What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@okie,

If you want to have a serious discussion, it might be smart not to spam your own thread by posting the same bit of information over and over again. Also, if you, for some reason, think that nobody participating here has the mental capacity of getting a point the first time, without the help of bold text and red color, then you should probably just stop posting.

Then again, maybe you're just really, really happy to have found something which can be interpreted as supporting the conclusion you had already drawn when you started this thread.

1 Reply

@okie,

Here is the link to the text of the article in Time, January, 1939

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

If you want to have a serious discussion, it might be smart not to spam your own thread by posting the same bit of information over and over again. Also, if you, for some reason, think that nobody participating here has the mental capacity of getting a point the first time, without the help of bold text and red color, then you should probably just stop posting.

Then again, maybe you're just really, really happy to have found something which can be interpreted as supporting the conclusion you had already drawn when you started this thread.

Fine, but you and others blithely ignore the evidence as if it does not exist. You do not acknowledge it, nor do you post any evidence to disprove it. The spam is your posts with no substance. I am posting information. If you can't handle it, go somewhere else. I think the truth hurts, doesn't it, oe, you and other leftists just cannot abide the fact that Hitler had leftist beliefs, and he governed like a leftist.

1 Reply

@okie,

You're ignoring well-sourced posts I have made earlier. Your coming up with theories and explanations without bothering to check if those theories are supported by any evidence at all - and yet you accuse others either of failing to provide evidence for your claims or of ignoring whatever sources you bring to the discussion.

That's a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Look, here's an example:

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
I also note that you've still failed to come up with possible reasons why parties on the right side of the political spectrum, from center-right to right-wing extremists, were willing to support Hitler and form coalitions with the NSDAP, while left-wing parties, from the center-left Social Democrats to the Communist Party were fiercely opposed to his policies. Why do you think that was the case?

Maybe it was a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, or what they perceived them to be at that time, I imagine they never dreamed of the potential evil wreaked upon mankind by Hitler at that time, before he embarked on it. Voters here do this all the time, they vote for the person that they percieve to be closest to their viewpoint, even if it isn't that close, perhaps it is closer than somebody at the total opposite end of the spectrum? In Germany, political coalitions did the same thing, if they could not find enough support for their preferred option, they would throw their support to the group that was not quite as totally opposed as some others to what they perceive the correct policies would be.

"Maybe", eh? Have you actually bothered to look up the parties that formed coalitions with the NSDAP? Did you find out why the DVP lost votes to the DNVP, or how the DNVP was formed as a merger of the remnants of the German National People's Party, the German Conservative Party, the Free Conservative Party, the Fatherland Party and other conservative, nationalist, right-wing parties? Did you find out about the decline of the DNVP, and how DNVP members finally either retired or collectively joined the NSDAP?

Dozens of political parties existed, yet only conservative, traditionalist, monarchist, pro-military, nationalist parties tolerated or supported the NSDAP, while parties like the Social Democrats, the Socialists, the Independent Social Democrats or the Communists were in fierce opposition.

If you have a theory to explain this glaring contradiction between the political realities in the Weimar Republic and your claims, and you're actually able to support it with evidence, then feel free to post it here.

1 Reply

@okie,

Also, let me congratulate you to the list you've assembled here:

okie wrote:

State control of businesses, profits, wages, prices, etc.

Emphasis on public works, government sponsored projects, also highly organized, encouraged, or forced enlistment in service to the state.

State control of the media or press.

Suspension and control of democratic processes, individual rights, and freedom of speech.

A security force or police force under the direct control of the central State.

Centralized control of the educational system, with indoctrination of state mandated subjects and programs.

Devoted and fanatical party workers designed to maintain the power of the head of state.

Without going into details, I think that that's a fair characterization of the situation in Germany during the Third Reich. However, none of the points you've listed can exclusively be found on the left or the right side of the political spectrum. Your list is true for Germany under Hitler as it is for Chile under Augusto Pinochet or Iran under Ayatollah Khamenei.

Totalitarian regimes tend to control the market, force enlistment into military or paramilitary organisations that support the regime, stifle dissent by silencing the opposition through control of the media and restrictions of freedom of speech and suspend democratic processes or conduct them in a way to guarantee a certain outcome favourable to the regime while maintaining a facade of public support.

Those points are so generic and valid for virtually any modern totalitarian regime, because they have nothing to do with political ideology. Those are totalitarian measures, and any totalitarian country will happily employ them as long as they help the regime to stay in power.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Okay, coalitions, all well and good, but it tells us nothing about policies of Hitler. Political coalitions form because of those in the coalitions choose the sides based upon their assessments of future prospects of their power, not only their policies, but their hope of position. Hope of position, here is an example, Lieberman went with Gore and defended Gore because he became a choice for his vp, but a few short years later he was vigorously opposing his own previous party, because of policy. It is not uncommon for people to campaign for somebody, based upon more than policy, but also hope for appointments in the government. Many will tend to pick who they think will win, just so they can be on the winning side and share in the political spoils.

I think I have listed several key aspects of Hitlers manner of governing in a previous post, here they are again, and all are leftist in nature, every single one of them, and every one of them are significant and valid.

Oh, I see that you posted them. Good. But you claim they are not necessarily leftist. That makes no sense, oe, not the way it is understood and debated here. And I made it clear early on this is judged in an American context of what is left vs right. Sorry, but you can't dredge up some definition from the 16th century out of Europe or somewhere.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Also, let me congratulate you to the list you've assembled here:

okie wrote:
State control of businesses, profits, wages, prices, etc.

Emphasis on public works, government sponsored projects, also highly organized, encouraged, or forced enlistment in service to the state.

State control of the media or press.

Suspension and control of democratic processes, individual rights, and freedom of speech.

A security force or police force under the direct control of the central State.

Centralized control of the educational system, with indoctrination of state mandated subjects and programs.

Devoted and fanatical party workers designed to maintain the power of the head of state.

Without going into details, I think that that's a fair characterization of the situation in Germany during the Third Reich. However, none of the points you've listed can exclusively be found on the left or the right side of the political spectrum. ....

Here is where I disagree totally. Let us take each one. Again, left vs right is in American context.

State control of business is anti-free market, not all the way to communism and state control, but as Hitler said, if we own the individuals running the businesses, we own the businesses anyway. That is clearly not conservative free market individual freedom right wing politics, no way.

Emphasis on public works and enlistment or service to state, that is New Dealish times whatever, a liberal left policy.

State control of the media, that is anti-constitutional, anti individual, anti-freedom, it is a collective idea, that everyone must subscribe to the ideas of the state and cooperate, so we cannot tolerate individuals out there expressing their opinions. That is leftist.

Suspension of the democratic process, individual rights, no freedom of speech, again the individual bows at the collective will of the state, for the supposed common good.

A national security force, that is typical to enforce the power of the central state or collective over the freedom of individuals, clearly leftist in nature. Obama is right now proposing such a civilian security force.

Centralized education, again, the State trumps the individual, for the common good.

Devoted fanatical party workers, this is typical of leftist policies, these are groupees that are buying into the State's power for the common good, demanding the government provide most essential necessities and services for the people. Self interest is demoted to obscurity.

In summary, oe, I simply do not see how you can argue that some of these things can reside in opposite ends of the political spectrum, as they are hallmarks of how liberal left leaning people think, its collective over the individual, simple as that.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Oh, I see that you posted them. Good. But you claim they are not necessarily leftist. That makes no sense, oe, not the way it is understood and debated here. And I made it clear early on this is judged in an American context of what is left vs right. Sorry, but you can't dredge up some definition from the 16th century out of Europe or somewhere.

How is "state control of the media or press" leftist in nature? Sure, Chavez has problems if the press is questioning his legitimacy, but so does Khamenei. Does your definition of "leftism" suddenly include islamist theocracies? Pinochet relied on a loyal military to stay in power, but I don't think that he would fit into your definition of "leftism". Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy where a ruthless religious police answers directly to King Abdullah, yet you seem to believe that "A security force or police force under the direct control of the central State" is something that's clearly "leftist".

To cut it short - I agree with you that these measures are totalitarian in nature, and that they can be found in totalitarian regimes, to a varying degree. That includes Germany under Hitler. However, if you're going to claim that those points are clearly evidence of "leftism", then you're better going to point out how only socialist countries employ those totalitarian measures, and support that with some evidence.

2 Replies

@old europe,

okie has never provided evidence for any of his cockamamie claims.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

To cut it short - I agree with you that these measures are totalitarian in nature, and that they can be found in totalitarian regimes, to a varying degree. That includes Germany under Hitler. However, if you're going to claim that those points are clearly evidence of "leftism", then you're better going to point out how only socialist countries employ those totalitarian measures, and support that with some evidence.

Perhaps this is where the point of contention is. I believe totalitarianism by definition trumps individualism for the sake of commonality, whether it be economic, owning of businesses, religion, individual rights like freedom of speech, whatever. For example, freedom of speech is eliminated when the State deems that everyone must have a common voice, a common belief, a common goal, and that is collectivism, a leftist idea. The same principle can be applied to many of the other aspects of life, such as religion when it is forced to be one, common for everyone, nobody is allowed choice. Property rights, everyone owns everything, no private property, that would be collectivism. Forced collectivism for part of or all aspects of life for a society may require some force, and as it becomes more encompassing, more force would be required.

So perhaps the thing I see differently, collectivism can be practiced in various ways, more ways than simply economic, although that is a very important and central one. Depending upon the mood of a particular culture, collectivist practices may be more voluntary than at other times in other countries and cultures, so the extent of the need for totalitarian rule may vary.

I would be interested to know if you can cite a country that has individual choice and ownership of property, belongings, religion, medical care, jobs, choice of where to live, individualism in most aspects of life, if you can cite a country that has a totalitarian ruler to enforce this way of life?

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Prove your accusation, Walter. Are you making an accusation of who, the writer of the article in Time Magazine? Do you have any evidence or are you just making off the wall comments without any connection to anything. You seem a bit unhinged, and no wonder when your long held theories are shot down that easily.

Prove it? You should read the papers, okie. There are a couple online.
Besides that - it's unfortunately nearly the weekly evidence here in Germany (and other European countries).

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I believe totalitarianism by definition trumps individualism for the sake of commonality, whether it be economic, owning of businesses, religion, individual rights like freedom of speech, whatever. For example, freedom of speech is eliminated when the State deems that everyone must have a common voice, a common belief, a common goal, and that is collectivism, a leftist idea.

I think that's really your belief.

But it doesn't make or true and commonly shared.

Have a look at e.g. Israel, which no-one really thinks to be either a leftist or a totalitarian country.

Citizens of Israel most certainly 'must' have a common voice, without the common belief Jews can't get married in Israel, there is a common goal and collectivism - well, how do you define a kibbutz?

Coming back to Germany: collectivism was thought (and still is) to be neither left nor right be developed from the ur-Christianity (at least what people thought to be).
So we got those brotherhoods and associations, those guilds and 'clubs' which were kind of pre-runners of our health insurance system et. al. We've got a large banking collective which dates back to early 19th century (running besides others "folks banks" [Volksbank]) ...

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I would be interested to know if you can cite a country that has individual choice and ownership of property, belongings, religion, medical care, jobs, choice of where to live, individualism in most aspects of life, if you can cite a country that has a totalitarian ruler to enforce this way of life?

Mussolini had all that plus the trains ran on time.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Mussolini had all that plus the trains ran on time. (emphasis added)

Which seemed to impress Europe more than any other aspect of Italy. The trains must have been really, really unreliable before the fascisti took over . . .

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I would be interested to know if you can cite a country that has individual choice and ownership of property, belongings, religion, medical care, jobs, choice of where to live, individualism in most aspects of life, if you can cite a country that has a totalitarian ruler to enforce this way of life?

I do not mean that Russia in 1990's was fully totalitarian in the proper sense of this word but it certainly became a ruthless police state just when promoting individual choice and ownership of property, belongings, religion, medical care, jobs, choice of where to live and individualism in whole.

Btw, has somebody counted who killed more people in Iraq, dictator Saddam or the "liberators"? Taleban in Afghanistan or "Operation Enduring Freedom"? Sorry that I have touched upon sensitive political issues of today. I refer to these contemporary examples with the only intention to give food for thought.

1 Reply

@SerSo,

SerSo, Nice to see you again. Here's the section from Wiki on the Iraq war.

Quote:

Casualty estimates
Main article: Casualties of the Iraq War
See also: Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003, Foreign hostages in Iraq, and List of insurgents killed in Iraq
Wounded US personnel flown from Iraq to Ramstein, Germany for medical treatment. (February 2007)

For coalition death totals see the infobox at the top right. See also Casualties of the Iraq War, which has casualty numbers for coalition nations, contractors, non-Iraqi civilians, journalists, media helpers, aid workers, wounded, etc.. The main article also gives explanations for the wide variation in estimates and counts, and shows many ways in which undercounting occurs. Casualty figures, especially Iraqi ones, are highly disputed. This section gives a brief overview.

U.S. General Tommy Franks reportedly estimated soon after the invasion that there had been 30,000 Iraqi casualties as of April 9, 2003.[263] After this initial estimate he made no further public estimates.

In December 2005 President Bush said there were 30,000 Iraqi dead. White House spokesman Scott McClellan later said it was "not an official government estimate", and was based on media reports.[264]

There have been several attempts by the media, coalition governments and others to estimate the Iraqi casualties:

* USA Today count (July 17, 2009): 4,328 members of the U.S. military.[265] The AP count is one fewer than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EDT.

The British military has reported 176 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia and Georgia, three each; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.

* Iraqi Health Ministry casualty survey: in January 2008 the Iraqi health minister, Dr Salih Mahdi Motlab Al-Hasanawi, reported the results of the "Iraq Family Health Survey" of 9,345 households across Iraq which was carried out in 2006 and 2007. It estimated 151,000 violence-related Iraqi deaths (95% uncertainty range, 104,000 to 223,000) from March 2003 through June 2006. Employees of the Iraqi Health Ministry carried out the survey for the World Health Organization.[266] The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.[267][268][269]
* Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said in November 2006 that since the March 2003 invasion between 100,000-150,000 Iraqis have been killed.[270] Al-Shemari said on Thursday, Nov. 9, that he based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals.[271]
* The United Nations found that 34,452 violent civilian deaths were reported by morgues, hospitals, and municipal authorities across Iraq in 2006.[272][273]
* The Iraqi ministries of Health, Defence and Interior said that 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police, and 627 soldiers were killed in 2006.[274] The Iraqi government does not count deaths classed as "criminal", nor those from kidnappings, nor wounded persons who die later as the result of attacks. However "a figure of 3,700 civilian deaths in October 2006, the latest tally given by the UN based on data from the Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue, was branded exaggerated by the Iraqi Government."[275]
* The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) has documented 91,856 - 100,278 violent, non-combatant civilian deaths since the beginning of the war as of May 6, 2009.[276] However, the IBC has been criticized for counting only a small percentage of the number of actual deaths because they only include deaths reported by specific media agencies.[277][278] IBC Director John Sloboda admits, "We've always said our work is an undercount, you can't possibly expect that a media-based analysis will get all the deaths."[279]
* The 2006 Lancet survey of casualties of the Iraq War estimated 654,965 Iraqi deaths (range of 392,979-942,636) from March 2003 to the end of June 2006.[29][30] That total number of deaths (all Iraqis) includes all excess deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc, and includes civilians, military deaths and insurgent deaths. 601,027 were violent deaths (31% attributed to Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown.) A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion of the reported deaths (92 per cent of surveyed households produced one.)[29][280] The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%.) The survey results have been criticized as "ridiculous" and "extreme and improbable" by various critics such as the Iraqi government and Iraq Body Count project.[59][281][282] However, in a letter to The Age, published Oct. 21, 2006, 27 epidemiologists and health professionals defended the methods of the study, writing that the study's "methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously."
* An Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths due to the Iraq War (range of 733,158 to 1,446,063.) Out of a national sample of 1,499 Iraqi adults, 22% had one or more members of their household killed due to the Iraq War (poll accuracy +/-2.4%.)[283] ORB reported that 48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from car bombs, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance. It is the highest estimate given so far of civilian deaths in Iraq and is consistent with the Lancet study.[59][284] On January 28, 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[28]

From stinkzone.com.

Quote:

November 15, 2004

Iraq Deaths: Saddam vs. U.S.

SFGate.com: Scientists estimate 100,000 Iraqis may have died in war

MoreOrLess.au.com: Saddam Hussein Profile

Saddam: between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis killed (includes Kurds)

Anything found will usually be estimates, because the US didn't do body counts of Iraqis during the war, and the wide range of casualties under Saddam is understandable since many just disappeared.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I left out important paragraphs from the above link:

Quote:

What this means is that if the U.S. invasion has lead to an average of about 70,000 deaths per year -- based on the survey that finds Iraqi death rate increased by 100,000 over the first 18 months of the occupation -- then it is likely that Iraqis are dying at a higher rate under the U.S. occupation than they were under Saddam's regime.

If we take the estimates that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis died during Saddam's rule (1979 - 2003), it yields an annual death rate of between 25,000 to 50,000 per year under Saddam.

Based on the figure of 100,000 Iraqi deaths from the invasion, it could be said that the new annual death rate under U.S. "rule" (or lack of) is somewhere around 66,000 Iraqis per year.

Annual deaths during Saddam rule: between 25,000 to 50,000

Annual deaths during U.S. Occupation: about 66,000

Posted by Eric on November 15, 2004 01:25 PM

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
I would be interested to know if you can cite a country that has individual choice and ownership of property, belongings, religion, medical care, jobs, choice of where to live, individualism in most aspects of life, if you can cite a country that has a totalitarian ruler to enforce this way of life?

Mussolini had all that plus the trains ran on time.

No, it had very little of that. In regard to the trains, I don't know, but don't really care, it is beside the point. The following is but a few points proving Mussolini's leftist idealogy of fascism, and the curtailment of personal rights and choices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

"While failing to outline a coherent program, Fascism evolved into a new political and economic system that combined totalitarianism, nationalism, anti-communism, anti-capitalism and anti-liberalism into a state designed to bind all classes together under a corporatist system (the "Third Way"). This was a new system in which the state seized control of the organisation of vital industries. Under the banners of nationalism and state power, Fascism seemed to synthesize the glorious Roman past with a futuristic utopia.

.....

Mussolini launched several public construction programs and government initiatives throughout Italy to combat economic setbacks or unemployment levels. His earliest, and one of the best known, was Italy's equivalent of the Green Revolution, known as the "Battle for Grain", in which 5,000 new farms were established and five new agricultural towns on land reclaimed by draining the Pontine Marshes.

....

Mussolini pushed for government control of business: by 1935, Mussolini claimed that three quarters of Italian businesses were under state control. That same year, he issued several edicts to further control the economy, including forcing all banks, businesses, and private citizens to give up all their foreign-issued stocks and bonds to the Bank of Italy. In 1938, he also instituted wage and price controls.[31] He also attempted to turn Italy into a self-sufficient autarky, instituting high barriers on trade with most countries except Germany.

In 1943 he proposed the theory of economic socialization.
...

As dictator of Italy, Mussolini's foremost priority was the subjugation of the minds of the Italian people and the use of propaganda to do so; whether at home or abroad, and here his training as a journalist was invaluable. Press, radio, education, films"all were carefully supervised to create the illusion that fascism was the doctrine of the twentieth century, replacing liberalism and democracy.

...

The law codes of the parliamentary system were rewritten under Mussolini. All teachers in schools and universities had to swear an oath to defend the fascist regime. Newspaper editors were all personally chosen by Mussolini and no one who did not possess a certificate of approval from the fascist party could practice journalism.

....

1 Reply

@okie,

The Italian Fscist Party is another topic where some US-writers try to move it to the left.

They were explicitly anticommunist, the Fscist Party was as opposed to the withering away of the state as it was to individualistic liberalism.

The only real opposition came from the left and some catholic organisations - but they failed, especially due to the biennio nero ("two black years", 1921"22).
Since the police, the army and the middle class sympathized with Fascist destruction of the left and especially the unions ... well, nevertheless, Mussolini idea's are still present in today's Italy.

1 Reply

but... bu..but... i thought Obama was supposed to be Marx. and then he was Hitler. now he's Mussolini ?

damn. can't keep track of the players without a score card these days....

1 Reply

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know