What do you think would be the ideal government for each quadra? Brilliand and I thought of these:
Alpha: True communism
Beta: Dictatorship
Gamma: Money-based (forgot the name of it)
Delta: City-state Oligarchy
What do you think would be the ideal government for each quadra? Brilliand and I thought of these:
Alpha: True communism
Beta: Dictatorship
Gamma: Money-based (forgot the name of it)
Delta: City-state Oligarchy
Money-based is plutocracy.
Gamma's government is of a plutocratic elite, diffuse enough to avoid any one person's dictatorship, and hereditary to a large degree, but not rigidly so.
Delta's government I see rather as "small-town communitary values" with weak central government.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Delta - Tribal Community
Dictatorship leaves too much room for grassroots revolution to suit Beta.
allez cuisine!
There needs to be another beta extermination campaign.
4w3-5w6-8w7
+1
There needs to be some form of self-sustaining mechanism like in Brave New World or 1984, otherwise anyone can come along as soon as the dictator dies and turn it into a democracy.
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...tional_quadras
Beta: EMPIRE
()
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
I wonder how much conflict is in fact instigated by Betas against Betas. Given the subjectivity of both and , two Beta factions can share the same socionics values and yet eerily different social and political values, notions of appropriateness etc.
In those instances, it would very much be a fight to the death for the world you believe in bringing about. I just can't imagine Betas really getting into a conflict with Deltas; it would be like trying to sledgehammer cotton-wool. Blood and Iron and all that good stuff: Beta v Beta. Maybe Gamma can play a little as well.
()
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
You have just explained a lot of the world's history in this single paragraph.
The fight between Soviet-style communism and Nazi-style fascism is not really between "extreme left" and "extreme right", as if they were opposite extremes of a continuum of the same scale. That fight was - is - precisely between two Beta factions of different subjective and social and political values.
A recent example is in South Africa, where I lived for 2 years. The colonial Gamma-Delta "traditional British Empire patronizingly conservative" regime was replaced in 1948 with the ideological hard-line Afrikaner nationalist- socialist regime of apartheid (Afrikaans for "apartness") of the National Party. That regime gave rise to the equally Beta revolutionaries of Mandela's ANC - which, up to 1989, was officially communist in ideology.
The regime in South Africa has been democratic since 1994, but the ruling party, the ANC, is still driven by Beta "instincts".
Pretty much so.
What happens, in reality, is that Deltas, in particular Delta NFs, mistake Beta revolutionaries - before achieving power - for people like themselves. They are what Lenin had in mind when he coined the phrase "useful idiots".
Gamma's role is to preserve the existing, working, world against the + Beta ideologies.
In WWII, the US and Britain acted as the Gamma forces to defeat first one Beta faction, in temporary alliance with the other. The Cold War was the focus on containing the other Beta faction.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
That reminded me of the movie Empire with John Leguazano (or however you spell it). In retrospect, it was pretty beta-esque, in some ways. Like the opening line where he says "You see that car? (//new black lincoln navigator) It's mine. And I park it here. But nobody will touch it. You know why? Respect." Such things point to the governed street hierarchy, and also status, which was consistently demonstrated in the movie IMO (and dude gets plugged at the end...shame...but it's all about power).Originally Posted by unefille
4w3-5w6-8w7
That's what I thought at first, but with an anarchy we might get disorganized, and how do we stop the Betas from invading if there's nobody to coordinate movements?
Precisely! But I reffered to it as a city-state oligarchy.
Lol!
To be delta I think the nation has to be something like this:
Sensible implementation of ideas, each implementation being based on the case at hand (not consistency of ideas) nothing rash or stupid being done.
Avoiding excessive harshness (on the general population) when it comes to implementing policies, unless absolutely necessary (probably less so in places and times that are violent).
Conservative, risk avoidance, tons of clever back-up plans, stable, prosperous etc.
^^That's probably more Te/Fi.
Anarchy makes no sense from a purely Te perspective (ignores basic principles about how everything works) and it's risky to implement, anarchy is probably Alpha (it has a lot of hippy overtones) or Beta depending on it's type.
ἀταραξία
really? i was thinking of the vast number of beta revolutionaries there have been. in the sort of cyclical sense of how beta seems to work, i don't see grassroots revolutions as anything out of line with beta quadra values. if you don't like the current authoritarian government, overthrow it and get a new authoritarian government.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Agreed.
Agreed.
No. Fascism = Beta.
Actually, I think if I was the dictator or part of the high command, I could dig fascism. I would happily rule over the scum of the earth (90% of the world; oh, BurntOrange, don't you just LOVE that figure ).
Even better: an oligarchy. Instead of the cult of the leader, you have... the cult of the leaders! YES. Gilly, you and I will begin this.
HEIL THE FOURTH REICH!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaOriginally Posted by Ezra
4w3-5w6-8w7
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
It looks like my original point got somewhat misinterpreted here, perhaps due to lack of explanation on my part.
I said that I didn't think dictatorship was a Beta form of government because dictatorships often breed grassroots revoluntionary campaigns. Thus a structure which is so vulnerable to such overthrow is not likely to be Beta. This was working on the presumption that a dictatorship is led by one person, and implemented by an empowered body. I was actually thinking exactly of the Cuban revolution - overthrow of a corrupt dictator who ruled on the back of a military coup, by a group of revolutionaries who seemed to say 'this is not the right way of doing things, we need to implement a new system'. (Se + Ti)
Based off my admittedly hasty consideration of the topic when I first posted, I thought that a dictatorship was too internally vulnerable a system to be claimed as 'the' Beta form of government. I'd go with something more like a ruling aristocracy, oligarchy or, yes, the 'empire' thing instead. Having a broader base of influence through a less vulnerable leadership seems more Fe than extolling a single leader who due to his 'single' state would never be able to have the reach of a group/class of leaders, nor is the power base protected if that leader falters. (Which I was reading in a more Fi light - that the appeal of the single leader would remain constant and be the basis of his support. Though if that lagged, force could be used to maintain that power: Se. You can probably see where I'm going with that line of thought...Gamma>Beta.)
So I was essentially saying that grassroots revolutions are more Beta than dictatorships, though not discounting the attribution to Beta of the latter. I don't quite know what you thought I said. I do take your point, however, that the dictatorship-revolution-dictatorship cycle in whole could be seen as countervailing Beta movements. But I was disputing that dictatorship alone is the Beta mode of government.
allez cuisine!
EIEs attempt for power, but really it's the LSIs in the backroom who are the driving force. ****** was never powerful. LSIs like Himmler, Reinhard and Rommel were the key to Nazi victory.
SLEs are powerful, and IEIs love this. IEIs just make predictions and bend over.
Being a pussy social visionary who follows their tough, confident leader dualz ftw!!Originally Posted by Ezra
lol
4w3-5w6-8w7
Following from this, do Gammas also have the role of 'maintaining' the system and taking it over from the Betas?
My train of thought is: Beta governments seem inherently unstable and they can be so for multiple reasons, but the primary one strikes me that once all the and is exhausted (once the 'vision' is established and 'expansion' is ended), the government becomes unstable due to lack of . If they maintain the same structures and idea of governance without any reference to changes in the external world, then things can 'stop working'. Therefore Beta instability isn't cause by volatility within the government, but in fact calcification of a model.
On the other hand, Gammas and Deltas would be good at 'maintaining' the model once it's set up, making adjustments on the fly according to , however the overhaul of the old system and creation of a new system would require another Beta 'revolution' (so to speak).
Does that make sense? And if so, what role does Alpha have in the progression or happenstance of history?
()
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
As far as the system is seen to work: yes, but see below.
I think that "calcification" is a better word than "unstable". The problem of Beta governments is precisely as you put it: by being more concerned with the "purity of the model" than whether or not it actually works, it tends to become stagnated.
Beta governments flourish best in situations of continuous, intensive war.
The SEE Mikhail Gorbachev played precisely such a role - or tried to play - in the USSR. The Beta system was clearly failing to perform in , yet the system itself was taken for granted by most. It fell to the Gamma Gorbachev to try to make it work - adjustments, as you say - rather than destroy it.
It could be argued that it wook another Beta - the SLE Boris Yeltsin - to take the lead in destroying the system.
One remark: there are also "Gamma revolutions", but they are usually in the form of spreading what has been seen to work, or of stopping Beta revolutions as they are starting - that is, Gammas are "reactionaries".
Alpha is essentially pre-government, while Delta is post-government. So Alpha's role is to "ask for government", and generating "in the air" the ideas that eventually Beta will choose to implement.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Well, life sucks. By that I mean that being "so vulnerable to such overthrow" is not their intention, but a feature nonetheless.
And I think this is an accurate analysis as far as it goes.
The problem with this is that it presupposes total agreement among the group, and total agreement in something as internal as + is nearly impossible. That is why Beta governments end up having one source of supreme ideological "correctness" - which may even be listened to, or followed, for pragmatical reasons, as in "he's right only 90% of the time but better that than someone who's right 70% of the time).
Could be.
I'd say that what characterizes Beta is this:
"tireless struggle for the implementation and defense of their ideas, of whose correctness they are persuaded".
This has two sides:
- before reaching power: tireless struggle to be able to implement them
- after reaching power: tireless struggle to keep them implemented, which implies ruthless fight against all "erroneous" ideas
Which brings us back to this:
Yes, which is why Beta is as keen on persuading others of the rightness of their ideas as just imposing them.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Imagine if Nazi Germany had flourished. After a while, Gammas would have had their chance.
Absolutely. This is what happened in Germany, and what - for much longer - occurred in Sparta and, later, Rome (probably the most successful). Betas are needed to overhaul the common order and make the social change no one will make. Gammas are needed to continue this with the future in mind. Deltas would be the people who just get on with their jobs.My train of thought is: Beta governments seem inherently unstable and they can be so for multiple reasons, but the primary one strikes me that once all the and is exhausted (once the 'vision' is established and 'expansion' is ended), the government becomes unstable due to lack of . If they maintain the same structures and idea of governance without any reference to changes in the external world, then things can 'stop working'. Therefore Beta instability isn't cause by volatility within the government, but in fact calcification of a model.
They don't.Does that make sense? And if so, what role does Alpha have in the progression or happenstance of history?
I disagree that Rome was Beta, at least during its classical period. I think Rome was Beta only at its earliest stage - the ancient Kings - but Gamma during the Republic and the early Empire, becoming Beta again during the late period, after the third century AD.
This article, How excessive government killed ancient Rome , makes a simplistic analysis based on anachronistic assumptions; but it does give an (Gamma-biased) idea of the essentially Gamma structure of classical Rome, and how it became Beta under Diocletian and Constantine.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
I think this is a really fascinating topic. Part of the thesis I'm writing right now is about Imperial China and the Imperial Chinese cosmology seems very Beta and, from a holistic perspective, exclusively Beta (which is interesting in and of itself).
Some reasons:
1. Based on strong centralised government, with a clearly delineated and enforced hierarchy of power leading up the Emperor who occupied the apex. (Se + Ti)
2. Cyclical dynastic history - (oversimplifying a lot): each new dynasty would emerge from chaotic warfare incredibly strong and often expansionist. This 'glory' period would last for a few centuries at most, whilst the Empire expanded and fought wars in order to consolidate power. Decline would then inevitably set it and the empire would be plunged into warfare, until a new Dynasty arose, only to repeat the cycle. (Ni + Ti)
3. The system (the Imperial system) and the cosmology (world-view with legitimated empire) lasted despite the repeated demise of each dynasty and individual glory was only remembered with respect to the dynasty/empire it served; revolutionaries or those who sought to overthrow the system are vilified, unless of course they erect their own dynasty, then they become heroes: Ti/Fe > Te/Fi.
4. There was a singular doctrine (Confucian cosmology) - all scholars afterward studied his work and gave new interpretation to the classics and the Confucian classics formed the basis of the examination system for entry into the bureaucracy. Essentially, one ideology became calcified as the ONLY ideology and was institutionalised. (Ni + Se + Ti)
5. 'Empire' came before 'individual'. Ti/Fe > Te/Fi
What's interesting to me is that this 'model' essentially preserved itself for millennia. It was not a 'stable' model since was prone to complete collapse as each dynasty declined and plunged into warfare, but the 'model' itself remained intact and survived each period of chaos only to be resurrected.
()
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp