Why are left wing dictators considered so much worse, not hypocrisy is it?

It has very little in common with the moderate right wing, or the moderate left wing. It is a very extreme form of radical far-right philosophy that emphasises things like 'Patriotism and national defense, respecting those who keep this nation safe' to the point where they become driven by the idea that everything that doesn't conform to the 'national ideal' (including racial ideal - it completely overwhelmes and destroys any other elements of more moderate right wing thinking such as 'Racial equality, abolition of slavery, civil rights extended to all people regardless of color') is 'unpatriotic' and 'subversive' and 'dangerous', and must be destroyed at all costs for the benefit of everyone else. It is a very, very twisted ideology, but it is a twisted version of perfectly reasonable (whether I happen to agree with them or not) elements within more moderate right wing thinking, rather than more moderate versions of left wing thinking.

As I have said repeatedly, the fact that it is 'far right' does not associate it directly with other things that are 'to the right of centre' - to do that would be a grave mistake. That doesn't change the fact that it is 'far right', though - a twisted and corrupted version of certain aspects of right wing thinking taken well beyond any boundaries of sense or decency.

 

wow, five pages of idjits trying to define left and right in a thread that begins by trying to pigeon-hole dictators into one of these two classifications. it's like watching a group of kindergartners discussing aristotle. face it folks, your childish notions of left and right are far too narrow to encompass political realities. academics love to equate nazism with the right, but its results and aims are nearly indistinguishable from those of the marxist inspired soviets and maoists. so are those two right wing as well?

maybe it's time to drop the left/right rhetoric and start dealing with reality instead of academic idiocy.

 

Chuckles aren't a response.

Another poster asserted that violence and leftism do not go hand in hand. Clearly they do.

What "capitalist revolution" in South Vietnam? The Viet Cong were the ones trying to make the revolution.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're looking down on everyone and calling them names... And then making no assertions that you can substantiate.

 

Wikipedia is authored by random internet posters at whim.

You have not addressed how the NAZI party's 25 point program makes them right-wing when it's full of confiscation of the means of production and its profits for the public at large, nor have you addressed the issue of land reform and the outlawing of speculation in land. Instead, having no knowledge of this, you responded to my linking to a university's historical website on the topic as "some right-wing blog."

You are in no position to look down on others.

 

It tends to be the left-wing sacrafises freedom for equality, so those dictators massively supressed rights in addition to their crimes. Stalin had, compared to Hitler, supressed rights to far greater extent than Hitler for the average citizen. Remember Jews weren't the average citizen.

 

Then correct me. Claims and giggles aren't a statement of facts.

 

What "corporatism"? That's another unsubstantiated assertion on your part. Their 25 point party program was full of economic Socialism.

Their racialist social views were common among early 20th century Socialists. We had plenty of them in the US as well, Margaret Sanger being one. To this day, gay rights are suppressed in Cuba as that country's Revolutionary Constitution specifically states that marriage is heterosexual-only. Like Hitler, the Castro brothers put homosexuals in concentration camps. Where have capitalist countries done this?

 

Now THAT was well explained. I think the heart of conservatism is love of God and when that's removed, then something nasty takes its place. When love is missing even in our political views, hate fills the vacuum and produces a brand of conservatism that's...well....just cruel and heartless. Take God, respect for life, and love of fellow man away and something like the German Nazi party is very possible.

 

Good point. Wikipedia has made intellectual sloths out of people and substitutes faux intellectualism for true intelligence based on critical thinking. It certainly has it's uses, but those who are no more intelligent than the wiki links they post are truthfully mental midgets.

 

People unable to make logical connections are the mental midgets.

 

So you don't think Tyranny is the opposite of Anarchy? Interesting.

The most authoritarian of neo liberals are progressives. We now have, under a liberal president and progressive Congressional leadership, the most authoritarian legislation passed in our lifetimes, Obamacare.

 

Left wing and right wing dictators....are according to my logic---really just left wing. I based this on how "Right Wing" is defined in America.

The left advocates a central power of control---which is what dictators do. They may emphasize pride in nation, or pride in ideology (climate change for instance) , or pride in leader as does N. Korea or adherance to a religion as Islamic countries do....but regardless of what that government places as the pinnacle of focus---it must have central power at the expense of the individual's rights and liberties.

Right Wing definition in the United States is not about that. The Right Wing in the United States is about the constitution and its original intent which defuses powers, by delegating specific responsibilities to federal, state and local governments.

Its the left here in the US....that advocates for a "living and changing" constitution which can allow for an intrusive all powerful federal government that controls a population---to deciding what that population eats, to what type of healthcare that population must buy into, to forcing an opinion over all 50 states ofwhen human life can be killed. Its the left that would sacrifice freedom of speech to irradicate non-approved speech. You have to have a strong federal power to dictate this type of agenda across a whole nation.

 

Yep, dictators are on the side of tyranny and it does not matter what label they are called by.

 

In this case it fits rather well

 

Historically, left wing dictators have killed many more people. And they've been much more ruthless about it. In fact, can anyone even provide an example of a "right wing dictator" at all? Some will try to use Hitler, but by American standards Hitler was still left wing. Which only further adds to my point.

Where would Saddam Hussein fall? Apolitical maybe? He was inspired by the evils of Hitler and Stalin, but he wasn't really pushing any kind of overt political message in his dictatorship. He was just on a personal crusade to punish the world for his own unhappy youth. His life story is a sad testament to how being treated like trash from a young age can turn a child into a bully that then grows up to be a monster.

 

I have to agree with this. The further right you move on the American scale, the smaller the government gets. Which kind of makes dictatorship impossible.

 

Made up nonsense, much!!!!!

 

noted

 

The whole Vietnam farce was about trying to force the country to becoming capitalist, against the wishes of the people.

Where's your moral high ground now, huh?

- - - Updated - - -

That's a blatant trick of semantics if there ever was one.

Stalin killed in order to protect his revolution - Hitler killed if you were of the wrong race.
Major difference.

 

I already asked you about the SOCIAL and Corporatist policies of Hitler - yet you've failed to address them.

Those were notoriously fascistic, IOW far from the left.

Try the IG Farben company for a start.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben

from link:

 

The reality of Nazi rule is more informative than the 'Party program' - the two differ significantly.

Communism does not call for same-sex marriage - that is an utterly bourgeoisie concept.

 

lol, if that's authoritarian then what do you make of single-payer - must be the Devil himself! rolleyes

- - - Updated - - -

Pinochet.

 

No they aren't, but in a sense you are right - the practical results are very similar in many ways (authoritarianism, violence, etc.), whichever extreme ideological background is underlying to root to authoritarian dictatorships. The original aims and philosophies are very different, but ultimately they end up doing many of the same things for many of the same reasons (suppressing any kind of opposition being the main similarity).

Some get there through extreme right wing ideologies, and some through extreme left wing ideologies. In order to understand what brought such appalling people to power (so that it can be avoided in future) it is important to understand how they individually got there and the individual circumstances of their rise, obviously, but the key point to understand for ordinary political debate purposes is that it doesn't really matter whether someone is relatively right or left wing in their thinking, the real danger is in extremism, not in merely inherent to 'left' or 'right'.

It is extremism that has to be resisted in order to avoid such authoritarianism. That's a vital point, because missing it allow extremism to develop - it leads people to think that they must utterly 'resist the left' or 'resist the right', and that leads them to assume that everything 'the other side' do is wrong and evil - it radicalises people, and allows them to think that a little bit of 'mild extremism' is OK as long as it is 'mild extremism' from 'their side', only there to resist the danger of the 'other side'. That is what gives the dangerous extremists the public opinion opportunity to exploit.

That is what Hitler exploited in Germany - we have to be 'strong' to resist 'the reds' and 'the Jews' and so on, even if what we have to do is 'unpalatable' - we have to save ourselves from 'them' at all costs. That is the big danger I can see happening in the US (and to an extent in Europe) at the moment - people on both 'sides' becoming radicalised in order to 'protect' themselves from the 'evils' of 'the other side'. Instead of listening to what each other say, considering it, considering compromise and how to work together positively for the good of all, and so on, they are just dismissing it as 'utterly wrong' and vowing to 'resist' everything they do 'at all costs'. That is where the danger really lies (and that is what real extremists on both sides will seek to exploit for their own ends), not from the overwhelming majority of the people who hold opinions to one side or the other of the political centre line.

 

To a large extent I agree, although I am not religious. If religion brings compassion and love, that is a very good thing - I don't believe religion is a requirement for love and compassion, but it can certainly be a positive influence in that sense. I would say that the problem is the removal of that love and compassion, though, rather than directly religion itself. There have been (and are) some seriously nasty 'religious Conservatives' (from all religions) in the world who have warped their religious ideas into becoming uncompassionate - they have become radicalised and extreme to the point where they believe that the need to preserve and emphasise other elements of their religious doctrine overrides that need for love and compassion.

Again that highlights the issue of the danger being extremism, not 'the other side'. That applies in religion as well as politics, and in this case the two are obviously intertwined. We have extreme 'Conservative' Muslims and Christians, for example (and others, of course, but they are an obvious example), both trying to 'resist' each other in various ways, and forgetting the point of the love and compassion that exists in both of their religions. They are promoting their ideas that they need to do those 'unpalatable things' to resist 'the others', and encouraging ordinary followers of their religions to believe that 'the other side' is the real danger to them on the basis of the actions of a minority of extremists from 'the other side'. It's not true, though - the danger to those religions is not the ordinary followers of those religions at all, it is the extremists on both sides twisting their religious teachings, peddling fear of 'the others', and taking out those most important elements of love and compassion in order to further their own extreme agendas.

And that is how violent and oppressive religious dictatorship enters the frame - again the underlying ideology is different, and the circumstances of the rise are different, and they need to be understood in their full individual context, but when it comes to the everyday practicalities there is little difference in the actions of religious dictators from those of 'left' or 'right' based political dictators. They are all violent and authoritarian, and they have all twisted their original root ideology to emphasise one element above all others in order to justify their actions and gain and maintain total power. They have all also done so by persuading their people that they are only doing what has to be done in order to resist the 'evil' of 'the others'.

Once again, it shows that the danger is not 'left' or 'right' or one 'side' of politics, and it isn't 'Islam' or 'Christianity' or any particular religion (or even religion itself), the real danger is extremism. In order to avoid that, we need to understand that ourselves and ensure that we don't fall into the trap of becoming radicalised in fear that 'the other side' is just inherently 'evil'.

 

Its because a lot of right wing media uses socialism as a insult, so you see the below names come up a lot more.

Franco, Kim, Hitler, Mussolini, and the current military leader of Thailand are all right wing fascists. Actually, the word fascist is still common all throughout Asia. It has yet to become a "bad" word.

John Kerry? I think many of these are just authoritarian. Extreme right involves......

1. Intense social inequality

2. Hyper controlled capitalism (The opposite of redistribution, as the goal is to literally flood all wealth to certain brackets or groups)

3. Militarism

4. An ideal, in nearly all fascist states, that the nation is worth more than the individual. Some interpret this as blind nationalism.

5. Fascist governments, stated by Mussolini, control the flow of all ideals, as to not threaten the security of a nation

6. Mussolini also advocates the corporations controlling the state. The correct terminology would be, an oligarch.

7. Following tenet 6, Mussolini says that the freedom of the corporations are ensured under nationalized control

The problem is, that many can not tell a extreme right wing government off the bat. For example, Russia is extreme right, because.......

- Intense nationalism

- The government can control and censor any form of propaganda

- Corporations are given political power (no joke)

- Regressive taxes, which make your tax rate go down as you rise in income, only serve to benefit the rich.

For example, how many times have you heard that Hitler is a communist? The national socialists had "right" directly before their name. Hitler actually murdered communists during his rise to power. Pol Pot is another example of a would be commie