O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

[SinceSept1959]

Metropolitan Police Officer , Head of MBPOA, sacked for inappropriate posts .

[i961pie]

[QUOTE=drillerpie;40636567]

I remember one of your recent posts was trying to rehabilitate Hitler and Emperor Hirohito to some extent, so I don't think we are in agreement here. If you look at Germany and Japan since they abandoned the idea of having a Fuhrer or an Emperor.

Japan has still got an emperor? I think is name is Naruhito.

[drillerpie]

Japan has still got an emperor? I think is name is Naruhito.

You know what I mean.

[PedroTheFisherman66]

Can we have the dream team back please..Cummins and his puppet Boris..I believe thrres another virus on it's way...!

[JoePass]

Can we have the dream team back please..Cummins and his puppet Boris..I believe thrres another virus on it's way...!

Yes, it?s called the Lammy and Reeves virus, kills everything it touches.

[SmiffyPie]

https://aeon.co/essays/there-are-no-...ys-been-global
Related to the topic in a roundabout way and if you have twenty minutes or so to spare is a very interesting read.

[Lullapie]

I'm happy you enjoyed my post but my point wasn't that autocracies are necessary. I think they confuse the fate of the nation with the personal interests of the leader, and generally lead to poverty and / or dying in a pointless war for large numbers of citizens.

Oh I didn't agree with all of your post and my apologies if it appeared I was trying to say something that you wasn't. I did think it was a good post though.

In history, there are many examples of leaders that are right for the moment, but before or after have been terrible leaders. Churchill was only successful during the second world war and my opinion has always been that if he was leader in the late 1930s, then possibly Hitler would have thought twice about what he did.

However, Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty during the first world war and made the awful decision to attack Turkey through the Dardanelles, which led to the Gallipoli disaster. He also wasn't successful in his second term of office either.


My comment about autocracies has two angles to it:

1. Some countries can only ever function under an autocracy. When I refer to these, I mean like Russia, China and many of the middle eastern states. It's the same for many African countries. There are too many tribal differences to try and implement the western idea of democracy.

2. Some countries need an autocracy for a short period. In my opinion this is normally after some cataclysmic event. Possibly a major war that has decimated the country or after the political system has broken down. In Germany in the 1920s, both these events happened. I don't think Mussolini was necessary for Italy though, he was just mimicking the Nazis and was backed by the church to prevent the spread of Communism.


The difficult bit about the second point, is wrestling democracy back from an autocratic leader.


Democracy works in far fewer countries than we in the west would like to believe and the west's version of democracy is even less successful - just look how many forms of democracy there are. At the end of the day, all these forms of western democracy have some very un-democratic traits - so who's form of government is correct?

[Mud Pie]

https://aeon.co/essays/there-are-no-...ys-been-global
Related to the topic in a roundabout way and if you have twenty minutes or so to spare is a very interesting read.

thanks for this (and for the publication - thoughtful and timely piece on nursing too which I've sent to my daughter). States your case well, I'm guessing! Wonder what the aryanist intellectuals on here think of it. Of course lots of people take the idea even further towards a universal consciousness... is that beyond the scope of this thread?

[drillerpie]

Oh I didn't agree with all of your post and my apologies if it appeared I was trying to say something that you wasn't. I did think it was a good post though.

In history, there are many examples of leaders that are right for the moment, but before or after have been terrible leaders. Churchill was only successful during the second world war and my opinion has always been that if he was leader in the late 1930s, then possibly Hitler would have thought twice about what he did.

However, Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty during the first world war and made the awful decision to attack Turkey through the Dardanelles, which led to the Gallipoli disaster. He also wasn't successful in his second term of office either.


My comment about autocracies has two angles to it:

1. Some countries can only ever function under an autocracy. When I refer to these, I mean like Russia, China and many of the middle eastern states. It's the same for many African countries. There are too many tribal differences to try and implement the western idea of democracy.

2. Some countries need an autocracy for a short period. In my opinion this is normally after some cataclysmic event. Possibly a major war that has decimated the country or after the political system has broken down. In Germany in the 1920s, both these events happened. I don't think Mussolini was necessary for Italy though, he was just mimicking the Nazis and was backed by the church to prevent the spread of Communism.


The difficult bit about the second point, is wrestling democracy back from an autocratic leader.


Democracy works in far fewer countries than we in the west would like to believe and the west's version of democracy is even less successful - just look how many forms of democracy there are. At the end of the day, all these forms of western democracy have some very un-democratic traits - so who's form of government is correct?

I agree with you that leaders can be a good fit for a certain time and situation, and less good for others, and Churchill is a good example of this. I don't think that's an argument for autocratic rule though, as Churchill was voted out and if he was an autocrat he would have stayed in power until he died, probably inplementing a lot of unpopular policies. In fact I think a short-term dictator is a bit of an oxymoron - they're never short term because there is no way of getting them out because they're dictators.

China and Russia are different to the other places you mentioned which are relatively new countries often made by a Englishman and a Frenchman drawing lines on a map over brandy and cigars. It's not surprising they have tribal issues. Colonialism is a factor here too - I don't have a source for this sonit's completely anecdotal but my history professor at university told me that when the Belgians left Congo there were precisely 6 Congolese people in Congo with a university education. Very difficult to administer a huge country in those circumstances. We (the UK) also installed Idi Amin in Uganda, for example.

The old land empires (China and Russia) are different but even there I don't think we can say democracy can never work there. Pro-Putin people claim he saved the country from the chaos of democracy. It's certainly true that under their brief experiment with democracy there was chaos, and the situation was intolerable for a lot of people, but the fact that the price of hydrocarbons that Russia exports doubled/tripled at the same time he came to power is often ignored. The situation would've been a lot better in the 90s had there been 2x or 3x the budget to spend. Now they have an autocracy and a huge country with an educated population and enormous wealth of natural resources, but a relatively small GDP and huge wealth inequality. Not to mention the fact that they are sending hundreds of thousands of men to die on a whim of the dictator.

China has had several dictators but they only brought hardship and poverty. China's biggest increase in living standards came from being allowed into the WTO in the 70s and integrating themselves into the world (US designed and led) economy. They surprised everyone by being able to keep autocracy and combine it with a being a fully integrated market economy, but the autocratic choices they have made (that would probably never have been enacted in a democracy) are hurting them or will soon hurt them (one child policy, supporting Russian expansionism, threatening Taiwan).

I agree that people turn to a charismatic strongman when they feel ignored or unfairly treated, and I understand why this can be appealing, but it always comes with a price to pay. Hitler and Mussolini solved the problems they (I can't say they were chosen because they weren't elected as such) rose to prominence talking about, but then created 100x more hardship for their people in the long run. Mussolini came first by the way. If anything, Hitler copied Mussolini.

So yeah the dictator argument is a seductive one but I think if you look at the facts, the biggest advances in a lot of the countries we mentioned (Italy, Germany, Japan post WW2, China 1970, Russia hasn't really happened yet but may do in the future) came when they got rid of their Fuhrer/Emperor/Duce and integrated into the western system, accepted their borders were not going to change, and stopped posing a threat to their neighbours.

[Lullapie]

I agree with you that leaders can be a good fit for a certain time and situation, and less good for others, and Churchill is a good example of this. I don't think that's an argument for autocratic rule though, as Churchill was voted out and if he was an autocrat he would have stayed in power until he died, probably inplementing a lot of unpopular policies. In fact I think a short-term dictator is a bit of an oxymoron - they're never short term because there is no way of getting them out because they're dictators.

China and Russia are different to the other places you mentioned which are relatively new countries often made by a Englishman and a Frenchman drawing lines on a map over brandy and cigars. It's not surprising they have tribal issues. Colonialism is a factor here too - I don't have a source for this sonit's completely anecdotal but my history professor at university told me that when the Belgians left Congo there were precisely 6 Congolese people in Congo with a university education. Very difficult to administer a huge country in those circumstances. We (the UK) also installed Idi Amin in Uganda, for example.

The old land empires (China and Russia) are different but even there I don't think we can say democracy can never work there. Pro-Putin people claim he saved the country from the chaos of democracy. It's certainly true that under their brief experiment with democracy there was chaos, and the situation was intolerable for a lot of people, but the fact that the price of hydrocarbons that Russia exports doubled/tripled at the same time he came to power is often ignored. The situation would've been a lot better in the 90s had there been 2x or 3x the budget to spend. Now they have an autocracy and a huge country with an educated population and enormous wealth of natural resources, but a relatively small GDP and huge wealth inequality. Not to mention the fact that they are sending hundreds of thousands of men to die on a whim of the dictator.

China has had several dictators but they only brought hardship and poverty. China's biggest increase in living standards came from being allowed into the WTO in the 70s and integrating themselves into the world (US designed and led) economy. They surprised everyone by being able to keep autocracy and combine it with a being a fully integrated market economy, but the autocratic choices they have made (that would probably never have been enacted in a democracy) are hurting them or will soon hurt them (one child policy, supporting Russian expansionism, threatening Taiwan).

I agree that people turn to a charismatic strongman when they feel ignored or unfairly treated, and I understand why this can be appealing, but it always comes with a price to pay. Hitler and Mussolini solved the problems they (I can't say they were chosen because they weren't elected as such) rose to prominence talking about, but then created 100x more hardship for their people in the long run. Mussolini came first by the way. If anything, Hitler copied Mussolini.

So yeah the dictator argument is a seductive one but I think if you look at the facts, the biggest advances in a lot of the countries we mentioned (Italy, Germany, Japan post WW2, China 1970, Russia hasn't really happened yet but may do in the future) came when they got rid of their Fuhrer/Emperor/Duce and integrated into the western system, accepted their borders were not going to change, and stopped posing a threat to their neighbours.

I also learned about the Belgian Congo at school. It was the only colony Belgian had in Africa as Leopold was late to the party. The Belgians were recognised as the cruelest of all the colonisers and with all authoritarianism regimes, the way to control the populous is to either under-educate them or educate them with propaganda.

Amin is the common example of the left of how the British installed a dictator, who was cruel and merciless. However, I prefer to use Mugabe as a better example. He was allowed to take control in Zimbabwe and decimated his political opponents and his country's economy. You don't hear that much of him now. The West turned a blind eye to him and tried to forget what they had allowed to take control.

Do you not see China as an autocracy currently? Xi Jinping is seen by many Chinese as a dictator. I've worked with many ex-pat Chinese people here and they have contrasting views of China. Most see Xi as a modern day Stalin and are nervous about saying anything negative in public about him, even in New Zealand.

Now that's an overreaching arm of control.

I'm presuming you are in the UK - correct me if I'm wrong . In NZ, Australia and the Pacific, China is seen as the number threat to world peace. They have most governments over a barrel, because of the money that they spend with those countries.

In Africa, the Chinese policy of Belt and Road is putting already impoverished African countries into even more debt, but the Chinese government are extracting their 'interest' payments from natural resources. They are the modern day colonisers.

Along with the abuse of human rights on the Chinese mainland and the offshore territories, it looks like a dictatorship to me.