What are the Alliance ?
POSTED BY: FarscapePKWars
UPDATED: Thursday, December 1, 2005 08:58
VIEWED: 10185
PAGE 2 of 3
I'd also argue that Persephone is far from the Core; while not the most backward planet, there seems to be only one city of prestige.
Also easy parallels such as The Alliance= the US, Independants= The Confederacy, Reavers= "Wild Injuns" are all misleading to a degree. There are some might fine points made above.
History repeats the old conceits
http://topshelftvshow.com
Updated! Improved! Shiny!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FarscapePKWars:
But what are the Alliance really about, sometimes it looks as if they are not too bad, they are a bit mean but other people within seem to live comfortable lives like Simon/River's family did.
Do they?
If you remember the episode "Safe" when we see flashbacks of Simon telling his parents about something being wrong w/ River at the Academy, the blow it off. When he tries to reason w/ them by citing examples of the code they brush off his concern as separation anxiety.
Later we see Simon being bailed out of an Alliance jail by his father. When Simon tells his father that River is in danger and he intends to go back to a restricted zone his father tries to stop him. There seems to be no concern for River at all, in fact Simon's father seems more concerned over his reputation being damaged by Simon's actions or losing his social status. Simon's father struck me as caring more for steering clear of trouble w/ the authorities than his child.
Quote:
Other times the Alliance look like a regime of conquest maybe a little like those giant Spanish/European ships that went to S.America for exploration and colonisation. However the Alliance sometimes look very bad, like a scary Totalitarian Nazi leadership, Alliance have little forgiveness and understanding.But are things better in other worlds, more democratic... at the same time in other episodes they don't look so brutal, are they Soviets or Imperial-Capitalists, is hierarchy important ?
Well, I would say that they are certainly interested in holding onto everything they have as evidenced by the Unifaction War. I am certain that expansion is definitely a possibility too if they are look most governments/empires.
Are they a heartless group? We see plenty of evidence that they can be. In "Safe" they refuse to help Book until they see his ident card, only then do they get him medical help. If not for Book being conscious to show his ident card they would have let him bleed to death. In "Bushwhacked" we see the commander take the freight away from the crew even after they save his sorry butt. There are lots of instances where the Alliance shows disinterest or downright contempt for their citizens, but surely not all of them are like that.
__________________________________________
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It always seemed clear to me that the Rim planets are like third-world countries in our world today, and the Core planets are the wealthy, Western countries. I'm not sure I can back that up with specific quotes; I guess I just kind of assumed. It seems to fit, though. According to this model, there are probably unequal trade deals between Core and Rim; Core multinationals - I mean multiplanetaries - like Blue Sun use raw goods and cheap unskilled (slave?) labour on the Rim at monopoly prices and flood the Rim markets with cheap goods to keep Rim industry from developing. And there are probably high tariffs when bringing finished Rim goods into the core if you're a Rim-owned company (and perhaps between Rim planets too, at least for cattle anyway) but Rim planets are powerless to keep Core products out of their markets because then the Core planets would cut them off from things that they need and depend on the Core for (products they don't have the technology/skills to produce themselves). Thes would mean that the Independents were probably fighting, in economic terms, for the power to determine their own separate trade policies, and less of the cultural integration with the Core, and maybe old deals with the Core to be repealed - perhaps the Alliance claims Rim planets owe the core for the cost of terraforming and colonisation?
Oh, and there's probably been a pretty horrendous gap between haves and have-nots on the Core worlds, too - which is where all those hapless Rim colonizers came from in the first place (though that goes more to 19th Cent. Britain and colonies like Australia).
Quote:
Originally posted by FarscapePKWars:
But what are the Alliance really about, sometimes it looks as if they are not too bad, they are a bit mean but other people within seem to live comfortable lives like Simon/River's family did.
The Tam family are the elite, the upper-middle-class; no titles, but a long history of money and education, and probably never even seeing people from the lower classes - except of course the servants.
Quote:
Originally posted by FarscapePKWars:
However the Alliance sometimes look very bad, like a scary Totalitarian Nazi leadership...
The Alliance certainly seem to have to Totalitarian/Fascist ideal of "the State is everything," I agree - though if there's a cult of one particular leader, we've never heard of him (or her).
Oh, and one more thought on the aristocracies: maybe some of the colonisation was done on the lines of New France (Quebec), where huge tracts of land were given out to rich individuals, who then found their own peasants to actually settle it? The Pern books by Anne McCaffrey have an original colonisation on this model, which seems to fit our 'verse fairly well.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Astragynia:
It always seemed clear to me that the Rim planets are like third-world countries in our world today, and the Core planets are the wealthy, Western countries.
Actually, I always saw the Rim Planets as the Southern states during Reconstruction, and the Western states during our expansion. Much like our government did during Western expansion, the Alliance offers promises of land to anyone who moves out. Naturally, poor people jump at the opportunity and move out to the Rim worlds because there's nothing for them in the cities. They get together in large groups of families, much like wagon trains, and pay for a ship to take them somewhere else (as seen in "Bushwacked")
And as for the Alliance, to me, it's a socialist-fascist police state, the big government of today taken further into the future (with China's socialism splashed in). Full of regulations and social programs that are supposed to "help" people, but actually wind up getting in the way (i.e., social security, welfare, medicare, etc.). It's a classic example of the government attempting to socially engineer the "ideal" society instead of serving the society which created it in the first place. However, we don't really see the Alliance that much, so my idea of them is really colored by both Mal's view of them and the fact that they're a combination of the American and Chinese governments. Since our government in America seems to increase in size and scope every day (caused by both Big-Government Democrats and Big-Government Republicans) with no regards to personal freedom, and China's socialist nature being similar, I assume that the Alliance is a Socialist-Fascist Police State, and the "Independent" movement was made up primarily of conservative-liberterians. This also seems to make sense based on what we've seen of the rural culture of the Rim planets as opposed to the metropolitan Central planets (i.e., the Rim planets are like Wyoming and the Central planets are like New York. Red State Browncoats vs. Blue State Alliance. Hmmm...blue state, blue sun? I wonder if there's a red sun...Probably not...I know Joss is a liberal).
"Blue Sun" also fits into this idea because large monopolies tend to be the result of government overregulation instead of rampant capitalism, as someone argued above.
I've always viewed the Alliance in terms of American history, particularly the Civil War and Western expansion, rather than looking at them as some sort of commentary on American foreign policy. I know Joss said something to the effect of the Alliance being "the U.S. in Vietnam", but I never got that impression from Firefly. It seemed to me that the Alliance was more "The Union in the South" or even "Britain in the Colonies", since really, the American Revolution was just a civil war that the Independents managed to win.
As for that FOX News reference above, as a conservative, I'd just like to say that FOX is the news source of the Independents. CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTIMES, LATIMES, REUTERS, BBC, etc. ,etc. all voice the opinions of Blue Sun and the Great and Mighty Alliance (aka, UN).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thinking a little more about the Alliance, I've decided that their actual political leanings, etc. are really unimportant. The genius of the Alliance is that we see it through Mal's glasses primarily, and therefore it's actual nature is unimportant. All we need to know is that it's:
1) Intrusive
2) A Bad Government
To actually go into much more detail would make Firefly too political, and, imo, ruin the show.
Since Mal and crew are our heroes, we naturally view the Alliance as bad. The exact politics can thereby be determined by the viewer, so that each person can, for themselves, create their own nightmare vision of a government. For example, being a conservative-liberterian, I view the Alliance as Socialist-Fascist. Essentially, to me, it's a government where Democrats have siezed power and held it for decades. Someone else of a more liberal persuasion might see the Alliance differently, maybe as a Right-wing Neoconservative Totalitarianism, or what-not. By keeping the Alliance's politics vague and generalized, it keeps the show from getting preachy about politics (Which is actually my main complaint about "The West Wing").
The nature of the Alliance doesn't matter to the overall story. To quote Jeff Tweedy, "Your Heaven looks just like my Hell." The Alliance's vague definition keeps people from forcing their political beliefs onto anyone else, and allows the show to transcend politics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
And as for the Alliance, to me, it's a socialist-fascist police state, the big government of today taken further into the future (with China's socialism splashed in). Full of regulations and social programs that are supposed to "help" people, but actually wind up getting in the way (i.e., social security, welfare, medicare, etc.). It's a classic example of the government attempting to socially engineer the "ideal" society instead of serving the society which created it in the first place.
I would have to disagree with the notion that the Alliance is Socialist, or even National Socialist, in leaning in that it permits Slavery and Indentured Servitude and there are clearly elements of an aristocracy in at least a few worlds.
In addition there is no evidence that the Alliance provides universal free medical care to its citizens, and indeed the fact that medicine is so expensive and Jayne has to help out his family because "Matty has the Damp-Lung" would indicate that in reality the Alliance is certainly not providing socialised healthcare to its people. At least to that extent the Alliance is small-government.
The Alliance certainly interferes with free-trade which means it is not a totally hands off government but that just indicates merchantalist capitalism not a particularly left-wing, or necessarily hard-right government.
Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
I assume that the Alliance is a Socialist-Fascist Police State, and the "Independent" movement was made up primarily of conservative-liberterians. This also seems to make sense based on what we've seen of the rural culture of the Rim planets as opposed to the metropolitan Central planets
I see the Independent movement as being more geographical in nature than political. They are worlds not yet under the Core (it was was the war to unite not re-unite the planets) who wish to stay that way. That does not imply they are conservative-libertarians. Some worlds could have just as easily been ardant left-wingers who find the idea of aristocracy and slavery abhorrant.
Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
"Blue Sun" also fits into this idea because large monopolies tend to be the result of government overregulation instead of rampant capitalism, as someone argued above.
Monopolies can form in various ways. One form of "good" government intervention is breaking them.
Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
As for that FOX News reference above, as a conservative, I'd just like to say that FOX is the news source of the Independents. CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTIMES, LATIMES, REUTERS, BBC, etc. ,etc. all voice the opinions of Blue Sun and the Great and Mighty Alliance (aka, UN).
Fox News is clearly the voice of the Alliance. The Independents would much rather trust the BBC
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Perhaps the funding for the BBC is different over the border. (Seagulls weren't relegated!)
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
... Fox News is clearly the voice of the Alliance. The Independents would much rather trust the BBC ...
IMHO: Fox News is the voice of Blue Sun. The BBC is funded by the Government, directly in the case of the World Service, by way of a Government determined licence-fee for TV reception in the case of internal services. Independents trust lugradio
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
Perhaps the funding for the BBC is different over the border. (Seagulls weren't relegated!)
IMHO:
Fox News is the voice of Blue Sun. The BBC is funded by the Government, directly in the case of the World Service, by way of a Governmant determined licence-fee for TV reception in the case of internal services.
O/T but although the BBC may be government funded it certainly isn't the voice of the government in the traditions of state-controlled media.
If it was then it wouldn't have suffered so many complaints about it by the various administrations of the day. Back in the 1980's the Tories often called it the "Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation" but it seems to annoy the heck out of Labour (and "New Labour") governments too
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
In addition there is no evidence that the Alliance provides universal free medical care to its citizens, and indeed the fact that medicine is so expensive and Jayne has to help out his family because "Matty has the Damp-Lung" would indicate that in reality the Alliance is certainly not providing socialised healthcare to its people. At least to that extent the Alliance is small-government.
It doesn't have to be socialized medicine. It could be some sort of social program like medicare or medicaid (Which I find equally distateful). Also, I assumed that Jayne's family lives out on the rim, where the Alliance hasn't spread yet and they don't have all the conveniences (inconveniences) that the Alliance provieds. Continuing with the idea that Jayne's family lives out on the rim, we've seen many instances where the Alliance simply doesn't care about those people. It's much like the South during Reconstruction, in that the North really didn't care about the well-being of people down there. We just seem to have different opinions of "Big Government". IMO, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc., etc., are "Big Government" programs that border on socialism that we should get rid of. Any government program that takes independence away from it's citizens and puts it into the hands of bureaucrats is, imo, socialist. And, as socialism always does, it leads to a slave state where the people are dependent on the government.
Anyways, it doesn't really matter. Actually, I posted something else about why it doesn't matter. The Alliance is so loosly defined in the show that you can create your own nightmare-vision of government and superimpose it on there. Everyone's right.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
It doesn't have to be socialized medicine. It could be some sort of social program like medicare or medicaid (Which I find equally distateful).
Funny but I find US Medicare and Medicaid distasteful too but mainly because it's so damn expensive and inefficient. A fully socialised healthcare system providing universal free healthcare would work much better.
I'm really more of a technocrat than an ideologue on healthcare though. The state controlled healthcare in Western Europe for example just provides wider coverage for less money.
Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
Also, I assumed that Jayne's family lives out on the rim, where the Alliance hasn't spread yet and they don't have all the conveniences (inconveniences) that the Alliance provieds.
But a monolithic socialist state would make sure to look after the people regardless of where they are. The Alliance in Firefly smacks more of, at best, benign neglect.
Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
We just seem to have different opinions of "Big Government". IMO, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc., etc., are "Big Government" programs that border on socialism that we should get rid of. Any government program that takes independence away from it's citizens and puts it into the hands of bureaucrats is, imo, socialist. And, as socialism always does, it leads to a slave state where the people are dependent on the government.
Well there are varying degrees of socialism and the Social Democracy practiced in many nations today is certainly a long way from producing a slave state but in any case like I said I'm a technocrat. If something works better in the private sector then privatise it, if the state can run something better then nationalise it.
Lots of people from the left believe the state should intervene on principle whereas libertarians believe that the state should be practically non-existant, again just on principle. Looking at it dispassionately though if you look at the numbers, socialised healthcare does seem to offer the highest number of people receiving medical care for the least money. Conversely experiments in nationalised industries (such as the automotive company British Leyland here in the UK) were an unmitigated disaster.
A technocrat such as myself would have the Government run the hospitals and private enterprise build the cars. It just seems to work better that way.
Heck I'm just after value for money because whether it's the government taking it in taxes or a company taking it through high prices it's still just money I can't spend on something else.
From my perspective the Alliance seems to be big government where it's bad and small government where that's bad.
In short Alliance = Bad
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME