5 ms·

The most horrible and bloody dictators had only the best intentions in mind. The most bloody and horrible ideology in the world – communism – was driven by idea

The most horrible and bloody dictators had only the best intentions in mind. The most bloody and horrible ideology in the world – communism – was driven by idealists. I'll always take a corrupt politician over a benevolent dictator.

acqq 9y ago
The problem, independent of the ideology, is the quality of “checks and balances” which protect the human and other rights of the citizens. And as we see, even in the USA as we speak it’s easy to take some rights from the people without too much fuss (just enough distraction).
buvanshak 9y ago
>I'll always take a corrupt politician over a benevolent dictator. Am I wrong in saying that if you have enough resources, corrupt politicians and authorities will let you dictate the affairs under them? So a dictator, as you say exerciser their power to enforce their own agenda. While a corrupt politician sells them off to the highest bidder, to enforce what ever agenda they have... The only thing better in that scenario is that the "highest bidder" may have an incentive to not kill droves of people, since they probably have a business to run, and that often require people..Also, business does not really have an ideology or a philosophy. It just need to grow its profits..
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  In "A Reply to Professor Haldane", published in "Of Other Worlds", C.S. Lewis said the same thing as golergka. Lewis said that a robber baron may be satisfied with enough money (though I must say that history doesn't supply much hope of that). The robber baron may get lazy. And maybe, since on some level they know that what they do is morally sketchy, they may repent. But an idealist who holds their ideal or political theory with the force of a religion is far worse, because they commit their horrors in the name of doing good, and so their benevolent impulses seem to them to be temptations - something to be resisted in order to do what is "good".
  - buvanshak 9y ago
    In other words, a fool might end up doing more harm than a really cruel person. Of course. > But an idealist who holds their ideal or political theory with the force of a religion is far worse, because they commit their horrors in the name of doing good, and so their benevolent impulses seem to them to be temptations - something to be resisted in order to do what is "good". We are talking about a benevolent dictator here. If you are saying that they ll resist their benevolent impulses, how are they a benevolent dictator in the first place?
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      "Benevolent" = "wanting to do good". But that applied (I think) even to the Communists. They wanted to free the proletariat from oppression. That was their moral imperative. To do it, they were willing to execute their "oppressors". The temptation to have mercy on some of the oppressors rather than execute them had to be resisted, because it would hinder the cause. [Edit: reworded for clarity.]
      - buvanshak 9y ago
        So by that definition, should an ideal dictator stand by and watch if there is an invasion? Because resisting it would be likely be killing the invaders? So I think there is always an Idea of the subset of people you are meant to serve, and their well being being your highest priority. In your example, the "proletariat" were that subset, so it is only their duty to protect them from oppression.
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        Sure. But in protecting the proletariat from oppression, they "protected" a fair number of the proletariat right into the grave.
        buvanshak 9y ago
        > they "protected" a fair number of the proletariat right into the grave. If that is so, how they are benevolent in the first place, or "wanting to do good" as you say?
KozmoNau7 9y ago
>"The most bloody and horrible ideology in the world – communism" Please provide some support for that deeply subjective statement. https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-communism-stance https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-com...
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Most bloody? That's objectively true, in terms of total body count, and especially total body count of their own citizens. (Most bloody in terms of deaths per person per year that they had the opportunity to kill is probably the Nazis - although Cambodian Communism, if considered separately from all of communism, probably tops even the Nazis.) Most horrible? It doesn't seem unreasonable to use body count of a country's own citizens as a proxy for "horror".
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    You're lumping a lot of different ideologies together under one umbrella term, even though 1) they were wildly different in practice and implementation, and 2) most of them only paid the tiniest bit of lip service to what Marx envisioned, and 3) were actually just good old tyrannical dictatorships, falsely using the promise of communistic ideals to pacify the populace. Did you read the article? I've found it a very common tendency to lump everything free market capitalists don't like as "communism bad!" and "socialism bad!", which I guess stems from decades and decades of cultural indoctrination, fueled by the military industrial complex. For instance, an anarcho-communist is very far from whatever haphazard centrally planned mess was in place in the USSR at any given time.
    - golergka 9y ago
      > most of them only paid the tiniest bit of lip service to what Marx envisioned Oh, the old "no real scotsman" argument. See, the whole communist ideology is like convincing people to jump of a cliff so they can fly: when they inevitably fall to their death, you just tell that since they didn't fly, it wasn't what you envisioned. Dictatorship and blood is the inevitable outcome of Marx's ideas executed on scale of millions. As inevitable as gravity.

acqq 9y ago

The problem, independent of the ideology, is the quality of “checks and balances” which protect the human and other rights of the citizens. And as we see, even in the USA as we speak it’s easy to take some rights from the people without too much fuss (just enough distraction).

buvanshak 9y ago

>I'll always take a corrupt politician over a benevolent dictator. Am I wrong in saying that if you have enough resources, corrupt politicians and authorities will let you dictate the affairs under them? So a dictator, as you say exerciser their power to enforce their own agenda. While a corrupt politician sells them off to the highest bidder, to enforce what ever agenda they have... The only thing better in that scenario is that the "highest bidder" may have an incentive to not kill droves of people, since they probably have a business to run, and that often require people..Also, business does not really have an ideology or a philosophy. It just need to grow its profits..

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
In "A Reply to Professor Haldane", published in "Of Other Worlds", C.S. Lewis said the same thing as golergka. Lewis said that a robber baron may be satisfied with enough money (though I must say that history doesn't supply much hope of that). The robber baron may get lazy. And maybe, since on some level they know that what they do is morally sketchy, they may repent. But an idealist who holds their ideal or political theory with the force of a religion is far worse, because they commit their horrors in the name of doing good, and so their benevolent impulses seem to them to be temptations - something to be resisted in order to do what is "good".
- buvanshak 9y ago
  In other words, a fool might end up doing more harm than a really cruel person. Of course. > But an idealist who holds their ideal or political theory with the force of a religion is far worse, because they commit their horrors in the name of doing good, and so their benevolent impulses seem to them to be temptations - something to be resisted in order to do what is "good". We are talking about a benevolent dictator here. If you are saying that they ll resist their benevolent impulses, how are they a benevolent dictator in the first place?
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    "Benevolent" = "wanting to do good". But that applied (I think) even to the Communists. They wanted to free the proletariat from oppression. That was their moral imperative. To do it, they were willing to execute their "oppressors". The temptation to have mercy on some of the oppressors rather than execute them had to be resisted, because it would hinder the cause. [Edit: reworded for clarity.]
    - buvanshak 9y ago
      So by that definition, should an ideal dictator stand by and watch if there is an invasion? Because resisting it would be likely be killing the invaders? So I think there is always an Idea of the subset of people you are meant to serve, and their well being being your highest priority. In your example, the "proletariat" were that subset, so it is only their duty to protect them from oppression.
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        Sure. But in protecting the proletariat from oppression, they "protected" a fair number of the proletariat right into the grave.
        buvanshak 9y ago
        > they "protected" a fair number of the proletariat right into the grave. If that is so, how they are benevolent in the first place, or "wanting to do good" as you say?

KozmoNau7 9y ago

>"The most bloody and horrible ideology in the world – communism" Please provide some support for that deeply subjective statement. https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-communism-stance https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-com...

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Most bloody? That's objectively true, in terms of total body count, and especially total body count of their own citizens. (Most bloody in terms of deaths per person per year that they had the opportunity to kill is probably the Nazis - although Cambodian Communism, if considered separately from all of communism, probably tops even the Nazis.) Most horrible? It doesn't seem unreasonable to use body count of a country's own citizens as a proxy for "horror".
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  You're lumping a lot of different ideologies together under one umbrella term, even though 1) they were wildly different in practice and implementation, and 2) most of them only paid the tiniest bit of lip service to what Marx envisioned, and 3) were actually just good old tyrannical dictatorships, falsely using the promise of communistic ideals to pacify the populace. Did you read the article? I've found it a very common tendency to lump everything free market capitalists don't like as "communism bad!" and "socialism bad!", which I guess stems from decades and decades of cultural indoctrination, fueled by the military industrial complex. For instance, an anarcho-communist is very far from whatever haphazard centrally planned mess was in place in the USSR at any given time.
  - golergka 9y ago
    > most of them only paid the tiniest bit of lip service to what Marx envisioned Oh, the old "no real scotsman" argument. See, the whole communist ideology is like convincing people to jump of a cliff so they can fly: when they inevitably fall to their death, you just tell that since they didn't fly, it wasn't what you envisioned. Dictatorship and blood is the inevitable outcome of Marx's ideas executed on scale of millions. As inevitable as gravity.