What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@Setanta,

Obviously, okie is too stupid to know better. How he's able to arrive at such illogical, uninformed, conclusions becomes more extreme as he continues to post his 'personal' perceptions and beliefs.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I wouldn't call okie stupid. Uninformed, yes.

On the other hand, okie wrote more than once on this thread that he had studied the history of the NSDAP (to be correct, he called it "history of the Nazi party"), and that he missed some of the major topics and events in that history ...

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Well, according to any dictionary, okie fits the definition:

Quote:

adj 1. stupid - lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity

When something is explained a hundred different ways, and he still doesn't comprehend its meaning, that's stupid!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

What does ignoring my last post come under ci.? HUA I suppose.

What does ignoring what is said and continually blurting out the same repetitive and meaningless drivel come under? Stubborn bigot eh?

You don't even understand Dawkins never mind Darwin. They are simply errand boys to satisfy your wandering desires.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Actually, I've been quite uninformed until recently, too.

Of course, I knew that the DAP was a forerunner of the NSDAP, I was aware of its history and programs.
But I totally forgot (or didn't know) that there have been actually two more parties which were the 'founding ground' of the NSDAP, namely the Deutschsozialistische Partei (DSP) ("Germansocialistic Party") [which was the most democratic party of all the three, menaing not much, though] and the Deutschsoziale Partei ("Germansocial Party").

All the three had in common that (formerly) leading Thule members were members there as well, that they were anti-semitic, nationalists and only 'social'/'socialistic' in name. [The DSP was perhaps the only 'socialistic' party, though that term meant according to their program "'uneingeschränkte Pflichterfüllung" ('unrestricted fullfilment of duties') on basis of the "christlich-ethisches Postulat" ('Christian-ethical postulate').

Nevertheless, the DSP's party organ, the 'Münchner Beobachter' changed its name in 1919 to 'Völkischer Beobchter' which was bought in 1920 by the NSDAP.
In autumn 1922, the DSP was deleted and all members became NSDAP members.(Same happened to the Deustchsoziale Partei in February 1922, when they became a NSDAP party unit in Hannover.)

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

As I understand it okie, socialism, which is left, in the broadest sense, is the view that capitalism has grave flaws morally and economically and promotes action to remedy those flaws.

Well said, spendi. And so Hitler promoted the practice of fixing alot of it to his liking, so much so that many of the capitalists felt stabbed in the back, isn't that correct? As I understand it, Hitler did not try to scrap capitalism, he only saw fit to use it and direct it to his liking, with his government in charge of it, controlling profits, wages, and so forth, and also did confiscate properties and businesses where he saw fit. He had a hybrid model of socialism and capitalism, right?

Quote:

As no self-respecting dictator, especially a ruthless one, would go anywhere near the "hidden hand" and allow matters to come to stasis of their own accord, it seems obvious that dictators are socialist and thus lefties.

I think the word "socialism" was coined as an opposite to capitalism.

I agree pretty much. Anybody can look up the word "social" and realize it implies a group or collection of people throwing in their resources together, rather than solving their own problems and retaining their own individual rights to property and business, etc.

Quote:

On the other hand socialism is supposed to champion the cause of the underdog which might be the method the dictator uses to come to power, as opposed to a military coup, or even a free election. A dictator may only be ruthless with those who don't accept their underdog status. It may be necessary for him to actually champion the cause of the ordinary underdog to stay in power in a modern industrial society.

But, as I said at the beginning, what really makes him is opportunity and guts.

Very good summary. You explain why socialists love to throw around terms like "social and economic justice." You've got it right, they claim to speak for the underdog, and if there becomes enough people that view themselves as underdogs, then the time is ripe for a leftist opportunist to be elected. Once elected, they often discard free, fair, and uncorrupted elections, so that they can retain thier power. However, there may be some socialist governments that have enough opposition or sense of fairness to retain some fairness of elections for a considerable time. It depends upon the character of the socialists on how this plays out over time, and how significant and organized the opposition may be. And actually, there may be countries or cultures where the majority of the people actually do support such a system for a considerable time. And if they see their neighbors that openly oppose the government begin lose heart and give up their opposition to the situation or even to disappear, this also tends to dampen their enthusiasm for openly opposing the status quo. What socialists have in their favor is the fact that they are often groupees to begin with, and therefore they may be able to organize themselves very well to support their movement. In contrast, individualists are acting as individuals and are not so oriented toward mass movements and organizing.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
Since I am from Oklahoma and have not had the profound privilege of studying history at the university as you have, just maybe you could take 5 minutes out of your precious day to provide a link or two that would resolve this argument? Or can you do it? After all, it is only a matter of presenting facts, as you never present an opinion, isn't that right?

You must have graduated successfully from highschool.

From high school and college.

Quote:

I'm aware that the US educational system is better than ours - we learnt left/right at the gymnasium (which is a grammar school/highschool in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, the Nordic and Baltic European countries), it was assumed that you knew such when going to university.

I make no claim that our system is better, and in fact I don't think schools are the answer to how sensible some things are, particularly politics. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure some of this stuff out, in fact I have known farmers that could hardly write their name that were smarter than some college professors. Do not take offense, I am not referring to you or your university.

Quote:

If you would read what I wrote, you would know where and why and when I presented facts and/or opinion(s).

Sorry, please direct me to a certain post or link, I do not wish to read through dozens of pages to find a cogent set of points, and I don't recall you ever providing any to be honest. If you have, please direct me to it and I will apologize. Actually, spendius took all of maybe a couple minutes and wrote what I thought was a pretty good summary of it. Are you going to let him outshine you, or is a couple of minutes of your time too valuable?

Quote:

But as written a couple of times: you don't read what other post ... if it's outside your black<>white spectrum: "Don't give me the facts, my mind is made up".

Have a nice day.

Well, I think a little distinction is good, after all don't throw out a sky of total gray and claim you have described any differences. It looks like you could come up with at least a couple of points that you can distinguish, or is that just too much to ask? Maybe your world is just too murky?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

okie wrote:
Disagree if you must, but at least have the honor of telling the truth about what I have "alleged." I do not believe I have ever alleged that all ruthless dictators are leftists. And I have never alleged that all leftists are ruthless, far far from it, and I believe you attempted to make that accusation a few posts back. What I have said, and I have pointed this out many many times, is that leftist idealogies provide more fertile ground for ruthless dictators to germinate and to gain power.

This is from the very first post in this thread:

Quote:
What prompted my little study was the current political climate, with many extremists rejecting the norm of past generations, even going so far as leftist liberals calling George Bush a Nazi. It aroused a curiosity to see if history had shown certain personality types to be more prone to becoming ruthless dictators if they gained power. Of course, I think Bush being compared to Hitler is utterly preposterous and in fact I think the opposite political scenario is more likely, and I think my study into the subject strongly supports my view. It is my firm belief that the extreme leftist mindset presents by far the most dangerous fertile ground to produce another ruthless dictator. It is the unhinged personalities with dysfunctional backgrounds, commonly with poor and immoral personal relationships, coupled with a lack of religious faith, then add to this an acquired strong belief that government can and should solve all problems, perhaps even creating some kind of utopia. (emphasis added)

Just what the hell do you expect people would take away from your constant comments in this thread, from this very first post onward? More than that, on the many occasions upon which i have pointed out that the majority of "ruthless dictators" have been right-wing, you have either avoided commenting, or, as was the case with Pinochet, you have attempted to claim that they were in fact "leftists." Called on Pinochet, all you would say that was in regard to economic matters, he "seemed" to be conservative, the clear implication being that you weren't certain that he wasn't a leftist in other matters. You must really think everyone else here is stupid.

What do I expect people to take from what I said? Exactly what I said. For example if I say Kansas is more fertile ground to grow wheat then Colorado, does that mean Colorado grows no wheat? Probably not. Perhaps they grow alot less, and that is my point. Use common sense. How difficult was that to understand? And why did you try to twist it into something else, like no wheat grows anywhere else besides Kansas?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In his post #3668275, on page 4 . . .

okie wrote:
You see, the reason I believe, and other people believe, that the Left is a much more dangerous idealogy is the very fact that the Left believe in government forced solutions, collectivism, and by its very definition requires more government power and therefore potential abuse. The same conditions cannot be said about the Right or the conservative idealogy, because by definition it believes in the power, freedom, and responsibility of the individual, not government. Therefore, a fanatic that applies himlelf to Leftist idealogy is a very dangerous individual, and that is where the individuals are classified, that I chose as the examples for this thread. (emphasis added)

What is someone to believe you are saying with that, if not that only left-wing individuals can be ruthless dicators, and that right-wing individuals are incapable of being dictators?

Again, I think you are attempting to assume something that I did not say. I don't think I have ever said right wingers are incapable of being ruthless dictators. I have simply said that left wingers inherently believe in collectivism, acting as one group in terms of property, economy, business, speech, and perhaps religion, and big government in general, so they are more fertile ground for dictatorships.

Here again, it would help if we could discuss how right wingers or left wingers are currently defined as you understand it, otherwise we end up talking over each other, and that is indeed what has happened. But you refuse to simply state your yardstick that you are using, and then accuse me of playing games and all kinds of funny things when I make that simple request. Strange approach you have to the subject. And if you simply can't bring yourself to be honest about it, I have said before, the argument is about over, or is over.

0 Replies

@okie,

The point is that you started out while having your mind already made up about what the conclusion would be, and then went on to hunt down evidence that would support your conclusion. You've dismissed any evidence that wasn't in accordance with what you wanted to see. You hold up random, unsourced stuff you've found on the internet as evidence that you are right, and dismiss primary sources as irrelevant.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In his post #3668417, on page #5 . . .

okie wrote:
Setanta, dictatorships do not fit conservative idealogy, when judged in context with our comparison of liberal and conservative viewpoints in the U.S.

If you are saying that dictatorships do not fit conservative ideology, you are saying by inference that all dictatorships are liberal or leftist. Do you think everyone here is stupid?

I will give you credit, you did find one quote that seems to indicate that I said right wingers cannot be a dictator. To explain further however, I do think a politician with mostly right wing or conservative beliefs can diverge just enough to possibly go haywire and become a dictator. I think it has happened, and I think I agreed with you to an extent that it did happen already, perhaps with Pinochet, and possibly others, and you should know that. I do think though that if a politician was perfectly following a conservative idealogy as it is currently developed, being a dictator would run counter with that, it would not happen. Personally, this is my view, I would argue for and vote for a conservative or right wing agenda via a representative government, but if a socialist government is democratically elected, I would not personally take up arms to oppose it, and if I was a politician, I would not oppose it except by democratic means. And I would expect any true conservative to do the same. Can I guarantee that, I doubt it. But I think it would far less likely for a conservative to resort to a power move or dictatorship than I would a left winger.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I wouldn't call okie stupid. Uninformed, yes.

Gee thanks for the compliment.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I do think though that if a politician was perfectly following a conservative idealogy as it is currently developed, being a dictator would run counter with that, it would not happen.

A conservative ideology, as defined by you earlier, is only a part of the political positions to be found on the right side of the political spectrum. Just because you disagree with a particular position does not mean it's necessarily a left-wing position.

1 Reply

@okie,

When you are given good information by almost everybody, and you continue to ignore them, you are stupid! No doubt.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Nah, I don't agree with that. It's more a case of Tolstoy Syndrome, really.

0 Replies

@old europe,

And just because you disagree with a position does not make it a right wing position, does it? Lets be honest, can't we all, there are no two politicians or even people that see every issue exactly the same. There are no two clones, are there? Thats what amuses me to read Walter when he claims he only posts facts, not opinion. That made for a good laugh.

This forum is about opinion, its also about posting evidence for ones opinion, and nobody has a monopoly on all the facts or all the opinion being right. But I do think I have some credible opinion to offer, just as worthwhile as Walter's or anyone else, just as you and everyone else thinks you have the right ideas. Lets also be honest, we all have a dog in this fight, we all have an ox to be gored, and that is why we all will post the evidence that we honestly, I hope honestly, supports our beliefs. And hopefully our beliefs are based upon some credible experience or knowledge.

In regard to experience or knowledge, I am not as academicly oriented as Walter or you perhaps, but I do have more than a couple of things that I think are very valid. First of all, I grew up fairly poor in a family of immigrants in our past, parents that survived the depression in Oklahoma, not exactly an oasis of affluence, a father from Europe, a stepfather that served in the Pacific in WW II, and as FDR Democrats, I could not count the thousands of political debates around the dinner table for years. Secondly, I also have the benefit of Vietnam, a closeup encounter with another system, another culture, in a very serious way. I am not claiming my experiences are superior, but I do believe I have not had things very easily, not as easily as some others, and by virtue of struggle, we learn some things pretty well.

I guess it has all burned into my brain the virtues of freedom and liberty for the individual, versus a more socialistic society. I confess, it has given me a fierce pride of the United States of America and the inherent freedom to fail or the freedom to succeed. To succeed, in my view, is not to become rich, it is instead to be responsible, self sufficient, to learn how to work, how to help myself and how to help my family, and how to live and die as a free man, and to try to teach my children and grandchildren some of those same things. It also means to assist others when needed, but not necessarily through the hand of government, it is instead a personal thing. This is the way it was done in the community I grew up in, and it formed a bond with our neighbors that cannot be duplicated in government, no way.

Do I claim conservatism or capitalism is perfect? Or the U.S.A. perfect? No way, but it is still the best alternative we have. There is no utopia on earth, never will be, nothing even close, and we will all die, without regard to how hard the government may try to get people to believe in some saviour or king. Forget it, it won't happen.

Theres my speech for the day.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

And just because you disagree with a position does not make it a right wing position, does it?

That's absolutely correct. I disagree with Stalin's political positions, but I'd still label them left-wing.

okie wrote:

Lets be honest, can't we all, there are no two politicians or even people that see every issue exactly the same. There are no two clones, are there? Thats what amuses me to read Walter when he claims he only posts facts, not opinion. That made for a good laugh.

There are also conventions that most people follow, consciously or not. If you board a subway car, you'll try to pick an empty seat. If no empty seat is available, you'll stand. Even if individual passenger have different ideas about when it is appropriate to give up your seat or to ask for a seat or to accept that no seat is available, you generally don't have to have a long discussion with every passenger on in order to find out what you should do.

okie wrote:

This forum is about opinion, its also about posting evidence for ones opinion, and nobody has a monopoly on all the facts or all the opinion being right. But I do think I have some credible opinion to offer, just as worthwhile as Walter's or anyone else, just as you and everyone else thinks you have the right ideas. Lets also be honest, we all have a dog in this fight, we all have an ox to be gored, and that is why we all will post the evidence that we honestly, I hope honestly, supports our beliefs. And hopefully our beliefs are based upon some credible experience or knowledge.

You certainly have a dog in the fight. You're trying to validate the assumption you've started out with.

If you really only wanted to find out the political position of the NSDAP, you would start out researching a certain political issue without prior knowledge on where the party stood on that issue, and go from there to see whether that specific position would be considered left or right.

Instead, you forage the sources you have available for information that confirm the thesis you've started out with, while either ignoring evidence to the contrary, or coming up with off-the-cuff explanations that you regularly fail to provide evidence for. We've run into this issue when you claimed that maybe, all those right-wing parties only formed coalitions with the NSDAP because they regarded the party as the lesser of two evils. You've never provided any evidence for that claim, but it neatly explains away all the problems that arise from those easily verifiable facts.

Walter, on the other hand, has provided a wealth of information. Sure, he has also voiced his opinion on these issues, but his opinion was usually backed up by primary sources.

It's not that his opinion is more "worthwhile" than yours, it's that you simply make up "facts" to support your opinion when you run out of material.

okie wrote:

In regard to experience or knowledge, I am not as academicly oriented as Walter or you perhaps, but I do have more than a couple of things that I think are very valid. First of all, I grew up fairly poor in a family of immigrants in our past, parents that survived the depression in Oklahoma, not exactly an oasis of affluence, a father from Europe, a stepfather that served in the Pacific in WW II, and as FDR Democrats, I could not count the thousands of political debates around the dinner table for years. Secondly, I also have the benefit of Vietnam, a closeup encounter with another system, another culture, in a very serious way. I am not claiming my experiences are superior, but I do believe I have not had things very easily, not as easily as some others, and by virtue of struggle, we learn some things pretty well.

I guess it has all burned into my brain the virtues of freedom and liberty for the individual, versus a more socialistic society. I confess, it has given me a fierce pride of the United States of America and the inherent freedom to fail or the freedom to succeed. To succeed, in my view, is not to become rich, it is instead to be responsible, self sufficient, to learn how to work, how to help myself and how to help my family, and how to live and die as a free man, and to try to teach my children and grandchildren some of those same things. It also means to assist others when needed, but not necessarily through the hand of government, it is instead a personal thing. This is the way it was done in the community I grew up in, and it formed a bond with our neighbors that cannot be duplicated in government, no way.

I'm certainly not dismissing your experiences. I just don't see how this gives you any more insight on the topic of the NSDAP's or Hitler's political position - particularly when you refuse to do the research that Walter and other posters are willing to do to contribute to this discussion.

okie wrote:

Do I claim conservatism or capitalism is perfect? Or the U.S.A. perfect? No way, but it is still the best alternative we have. There is no utopia on earth, never will be, nothing even close, and we will all die, without regard to how hard the government may try to get people to believe in some saviour or king. Forget it, it won't happen.

See, here's what I believe is the core of the disagreement between you and other posters: you have a very, very specific idea of what constitutes "conservatism", probably as a result of your background. As evidenced by your fierce opposition to many of the positions that candidates like McCain or Ron Paul stood for, that may even put you at odds with other conservatives. As far as defining your own position goes, I have absolutely no problem with that. But at the same time, it doesn't change the fact that those candidates still were generally accepted to be conservative candidates.

And there's the rub. So far, your position on this thread has pretty much been that if a political position doesn't fall into your definition of conservatism, it must be a left-wing position.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

In regard to experience or knowledge, I am not as academicly oriented as Walter or you perhaps, but I do have more than a couple of things that I think are very valid. First of all, I grew up fairly poor in a family of immigrants in our past, parents that survived the depression in Oklahoma, not exactly an oasis of affluence, a father from Europe, a stepfather that served in the Pacific in WW II, and as FDR Democrats, I could not count the thousands of political debates around the dinner table for years. Secondly, I also have the benefit of Vietnam, a closeup encounter with another system, another culture, in a very serious way. I am not claiming my experiences are superior, but I do believe I have not had things very easily, not as easily as some others, and by virtue of struggle, we learn some things pretty well.

Okay. But all that doesn't change sources/facts.

Yes, I make conclusions from those facts/sources. You even can call it 'opinion'. But it's backed, findable, readable, even touchable, black on white (sometimes blue on white and with some mould stains).

0 Replies

It did occur to me that Okie would try to wiggle out of the clear implication of what he had said himself. Note also that i had only looked at posts of his on three pages, fairly early in this thread. But i'm not going to waste time going through every post he's made--the evidence is clear, and he repeats it, that he claims that right-wing or conservative ideology cannot produce dictatorships. That's nonsense of course.

Okie is addicted to "common sense." Common sense is not much of a recommendation. Common sense will tell you, for example, that cold water will freeze faster than hot water. That's not true, though. Freezing is a change of state from liquid to solid water. Hot water will freeze faster than cold water because it is already giving off water in the gaseous form of water vapor. Common sense tells you it's not true, but direct observation of the evidence will show that hot water freezes faster than cold water. Common sense is not a very reliable guide for finding the truth.

But let's indulge Okie's mania for "common sense." Capitalists, whether industrialists or those who invest in their enterprises, are going to whine about freedom being infringed when government passes legislation to mandate a floor on wages and a ceiling on hours; when government mandates contributions to disability insurance funds and unemployment insurance funds; when government outlaws piece-work and child labor; when government mandates occupational health and safety standards. Investors will whine about securities and exchange regulation and agencies to oversee the enforcement of securities and exchange regulations. This isn't speculation on my part, either. It is clear from the historical record in the United States that capitalists have been dragged kicking and screaming into a world of modern securities and exchange policies and fair labor standards.

Now suppose a would-be dictator comes along who wants to secure funds to finance his bid to take control of the government. Capitalists are the obvious, the no-brainer source for such funds. So if a demagogue promises to prevent or roll back work place safety regulations, fair labor standards and securities and exchange regulation, he's going to get the enthusiastic support of bankers, financiers and industrialists. He will promise to repay them with lucrative, no-bid government contracts, as well. (This by the way, is essentially what Hitler did.)

So a right-wing demagogue, someone pushing a right-wing ideology, can be the ideal choice for a dictator from the point of view of capitalists.

It's just common sense.

The evidence for this, by the way, is prolific. Anastasio Somoza, Augusto Pinochet, Rafael Trujillo, Ferdinand Marcos, Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-Hee, Juan Péron. Juan Péron and Rafael Trujillo even campaigned on labor tickets in order to get into power--and what a crock of poop that was.

So don't tell us about common sense, Okie. Although it may not have occurred to you, common sense is not much use in an investigation such as this (common sense would have told Hitler not to invade the Soviet Union, or at the least to have waited until he finished off England before doing so). Although it may not have occurred to you, the rest of us are possessed of common sense, too--we just have a better assessment of its value in an historical investigation.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

(common sense would have told Hitler not to invade the Soviet Union, or at the least to have waited until he finished off England before doing so).

What a load of bilge. Set's been playing with his toy fort again.

0 Replies

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know