Democracy vs Autocracy - which should Star Wars focus on the most

Discussion in 'Literature' started by Jedi-Sith, Jan 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 7
    Well, it's important to know that Modern Communist Parties tend to take great inspiration from Marx and Engeles but a great deal of their work has been influenced by later writers that have added their own particular spins upon the idea. While I approve of Jello's theories by and large, it's a bit like attempting to talk about Catholicism without Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine or the Council of Nicea.
  2. BobaMatt TFN EU Staff

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2002
    star 6
    Given that all parties involved now know the nature of the war, I very much doubt Fel thinks he can still claim those worlds as rightfully his without...well, backlash, to put it mildly. Given his disgust for the Sith and his apparent remorse for being duped, I doubt he'd even want them.
  3. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 7
    Maybe, I like that Fel clearly is very much an Imperial. He's interested in expanding the Empire, is bombastic in personality, and his anger is just barely bubbling beneath the surface along with his ruthlessness. Amongst a Jedi, you can certainly see he'd be swiftly drummed out of the order for having a mass execution of prisoners.

    But he's very liberal...for an Imperial.
  4. BobaMatt TFN EU Staff

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2002
    star 6
    I mean to say that once the Sith are gone and he has to sit down with the GA to figure out how to fix the galaxy, claiming that the worlds he won with Sith help are still his wouldn't win him any friends. I think he's enough of a pragmatist to recognize that those worlds conquered in the Sith-Imperial war aren't rightfully his anymore, now that the truth is out.
  5. Rouge77 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2005
    star 5
    Democracy, of course. These totalitarian regimes now in fashion in EU should always be portrayed negatively in comparison to democratic ones. There could be different degrees of evil among totalitarian regimes, but none should be portrayed as good. The current trend of portraying democratic regimes always negatively and taking every chance to destroy them, and at the same time gushing at tyrants and making excuses for them, and especially letting the Empire endure, should stop.
  6. Rouge77 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2005
    star 5
    There is no GA anymore. There is just one Admiral with a fleet. And there is no reason why Fel "has to sit down with the GA" - aka Stazi - because he could always start his war for galactic domination again. If he would be survive that long, which he hopefully and likely doesn't. And when would those worlds have been "rightfully his" anyway? Never.
  7. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 7
    To be honest, I don't think it would be too out of character for Roan Fel to sit down on the Imperial Throne and saying that since the Galactic Alliance doesn't exist anymore that there's no problem with continuing to preserve the Union that's the result of Krayt's conquests.

    ...For the good of the galaxy, of course.
  8. BobaMatt TFN EU Staff

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2002
    star 6
    He could, but given the resources involved in waging a war on Krayt and the need to restore order quickly after a change of regime, it would be the height of stupidity. What's more, it doesn't look like the galaxy's going to come out from under Krayt's boot unless the Empire and the GA team up again, so it's not likely he's just gonna say, "Thanks for playing, guys, now get off my planet."
    Okay, well then it becomes the Empress' problem.
    He won them.
  9. Rouge77 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2005
    star 5
    Alliance characters? Subordinates to Stazi in #21-22, sure. But others? Whom where? And based on what we have seen, it's hard to deny that DH favours Imps. We have one named GA character in Stazi. He is the only one. And compare this to the sea of different kind of Imps we have seen. Surely you don't expect that we can end up having as many GA characters as Imps and in as important positions?:confused:
  10. Robimus Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 6, 2007
    star 5
    Then he can put Pellaeon's picture back up in the Throne Room, that would be sweet!!!!!! Maybe an artist could do a picture in a future Imperial Guide of Fel standing with Pellaeon's smiling mustache in the back ground[face_laugh]. Yes, welcome to the Robimusverse.
  11. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 7
    Actually, one could make a serious argument that it would be a greater danger to Order to attempt to restore the Galactic Alliance and partition off Imperial territories back into the Galactic Alliance. I'm not saying Roan Fel would but he could make a strong argument that post the fall of Darth Krayt, he could continue to hold onto all territories acquired by the Empire during the Imperial-Sith War.

    The Unification of the Galaxy handled by Krayt but allowing him to rule it more justly.
  12. Rouge77 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2005
    star 5
    Why not? GA consists of the former Core fleet currently. There is no indication that there are any major resistance movements operating in the former GA space to support the fleet. After the Sith defeat, if Stazi's group still survives, it must be greatly diminished in power. It should be out of the question that Stazi could be able to control more than a small part of the former area of GA space with his resources. There would probably be warlords all over the place. So the temptation of conquering it all again would be very likely to rise in the minds of the Fel Imps.

    Doesn't work that way. Conquering planets don't make you their rightful ruler.
  13. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 7
    Doesn't work that way. Conquering planets don't make you their rightful ruler.


    That depends on the terms of the Galactic Alliance's surrender.

    Of course, Roan Fel was desposed but the Surrender seems like it'd be still applicable.
  14. BobaMatt TFN EU Staff

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2002
    star 6
    You're right. In order to be the rightful ruler you also have to keep enough Star Destroyers in orbit to make sure nobody with a more legitimate claim doesn't take it back from you. Once the heat dies down then it's yours.[face_batting]
  15. Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 20, 2003
    star 6
    Star Wars should focus on both, but should be in favor of an effective democracy with a populace which understands the responsibility that they have to exercise to defend and maintain their freedom and liberty. Autocratic governments don't all have to be as twisted as the Empire, but they should never be portrayed as morally superior to a properly functioning democracy.
  16. Jedi-Sith Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2001
    star 3
    Wow, I really did open a hot topic here...

    Ok so to those of you who think that Democracy should always be potrayed in a better light and that all autocratic institutions should be portrayed in an evil, or at least not as good as democracy light.... what do you think of the fact that the Jedi Order, who I think most people would agree with me in saying that it represents the epitomy of good in the Star Wars mythos... is at its heart not democratic?
  17. Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 20, 2003
    star 6
    I think the Jedi are an exception as they're not serving their own desires but the Will of the Force.
  18. Jedi-Sith Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2001
    star 3
    Ahh but one could easily argue that monarchs are serving the people, not themselves....

    sure there are evil monarchs like Palpatine that don't, but even the Jedi have the equivalent to that -- the Sith.
  19. Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 20, 2003
    star 6
    True, but the Jedi also are ideally not the ruling class in the way kings/emperors are.
  20. Robimus Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 6, 2007
    star 5
    I would simply say the Jedi are wise, but I'm not onboard with the whole Democracy=goodness idea. Democracy is as "good" as the elected officials who govern it. It can be used for evil, if an evil being holds sway. Just as Palpatine did.
    While we can certainly say that our real world democracy's have given us an excellent quality of life, they have also caused some strife around the world with less than noble intentions.:)
  21. Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 20, 2003
    star 6
    Very true, and that's why I think ideally we'd have the Republic as a noble and properly functioning democracy with another entity(corporate sector) showing how incredibly flawed and dangerous a broken democracy can be.
  22. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 7
    I don't see how the Jedi Knighthood's status as a religious order should apply to questioning whether Democracy and Republicanism should be shown as preferable to other institutions. The Jedi High Council seems to be chosen from within the College of Cardinals equivalent mixed with a version of popular acclaim. We honestly don't seem to know how they are selected other than it seems to be done from within the Council itself mixed with the general approval of the Jedi Order (assuming the original Conclaves were any indication).

    I suppose a real question would be, were the Jedi Order to take over a government by virtue of their nobility would it be good. I.e. Brand and his monarchy.

    I actually think Brand fell from the Jedi way through this act.
  23. Robimus Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 6, 2007
    star 5
    But if a Jedi was put in charge of a nation I really don't think it would be a bad thing................
  24. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 7
    Well, the Jedi had some Supreme Chancellors and we've also seen Princess Leia.

    However, the Jedi seem to make it a point to shy away from positions of rulership. I think this is a good idea as they want to reinforce amongst their followers that they are servants rather than Masters of the Galaxy. It's very easy for them to believe they're entitled to more and all of the heavy emphasis the Jedi have on aestheticism is to help them move away things that might distract them from the Light Side or open up paths to the Dark Side.

    Plus, I think the Jedi also tend to feel that their Force Powers don't necessarilly make them good rulers.
  25. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    C19:
    In the case of Emperor Palpatine and his Empire, the depiction is decidedly of doing his best to wipe away local culture and ideas for his ideal of Imperialism. An independent society that overwhelms all existing societies and replaces them.


    That would seem to contradict the notion of the "model Imperial world" being "cosmopolitan," wouldn't it? ;)

    You have the Chinese Imperial system, for example, where the Bureaucracy is of incredible importance and the Emperor's role can range from important to almost completely ceremonial.

    By contrast, you have the joke of the Sun King of France where the nobility was drastically depowered for the role of the King.

    While an Emperor will never meet with the average member of his subjects, the will of the Emperor and what is expected can echo through the entirety of the Empire.


    That's precisely what I meant by the term mandarinate: it's inarguable that the Imperial bureaucracy did the majority of the governing. They were the ones that all the moffs reported to, and the moffs ruled colonial space.

    Robimus:
    I guess its the use of the word destroy that I really take issue with. The broad usage of saying Communism is trying to destroy the state is untrue, change the state yes, control the state yes, but not destroy it. Certainly the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is not getting a large percentage of the vote because Russians feel the country will be destroyed if they get elected?


    I'd caution you against saying anything is untrue unless you've had the necessary education on the matter to say so.

    You should not conflate country with state. Similarly, you should not think that the Russian Communist Party has anything more to do with Communism as the Democratic Republic of the Congo has to do with democracy or republicanism.

    A communist society wishes to destroy the apparatus of the state in order to provide for an ultimately class-less society consisting entirely of the proletariat. In order to do so, they typically must seize control of these state mechanisms in order to make the revolution they seek to.

    The Russian communist party, on the other hand, seeks to re√ɬęstablish the Politburo and the premiership. It is not a revolutionary or ideological movement at all, but one seeked to revive what is by now the old guard.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.