Late to the Sith Contrarian Ball
Julian Sanchez | May 22, 2005, 11:16pm
With Tyler Cowen already having made the case against those unaccountable Jedi and (no big surprise here) Jonathan Last offering a defense of Empire on behalf of the Weekly Standard, you'd think the territory here had been sufficiently mined. But I want to toss out something that's been puzzling me since I saw the wretched Attack of the Clones: Are the Republic and the Jedi on the right side of the war? Or, put another way: Why are the Separatists wrong?
Now, we all know the nasty Sith are behind the Separatist movement that launches the war. On the other hand, we also know that their purpose in doing this is to provoke a response from the Republic. And presumably most of the worlds attempting to split off have reasons of their own for wanting to do so, Sith machinations notwithstanding. So what I find myself wondering is, why shouldn't they just let this original "rebel alliance"—the Confederacy of Independent Systems—go their merry way? Far from the Confederacy in this case condoning slavery, it seems to be the worlds of the Republic that are satisfied to at least countenance it. And here's what the official site says about their motives:
Despite rosy recollections of a greater past, the Republic succumbed into undeniable decay. Its cumbersome bureaucracy slowed down any attempts at reform, and too many of its constituents had grown corrupt and complacent to enact any change. A feeling of disenfranchisement grew in the galaxy, particularly in outlying systems where heavy taxation was not balanced by improved services.[...]Count Dooku courted the massive engines of commerce in the galaxy[...]with promises of reform and unyielding devotion to capitalism.
And here's something from the
shooting script for Episode II, cut from the final version unless (as is wholly possible) I just nodded out:
COUNT DOOKU: As I explained to you earlier, I'm quite convinced that ten thousand more systems will rally to our cause with your support, gentlemen. And let me remind you of our absolute commitment to capitalism... of the lower taxes, the reduced tariffs, and the eventual abolition of all trade barriers. Signing this treaty will bring you profits beyond your wildest imagination. What we are proposing is completely free trade.
Now, that sounds fine and dandy to me. But even if other worlds aren't down with the program, what justifies forcibly preventing secession? Are we supposed to believe there are some sort of pan-galactic public goods that the republic provides, such that
whole star systems are effectively non-excludable? It's pretty much stipulated that many of the outer planets are effectively exploited by the central government. What if they'd just let them go?
quasibill | May 23, 2005, 8:21am | #
First - I'm a SW geek (mostly because my wife is) - I've seen it twice now, including the midnight Wednesday showing.
That said, am I the only one who gets libertarian friendly vibes from the whole story (all 6 episodes)? In response to this article, Dooku's promise of free trade to Newt and Lott Dodd (another subtle naming) appears to me to allude to something slightly different. Namely, these "small government, free traders" are lured to support a certain politician, who ultimately betrays them when he gains power.
Then, you have a smuggler and a black market miner being heroes in the first trilogy.
Padme notes that democracy is no guarantee of liberty - "so this is how liberty ends, to thuderous applause".
The Jedi are no gods, and in fact corrupt themselves by taking sides in a civil war. Furthermore, the 'classical' Jedi are adamant that Luke must kill Vader. Luke, ignoring their counsel, treats Vader as an individual and accomplishes something that he probably couldn't have done had he followed Obi-Wan and Yoda's advice.
The fact that in order for the Force to be a good thing, those wielding it must be altruistic. Of course, this ultimately fails in Sith.
Finally (for now) - Anakin's fall is due to his desire to control all risk. In order to prevent the risk to Padme's life, he makes a deal with the devil. All the people he kills from then on are just "collateral damage" - he doesn't necessarily want to kill them, it is just a necessary step to saving Padme. (as a side note, another sci-fi vehicle about this subject is Will Smith's suprisingly good "I, Robot").
rich | May 23, 2005, 12:23pm | #
Ah yes - yet another thread where people miss the point of Godwin's Law altogether (the mention of Nazism isn't the issue as much as the fact that, once it rears its head, meaningful discussion disintegrates as the relevance of the Nazi reference becomes the focal point) and thus fulfill it's prophecy.
And speaking of prophecies (how's THAT for a segue?) -
The Sith cannot be read as either pro- or anti-capitalist because they play both sides against the middle. Darth Sidious engineers the blockade of Naboo so that alterego Palpatine can use the suffering of the Naboo abos (that being Imperial slang for a world's indiginous population) to promote his own agenda and get himself elected Chancellor. The Sith then foment seeds of secession among worlds left disenfranchised by the decadance and decay of the Republic (which, to be fair, doesn't sound like it takes much work - really all the Sith need to do are to appoint a figurehead leader ala Dooku). At this point, the Secessionists have a massive army in the form of the droids donated by the Techno Union, the Intergalactic Banking Clan, and the Trade Federation. The secession may well have been peaceful if the Republic had been unable to muster an army, an act which several senators were actively opposed to. However, that doesn't serve the Sith ends, so they manufacture an army out of the ether for the Republic (The dead jedi master who ordered the clone army, it is revealed in the extended universe literature, is another puppet of Palpatine's) so that they can start a war. In the chaos of war, it becomes easy for Palpatine to plant rumors of a Jedi uprising, so that when order 66 is executed there is little to no outcry among the new Imperial subjects - the few who do cry out, one would suppose, go on to form the Rebel terrorist faction that ultimately takes down Palpatine some 25ish years later.
Of course, the ultimate goal of the Sith is unilateral dictatorial control of the entire Galaxy, which sort of by definition quashes free trade. In other words, it's evil for the seperatists to secede over trade disputes, but it's also evil to control all trade from an Imperial standpoint.
Or more succinctly: the Sith are on no side but their own, and Lucas' limited mythology doesn't have room to support an ideology elivating either capitalism or communism.
Not a Geek! | May 23, 2005, 3:07pm | #
Rich provided more background behind what I said before. If you look carefully in II, you can see how some people are perplexed by how quickly the Republic managed to muster a huge Clone army with which to battle the Droids of the separatists (answer: Darth Sidious had already arranged to have the army created in anticipation that he could force the Republic to want such an army with which to fight the separatists, while likewise putting him in control over it all). This further clarifies the overall point: Darth Sidious is behind BOTH sides of the conflict, and has engineered it to give himself ultimate power in the end. Once he has achieved that power, he wipes out the losing side (the separatists) and reaps his reward.
The most interesting part of this overall plot came in II when Count Dooku confronts the captured Obi-Wan. Count Dooku tries to convince Obi-Wan to join the separatists by telling him that a Sith Lord is in control of the Senate. This is, as we know, TRUE! The only reason Obi-Wan does not change sides is because he flatly chooses not to believe Count Dooku. But why would Darth Sidious, who controlled Count Dooku, bother making this offer, or divulge that information? What if Obi-Wan in fact DID believe Count Dooku and switched sides? I'm still not sure.
One thing Rich said that I'd like to discuss a little more:
"Of course, the ultimate goal of the Sith is unilateral dictatorial control of the entire Galaxy, which sort of by definition quashes free trade. In other words, it's evil for the seperatists to secede over trade disputes, but it's also evil to control all trade from an Imperial standpoint."
It's not quite clear how anti-trade the Sith would be. The Empire does try to crack down on smugglers (like Han Solo), but mostly its efforts are directed against squashing the Rebels. If you help in that cause, the Empire is willing to give you a pretty free ride, as the cloud city in V got after Lando turned over Han and company.
Of course, this is just a series of movies. We can't expect Lucas to go into much intelligent detail about these things. But it is an open question as to whether things were better, trade-wise, under the bloated Republic. Certainly the Trade Federation had a problem with the Republic--enough so to be willing to go to war over it. This seems to confirm that Lucas isn't really about the economic aspects of things. It's about The Force, man. Good and bad. Right and wrong. There's none of that in Lucas' economics. But seeing Yoda catch a ride with Stormtroopers in II makes you realize that even Lucas' conception of good and bad is subject to change.
gaius marius | May 23, 2005, 4:19pm | #
I fail to see what's so bad about artists.
lol -- artists are fine, mr thoreau. i like all the ones i know.
but what is the purpose of the artist? to explore the other -- to challenge the accepted, to seek new expressions, to reinterpret the world based on no law but their vision.
in a healthy intellectual society, great art is critically rejected, denounced by the philistines and the artist's life is made difficult. most see meaning and value in their cultural existence, and so defend it.
in our society, everyone is an artist and no art can be criticized because all of it is "personal expression". the only thing universally undefended is tradition -- everyone is looking for a way to blow up the existing order and induce shock, and everyone jumps on the most likely bandwagon to do just that at the slightest provocation.
artists in the former society struggle to bring change and meet acceptance only later, often posthumously, after much collective reflection and consideration, as an interesting and influential commentary on extant society.
"artist" ceases even to be a meaningful moniker in the latter antisociety. i'm an artist if i go shoot some photos and hang them up -- doesn't matter what they are, i can imply inward reflection. how abut a
giant silver jelly bean? or
sundaes? it's art because it breaks rules! it's a statement of my inner being and therefore it's important! it's the and you're supposed to accept it as serious on those grounds.
the implication is that blasting social convention and manifesting the individual IS art -- when in fact its the death of art, certainly the death of art's role as a mirror of society and meaningful commentary thereof.
artists aren't bad, then; too many artists and no critics or establishment, however, is bad.
