Re: In today's news...
Prepare for a Tl;Dr wall. Found my soapbox and this time, rather then flailing an opinion around, gonna flail an opinion around and hopefully give everyone something to think on based on My personal understanding of several historical figures and my understanding of military history and warfare.
So now we go back to the beginning. And while there are a lot of cultures we can all look at even older then this one, lets go back to Troy. And only for two little tidbits!
Troy is famous for what exactly? Not the culture, but the city itself. Big fucking walls. REALLY big fucking walls. And a horse, but fuck the horse, I'll bring the horse up later! Shortly after the fall of troy, something very interesting happens. Inpenetrable walls become by popular monarch decision, illegal. And that brings me to my first point, that even the oldest cultures in history understood something. Conflict is inevitable and that drawing it out is detrimental.
While some argue that the walls coming down is an indicator of many things, I turn my eye to just one. After the long seige that was Troy, Helen, Paris, and Achilles, Sieges were universally discouraged because of the suffering that any protracted siege causes. A siege is essentially a way to cause your enemy to submit through attrition, letting nature and the way that human society congregates dishearten, starve, or outright kill your enemy, and it's made possible through the counteruse of large stationary defenses and ultimately plays out thusly. The aggressor either breaks your defenses, or starves you out and wins, Or, the aggressor starves out first and gives up. Turtles. Fucking turtles man. And a society as old as Greece figured out this was bad. Which brings me to my overall point that many will not agree with, but that I urge you to at least think on. Stability is ultimately the result of resolved conflict.
In this I do not mean that this holds purely to warfare, but any conflict, from a simply discussion or argument, straight to a Crusade of Templar levels of stupidity. So here we come to those leaders who seemed not to give a fuck about any individuals levels of freedom or well being, but to their overall functionality to the organism that is a society. And this, while frowned upon individually, when pressed upon an entire culture, is ultimately seen as beneficial. It's the study and art of Ruling, and while others have tried to find a way in which a society exists without the rule of an individual or a group of individuals, that in some way, that group is necessary to make decisions based on their own interpretation of the information presented to them by either A: the masses, or B: the current world situation they currently face, or even in the case of some real monsters in history C: their own prejudices.
A will represent Democracy, Republics, and other corruption sensitive but essentially effective working government models, B represents Monarchy, Feudalism, and any other Archys, and C represents hitler cos fuck hitler. However, if you look closely, you will see the application of A, B, and C in every single functioning government back to the begginning of society as a whole. yes this speech here may be filled with some typos, I haven't had my coffee yet and my fingers are flying. Forgive me.
So we move on from Greece and Troy, seeing the end of Siege walls for a time, and move only slightly forward to Greece and Sparta. Sparta is as everyone knows, a warlike state created on military discipline and influence all religious mumbo jumbo aside, and as a government, functions solely not for the benefit of the individual , but for the state of Sparta as a whole. One Body not caring overmuch for the comfort of any individual piece, but for the survival of the whole. Various rulers of Sparta aside, this view clashes with the Fathers of Democracy harshly.
And again there is conflict between the two until there is a clear victor. Only there are no walls this time, and the conflict enters open warfare rather then war by attrition. This is not a bad thing. Studying the horrors of siege warfare, I'd rather have a fucking series of battles. Again, once more the dust settles, the victors write their best version of history, facts are lost, others are invented, but stability returns to the area as Sparta made short work of invading forces (More or Less) And then the two powers in the region clashed until only one remained.
We jump forward horrifically to Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, And Winston. While the great wars had many prominent heads, these are the ones we remember the most in the USA, not our own, but rather those that spearheaded the entire series of wars in that area. The first conflicts on a global stage. I will not get into Marx overly much himself, but instead into communism. And the Definition thereof as it exists Now, not then. "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
While it's easy to take only a single line from this definition as many do, or to horribly misinterpret it, lets focus on one that is widely ignored by many. "Advocating Class war and leading to a society in which all property is publically owned"
The definition of Communism points to this conflict as being necessary. You cannot have the end result without this conflict of the classes. It's a large reshuffle of the community status until balance is achieved and where stabilization and communal benefit is created only after the dust has settled. here's the thing though. Who decides ultimately who deserves what in this scenario? There is no figurehead or leader pointed out here, which is a stable of any functioning government body that we know of right now. But it is implied that the end of the class war would lead to one class standing over the others as a deadlock only creates more conflict or carries on the conflict itself indefinitely. (Fucking Trojan walls man, I swear). As I pointed out earlier, Siege is bad. And Political Siege is worse. but at some point in communism one thing has to happen, there has to be a clear winner and a group of losers in the conflict to stabilize the location and position of those classes to dictate the distribution of public wealth based on need and situation. stability through resolution of conflict AND the avoidance of further conflict by public ownership and decided contributional ability.
Enter Feudalism. While Feudalism has some serious drawbacks, it has some serious benefits to it as well, and once more we see a conflict of the classes to dictate each groups standing and the distribution of wealth through the end result of that conflict. But the overall message is the same. Conflict eventually creates that stability and there are winners and losers based on the look of the classes at the end. While many believe this conflict to be cyclical and it certainly looks that way in many cases as conflicts arise and are resolved, it's more linear then cyclical. What I mean here is this. As the dust settles and the classes are established, their ability to rule and thrive is dictated by the layers of those classes below it, which all demand one thing, that the leaders of the classes make the best decisions not for the body as a whole in the end, that's already expected, but to hold their championship belt as it currently stands.
In many cases this continues for quite some time, not as a cycle, but more a general testing of the waters as a country grows and pushes not like the tides, but as a rising crest that follows no clear distinct pattern outside a running standard of the health of the country as a whole, and the other classes understanding of the current leaders to do what they're supposed to, lead.
I'm not going to get into the fucking mess that is democracy and republics overmuch =.= And that's because of another force here called corruption that is too opinion heavy for me to properly argue, and in that I recognize my faults as a debater and ask for forgiveness. What I will say is this. I personally believe that the idea of democracy is a poor decision as a whole because the conflict that creates stability is never ultimately decided, and in this case, where Feudalistic conflict is linear, Democracy's is Cyclical. At least in the model used by the current united states of america holding timed elections every year to (Hopefully) bring out the best leader based on popular decision. Chew on that as a mental exercise and draw your own conclusions on it's efficacy.
So we have the above government models, the evidence of siege as a poor option for conflict, and my views on conflict and stability to work on. And we look at the viewpoints and seeming methodology of the above mentioned world leaders of their time in the above posts and their regard for the personal well being of any individual person.
And I come away with this, and wonder if others do as well. Should we expect realistically for a country or society leader to care how well those of the bottom class do for themselves, or instead focus on their efficacy as tools to drive the basics of our society. And I think it's the latter. While it would certainly be nice to realistically accomadate everyone in that eutopian dream where everyone lives comfortably and with stability, I think it's a logical trap and that instead, the ultimate question here should not be judged on an individual level but rather since we're looking at leaders here, judged based on the overall health of their respective cultures.
While many countries certainly have some dark in their history, and ultimately many of the standing ones currently have a shitload, the current world frontrunners are China, Russia, the US, and Western Europe. This was the end result of all their internal conflicts, and several external ones and an unhappy balance has been struck. But those conflicts were resolved by the choices and viewpoints of their leaders through history, many of whom did not, or could not care about an individual's well being over the well being of their civilization. While Russia's history can be taken aside her for a moment while we look entirely at their leaders. We can look at their overall status as a country right now, and that's as a superpower with the others on equal or comparable footing with those others and the lack of aggression on any one groups part for fear of retribution from the others. This is an unhappy balance but I hope you get the idea.
Which is this.
Because those leaders didn't give a flying whoopty fuck about any one person, they focused instead on resolving the conflicts present as best they could with a universal end result. Control. And to a degree, they achieved this and can only be looked at based on the criteria above as successful leaders, not based on the happiness or standard of living of the masses, but based instead on their world standing as the current superpowers of the planet. I never expect a leader to have my best interests personally at heart, but if I work to support one, it's because I believe the overall result in the end will benefit the organism that is society somehow as a whole. And while it seems like my example beforehand concerning troy's walls is unrelated, let me come full circle to my point in bringing it out at the very beginning.
Throughout history, there have been several far longer running conflicts then the world wars, universally agreed on to be the worst ever based on the loss of life involved. But I assure you, had the leaders at the time not all agreed after the fall of troy, that long, drawn out siege like conflicts were a bad fucking idea, then those wars could very well have dragged on for 30-40-50 years. Imagine the horror that was The Great War, or The Great War the Hitler strikes back could have been in such a case.
As conflicts rise, it is accepted that ending it swiftly and decisively is better for every single party involved. Enter Nuclear arms. Where the swift and decisive is turned to 11. And once more every other leader on the planet goes.... "These are a bad idea." But where we had walls and ways to eventually tear them down. Defense against Nuclear threat revolves around controlling the materials necessary to creating that threat. If these were walls? We'd see trade restrictions on big fucking rocks. Instead of little glowing ones.
Enter the cold war and the nuclear arms rise. Once more another conflict where stability is dependent on the resolution of that conflict before we burn the entire planet. And we get siege warfare once more. An arms race, and a lot of cloak and dagger rather then food and water being the primary weapons of choice. Restriction and Control of nuclear material becomes (And stays) paramount until the conflict is finally resolved to a degree, and not perfectly. So we look at the end result. We wind up with several decisions made by world leaders that this cannot continue in the same manner, and that the current World leaders have to somehow enforce the control of nuclear material. We can go straight back to a parallel with troy here, where after walls were outlawed, the countries currently in control who had decided this enforced it religiously. We do the same today, and once more we look at our leaders current goals and level of compassion for the common man.
And in this case? it's nonexistant outside the common mans immediate survival. Because in the end, and I hate to say this, the common man is a tool, a cog, a gear in the machine that countries have become to keep them working and running, not for the benefit of any one person, but for the country itself as a whole. Does it suck to be a cog? You bet your sweet ass it does. But look at that situation you may be in and say. Huh.... I am necessary in a way the upper classes are not, while the upper classes are necessary to keep my usefulness intelligently controlled an peaked.
You see that when that usefulness is not properly controlled, handled, or outright abused, more conflict arises, the dust settles, and stability is found again for a time. I do not want my leaders to care about me in the end. What I want is stability that will allow me to live out my years and those of my family in relative safety and comfort. And if I decide I cannot trust my leaders to do that, then I find a new leader. Currently? If I was entirely honest, I dislike the democratic system because of it's cyclical conflicting nature. But I also find that for my daughter rather then my own comfort, it has benefits. I am not fit to rule, I never will be. I can be headstrong, selfish, and downright stupid at times. So I accept this and instead look ahead at what the situation will be for my daughter by judging the health of the organism as a whole and making a decision. Currently, and in the foreseeable future? I've decided ultimately that my current leaders give my daughter the best shot without ever once caring overly much for her well being. And thus I'm still in the USA.
Some of this is relavent to In Today's News. Some of it is not. But if it made you think, re-evaluate some things, or even just entertained you by providing you with a logical little puzzle to chew on, then I've achieved my ultimate goal in writing all this, and fervently wish everyone here the best of luck in their future endeavors. History can teach us many things. So maybe you can take a tiny lesson from the above writings.
If you're at work, or just in your life, and there is a conflict, maybe an argument, maybe a fight, maybe just a rival for a promotion. If your gut instinct is to wait it out, think back on history and realize that while it may ultimately succeed (More on luck then anything) That a decisive victory should instead be steered for, not only for your benefit, but that of the other party as well. If you want that promotion? Fight for it tooth and nail, if you find yourself in an argument? end it quickly and decisively, even if that decision in the end is simply to bow out, admit defeat, or even crush your opponent logically if it is within your grasp. here's hoping things go your way.
-Courage Wolf.
P.S. That Horse I said I'd come back to? Decisive strategy to bring about the fall of troy. only purpose it served.