What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

I do believe leftist idealogies, communism and marxism for example, are evil, but I do not believe that all people that endorse those philosophies are evil. Most are simply misguided.

This is typical of the sort of witless tripe you produce around here. I don't refer to what you allege is "better in terms of a political view" to be bigotry, i refer to your insistence that "leftist ideologies" are indistinghishable, one from the other, and that, for example, there is no distinction of degree and intent between Social Democrats and Stalinist Communists. That is bigotry, lumping all people with political opinions into "us" and "them."

It is also typical of your tone of hysteria that you attempt to equate "leftist ideologies" with theft and murder. One can look at right-wing dictatorships such as those of Ferdinand Marcos, Anastasio Somoza or Augusto Pinochet and allege with perfect justice that they practiced institutional theft and murder. That is not a plausible basis upon which to allege that all right-wing thinkers are proponents of theft and murder. To do so would be political bigotry. And that is what you practice when you look at the worst of leftist demagogues and then attempt to allege that their behavior is typical of all people with leftist political points of view.

I don't expect you to understand it. There are subtle distinctions involved, and there is nothing subtle about the simplistic "us vs. them" ideology you always propound.

the epitome of understatement.

Well, I'm one of those. I must be evil since I'm certainly not misguided.

Well, those misguided citizens of the UK might change their Socialist government sooner or later (most probably sooner) - and if it takes the way as it usually did, they'll get perhaps after the now coming government again a Socialist one.
Misguided, they are!

We're only partly misguided as a nation (until we'll get a new governement): we've got a Social-Democratic/Conservative coalition government.


But certainly not all of us are misguided: many are just as evil as I am.

You are twisting the intent of what has been posted. Maybe I have been unclear about what I mean here, as what you interpret as to what I believe is certainly not what I believe. I do not believe that moderate, or middle of the road politics or politicians are evil. This thread started out about ruthless dictators, and then we have discussed Hitler and Nazism, which were evil, and the idealogies that led them to their policies, I also believe they are very wrong, okay. That is principally what I have been talking about. What is insulting to you and a tough pill to swallow is the arguemnt that those evil dictators grew out of leftist idealogies, and you don't like it, but its a fact nevertheless. Evil is perhaps a strong word for you to swallow, but certainly they are a fertile soil for evil to occur. I also beleive there are gradations of idealogies, some more benign than others.

I have not equated social Democrats to Stalinist Communists, I don't think so at least, if you have a quote, I will be happy to retract it.

I do not believe I view the opposite side of the political spectrum much differently than you do, I doubt, except we happen to believe our end of the spectrum is better. Does that make us bigoted, perhaps in your view, but I just think it is a misguided belief system.

In terms of talking about leftists idealogies, I probably should have placed the word, "extreme," in front of that word.

But in regard to us vs them, face it, the country has become more polarized, I don't like it any more than you do, but it is my opinion that the leftists have sought to pull to the left more extremely and are thus causing alot of the polarization. I am not going to follow the crowd in the interests of uniting. Unity, if going in the wrong direction, is not what I want to be involved in. Principle should trump that.

So, welcome to honesty, which are you a supporter of, communism or marxism, or am I mis-understanding what you wrote?

To avoid all mis-understanding here, when I referred to "leftist" idealogies, I implied, or meant "extreme leftist."

Well, I'm a Social Democrat (= member of the [German] Social-Democratic Party and a member of the Fabian Society (the "think tank" of the British Socialist Party, aka Labour).

You seem either not have understood much of what has been told you here, or are intent upon ignoring it. The NSDAP was not a left-wing party. Hitler was not a leftist. There have been a host of right-wing dictatorships, and, arguably, more of them than there have been left-wing dictatorships. I've already mentioned Franco, Mussolini, Marcos, Somoza and Pinochet. To that list let us add Syngman Rhee and Park Chung-hee of South Korea. Let us add the militarist regimes in Japan from 1932 to 1945. Let us add Antonio Salazar in Portugal from 1932 to 1968.

I could extend that list a great deal. But the point, which i doubt you'll take, is that neither the left nor the right have a natural tendency either to democratic republican government, nor to totalitarian dictatorship. You haven't yielded an inch. You may add the qualifier "extreme" to your condemnatory remarks about leftists, but you still insist that leftists are misguided, and i strongly suspect that you would never admit that anyone in the right-wing is misguided. For that reason, i consider you a political bigot. You are unable to see that there is good and bad on either side of the political divide. I also suspect that you aren't even aware that the divide in the United States is between two different degrees of conservatism, and that there are no truly leftists groups in the United States, except on the very fringe.

You let your ideology do your thinking for you, and your knowledge of it is narrow and restricted. I contend that you have no historical nor global perspective for your political views, and that this is one of the principle causes of your political bigotry.

Thanks, Set. Your response is a lot better than what I was just trying to write.

I think you are wrong and mis-guided, but not evil, Walter. Obviously you have a different opinion, so we will just have to disagree. By the way, I don't think the British under Labor Party rule is doing all that great, Walter. Confirmation that your philosophy works is a far cry from looking good. Re-distributing wealth just really doesn't work well in the long run. You essentially transfer wealth from those that can generate it and manage it efficiently to those that do not, essentially losing it and wasting it. You transfer efficiency to inefficiency, thus degrading the whole system. If you do it on a limited scale, it takes longer, but it still occurs.

I am sure that you have not the faintest idea how and why I got my political position(s).

Setanta, dictatorships do not fit conservative idealogy, when judged in context with our comparison of liberal and conservative viewpoints in the U.S. We could go ahead and examine the policies and characteristics of each of the dictators you mention, but I think I have already demonstrated the fallacy of labeling Hitler and fascism as belonging to right wing idealogy, it was in fact a brand of left wing idealogy / politics. Go back and read the debate with oe for a review of that. I realize this flies in the face of some pre-conceived notions by some people, but I think the facts speak for themselves, and they say otherwise.

The basic reason I say the above is that American conservatives believe in small government, individual freedom and responsibility, which is the opposite of a dictatorship or a strong State.

None this sinks in with you. Your attempt to practice right-wing historical materialism is a complete failure. The history of the world shows a handful of left-wing totalitarian states--the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, China since 1949 and Cuba since 1959 (i'm not counting eastern Europe, since they were laid under the military control of the Soviet Union). On the right-wing side, you've got the 2000 years of the Chinese empire from the Yellow Emperor to the rise of Sun Yat-sen. If you count the Roman Empire from the foundation of Rome in 754 BCE to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, you've got more than 2000 years. The Romans had no concept of nationalism. Their loyalty was to their city alone. That city conquered and laid under tribute half of Europe and most of southwest Asia, as well as the north coast of Africa. They were run by an oligarchy which successfully turned aside all attempts at political reform by the Plebeians, and practiced institutionalized slavery on a vast scale. You've got all the modern dictatorships which i've already mentioned, and a host of others--the Colonels in Greece, the military junta in Brazil, the right-wing "labor" government of Juan Peron and his successors in Argentina--the list goes on and on.

In the history of the world, the number of left-wing dictatorships pale in sheer numbers in comparison to the right-wing dictatorships. People don't establish dictatorships because of right-wing sentiment, nor because of left-wing sentiment. As EB so cogently pointed out, they do it because they are fanatics. With your insistence that those who don't agree with you politically are misguided, and are prone to dictatorship, you sound very much like a fanatic to me.

So, do you consider Nazism and Hitler a right wing dictatorship, or a form of a leftwing dictatorship?

If you have to ask that question, it is apparent that you don't read people's posts. Here are two excerpts from posts which i have made:





It would really help if you read other people's posts, and made an effort to understand them.

This has, indeed been answered quite a few times, by Set and others.

But certainly, okie, you're free to write our history differently according to your personal doctrine.

Okie -

1) Papa Doc Duvalier. This guy has ruthless dictator written all over him. He has ruthlessly oppressed and exploited his country for 14 years or so.
How does he hold up against your theorem?
a) Disfunctional childhood - Arguably, yes. His mother was disfunctional and wound up in an asylum. But then again, it doesn't really evidence in an unstable childhood. Largely raised by his aunt, he graduated from the University of Haiti with a degree in medicine. And he didn't seem to have many disfunctional relationships in his adulthood either: He was married to Simone Ovide, who became his widow when he died. His son succeeded him.
b) Rejection and/or hate for religious belief, sometimes despite training as a child. As they grow into adulthood, they have a hatred or unresolved resentment toward certain groups, races, or religion.
Actually, Papa doc seemd to embrace religion, using it as a means to inspire terror and supress his peoples. He was a known practicioner of Voudou, taking on traits of Baron Samedi, one of the more powerful (and evil) loa's, with strong associations to death. Furthermore, in his propaganda he identifies strongly with both Jesus and God. While initially excommunicated by the RC church, he sought to get it revoked and succeeded later in his life.

c) They perceive injustice from childhood and develop a burning desire to dominate, gain power, and right the wrongs toward society and to them as they view it.
Papa Doc wanted power alright, but certainly not to right wrongs, even though this was the mask he hid behind to gain power in 1956.

Typically there is a hate for business and private enterprise, as it is viewed as unfair and the cause of much injustice and suffering, and religion is also viewed as a failure, so government and they are the hope of righting the wrongs and creating their vision of utopia on earth.

The economy certainly declined, although again it's disputable that Papa Doc envisioned it. His initial rise to power came as champion of the oppressed blacks, who were exploited by the richer, industrialistc mulatto's. During his reign (and that of his son) Haiti became dirt poor.
But as previously mentioned, Papa Doc embraced religion and all its trappings, both christian and voodoo, as means to suprres the people, even going as far to name his goons tonton macoute, the bogeymen of voodoo religion.
The only utopia he envisioned, was one where he and his family had the money and the power. In short, I think your little theory fails for Papa Doc Duvalier


2) Alfredo Stroessner - Dictator of Paraguay. He was a dictator from 1954 until 1989, when he was ousted by a former friend of his. The constitutional rights of the people were removed and a state of emergency was declared soon after he started to rule, and this state of emergency would only be lifted during the (fraudulent) elections. A staunch anti-communist, and a nazi admirer. He gave refuge to people such as Josef Mengele.

a) Dysfunctional childhood/adult life - Hardly. His father was an accountant at a brewery, and his mother came from a wealthy family. He made his career through the army. He was married into another old Paraguay family, and became father to two sons and a daughter with his wife Eligia Mora.

b) Rejection and/or hate for religious belief, sometimes despite training as a child. As they grow into adulthood, they have a hatred or unresolved resentment toward certain groups, races, or religion.

You could reasonably argue that Stroessner, a Nazi ideology admirer, used claims of ethnic superiority to commit genocide against local native tribes (such as the Ache indians), but more often then not, economic motives seemed to be the underlying motive.
I know little about his religious attitudes. They were probably somewhat strained, given his human rights neglections and treatment of the local people, but it doesn't seem like religion was oppressed outright.
He most certainly was very anti-communist, probably the only reason the USA overlooked his less then savory reputation and gave Paraguay millions of dollars in aid.

c) They perceive injustice from childhood and develop a burning desire to dominate, gain power, and right the wrongs toward society and to them as they view it. Typically there is a hate for business and private enterprise, as it is viewed as unfair and the cause of much injustice and suffering, and religion is also viewed as a failure, so government and they are the hope of righting the wrongs and creating their vision of utopia on earth.

Since there were no remarkable injustices in his childhood, the first part of that theory doesn't work. As far as the hate for business and private enterprise goes, it might be interesting to note that the people in paraguay are somewhat ambivalent about Stroessner, because, even though he commited plenty of crimes, he also stimulated economic growth. So I'd have to say that this part of your theory also doesn't apply.

You obviously ignore the evidence, which clearly shows Hitler railed against the greed of self interests against the State, and he clearly associated the former and his perception of the evils of the race, the Jews, that he thought perpetrated it. He was a big government leftist, and the reason he fought the communists is because they opposed him and his power, but Nazi Party has Socialist written all over it. Read the last few pages, Setanta.

All the stuff about burning the Reichstag, I have read all of that, its common knowledge, misinformation and deception is common for these kinds of people, but what what you are ignoring is the actual policies and beliefs of Hitler. Read Mein Kampf, and you will find it all in there.