Your favourite dictator.

[Gritt23]

Didn't Pol Pot ban the wearing of glasses, because that was a sign of being literate, and he was so distrusting of "intellectuals"?

That's pretty bonkers.

 

[sydney]

Mugabe , as far as dictators go he is a shameless, relentless dinosaur........wouldn't say he's my favourite but 25 years as zimbabwe's president is some going and what he has done to the country is f***ing unbelievable..!!!

 

[Buzzer]

The actions of an unholy alliance of counter-revolutionary elements and mafia gangsters. Seems Enver's purges didn't go far enough ...

The worst I think you can level against Hoxha was not doing something about the dress sense of your average Albanian. They seem to have beige as their national colour. The legacy lingers today. You go into downtown Tirana and people are dressed like it's an early 70s British sitcom. For the crimes against fashion I think Hoxha is the very worst of dictators.

 

[colinz]

I think Mao Tse-tung would be a favorite, especially with his cultural revolution. Giving young people the green light to smash up any thing that could be classed as being remotely bourgeois. Then creating a whole generation of Chinese with anger management problems.

 

[fork me]

Those acts were all done in the name of socialism. As was Hitler's, Pol Pot's, Stalin's, Mao's..... do we see a pattern emerging here?

There are also plenty of right wing dictatorships, and plenty of socialist democracies. Hell, I live in an EU country with a democratically elected communist government. Your pattern is flawed because you are only looking at a tiny part of it.

The fact is that socialism is an economic ideal, it has nothing to do with authoritarianism or democracy and can be applied within either.

 

[Buzzer]

There are also plenty of right wing dictatorships, and plenty of socialist democracies. Hell, I live in an EU country with a democratically elected communist government. Your pattern is flawed because you are only looking at a tiny part of it.

The fact is that socialism is an economic ideal, it has nothing to do with authoritarianism or democracy and can be applied within either.

And strangely enough I don't want anything to do with right wing dictatorships either. The fact is that socialism as an ideal is flawed. Every time anything approaching genuine state socialism is attempted, oppression rears its ugly head and people start dying. Anyway, socialism is a bit crap. No incentive for personal fulfilment, you see.

 

[Silent Bob]

Those acts were all done in the name of socialism. As was Hitler's, Pol Pot's, Stalin's, Mao's..... do we see a pattern emerging here?

"In the name of" is a useful phrase isn't it, because it doesn't actually mean that that is the thing that caused it, but you can still blame it on that if it suits you.
People blow themselves up "in the name of" their god, but it isn't even the book about him. On Tuesday there will be people fighting each other "in the name of" Brighton and Crystal Palace (probably). But that's not really the reason, it's just an excuse.

Atrocities have happened under every dictatorship there's ever been, not just ones that purported to be socialist or communist. Though since you've included Hitler in your list of famous socialists perhaps you think every dictatorship is actually socialism in action. I know it's a popular meme on the American right to call Hitler a lefty (and to call Chavez a dictator despite the free and fair elections he won to get to be "dictator") but I hope that kind of wild eyed and wilful ignorance isn't being imported here. Though obviously it's politcally expedient.

Even if you genuinely think Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of terrible lefties (no matter what they actually did) both the war and holocaust were done in the name of national and racial supremacy. That's a pretty uncontroversial matter of history.

 

[fork me]

And strangely enough I don't want anything to do with right wing dictatorships either.

That doesn't mean that dictatorships behave like dictatorships because they're socialist, which was your claim. There are dictatorships right across the economic spectrum. Besides which, a llot of so called socialist dictatorships, don't actually act in a socialist way anyway. Just because they call themselves "socialist" doesn't mean they are. Anymore than the "Democratic Republic of Korea" is in any way democratic. To claim that Pol Pot and Hitler did what they did in the name of socialism is no different to saying that Kim Il Jong does what he does in the name of Democracy. It's a nonsense statement that says nothing whatsoever about either socialism or democracy.

The fact is that socialism as an ideal is flawed. Every time anything approaching genuine state socialism is attempted, oppression rears its ugly head and people start dying.

That's simply not true. It's only true in socialist dictatorships, indeed, it's true in pretty much ALL dictatorships. It's a problem with dictatorships, not socialism. There have been plenty of socialist governments in democratic countries, including the one that founded the NHS in the UK.

Anyway, socialism is a bit crap. No incentive for personal fulfilment, you see.

That's nonsense as well. I get the feeling you're one of those many people that doesn't actually know what socialism is but spouts off about it anyway.

 

[Hunting 784561]

And strangely enough I don't want anything to do with right wing dictatorships either. The fact is that socialism as an ideal is flawed. Every time anything approaching genuine state socialism is attempted, oppression rears its ugly head and people start dying. Anyway, socialism is a bit crap. No incentive for personal fulfilment, you see.

Spot on

 

[bobby smith]

Dick Tight was my FAV

 

[Buzzer]

"In the name of" is a useful phrase isn't it, because it doesn't actually mean that that is the thing that caused it, but you can still blame it on that if it suits you.
People blow themselves up "in the name of" their god, but it isn't even the book about him. On Tuesday there will be people fighting each other "in the name of" Brighton and Crystal Palace (probably). But that's not really the reason, it's just an excuse.

Atrocities have happened under every dictatorship there's ever been, not just ones that purported to be socialist or communist. Though since you've included Hitler in your list of famous socialists perhaps you think every dictatorship is actually socialism in action. I know it's a popular meme on the American right to call Hitler a lefty (and to call Chavez a dictator despite the free and fair elections he won to get to be "dictator") but I hope that kind of wild eyed and wilful ignorance isn't being imported here. Though obviously it's politcally expedient.

Even if you genuinely think Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of terrible lefties (no matter what they actually did) both the war and holocaust were done in the name of national and racial supremacy. That's a pretty uncontroversial matter of history.

Blimey. I'm being linked with the American right and obliquely referred to as wild eyed and wilfully ignorant. I know it's a very uncomfortable truth for some but the Nazis were socialists. I know it's not what you like to tell the kids but sadly it's the truth. The clue is in the name although the biggest clues were in their policies.

No - I don't think every dictatorship is socialist in action. In fact I did say previously I don't like right wing dictatorships (although the terms left and right wing are a bit disingenuous here). I think a few South American juntas would get a tad upset at being called socialists. My distaste for socialism doesn't necessarily mean a love of all things right wing either.

I stand by my assertion that every attempt at genuine state socialism has resulted in oppression. It's almost a truism as you need absolutely everybody pulling in the same direction for it to work and let's face it - people want different things. And I do think socialism is a bit crap.

 

[Jonno]

In 10 or 20 years, a similar thread might be full of a guy called Julius Malema - he's gonna cause big trouble in South Africa.

A nasty bit of work is one Lavrentiy Beria, for many years Stalin's right-hand man (he was also a Georgian) and took over briefly after Stalin died, Kruschev later had him executed. He used to drive the streets of Moscow, have his bodyguards kidnap women or even girls off the street whom he would then take home, rape and murder.

 

[Buzzer]

I get the feeling you're one of those many people that doesn't actually know what socialism is but spouts off about it anyway.

Ah, that old chestnut. You're right and I'm wrong because you've decided that I don't know what I'm talking about. Have you considered that actually I have studied it...at length and just reject it? So have many many others cleverer than you or me or anyone posting on this board.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Double post

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

PMB is not some right wing looney. He is the most liberal right of centre you would ever meet.

Anyway my fave dictator was Tony Blair.

 

[ArcticBlue]

Turkmenbashi FACTS:

Niyazov (his real name) introduced the practice of "Melon Day," a harvest festival celebrated on the 2nd Sunday of August; unlike some of his other creations, the celebration of "Melon Day" has continued after his death.

Niyazov banished dogs from the capital Ashgabat because of their "unappealing odour."

He outlawed opera, ballet, and the circus in 2001.

In February 2004 he decreed that men should no longer wear long hair or beards.

He banned news reporters and anchors from wearing make-up on television, apparently because he believed Turkmen women were already beautiful enough without make-up.

Gold teeth were outlawed in Turkmenistan after Niyazov suggested that the populace chew on bones to strengthen their teeth and lessen the rate at which they fall out. He said:
"I watched young dogs when I was young. They were given bones to gnaw to strengthen their teeth. Those of you whose teeth have fallen out did not chew on bones. This is my advice"

The month of September was renamed Ruhnama in honour of the book written by Niyazov (which he finished writing on 19 September 2001).

This guy is quality. I think he banned moustaches, car radios and when he gave up smoking he banned that too. Priceless.

 

[fork me]

Ah, that old chestnut. You're right and I'm wrong because you've decided that I don't know what I'm talking about. Have you considered that actually I have studied it...at length and just reject it? So have many many others cleverer than you or me or anyone posting on this board.

No, you don't know what you're talking about because you're making sweeping statements that CLEARLY aren't true. I don't consider for one minute that you have "studied it at length", if you had you would know that there have been plenty of socialist governments in the world that were not dictatorships and didn't kill people. You would know the difference between things socialist dictatorships do because they're socialist and things they do because they're dictatorships. You'd also know the difference between being a socialist state and calling themselves a socialist state. The fact that you don't appear to know ANY of these things rules out any chance that you have studied it in any meaningful way whatsoever.

HTH

 

[fork me]

PMB is not some right wing looney. He is the most liberal right of centre you would ever meet.

So what? That doesn't make any difference to the fact that he's spouting complete garbage.

Whether you believe Socialism works or not (and bear in mind that I have given no opinion on that either way) his rants are just plain silly.

 

[Poyetry In Motion]

this guy gets my vote

 

[fork me]

Blimey. I'm being linked with the American right and obliquely referred to as wild eyed and wilfully ignorant. I know it's a very uncomfortable truth for some but the Nazis were socialists. I know it's not what you like to tell the kids but sadly it's the truth. The clue is in the name although the biggest clues were in their policies.

No, the Nazis CALLED themselves socialist and yes, some of their economic policies were socialist. But their bit of socialism had nothing whatsoever to do with their nationalism.

No - I don't think every dictatorship is socialist in action. In fact I did say previously I don't like right wing dictatorships (although the terms left and right wing are a bit disingenuous here). I think a few South American juntas would get a tad upset at being called socialists. My distaste for socialism doesn't necessarily mean a love of all things right wing either.

Left and right refer to ECONOMIC policies. Socialism is just about economics. This is why your seeping statements are so nonsenical. As another example, the scumbag BNP are referred to as right wing, when in actual fact, they're economic policies are left of centre.

I stand by my assertion that every attempt at genuine state socialism has resulted in oppression.

You can stand by whatever you want. It doesn't make it true. Every example of a socialist dictatorship has resulted in oppression, but banning of political parties and free elections is NOT a part of socialism. It's THAT side of things that's lead to oppression. The first Labour government after WW2 were most definitely socialist. However, they didn't oppress anybody, far from it, they introduced sweeping reforms (including the NHS) that made things better for everyone.