Top 10 Most Infamous Dictators in History
Suggested by SMSThe most influential figures in history have not always fought on the side of good. Often those that influence our lives most of all are dastardly characters, even downright evil. More often than that things are not quite so black and white. Many dictators have begun their struggle for power through a desire to instigate positive political change. Others can be difficult to judge without bias. Almost always, however, ultimate power ends in a huge human cost. Therefore, these dictators are ranked not for their greatness but for their infamy.
10. Porfirio Diaz
Porfirio Diaz was a wily old sod. In 1871 through 76 he fought a revolution against a predecessor who would not relinquish the presidency as legally required and then went on to do the same thing himself. The cheek of it! There’s no wonder he’s one of the most controversial figures in Mexican history.
Diaz’s’ presidency lasted an amazing twenty seven years, during which time he destroyed the Mexican economy, centralized it’s government and achieved total control. As with most dictators Diaz was welcomed as a hero at first but resentment grew. By 1908 it seemed that he was finally ready to retire. He announced that ‘Mexico was ready for democracy’ and that free elections would be held. However, despite facing formidable political opposition, Diaz was magically re-elected in the fishiest election there ever was. As a result, the Mexican revolution began.
9. Fidel Castro
Castro took the office of the prime minister of Cuba in 1959 following the Cuban revolution and was later named president. A controversial figure to some and a hero to others, Castro can be considered to be one of the few truly successful dictators. The fact that his time as leader of the Cuban people has been comparatively uneventful will no doubt have something to do with this. He has no atrocities or wars to mar his record and instead is deserving of several gold stars for good behaviour. As a result he is heralded as a great leader in many third world countries. Castro serves as the Cuban head of state until ill health caused him to resign in 2008. He is perhaps the only dictator to have resigned with his dignity, his marbles, his political ideology and his regime all fully intact.
8. Chairman Mao
Mao Tse-tung was the leader of the People’s Republic of China until 1976. He lead the Communist Party of China to victory during the Chinese civil war and was heralded as a hero of the people. His life is still celebrated in China today.
Mao’s philosophy borrowed heavily from Marxism and the ideas of communist Russia, however, as much of his support was formed from rural communities his political ideas tended to focus on the liberation of the peasantry rather than the industrial workers, as was the trend in Russia. He spread these ideas across China in a brilliant military campaign, eventually occupying the entire country, with the exception of Taiwan. His enemies were subjected to brutal torture techniques, some of which included inserting certain objects into certain orifices. This brutality continued into the years of Mao’s secured authority. His reforms saw millions executed and sent to forced labour camps.
It wasn’t all doom and gloom, however. Mao instituted a five-year economic plan. This included some industrial and educational reforms intended turn China’s peasant population into a thriving modern workforce. Mao’s second five-year-plan, however, involved the nationalization of all farms and made the private production of food illegal. This meant that many farmers had little food to eat. Millions starved.
7. Idi Amin
Ugandan dictator Idi Amin rose through the ranks of the British colonial regiment to become Commander of the Ugandan Army. He tool control of the small central African nation in a military coup and declared himself president. He introduced martial law, replacing civilian law courts with military tribunals.
Amin’s regime was responsible for the murder of thousands of civilians. Often massacres were justified as attempts to quash rebellion but it was not uncommon for entire villages to be wiped out for no reason. These atrocities extended to executing religious leaders, journalists and entire ethnic groups. He also expelled all Asians from the country and appropriated their property and businesses.
Amin is perhaps best known for his short temper and bizarre personality quirks. He hated the England and all things English but reportedly wrote several love letters to Queen Elizabeth. He is also rumoured to have consulted on issues with the severed heads of executed cabinet ministers. This strangeness of personality is reflected by the long and grandiose title he gave himself in 1977: ‘His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa’.
6. Vladmir Lennin
Lenin began his career as a lawyer and later became a publisher of Socialist literature. During the First World War he had been opposed to the fighting, holding the opinion that the working class were being forced to fight an imperialist conflict for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and so was in Switzerland when the revolution came. Hearing the news that the aristocracy had finally hit the fan, he rushed back to Russia. Finding the country in turmoil he was initially forced to flee but returned to Petrograd to inspire the October revolution. He was instrumental in establishing the Soviet system of government under the Bolsheviks and in 1917 was elected chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars. His first major decisive act was to end Russia’s involvement in the war. He then introduced wide ranging censorship laws, to limit the chance of any future revolution and limit the support of the anti-socialist movement.
Lenin can be forgiven for his early acts as leader of Soviet Russia. He did not begin his leadership as a dictator but as an elected representative of the people. He truly believed in the ideas of Marxism and communism and believed them to be liberating forces. He also believed in feminism, which had been a defining force in the Bolshevik movement. However, things would soon get out of hand.
The newly born Soviet Union was not a power without opposition. The White Movement, or ‘White Terror’, was a political and military force opposed to the doctrine of Communism. The two forces slugged out this difference of opinion in the Russian Revolution, with the White army gaining support from major European powers. In response to this, and to an attempt on his life, Lenin ordered his own ‘Red Terror’ be exacted upon those who would oppose his regime. Suspected enemies of Lenin and of the State were rounded up and subjected to brutal torture or execution. Sometimes both. Labour camps were also established, in which poor conditions led to high death rates. Mass execution at such amps are said to have been common, with entire camps emptied of inmates before the area was abandoned to the anti-communist forces. These atrocities were extended to the clergy, leaving hundreds of thousands dead. The lengthy war also saw Lenin’s military taking supplies from the peasantry, leaving them with little to eat.
Later, Lenin attempted to restore Russia’s infrastructure and undo the damage of the long civil war. However, ill health plagued his later years and his role in government declined. An assassination attempt had left him with a bullet permanently lodged in his neck and a series of strokes left the communist leader paralysed. His later reform and return to political ideals led to him dying not as a war criminal but a hero of communism. His body was placed on display in a purpose built mausoleum.
5. General Franco
It’s often easy to forget that during the powerful dictatorships of the Second World War, as Hitler was busy exterminating the Jews and Stalin was making political dissidents ‘disappear’, Spain was undergoing it’s own revolution and dictatorship under Francisco Franco.
Franco began, like most dictators, as a military man. He gained the title General during a time of political unrest. After the collapse of the Spanish monarchy, Spaniards had a hard choice to make; to side with the left or the right. Political coalitions developed on either side, dividing the country on a fundamental ideological level. On one side, the republicans and liberals teamed up with the communists. On the other, the nationalists, conservatives and monarchists. For Franco this was a tough decision. His first concern was restoring order to a country struggling with social discord and widespread political upheaval. His lobby to declare a state of emergency in Spain was ignored, however, and he was sent off to the Canary islands where he would be safely out of the way. But when the left wing coalition was accused of stealing an election Franco headed back to Spain, with his newly loyal Army of Africa, as part a military coup that would begin the Spanish Civil War.
Of course, Franco won the civil war or we likely wouldn’t be talking about him today. His army, now calling themselves Nationalists, was supported by Italy’s Mussolini and Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Meanwhile the army of the left was supported by the Soviet Union and famously included political writer George Orwell. The war was bloody and cost many lives, many of which were the result of summary executions and atrocities committed by both sides. Franco added to this by the employment of, like all true dictatorships, forced labour camps and the internment of several thousand political dissidents along with other ‘undesirables’. Some of these were even packed off to Germany, where they endured the horrors of Nazi concentration camps.
Despite having made friends with some of the nastiest people in European politics, Franco never really got involved in World War II. His policy of ‘staying out of trouble’ meant that he would send troops to support the Nazi’s war against the Soviet Union but take no aggressive action against the other allied nations. As a result, Franco was not deposed along with his fascist buddies and remained the Spanish Head of State until 1975 as both president and regent. His restoration of the monarchy, without the appointment of a monarch meant that he could effectively serve as the new king of Spain and enforce a harsh rule of law on its people. This included the suppression of women, and all minorities. Under Franco the use of any language other than Spanish was illegal, as was divorce and abortion.
4. Benito Mussolini
Benito Mussolini became priminister of Italy in 1922. His long political career saw him lead Italy to the hight of its power, ocupying more land land exherting more authority than it had since the Roman Empire. His continued success as leader of the Italian people earned him the official title of ‘His Excellency Benito Mussolini, Head of Government, Duce of Fascism, and Founder of the Empire’. For a period he was also ‘First Marshial of the Empire’, sharing joint control over the armed forces with the King.
Like his political ally Hitler, Mussolini had served in the first World War. It was there, in the trenches, that he came to the determination that socialism had failed. Mussolini had long been a supporter of socialism but now believed it to be weak and began philosophising on his own political idealogy. It was his opinion that Italy needed a strong leader, one who could consolidate power, return Italy to it’s Emperial routes and allow a fresh beginning both ecconomicaly and idealogically. This new philosophy would be called Fascism and by the mid-point of the twentieth century was the height of political fashion. You can always rely on the Italians to set the trend.
In 1922, Musolini rode into Rome on his Scooter to take power. Supported by the military, he was given the office of Prime Minister. Many politicians were outraged and protested Mussolini’s position by boycotting parliament and refusing to attend. Unfortunately this backfired and, with no opposition in parliament, Mussolini and the Fascists were able to pass any bill they liked. He quickly established a police state, centralized power and made it illegal to form political parties that might stand against him.
With his empire secured, Mussolini turned his attention to aquiring new territories. Sitting between the teritorries of Italian Somaliland and Eritrea, Abysinnia (Ethiopia) was a prime target. It quickly fell to the Fascist advance, becoming part of Italian East Africa. Of course, the supposed good guys of the time, France and Great Britain had already taken their share in African territories, infact Ethiopia was surrounded on three sides by British conquests. But the idea of empire building was finaly beginning to be frowned upon and the Red Cross’ claims that the Italian air force had bombed their tents made this campaign very unpopular with other countries. Mussolini’s alliance with Adolf Hitler, however, made him untouchable for some time and it was not untill 1941 that a task force of fourteen nations finally liberated this area. The same can be said of Albania, which was invaded by Italy at the same time as the Nazi invasion of Czecoslovakia. This alliance would eventually be Mussolini’s downfall, of course, as World War II eventually swung to the favour of the
Allies. Mussolini had originally intended to ally himself with France rather than Germany. Had he done so he might have done a little better for himself.
The Italian war effort began to weaken. Rome was bombed by the Allies, Sicilly was invaded and Mussolini subsequently went out of favor. Like an old pair of short-shorts he simply went out of fashion and was arested on the orders of the king. He was later rescued and taken to Germany. By this point Mussolini had had enough and was ready to retire but Hitler threatened that if he did not return to Italy to restore fascism the Nazis would destroy several Italian cities. Mussolini had no choice but to agree. Poor Mussolini.
The now war weary dictator returned to Italy and established a new fascist regime, the Italian Social Republic. You can tell that all of this was done in a hurry as the name was so simple and clearly defined. This new state was little more than a puppet of Nazi Germany, however, and only succeded in executing traitors to Mussolini’s authority. The great dictator was executed by communist rebels in 1945. His bones were taken to Milan, hung upside down and placed on display. Everybody got a good laugh out of that.
3. Josef Stalin
Good old Joe. Average Joe. One of the people. A genuine trustworthy guy. Well, not quite. As a matter of fact Joe was a bank robber. No joke. When the communist government create new laws against bank robbery Stalin resigned and went off to rob a bank just to prove his point. Forty people died in the robbery. What an ass.
Joe Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union between 1922 and 1956 in which time he killed or exported millions of ethnic minorities, oversaw the starvation of thousands of his own people and sent anybody who even looked at him the wrong way to labour camps. Still, he did kick the crap out of Nazi Germany. That’s something to thank him for. Although the establishment of the Eastern Bloc in it’s place was not so much of an improvement.
Stalin oversaw a massive overhaul of the soviet economy, industry and agriculture. The resulting disruption, however, was the cause of mass starvation in the Ukraine. There the situation was so extreme that reports of cannibalism spread. Without a doubt the darkest component of Stalin’s regime, however, was his ‘great purge’ which killed an estimated 700,000 people. The majority of those killed in the purge were ordinary citizens. This attempt to purge the nation of traitors, spies and even potential radicals meant that even uttering the word capitalism could have you sent to the gulag to be worked, starved, beaten or shot to death. Voicing an opinion other than “I think Stalin is a wonderful man and a glorious leader” was a dangerous thing to do at this time. Vast swathes of Stalin’s own Red Army were purged and any excuse could be used to brand any person an enemy of the state. If you didn’t like your neighbour all you had to do was say “He says Stalin wears women’s panties” and he’d be taken away. Then again, it would be likely under those circumstances that you and your entire neighbourhood would be questioned and arrested following the accusation just to stop the rumour spreading.
“Why does Stalin always look so awkward in social situations?”
“I heard that! It’s off to Siberia with you!”
As for the war on terror, Stalin put even Bush to shame with his decisive action. A new law was passed making it illegal to investigate a case of suspected terrorism for more than ten days. If no charges were made after that time, everyone involved was to be shot.
“Stalin should have known Hitler was going to invade. Why didn’t he have us start making tanks sooner?”
“Hey you – Siberia, now!”
This immense suspicion and cruelty didn’t mean that Joe didn’t have a sense of humour though. After giving instructions that his chamber was not to be entered by anyone but himself, he went and locked himself away and began screaming. When soldiers burst in to rescue him, he promptly shouted ‘April fool’ and had them taken away. When he really did die in his private chamber, it took a while for people to find out.
2. Pol Pot
Saloth Sar, commonly known as Pol Pot was, a very naughty little man. As leader of the Khmer Rouge he lead a rebellion against the government of Cambodia and was proclaimed leader of Cambodia in 1975. Originally a Marxist movement, the Khmer Rouge allied itself with neighbouring North Vietnam. However, their philosophy altered deciding that the rural farming class were the true proletariat. Pot encouraged civilians to move out of the cities and into the countryside. When they would not he forced them, creating mass work camps and farms, or simply executed them. This was intended to bring about a rebirth of civilization. Instead, it resulted in mass starvation, and the death of over one and a half million civilians before Pot had even risen to power. This did not bother Pol Pot whatsoever. The country was clearly overpopulated and needed to be thinned out in order to achieve the dream of ‘agrarian collectivism’.
Pot’s evacuation of the cities began during his revolution and continued once he had attained total power. This was his ‘year zero’ – the year when Cambodian civilization began afresh. In this period Pot intended to eliminate the use of money and return all of Cambodia to a peasant existence. Those who had lived as peasants before the revolution had most rights and were generally safe in this new scheme, but those evacuated from the cities were targeted for elimination. At first their rations were cut and many were starved to death. Later, many would be forced to dig mass graves. These people would then be beaten to death or simply buried alive so as not to waste bullets. Meanwhile, those that did not have a place in Pot’s dream society, such as intellectuals, the disabled, Chinese, Laotians, Vietnamese and Muslims were subjected to horrific torture techniques. This included having toenails removed, being repeatedly suffocated or even skinned alive. Unlike the holocaust of Nazi Germany this mass murder was not kept hushed. In fact the Khmer Rouge made an announcement on national radio saying that only a few million people would be needed to build the new utopia. This message told the others “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.”
Pol Pot was eventually deposed by the Vietnamese in 1977, although as the U.N refused to acknowledge the new Vietnamese imposed government Pot’s government in exile remained the official rulers of Cambodia. Pot died in 1998. It is believed that he commited suicide upon hearing the news that he was to be handed over by the Khmer Rouge to face a tribunal.
1. Adolf Hitler
Born in a pub in Austria, young Adolf was a troubled boy. His father was often violent to both the young dictator and his mother, leading to emotional problems. Adolf was held back in school, only furthering his father’s disappointment and causing Adolf to rebel in the usual way, by deciding to become an artist. You can imagine the conversation between the flourishing war criminal and his stubborn father:
“Dad, I’m going to be an artist and there’s nothing you can do to stop me.”
“Don’t be stupid. You don’t have what it takes. You’ll get yourself a trade and do an honest days work like the rest of us.”
“You don’t understand me!”
Old father Hitler may not have understood his son but he was right; young Adolf wasn’t cut out to be an artist. He was twice rejected from the Viennese Academy of Fine Arts on the grounds of his painting skills being rubbish.
With the advent of the first World War Hitler joined the army to fight for his country. After the war he remained in the army for a time and was stationed in Munich. It was there that he became involved in the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and became influenced by one of its founding members, Dietrich Eckart, member of the bizarre occult Thule Society. Hitler’s legendary oratory skills served him well in this role and he quickly rose to become chairman of the party. Although he’d already succeeded in annoying most of the committee members by this point, he was given total control over the party and the title of Fuhrer.
“Fuhrer? Is it just me or does that title sound a little sinister?”
“Oh don’t be so dramatic.”
Hitler’s best selling book, Mein Kampf, helped to give his political struggle purpose and visibility, and also gained votes for Hitler’s party. Using every opportunity to gain and exploit political powers, Hitler was then able to connive, shout and demand his way to the top. With his political party being the largest in the country Hitler demanded that he be named Chancellor and, as he would become accustomed to, got exactly what he wanted. This was coupled with the demand that his good buddy, Herman Goring, be made interior minister of the state of Prussia and as such, head of the largest police force in Germany. Fearing that this power could be taken away by the same government that had awarded it, Hitler disbanded the German parliament and even went as far as burning down its headquarters, the Reichstag. He eliminated all opposition and persuaded the people of Germany that he would lead them into a new era of economic prosperity. This he did and earned the adoration of the German populous. The Third Reich was born.
Of course, Hitler could never be happy with only Germany under his control. In 1938 he annexed Austria, unifying his homeland with Germany. Through talks with the leaders of Poland, France and Great Britain he successfully gained control of the Sudatenlands, Germany’s border with Czechoslovakia. With the Czech defenses now in his territory, he was free to drive his Volkswagen Beetle into the rest of the country without opposition. Of course, Hitler had been given permission by the French and British to occupy the Sudatenlands under the condition that he would not ask for any more territories, but to hell with that. Next stop Poland.
The story of World War II is one we all know. Hitler’s role in this dark era of history will likely never be forgotten and neither will his quiet elimination of several million Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and the handicapped in what we now call the holocaust. This was quite literally murder on an epic scale, on the battlefield, in the concentration camps and on the streets.
Were it not for the holocaust, Hitler might have been forgiven for the war and remembered as a great general in the same way as Napoleon. He might even have been patted on the head for having a really good go at world domination and given a sticker reading ‘I tried my best.’ As it happens, Hitler’s end was met in a secret bunker beneath Berlin. There was no sticker, only a gun and some cyanide capsules. The body of the great dictator was buried by German soldiers just hours before the Soviet army reached the compound. It was later dug up, burned, pulled apart and reburied just to be sure
comarade lennin shouldnt be in this list
'Comrade' Lenin was a mass murdering dictator!He starved 9 milion people to death..in one year!Oh yeah, good ol'Lenin
No, that was Stalin! Stalin was way worse.
This is clearly biased. For one, you only focused in communist leaders, and then Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. Though I'm the last person to defend Stalin, all information including his are plagued by error.
For one, the whole pohibition-of-private-production-of-food-led-several-to-starve (said more than once in the description of the communist leaders) is not understanding squat about the economic and political meaning of the reforms. For example, Lenin lead about the privatization of land because land was the main source of income in the country. To say it another way: the farmers were rich and they were already starving people with the high prices and unwise production of the food they produced. What's more, when Lenin wanted to expropiate the land and produce to give to people in cities, the farmers went along and BURNED their own produce, prefering to leave people in the city to starve than giving up the source of their (generous) income. A similar thing happened in China with Mao.
So, as you can see, the article is filled with partial and substantial disinformation. It's also filled with suppositions of certain accusations that were no proven true.
As far as other descriptions go, they are incredible vain and hard to read wuthout frowning at the feeble attempt to sound witty.
I totally agreed with what you said,mostly the facts are biased leaving behind many truths..
Are you blonde? What is your excuse for such complete ignorance about the crimes of Stalin?
I never defended Stalin, I just said that LENNIN’s communism isn’t what it says here. “War communism”, mentioned here by another user, was actually how EVERY opposition to Lennin tried to forcefully remove him out of power – and it included a coalition force of tsarist (Tsar followers, for those who didn’t get it), France and UK (trying to put leaders who would participate in the war efforts against Germany, after Rusia had dropped out) and oppositors of Lennin (mad because Lennin had dissolved Parliament after the socialist party gained elections, so it was a valid reason to be mad. But then again, they won using a name that may have confused the voters to think they were voting communism). Over all, Rusia started no wars, not even in Stalin times, though at that time the ones being massacred were their own people (again, Stalin)
This are just some of the facts you may be missing and I suggest you read about them before you try to undermine other people’s opinions by making cracks about someone’s hair color.
ahhh you forget mobarak the dictatership in egypt
Really? Castro? Just because he is against USA, it doesnt mean his bad. He has done far more for his people then the American government did for its people.
It true,,,, who is against the USA, fall under following categories, dictator, terrorist, extreemist… etc
are you nucking futs…russian did a lot for them while starving thier own…robing peter pay paul…you really need to get an education!
No not because he was “against” Americans. It was because he had mass executions all over Cuba, and did not let anyone have any freedom. This is why..
Some clarifications about Cuba. Castro didn’t rob anything or mass murdered anyone, as you claim, or the only war he was involved was to take out dictator Batista and support Africans attempt at liberation. “Mass murder” and “stealing” are baseless accusations. It’s not that I say his government is perfect, but there’s a lot of misconception and lies told about Cuba that are simply not true.
Saying that Cuba is NOT demonized (or attacked not because it is “against” Americans) is difficult. From my perspective, everyone else in the world (the 81 our of 84 countries that vote against the embargo, minus the votes of USA and Israel) know USA’s quarrel with Cuba isn’t about freedom of its people (… since they’re starving the people they claim to want to save/free…). Their quarrell with Cuba is that, Cuba is the only country that proves communism could work, in a society that values solidarity (and it does work: cubans are the most prone to gestures of solidarity in the whole world, and they might not all that be well off (a few are now, since the class in turism is thriving with the new privatization laws), but not one of them is dying on a cold street alone. Not one, because the State provides for them: health, education and roof, even food).
Might I add my brother P visits Cuba for vacation every other year, and my other brother M did just that last year with his girlfriend, so I can attest to everything I’m saying.
Freedom? Yes, they have a lot of burocracy going on before they can leave the country: have to wait almost 8 months and have enough money. But it’s not like it’s downright prohibited. Heck, how much freedom does a low class American have if they don’t have enough money to get a visa? On the other hand, to carry out a protest, you need permission, and can’t do it in the main plaza because tourism is one of the main incomes of the tiny island and they can’t afford to drive away the tourists – and heck, as if Americans wouldn’t be arrested if they protested, say, outside Wall Street. And the form of government is not a dictatorship, it’s another kind of voting system which includes holding out a congress of over 600 representatives (all gathered in one room) every two years.
You can blame Castro of poor political decitions, but decidedly not for “mass murder” (a cathegory, I must say, that is always better fitting for USA, the ultimate example being the drop of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Plus, many think, like me, that Castro didn’t do anything that he didn’t do thinking it was the best thing for his people. That alone says a lot about him that you can’t say about most polítical leaders in the world.
So I suggest you don’t buy the propaganda about Castro being the ultimate dictator or his goverment being a “regime”. It’s demeaning, insulting to cubans and frankly, it doesn’t say anything good about Americans.
The claim that Cuban communists murdered and stole is not “baseless”, it is true. If not theft then what is Communism in the first place? What else do you call it when the property of one person is taken by another by force? If you have some other definition then by all means let’s see what it is rather than your excuses for theft, murder, and enslavement.
Without theft and enslavement there can be no such thing as Communism. It places theft and enslavement at the center of its whole scheme of how we should live together and offers murder as the alternative to this kind of expropriation.
As for it “working” what do you mean by that? That the dictator has held onto power? That his people are happy? That they have a lot of economic successes? Their per capita GDP is $9,800/year (compared to our $48,100). Is that a “success of Communism”? If that’s success I wonder what failure looks like?
And what happens to all of that money? Do the people get it? No, it goes to the government which if it feels like it, doles out some of it back to the people who earned it. Isn’t that nice of them? Plantation owners in the Old South did the same thing to their slaves you know. Are you aware that they are limited in their food purchases by rationing cards? Is that “success”?
As for whether the people there like it, why did thousands risk their lives to come to the US on flimsy rafts? How many went in the other direction? You know the answer as well as I do, nobody moves there voluntarily from the US.
And what do you think of the fact that Cuba jails people for being gay? Is that a “success”? Why don’t they hold free elections there? If the people liked things the way they are you’d imagine that they would voluntarily keep the regime in power, no?
Alright. So… you are condemning a country because they don’t have your overpriced notions of private property, and you defend American from dropping two bombs in a war they had already won by killing millons of CIVILLIANS…. You know, before WWII there were some minimal moral rules about war, for example, fighting in a clear ground without involving the innocent – rule that was ruthlessly discarded by Germany, and later adopted by other countries like the UK against Germany. Americans went one giant step further. Yes, I’m comparing America with nazi Germany…
“If not theft then what is Communism in the first place?”
Dude. What claim do you have to own something, like, land? If you hadn’t noticed the processes of ownership is flawed: imagine one person reaching a piece of land and saying “this is mine” and the others believing it. That’s about it. The State, if you’ve ever read politics, is an entity supposed to represent everyone in a nation. What that means is that when it reaches takes a land, it’s saying “this is property of everyone, and everyone will share”. What makes more sense, the first or the second? Personally, the second seems more fair to me, since it mean one person isn’t going to become exceedingly rich for no reason at all… and is not going to try keeping those riches by means of hiring other people to do the fighting for them. That’s how wars always have started: two landlords making poor people fight other poor people so that the few rich people can become even richer.
That without mentioning the fact that most land was stolen from the native dwellers who were massacred by the dominant jerks with money that paid for the armies.
Oh and mind, that thing about “abolition of private property” doesn’t mean the State will take your house (well, unless maybe if you are really not using it and some other family needs it – you’d sell it and get rid of it anyways in capitalism.) The abolition of private property refers to expropiating the “means of production” (aka things needed for commerce). In the past, the main mean of production was the land since they produced all food, simple as that.
Of course, today it’s not only about “land”. Today, there are a few who buy other means to get rich, like industry or services. Though to do that you already need to have some money to aquire the new mean like, say, be born moderatedly “rich” (which would be probably because of, alas, rich grandpas with land – because the American Dream of working to get rich has always been a lie and everybody knows it, at least now. But regardless.) So today we have factories and enterprises which are the collective work of millions of people, but the owner ends up having the “right” to tell you how much you should be earning for your work and how much he/she takes. So… that brings me to ask, why, what Godsend right does the owner of a business have to own the work of other people?
You talk about stealing? Capitalism itself is one big rip-off that takes something that doesn’t belong to them and gives it to another, gives more “rights” to some than others, and one big extortion of poor people that are forced to do the labor of others because they need money to live.
I hope that by what I said so far I can make you realize the basis of my opinion. Likewise, I’m expecting you to explain your reasoning, because saying such things as “let’s see what (Communism) is rather than your excuses for theft, murder, and enslavement”/”without theft and enslavement there can be no such thing as Communism”, surely you realize says nothing and is no more than rethorics. There HAVE been very bad experiences with communism, yes (aka Stalin…) but I hardly think you can chalk it up to communism if there was a megalomaniac rampanging about, when there was one very much like him (Hitler) and he was very much a capitalist. While Castro? Again, not the monster you are made to believe he is, there’s still a lot who support him and the revolution – not one of them will speak ill of, say, the Che Guevara.
Cuba’s success is “solidarity” (I said it in my other post). People think Communism isn’t bad by itself, but that it doesn’t work because it’s a system that would only work IF people are giving. That happens in Cuba’s communism: people do gestures of solidarity all the time, there is another sort of mentality when it comes to helping your neighbour. Sure, they are not well in many other things (namely average poverty, and the US embargo IS starving them) but I commend you to compare Cuba with another island: see Republica Dominicana and Haití and tell me how’s capitalism working for them, with half an island so well off (supported by US money, mind) and the other half starving, poor, ill, politically corrupt and the worse example of how people can live in the most unhealthy and demeaning circumstances. “per capita GDP is $9,800/year”? What does that mean to a place where only a few are well off?
“Plantation owners in the Old South did the same thing to their slaves you know.” Plantation owners didn’t give out free land, free houses, free health, free education and even free food (those rationing cards allow you to take a minimal necessary ration of food completely free; you can buy the rest with your salary)
“why did thousands risk their lives to come to the US on flimsy rafts?” lol. Where do you get your information that “thousands” risk their lives to go to US? First off, America is closest to Cuba in terms of geography (and those “thosand” cubans aren’t going to go to Haití, for the reasons already mentioned), plus you seem to be under the wrong perception that Cubans ONLY go to US and never leave US. That’s not the case. Second, if we talk about the cubans in Miami, man, don’t you know they were the ones that left after the revolution and, alas, the FEW who were striving during Dictator Batista’s government, when childs as young as 15 years of age were forced to prostitue to American businessmen? That’s right, Cuba used to be US private whorehouse, and when Castro came to power, the corrupt businessmen who made riches off exploiting the poor had to flee to America – most of them had already family in Miami, so why do you think they went there? Do you get a clear picture of the dynamics of that time? Because, honestly, this is not something you want to brag about as an American.
Uff. Ok. Last thing I’m clearing out. I agree they have the saddest position when it comes to homosexuals. I’ll never condole it, the way I’ll never condole that inmigrants get arrested and treated like thieves in California. But “Why don’t they hold free elections there?”, didn’t you listen the first time I said it? There ARE “free” elections. Anyone can start a movement or political party and they can participate in the elections within the communist party, in fact in some ways is more democratic than in the rest of occident because you don’t need to be part of a party to be elected member of the council. But regardless, I do think Castro shouldn’t have been “president” for so long, even if the party kept voting him – and if he had stepped down the system wouldn’t depend so much of his persona. But that’s my opinion and anyways, I already said a lot; I can only suggest you read some more on your own about Cuba’s political system… but please, not from Wikipedia.
Nadia: Well, that was quite a stream of consciousness rant. Let’s see if I can pick a few themes to respond to…
One that jumped out at me was your claim that Hitler was a “capitalist”. Do you not understand that words have meanings? Hitler was as devoted an anti-capitalist as Stalin and Mao. His party was the “National Socialist Worker’s Party”. His economic policies put all of the economic resources of the country under direct micromanagement of a huge government bureaucracy. Prices, wages, employment decisions, products, production levels, etc. were all centrally controlled. He saw banking as a huge jewish conspiracy. Here’s what Hitler himself said about capitalism and his relationship with it: “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” He sounds just like you in his rhetoric and exactly like you in his demand for total state control over the economy. What I mean by capitalism is free markets and a limited government that protects individual rights including property rights. Hitler was never in favor of either of those things. Not even close.
Regarding where property rights come from, there are basically two ways. One is that you can come upon property in the state of nature (where it isn’t owned by anybody) and make it your own by using and improving it. For example, you might clear it and plant crops on it, or you might build a house on it. The second is that you might make a voluntary trade with someone who already owns it, for example, paying him for it. You seem to ignore both is these and instead subscribe to the “for no reason in the world, *Poof!* someone claims to own something”. Perhaps you should read John Locke’s writings on the subject. They are the intellectual foundation of our laws on such matters. Of course laws need to make fine distinctions about these things and in some cases things can be a tangled mess, but the job of the law in such cases should be to untangle them and give people clarity so that they can move on with their lives even if history isn’t entirely tidy. If hundreds of years ago this tribe murdered that one, or some rives flowed this or that way, or if some prior owner a long time ago got screwed somehow, how is that relevant to today? If I own some land or other valuable stuff and the injured parties from some tangled events of 150 years or more ago are long dead, what is the point of bringing it all up? Clearly it is just to destroy MY rights today. You couldn’t care less about old dead Indians and even if you did there’s nothing you can do for them now anyway.
But let me point out that what you are calling for suffers from the exact flaw that you are accusing capitalism of. By what justification do government officials have a right to control property that they did not buy and did not find in a state of nature and improve? It sounds like *Poof!* to me. And if you claim that everyone owns everything somehow, where did that ownership right come from? *Poof!* I can see why someone who clears and cultivates a plot of land or builds a building on it or trades valuable property for land should own it. Why should you or your politician pals? What is your justification? That you want it and nothing more?
Regarding your claim that under capitalism some rich guy is allowed to tell you what your labor is worth, that is simply not so. Business owners merely tell you what they are willing to pay you. You have a say in this transaction as well. You can refuse to take that much and seek employment elsewhere. I could take a job delivering newspapers for example, but I don’t. It doesn’t pay enough. I could get a job serving food at a restaurant but nobody running restaurant would pay me what I require. Instead, I get paid a lot of money to do engineering work. My labor in that area is very valuable and my employer agrees. That’s how we make a deal.
Now, if you think that your boss doesn’t sufficiently appreciate your finer qualities then you are entirely free to go work somewhere else, either in the same line of work or some other one. There are millions of businesses in the US to work for and you can even go into business for yourself. But it may well happen that you can’t pay yourself what you think you are worth because your company can’t afford to, and out of the millions of companies out there, not a single one agrees with you that you are worth what you are claiming you are. Guess what? If that’s the case I’m pretty sure they are right and you are wrong. All you need to find is one out of those millions who agrees with you and you will have a deal. If you can’t, then your self-importance is probably in overdrive and you need to gain a little more perspective.
So tell me, in a communist state who will determine what your labor is worth? Will you have any say in it at all? Of course not. You can work day and night and you will get whatever your government overlord says you will get, and if you complain it’s off to the gulag with you. There is no competition. There are no alternatives. It’s obey the state or die. How can you imagine that you will be more free to think and act for yourself in a totalitarian state than in a free one?
Regarding the atomic bomb, perhaps you should have a look at that link I provided for you earlier. First of all, the bombs didn’t kill millions of civilians. The total deaths (not all of which were civilians) was around 90,000 in Hiroshima and around 60,000 in Nagasaki. Terrible of course, but not “millions”. Secondly, are you unaware that the US dropped millions of leaflets both cities (and other alternate targets) for days before urging civilians to evacuate the cities to save their lives? Here’s the text (translated into English for your edification): “Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.” And if your claim is that the US just wanted to murder millions of innocent people then why is it that Japan was treated so well after the surrender? Wouldn’t a bunch of genocidal maniacs of the kind you believe were running the US government have set about exterminating the Japanese after the victory? By the way, isn’t it the same US government that you want to put in charge of the economy now? How does that make any sense at all? You think they would intentionally murder millions of people for no reason and you also want to give them even more power than they already have. Incoherent much?
You also claimed that WWII was already won before the bombs were dropped. On what do you base this absurd conclusion? Even after the first bomb was dropped they refused to surrender. After the second, there was an attempt to assassinate the Emperor because he had decided to surrender. Clearly the war was not over before the bombs were dropped. They ended the war.
Regarding your hysterical claim that “The American Dream of working to get rich has always been a lie and everybody knows it, at least now.”, where do you get this stuff? How exactly do you think that people get rich in the first place? I personally started out in a pretty poor family and now I’m doing great. I know loads of people who have done the same thing. True, it takes time and work, but how else do you imagine you are going to get rich? Waiting for the government to dump a bunch of wealth into your pockets?
You asked “So today we have factories and enterprises which are the collective work of millions of people, but the owner ends up having the “right” to tell you how much you should be earning for your work and how much he/she takes. So… that brings me to ask, why, what Godsend right does the owner of a business have to own the work of other people?”. The answer is that at every step along the way (in a capitalist economy anyway…mixed economies have some state involvement too which tends to be partially corrupt as opposed to the entirely corrupt communist case) the contributions of those “millions” is paid for on mutually agreeable terms.
Yes, it is true that people need to work in order to live. This is not something invented by capitalism, it’s a fact of nature. Capitalism merely provides a mechanism by which we can live with one another through voluntary exchanges rather than by violence and threats. Communism on the other hand takes the position that only by violence can people be forced to live together…like farm animals, tended over by their wise and benevolent communist shepherds. That’s no way for human beings to live.
Regarding Che Guevara, do you seriously think he’s some kind of hero? That nobody speaks ill of him? I do. He was a communist, and a cold-blooded killer who ran Castro’s firing squads and he was fond of personally conducting summary executions himself. Now think about it. If you are living in a totalitarian state why would you say a harsh word about such a person? Can you think of no reasons at all? Somehow once the totalitarian states is gone people become a lot more vocal in their criticism of the dictator and his minions. While they are in power most people who survive are smart enough to escape (ask the cubans in Miami think of Che and Fidel) or stay and keep their mouths shut.
You referred several times to the idea that the economic problems of Cuba are caused by the US and not by communism. If the economic system of the US us so horrible, ineffectual, wasteful, and exploitive then why would it not be a huge benefit to Cuba to be free of it? Why wouldn’t it be the case that the US is suffering because of its not being able to profit from the economic powerhouse of Cuba just off its shores? The answer is obvious. Cuba is an economic basket case and you know it.
Want some other case studies? Look at East and West Germany. Look at North and South Korea. Look at Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. Look at Communist and post-Communist China. Look at Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Ukraine before and after the fall of Communism. Come on. The answer is obvious and you know it. Freedom is good. Slavery by the state doesn’t work even if you long for a collar and a leash.
So you seriously claim that there are free election ins Cuba. Where do you get this stuff? Look, an election that only allows communists to run isn’t “free”.
As for my own sources of information on Cuba, I have read more than one article from Wikipedia. I have known quite a number of Cubans over the years. I have read numerous books from there and about the Cuban revolution and the current state of affairs there, and I know a thing or two about the political theory and practice of Communist states. I have also personally traveled to quite a few of them as they were abandoning their Communist ways (including Russia, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and China just to name a few). While I have not been to Cuba myself, I see no reason to imagine that somehow Castro was unlike all of the other dictators of Communist states.
OK. This is an old reply that it seems you didn’t get because it doesn’t show as a reply to you. So, here it goes again:
Nobody is trying to force you to anything. Dude, you keep on making statements like “No, you aren’t more free. You are a farm animal.” But that doesn’t say anything at all, you are not making an argument, you are just expecting me to take your word for it. At least I’ve close family who goes to Cuba every other year and I can have a pretty good idea of what’s going on. You don’t know and, even worse, you assume all you ‘know’ is true. Honest, I wouldn’t have any problem living in Cuba. I’ve been living under pressure all my life, so it would be difficult getting used to doing things simply because I want to make do them… but it’s not a deal I would run away from as you seem to believe.
“I should add that all of the “free goodies” that you think that communists will give you don’t come out of thin air. Where do you think they get that stuff? The answer is that they steal it from someone.”
Funny you say that. Where does rich people get their riches? Alas, they steal it from someone. The difference is that in communism, the one taking the “your goodies” are going to return them to you in another form of “free goodies”. And yet the rich who stole from the poor will never return anything to the poor, they will always decide how much they can rip-off of them, even if they’re doing all the work.
“anybody with any brains or determination will flee from such a situation and because even well-meaning people can’t produce much when they are not allowed to think for themselves or to magnify their own productivity through accumulation of wealth, savings, investment, and the rigor of personal responsibility.”
Whoa, where and how did you come to this conclusion? The American Dream? Or the fact that Batista’s corrupt bussinessmen pals fleed to Miami because they had “brains and determination” (and money)? Or do you think Cubans on average are stupid? Man, far from true and you keep on making statements that make you look like a total douche. And you should know by now that the accumulation of wealth does not equal better social position: low-class people have always starved and always will, no matter how much they save, because it’s never going to be enough. They can never compete with those who own the most money and their education is limited by lack of education or a very lacking education which, in US, means you get close to none.
“but when you talk about taking everything from them that matters you can be sure that those who are best to producing goods and services are going to give up or run away”
Of course, because they are selfish. That’s why I said Cubans succeeded in becoming a Communist country by being generous, while we still fight for even the last scrap of bread. Besides, “taking everything from them that matters”?? Usually, I would expect you mean with this discourse family, love, freedom* – two out of three we can agree Communism doesn’t take. But money? Is that such an imporant thing to you that you’d call it “everything that matters”? I find that sad; I find American values to be quite messed up actually.
*It doesn’t seem we will agree on Freedom, but I did give you my explanation for that before so I’ll not insist.
“Why is it extortion to only pay someone if he actually does work for you?”
Why does people work for you? Why do people work but a boss decides who and how much to pay? You are asking the wrong question – we know in our society it is already considered common sense that you hold this right if somebody else works “for you”. Actually, our treatment to employees is not all that different from how slaves were treated during centuries (some habits die hard, like, even if you have never been Christian you still do “mea culpa” aka guilt). I think what you should be asking is why people work “for” people? If we are all equals, all humans, why the second people have the right to command the first? It’s a “willing” slavery – or, lets say, dependancy, but still a slavery/dependancy.
Backtrack. I suppose I need to start from scratch or give a graphic example. Imagine I start a business, I have employees (from a realist point of view, since I just started, I probably asked them for “help” and offer them little pay with the promise of better pay later, or offered them a society); I earn $1000 a week and have 3 employees: logic dictates I pay, say, 20 to each and 20 to me and 20 is kept for investment in the same shop. However, nothing stops me from giving them 15 to each, 30 to me and use 25 for investment. Or what’s more, nothing says that I even do any work other than own the shop, come nag every other week and hand out dismissals and salary and still earn more than any of them, who are actually working. What’s more, if the shop is “underperforming”, I can pressure the weakest link to inyect fear to him AND his coworkers under threat of dismissal. And nothing stops me from investing in ANOTHER proyect not relating to the first which, actually, is pretty unfair. I might even let the first business die, or sell it, and all the workers who work “for me” would be on the street. So, they have been doing all the work, but I’ll leave them with nothing, just on a whim? They have been doing all the work, but I take whatever part of the money I feel like and call it property. Wait, didn’t you say so yourself “takes the results of the labor against the will of the worker”? Doesn’t this sounds like that?
As for the people who have been working for me all their lives, they might have just wasted years they could have been studing or doing a profession they actually liked. They stayed because my business was the only thing available at the moment and they needed the money – heck, everyone needs the money and unless you are thinking about robbing banks or prostitution, chances are the only way to get money is a job that is available right then. They might be starving, need to pay a medical bill, are indebted to school or to inssurance, take your pick.
Also, if you don’t work for someone… what do you think the options are exactly? If you don’t work, the end result is that you can’t pay your debts and end up in jail, or probably under a bridge feigning insanity. Or starve to death, or give your children in adoption because you can’t pay their nourishment, or live off the charity of strangers with minimal health and no comfort at all. Or die of illness whose treatment you can’t pay, or have your family die of illness whose treatment you can’t pay. Leave yourself to die, or suicide.
So who’s subjected to forced labor? The worker who has no choice but to accept the conditions of the employee or die, or the one who can even chose not to work and can still live? That’s the extortion of capitalism: you either work “for us”, or… choose from above. But– Hey, this is capitalism! This is how it works, these are the rules and what laws allow, it’s how it’s supposed to work… never mind it’s unfair and pretty slavery.
On a less morbid note: let me tell you you CAN leave your current employer in Cuba, you can also request a new job. It’s not that big of a deal.
“And where in the world did you get the idea that communist states always feed you and give you a place to live? The are well known to intentionally starve millions of people to death for political reasons and to starve millions more through plain old incompetence and inefficiency. ”
Ok. Countries that starve millions through plain incompetence are in capitalist countries too. In fact, I believe it’s more often than not a problem of capitalism than communism (then again, we only have few examples of communism to base our judgement on, and a whole world of capitalism where the number of people starving depend on how much the country lived off of their colonies (stolen from other countries) in the past).
As for communist countries being “well known to intentionally starve millions of people”… damn it, boy, tell me where you get this ‘information’, it’s rather just an empty statement. I’m not trying to be rude, but you are not offering any facts, just your own perception of reality but I swear to God it’s flawed. Who’re we talking about, Castro? If we are talking about Stalin, I’m not going to defend Stalin.
Say… What about Gaddafi? Did you know he housed everyone in his country? Give education and health to everyone even outside Libya? Yes, the evil Gaddafi… may be straying from the point, but I actually have to say this. Gaddafi was another figure that was demonized to riddiculous extent by nothing but fake, very fake, very sad propaganda. It was a tragedy what the rebels did to him, to the country, and how occident cheered up without listening to anybody else but their own mainstream media, who time and time again were disproven by independent journalists. Look up all the news about abuse or killing of people in prison, so big a lie was that there were no corpses in the place were some -I think it was the CNN- said there was piles upon piles. If you knew how much of those broadcasts about him during the war were untrue… all the mainstream media was willingly following the official stream of sheer BS and blatant lies (like the fake taking of Tripoli with a fake scenario), especially lying about something so fundamental as the cause of the war: the “rebels” weren’t fighting for democracy, they were a rival tribe to that of Gaddafi who wanted land, to make money out of the oil in the country. They seized the country, and the NATO helped them kill thousands along. You don’t imagine just how much our hands are bathed in blood when it comes to Lybia. It’s a tragedy of lies and disinformation, if there were ever one… Anyways, too long a subject and too fresh in our minds. It might mean nothing to you, but to me was the result of jerkfaces screwing once more with unrelated people for oil.
“Looking around the world today or for the past couple of hundred years you don’t see starvation being a problem in relatively more capitalist countries”
This is your own misunderstanding of the world, probably based your own personal experience. Poverty is a problem in ALL capitalist countries, more so in the richest of them. Actually, the only countries in the world who have no poverty to speak of, alas, is Cuba* (1% according to some sourcees, 5% others), along with I think a little country called Brunei. For comparison, United States has alledgedly 14%, and Haití has 80%. Anyhow, the problem in Cuba is not poverty, is insufficient income.
*Since I can’t give you first handed the proof for this statement of mine, I quote the Human Poverty Index (HPI), where Cuba has ranked among the top five developing countries over the last 10 years, with poverty rates ranging from 4.1% (2002) to 5.1% (1997).
Anyhow, I liked the explanation in this article better than mine, so I’ll link you: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/37004
Finally…
“Perhaps you believe that if your political allies are the ones stealing all of the productive assets and all of the labor that this somehow makes it OK or “not theft” but I don’t see how you could justify such a claim.”
It is honestly dizzing to follow your logic. First you said mass murder was okay while America did it. Now you accuse me of saying “thef” and “slavery” are okay while done by my “political allies”. Dude, I have no allies, I just respect the system. I am not cuban, I am not from a communist country. What exactly would I gain from this alledged thefs and how are them my allies? Anyways. My intention is not to bomb you with rethorics. Did what I said make sense to you? I am happy for that. It did not change your opinion, you are entitled to that. I was just warning you that there is a lot of ill intentioned propaganda and you should not believe all said to you – in fact, I suggest you doubt all that was ever said to you, it is a good excercise for the critic mind. I can only leave you with that and bid you a happy life. But if you want to disprove anything I’ve said, I’ll listen.
And now for the new response. I can comment on the fact that now it appears giving you housing, education, health, vaccines and food is being a farm animal. Then Americans are worse than animals, because they sure aren’t people: they don’t have any rights to health and opportunities. They are left to starve the moment they are born into a poor families. I would say they are “stray” animals, but considering the other means to get food are mostly illegal, chances are they are going to be put in jail before they can run “stray” for long. That’s it for “freedom”. And then they will be feed at last… but also raped in a forsaken to god prison.
“Do you not understand that words have meanings? Hitler was as devoted an anti-capitalist as Stalin and Mao. His party was the “National Socialist Worker’s Party”.
Righ back at you. Didn’t you know 1)capitalist countries supported Hitler because he was anti-communist, 2)in fact, Hitler was SO anti-communist that, before he started killing jews and black people, the first people he eliminated were the “reds” in Germany?
Yes, his was a “socialist” government, which in Germany and the rest of the world meant “social welfare inside capitalism”. Only in America socialism and communism are deemed the same. Don’t be confused, Hitler WAS capitalist.
Two other things: yes, the socio-economical meassures were socialists. That’s why he was voted. He promised that, he delivered another.
Also protectionism is part of all working capitalist systems, why do you think there’s a crisis in Europe today? “Free markets” are the reason all of Europe is in this mess.
“For example, you might clear it and plant crops on it, or you might build a house on it.”
Funny you mention it. I agree. It’s the same as the “Sem Terra/Sin Tierra” movement in Brasil: The person who “works” the land should own it. How many owners of land *work* that land? As opposed to making others work the land for him, that is.
As for Locke, I happen to be a philosphy student. Yes, I’ve read it. But using a 17th century author for today’s understanding of law is a bit out of date. But Locke also talked about the law of land regulating property. In other words, he hinted at protectionism, though he wasn’t precisely very detailed about this idea.
On the other hand, back at the time you could be sure those kind of writings were made to justify the status quo in favor and benefit of his own accommodated social class.
“If I own some land or other valuable stuff and the injured parties from some tangled events of 150 years or more ago are long dead, what is the point of bringing it all up? Clearly it is just to destroy MY rights today”
…What? You think I’m in some anti-heroic quest to destroy “YOUR” rights? Dude, I’m trying to tell you you should question where all your riches come from. Our riches, since I’m middle class too. Yeah, the “indian” blood that that was spilled for lands is “150 years or more” old, but what about the children of those 150 year old ancient indians; they went from losing their family, to slaves and now… they are the lowest social class in our self-made hierarchy of worthiness. Don’t you find it a bit ironic that the land WE stole from them is the reason we have been striving in wealth for generations? Not even a little heartbreaking? And you are protesting that *I* want to steal your rights? What about THEIR rights? You think so – that you are owner by “right”, when the blood in your ancestors’s hand the reason you were born free and wealthy?
And I mean “destroy your rights”?? …Do I sound vindictive to you? Nobody cares about your almighty “rights” to destroy. I was just thinking we should give something back to the people we have been stealing from for generations. We have been ripping them off when we could have been living in happy-hippie-armony all together. Nevermind if you don’t see it. Or think I’m faking concern. But don’t victimize yourself. You don’t have the “right” to be a total jerk, that’s just a legal plothole.
“By what justification do government officials have a right to control property that they did not buy and did not find in a state of nature and improve? It sounds like *Poof!* to me.”
Dude. You have to stop fearing the word “State” so much. State means = the people. It means the land is owned by EVERYBODY. It might be just metaphor to you maybe, and of course the equal distribution of riches also depends on your government not being a total jerkface with corrupt public officials who keep said riches to *themselves*. Provided your government is not corrupt, the land should be all of us equally, aka the State’s, and it’s use and produce regulated so there are not working people in misery and others striving from them.
*sigh* Alright, since the humanitarian reason won’t cut it, let me put it like this. The government has *right* over the land because *we* give it to them by vote. That’s more “right” than there could ever be. They’re representatives of the people. We delegate power for them to act in our benefit. If they were elected to serve the majority, they need to *serve* that majority. You may not like it, but that IS democracy: goverment for the majority.
And make no mistake, the majority *would* like equal access to riches, especially from produce they produced. And again, what’s with my “politician pals”?
“Regarding your claim that under capitalism some rich guy is allowed to tell you what your labor is worth, that is simply not so. Business owners merely tell you what they are willing to pay you.”
Potato / potato.
“You have a say in this transaction as well. You can refuse to take that much and seek employment elsewhere.”
How? We have already stablished there are a certain ammount of work offer, as well as a top of salary that owners will be willing to pay. The offer is restricted, more so in the same city and area. And guilds? Like they were not demonized…
“I could get a job serving food at a restaurant but nobody running restaurant would pay me what I require. Instead, I get paid a lot of money to do engineering work. ”
Perfect. Now give the same opportunities to those who were born in poverty and could never buy an education to become engineers. Otherwise, those people will work on the restaurant, even if -as you said- it will never be enough.
“There are millions of businesses in the US to work for and you can even go into business for yourself. ”
Again, the American dream. I’m surprised there are people who still believe it works. Not to burst your bubble, but I could dare you to leave your job as you claim you are free to do and start a business all anew by yourself. I hope you’ve a lot of savings because I don’t think that’s going to be very cheap. Oh and hope you have no debts, like, to school. And I hope you weren’t born into a poor family with no money or education and no job that would give you enough savings to start a business…
But hey, there’s always the mafia…
“out of the millions of companies out there, not a single one agrees with you that you are worth what you are claiming you are. Guess what? If that’s the case I’m pretty sure they are right and you are wrong.”
Again, you’re trying to make it some personal matter with me. It doesn’t work. Right now I’m working to help someone, not because they pay me well or bad. And seriously, I don’t think my worth is determined by how much this or another person is willing to pay me. And you would be surprised how easily your “valuable” work to your boss will become a lot less valuable when have to cut budgets during a crisis. Then you either have to take what they can give you or become unemployed, and that job at a restaurant will become a lot more tempting right about then…
“So tell me, in a communist state who will determine what your labor is worth?…You can work day and night and you will get whatever your government overlord says you will get, and if you complain it’s off to the gulag with you. There is no competition. There are no alternatives. It’s obey the state or die.”
Uh. First off, you overestimate your notion of “freedom”. Right now, the only freedom I know of is to chose between red Nike snikers and blue randombrand shoes. Today, I feel completely enslaved by the extortion of having to work for somebody else, or crash and burn.
But really, ultimately, freedom and slaved can be a state of mind. I don’t believe you are any freer than me, neither I feel I’m any freer than a Cuban… except for travelling restrictions maybe… but then again, except also about how health is sucked out of you if you don’t abide to the employer-employee law of capitalism. (Have you watched the movie “In Time”, btw? If you get the metaphor, it’s talking about this Capitalism extortion I like to ramble so much about.)
Funny you say it’s “obey the state or die” and I say “obey the status quo or die”. The difference is that I have experience with the second, and you have no evidence of the first, which is more like a supposition, since you’ve never been in a communist state. Moreover, it’s like you are transposing the abuse already existent in capitalism and think communism will do the same, but on a greater scale. It seems you think the state is “always corrupt”. Then why the heck do you vote? Do you believe in democracy even?
Secondly, it’s true that the States ends up putting price on your labor. The difference is that they would pay you and your neighbor equal salary for equal work, not depending on how good a company is going or how generous your employers is.
Third, what’s with you and the gulags? That’s soviet Russia during war, kind of out of date.
“First of all, the bombs didn’t kill millions of civilians. The total deaths (not all of which were civilians) was around 90,000 in Hiroshima and around 60,000 in Nagasaki.”
Dude. They dropped the bombs ON CITIES. Not a battlefield, not even a military station like Pearl Harbor. CITIES. You condemn completely innocent people for the death of a few Americans in non-American soil. But apparently American lives are worth 200 of Japanese… And yes, MILLIONS, because you seem to have forgotten the generations of newborn children born dead with disease and malformations decades after the droppings of both bombs. Even to nowadays. Seriously, dude, grow a heart.
Oh and how would anyone take seriously a leaflets talking about a bomb destroying a city? Personally, I think the Japanese thought no one could be that inhumane. Sadly, they were mistaken.
Funny too, how will people have any record of those leaflets existing or being sufficient if the city itself was destroyed with everything in it? Or do you think the leaflets survived?
And evacuate, with what food? How much time did the civillians have. Probably not much or they would give time to the military to move their weapons elsewhere. And where were they supposed to run? You seem to think people could simply move from one side of the country to another on foot. They could not return to their destroyed and polluted houses either, after. Tell me again how generous the US was.
Lastly, they *were* going to surrender, you know… which was what the almighty leaflets wanted, yes? Funny, the bombs fell anyways.
“And if your claim is that the US just wanted to murder millions of innocent people then why is it that Japan was treated so well after the surrender?”
This is such an innocent question that I don’t know how to answer it. The US military commited mass murder on a whim, and you think giving them money is being nice to them? You don’t understand just how the opinion of the world about the US changed after the dropping of the atomic bombs. They tried to drown their own bad image in relief money after they decimated a whole population of civillians in half. You want to know why? Feeble attempt at cleaning their karma or publicity to raise their own image and people’s morale. Take your pick.
“You also claimed that WWII was already won before the bombs were dropped. On what do you base this absurd conclusion? Even after the first bomb was dropped they refused to surrender. After the second, there was an attempt to assassinate the Emperor because he had decided to surrender. Clearly the war was not over before the bombs were dropped. They ended the war.”
Ok. Now this is actually hurtful to hear. Didn’t you know there were estimates that the Japanese would surrender weeks from when it was decided to drop the bombs? And you really do think it was necessary to drop two atomic bombs to end that war? The Japanese, alone, against the whole of America and its allies. Really? …And you needed to target civillians, why?
“By the way, isn’t it the same US government that you want to put in charge of the economy now?”
Alas, I did say “non corrupt government”. Truman should have never been president.
Mmh maybe I should add “non sadist jerk goverment”…
“Regarding your hysterical claim that “The American Dream of working to get rich has always been a lie and everybody knows it, at least now.”, where do you get this stuff? How exactly do you think that people get rich in the first place?”
I think I spent three rambling posts explaining how a handful few stole the riches in the past and now talk about how they are rightful owners of those riches, but I can say it all over if you are not bored by now. Besides, you said you started poor and now…how rich are you? you work under an employee. That’s not being rich, that’s being content.
Which is not bad but I go back to my dare of you to drop your current job and starting your own business. See how that works for you with a minimal wage and debts coming out of your ears to bit you in the ass.
“Yes, it is true that people need to work in order to live. This is not something invented by capitalism, it’s a fact of nature”
I doubt your definition of nature applies, but regardless…
“in a capitalist economy anyway…mixed economies have some state involvement too which tends to be partially corrupt as opposed to the entirely corrupt communist case”
Again, if capitalist: not corrupt. If communist, even though you seem to base your opinion sorely on hearsay: Corruption! That’s your argument? You’ve never seen capitalist corruption in your life…?
I rest my case.
“the contributions of those “millions” is paid for on mutually agreeable terms”
No they are not. They are paid for in the only available terms. But what are we talking anyways, pensions, education and health? In US? I beg to disagree.
“Communism on the other hand takes the position that only by violence can people be forced to live together…like farm animals, tended over by their wise and benevolent communist shepherds.”
AGAIN, what are your basis to state this as an undisputable, irrefutable fact?!?? “only violence can people be forced to live together”, why? What part of the communist system says this is the case?
Let me make a guess: You think history proves the overflown statements about the wrongs of communism. Think outside Stalin for a moment. Who else you have to base your claim? Mao? Is it that revolutions, even those like the American emancipation, were made on flowery verbal arrangements? No blood spilled? No kings behaded…? But if the communist do it, IT’S EEEEVILLLL!!! Right. And I hardly consider promoting generosity as forcing people to live together though violence.
“Regarding Che Guevara, do you seriously think he’s some kind of hero? That nobody speaks ill of him? I do”
But you are an anticommunist, dude! lol. I was talking about Cubans. That’s the people who matter in this discussion: they have the right to chose their own government, and even if they might not agree with Castro in everything (what people ever agrees with their leaders entirely really??), they still think Che Guevara is a hero. I’d dare you to go to Cuba and corroborate, but I doubt you have the guts to visit the island, if you think Castro is going to chop your head as soon as you set foot on the island.
Also…
“He was a communist, and a cold-blooded killer who ran Castro’s firing squads and he was fond of personally conducting summary executions himself. ”
He was a doctor who did activism healing leprocy for free before joining the cuban revolution, when he treated the wounded both in Castro’s civillian army as well as the goverment (dictator Batista) army after a battle. And I seriously doubt your sources. (“fond” of conducting execution? Where did you read that, People’s Magazine?!)
“While they are in power most people who survive are smart enough to escape (ask the cubans in Miami think of Che and Fidel)”
You mean the cubans who forced teenager girls to prostitution for American businessmen. Dude, is everything I telling you going into one ear and leaving though the other? Don’t defend the cubans in Miami, it’s like defending rapists – and you look like a douchebag defending those people.
“You referred several times to the idea that the economic problems of Cuba are caused by the US and not by communism. If the economic system of the US us so horrible, ineffectual, wasteful, and exploitive then why would it not be a huge benefit to Cuba to be free of it? Why wouldn’t it be the case that the US is suffering because of its not being able to profit from the economic powerhouse of Cuba just off its shores?”
Wowowowowowow. You are mixing up a lot of dumb unrelated things together. I told you the economic growth of Cuba is CRIPPLED by the American EMBARGO which doesn’t allow business from ANY part of the world to make business with Cuba without suffering American boicot. If the island can’t grow, there’s little riches to distribute. Full stop. The Cubans insufficient income IS in a good meassure the result of US jerking them off. It’s even been called an “attempt against human rights”: it’s starving the people, won’t let them get access to needed medicine, etc. All of the world knows this, but the US.
Here’s how many people in the world support the embargo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba#Critiques_of_embargo_laws_and_rules
Sadly, it shows up to 2005. I know it was 184 countries vote against US Cuba embargo in 2009. And in 2011 it was 186 in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel) to call an end to the embargo. You can look up all other dates, but I assure you there’s little difference.
Second: What you are suggesting is that US takes advantage of Cuba to make business there. You’re not talking about what’s better for Cubans here, you’re just talking about how US can exploit Cuba’s resources. And you call that “US suffering because it can’t profit” from them? Dude, I don’t know if to call you a cynic, a sadist or just plain confused.
I dare you back to look at Cuba before communism and after communism. Look especifically for poverty figures. Know in your heart that it doesn’t matter the economic growth figures (and damn, they are an ISLAND. Do you want to compare them to the United States? Compare them to HAITÍ, for fairness’ sake) without distribution of riches.
And never forget the embargo, which is killing them and cripping their economy. How can we tell how much Cuba could grow if you won’t ALLOW them to grow? And if you are so sure Cuba will never grow under communism, why the heck are you still blocking them?
“Somehow once the totalitarian states is gone people become a lot more vocal in their criticism of the dictator and his minions.”
AGAIN, there IS freedom of expression. I’ve heard from my brothers both that the cubans speak openly against the Castros when they don’t agree with the goverment. Again, say what you may about Stalin, but you have no idea what’s going on in Cuba.
“I have known quite a number of Cubans over the years.”
Cubans who live in Cuba? I find it hard to believe if you have never been in the island. And about your books, from what I’ve heard you say so far, it seems you have been reading the most riddiculous, brainwashing “books” out there. I figure you never actually read Marx’s The Capital? And it’s obvious the “current state of affairs” were from very opinated journalists who have never set a foot on Cuba themselves. As for visiting countries who had abandoned “their Communist ways”, lol. You expect Capitalist!Poland to speak wonders of Communist!Poland? Well, maybe they’d now, after the crisis. And how many low class czechians have you talked to in New&BetterCapitalist!Czech Republic? Why don’t you visits some shantytowns in Brasil and tell me how well Capitalist has been doing for them?
Now tell me how’s that for rethorics.
“Freedom is good.”
lol. Find me a good example of how America is “free” without resourcing to the American dream. Meaning, “free to rip off your neighbor” is not an option. Find a freedom where all of us have equal opportunities at that freedom. And I mean everyone, not just the ones who can pay for an education. Tell me how much freedom you have then, other than chosing what brand of hairconditioner you want.
I get the impression you will rant yourself again about the benefits of commercing with whom you want and being employed by your favorite choice of boss, as if that actually happened.
But I’m starting to think it’s really helpless. For everything I suggest to be different, your answer will be “no, you are wrong”. That doesn’t say anything. Not to insult you, but your arguments are always raw rethoric. One that insist on the notion that Communism “slaughters” their people which, outside Stalin I don’t think it can be applied to any other communist experience and is just your own impression.
Oh, and as for the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, what would you suggest as an alternative? Surrender? Hand to hand combat killing millions on each side? Perhaps you should inform yourself on the details:
Honestly, I don’t know why you keep comparing communism to slavery. If anything, the extortion of capitalism seems a lot more slavery to me, since if you don’t work in the terms your employer sets for the money the employer gives you can’t buy food and thus starve.
Meanwhile, in Communism the States provides for food, roof, education, health – yes, even if you don’t work, plus a salary for extra benefits. Seems like you are a lot more “free” to me.
Nadia: No, you aren’t more free. You are a farm animal. They get free food and housing too. They also get fleeced and slaughtered by their owners.
But if you disagree, no hard feelings. Be my guest and go live in a communist paradise like Cuba or North Korea. Just don’t try to force me to be a farm animal.
I should add that all of the “free goodies” that you think that communists will give you don’t come out of thin air. Where do you think they get that stuff? The answer is that they steal it from someone. They threaten them with violence and this gets some stuff for them. Not much of course because anybody with any brains or determination will flee from such a situation and because even well-meaning people can’t produce much when they are not allowed to think for themselves or to magnify their own productivity through accumulation of wealth, savings, investment, and the rigor of personal responsibility.
You can steal something from people for a while and most people won’t scream too loudly, but when you talk about taking everything from them that matters you can be sure that those who are best to producing goods and services are going to give up or run away. They won’t just keep on producing like always. Why should they? This is one reason why communist states are all poor.
Nadia: Why is it extortion to only pay someone if he actually does work for you? After all, you can work for anybody in the country (or the world for that matter) under capitalism. It’s not like you are bound to a single employer as you are under communism. And where in the world did you get the idea that communist states always feed you and give you a place to live? The are well known to intentionally starve millions of people to death for political reasons and to starve millions more through plain old incompetence and inefficiency. Looking around the world today or for the past couple of hundred years you don’t see starvation being a problem in relatively more capitalist countries and you very commonly see it in communist ones. Can you even open a history book without your communist ideology blinding you to what is going on?
As for the reason I compare communism to slavery and theft, that’s because it is exactly that (but all done up nice and legal of course). What is the definition of slavery? It is typically defined as either forced labor or labor in which someone else takes the results of the labor against the will of the worker. How can communism not involve exactly that? Work for someone else? You get the gulag. Have someone work for you? The gulag with you! Keep what you make? To the gulag! Or the gallows! All of the means of production and all of the production itself is taken by the government. If that’s not theft and slavery what is? Perhaps you believe that if your political allies are the ones stealing all of the productive assets and all of the labor that this somehow makes it OK or “not theft” but I don’t see how you could justify such a claim. If you believe otherwise please be my guest and make your case.
Nadia,
I’ve been going to Cuba every year since ’99. My best friends are Cubans. Unless your family is vacationing with the local CDR or in a restricted tourist enclave like Varadero, they would see that Cuba is a corrupt, desperate country.
Over the last 13 years, I have lived with Cubans in the cities and provinces, both professionals and farmers. They are a gracious, resilient people. Their government breeds suspicion, strongmen, corruption, and fear.
What happens in the boarding schools among the young people is ghastly. How about the mandatory fruit harvests? Have you ever been in a Cuban hospital? Not the one that was special-made for Michael Moore, but a clinic that the average Cuban goes to in the province?
I personally know a man who was imprisoned for 20 years for killing a government cow for food. That’s right, beef is strictly controlled by the government. Anyone caught killing a government cow will serve 20 years in a Cuban jail.
What has your family told you about the CDRs? How about the network of block-by-block informants in every town and city in the country?
On your family’s next vacation, have them go over to El Morro and see Che’s office after Havana fell. If you roam around, you can find the wall where Che oversaw the executions (the number ranges from 5,000 to 10,000) of “enemies of the Revolution.” There are a lot of bullet holes in it. Eye witnesses attest to this historical fact. I’ve seen the wall numerous times myself.
That’s the real face of Communism. There is no free speech, free press, freedom to assemble, free market . . . well, on the other hand, I’m sure you’re right, Cuba is the only place on the planet where Communism is proven to work.
Noche
Cuba didn’t deserve the way it’s been treated for the past 40 years. The US didn’t hold the grudge against Russia for that long. This instance enbarasses me as an American.
That's not History, it's Sci-Fi. Where did you read that Mussolini "rode into Rome on his Scooter" or "intended to ally himself with France"? Also, Hitler never "threatened" Mussolini, this is another lie. Mussolini was killed by other Italians because in 1944-1945 in Italy you could find the civil war.
Hitler was rejected from the academy because headmaster told him that he would be a much better architect. If you've ever seen any paintings by him, you would see that he was an excellent painter.
I have seen his paintings and they are mediocre and rather uninspiring. They aren’t terrible, but he would not have had much of a career as an artist had he stuck with it. Now that I think of it, his career as a dictator wasn’t all that successful in the end either.
You forgot Ceausescu..shit if I think about it communism gave us more dictators that..well any other political system..Make you wonder !
Mr. Castro and Adlof Hittler, no matter what people says…. but the reality is they lived for the nation, they possessed some thing, some mystry in themselves that makes them to not only to command their nation but leave a foot print in the history.
History is always biased and it depends on who wrote it. To get a non-biased point of view one must do a lot of researches on the same topic from different writers. We will find the interet full of crap as I remember one even listed Saddam Hussein as No. 1 for most evil dictators in history (above Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot). Personally, if you ask me, I'd put Mao as No. 2 and Pol Pot as the champion in regards to the worst dictators of modern history.
Mao did a lot of reforms that shaped China's history, but he also did a lot of things when he tried to protect his own power and the failed Cultural Revolution was the biggest example – it nearly destroyed thousand of years of Chinese culture.
Pol Pot was simply a bloody idiot who almost threw his own nation back to the stone ages and I can hardly think of anyone worst than him at this moment.
History is littered with cutthroats and butchers that would make several of these villains look like regular church going choir members. If anything the list would be more accurately described as "The Top 10 Most Infamous Collectivist Thug Leaders of the Last Century" and even that is debatable considering the fact that it is the winners who always write the history books and always tend to do so through a bit of a myopically focused rose tinted Priam.
Correction: "Priam" should have been prism.
how about winston churchill ,horatio kitchener, and f d rooseveldt
Ok first: Graham, hate to break it to you but FD Roosevelt and W Churchill, regardless of what you personally think of them, aren't dictators by sheer definition of the word alone. They were elected-by-the-citizenry-at-large public officials who could have been voted out of office in any election or by their own government if they were bad enough and never held total power b/c their countries had checks and balance systems in place to stop them from having total control. Dictators rule w/o giving the people a choice on whether they want them in power or not, hold total power w/no way to overturn their decisions, and often rule w/o care for the laws of the land or make them up as they go to make it look like they follow laws. Lastly they often treat the populace pretty badly for usually bullcrap reasons if any at all via torture, false imprisonment (for long or short terms), beatings, mass killings, bringing war and genocide to them, poor leadership that causes great suffering, etc. FDR and Churchill were far and away responsible for NONE of those bro, c'mon use some sense lol!
Now second: this list is missing a biggie: Saddam Hussein anybody?? He can't be too recent to be included, as Castro is listed. I think removing Castro and replacing him w/ Hussein is appropriate. What did Castro do that was so bad he gets put on here? No atrocities/war crimes/crimes against humanity or terrorizing his people. Nothing I can think of (Im admittedly not a Castro buff so I could easily be missing something) making him a cruel and inhumane dictator. Just because he ruled so long? If the Cuban people wanted him out bad enough they could've done what he himself did: change things via revolution. Yep Cuba's money woes are mostly our fault because of economic sanctions & embargos. Communism is so not a threat anymore so let Cuba get back on its feet again & maybe it'll become the sweet ass resort destination it used to be before Castro & give the Cuban people the chance to be proud again! I can't think of another change I'd make besides removing that Diaz fellow in favor of our friend currently in North Korea, Kim Jong Il. Biased list, yeah probably but in that case make your own w/ those you think are the ten worst! BUT…do it fairlyyyyy ir your list is just as biased lol!!!
Who is the moron who made up this list? Mao was a thousand times worse than Hitler, read his biographies…Mao was responsible for 70 million deaths in peace time. Maybe this guy is a paid by someone to ensure such sites praise amazingly cruel and inept dictators. Castro is one of the most ruthless dictators in history, and so was Che Guevara. Besides, the Cuban economy is horrible. Why do you think all the Cubans want to leave? Read something.
I think you guys should add gaddafy to this list that man is really pioneeering to join these cursed ones
LoL Hitler wasnt the worse! Mao, Stalin. Lenin they were times worse then Hitler!
And why is Mussolinie and Franco in there?
nice but you forgot that gamo suds take out even the worst grime
We all know that stalin and moa are worse than hitler, but what made hitler so infamous was the murders of the jewish people. They were not all jewish of course theyre were gypsies amd communists but he hated the jews and he was on a mission to exterminate them. I consider hitler the worst mainly because of his hate towards the race of the jews. He really hated them, and hate is a strong word
where Moammer Gadahfi?
The history of Franco is not accurate… Franco was running his country way before the final solution was put in place (1942). Franco also offered freedom to his POW’s with many accepted and many many didn’t. I noticed he/she didn’t put Emperor Hirohito on the list. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
There is no fixed characters of a ruler you are calling a “Dictator”.In the eyes of a Communist ,Mao-tse-Tung was a “liberator”,Fiedel Kastro was the “Fighter for Humanity”.
With the development of different Political theologies and doctrines, scholars and political commentators have taken a roll of defending the ideologies of their choice.If a “Sovereign Administrator of Communist Ideology” is labelled “A Dictator” by commentators favoring “Capitalist in Economical structure” and “Democratic in Political Structure” views, persons like Mr.George Bush and Mr. Obama – whom you are not tired in calling “Pillars of the Liberated World” and “defender of Humanity” and many adjectives like these, are simply believed Dictators by the name of democracy,who have successfully high jacked security Council, UNO or any Organization, and through that channel ruling the world.If that gentleman thinks that Che-Guevara, Mao-Tse-Tung, Fidel Castro,Vladimir Lenin,Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussain, Muammar Gaddaffi and so on, were not good, the world has to accept that they were not good. And whoever will keep thinking anybody good, will be declared “Rogue “.
Persons you have declared “Dictators” had enslaved their generation “physically” only. But these commentators and “Dictators through Democratic establishments” have enslaved generations mentally.
This is more dangerous.
Where are gone impartial political commentators? Who are not Communists, Capitalists, Socialists, Democratic, Nazis,or even Nationalists.Who are not Koranic, Biblical or Vedantic. Who are human beings fighting for betterment of human beings beyond of cast, ratio, religion?
“POWER IS CORRUPT, AND CORRUPT ABSOLUTELY”.This is the human tendency that who will gain the power will turn tyrant,dictator,absolute sovereign to defend the status quo, his power and money. Maybe it is Hitler,Brezhnev,Saddam Hussain,Gaddaffi,Sonia Gandhi.
Men are different but story is the same.
Where’s Bush and Obama?? Gore and Clinton too! Massive sell outs sold their fellow countymen to the banks! Although they just goy pawns, they are still an accomplice to the cover-up of the worst crime upon present day psyche and the future of humanity, let alone the natural environment – 9/11/01.
oh… maybe that is for the “2059 – Top 10 Tyrants List”.
Castro has “no atrocities or wars to mar his record” – actually Castro murdered people from day one. Have you not even heard of the Isle of Pines?
And “no wars” – apart from the troops he sent to so many wars in Africa and elsewhere.
Also you accuse Diaz (who was NOT 76 in 1871) of destroying the Mexican economy – but totally ignore the fact that Castro destroyed the Cuban economy.
Lenin murdered millions of people – via “War Communism” and so.
Stalin murdered tens of millions of people – via the collectivization of agriculture (basically a return to War Communism.
See the works of Robert Conquest and so many others.
And Mao murdered more people that any other dictator in history.
See “Mao: The Untold Story”.
As for your claim that industry “thrived” under Mao.
Are you trying to be funny?
On Pol Pot you should mention that this socialist murdered one third of the entire population of Cambodia.
eyy are you kidding mee? ADOLF HITLER IS A PIECE OF CRAP COMPARED TO WHAT JOSEPH STALIN DID? you obviously don’t know history(:
Mao caused the most deaths so he should be first
No.1 Hitler? Soviet is more Worst than Hitler. Imagine Killing 85-100 million!
I think all of you are gay
our hitler is always ranked the number 1
shut up idiots.hitler was not a dictator he just wanted his country to be free from french and englishs
“englishs”? How old are you? 12?
Really ? Hitler Lover Freak! Go to a freakin Church and know he is frickin #1 one bcuz he killed over 6 billion people, i’m sorry are you one of those people who think the Holocaust never occurred? yeah, bcuz 6 Billion found a way off this earth magical on their own free will. how about u Nazi lovers find morals, and stop corrupting the earth. seriously, like how old are you? 12yrs? gezz! he is a horrible person and so are you.. and i don’t need to know u to assume u r just as evil, just the way u defended the creature is just sicking. Get EDUCATED!! and stop comment fricking non-sense!!
Of course you forget every dictator that was supported by the us or Western states. Wheres king Abdullah, videla, Pinochet, bokassa, all those marionets in the middle east and central asia?
you forget mubarak in egypt dictatorship
well your blabbing will not change what has been done or not done by these ppl..many hav died coz of them and its true…we should learn from the past….not just say bullshit to each other on basis of country and origin…as this was the reason they all fought..peace..
Nobody is trying to force you to anything. Dude, you keep on making statements like “No, you aren’t more free. You are a farm animal.” But that doesn’t say anything at all, you are not making an argument, you are just expecting me to take your word for it. At least I’ve close family who goes to Cuba every other year and I can have a pretty good idea of what’s going on. You don’t know and, even worse, you assume all you ‘know’ is true. Honest, I wouldn’t have any problem living in Cuba. I’ve been living under pressure all my life, so it would be difficult getting used to doing things simply because I want to make do them… but it’s not a deal I would run away from as you seem to believe.
“I should add that all of the “free goodies” that you think that communists will give you don’t come out of thin air. Where do you think they get that stuff? The answer is that they steal it from someone.”
Funny you say that. Where does rich people get their riches? Alas, they steal it from someone. The difference is that in communism, the one taking the “your goodies” are going to return them to you in another form of “free goodies”. And yet the rich who stole from the poor will never return anything to the poor, they will always decide how much they can rip-off of them, even if they’re doing all the work.
“anybody with any brains or determination will flee from such a situation and because even well-meaning people can’t produce much when they are not allowed to think for themselves or to magnify their own productivity through accumulation of wealth, savings, investment, and the rigor of personal responsibility.”
Whoa, where and how did you come to this conclusion? The American Dream? Or the fact that Batista’s corrupt bussinessmen pals fleed to Miami because they had “brains and determination” (and money)? Or do you think Cubans on average are stupid? Man, far from true and you keep on making statements that make you look like a total douche, be careful. And you should know by now that the accumulation of wealth does not equal better social position: low-class people have always starved and always will, no matter how much they save, because it’s never going to be enough. They can never compete with those who own the most money and their education is limited by lack of education or a very lacking education which, in US, means you get close to none.
“but when you talk about taking everything from them that matters you can be sure that those who are best to producing goods and services are going to give up or run away”
Of course, because they are selfish. That’s why I said Cubans succeeded in becoming a Communist country by being generous, while we still fight for even the last scrap of bread. Besides, “taking everything from them that matters”?? Usually, I would expect you mean with this discourse family, love, freedom* – two out of three we can agree Communism doesn’t take. But money? Is that such an imporant thing to you that you’d call it “everything that matters”? I find that sad; I find American values to be quite messed up actually.
*It doesn’t seem we will agree on Freedom, but I did give you my explanation for that before so I’ll not insist.
“Why is it extortion to only pay someone if he actually does work for you?”
Why does people work for you? Why do people work but a boss decides who and how much to pay? You are asking the wrong question – we know in our society it is already considered common sense that you hold this right if somebody else works “for you”. Actually, our treatment to employees is not all that different from how slaves were treated during centuries (some habits die hard, like, even if you have never been Christian you still feel guilt). I think what you should be asking is why people work “for” people? If we are all equals, all humans, why the second people have the right to command the first? It’s a “willing” slavery – or, lets say, dependancy, but still a slavery/dependancy.
Backtrack. I suppose I need to start from scratch or give a graphic example. Imagine I start a business, I have employees (from a realist point of view, since I just started, I probably asked them for “help” and offer them little pay with the promise of better pay later, or offered them a society); I earn $1000 a week and have 3 employees: logic dictates I pay, say, 20 to each and 20 to me and 20 is kept for investment in the same shop. However, nothing stops me from giving them 15 to each, 30 to me and use 25 for investment. Or what’s more, nothing says that I even do any work other than own the shop, come nag every other week and hand out dismissals and salary and still earn more than any of them, who are actually working. What’s more, if the shop is “underperforming”, I can pressure the weakest link to inyect fear to him AND his coworkers under threat of dismissal. And nothing stops me from investing in ANOTHER proyect not relating to the first which, actually, is pretty unfair. I might even let the first business die, or sell it, and all the workers who work “for me” would be on the street. So, they have been doing all the work, but I’ll leave them with nothing, just on a whim? They have been doing all the work, but I take whatever part of the money I feel like and call it property. Wait, didn’t you say so yourself “takes the results of the labor against the will of the worker”? Doesn’t this sounds like that?
As for the people who have been working for me all their lives, they might have just wasted years they could have been studing or doing a profession they actually liked. They stayed because my business was the only thing available at the moment and they needed the money – heck, everyone needs the money and unless you are thinking about robbing banks or prostitution, chances are the only way to get money is a job that is available right then. They might be starving, need to pay a medical bill, are indebted to school or to inssurance, take your pick.
Also, if you don’t work for someone… what do you think the options are exactly? If you don’t work, the end result is that you can’t pay your debts and end up in jail, or probably under a bridge feigning insanity. Or starve to death, or give your children in adoption because you can’t pay their nourishment, or live off the charity of strangers with minimal health and no comfort at all. Or die of illness whose treatment you can’t pay, or have your family die of illness whose treatment you can’t pay. Leave yourself to die, or suicide.
So who’s subjected to forced labor? The worker who has no choice but to accept the conditions of the employee or die, or the one who can even chose not to work and can still live? That’s the extortion of capitalism: you either work “for us”, or… choose from above. But– Hey, this is capitalism! This is how it works, these are the rules and what laws allow, it’s how it’s supposed to work… never mind it’s unfair and pretty slavery.
On a less morbid note: let me tell you you CAN leave your current employer in Cuba, you can also request a new job. It’s not that big of a deal.
“And where in the world did you get the idea that communist states always feed you and give you a place to live? The are well known to intentionally starve millions of people to death for political reasons and to starve millions more through plain old incompetence and inefficiency. ”
Ok. Countries that starve millions through plain incompetence are in capitalist countries too. In fact, I believe it’s more often than not a problem of capitalism than communism (then again, we only have few examples of communism to base our judgement on, and a whole world of capitalism where the number of people starving depend on how much the country lived off of their colonies (stolen from other countries) in the past).
As for communist countries being “well known to intentionally starve millions of people”… damn it, boy, tell me where you get this ‘information’, it’s rather just an empty statement. I’m not trying to be rude, but you are not offering any facts, just your own perception of reality but I swear to God it’s flawed. Who’re we talking about, Castro? If we are talking about Stalin, I’m not going to defend Stalin.
What about Gaddafi? Did you know he housed everyone in his country? Give education and health to everyone even outside Libya? Yes, the evil Gaddafi… may be straying from the point, but I actually have to say this. Gaddafi was another figure that was demonized to riddiculous extent by nothing but fake, very fake, very sad propaganda. It was a tragedy what the rebels did to him, to the country, and how occident cheered up without listening to anybody else but their own mainstream media, who time and time again were disproven by independent journalists. Look up all the news about abuse or killing of people in prison, so big a lie was that there were no corpses in the place were some media -I think it was the CNN- said there was piles upon piles. If you knew how much of those broadcasts about him during the war were untrue… all the mainstream media was willingly following the official stream of sheer lying (like the fake taking of Tripoli with a fake scenario), especially lying about something so fundamental as: the “rebels” weren’t fighting for democracy, they were a rival tribe to that of Gaddafi who wanted land to make money out of the oil in the country. They seized the country, and the NATO helped them kill thousands along. You don’t imagine just how much our hands are bathed in blood when it comes to Lybia. It’s a tragedy of lies and disinformation, if there were ever one.
But, anyways, too long a subject and too fresh in our minds. It might mean nothing to you, but to me was the result of jerkfaces screwing once more with unrelated people for oil.
“Looking around the world today or for the past couple of hundred years you don’t see starvation being a problem in relatively more capitalist countries”
This is your own misunderstanding of the world, probably based your own personal experience. Poverty is a problem in ALL capitalist countries, more so in the richest of them. Actually, the only countries in the world who have no poverty to speak of, alas, is Cuba* (1% according to some sourcees, 5% others), along with a little country called Brunei. For comparison, United States has alledgedly 14%, and Haití has 80%. Anyhow, the problem in Cuba is not poverty, is insufficient income.
*Since I can’t give you first handed the proof for this statement of mine, I quote the Human Poverty Index (HPI), where Cuba has ranked among the top five developing countries over the last 10 years, with poverty rates ranging from 4.1% (2002) to 5.1% (1997).
Anyhow, I liked the explanation in this article better than mine, so I’ll link you: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/37004
Finally…
“Perhaps you believe that if your political allies are the ones stealing all of the productive assets and all of the labor that this somehow makes it OK or “not theft” but I don’t see how you could justify such a claim.”
It is honestly dizzing to follow your logic. First you said mass murder was okay while America did it. Now you accuse me of saying “thef” and “slavery” are okay while done by my “political allies”. Dude, I have no allies, I just respect the system. I am not cuban, I am not from a communist country. What exactly would I gain from this alledged thefs and how are them my allies? Anyways. My intention is not to bomb you with rethorics. Did what I said make sense to you? I am happy for that. It did not change your opinion, you are entitled to that. I was just warning you that there is a lot of ill intentioned propaganda and you should not believe all said to you – in fact, I suggest you doubt all that was ever said to you, it is a good excercise for the critic mind. I can only leave you with that and bid you a happy life. But if you want to disprove anything I’ve said, I’ll listen.
about Franco,if wasnt for him Spain will be a comunist dictature and they dont say nothing about what the republicans did before the war and in the war,they kill thousands of inocent people, they burn hundreds of churches full of families but the person who wrote this website dont got any idea,about why we help the nazi was to dont finish like France just that.
Franco didn’t repress women rights, I’m tired of listening that bull. The attitude towards women in Spanin after the Civil War under Franco was the attitude of the times, in France women had the same “rights” or lack of them, despite they were a democracy…you have to put things into their right historical perspective.
Just as when they talk about Nazis being racist and they forget to mention there were segregation laws in USA that lasted until the 60′s! in Germany there were no segregation laws, the small percentage of minorities lived quite peacefully. The obsession against Jewry was based on their potentially allying with the bolsheviks, which many of them already had done by the time II World War Started. For the same reason Jewry was hated in Spanish Civil War by the Nationalist side, nothing to do with religion as you know, the Nationalist side in Spain in fact allied themselves with the Moors.
Last I want to say Franco was a benevolent leader, during Franco there were more social protection homes built than in any other period of Histoy in Spain. Also if you check the record the middle class in Frnaco times flourished and was most of the population while there was only a small percentage of poor and super rich classes, compare it to now? We have almost no middle class, some small super rich class and a very vast majority is poor class.
Also I am tired of the double moral rampant in our “democratic” society, apparently Fidel Castro who by the way was good friends with Franco) is a murderer because he executed some prisoners, yet the US execute prisoners every year and they are a democracy. You might say these are not political prisoners, and if that matter to you, they do also execute political dissidents without a trial in Pakistan, Yemen etc… even their own citizens, even under-age ones! Obama should definitely be in your list, he has escalated the drone operation. At least Franco, Fidel Castro and some of the others genuinely wanted the best for their people.
With the defeat of communism the number of deaths in the world can be attributed to capitalism. Thomas Pogge of Yale University quotes a United Nations document, “Roughly one third of all human deaths, some 18 million annually, are due to poverty-related causes, easily preventable through better nutrition, safe drinking water, mosquito nets, re-hydration packs, vaccines and other medicines. This sums up to over 300 million deaths in just the 17 years since the end of the Cold War — many more than were caused by all the wars, civil wars, and government repression of the entire 20th century.http://szrzlj3.blogspot.nl/2012/05/true-communism-has-never-existed.html
Wow, only fascists and “commies”? why is lenin and castro there? lenin wasn’t a dictator…
Also where are all the dictatorships established in latin america by USA? Where is batista, rafael leonidas trujillo, augusto pinochet, Manuel Estrada Cabrera, the assortment of military presidents in El Salvador… i don’t want to mention every country in latin america, so i think those are enough…
I can’t realize why the man who executed all the indigenous culture in my country is not here… 30,000 people killed in less than a year in a little country like El Salvador is nothing a good guy would do…
hey, lol
フィッシング shimano シマノ
Top 10 Most Infamous Dictators in History
LV(ルイ·ヴィトン)
Top 10 Most Infamous Dictators in History
puma プーマ clyde
Top 10 Most Infamous Dictators in History
!st amendment, OK. But I'd appreciate a translation. Thank you.