Napoleon and civil liberties

Like the other dictators, Napoleon was restrictive of civil liberties in order to better control the general will of the population. Unlike many dictators of the world however, Napoleon’s aim in doing this was to insure equality in his empire as best as he could, while continuing on with his conquest. He took this idea from the ancient Romans, who inspired the Napoleonic codes. He went even farther than the Romans, abolishing hereditary nobility and class privileges. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Napoleonic codes were the first set of laws to be based on reason rather than ancient customs.
Though Napoleon was generally loyal to the Revolutionary ideals, incorporating many of them into the Napoleonic cods, he repressed many liberties gained during the revolution. He eliminated republicanism and required that all printers swear an oath of obedience to him, the emperor; newspapers only published what came from the government. Printers and booksellers were forbidden to circulate “anything which may involve injury to the duties of subjects toward the sovereign or the interests of the state. In addition the codes denied equal treatment to workers in disputes with employers, women were subject to their husbands, children were subject to their fathers
Napoleon favored equality before the law, and equality of opportunity as necessary for a well-run state, but he believed that political liberty was inefficient and threatened the state with anarchy. He would govern in the interest of the people as an enlightened yet absolute ruler.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, like Hobbes believed that in the natural state humans are competitive and warlike, and will eventually result in a master-slave relationship. With that idea in mind, Hegel argued that “war has in it the deep meaning that by it the ethical health of the nation is preserved and their finite aims uprooted.” People must win wars in order to continue to be recognized as the master. This thinking was wildly influential on Mussolini, who believes that “War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.” Mussolini concludes that statement arguing that War is the only trial that decides between life and death—this is opinion is similar the Hobbes’ idea that man is naturally either a master or a slave.
Napoleon, perhaps took Hegel’s ideas closest to heart; he definitely shared the view on war that Hegel and Mussolini felt. Napoleon waged continual war, fearing that he would lose prestige and honor if he stopped winning battles. Looking at Napoleon in this way, I can’t help but consider him an early fascist. Or was he simply

Though I definitely agree with Danielle’s point that there is a connection between Hitler’s fascist state, and the ideas based in the theory of the general will; it seems obvious that there is a connection between the general will and all states—people generally tend to form opinions about most things, and even without the right to, some will express their feelings. I would like to add to Danielle’s point, and say that the link between Rousseau and Fascism is an opposing link. According to Mussolini’s
“What is Fascism” “Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.” In case you both lost your sheets that Cas gave us, here is a nice definition of fascism.
the two philosophers that I would give credit to for the idea of fascism are Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Friedrich Nietzsche. In Hegel’s discussion of the state he uses the metaphor of the human body, in which the humans are individuals that only serve true purpose or function, when they are part of the whole, the whole being the state. To me, it seems like this is directly influenced by Hobbes, rather than by Rousseau.

to ban communism from itself?

Prior to this class I had always though of Gorbachev as Russian who finally realized that communism doesn’t work. I don’t’ believe this to be the case any more, though considering his predecessors, his liberal demeanor still astonished me for the better. In the Transcript of Russian Federation Duma Session with USSR President Gorbachev, Gorbachev mentions that he was asked “whether socialism should be banned from the USSR and the Communist Party disbanded as a criminal organization.” I was rather shocked to read this. That socialism and the Communist party can be outlawed in Russia perplexes me since less than half a century before socialism and the Communist party were considered more important than the state itself. Gorbachev plainly states that he cannot dissolve the communist party, because he “will never agree to qualify millions of workers and peasants as criminals” and not for the glory and survival of communism. If such a thing had been even referenced to Stalin, it would have been a very different situation for the person who asked the question.

What comes to mind when one thinks of democracy?

When I think of democracy the first things that come to mind are universal suffrage and civil liberties. These were, as the socialist T.H. Marshall pointed out, influenced by enlightenment thinkers in the 17th and 18th centuries, such as John Locke. However, when I think about the bureaucracy enveloped in our own democracy, I can’t help but notice socialist elements that would perhaps dilute the true definition of a democratic republic. Marshall argues that the 20th century would bring a much larger range of social rights, including rights to provide protection of economic interests, and welfare and security for its citizens. Though he is a socialist, the compilation of his ideas are what I define as democracy, the modern democratic state is a welfare state.

Why didn’t we blow ourselves up?

We didn’t blow ourselves up because nobody wanted to make a first strike. Neither side knew the full extent of its enemy’s military power…the Russians could always have a bigger bomb, or simply more of them. The USSR and US were immobilized by fear associated with the assumption that the world is ending, an outcome that neither state wanted to be responsible for.
As fun as I found the simulation, there is a flaw to it. We all wanted to blow each other up, because it would be silly and fun…not in real life. In real life, it seems to me, some of the things that we did would have been absurd, but perhaps it just seems that way to me because I know how the Cold War ended. For example, I am fairly certain that Russia would not tolerate nukes in Japan, as the US wouldn’t approve of nukes in Mexico. I know as an example from the other class that the USSR took over Ireland, simply to mess with Declan. Would the Russians have expressed any interest in Ireland in the real world? I highly doubt it, but the Russians in the other class decided it would be fun.
Now, I know that it is a simulation, and that nothing can be perfect, but the game is set up so that each team wants to nuke each other, because total victory on both sides sounds lame and boring—but that’s what happened, and I’m glad of it.

Should we have used the bomb?

I am certainly not suggesting that thousands of Japanese civilians deserved to die, but I believe that in the long run the use of the atomic bomb was not a mistake. I think the use of the bomb was justified—it ended the war. It has been criticized because the bomb was dropped on civilians without warning. Some argue that the bomb should have been shown to the Japanese, that they simply needed to understand the power of the bomb, and they would surrender. These people are wrong. The Japanese hung in, even when being firebombed by the US (which killed more Japanese than the two bombs combined), and attacked by Britain, and China, there is no way that the Japanese would have surrendered after a simple demonstration—they didn’t surrender after it was used! We mention the firebombing today, but it doesn’t have nearly the same weight as the nukes. This is of course because a nuke is one bomb, as opposed to many. Either way though, the end is the same, people become obliterated on a large scale—if those attacks are justifiable, in my opinion, so was the use of the bomb.