Crimeans Who Ushered in the Russians Now Have to Live With Their Choice

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tbrightson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Klemens_Hadwig said:
I sense that your definition of autocracy maybe different from what I am referring to.
Autocracy simply means rule by one. An autocrat can be quite limited in his absolute capacity, particularly by his advisors, or the precedent of the past.
But, the most important thing is the absence of that detestable practise, democracy.

How does the acquisition of resources by another defeat a person’s desire to eat?

What I merely summarised is that man require neither political enfranchisement, nor liberty to thrive.
Click to expand...
Recall the Soviet Union, it’s rule over Eastern Europe, Mao’s reign in China and others. No autocrat ever just rules by himself. He requires a significant supporting cast. In order to have those supporting cadres, he has to reward them. Autocracy has proved very costly, historically.

Possibly pure democracy obtains somewhere in the world, and perhaps you could point that place out. To my knowledge, however, most western states are actually republics with representative government. That’s not the same thing.

Regardless, what sort of autocrat do you want, and how do you propose to install him/her.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Recall the Soviet Union, it’s rule over Eastern Europe, Mao’s reign in China and others. No autocrat ever just rules by himself. He requires a significant supporting cast. In order to have those supporting cadres, he has to reward them. Autocracy has proved very costly, historically.

Possibly pure democracy obtains somewhere in the world, and perhaps you could point that place out. To my knowledge, however, most western states are actually republics with representative government. That’s not the same thing.

Regardless, what sort of autocrat do you want, and how do you propose to install him/her.
Click to expand...
The Socialist governments, even under the likes of Stalin and Mao were not autocracies, but rather absolute oligarchies (Politburo, Central Committee, etc.).

The closest historical autocrats were absolute monarchs before the end of XVIII century/Revolutions of 1789-1848. It would be a great historical injustice to judge these rulers in the same manner as the totalitarians of the XX century.

As for installation of any autocrat, I cannot answer correctly, since I am but a mere student of history. I specialise in the past, not the future.😃
 
As for installation of any autocrat, I cannot answer correctly, since I am but a mere student of history. I specialise in the past, not the future
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Nice cop out. Since by your reasong we cant use a democtatic process to pick a “autocrat” then the only other recourse is violence/coercion.
The Socialist governments, even under the likes of Stalin and Mao were not autocracies, but rather absolute oligarchies (Politburo, Central Committee, etc.).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Nope, at the end of the day those leaders were autocrats.

Famous Autocrats:

Pol Pot,
Napolean,
Hitler
Mussolini
Franco
Causcescu
Lenin
Stalin
Nicholas II
Saddam Hussien
Caeser
Caligula
Kiim Jong Il
Mao
Tito
Idi Amin
Duvalier
Castro
Chavez
Peron
Pinochet
 
Klemens_Hadwig said:
I offered no reasoning nor plan. You are putting things in my mouth which I never said.
Click to expand...
I know you never said “thru violence or coercion” and made no such claim. But that is the only way given your rejection of democratic process.
 
Tbrightson said:
As for installation of any autocrat, I cannot answer correctly, since I am but a mere student of history. I specialise in the past, not the future
Click to expand...
You are grouping together disparate time periods/ ideologies etc. as if they were all the same. What you have provided is a list of poor rulers from various points in history, but nothing more.
Take into consideration the hundreds of kings who were not monstrous. All of human society was ruled by these despised ‘autocrats’ before human history.

Your orthographic errors (Caeser, Napolean?) lead me to think that you are writing too hastily.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Tbrightson said:
I know you never said “thru violence or coercion” and made no such claim. But that is the only way given your rejection of democratic process.
Click to expand...
Democratic process ultimately gives sin a legitimate voice.

It takes only one saint to make good an autocracy.
It takes several to make good an oligarchy.
It takes many to make good an aristocracy.
It takes an impossible majority to make good a democracy.
 
Klemens_Hadwig said:
The Socialist governments, even under the likes of Stalin and Mao were not autocracies, but rather absolute oligarchies (Politburo, Central Committee, etc.).

The closest historical autocrats were absolute monarchs before the end of XVIII century/Revolutions of 1789-1848. It would be a great historical injustice to judge these rulers in the same manner as the totalitarians of the XX century.

As for installation of any autocrat, I cannot answer correctly, since I am but a mere student of history. I specialise in the past, not the future.😃
Click to expand...
As a student, then, it would be well to study the history of the “oligarchies”. After Stalin had defanged Trotsky and Burkharin, the Politburo and the Central Committee were nothing but Stalin’s pet cats, whose members he installed or removed at will. The same was true with Mao. But both had to feed and water their enforcer cadres even though they replaced them from time to time.

The problem with autocracy is autocracy.
 
Ridgerunner said:
As a student, then, it would be well to study the history of the “oligarchies”. After Stalin had defanged Trotsky and Burkharin, the Politburo and the Central Committee were nothing but Stalin’s pet cats, whose members he installed or removed at will. The same was true with Mao. But both had to feed and water their enforcer cadres even though they replaced them from time to time.

The problem with autocracy is autocracy.
Click to expand...
I am quite aware of these events within the KPSS. However, you forget, that Stalin’s orders did require the approval or the Politburo. Furthermore, Stalin was possibly eliminated by his own oligarchy in light of his excesses. If Stalin had been either a true autocrat or the KPSS had been designed as an autocracy, there would not have been the precedent for the denunciation.

And take into consideration what I wrote about human history.
Dynastic autocrats (kings) had ruled human society continuously until the unfortunate events of 1775 and 1789.
The last two centuries have been experimenting with alternatives, none of which appear to create lasting stability.
Perhaps monarchic rule is not so terrible, at least where it enjoys historical and cultural precedent.
Maybe we should not be so confident in our perceived ‘improvement’ following the deposition of past ‘backwardness’. After all, the social instability of the XIX and XX centuries has no true equivalent in the past.
 
Although not completely relevant (and I am useless at politics and history), however as a global institution the Catholic Church is not democratic and the Pope could be viewed as an autocrat, which would seem to be the way Jesus wished his church to be run on earth.

theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/05/catholicism.religion

*The Catholic church is not a democratic institution and it could not be. Though it has long since come to terms with democracy in the secular world, the election process which will start once the Pope has been buried is one of the few moments of qualified democracy anywhere in the organisation; the electorate is tiny and the democratic moment ends with the choice of the next pope.

The Pope becomes an autocrat, chosen on a free vote; and modern communications have only extended his reach. There is nothing that could happen in the church that he might not hear about immediately and act against the next day.

So it is not surprising that for many of the cardinals who form the Pope’s electorate the key question is what the new man will do to restrain his own autocratic powers, or distribute them among his colleagues. The Catholic church is probably the only completely global organisation in the world.*
 
Klemens_Hadwig said:
I am quite aware of these events within the KPSS. However, you forget, that Stalin’s orders did require the approval or the Politburo. Furthermore, Stalin was possibly eliminated by his own oligarchy in light of his excesses. If Stalin had been either a true autocrat or the KPSS had been designed as an autocracy, there would not have been the precedent for the denunciation.
Click to expand...
Stalin SAID to Westerners that he required Politburo approval of his actions. The history clearly demonstrates that he didn’t. Nobody knows, by the way, whether anybody did him in. If anyone did, the general consensus is that the perp was Beria, not the Politburo or the CC.

But again, autocrats require supporting elites, and have throughout history. It isn’t as if 20th Century dictators were different in that respect than were monarchs of old.
 
Klemens_Hadwig said:
Democratic process ultimately gives sin a legitimate voice.

It takes only one saint to make good an autocracy.
It takes several to make good an oligarchy.
It takes many to make good an aristocracy.
It takes an impossible majority to make good a democracy.
Click to expand...
LOL! I will take the US republican form of Democracy over any of said listed infamous autocrats any day of the week.
 
I could make a list of western monsters, such as the fascists, but I will not play that game.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes but we arent playing the East/West game are we? We are talking about autocratic vs Democratic. Fascist leadership was autocratic.

Please name some democratic monsters by all means. Unlike others who run to mommy when the posts get too close to home, I can take it.
 
You are grouping together disparate time periods/ ideologies etc. as if they were all the same. What you have provided is a list of poor rulers from various points in history,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And guess what they all had in common? Yep. Autocrats.
 
Tomdstone said:
Tell that to the relatives of the thousands of people who lost their lives at Bleiburg.
Click to expand...
Sure no problem. The war for Croatian independence was in the 90’s not 40’s. The people who commited crimes in the 40’s are dead.

Zivili Croatia!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top