• Who here actually supports a authoritarian government?
    105 replies, posted
From my time on Facepunch I have noted that many people here support different regimes, from a system of no government to one where they essentially run everything. I think that an Authoritarian government is quite a good idea, because throughout most of history the nations that ended up strongest are the ones led by a single man. For example Stalin took Russia and turned it from a ruined war torn nation into a superpower within a single generation. Napoleon took France and successfully won multiple wars and smashed multiple empires until eventually after doing it for 20 years France was unable to support a ongoing war any longer. Hitler took Germany and although he was insane he managed to take half of Europe, had he used people rather than killing them then we would probably be speaking German now. In Democracies, communist nations and the such they never really work in my opinion. Because most of the time when a nation is run by them they become heavily corrupt and eventually run out of money and have a stupid system of laws and politicians that only serve themselves. Granted a dictator would serve himself but in order to become more powerful he would actually need to improve the nation in order to do so. So what is your opinion?
You left out the part where Stalin had 10,000,000+ people killed then erased from history.
[QUOTE=Psycho_Shadow;27832958]You left out the part where Stalin had 10,000,000+ people killed then erased from history.[/QUOTE] Indeed, that is one problem with dictators. However in another case a dictatorship is quite a good form of government. What Stalin did was cruel, but it was necessary to turn it into a superpower capable of defeating Nazi Germany. Many of the Russian peasants he killed were themselves cruel as well. If you were a petty robber in a village the peasants would simply castrate you or cut off your limbs. One priest who suffered after the collapse of the Tsarist empire had his eyes pulled out and one widow who lived in a manor had her pet dog killed by them and left on her doorstep. She committed suicide. Although he killed millions, he helped saved many more who would have been wiped out by the Germans.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833079]Indeed, that is one problem with dictators. However in another case a dictatorship is quite a good form of government. What Stalin did was cruel, but it was necessary to turn it into a superpower capable of defeating Nazi Germany. Many of the Russian peasants he killed were themselves cruel as well. If you were a petty robber in a village the peasants would simply castrate you or cut off your limbs. One priest who suffered after the collapse of the Tsarist empire had his eyes pulled out and one widow who lived in a manor had her pet dog killed by them and left on her doorstep. She committed suicide.[/QUOTE] That's really the only counterpoint you need. You can't really assume all the people he killed were like the peasants you describe. He hunted down numerous political enemies, just about anyone who opposed him.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833079]What Stalin did was cruel, but it was necessary to turn it into a superpower capable of defeating Nazi Germany.[/QUOTE] In my dirty pinko hippie mind [B][U]ONE[/U] [/B]person is too much, so no, I don't support authoritarian ideologies.
[QUOTE=Psycho_Shadow;27833188]That's really the only counterpoint you need. You can't really assume all the people he killed were like the peasants you describe. He hunted down numerous political enemies, just about anyone who opposed him.[/QUOTE] Indeed. Some were not peasants but the people who opposed him threatened his position, he needed to make an example of disloyal people and enemies. Had he not done this there could have been problems with them using their influence to join the other side, sabotage and trying to take control. They were tough times and such times needed a strong merciless leader who would be able to stop another strong even more merciless leader. [QUOTE=Herr Sven;27833246]In my dirty pinko hippie mind [B][U]ONE[/U] [/B]person is too much, so no, I don't support authoritarian ideologies.[/QUOTE] In theory and in practice such a government works if you have a single leader who knows how to run shit. Napoleon was an example of a good dictator, he reformed the nation and helped make up a new system of laws and he was impressed enough that he made the inventor of the battery a count as a reward.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833274]Indeed. Some were not peasants but the people who opposed him threatened his position, he needed to make an example of disloyal people and enemies. Had he not done this there could have been problems with them using their influence to join the other side, sabotage and trying to take control. They were tough times and such times needed a strong merciless leader who would be able to stop another strong even more merciless leader.[/QUOTE] A lot of his killings were(most likely) not all during WW2. And I can guarantee you that nearly NONE of the people he killed were actual threats to his position of power.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27832902]From my time on Facepunch I have noted that many people here support different regimes, from a system of no government to one where they essentially run everything. [B]I think that an Authoritarian government is quite a good idea, because throughout most of history the nations that ended up strongest are the ones led by a single man.[/B] For example Stalin took Russia and turned it from a ruined war torn nation into a superpower within a single generation. Napoleon took France and successfully won multiple wars and smashed multiple empires until eventually after doing it for 20 years France was unable to support a ongoing war any longer. Hitler took Germany and although he was insane he managed to take half of Europe, had he used people rather than killing them then we would probably be speaking German now. In Democracies, communist nations and the such they never really work in my opinion. Because most of the time when a nation is run by them they become heavily corrupt and eventually run out of money and have a stupid system of laws and politicians that only serve themselves. Granted a dictator would serve himself but in order to become more powerful he would actually need to improve the nation in order to do so. So what is your opinion?[/QUOTE] You're forgetting how they eventually ran their country into the ground, and the only way to get them propped back up was via aid and funding from democratic governments. [editline]3rd February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833274]Indeed. Some were not peasants but the people who opposed him threatened his position, he needed to make an example of disloyal people and enemies. Had he not done this there could have been problems with them using their influence to join the other side, sabotage and trying to take control. They were tough times and such times needed a strong merciless leader who would be able to stop another strong even more merciless leader.[/QUOTE] You realize he annihilated almost his entire higher chain of military command because of a lie planted by a German spy, right?
[QUOTE=Psycho_Shadow;27833297]A lot of his killings were(most likely) not all during WW2. And I can guarantee you that nearly NONE of the people he killed were actual threats to his position of power.[/QUOTE] In such dark and difficult times it would be hard to distinguish enemy from friend or tool. Although many died he did eventually end up making Russia into a superpower. [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27833303]You're forgetting how they eventually ran their country into the ground, and the only way to get them propped back up was via aid and funding from democratic governments.[/QUOTE] Not quite. Monarchies were essentially led by a single man most of the time. Many nations such as England, France, Prussia, etc have all had authoritarian leaders and during those times actually did very well. England had it's legal system made fairer under Alfred the great and Henry the 2nd. France has held a position of power in Europe for a long time and some monarchs made France powerful or united. Prussia turned into a empire and an industrial superpower.
Oh, and Stalin was getting ready to commit a Soviet style Holocaust on the Soviet Jewish population, but was only foiled by his own death. [editline]3rd February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833327]In such dark and difficult times it would be hard to distinguish enemy from friend or tool. Although many died he did eventually end up making Russia into a superpower.[/QUOTE] They were dark and difficult because he made them so. During the Five Year Plans Russia went from one of the leading exporters of grain to the leading importer of grain. There's a reason the Eastern Bloc, Ukraine in particular, have a seething hatred towards Russia. I don't need to tell you about the enforced starvation of Ukraine.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27833333]They were dark and difficult because he made them so. During the Five Year Plans Russia went from one of the leading exporters of grain to the leading importer of grain. There's a reason the Eastern Bloc, Ukraine in particular, have a seething hatred towards Russia. I don't need to tell you about the enforced starvation of Ukraine.[/QUOTE] You are forgetting the massive increase in industry, and that during the great depression the economy of the USSR improved.
Authoritarian governments never turn out good because people are corrupt. Its just the way we are. We want power, and once we have power, we want more of it. Not to mention that authoritarian rule is generally characterized by the stifling of creativity due to the threat that free thought often poses to an authoritarian or dictatorial government. If it was possible to have a world where people could agree and sacrifice for the interests of each others, and we were naturally greedy and power hungry, I would probably support a dictatorship (as long as rule wasnt enforced through violence). But we don't live in such a world, as as such I will not support a dictatorship.
Totalitarian Centrist here.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;27833447]Authoritarian governments never turn out good because people are corrupt. Its just the way we are. We want power, and once we have power, we want more of it. Not to mention that authoritarian rule is generally characterized by the stifling of creativity due to the threat that free thought often poses to an authoritarian or dictatorial government. If it was possible to have a world where people could agree and sacrifice for the interests of each others, and we were naturally greedy and power hungry, I would probably support a dictatorship (as long as rule wasnt enforced through violence). But we don't live in such a world, as as such I will not support a dictatorship.[/QUOTE] If a authoritarian government were to take the entire world and unite it under one flag, one language and as one nation and then once old nationalities had died allow free speech. One of the problems of free speech is nationalism and free religions, and having multiples of both within a nation causes conflict to arise. With Christians and Muslims in a same nation or French and English in a same nation conflict will arise. By converting them all into one then there will be a massive decline in racism.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833432]You are forgetting the massive increase in industry, and that during the great depression the economy of the USSR improved.[/QUOTE] All the USSR was doing was experience an industrial revolution, as before that it was an agrarian society. Stalin failed at making the change safely, unlike the UK, US, Prussia, etc. The way he treated the Ukrainians and other Eastern Bloc countries was completely unacceptable, I'd like to see you try to convince a native Estonian that their treatment under the Russians was completely justified.
[QUOTE=Psycho_Shadow;27832958]You left out the part where Stalin had 10,000,000+ people killed then erased from history.[/QUOTE] I hate people who use the Starlin argument. "hurr durr, someone else did it wrong before so therefor every attempt afterwards [b]have[/b] to do the same thing" jeez
Absolut vodka power corrupts absolutely.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833511]If a authoritarian government were to take the entire world and unite it under one flag, one language and as one nation and then once old nationalities had died allow free speech. One of the problems of free speech is nationalism and free religions, and having multiples of both within a nation causes conflict to arise. [B]With Christians and Muslims in a same nation or French and English in a same nation conflict will arise. By converting them all into one then there will be a massive decline in racism.[/B][/QUOTE] Oh hey look at the US, complete anarchy in the streets, no? [editline]3rd February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=FPSMango;27833516]I hate people who use the Starlin argument. "hurr durr, someone else did it wrong before so therefor every attempt afterwards [B]have[/B] to do the same thing" jeez[/QUOTE] Stalin wasn't the only one, though. You guys are seriously trying to believe an enlightened despot is the rule, not the exception.
Democracy is too weak and is corrupt as fuck.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27833527]Oh hey look at the US, complete anarchy in the streets, no?[/QUOTE] Not on the streets, but everywhere. Look at xenophobic people, westboro baptist church, etc. People who are murdered in cities for their nationality or religion. And money wasted on raising large and pointless monuments to the one true faith whilst people attack each other for this. By simply removing every religion, all languages apart from one and every nationality (It's easier now we have the internet which is already doing that, however at a slow pace) then we will be united as one race. The Human race. Multiculturalism and such encouraged by the bourgeoisie of today may sound responsible and noble but in reality by dividing up groups of people further by encouraging people to celebrate what they do will antagonize others no matter how tolerant the nation claims to be.
I don't even know what it is, and i don't care
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833621]Not on the streets, but everywhere. Look at xenophobic people, westboro baptist church, etc. People who are murdered in cities for their nationality or religion. And money wasted on raising large and pointless monuments to the one true faith whilst people attack each other for this. By simply removing every religion, all languages apart from one and every nationality (It's easier now we have the internet which is already doing that, however at a slow pace) then we will be united as one race. The Human race. Multiculturalism and such encouraged by the bourgeoisie of today may sound responsible and noble but in reality by dividing up groups of people further by encouraging people to celebrate what they do will antagonize others no matter how tolerant the nation claims to be.[/QUOTE] Then I don't want to live in a world where everyone will look like me, boring as fcuk !
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833621]Not on the streets, but everywhere. Look at xenophobic people, westboro baptist church, etc. People who are murdered in cities for their nationality or religion. And money wasted on raising large and pointless monuments to the one true faith whilst people attack each other for this. By simply removing every religion, all languages apart from one and every nationality (It's easier now we have the internet which is already doing that, however at a slow pace) then we will be united as one race. The Human race. Multiculturalism and such encouraged by the bourgeoisie of today may sound responsible and noble but in reality by dividing up groups of people further by encouraging people to celebrate what they do will antagonize others no matter how tolerant the nation claims to be.[/QUOTE] It's easy to claim you want a one world united under one language and nationality when you believe it would be your race/language/nationality being the dominant one.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833432]You are forgetting the massive increase in industry, and that during the great depression the economy of the USSR improved.[/QUOTE] Yeah it was all nice and dandy for the russians (not really), but think of the other countries that were in the Soviet Union or communist that weren't Mother Russia. All of them got fucked over by the russians who took a big part of the resources and manpower those countries had to offer. They took food from those countries, leaving them in some parts to starve, plus many other resources.They used the workers of those countries to build them ships,tanks,weapons,tractors and all the shit they wanted, which was all sent to the big great Russia. The Soviet Union and the communism it came from it basically stalled the development of many countries.
[QUOTE=fritzel;27833793]Then I don't want to live in a world where everyone will look like me, boring as fcuk ![/QUOTE] Do you sing songs of your nation or do cultural traditions of your nationality all the time? Do you play computer games and browse the internet instead might be a better one. There would still be lots to do, just that everybody would speak the same language and do the same things for fun. Wait, we already do that just on a smaller scale inside countries.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833870]Do you sing songs of your nation or do cultural traditions of your nationality all the time? Do you play computer games and browse the internet instead might be a better one. There would still be lots to do, just that [B]everybody would speak the same language and do the same things for fun. Wait, we already do that just on a smaller scale inside countries[/B].[/QUOTE] Errr... No. Far from it.
[QUOTE=Herr Sven;27833904]Errr... No. Far from it.[/QUOTE] Well whatever it is you do for entertainment, would it change greatly if everybody in the world spoke the same language? [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27833833]It's easy to claim you want a one world united under one language and nationality when you believe it would be your race/language/nationality being the dominant one.[/QUOTE] Even though this would probably happen, it is still many times more beneficial if we all spoke the same language, were united under one flag and one government with a single ruling entity.
I only support dictatorships so long as I am said dictator.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27833870]Do you sing songs of your nation or do cultural traditions of your nationality all the time? Do you play computer games and browse the internet instead might be a better one. There would still be lots to do, just that everybody would speak the same language and do the same things for fun. Wait, we already do that just on a smaller scale inside countries.[/QUOTE] I live in a multicultural society. I don't like the idea of enforcing something on someone. Religion is already fading away with time. And English is already an internationally accepted language (except for some oddballs in far east and elsewhere). My point is that you cannot bring about a revolution and just change it over night because that will be practically impossible and will wreak havoc. Let the things roll out in a evolutionary manner.
I wouldn't trust a human to rule the entire world, but a [url=http://singinst.org/upload/CFAI.html]friendly AI[/url] perhaps. I don't think a single human would have the mental capacity to rule the entire planet. Of course there'd have to be huge amounts of delegation, but what's the point of having one ruler then? Why not a union of countries? You can't remove cultural differences by uniting everyone under the same flag. It wouldn't bring people noticeably closer. Only more efficient communication and interaction can do that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.