What distinguishes a proper one, exactly?
If you would prefer to avoid violence, why do you deny even the possibility of that popular will being legitimately expressed other than through violence?
That’s a cute laundry list, but you’ve given yourself enough room to fudge up support for literally any non-democratic regime.
Quick! Ten seconds or less! Where on this list does Qaddafi become better than Mubarak and Ben Ali?
(Hint: it’s unlisted #4: how much the West and he hate each other.)
I think that it depends on a number of factors, not all of which must be fulfilled in order for me to support a given government. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(1) The government keeps the best economic interests of the people at heart. This is best accomplished via nationalized industries, welfare programs, labor codes, etc.
(2) The government invests heavily in infrastructure.
(3) Political violence is kept to a minimum, and dissent is tolerated as much as practical.
(4) The government rejects aggression but maintains a strong military in order to protect its people from foreign aggression (most likely to come from the US and its EU lapdogs). A nuclear deterrent in always a good thing.
(5) The government rejects imperialism and refuses to condone governments that do not.
(6) The government rejects and suppresses all forms of discrimination.
(7) The government is a meritocracy. Anyone with the requisite intelligence and political leanings can take part in its workings. No one individual can monopolize political power.
(8) The government recognizes fundamental positive rights, most importantly the rights to free healthcare, free education, shelter, and nourishment. The government treats these rights as being much more important than negative rights.
I don’t - you see, the absence of popular violence is also a manifestation of popular will. Take a well-functioning autocracy, one that keeps its people prosperous and happy. The PRC, for example. The people will be peaceful, no revolts will take place, and business will go on as usual. This state of peace is itself a reflection of the fact that the people are satisfied with their government. Thus, autocratic peace is a de facto popular mandate and consent to rule for the government in power.
Thus, armed insurrection is a last-resort tactic available to the people when their government begins to fail them. If the popular will turns against the government, there is absolutely no way for it to maintain its grasp on power. A proper autocratic government, however, will never create such discontent. Hence, a proper autocracy will be in a perpetual state of peace, and violence will be avoided. It’s a win-win situation.
Armed insurrection when the government begins to fail? It seems to me that under your regimes it is not the last but the only option if the people need change. What exactly is wrong with having an election or something before we get the guns out?
Wow… you’ve gotten specific, but virtually none of those apply to Libya or China. Exactly none apply to North Korea.
You’re really proving my point.
Good job rewarding the troll with attention and furthering his exposure on this board. I suspect you thought you were so clever for identifying him when really you are only contributing to the problem. Thanks fool.
Next time try the time tested DNFTT policy.
Don’t confuse my post with one defending your views-I was alluding to a more longer-term issue on these boards, long before you were even a little troll-ling in your mommy’s ballsack.
Commissar: You wrote above
Can you please elaborate a bit on the underlined question. In particular, do you think it is a good idea or not to prevent people (including the use of lethal force) from leaving their country?
Oh dear, I missed that the first time. “I am an autocrat.” Priceless!
How do you reconcile autocracy with communism? Better yet, how do you reconcile “No one individual can monopolize political power” with an autocracy, where all political power is, by definition, in the hands of one person?
This paragraph alone explains the problem people have with you. How can you possibly claim that the Colonel’s government is beneficial when it meets NONE of the tests you laid out? His economic policy was to enrich himself at the expense of his people. His foreign policy was a muddled mess that seemed mostly aimed at ‘hurting’ the US, but mostly seemed about enriching himself. As for respect for international sovereignty, seriously? The man who sponsored terrorist organization the world 'round?
You’re a fucking troll and even you don’t believe the shit you’re spewing…
Thing is, though, none of the four categories that you bring up here are intellectual worldviews in the way that communism is.
Communism is a way of thinking about the world, and about the relationships of people to one another, and to the mode of production. While it is certainly true that there are differences of opinion among communists about particular aspects of how this all works, the fact is that communism presupposes a certain minimum set of beliefs, ideals, and understandings.
None of those things are true in the same way for blacks, women, Jews, or homosexuals. There is no necessary sharing of ideology among the members of any of these groups.
I must say that, whatever i think of Commissar, i think that tomndebb’s instructions in that thread are bullshit. There have been plenty of people on these boards—indeed, some who continue to flourish here—who never satisfy any reasonable standards of evidence for their wild-ass theories, nor any consistent political philosophy. I think that requiring it in this way is a bad decision.
This I believe:
Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.
Rebellion is good for the species.
Challenging authority is good for the authority.
Investigate anything you can. Try to figure out why things work in the manner they do. If you don’t understand something, understand that you don’t, and then go try to figure it out.
Try to find new questions to ask that you don’t know the answer to.
Generally, there are reasons things are done the way they are. Try to figure out why. Try to figure out if there is a better way. If there isn’t, stick with what works.
See? That’s not so hard, is it? Your turn.
That’s just stupid. The issue is not that it’s impossible to do, but that it’s a silly requirement to make of a single person.
And your worldview, such as it is, is so nebulous and imprecise that articulating something similar would do absolutely nothing to change the nature of Commissar’s contribution to this message board.
Seems to me that taking trolls at their word and responding seriously is much more FTT than simply calling them out.
I disagree. Since Commissar is obviously adopting positions that he can’t actually support, and is only advancing to piss of Dopers (mostly Americans), asking him to justify his claims with something more than a desire to piss people off is a valid request. It’s pretty obvious that he chose a rationalist, fact based community where despite left/right disagreements everybody generally agrees that freedom and justice are good things, and argues for “autocracy” so he can try to get a rise out of people. Just like his recent troll thread in GD where he pretends to expect that others will back him up in his outrage that Gadaffi’s dictatorship is being challenge.
A tyrant-lover coming to the Dope and arguing with relentless dishonesty is serving much the same function as a Holocaust denier who deliberately looks for Jewish message boards to post on. Or a Klanner who looks for black message boards to post on. Or a homophobe who looks for gay message boards.
That is, Commissar isn’t here for the hunting.
Are you willfully ignoring the reality of what happened after the OP “called [him] out”? The thread and troll got more exposure. More people stopped by and inadvertently were sincere to the troll until they realized what was going on.
Since you don’t seem to understand what DNFTT means; it is a blanket policy: DO NOT ENGAGE WITH PEOPLE YOU BELIEVE ARE BEING INSINCERE.
You fools are perpetuating and enabling the behavior you want to correct.
Your inchoate rage is delicious.
It will help if you do not mischaracterize what I said. You continue to make inflammatory comments without providing any basis for your position. Without such a basis, you appear to be posting only to seek a reaction. I do not expect a “complete political manifesto.” I do expect you to participate in good faith.
For those of you who have swallowed Commissar’s mischaracterization: note that this is hardly the first time I have insisted that a poster give the appearance of good faith after a rash of inflammatory posts. I am well aware that many ideologues and True Believers are barely capable of rational discourse and are seriously unprepared to hold up their ends of serious discussion. However, most of them come from either a position that is pretty well understood by other posters or express their core beliefs in their posts. When a poster wanders in proclaiming an adherence to Marxist principles and then champions a noted plutocrat without expressing any rational basis for the contradiction, seeking a basis for that contradiction is a rather mild manner in which to determine whether we are dealing with a troll or merely a poster whose connection to reality is less than tenuous.
I fail to see a “contradiction” here. I am a socialist, though I do not claim to support socialists exclusively. That is moot, however, since Gaddafi is also a socialist, and so we are in economic agreement right off the bat. Additionally: Gaddafi opposes Western imperialism, which I agree is the single greatest danger currently facing the world. Moreover, I believe that the world would benefit from the resurgence of a strong international Arab union; Gaddafi champions just such a cause with his pan-Arabism. I believe that a similar political union is needed to advance the interests of the African continent; Gaddafi happens to be a renowned pan-Africanist.
As you can see, my political and economic views are closely aligned with those of Colonel Gaddafi. His opponents appear to be pandering to Western influence, and appear hellbent on imposing representative democracy on Libya. Both ideas are abhorrent to me. Thus, I support Gaddafi and oppose his enemies. None of this contradicts my views; Gadaffi and I disagree on some issues, but I find that our similarities far outweigh our differences.
I hope that this clarifies my position to your satisfaction.