Who is your favourite despot?

[Yukon]

In my view ADOLPH HITLER was the greatest and most influential man, next to Jesus, in the history of mankind.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

MM -

I got that you were referring to global warming. I also got that you oppose Obama's policy on global warming - hence the 'red on the inside' element.

I have no idea why you needed to dodge and dance that one.

Now please either debate the topic, or fuck off.

President Obama actually doesn't have a global warming policy which differs in any real way from Bush's. It wouldn't surprise me to learn if Bush was for cap and trade, for example.

That doesn't make them Marxists or despots, or watermelons, it makes them innocent dupes.

Just like you.

 

[Sodafin]

The topic here is despotism.

Comments on all other topics will be ignored.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The topic here is despotism.

Comments on all other topics will be ignored.

The watermelon scheme IS despotism. In a most insidious form.

 

[xsited1]

The topic here is despotism.

Comments on all other topics will be ignored.

The topic here is "Who is your favourite despot?" I thought you were just posting spam as a troll, but obviously I was mistaken and you are in fact . Have a great day!

 

[Sodafin]

xsisted -

I actually think despotism (and theories involving it) is an important subject, and one well worth discussing.

There are not many threads on this board concerning political theory, so I thought I'd start out with something I'd thought a lot of posters might have opinions on.

It's always frustrating with potentially good threads get spammed, but maybe we can move on with the topic now.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It's always frustrating with potentially good threads get spammed

Why frustrated? You don't own the message board. You shouldn't be frustrated at all.

Is this your life?

 

[xsited1]

It's always frustrating with potentially good threads get spammed

Why frustrated? You don't own the message board. You shouldn't be frustrated at all.

Is this your life?

Don't forget: This is a 'potentially good thread' because Sodafin says so, even though she wants to know who our favourite despot is. That's obvious to everyone, right?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

One theory of despotism suggests that despotism is unique in that whilst most systems of government produce an actual government, with despotism it is the other way around. Think of it as a chicken and egg situation - Stalin came first, the functions of the Stalinist state followed. Stalin created the state around him, and it existed only as an extension of him as a person. For within a truly despotic state, it is the personality of the leader which defines the functions of the state.

This is true of Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stroessner, Ceaucescu, Tito and Xoxha, amongst others. Without their leadership, the state could no longer exist, or at least not on its existing form. From the time these leaders died, their states began to wither and corrode, because they lacked the force that had called them into existence.

Despotism requires paranoia and fear in order to build a sense of belonging and community. Within a despotic society - it is us against the world, and you are either for us or against us. There is no neutrality, no third option.

For my money, Stalin created a more perfect despotic state than Hitler, who was driven by rage and personal doubt where Stalin was more calculating, more controlled and more brutally psychotic.

I think you are incorrect on a couple things. First, Stalin didn't design the system, he just used it more effectively. Stalin's perfect storms of the 30's were just repeats of what Lenin had done back in days before the civil war.

Also, the death camps sort of overshadowed just how awful Hitler was to all Germans. The system was pretty similar, just the raw numbers were smaller, because there were fewer to control.

 

[Bfgrn]

xsisted -

I actually think despotism (and theories involving it) is an important subject, and one well worth discussing.

There are not many threads on this board concerning political theory, so I thought I'd start out with something I'd thought a lot of posters might have opinions on.

It's always frustrating with potentially good threads get spammed, but maybe we can move on with the topic now.

When you examine despotism it really boils down to authoritarianism...and when you examine authoritarianism it boils down to a right wing trait. There have been numerous studies on authoritarianism and the authoritarian personality like Theodor W. Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality (1950)...today, the leading authority (no pun intended) is Robert Altmeyer...

When you look at history, for example, Europe leading up to fascism in the 1920's there was a epidemic of liberal bashing.

The Hard Road to Fascism

Interestingly, in the late '80's after the fall of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev tried to implement a more democratic form of government. He was vehemently opposed by Stalinists...the conservatives...

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies - NYTimes.com

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

 

[Sodafin]

Baruch -

Stalin did not invent communism, but he did invent Stalinism. The Soviet Union of 1955 was unrecognisable from the Soviet Union of 1925, and not only because of WWII.

Everything changed with the Great Terror, to me it was from this point (or, one could say, from the death of Nadya) that Marxism ended and real Stalinism began.

And from Stalin's death the structure changed again, losing the paranoia and the cold hatred it had during the 1950s.

Stalin and Hitler shared much on common, of course, although as men they had less in common than their system of government perhaps. Hitler was full of rage, striking out at his enemies; but also generous to his allies. Stalin was calculating, devious and prone to killing his allies lest they become a threat!

 

[Sodafin]

In my view ADOLPH HITLER was the greatest and most influential man, next to Jesus, in the history of mankind.

He was certainly influential.

But given 8 million Germans died on his watch, I'm not surprised most Germans do not consider him very great. At the end of the day what he sought was to enslave the peoples of Europe, to destroy and oppress anyone not of his liking, and to wipe a couple of races off the face of the earth. Little more.

He was a far less adept despot than Mao or Stalin, both of whom knew not to start a war you could not win.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

xsisted -

I actually think despotism (and theories involving it) is an important subject, and one well worth discussing.

There are not many threads on this board concerning political theory, so I thought I'd start out with something I'd thought a lot of posters might have opinions on.

It's always frustrating with potentially good threads get spammed, but maybe we can move on with the topic now.

When you examine despotism it really boils down to authoritarianism...and when you examine authoritarianism it boils down to a right wing trait. There have been numerous studies on authoritarianism and the authoritarian personality like Theodor W. Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality (1950)...today, the leading authority (no pun intended) is Robert Altmeyer...

When you look at history, for example, Europe leading up to fascism in the 1920's there was a epidemic of liberal bashing.

The Hard Road to Fascism

Interestingly, in the late '80's after the fall of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev tried to implement a more democratic form of government. He was vehemently opposed by Stalinists...the conservatives...

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies - NYTimes.com

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

What do you smoke, guy?


All the really horrible despots of the 20th century, from Hitler and Mussolini to Pol Pot and Castro and the Kim family have called themselves socialists of one stripe or another.

Just about the only exception I have seen is Pinochet. And he wasn't much of a despot, as he left the country in better shape than he found it, and he quit after an election. Daniel Ortega was the only lefty despot tossed from an election, but he still wrecked the place.

 

[Sodafin]

When you examine despotism it really boils down to authoritarianism...and when you examine authoritarianism it boils down to a right wing trait. There have been numerous studies on authoritarianism and the authoritarian personality like Theodor W. Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality (1950)...today, the leading authority (no pun intended) is Robert Altmeyer...

I can't agree with that.

Stalin, Mao, Ceausecu, Honnecker were all left wing, surely?

To me it is one area in which the right wing and left wing seem to share an equal propensity.

I haven't heard of that book, but will check it out - sounds interesting.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

What do you smoke, guy?

That's all he's got in his trick bag, "Us=good them=bad."

He's a one-trick pony. It's always "the right is evil!!! and left is gooooood!!!" and the facts don't matter so long as he can believe his "side" always "wins." It's the video game mentality.

He then wonders why so many people besides myself simply snicker at his idiotic partisan pissant pablum tripe he posts, and ignore him.

 

[Yukon]

In my view ADOLPH HITLER was the greatest and most influential man, next to Jesus, in the history of mankind.

He was certainly influential.

But given 8 million Germans died on his watch, I'm not surprised most Germans do not consider him very great. At the end of the day what he sought was to enslave the peoples of Europe, to destroy and oppress anyone not of his liking, and to wipe a couple of races off the face of the earth. Little more.

He was a far less adept despot than Mao or Stalin, both of whom knew not to start a war you could not win.

Herr Hitler was the greatest.

 

[Sodafin]

All the really horrible despots of the 20th century, from Hitler and Mussolini to Pol Pot and Castro and the Kim family have called themselves socialists of one stripe or another.

I can't agree with that either!

Not only Pinochet, but the Argentine generals, Rios Montte (Guatemala) Cristiani (El Salvador), Franco, Antonescu (Romania) and of course - Hitler. All right wing, no?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

~appeal to authority garbage redacted~

I can't agree with that.

Stalin, Mao, Ceausecu, Honnecker were all left wing, surely?

To me it is one area in which the right wing and left wing seem to share an equal propensity.

Good to see you appear to be not overly partisan. And in the post you quoted, you once again see the Appeal to Authority fallacy in clear action.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Baruch -

Stalin did not invent communism, but he did invent Stalinism. The Soviet Union of 1955 was unrecognisable from the Soviet Union of 1925, and not only because of WWII.

Everything changed with the Great Terror, to me it was from this point (or, one could say, from the death of Nadya) that Marxism ended and real Stalinism began.

And from Stalin's death the structure changed again, losing the paranoia and the cold hatred it had during the 1950s.

Stalin and Hitler shared much on common, of course, although as men they had less in common than their system of government perhaps. Hitler was full of rage, striking out at his enemies; but also generous to his allies. Stalin was calculating, devious and prone to killing his allies lest they become a threat!

Most of the tools Stalin used were in place by 1920. I think Stalin was slightly out of his depth, and his tools took over and drove the pace beyond his control. Hitler and Stalin both rode the tiger, but Hitler could still steer the thing, something Stalin could not do. He could only drive if faster.

 

[Sodafin]

Most of the tools Stalin used were in place by 1920. I think Stalin was slightly out of his depth, and his tools took over and drove the pace beyond his control. Hitler and Stalin both rode the tiger, but Hitler could still steer the thing, something Stalin could not do. He could only drive if faster.

I know what you mean, but I can't agree.

If we consider that the three turning points of the war (Leningrad, Stalingrad, the failure of Hitler to capture the Azeri oil fields) all stemmed from Hitler's wild rage and temper.

In each case a better general would have made calmer, more logical decisions, whereas Hitler just couldn't control his own ego or emotions.

Stalin was also a poor general, without question, but he still defeated Hitler.