20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 03:55 pm
@okie,
Setanta
Quote:
You obviously ignore the evidence
You are a hoot okie.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 03:57 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

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


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.

History has been written, I am not re-writing what happened, and you cannot change what happened, and the original record is still available for interpretation, so you and other so-called historians do not own the only interpretation of history, Walter, and nor am I alone in my interpretation.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 04:50 pm
@okie,
I read the drivel you posted years ago, and more recently. None of it adds up to anything even approaching proof that the NSDAP was a leftist organization. All i see you doing is taking the word socialist in the name of the party, and running with that. There was nothing socialist about the party, nor was there anything socialist about Hitler's policies. The NSDAP was only able to mount an impressive campaign to take over the Reichstag because German industrialists, bankers and financiers heavily contributed to the campaign. All of those men who supported the NSDAP's political campaigns were rewarded with lucrative contracts in the re-armament of Germany. Hitler did not nationalize industry, he did not create workers' collectives or committees, he did not reform labor law, he did not introduce occupational health and safety legislation. He did state that he would create a homeland for Germans in the Ukraine, and he attempted to do so with his invasion of the Soviet Union. He attempted to exterminate Jews, "Gypsies," Slavs, homosexuals and the physically and mentally disabled. To for even a moment suggest that his policies and programs had the least hint of socialism is an exercise in self-delusion on a grand scale--but it's only self-delusion because it certainly won't delude anyone who reads the historical record without partisan preconceptions.

In a subsequent post, you say that you are not alone in your "interpretation." That's true, you are not. Apologists for the NSDAP and Hitler attempt the same feeble claims you make. White supremacist historical revisionists agree with you, Okie. Nobody who does not approach the subject with a partisan political agenda, however, agrees with you.

Congratulations, Okie. You're in good company.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 06:46 pm
@okie,
I bet you think Stalin actually believed in and promoted Communism.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 09:25 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Nobody who does not approach the subject with a partisan political agenda, however, agrees with you.

So you do not have a partisan political agenda, Setanta? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. And sure, the socialists of Europe since World War II and today and their historians are surely not going to claim Hitler as their own, thats for sure.

It is highly instructive that you have yet to discuss Hitler's politics and policies in some detail, as I have done, but you merely repeat your conventional demagoguery of any opposing view to yours.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 10:07 pm
@najmelliw,
najmelliw wrote:

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?

Good example, I am happy to take a look at it. First of all, do you classify him as right or left? I am having to read up on him, but it appears that again, he uses a strong State, intervening into business, confiscating property, and violating the rights of individuals in the interests of the State. This appears akin to fascism or some form of a leftist idealogy, although not purely communist. He came to power through a form of populism among the disenfranchised.
Quote:
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.
I think clearly dysfunctional. And I found reference to the fact that in adulthood he may have been paranoid and irrational, or mentally ill.

Quote:
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.

Yes, and I also found reference to him resenting American sponsored rulers, and so he involved himself in a "black pride" movement. And fascinating, he apparently claimed he was akin to Jesus Christ himself. Talk about delusional! I don't believe this demonstrates a love for religion, but rather a disdain of it to the point of using it for his own ends. People can do that, most definitely. I think Obama is actually doing it now. I am not saying Obama is anywhere on the scale of this, but I am very skeptical he is a genuine Christian as he claims, and now he is almost talking like he is a Muslim, so he is definitely pandering to religions, but I think he has a disdain for it. I think the record shows, Papa doc fits this second condition, as well as the first one so far.

Quote:
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

I don't think it fails at all, he fits the majority of the conditions I mentioned. And to clarify, often the utopia mentioned in condition #3, that is the way they start out and gain power, but of course it never happens for any of these guys, never, and of course it is transformed into a situation where they will do anything to retain their power without regard to whether they were ever successful in their stated objectives. Such personalities always use a mask to gain power, they are not typically honest. Castro for example, the country grows increasingly poor, but he continues to maintain and believe it is utopia, but he still believes he has accomplished alot, and he would never admit it was his own selfish ambition. That would be true for all of the dictators that I cited as examples. And if you asked Papa Doc, he would have told you the same thing I believe.


Quote:
2) Alfredo Stroessner - Dictator of Paraguay.

Rather than muddy the water with another example for now, I am only addressing the first one you mentioned, najmelliw. By the way, where did you come up with that confused name?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:40 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

History has been written, I am not re-writing what happened, and you cannot change what happened, and the original record is still available for interpretation, so you and other so-called historians do not own the only interpretation of history, Walter, and nor am I alone in my interpretation.


Well, you are re-writing what has happened, as are others with "your" interpretation.

'Mein Kampf' was written after the NSDAP was founded. The NSDAP is a follower up party of the DAP ('Deutsche Arbeiter Partei', 'German Workers Party'). When you read their program, look at who was there .... Same with the Austrian Worker party/National Socialist party, btw.

Besides that it is very simplistic to transfer your idea of big government to Europe/Germany and say that it's a sign of "Socialism".
Such neglects totally different histories and cultures - or do you call our conservative and the other right parties of those days 'socialist' as well?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:51 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

I bet you think Stalin actually believed in and promoted Communism.

U mean he was a hypocrit ?





David
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 12:13 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

By the way, where did you come up with that confused name?


If you insist, you certainly can write the name as it would be in German: Alfred Strößner.
But he was born there, grew up in a wealthy Paraguayan family, though his parents emigrated from Germany.

If you intend to give some a Socialist view as well: there are enough documents about there conservative background in Hof/Germany.
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 02:31 am
@okie,
I doubt Papa doc can be classified as left or right. Frankly, I have a hard time envisioning this guy to have had any kind of ideology at all, except for self - enrichment.

His mother was mentally unstable, but I don't see much evidence that he was unstable later on in his life. During an extended illness, he let the leader of the tonton macoute's fill in for him. And when he returned to power, he claimed that the man had tried to usurp his position, and he had him thrown in jail. Later, when that man came out of jail, he apparently was involved in a plot to overthrow papa doc's power.
And I guess that paranoia is a very healthy trait if you feel that most people around you hold no love for you, but fear you.


He disdained religion alright. But rather then prosecute it, he used it as a means to hold on to the seat of government. I also think that this is a cynical abuse of the beliefs of the common man.
However, I strongly disagree that it fits your theory re religion. You say that someone who USES religion to establish a power base fits in with your theory how all these dictators REJECT or HATE religion. That's not logical. Explain yourself.


And feel free to muddy up the waters all you want. I think Stroessner doesn't fit your ruthless dictator bill, and I also think his political outlook places him on the left side on the spectrum. And I finally think that that is the reason that you don't wish to discuss him.




You claim that the trait of dictators to use a strong state to intervene into business and the lives of individuals belongs to the left side of the political spectrum.

HOWEVER, simply by BEING a ruthless dictator, they HAVE to use the power of the state to accomplish ANYTHING. And since EVERY political measure taken by ANY government does in SOME WAY influence either businessess or individuals, that really makes an empty statement.

Unless you want to envision a benign right government as some sort of benevolent anarchy of course.
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 04:10 am
Okie--Setanta wrote:

Re: okie (Post 3668532)
I read the drivel you posted years ago, and more recently. None of it adds up to anything even approaching proof that the NSDAP was a leftist organization. All i see you doing is taking the word socialist in the name of the party, and running with that. There was nothing socialist about the party, nor was there anything socialist about Hitler's policies. The NSDAP was only able to mount an impressive campaign to take over the Reichstag because German industrialists, bankers and financiers heavily contributed to the campaign. All of those men who supported the NSDAP's political campaigns were rewarded with lucrative contracts in the re-armament of Germany. Hitler did not nationalize industry, he did not create workers' collectives or committees, he did not reform labor law, he did not introduce occupational health and safety legislation. He did state that he would create a homeland for Germans in the Ukraine, and he attempted to do so with his invasion of the Soviet Union. He attempted to exterminate Jews, "Gypsies," Slavs, homosexuals and the physically and mentally disabled. To for even a moment suggest that his policies and programs had the least hint of socialism is an exercise in self-delusion on a grand scale--but it's only self-delusion because it certainly won't delude anyone who reads the historical record without partisan preconceptions.

In a subsequent post, you say that you are not alone in your "interpretation." That's true, you are not. Apologists for the NSDAP and Hitler attempt the same feeble claims you make. White supremacist historical revisionists agree with you, Okie. Nobody who does not approach the subject with a partisan political agenda, however, agrees with you.

Congratulations, Okie. You're in good company.

****************************************************************

He tries to demean you but he is full of ****.

Note from Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.

quote:P. 69

"In 1920 the Nazi Party issued it "Unalterable" and "eternal" party platform, co-written by Hitler and Anton Drexler...the most striking thing about the platform was its concerted appeal to SOCIALISTIC AND POPULIST ECONOMICS, including providing a livelihood for citizens, abolition of income from interest, the total confiscation of war profits, the nationalization of trusts, shared profits with labor, expanded old age pensions,"communalization of department stores, the execution of "usurers" regardless of race, and the outlawing of child labor....SO WE ARE ASKED TO SEE A PARTY AS OBJECTIVELY AND OBVIOUSLY RIGHT WING?


AND

P. 70

"The Nazis campaigned as SOCIALISTS. Yes, they were also nationalists, which in the context of the 1930's was considered a rightist position, but this was at a time when the "Internationalism" of the Soviet Union defined all nationalism as right wing..Not all nationalism is right wing unless we are prepared to call Stalin, Castro, Arafat, Chavez and Pol Pot right wing.


P. 71

"The Nazi Ideologue--and Hitler rival--Gregor Strasser--put it quite succinctly "WE ARE SOCIALISTS. We are enemies, deadly enemies of today's capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak..."
********************************************************

Setanta gives no link. Previous posts show that he constantly misspells common words. Are we supposed to trust the mind of a man who cannot even spell correctly? He gives no link to any respected author or document.

Okie- He tries to run you down but, the evidence above shows that he is full of ****.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 06:42 am
@okie,
Quote:
So you do not have a partisan political agenda, Setanta?


No, Okie, when i am discussing history, i do not. Apparently your failure to read or if having read them, to understand my posts has resulted in your not having noticed that i have consistently pointed out that there have been both right-wing and left-wing totalitarian states. Apparently, you have failed either to read or to understand that i have consistently said what EB so succinctly pointed out. It is fanatics who make dictatorships, regardless of what political tradition they come from.

You are now just a liar, Okie. I have discussed his policies in detail. It is because you make idiotic statements such as that that i am convinced that you don't read other people's posts. I have already pointed out that Hitler took none of the classic steps of a socialist government, and that he took all of the classic steps of a right-wing fascist government. Who gives a rat's ass what he wrote, what he did is what matters. We all know politicians will say anything to get into to office. It's what they do once they are there that matters, not the bullshit they peddled while they were trying to get there.

Saying that someone has not answered your argument is pretty damned silly when anyone can go back and read the posts in which your argument has been answered.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:45 am
It's hard for me to determine just what are Okie's underlying ideas here, but it does appear to me that he is confusing the left & right of political & economic ideology with the good and bad of human nature. The truth is these things are orthogonal - in the sense that one doesn't determine the other.

There have been and will continue to be socialist, left wing political advocates who are sympathetic human beings who are not given to exploiting and controlling others - quite the contrary. Similarly there are and will continue to be like people who in their political & economic beliefs put more emphasis on individual freedom, enterprise and property rights. Indeed some of the political leaders of both sides of these debates (alas too few) are mostly of this type.

At the same time there are and have been vain, brutal, power-seeking leaders of both political/economic persuasions, and all points in between, who have misused their opportunities and power to cause great misery and suffering.

Evil, when it occurs, is not so much in the ideology as in the actions of individual people and leaders. Whatever virtue I find in our political and economic system rests primarily in its central tendency to (usually) check and limit the excesses of bad people or people when they are bad. The chief defect of the authoritarian socialist systems of the 20th century was their failure to deliver on their theory and promises : -- a failure that arose from the inherent contradictions between theory and the facts of human nature - the "vanguard of the people" turned out to care more about the vanguard than the people, and there was nothing to limit them. That trait appears to be very often true of all authoritarian systems, left or right, there is nothing to limit the excesses of the leaders when they fail to behave as Plato's imagined philosopher kings.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:48 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
This appears akin to fascism or some form of a leftist idealogy,

So, it's either right-wing or left-wing? Your insight is keen.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:09 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

By the way, where did you come up with that confused name?


If you insist, you certainly can write the name as it would be in German: Alfred Strößner.
But he was born there, grew up in a wealthy Paraguayan family, though his parents emigrated from Germany.

If you intend to give some a Socialist view as well: there are enough documents about there conservative background in Hof/Germany.

Calm down, Walter, I was talking about "najmelliw," the poster.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:27 am
@najmelliw,
najmelliw wrote:

You claim that the trait of dictators to use a strong state to intervene into business and the lives of individuals belongs to the left side of the political spectrum.

HOWEVER, simply by BEING a ruthless dictator, they HAVE to use the power of the state to accomplish ANYTHING. And since EVERY political measure taken by ANY government does in SOME WAY influence either businessess or individuals, that really makes an empty statement.

Unless you want to envision a benign right government as some sort of benevolent anarchy of course.

You are beginning to catch on, najmelliw. Yes, I am arguing that the leftward leaning policies provide a much more fertile soil for brutal dictatorships to germinate and take hold. A conservative government that believes in less intrusive government as possible, free enterprise, rights, freedoms, and responsibilies of the individual over government, yes, very clearly this system does not provide fertile ground for dictators. Radicals that believe in these conservative values will not take root, because if they actually believe in these principles, they will never attempt to become a dictator. Conversely, leftward leaning radicals do in fact believe that government is the ultimate power and arbitor of justice and economic or environmental prosperity, or whatever issue they can sell to the people. By definition, leftists are big government people, or Statists.

I will grant you the fact that perhaps not all dictators are personally very energized by an idealogy, but I think all of them use one, they ride an idealogy to power, as they must appeal to the support of groups of people, at least initially until they attain a firm grip on power.

Conservative values believe in government only as a referee rather than the star of the team, or as the entire team playing the game. Here in America, as I perceived the country growing up, and what I thought we all believed in and fought for was the concept of freedom, we as citizens played the game, and government only provides the ground rules to enforce our freedoms. Along with those freedoms come an awesome responsibility for us to to be law abiding citizens and to work to support ourselves and our families. We are right now losing that basic groundwork belief, people are casting it aside, and Obama is actively tearing it asunder. Along with that we are losing the concept of responsible citizenship, that somehow the government is now responsible for that. It is a sad day in my opinion. Not personally, but for the country.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:42 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

It's hard for me to determine just what are Okie's underlying ideas here, but it does appear to me that he is confusing the left & right of political & economic ideology with the good and bad of human nature. The truth is these things are orthogonal - in the sense that one doesn't determine the other.

George, I am not claiming that dysfunctional people cannot be conservative in political views, what I am claiming is that dictators must use a leftist leaning ideology to gain power, so that people that truly believe in conservative values are not going to end up as brutal dictators. The conditions that prevail under a right or left leaning system will either enable or prevent brutal dictators.

Quote:
There have been and will continue to be socialist, left wing political advocates who are sympathetic human beings who are not given to exploiting and controlling others - quite the contrary. Similarly there are and will continue to be like people who in their political & economic beliefs put more emphasis on individual freedom, enterprise and property rights. Indeed some of the political leaders of both sides of these debates (alas too few) are mostly of this type.
I will agree with that, in fact most leftists are decent human beings that care about other people.

Quote:
At the same time there are and have been vain, brutal, power-seeking leaders of both political/economic persuasions, and all points in between, who have misused their opportunities and power to cause great misery and suffering.

Here is where I disagree, for the reasons that I state above. The most brutal dictators commonly have some axe to grind and they push a leftward agenda to fulfill their aims.

Quote:
Evil, when it occurs, is not so much in the ideology as in the actions of individual people and leaders. Whatever virtue I find in our political and economic system rests primarily in its central tendency to (usually) check and limit the excesses of bad people or people when they are bad. The chief defect of the authoritarian socialist systems of the 20th century was their failure to deliver on their theory and promises : -- a failure that arose from the inherent contradictions between theory and the facts of human nature - the "vanguard of the people" turned out to care more about the vanguard than the people, and there was nothing to limit them. That trait appears to be very often true of all authoritarian systems, left or right, there is nothing to limit the excesses of the leaders when they fail to behave as Plato's imagined philosopher kings.
You are touching on one of the basic points of my discussion and that is that conservative idealogies and governments have a far stronger check and balance to prevent evil and evil dictators from occurring. You seem to be falling into the traditional thinking that authoritarians can be left or right, and what I am telling you is that in context with modern Amercan understanding of left and right, authoritarianism is not part of conservative government philosophy, in my opinion of course, but I am far from alone. You really need to break free from whatever indoctrination you may have on this subject from college courses or books or whatever is responsible for your views, and use critical thinking for yourself.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:51 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
It's hard for me to determine just what are Okie's underlying ideas here, but it does appear to me that he is confusing the left & right of political & economic ideology with the good and bad of human nature. The truth is these things are orthogonal - in the sense that one doesn't determine the other.


Here . . . let's have that again.

However, i would point out to you O'George, that if you read the entire thread, you cannot escape the realization that Okie is trying to say that only people from the left become "ruthless dictators," and that he claims that this is endemic in "leftist ideologies." It doesn't matter how many right-wing dictators we point to, Okie either doesn't read the posts, or doesn't understand them, or chooses to ignore them.

His entire "thesis" (it doesn't really deserve the name, since he has come up with the idea, and is attempting, lamely to justify it) is based upon a claim of leftist depravity, and righist virtue. So, i'd say, you're wasting your time trying to get through to him.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:03 am
@Setanta,
I'm detecting more of a circular argument, based on faulty premises.

1. Evil liberals, and only evil liberals, believe in a powerful, centralized government.
2. Ruthless dictators rely on a powerful, centralized government.

Therefore, all ruthless dictators are actually evil, liberal, ruthless dictators.

If they weren't evil liberals, they wouldn't believe in a powerful, centralized government and wouldn't become ruthless and dictatorial.
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:29 am
@okie,
My nickname stems from Abuzz times. I didn't want a username with a bunch of numbers tagged on, so I fiddled around a bit before I took this one. It's actually quite simple to figure out, and I believe Walter at one time deciphered it already.

You still have to adress the Stroessner case, Okie. I am most interested to hear how he fits in your theories.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To bring it down to essentials, any government that is intrusive and controlling is left, since the right never leans that way.
Any dictator uses the means at his disposal, the tools of the state to exert control that is, to consolidate his position and pursue his goals.
Hence, all dictators must be from the left.

That is poor reasoning. What if a country declares a state of emergency/war, has it immediately changed into leftwing?

The system you envision creates a power vacuum at the centre, a powervacuum that will undoubtedly (because this is human nature) be filled in one way or another, namely by those individuals that have the most power over people. In the free market system you seem to envision, that would be the bank managers, the directors and board of regents of large companies, and the stockholders.

And you are saying that these groups are better equipped then a governemnt to keep a country running in a smooth manner?


 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 12:14:34