-wing politics in some ways. Did you read my post?

Yes and Yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yes, they also politically exploited the populations irrational fears, like in most Right-wing governments.

Which is not exclusive to a Right-Wing governments. Left-wing governments also exploit irrational fears among the population for political gain. This has nothing to do with Left or Right.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 12:03 AM

THEPLAGUE

Marxism is a totalitarian ideology? Geez there must've been a revised edition or something.

-------------------------------
Are these our lives? NNNOOOOOO!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 4:34 AM

Quote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout
/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1127384288085&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
"I'm not trying to make a polemic and it's definitely not a partisan film in the sense that Mal is, if not a Republican, certainly a libertarian, he's certainly a less-government kinda guy. He's the opposite of me in many ways," Whedon says.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 7:21 AM

Finn:
I'm saying Nazism is neither left nor right. You seem to be saying nazism is solely left wing, which it isn't/wasn't.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Which is not exclusive to a Right-Wing governments. Left-wing governments also exploit irrational fears among the population for political gain. This has nothing to do with Left or Right.

It has been my experiance that Right-wing goverments are far more likely to shift debate to fears rather than issues. Every election I remember in my country the Conservative party has continually used a fear based stance. Labour didn't, until recently and they're barely a left-wing party anymore, and the Lib Dems, as far as I can remember never have.
Remember my above statement was a rebuttle to your argument about class systems as a political tool. That has been used by right-wing parties, at least in my own country, often from the other angle though. So I'd say that has nothing to do with left or right per-se.

The thing about the Nazi's is that they never really had a political ideology. They wanted power, and they wanted a White Aryan German empire. Their use of Left and Right ideologies were political tools to that end to gain support.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Remember my above statement was a rebuttle to your argument about class systems as a political tool. That has been used by right-wing parties, at least in my own country, often from the other angle though. So I'd say that has nothing to do with left or right per-se.

The thing about the Nazi's is that they never really had a political ideology. They wanted power, and they wanted a White Aryan German empire. Their use of Left and Right ideologies were political tools to that end to gain support.

The social and economic practices of the German National Socialist party closely resemble the practices of any Socialist party, for a good reason. Nazism is a form of socialism. The means of production were directly controlled by the government. Land and capital could not be bought or sold or operated without the consent of the government, and profits were heavily taxed and control. This was called the “nationalization of business.” In many cases businesses were required to “rent” their capital from the state. This was called the “communalization of department stores.” That is pure socialism. So I don’t think that Nazism was a “centrist” philosophy. It was absolutely socialist; in fact, pretty damn close to communist.

Other aspects of Nazism were also distinctly Left-wing, such anti-Semitism. One of the goals of Marxism was the “emancipation of mankind from Jewry.” In fact, most of Hitler’s philosophies as documented in his speeches and books are drawn heavily from Marx and Engels.

Let’s look at the definition of Nazi from the Marriam-Websters dictionary:

Quote:
Nazism. the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nazism

Note that the Marriam-Webster dictionary defines Nazism as “state control of all industry,” in other words, (as you put it earlier) “public ownership over the means of production.”

According to Joseph Geobbels, “We are socialists, because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces." Circa 1932

According to Hitler, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Circa 1927.

In fact, the economic and social practices of the Third Reich and the philophsies of those men who created it were consistent with Marx and the practices of other extreme socialist states.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Maybe you’re a closet conservative?

LOL, I'll plead guilty to some small degree....

Can you be a conservative conspiracy theorist?

Fence-hoppin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Left-wing, such anti-Semitism

You see you made some good points there Finn, but Anti-Semitism being a Left-wing policy? What about empire building? Mass murder? Are these Left-wing policies?

You see Finn your focusing on the Left-like policies of Nazism, and ignoring anything else. Nazism IS NOT a form of socialism, it is a form of FASCISM.

Quote:
There is a very close relationship between Nazism and Fascism. Since the term Nazism is normally used to refer to the ideology and policies of Nazi Germany alone, while Fascism is used in a broader sense, to refer to a wider political movement that exists or existed in many countries, Nazism is often classified as a particular version of Fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Quote:
Despite the important differences from other right-wing ideologies, fascism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the right." This is somewhat parallel to the customary inclusion of Marxism-Leninism (and, in particular, that of the Stalinist Soviet Union and Maoist China) in "the left."
...
David Schoenbaum argued in his book Hitler's Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany, 1933-1939 that Nazism contained certain revolutionary and socialist aspects (although more in rhetoric than in reality)
...
vigorous opposition to Communism and Social democracy was a founding and continuing tenet of National Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_wing

Quote:
The means of production were directly controlled by the government. Land and capital could not be bought or sold or operated without the consent of the government, and profits were heavily taxed and control. This was called the “nationalization of business.” In many cases businesses were required to “rent” their capital from the state. This was called the “communalization of department stores.” That is pure socialism.

No, it is pure Totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is neither left nor right.
Facism is a Right-Wing totalitarian system. Private property is allowed but owners are not able to dispose of said property as they see fit so it is meaningless.
Communism is a Left-Wing totalitarian system. All property belongs to the state, there is no private property.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 1:05 PM

You wanna know what political ideology you have?
Try this:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

I'm a Liberal Libertarian...
Apparently...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You wanna know what political ideology you have?
Try this:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

I'm a Liberal Libertarian...
Apparently...

HEY!
I took the test, and apparently I'm a Liberal Libertarian Conspiracy Theorist!!

Whaddah ya know....Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 4:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You see you made some good points there Finn, but Anti-Semitism being a Left-wing policy? What about empire building? Mass murder? Are these Left-wing policies?

Maybe. One would be hard-pressed to find many extremist socialist states that did not engage in at least mass murder. It’s typical Left-wing propaganda to believe that anti-Semitism exists only on the right. In fact, anti-Semitism was quite common on the Left in Europe, and many of the most prominent socialists, including Karl Marx, were anti-Semites, because they believed the Jews were advocates of capitalism. Karl Marx believed that the Jews were greedy and selfish and that they had zealously contributed to, what Marx called, a “general anti-social element.” He therefore believed that mankind needed to be freed from Judaism. Karl Marx was a Jew, and if Jewish Socialists held such negative generalized opinions of Jews, what do you supposed non-Jewish Socialists in 19th century Europe thought of Jews? Hitler’s anti-Semitism did not develop in a vacuum, and there is no reason to believe that it had to have come from the Right.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You see Finn your focusing on the Left-like policies of Nazism, and ignoring anything else. Nazism IS NOT a form of socialism, it is a form of FASCISM.

What am I ignoring? That some people what to call Nazism “right-wing?” I’m not ignoring that. I’m quite aware of it. But that doesn’t change the fact that Nazis implemented state control of the means of production, price controls, and profit controls, that they nationalized everything from business, transportation, healthcare, welfare, to “old-age insurance.” You can call it whatever you want. You can call it a “Purple People Eater,” if that floats your boat. But you cannot escape the fact, except through willful ignorance, that Nazism was consistent with the practices of extreme socialist states, such as Stalin’s Soviet Union. And you cannot escape the fact that the founders of Nazism, including Hitler, themselves called it Socialism, pleaded in class-warfare, quoted Marx and Engels, derided capitalists, and pandered to the working class, which is consistent with the practices of Left-wing politicians/pundits of extreme socialist states.

If socialism, as defined by the Marriam-Webster Dictionary is “governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods,” then it is indisputable that Nazism is indeed socialism, regardless of whatever else it may be. Nazism may not have been as far Left as Communism, but it was far Left-enough to be Socialism.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No, it is pure Totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is neither left nor right.
Facism is a Right-Wing totalitarian system. Private property is allowed but owners are not able to dispose of said property as they see fit so it is meaningless.
Communism is a Left-Wing totalitarian system. All property belongs to the state, there is no private property.

If “Totalitarianism is neither left nor right” then how can Communism be a Left-wing totalitarian system, and Fascism be a Right-Wing totalitarian system? You’ve not really thought this through very far, have you?

In fact, if a state controls all capital, then they essentially “own” it.

Yes, Nazism is a form of totalitarianism, AND it is also a form of Socialism.

Yes, the Nazis did hunt down and kill rival Leftists. So did the communists, when the Bolsheviks took control of Russia.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm a Liberal Libertarian...
Apparently...

I’m just a regular Libertarian.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2005 9:09 PM

GREGGALLINSON

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:
the crew of Serenity would have a lot more in common with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush then with LBJ, Jimmy Carter, or any Democratic Senator/Presidential candidate.

Reagan? OK. But I really don't see how or why anyone on Serenity could find a single thing to admire about Dubya. Except maybe Jayne- they share a lot of the same thuggish mentality, and Dubya's almost Jayne's intellectual peer...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 8, 2005 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Maybe.

I see, Mass murder, empire building and anti-Semitism is left wing policy. Sooo, logically whenever these are shown by Right-wing states (even when it's more often than left-wing, like with empire building) it's merely the evil Leftists forcing their evil agenda on the good righteous right-wing. Thanks for clearing that up for me Finn.

Quote:
Karl Marx, were anti-Semites

You have either never actually read Marx, or didn't understand what you read, Finn.
I'll say it now before clarifying. Karl Mark WAS NOT an Anti-Semite.
I believe your mistake in thinking Marx was anti-Semitic is in his responses to his former mentor Bruno Bauer. Bauer's argument was essentially that Christianity was a more enlightened and advanced religion than Judaism. Marx rejected that as Anti-Semitic, and turned Bauer's language, and the rhetoric of anti-Semites, around to produce his own argument.
Marx noticed that Anti-Semitic arguments tend to be fundamentally anti-capitalist, and theorised that anti-Semites scapegoat Jews for capitalism, because they can't attack capitalism directly as non-Jews benefit from it.
Mark explains that he is not referring to real Jews, or to the Jewish religion, but is turning anti-Semitic rhetoric against it self by using 'Judaism' ironically as a metaphor for capitalism. He states that all Europeans in this sense are 'Jewish'.

Quote:
which is consistent with the practices of Left-wing politicians/pundits of extreme socialist states.

You know the funny thing about extreme right-wing and extreme left-wing politics is how similar they are in a lot of ways.

Quote:
Nazism may not have been as far Left as Communism, but it was far Left-enough to be Socialism.

I'll post it again. Yes, Nazism includes Left-Wing aspects, and it includes Right-Wing aspects. It is neither Left-Wing nor Right-Wing (or it is both). But I forget, Evil is left, good is right, yes?

Quote:
If “Totalitarianism is neither left nor right” then how can Communism be a Left-wing totalitarian system, and Fascism be a Right-Wing totalitarian system? You’ve not really thought this through very far, have you?

What are you talking about Finn? If Totalitarianism is neither Left nor Right it can operate within both left and right ideologies. You either didn't understand my post or didn't really think through your reply did you.

I don't think we're going to convince each-other Finn, so maybe we should back off and let the thread get back on-topic.

I will leave with something Interesting that I have noticed, that is worth thinking about. You say earlier on that your a Libertarian, a Right-Wing Ideology, and seem (stressing seem) to want to tar the Left with the brush of Totalitarianism and Dictatorship.
I'm apparently, and I agree really, a Liberal Libertarian, i.e. Left-Right. Not centrist, but believing in both Right-Wing and Left-Wing ideals (not all of them are mutually exclusive

). I see that extreme totalitarian and dictatorships grow from both sides. That there’s good and bad in both Right and Left wing politics. Just a little food for thought really.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
If you are interested in my specific examples please mark the thread with *SPOILER* or we can start a new thread properly marked.

I made it so, sir; please continue.

Chrisisall, still in shock from the BDM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2005 11:31 AM

After reading these and other posts, I have to re-assess my ideas. I don't think the Alliance is evil; I think certain factions of it are, and these factions are not known to all in the Alliance.
The Alliance is big, BIG government. A lot of places to operate secretivly in.
And this might be why they left Miranda w/out cleaning up the evidence, they were working quickly, w/out official Alliance approval all along. (black bag ops, if you will)

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2005 11:47 AM

Personally I thought the BDM was one of the best Films I've seen in a long time, and it's plot holes were far smaller than any film i've seen in years...
But...
Lynch, you make some fantastic points that I wouldn't even begin to want to argue with, cause, you know, I can't.

One thing:

Quote:
Originally posted by Lynchaj:
Second, it takes teamwork, skill, and competence to operate a spaceship or any complex machine. If the Reavers were as insane as they appear, who was operating the Reaver ships? That they are flying implies some sort of functioning Reaver society. I could see them being transported around, but operating capital ships themselves? Hundreds of them? No way.

I heartilly agree, its something I've had in the back of my head since the pilot episode, actually...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:14 PM

I don't see where being insane necessarily rules out functioning on certain technical levels...
Could Hannible Lechter drive a car?

Maybe they're always on the edge- but go full blown nuts only at attacks on their pray -?

Chrisisallsane, he thinks

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:18 PM

A large ship takes team work cooperation. Can insane canibals who tend to like eating people and sewing their skin into their cloths/flesh be capable of that? Insane people may drive a car, but could they work together to operate a spaceship?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Insane people may drive a car, but could they work together to operate a spaceship?

Obviously they can...
or else they keep a few 'untouchable' people slaves to do it for them...

No, I believe insanity and intelligent co-operation are not mutually exclusive, especially when said co-operation can assist in favourably exploring the insane possibilities.

Chrisisallinsane now

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 10, 2005 2:43 AM

SQUALL

Joss isn't trying to demonize any specific type of government, but instead makes the point that any government is inherently wrong that attempts to control its people. Governments are formed to protect their people, not to tell them how to think or how to live.

Squall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 10, 2005 2:53 AM

SQUALL

I agree. While Reagan promoted personal freedom and responsibility, our good friend Dub has the much more Alliance -like attitude of thinking that people can be "improved" through government control.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 10, 2005 8:06 AM

But it does...
There's a difference, in my view, between a psychotic and someone who is insane. Someone who is psychotic believes they have the right/duty to carry out insane acts. They recognise that society believes their acts are wrong, but they don't hold that view. They realise what will happen if they are caught and spend time 'fitting in' ("oh but he was such a lovely young man, kept himself to himself...") and evading capture.

The Reavers kill. They don't rationalise. They kill. They're like a wild animal, but minus the reason. Can you ever imagine a Reaver blending in to society?

The closest parallel to Reavers I can see are the 'zombies' from 28 days later. I have a feeling that that point has already been made, not sure, but, the Zombies from that film were pure anger and rage. They killed. They didn't rationalise (which is something even insane people do...) they just killed. They didn't work together. They didn't attack each other, but they didn't operate together. They certainly showed no ability to operate complex machinery, or any 'society' what so ever. That’s how the Reavers seem to me, from the film, and to a lesser extent the series.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 6:44 AM