Forms of government that are intrinsically evil

[Dan Loney]

This is spinning off a discussion on P&CE, and technically it's political science and not history, but I thought the subject was (a) innerestin' and (b) better served in this slightly more reflective forum.

Fascism is inherently evil. In its ideal form, it demands the subjugation of a minority to the will and whims of a single personality. While genocide doesn't necessarily follow from fascism, authoritarian dictatorship does.

Communism is not inherently evil. It just so happens that every time it's been tried, it's ended up as an authoritarian dictatorship. But that wasn't necessarily what it was designed to do. Communism doesn't have to scapegoat and oppress minorities, any more than the Arizona Cardinals have to suck. That's just what always seems to occur.

[Txtriathlete]

Mullacracy, or any government that is religion based. Organized religion is inherently evil and with that comes a lot of power, evil power. What better drive would you need to control the masses, than heaven or hell as your end point? Its clever.

[dmar]

The Galactic Empire.

[Toon³]

The Galactic Empire.

Atleast the starships ran on time.

[spejic]

Fascism is inherently evil. In its ideal form, it demands the subjugation of a minority to the will and whims of a single personality.I don't think this is necessarily bad. Sometimes a people are better off when ownership of common resources are held in a person's hands instead of no one, like in capitalism.

[nicephoras]

This is spinning off a discussion on P&CE, and technically it's political science and not history, but I thought the subject was (a) innerestin' and (b) better served in this slightly more reflective forum.

Fascism is inherently evil. In its ideal form, it demands the subjugation of a minority to the will and whims of a single personality. While genocide doesn't necessarily follow from fascism, authoritarian dictatorship does.

Communism is not inherently evil. It just so happens that every time it's been tried, it's ended up as an authoritarian dictatorship. But that wasn't necessarily what it was designed to do. Communism doesn't have to scapegoat and oppress minorities, any more than the Arizona Cardinals have to suck. That's just what always seems to occur.

It depends on whether you think communism is a form of government. Its more correct to say that communism thus far has been fascism with a new and exciting economic twist.

[Mel Brennan]

It depends on whether you think communism is a form of government. Its more correct to say that communism thus far has been fascism with a new and exciting economic twist.

I agree. Totalitarianism has made itself manifest, and called itself all kinds of things - communism, fascism, capitalism, socialism - but communism is the "whithered away" absence of government, isn't it?

In any case, I'm against all "isms." Either we choose to give a ******** about the whole shebang, or we develop an ism to say "We want to give a ******** about this over here, but not that over there, and here's our justification."

[Matt in the Hat]

Monarchy

[Revolt]

Anarchy

[Matrim55]

The Galactic Empire.
Clearly you subscribe to the narrow and dogmatic view of the Jedi.

[Anthony]

I think the term "fascist" is so misused as to no longer mean anything. And even then, I think many regimes termed fascist (like Franco's) were more bizzare nostalgia for the past than fascism, while others (like Napoleon III's) which are not considered fascist were.

I have gotten knocked around for my often repeated statement that there is little real difference between communism and fascism (people then tend to ignore the rest or later posts where I then show where I think the differences lie).

For me, one issue of whether a regime is evil is if people are allowed to leave (whether they have anywhere to go is another matter -- Hitler wanted the Jews to leave, knowing they had no place to go). While Castro on my list is not in the same league as say Hitler, Stalin or Mao, but he makes it difficult for people to leave.

[Smiley321]

but communism is the "whithered away" absence of government, isn't it?


You almost stumbled into the essence of the problem. The withered-away state is the communists' goal. Their problem is getting from here to there. Every time they've tried, they've realized that it doesn't work if there isn't 100% buy in from the masses. Even communes with 20 people find that out.

So they either have to banish, imprison, intimidate or kill the non-believers. That makes it inherently evil.

The other aspect that makes it evil is they they realize that they can't make things work as well as a capitalist system, so they must take drastic measures to isolate themselves from the damaging influence of a superior system and prevent their masses from escaping to the superior system.

And, of course, they have the moral certainty of religious cultists, so taking those evil measures becomes the only alternative to admitting that the whole thing is horribly mistaken.

[Una Grande Libre]

i dont think you can call anyone evil until you define evil itself... and Im pretty sure theres more than one definition of evil out there...

for me, I wouldnt say any one form is "evil" however Id say under certain people the governments can turn evil: ex. hitler's germany and stalin's russia and just to get slammed by the lefties the second spanish republic... if you can call it a republic

go ahead and say what you want about franco now... but at least we won the euro cup while he was in power

[Dan Loney]

Mullacracy, or any government that is religion based. Organized religion is inherently evil and with that comes a lot of power, evil power. What better drive would you need to control the masses, than heaven or hell as your end point? Its clever.But you could say that the goals and ideals of such a theocracy aren't completely unspeakable. There aren't a heck of a lot of real world examples, granted. But the notion of a government based on the Sermon on the Mount can't really be called evil in and of itself.

On other topics....Edward Gibbon had good things to say about the Roman Empire at its peak, although I'm loath to defend monarchy. The two Antonines simply would not have practiced fascism, even if they'd had the technology to make it possible. Nor would Julian. That level of control over people's thoughts and activities is not necessarily a part of monarchy, but it's crucial to fascism. (And, to be fair, has been a crucial part of communism. Maybe that's just what monarchy + technology ends up looking like, given a bad monarch.)

You can have slavery, unprovoked wars, secret police, and so forth in every kind of corrupted government. I'm not sure you can have fascism without those things, though. If we open the term "monarchy" up to include the bastard degenerate impotent figureheads like the House of Windsor, then we have even more examples of harmless monarchs. I don't think there's ever been a harmless fascist. Worse than that, unlike theocrats and communists, fascists talk of slavery, unprovoked wars, and so forth as goals to strive for. At least communists pretended they were speaking for the people.

[ratdog]

Communism is not inherently evil. It just so happens that every time it's been tried, it's ended up as an authoritarian dictatorship. But that wasn't necessarily what it was designed to do. Communism doesn't have to scapegoat and oppress minorities, any more than the Arizona Cardinals have to suck. That's just what always seems to occur.

Part of the problem is that states that identified themselves as "communist" were usually the most undeveloped in social, political and economic terms. They tried to make the leap directly from feudalism or from being colonial possessions to industrial "Communism". Marx was certainly not right abuot everything but I think he was correct when he noted that a society had to have developed a certain level of economic prosperity (including education) before it can make the transition to socialism. Societies that were still largely dependent on subsistance agriculture simply did not have necessary preconditions to make the jump and so fell back into authoritarianism in which the elites used the fig leaf of "communism" to justify their actions.

Second, most were started by a cadre of leaders who saw how well Stalinism worked (for the leaders, that is, not for the general populace) and so imported that system while doing nothing to instill either the political or the economic democracy that are at the heart of socialist ideals. So for the most part they merely replicated the extremely centralized authoritarian state capitalism of the Soviet Union. I doubt whether most of those leaders had any intention of building real socialism even if they could have.

On a slightly different tack, the elites of all societies seek to instill socialization in their populations that maintains the status quo that benefits those elites. It happens here in the USA as well as in other societies. If you go back and read stuff from the 1920s and 1930s, our internal propaganda was every bit as hamfisted as that pumped out by the Soviets or the Nazis. Since then, it's gotten a lot slicker and less immediately noticable but once you know how to look for it the propaganda becomes immediately recognizable in the various forms it takes in advertising, think tank "studies", newscasts, best sellers, movies, etc.

[Anthony]

Part of the problem is that states that identified themselves as "communist" were usually the most undeveloped in social, political and economic terms. They tried to make the leap directly from feudalism or from being colonial possessions to industrial "Communism". Marx was certainly not right abuot everything but I think he was correct when he noted that a society had to have developed a certain level of economic prosperity (including education) before it can make the transition to socialism. Societies that were still largely dependent on subsistance agriculture simply did not have necessary preconditions to make the jump and so fell back into authoritarianism in which the elites used the fig leaf of "communism" to justify their actions.

Had it not been for the Bolsheviks, Marx probably would be remembered in a way similar to Lassale or maybe some anti-trust writer. I will admit that his views (and our views of him) were warped by the Bolsheviks.

As for the "leap" from fuedalism to communism, that is more of a streach. Yes, Marx presupposed an industrial society and an educated cadre class as peconditions to communism. But Russia was not that far behind the rest of Europe, and communism (at least the Stalinist variety) was tried in Eastern Germany (which to be sure was more agricultural than the West).

Generally, in more advanced countries, Marxism was blunted by either democratic socialism (into which I place Sweden, although many will disagree with me) and social democracy. The goal was not so much to remake society, but to broaden the benefits of society to the lower classes.

I have stated that my primary belief is in liberal demcoracy, which I think is not an economic but a political system. I believe that liberal democracy can exist and foster most economic systems, from closed systems to merchantilism to the free market, to social market to social democracy to democratic socialism. I am not sure it is compatable with "communism" (as that term is understood).

[needs]

Had it not been for the Bolsheviks, Marx probably would be remembered in a way similar to Lassale or maybe some anti-trust writer. I will admit that his views (and our views of him) were warped by the Bolsheviks.



No way. Even without the Bolsheviks, Marx would be considered a major thinker on the level of Nietsche and other major 19th century philosophers. In my mind, Marx is the 19th century's greatest critic of modernity and its effects. "All that is solid melts into air" sums up the effect that an expanding world market had on existing social systems better than almost anything else written at its time (and still holds up). If anything, the Bolsheviks make it too easy to dismiss Marx's deep understandings of the effects of capitalist modernity on established social systems. That's his real contribution as a critic. As a prognosticator, he's not so great.

He's also central to the formation of modern social science. The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is almost fundamental reading for thinking about historical change.

That he was wrong about capitalism's ability to endure its contradictions doesn't make his illustration of those contradictions any less telling.

[Anthony]

No way. Even without the Bolsheviks, Marx would be considered a major thinker on the level of Nietsche and other major 19th century philosophers. In my mind, Marx is the 19th century's greatest critic of modernity and its effects. "All that is solid melts into air" sums up the effect that an expanding world market had on existing social systems better than almost anything else written at its time (and still holds up). If anything, the Bolsheviks make it too easy to dismiss Marx's deep understandings of the effects of capitalist modernity on established social systems. That's his real contribution as a critic. As a prognosticator, he's not so great.

He's also central to the formation of modern social science. The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is almost fundamental reading for thinking about historical change.

That he was wrong about capitalism's ability to endure its contradictions doesn't make his illustration of those contradictions any less telling.

I guess what I was trying to say was that Marxism would not have the connection with authoritarianism and violence and repression that it has today. He would be remembered more as a left-wing writer or as one of the intellectual precursors of social democracy. I was not refering to his importance, rather to his connection with totalitarianism.

[needs]

I guess what I was trying to say was that Marxism would not have the connection with authoritarianism and violence and repression that it has today. He would be remembered more as a left-wing writer or as one of the intellectual precursors of social democracy. I was not refering to his importance, rather to his connection with totalitarianism.

Gotcha.

[frenil]

Generally, in more advanced countries, Marxism was blunted by either democratic socialism (into which I place Sweden, although many will disagree with me) and social democracy. The goal was not so much to remake society, but to broaden the benefits of society to the lower classes.


Please elaborate as to why you would put Sweden under democratic socialism.