Why haven't there been many good dictators? Is it just inherent human nature, when an individual holds absolute power and not held accountable to anyone? Or is it that only the most evil and ruthless were able to come to power through unscrupulous means?
I thought it was pretty obvious. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter how noble one's intentions, power will eventually corrupt them one way or another. That is why the U.S. Constitution has so many check and balances.
because absolute power is not good for humans. meantime ... my view of dictatorships is that while we might like to imagine that those of history are just that, history (and we think this because we cannot imagine ourselves ever being 'stupid' or 'weak' enough to tolerate such a thing), in the west we do currently seem to be edging closer and closer to authoritarianism - which is what often comes before a dictatorship.
Because you don't establish a dictatorship to protect the revolution, you establish the revolution to establish a dictatorship.
As always it depends on context and what the real alternatives were. I would consider Tito to have been a 'good' one, and FDR's fascist govt. also, though he did have opposition. What to make of Franco? He was certainly ruthless, but was he worse than the Communists would have been? I seriously doubt it. The Shah of Iran certainly was far preferable to the Tudeh regime as well. Defining 'good' re existential political realities works better than in terms of ideological purities that are imaginary.
OP question Probably because there have been more evil ones than patriotic ones? Pinochet was the last patriotic one. Although Assad is a good runner-up. Edit. Saddam was an evil one, but then he needed to be for the greater good of the populace of Iraq.
Here y'go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_despotism Generally they don't make for such glorious history.
I'll put it in it's simplest form. Key word in dictators is dicks. That's why they are always a bunch of big bag of dicks. lol Not the smartest answer in the world, but I bet I made someone laugh. Lmao!!
You think FDR's New Deal was a left wing program? How do you explain his attempts at reigning in over-production then, for instance? People were going hungry, while his farm programs were deliberately dumping massive tonnages of food into the oceans, burning crops, etc., to keep prices high. And then there were the various work programs designed to distribute wages and money to working families, no forced labor programs, no deliberate mass starvations to kill of the peasants, etc. among other policies, like subsidizing private businesses, and forced savings programs like Social Security, other basic safety nets such as unemployment insurance programs and the like. Obviously you don't know the differences between fascism and left wing policies. Your laughter is obviously the result of stupidity and ignorance of basic economics and political economy. Have you tried trolling the Britney Spears fan forums?
Probably because they come to power under less than glorious economic and political conditions, and never retain popularity for long, even when they are effective and successful. Nothing particularly glamorous and sexy in increasing the potato crop by 7%, or reducing cavities among 12% of children in some outlying province or whatever, compared to say, over-running Ethiopia or seizing Romanian oil fields for the greater glory of The People.
My own view is that few dictators since the end of monarchies have combined the will to power with the will to do good. Absolute power may corrupt absolutely, but that doesn't mean a corrupt dictator can't do a good job. On the other hand, an evil man rising to power can be completely incorruptible and still be a genocidal maniac.
This one's easy. There is a collective delusion which exists on such a grand scale it really does blow the mind but I can rationalise it as the aftermath of millennia of monarchy and the sociological/psychological after effects of that. This is the idea that some person out there knows how to run society. The more despotic and autocratic a regime becomes the more apparent the stupidity of this idea appears.
Generally speaking, those who seek power cannot be trusted with it, and those who can be trusted with it do not seek it. There are occasional exceptions, but they're so rare theres not really any point in trying to recognize them until after the fact. We're always better off suspecting that those seeking power will abuse it, and limiting their power as much as possible. Thats why we have so many checks and balances, and why we must be vigilant in preserving them.
I swear to God Jeremy Corbyn wants to wood shop teacher his way to power. Still raging wars on other departments like music and debate - Jeremy Corbyn may as well wear a cardigan and a leather apron and when he goes home, should walk around in an old tweed jacket with worn leather patches for elbows. How Canada might one day control the world because nobody ever expected somebody so nice could stab you in the back (It could happen). This guy/Corbyn played the nice teacher approach... But he's got a dark nasty side that's all about ego and ruling Britain to get what he wants for the people who want by birthright and plan to take it all.
It's like opposing The Queen for having a birthright and then taking everything away freedom capitalism democracy Just because people want their own birthrights.
They want to force the betterment of mankind by reminding us to say people kind. And they want to do it all for our own goods. Despite what we say.
