What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

The persistence of this thread is remarkable to me. it bogged down at an early stage to an arcane and mostly semantical argument about what exactly is meant by the word "socialism".

Okie persists in his assertion that all authoritarian dictators (at least in the current era) spring from movements that are left wing or socialistic. He cites as conclusive proof lies in the existence of any verbiage in their doctrines or (merely) propaganda that suggests policies that can be remotely considered as part of a socialist agenda, in any context, however remote. Moreover, he asserts that the existence such verbiage is proof positive of a socialist agenda, regardless of the actions of the movement in question and however much they may lie in another direction. Given the necessity for central management of socialist systems and their authoritarian structures - however they may be limited in benign democratic applications - Okie is always able to find the needed authoritarian link between any given dictator and socialism -- by definition.

Okie has in effect begged his own question. He has no point here. He is just jerking off.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Perfect description of okie stated in your last sentence.

0 Replies

George wrote:

He is just jerking off.

Isn't that akin to wanker?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The persistence of this thread is remarkable to me. it bogged down at an early stage to an arcane and mostly semantical argument about what exactly is meant by the word "socialism".

Come on George, get serious. The persistence of the thread is based upon something very important, a point that we need to pay attention to, which political philosophies and political personalities are more dangerous?

You don't know what "socialism" is? Okay, define it for me.

Quote:

Okie persists in his assertion that all authoritarian dictators (at least in the current era) spring from movements that are left wing or socialistic.

George, I have generally respected you as a smart and fair poster, but whay do you twist what I have said here? You are misrepresenting what I have said. To repeat again, I believe leftist idealogies provide more fertile ground for ruthless dictators. That does not mean it is the only ground that they can grow in, it merely means the conditions make them more likely. What is so hard for everyone to understand about this. Leftists believe in big government, central planning, thus dictatorships are more compatible with these policies.

Quote:

He cites as conclusive proof lies in the existence of any verbiage in their doctrines or (merely) propaganda that suggests policies that can be remotely considered as part of a socialist agenda, in any context, however remote.

Criminy it isn't remote, its what they say. It is what Hitler believed. Do you also want to discard Mein Kampf and the Nazi 25 points? Come on, what on earth are you going to base your conclusions about what these people like Hitler believed and wanted to do?

Quote:

Moreover, he asserts that the existence such verbiage is proof positive of a socialist agenda, regardless of the actions of the movement in question and however much they may lie in another direction. Given the necessity for central management of socialist systems and their authoritarian structures - however they may be limited in benign democratic applications - Okie is always able to find the needed authoritarian link between any given dictator and socialism -- by definition.

Okie has in effect begged his own question. He has no point here. He is just jerking off.

Baloney George. Provide evidence. Fact is, I did look at one of Setanta's favorite examples, Pinochet, and say that he did in fact apparently use free market economics and thus could be classified as to the right at least in that regard, so I have never made blanket statements that leftists are the only people capable of being ruthless dictators. But I do think they are much more common, and history should be telling you this, you should know this.

1 Reply

@okie,

If the democrats are "more dangerous" to Americans, why does history show us that under democratic administrations, all Americans gained?

Why is it that our most recent republican administration took us into a war that was unnecessary, and cost our country unnecessary sacrifice of our military and billions of dollars?

Who's the dangerous one here?

How did you arrive at the notion that the democrats are socialists? Do you understand the definition of "socialist?"

However, I must agree that social security and Medicare are "socialist" programs, but if you ever decide to do an in depth investigation into these two programs, you'll find most are agreeable to them - including republicans. We never had a revolution that resulted in warfare when these programs were implemented.

Care to guess how many conservatives/republicans are benefiting from these two "socialist" programs in our country today? I have not heard one complaint from any one of them! Have you?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I have pointed out that dictionaries are not reliable sources for history or political science. I really doubt that you would accept it if another source contradicted your source. Parados provided a definition of the political spectrum from an online source, the freedictionary.com. It defines fascism as being at the extreme right of the political spectrum. What comment do you have to make on that?

I want your definitions of LEFTISM and RIGHTISM. I gave you mine.
Merriam-Webster doesn't contain definitions of these other than to say they are, respectively, "1: the principles and views of the Left" ( http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=leftism&x=17&y=9 ) and "1 : the principles and views of the Right" ( http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=rightism&x=21&y=10 ). That's why I defined them myself.

Setanta wrote:

Ipse dixit--assumed and alleged, but not proven.

Definitions do not have to be proven. They only have to be interpreted and applied correctly.

I said, "You continually preach your allegiance to objective interpretation of history."

Setanta wrote:

This is a lie, and that makes you a liar. I have never said a word about "objective interpretation,"

I agree that you never said those things. However, that is my inference of the implications of what you said.

I wrote: "However, you fail to adequately explain what it is in history beyond interpretations made by history writers that determines whether or not okie or my categorizations are valid or invalid."

None of the events you described provide definitions of LEFTIST and RIGHTIST. They simply are references to events that you might characterize as LEFTIST or RIGHTIST, and that okie and I characterize as LEFTIST.

Back to the issue here: your disagreement with okie and me over what is the definition of LEFTIST and RIGHTIST. What is your definition of LEFTIST--or leftism? What is your definition of RIGHTIST--or rightism? If you don't choose to disclose your definitions of these political categories, there is no logical way for me to apply your definitions to determine what you actually think are LEFTIST and RIGHTIST, and determine whether your conclusions are consistent with your definitions.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

I want your definitions of LEFTISM and RIGHTISM. I gave you mine.
Merriam-Webster doesn't contain definitions of these . . . etc., etc., blah, blah, blah . . .

This is a complete non sequitur. I have already told you how i define right-wing, and you responded as though i hadn't said anything. Given that you won't accept or recognize definitions i provide, why should i play your stupid games with you?

I pointed out that dictionaries aren't reliable sources for history or political science, that i doubt that you'd accept a definition from another source which contradicted yours, and pointed to the example Parados provided. You quote that part of my post, and then you fail utterly to respond to it. I asked you to comment on the definition Parados posted. You didn't. Don't expect me to answer your questions if you not only don't answer mine, but ignore them altogether.

Quote:

Definitions do not have to be proven. They only have to be interpreted and applied correctly.

I didn't question the definition, and in fact i specifically questioned your application of the definition--to wit, that left-wing governments seek to deprive the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the people they govern. If you're going to post **** like that, you sure as Hell do have to prove it--you didn't, you just asserted it, so it's ipse dixit bullshit.

Quote:

None of the events you described provide definitions of LEFTIST and RIGHTIST. They simply are references to events that you might characterize as LEFTIST or RIGHTIST, and that okie and I characterize as LEFTIST.

Who gives a rat's ass? I referred to the NSDAP as right-wing because Hitler banned left-wing parties, allied himself to right-wing parties, and used his right-wing coalition to take the right to legislate without reference to the Reichstag. Those aren't matters of interpretation, they are matters of fact, matters of the public record supported by primary source documents. That you and Okie would "characterize" these events as "leftist" is simply evidence of the extent to which the pair of you are out of touch with reality.

My disagreement with you and Okie doesn't revolve around definitions. It revolves around the witless tactic of attempting to define terms in a manner which supports your argument at the outset and therefore begging the question. In debate, you don't get to have your own special definitions. If you're not using the consensually recognized definitions of terms, then you have no business in the discussion. This is such a brainless attempt to set the terms of debate so that you can't lose, that i doubt you could hold your own against a third-rate high school debate team.

The people living in Germany in the 1930s thought the NSDAP and Hitler were right-wing. Everyone else with a clue living in Europe in the 1930s thought the NSDAP and Hitler were right wing. Everyone living in North America in the 1930s thought the NSDAP and Hitler were right-wing. They all came to this conclusion based on the their methods and their policies in action. It doesn't mean a goddamned thing that you and Okie don't agree.

Allow me to quote Lewis Carol for you once again, because this is exactly what you are trying to do with your special definitions:

"When I use a word” Humpty Dumpty said, "it means just what I choose it to mean"neither more nor less."

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

The persistence of this thread, O'George, at least as far as i am concerned, results from a more widespread attempt on the part of the reactionary fringe in the United States to portray anyone and anything they deem leftist as ultimately evil. Hence the need to portray Hitler and the NSDAP, Mussolini and the Fascisti, Franco and the Falange--any fascists--as left-wing. I, for one, do not intend to let the matter drop. All they have to offer is ipse dixit, and an insistence upon unique and idiosyncratic definitions, which in effect, follow Humpty Dumpty's line, and say: "Leftists means just exactly what i want it to mean, no more and no less." Note how doggedly Okie clings to his thesis. Confronted with the undeniable evidence that Pinochet was a right-wing dictator, he mumbles something about market economy policies and grudgingly concedes that he was right-wing "in that respect"--the clear implication being that Okie is ready to brand him a red, red commie in other respects.

You're correct that this is mental masturbation on Okie's part, and now Ican has joined the circle jerk. Fox drops in every once in a while to retail the lie that no one answers their points and that all the libruls do is slander the saintly and long-suffering conservative.

For my part, i'm going to continue to stand here virtually and shout out: "Hey . . . look over here, in the corner . . . Okie is still beating off!"

1 Reply

@Francis,

Same thing, different dialects.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Back to the issue here: your disagreement with okie and me over what is the definition of LEFTIST and RIGHTIST. What is your definition of LEFTIST--or leftism? What is your definition of RIGHTIST--or rightism? If you don't choose to disclose your definitions of these political categories, there is no logical way for me to apply your definitions to determine what you actually think are LEFTIST and RIGHTIST, and determine whether your conclusions are consistent with your definitions.

Apparently his definition says that if you oppose another leftwing idealogy at the time, such as Hitler did communists, that makes you a rightest. He ignores the fact that leftists can oppose other brands of leftists. Since Obama opposed Clinton, one of them has to be a conservative, that would make about as much sense.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Confronted with the undeniable evidence that Pinochet was a right-wing dictator, he mumbles something about market economy policies and grudgingly concedes that he was right-wing "in that respect"--the clear implication being that Okie is ready to brand him a red, red commie in other respects.

Again another lie. Common for you. I never said anything about what Pinochet was in other respects. That is your imagination running overtime.

1 Reply

Challenge to any and all posters on this thread, define in your opinion what are the most defining characteristics of a left wing idealogy vs right wing. Keep in mind here that I have said more than once that I have framed my judgement on this along the lines of how we understand the left vs right distinction currently in the United States, as applied here and other places around the world. I don't think a long winded dissertation is necessary, just a few simple statements of distinction between the two directions in political philosophies.

Mine is pretty simple, its the COMMON GOOD vs individual good, individual liberty and responsibility. Most of this centers around economic policy, whether you have free markets and private property ownership, or whether you have socialism, central planning, and statism governing all of this.

3 Replies

@okie,

Another comment in regard to this, I do not think nationalism is a good indicator of left vs right, as I think this can occur or not occur on both sides of the spectrum. I say this in anticipation of some people stating this is high on their list of parameters for left vs right. Go ahead if that is what you believe, but I am just saying ahead of time that I for one do not buy it. I don't care if the liberals at universities teach this, I don't agree, I think it is not supported by facts.

1 Reply

@okie,

Which liberals at universities teach this? Please name the professors by name and the university at which they teach?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Challenge to any and all posters on this thread, define in your opinion what are the most defining characteristics of a left wing idealogy vs right wing.

Left wing Ideology advocates seek the maximization of the common good, and/or their own power by limiting the unalienable rights of all individuals.

Right wing Ideology advocates seek the maximization of the individual good by securing the unalienable rights of all individuals.

I know of several right wing ideology advocates who are dictators.

I know of no right wing ideology advocates who are dictators.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I know of several right wing ideology advocates who are dictators.

I know of no right wing ideology advocates who are dictators.

You need to learn to exercise some editorial control. As it stands, this is just more unintentional hilarity from Ican.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Confronted with the undeniable evidence that Pinochet was a right-wing dictator, he mumbles something about market economy policies and grudgingly concedes that he was right-wing "in that respect"--the clear implication being that Okie is ready to brand him a red, red commie in other respects.

Again another lie. Common for you. I never said anything about what Pinochet was in other respects. That is your imagination running overtime.

Bullshit.
In your post #3733095

You wrote:

I did not look in great detail at Pinochet's policies, so I cannot say much more than that he does appear to have instituted more free market solutions to the economy down there, and so he was to the right of the socialists or communists there.

Words and phrases have meanings, even if, to you, those meanings are elastic and mean what you want them to mean, regardless of what they say. When you say he was to the right of the socialists and communists there, the clear inference is that he may not have been to the right of them in other areas. Now certainly is was employing hyperbole and sarcasm when i used the expression "a red, red commie," but it does not alter the fact that you can't just admit that Pinochet was a right-wing dictator and leave it at that. It's like pulling teeth with you.

This is why i also brought up Rafael Trujillo, Anastasio Somoza, Ferdinand Marcos, Park Chung Hee, and so many others. Let me add Francisco Franco, Antonio Salazar, Tojo Hideki, the Argentine Junta, Juan Peron, the Greek Colonels, the Burmese generals. You want to limit the discussion to the people you think you know something about (although you are deluding yourself), and that's because you are not really prepared to defend your thesis. You don't want to go through a laundry list of right-wing dictators because it would overwhelm you to attempt to learn enough about them all so that you could cobble together some idiotic claim that they were all actually left-wing. The fact of the matter is, you've probably never heard of most of them, which is just more evidence of the ignorance from which you approached this witless exercise.

O'George was right, you're just jerking off here.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Keep in mind here that I have said more than once that I have framed my judgement on this along the lines of how we understand the left vs right distinction currently in the United States . . .

What's this "we" ****, Bubba, you got a mouse in your pocket? Who appointed you the judge of how all Americans perceive the political spectrum? This may come as a profound shock to you, but your view of politics may well not only not be universal in the United States, it may well not even be consonant with a majority opinion--if anyone could ever actually come up with that critter.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

okie wrote:
Challenge to any and all posters on this thread, define in your opinion what are the most defining characteristics of a left wing idealogy vs right wing.

Left wing Ideology advocates seek the maximization of the common good, and/or their own power by limiting the unalienable rights of all individuals.

Right wing Ideology advocates seek the maximization of the individual good by securing the unalienable rights of all individuals.

I know of several right wing ideology advocates who are dictators.

I know of no right wing ideology advocates who are dictators.

Thanks ican for your definition, which is not much different than mine. I do have one question, do you consider nationalism as belonging to the left or right? I do not, as defense of country and nationalism is pretty much a trait of all countries to one extent or another. In fact it seems to me that some of the most militaristic and belligerent countries are on the left, which is contrary to what leftists might argue about nationalism. Look at the Soviet Union or North Korea for example, and who loves to wear their revolutionary or military uniforms more than leftist dictators, such as Castro, Chavez, or the guy in North Korea for example?

1 Reply

leftists=the road to hell is paved with good intentions.....
rightists=we don't need no paved roads, the mud hole ruts thru the cow meadow was good enough for grandpa.

1 Reply

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know