Not really. He comes to realize that being a benevolent, competent Emperor won’t help in restoring the Republic. That’s why he starts to rule badly, ignore his son Britannicus, and appoints his son/great-nephew Nero as his heir. He wanted Rome to see again how bad a really bad Emperor can be, and he wanted Britannicus to restore the Republic.
Uh-huh. :rolleyes:
S.M. Stirling’s Conquistador is pro-feudalism, as is some of his Dies the Fire Series.
I would disagree. Neo-feudalism is presented as being the natural outgrowth of the type of societies that formed for survival immediately after The Event, with Corvallis being the notable exception.
How the heck is “Dies the Fire” pro-feudalism? You think Stirling approved of the neofeudal Protectorate? Feudalism is clearly portrayed as horrific for 99% of the population, and pretty good but not great for the other 1%, at least until a tougher aristocrat cuts your throat.
I think Algher may have been commenting on The Bearkillers and Clan Mackenzie (esp. since he qualified his opinion), which are a form of neo-feudalism.
Thinking it over, he (Algher) may be more right than I initially thought; it was the horror of the Portland Protective Association that formed strong antipodes at places like Mt. Angel, The Bearkillers, Clan Mackenzie, C.O.R.A., and the Rangers.
Again, though, the forms of government and societal structures in the emberverse are the results of a combination of the results of the A.S.B.'s and how pushy/grabby your neighbors are. I don’t think Stirling was advocating neo-feudalism as an optimal form of government where technology (or, in the case of Corvallis, circumstances) allows for viable alternatives
Larry Niven’s ARM is presented as “a solution” to war-like humans, at least until giant war-like cat aliens pop up to threaten “The Golden Age.”
In his novel Citizen of the Galaxy, Heinlein’s Free Traders could be described as a totalitarian society. A visiting sociologist who has studied them tells the young hero that the Free Traders have sacrificed individual liberty in order to preserve themselves as a society, but don’t seem to realize the trade-off. That society is portrayed as one with a great deal of wealth (the Traders seem to eat pretty well) and one in which most of the members appear to be at least as happy as modern Americans.
And in the book government service didn’t automatically equal military service. So you didn’t have to serve in the military to vote; you could work in diaster relief or teach schoolchildren on some distant colony.
You had to sign up, and take whatever job they gave you. Whatever job it was, it was going to be difficult and dangerous, and easy to quit, so you felt you had earned your franchise. So unless they were really, really tough schoolkids, I don’t think your last example would qualify.
Yes, but Algher is correct in that Conquistador *did *advocate a feudal system. Well, maybe “advocate” is too strong a word. But the world on the other side was very feudal, and it seemed to work.
Well, maybe I’m not saying it’s impossible, but do you have a specific counterexample (and yes, what we mean by ‘glorifies’ will be the sticking point, but I’m still interested in examples).
But I stand by my main point, which is that nobody wants to admit their favorite movie is ‘totalitarian’ because ‘totalitarian’ or ‘dictatorship’ is a dirty word that we all agree is bad, m’kay? But totalitarianism doesn’t happen because people want to give power to someone saying ‘Let me be your totalitarian, opppressive leader!’ Totalitarianism happens because people want ‘security’, ‘strong leadership’, ‘national pride and respect’, ‘someone who can do what needs to be done to be tough on crime’, ‘someone who will stand up to the Carthaginians (Nazis, communists, trade-unionists, terrorists, drug-pushers, etc.)’. And so movies that advocate for strong personal eadership (not stupid beauracractic laws), being tough on criminals, a powerful military, etc. are implicity advocating moving towards totalitarianism.
And, again, I’m not saying that an exception is impossible, but you got to admit every military I know of is by its nature a pretty totalitarian organization. So at a minimum, it’s going to be difficult to glorify it without glorifying totalitarianism. But as I said, I’m eager to hear of examples that don’t.
By that logic, movies that show families with young kids glorify totalitarianism too. After all, there’s no absolute dictators like parents. They tell their subjects what to eat, what clothes to wear, what TV shows to watch, when to go to bed. Stalin had nothing on us.
I think you’re applying the term totalitarian too broadly. You can argue that militaries are by their nature authoritarian, but true totalitarianism is much more insidious and goes much further than mere authoritarianism. Authoritarianism demands discipline and obedience, totalitarianism demands total control of every aspect of the citizens mind and life, and that all aspects of society conform in every way to the political ideology.
How about most of the officially-approved novels published by Soviet writers in the USSR?
There’s a bizarre 1933 film called Gabriel Over the White House in which the president of the U.S. (Walter Huston) suffers a head injury and begins hearing the voice of an angel, under whose guidance the presidency becomes a benign liberal dictatorship which fixes all existing problems. Fascinating exercise in liberal fantasy unmatched until West Wing came along.
(Don’t get me wrong; I’m a hard-left liberal. But I still think trusting that kind of authority to a single person–no matter how well intentioned he starts out–is a bad, bad idea, and works ONLY in speculative fiction. Like libertarianism.)
True enough. But in Conquistador, there’s no real competition to The Families on “Other Side.” They had the guns and organization to set things up their own way, with no competing cultures to force them to modify their choices. The main characters even admitted openly to certain limitations inherent in their system, and that they were content with these limitations.
The only practical limitations they had on their desires was what was practical to get through the Gate w/o raising suspicions over here “first side.”
Speaking of SM Stirling he has advocated the nuking of Muslims and their genocide. It was on the website Alternate History Discussion Board.
Cite?
It was a post on that board but I get banned from the board and it’s on a section for members only. 