9 ms·
There's a lot of quaint cherry-picking of evidence going on in these arguments which is really cheesing me off, but I want to highlight the importance of what I
by astazangasta 11y ago
There's a lot of quaint cherry-picking of evidence going on in these arguments which is really cheesing me off, but I want to highlight the importance of what I think is the fundamental issue, what is always the fundamental issue: what we're fighting for.
I think some of these parallels are correct: we can compare Luke Skywalker to a terrorist and the Galactic Empire to (presumably) the US. Why does this comparison work? Because the US IS a fucking evil empire, and there IS genuine outrage and injustice to be fought. The drone campaign is not mere "justification" for terrorists to use to fight their battles, it is an actual injustice, as was the invasion of Iraq, its starvation before that, the ongoing bombing of Yemen, the support of autocrats who oppress ordinary people for decades, etc., etc.
This is not mere "recruiting material", this is stuff worth fighting over. The reason people revere Osama bin Laden as a hero is because he is fighting the dark power that has oppressed them - literally, with bombs and guns - for a generation.
No doubt people will find this comparison uncomfortable, while the inverse tee-heeing over the Empire is amusing.
Let's remember what's being fought for: a democracy versus an autocracy based on raw power. The Empire, after all, rules through fear, mediated by an army of storm troopers, and replaced a democratic government that responded to its constituents with the rule of one man.
This is closely modeled on the actual events in Rome, where a thousand(ish) years of Republic, with genuine democratic struggle for the rights of ordinary people an ongoing feature for most of its history (Brutus deposing the kings, the Gracchi becoming the first tribunes) devolved into an Empire ruled by pure thuggery, men like Caesar and Crassus who used their enormous wealth and influence to amass enough personal power to simply take control of the state.
There WAS a rebel who fought against the advent of this Empire to preserve a Republic, who died hunted down and killed by the army of the first emperor - Brutus. We might also call him a terrorist for his attempted assassination of Caesar. But in the balance we must judge these men - all men - who exercise brutality on what they are fighting for. What is the order they are seeking to preserve or rebuild? What are its principles? This is the distinction that matters.
- devinhelton 11y agoLet's remember what's being fought for: a democracy versus an autocracy based on raw power...replaced a democratic government that responded to its constituents with the rule of one man. Except that is an unbelievably naive way of looking at the world. Popular power is always limited, even in a "democracy", thanks to the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Most people are too busy living their own lives to understand how the levers of power actually operate, or to understand the complicated ways in which they are getting screwed. And even when they do participate in politics, people are usually whipped into a frenzy based on envy, fear, and bigotry. Correspondingly, autocracy does not automatically mean "bad". Many powerful leaders actually did bring order to their realms, and allow people to live decent lives, free from internal strife. See Augustus, or the four good emperors of Rome. And often removing a strong ruler simply brings the realm into chaos. See the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the aftermath in Iraq and Libya. Or look at what happened after Brutus killed Caesar -- there were twenty more years of civil war until once again someone could win definitively. I wrote much more in depth on this topic here: http://devinhelton.com/2015/08/dictatorship-and-democracy http://devinhelton.com/2015/08/dictatorship-and-democracy
- astazangasta 11y agoI'm not arguing for "democracy", I'm arguing for democracy - the extension of popular power, which, I agree, must be preserved through constant action against ossification and entrenchment of power (viz. the current American "democracy"). I'm also not arguing for the replacement of autocracy with nothing. Caesar was the product of years of devolution of the Roman Republic, the corruption and decay of its democratic institutions in the face of military power, wealth, and slavery. His removal could not produce democracy merely by its absence. What I find most interesting in this Star Wars argument is this lack of faith in democratic power and the seeming resignation to autocracy that seems to be generally present. These are all things that are happening now, to our own democracy. I find this lack of faith disturbing.