[Godstud]

The very best dictators were Roman. They knew how to keep the plebes happy.

[starman2003]

(The succes of Roman Emperors was they were excellent commanders).

Not all of them. The severity of the third century crisis owed much to the mistakes of Decius and Valerian. Of course many others like Aurelian were effective.

The very best dictators were Roman. They knew how to keep the plebes happy.

They knew how to fool the plebes into thinking the republic has still intact or diverting their attention away from loss of political perogatives by means of bread and circuses.

[late]

It seems like you're changing the topic to contemporary Russia. We were talking about the USSR.

I was responding to your comment.

I accept the implied admission of defeat.

[Godstud]

They knew how to fool the plebes into thinking the republic has still intact or diverting their attention away from loss of political perogatives by means of bread and circuses.

You mean like they still do, today in the USA and other countries? They learned form the best(Rome)!

[starman2003]

You mean like they still do, today in the USA and other countries?

Politics inevitably involves manipulation but it's not quite the same thing. Among some intellectuals, it's fashionable to deny it but for the time being democracy endures here. That's why social spending and deficits are so high.

They learned form the best(Rome)!

I have no doubt future (real) authoritarians, like past ones, will be emulative of Rome in a number of ways.

[Tainari88]

I appreciate your concern but I truly and faithfully believe he cannot permanently damage the Republic. In fact, I think what damages the government permanently is trying to prevent populist sentiment from letting us have a President who gets to try to fulfill his mandate legally...

And that's just the faith in the institutions.

Let there also be a very far left President if the time comes - if they win the election, let them be fought in the legislature, and let only proper, principled decisions from the judiciary concerned purely with legal precedent be an impediment...

I believe in the Constitution, and if it is grossly violated I will be there with the people fighting the government, even if they are on the left and suspicious of me.

You can say I am completely wrong and a fool but I promise you... if I am wrong on this I will apologize and feel it.

Oh Verv, you and I are completely different in life experiences, education, and perspective. Which is what PoFo is supposed to bring together and have debates about.

You have faith in the Constitution and the US government. I do not. I think they renege when some powerful people find it highly inconvenient.

Lol.

It is about internal and external power plays. It's not about principles to live by. If it was about principles Citizens United would have never gotten legal standing. It is about manipulations of what is allowable and how people must battle it for justice. Democracies are fragile Verv. So are ideas of nations and the myths that are powerful and bind them together. If you lose faith in the myth? You wind up losing faith in the institutions. They lose support. And internal vacuums are created, and filled by people who no longer believe in the foundational myths.

Let me tell you a little story. If ever you come to visit the state of Yucatán in México where I currently reside? You can take a van or a bus or a rental car to a place called Uxmal. Pronounced in Mayan as USH-MOL. Across the Archaeological Zone, there is a Chocolate Hacienda. It is a Museum dedicated to the history of Chocolate in the Ancient world of the Maya, the Aztecs, and the many other tribes of Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Campeche, and the Yucatan. It has a dome. A large dome that is called a Planetarium. They play a film called something like The Origin of Mayan Myths...it is very interesting. Too bad it is only in Spanish. But they cover the reasons why these places were possibly abandoned in the jungle long ago. The reason is that over time the myths that held these civilizations together and bonded everyone socially together stop being believed. The Mayans were astronomers, mathematicians, agronomists, priests, soldiers, warriors, fishermen craftsmen, artists, slaves, laborers, etc. The religion stated the reason human sacrifices were necessary was because the Sun God, or the Rain God, like Tlaloc, etc had to be fed human blood and hearts. For what is more precious in the social and natural order than human life? That which is valuable for wealth and work, and to give life that is strong and valuable and beats with the very essence of the spirit is to honor the gods that are ruling the Universe. If you do not do that consistently? You wind up angering them, that is when storms come, fires, and calamities occur you do not respect their authority over the events in your world.

Pacify them with human sacrifice and you restore the balance of nature and they will ensure your continued ability to have crops of corn, squash, beans, chocolate, tomatoes, avocados, chilis, honey, fish, sweet potato, and many other great things including guajolotes or turkeys that in Mayan is called Úulum, (m)tso-

They will ensure the stars continue on their trajectory and so on. Fail at giving them tribute and the world will collapse. What happened? Drought happened, crops failed, and many disasters fell despite the many human sacrifices that were given over to the gods for pacification and offering.

The real reason for the conflict was about power relationships Verv. The sacrifices tended to come from the lower classes, the poor and the peasants, the priests children, and relatives were rarely chosen for sacrifice. The disrespect in constant wars with their neighbors and so on internal fights for power in the Priesthood and so on, and between the Mayan Kings of the Mayab land? Was the reason for many overweening ambitions and oppressive taxation. Tributes, which caused a lot of famine, overstepped the available resources and caused a lot of lands to be burned, water to be dried up and fights for power caused constant instability. Tribal warfare and finally trade routes were damaged. Many people would flee the greedy areas of constant conflict.

The people stopped believing in that myth about Greatness if only you gave up human sacrifice. This is interesting. What did the elites do? They lost power and no one believed in their myths. The ones who survived it all were ordinary Mayans. Who kept their milpas (corn fields and squash and beans) and no longer had an obligation to pay tribute to the Priests.

Human civilizations are built on ideas that people believe in. Once those ideas are discarded the whole thing sort of comes crashing down. The ones who survive all the tumultuous fights for power between the ruling elites are the peasant classes and the regular people. They live on. To this day, the Mayans who survived those Mayan Elite kings and the Spanish Empire are still there. Growing crops, speaking Mayan, and living a traditional life. The myths of the Mayan Elite are gone. No one made human sacrifices, and the Spanish never could force the Mayans to give up their language either, their ways of living, and their own thoughts about the universe. But the days of Mythology based on ideas that were false like thinking that killing a lot of human beings for appeasing a god that requires it and then making sure there is no famine or plenty of rain...turned out to be not true.

But if you understand what faith is? Faith is about what a huge group of people put their trust in. They really believe it is true because there is an agreement that it is for the greater good. For something important. Life. Sunlight. Food. Shelter, Crops. Civilization. Rituals. Stories. Labor. Work. Marriage. Progeny.

It can all unravel if the need for that belief turns out to be false.

Someone's myth is faced with reality. Of the world of Nature and the limits of human imagination.

[KurtFF8]

I was responding to your comment.

I accept the implied admission of defeat.

No you weren't, you changed topics.

[late]

No you weren't, you changed topics.

In your dreams, I pointed out that Russia has never had Rule of Law.

It doesn't exactly help your cause when you keep demonstrating you don't know what it is..

[KurtFF8]

In your dreams, I pointed out that Russia has never had Rule of Law.

It doesn't exactly help your cause when you keep demonstrating you don't know what it is..

We had been discussing the USSR, which had an extensive legal system, constitution, etc.

The USSR doesn't exist and isn't equal to today's Russian Federation.

[starman2003]

I pointed out that Russia has never had Rule of Law.

Essentially true. In any case, Russia has reverted to authoritarianism, just like I predicted when "history ended" c 1990.

[Rich]

While I wouldn't exactly call him a dictator, it has to be said Macron's attempt to play the hard man and bully Putin into backing off on offensives until after the American Presidential election, wasn't entirely successful.

[starman2003]

:lol: While I wouldn't exactly call him a dictator, it has to be said Macron's attempt to play the hard man…..wasn't entirely successful.

Nor was Netanyahu's attempt to become a quasi-dictator by neutralizing the zionist supreme court.

[Rich]

Nor was Netanyahu's attempt to become a quasi-dictator by neutralizing the zionist supreme court.

By the original meaning of the term Macron is a dictator. The Romans elected two consuls for a year. You couldn't be a consul again for 10 years. Dictators were only brought in for short periods. The rules gradually got undermined as Rome transitioned into being a Republic in name only. The Romans would have recognised FDR for what he was, a king in all but name.

The Romans of the Republic were in many ways wise. They knew you couldn't get rid of men's egotism, selfishness and lust for power, You could only try and balance one man's lust for power against another. The Roman system did not rely on its politicians being democrats, just that they would oppose the another man becoming a permanent dictator, as it would negate their own opportunities for power. In modern times instead of the consular system we should have pure proportional representation, without minimum percentage cut offs, no separately elected presidents and fixed date yearly elections.

[starman2003]

In modern times instead of the consular system we should have pure proportional representation,

I incline toward Plato's view.

no separately elected presidents and fixed date yearly elections.

I've heard a number of proposals for reforming the system. Appalled by the abysmal ignorance of many people, Rawls wanted the franchise limited to those informed and intelligent enough to pass a test. Lol, while it may seem like a good idea it'll never happen. Imagine a politician running on a platform of disenfranchising half the electorate at least... (Also, meritocracy--the belief that only the better informed or brighter people should make choices--just isn't consistent with democracy. Instead of giving the intelligent a mere vote why not make them the decision making class?) Almost certainly our democracy will continue unreformed until a catastrophe--or a series of developments--sees it totally overthrown.

[late]

We had been discussing the USSR, which had an extensive legal system, constitution, etc.

The USSR doesn't exist and isn't equal to today's Russian Federation.

The USSR did not have Rule of Law, not even close. We sent an army of lawyers to Russia after the collapse, and one of the problems they had was that Rule of Law was utterly alien to the way they lived.

Still is..

[Rancid]

The USSR did not have Rule of Law, not even close. We sent an army of lawyers to Russia after the collapse, and one of the problems they had was that Rule of Law was utterly alien to the way they lived.

Still is..

Russian culture is a high context culture. Meaning, things like laws/rules are not as important. In high context cultures, it's 100% ok to bend or break rules/laws depending on circumstances. Rules/laws are more like guidance that is fluid and adjustable depending on circumstance.

It's not like in western cultures (especially anglosphere and northern European cultures) which are lower context. There, the rules/laws is everything.

In short, in Russian culture, what you perceive as a lack of rules, is actually a feature, not a bug within that culture.

Other high context cultures include:
Southern European (Spain, Italy, Greece, etc.)
Latin American Nations
Probably all of Asia...

It's also a spectrum though. So some high context cultures are more high context than others. Same with low context. America and UK are probably THE lowest in the context spectrum. Just a wild guess/speculation, middle eastern cultures are probably among THE highest in context.

So when you, a western say's "Rule of law", it means something VERY different to a Russian (or Latin American, or Southern European, etc. etc.).

Not sure if @KurtFF8 understands this about culture, but the western notion of "rule of law" certainly doens't exist in Russia... again though.. it's a culture feature.

Not saying it's wrong/right/whatever, just wanted to point this out.

[late]

Russian culture is a high context culture. Meaning, things like laws/rules are not as important. In high context cultures, it's 100% ok to bend or break rules/laws depending on circumstances. Rules/laws are more like guidance that is fluid and adjustable depending on circumstance.

It's not like in western cultures (especially anglosphere and northern European cultures) which are lower context. There, the rules/laws is everything.

In short, in Russian culture, what you perceive as a lack of rules, is actually a feature, not a bug within that culture.

Other high context cultures include:
Southern European (Spain, Italy, Greece, etc.)
Latin American Nations
Probably all of Asia...

It's also a spectrum though. So some high context cultures or more high context than others. Same with low context.

The Economist estimates that Putin increased corruption by 20%, and they were quite corrupt before he started.

I have no argument with what you are saying, just that being all f**ked up is more important than how they got there.

[Rancid]

The Economist estimates that Putin increased corruption by 20%, and they were quite corrupt before he started.

Well yea... Putin's Russia is a mafia state.

One of the ways this corruption propagated is via the police forces. Russian police are severely underpaid. It creates a police culture where they are encouraged to takes bribes. Often, out of necessity to support themselves and their families. Those in the high echelons of power in Russia like it this way, because now they can use that as the excuse to get rid of anyone they don't like in law enforcement. If some police captain crosses Putin or one of his proxies. An "anti-corruption campaign" can be called, and they can sweep away all the "bad cops", because they are in fact corrupt (but the underlying motivation isn't because of their corruption, but some other political reason).

It's a classic tactic you see in many nations, and a clear sign of deep corruption within a whole system. Russia has this built in.

There's a great book I rid called the Dictators Handbook. Written by professors that research things like the mechanism of corruption. That book touched on this mechanism of corruption (and many others).

When you hear a nation undergoing an "anti-corruption" campaign. It's a massive indication that the nation itself is pretty fucking corrupt. Tackling corruption is something you are supposed to do always, not occasionally in waves.

[Unthinking Majority]

Well yea... Putin's Russia is a mafia state.

One of the ways this corruption propagated is via the police forces. Russian police are severely underpaid. It creates a police culture where they are encouraged to takes bribes. Often, out of necessity to support themselves and their families. Those in the high echelons of power in Russia like it this way, because now they can use that as the excuse to get rid of anyone they don't like in law enforcement. If some police captain crosses Putin or one of his proxies. An "anti-corruption campaign" can be called, and they can sweep away all the "bad cops", because they are in fact corrupt (but the underlying motivation isn't because of their corruption, but some other political reason).

It's a classic tactic you see in many nations, and a clear sign of deep corruption within a whole system. Russia has this built in.

There's a great book I rid called the Dictators Handbook. Written by professors that research things like the mechanism of corruption. That book touched on this mechanism of corruption (and many others).

When you hear a nation undergoing an "anti-corruption" campaign. It's a massive indication that the nation itself is pretty fucking corrupt. Tackling corruption is something you are supposed to do always, not occasionally in waves.

Poverty seems to breed a lot of desperation, which creates the conditions for people to want to commit crime. Many people will do a lot of less-than-ethical things to feed their families.

[starman2003]

America and UK are probably THE lowest in the context spectrum. Just a wild guess/speculation, middle eastern cultures are probably among THE highest in context.

I guess the wealthier or stronger nations can afford the luxury. Others are less able to.