[Russian]

I second that one, Kurf

"dictatorship... of the proletariat!"- pretty much says it all


PS: why don't you have link to SR on your sig anymore, skullers?

[Sapper]

Stalin was by far my favorite dictator. Stalin, Hitler, and Napoleon are all examples of how authoritarianism will get you better results faster. It took the U.S. roughly 120 years (from the end of the Revolutionary War to the edn of WWI) to become a Super Power. Hitler pulled himself out of a economic depression and third world power status within 13-14 years and created an empire that spanned Europe. Had WWII lasted another year or so with Germany still in, the allies may have been done for. The Nazi's where very technologically advanced. Stalin did the same, but at the cost of more lives, and about double that number... however, Russia was also more backwards than Germany.

Augustus Caesar was the best 'ruler.' He concealed the fact that he was dictator well. Bush is pretty much pulling an Augustus... I just wish we had a better President to do it.

People say that America is great because of democracy, but America would be twenty times more superior within a decade under a technocratic fascist government.

~Sapper

[Umoja]

Ummm.... Germany was the rival of Britain during the time of it's Unification in the 19th century. It was already a superpower before WWI. Hitler just brought the economy back up to speed, same thing happened to the US after a depression......

[Generalissimo Talonius]

Ummm.... Germany was the rival of Britain during the time of it's Unification in the 19th century. It was already a superpower before WWI. Hitler just brought the economy back up to speed, same thing happened to the US after a depression......

True, and both the US and Germany did it by rapid militarization. And you are correct abou t the English and Germans being rivals before and after the great Unification, as Great Britain and Prussia were two of the most powerful Empires at the time ( think of it like USSR vs USA and you can see the similiarities. World powers have, and always will, compete for each other over issues of power. Fact of life ).

[KurtFF8]

It took the U.S. roughly 120 years (from the end of the Revolutionary War to the edn of WWI) to become a Super Power.

Not really, we didnt work hard on it untill WW2, thats what made us a Super Power, and we had a later start than Hitler

[Generalissimo Talonius]

I think US was a power after WWI, but a SUPER power after WWII. And now, w/the USSR gone, it is the world's lone HYPER power.

[GlobalJustice]

I have to go with Napoleon for taking out monarchism in most of Europe.

However, its hard not to respect Genghis Khan, who turned his practically destroyed Yakka Mongol tribe into the masters of the known world.

[Ignominious]

BUSH!

HEIL BUSH!!!

[Generalissimo Talonius]

However, its hard not to respect Genghis Khan, who turned his practically destroyed Yakka Mongol tribe into the masters of the known world.

Here here ! I'd drink ta that, but was he really so much a dictator as he was a great military leader ( akin to Alexandre the Great ) ?

[Wilhelm]

Heil Bush? I agree, bish is a dicattor, but surely not great.

He is the most idiotic president the US has ever had. certainly not great.

[Generalissimo Talonius]

I think that he probably he isn't the absolute worst, but he ranks up there. How do you people even consider him to be a dictator ? What's the reasoning behind it ?

[Wilhelm]

Not Bush, really, the whole US power. But he does represent the American dictatorship of the world, and he is their leader.

I would have preferred Al Gore to lead the world rather than BUsh. I say countries under US imperialism should be allowed to vote for the US president. we are conquered, butnever accepted, that's the difference between the US and the Roman Empire.

Once the Rmans conquered lands, they accepted the natives as citizens-

[Anti Imperialist]

The greatest dictators of all time were either Lenin or Chairman Mao.

Mao turned China, a country plagued by monarchy and illeteracy, into a model for Socialism. Of course bad planning durin the culture revolution and great leap forward were disasterous, they were necessary (just poorly planned). Although at the latter part of his life he made some decisions I strongly disagree with.

[Adrien]

Can we say that Lenin was technically a dictator? I don't think so, he did not have the constitutional characteristics of a dictator, not the same powers.

[jaakko]

Can we say that Lenin was technically a dictator? I don't think so, he did not have the constitutional characteristics of a dictator, not the same powers.

Why not? Where do you draw the line between who's a dictator and who's not. If we think pure, personal dictatorship, then well, there haven't been and won't be any examples of this. Every dictatorship, no matter how centralised, always represents the interests of a powerfull class.

What do people mean when they say Lenin was a dictator? Maybe it's just that Lenin was a communist, 'evil man', who people is expected not to like, so therefore they make without even thinking the conclusion that 'of course he was a dictator'.

[Adrien]

Well without all the possible connotations, i technically saw a "dictator" has a man with all the powers centralized in his hands, openly or under the cover of a false assembly or something like that, and a direct control over all the branchs of the state

I'm not an expert about the constitutional organization of Russia at the time of Lenin, maybe you'll be able to help me, but he didn't have those powers, did he?

[jaakko]

Well without all the possible connotations, i technically saw a "dictator" has a man with all the powers centralized in his hands, openly or under the cover of a false assembly or something like that, and a direct control over all the branchs of the state

I'm not an expert about the constitutional organization of Russia at the time of Lenin, maybe you'll be able to help me, but he didn't have those powers, did he?

Well, how could one man have all power in his hands? I mean, he should be somekind of superman or god to be able to do that. I think the talk of personal dictatorships is fairy tale. Marxists don't believe in personal dictatorships in the exact meaning of the word. How could I use the word 'dictator' then? Pinochet was a dictator, ie. he dictated to the people the will of the ruling comprador bourgeoisie. He didn't have all the power in his hands, he just did the dictating. But Lenin or the ones who came after, whatever opinion one might hold of them, did not have extraordinary powers, but were subjected to the decisions of the party and so on.

[Adrien]

Pinochet was a dictator, ie. he dictated to the people the will of the ruling comprador bourgeoisie.

That's for sure, at the class level the dictator is not a class of its own, but i wasn't going that far in the definition, i was still at the constitutional level, on what is written in the constitution.

[...]but were subjected to the decisions of the party and so on.

I have memory problems here, but wasn't it the other way round in Italy? Like the party being subjected to the decision of Mussolini (kind of archetype of the dictator?). It doesn't have much to do with the subject but as i don't remember..

[Anti Imperialist]

Surely Lenin wasn't an autocratic dictator, nor was the Soviet Union ever an oligarchy, but he was still pretty much a 'dictator', but not in it's literal form.

The term 'dictator' doesn't necessarily mean person that persecutes and pillages people. When you say the word 'dictator' that is what pops into your mind. A dictator simply means the chairman/Premier/ leader of a one party centralized state.

[Freedom]

Saddam Hussein hands down. His ability to manipulate the UN, to defer peoples attentions from him to the UN/USA(since they get blamed for everything) and actually having people march in their millions, globally to keep him in power. Although militarily he was weak, even when his nations was at its strongest, his aggression was amazing. Some of the most memorable events/disasters of the 20th century came at his hand:
-Gassing the Kurds
-Draining the Marshlands of mesopatania

Especially of the Late 20th century those events are the most chillingly horrible.

Although Hitler killed more and Kim il Sung/Kim Jong Il have more bizarre personality cults i think Saddam is the alround greatest Dictator of the last few centuries.

As far as i know, few other Dictators can claim to have such a wonderful son as Saddam has in Uday...the rapist, serial killer of about 1000+ people apparently.

FREEDOM