Why haven't there been many good dictators?

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by kazenatsu, Nov 13, 2017.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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?
     
  2. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,575
    Likes Received:
    733
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  3. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    18,235
    Likes Received:
    2,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  4. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,628
    Likes Received:
    992
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because you don't establish a dictatorship to protect the revolution, you establish the revolution to establish a dictatorship.
     
  5. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  6. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    13,030
    Likes Received:
    2,861
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol:
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  7. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    14,316
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2017
  8. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    9,095
    Likes Received:
    1,509
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here y'go.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_despotism
    Generally they don't make for such glorious history.

     
  9. PROWRITER4U

    PROWRITER4U Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    3
    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!! :p
     
  10. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  11. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
    Moi621 likes this.

Share This Page