StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Well, part of my belief that fascism is not necessarily always bad comes from a friendship I have with a Spaniard. He's a member of Anzar's party; so center-right for Spanish politics. However, in the long discussions we've had on comparative politics, he does credit Francisco Franco with keeping Spain out of WWII, and helping to modernize the country during the NATO alliance years.

Ultimately, fascist dictatorships are the more despicable form - Totalitarian as opposed to Authoritarian - But modern day Spain is a functional constitutional monarchy thanks to the actions of Francisco Franco's handpicked successor.

In the same way that I defended Pinochet I therefore felt I had little choice but to express a defence for such regimes or be considered hypocritical. I believe in a stage progression of governmental form; you can't go direct to democracy from certain kinds of government, and I think this has been shown countless times.

People like Pinochet or Franco managed to create situations where democracy could flourish after their leaving power. Personally disgusting, their actions ultimately proved beneficial to their nations, and so their systems cannot be entirely discarded as unworkable - That is, for nations in certain stages of development.

This ultimately may be a bit of an apology for U.S. foreign policy in the cause of placing dictators in power in nations around the globe during the Cold War. Some turned out good, some bad. This is very much because of the intensely personal way in which dictatorship is then focused as a government, especially in the third world.

One of the examples of a failed attempt at democratization in these regions was in South Vietnam; the assasination of a popular dictator by JFK was part of our reason for losing the Vietnam war, before it even started.

The main problem with totalitarian government being beneficial to the development of democracy is that it restrictions the development of Civil Society. Was Franco's Phalangist regime really even Fascist by the time it ended? Had it transformed to an authoritarian regime, and was the gradual nature of that transformation part of the ability of Spain to transition to constitutional monarchy so readily?

Possibly so, and again it indicates the random nature of such a system of government: depending on the person in power, it can be beneficial in some fashion, and usually only in the long term, or very destructive. Mostly always destructive. The defence of it, then, seems based on the realization that there is little other way to overcome the clan structures, or nepotism, or power of traditional landowners, or other plagues of traditional society, within many third world countries - Except by the firm action of an individual who holds supreme power, and is willing to use it for that purpose.

Once civil society is established, obviously, the vagaries of such reign do not lend themselves to its maintainence. One example is Iraq, where the Kings and Dictators before Saddam Hussein had allowed a Civil Society to develop. He, in turn, destroyed it through his own paranoia. Again, a progression, and a lesson, is shown.

So it is that personal nature of dictatorial rule in such countries, which makes the condemnation of even totalitarian rule, rather hard to wholly condemn - Or so, at least, I would presume to contend. We appear to have little to rely on but tyrants, unless we dare take the task into our own hands - As surely has been done in ages past - and even those more ruthless of the brand of dictators may mellow with age, as the Caudillo of Spain did.

Dicatorship or Facism only works if you get a Perfect Leader, While thats more likley than finding the Perfect People you need of Communsim to succed its still pretty damn unlikley

How is this any different from the "benevolent dictator" scheme? The nature of a dictatorship is completely dependent upon the whims of one man. That is precisely what is wrong with it, and while some dictators are better or worse than others, the fact remains that it is a fundamentally unjust society. Fascism, in and of itself, is still wrong.

As for transitioning to democracy, all you need for a democracy is a reasonably aware populace, hence the importance of public education (which the Founding Fathers of the US understood, but which right-wingers today dismiss in favour of vouchers/private schools for elites and shit for everyone else).

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Well, part of my belief that fascism is not necessarily always bad comes from a friendship I have with a Spaniard. He's a member of Anzar's party; so center-right for Spanish politics. However, in the long discussions we've had on comparative politics, he does credit Francisco Franco with keeping Spain out of WWII, and helping to modernize the country during the NATO alliance years.

Spain was already where Hitler wanted it during the war, and was simpathetic to the axis cause. It's entry would not be beneficial to the axis, because it would have to be protected from the allies. Portugal was in the same situation, although we were nominal british allies, and could never have joined the axis. However, it has been several times said that a reason why the allies didn't want a portuguese participation in the war was that the spanish would promptly join Hitler.

Ultimately, fascist dictatorships are the more despicable form - Totalitarian as opposed to Authoritarian - But modern day Spain is a functional constitutional monarchy thanks to the actions of Francisco Franco's handpicked successor.

Franco didn't want a democracy. His successors actions are thus irrelevant concerning him. Also, portugal, in a similar situation, had a bloodless revolution which had the exact same effect a few years before (with the difference that we're a republic, and I'm quite content with it).

Also, while it is true that Spain (and Portugal) developed during the fascist regime, there's absolutely no reason (as the latest 30 years have proven) to believe that a bigger growth would not be achieve with an equal period of democracy.

People like Pinochet or Franco managed to create situations where democracy could flourish after their leaving power. Personally disgusting, their actions ultimately proved beneficial to their nations, and so their systems cannot be entirely discarded as unworkable - That is, for nations in certain stages of development.

I'm not that familiar with Pinochet history. Franco, on the other hand, never wanted a democracy and was put in his place by Hitler. The portuguese regime was overthrowned by the people alone, with no blood spilled, and gave way to a prosperous democracy, despite of it, not because of it.

AdmiralKanos wrote:How is this any different from the "benevolent dictator" scheme? The nature of a dictatorship is completely dependent upon the whims of one man. That is precisely what is wrong with it, and while some dictators are better or worse than others, the fact remains that it is a fundamentally unjust society. Fascism, in and of itself, is still wrong.

As for transitioning to democracy, all you need for a democracy is a reasonably aware populace, hence the importance of public education (which the Founding Fathers of the US understood, but which right-wingers today dismiss in favour of vouchers/private schools for elites and shit for everyone else).

My position is that a dictatorship has basically been positive if it has created a Civil Society where none previously existed - Civil Society being required for democracy to function - And effected an at least marginally painless transfer of power between the dictatorship in question, and a democratic State.

Both Francisco Franco, in choosing Juan Carlos as his heir, and Augusto Pinochet, in voluntarily stepping down, succeeded in fulfilling those requirements for their regimes. Such peaceful and successful changes are indeed rare, but because they have, the regimes cannot be wholly and entirely ruled as negative in their influence.

Colonel Olrik wrote:
I'm not that familiar with Pinochet history. Franco, on the other hand, never wanted a democracy and was put in his place by Hitler. The portuguese regime was overthrowned by the people alone, with no blood spilled, and gave way to a prosperous democracy, despite of it, not because of it.

It's the not the question of his wanting a democracy to replace him or not. I know full well he had a fantasy of Juan Carlos ruling as an autocrat after he died. It's the fact that he created the conditions for democracy to prosper after his death, which we know he did, since it did. Obviously had Franco not been there, we would have had someone else - Who might have been a tyrant - Or the Republicans would have won, and we would have had a Communist Spain (The Republican government was wholly a Soviet front by the time the Civil War was in full swing - The Soviets did a good job of making sure of that once the aide started flowing).

It's the same thing in the other cases. It's not so much the intent of the previous regime but rather their success in creating conditions where democracy could prosper after they were gone, and come into power with minimal violence and disorganization.

Certainly dictatorships are negative, and even dangerous to Civil Society. That's the paradox. Look at Saddam Hussein. He's nearly totally destroyed Civil Society inside of Iraq - But, conversely, the autocratic Kings and prior dictators of Iraq before him were the ones who built up Iraqi Civil Society for him to destroy.

So, dictatorship is certainly a hit-and-miss thing, but because there isn't much of another option for the creation of functional democracies in the third world, and because of its ability to "hit", one cannot rule it wholly negative. It can have positive traits. Not always, and depending on the ruler. But sometimes it does. One must merely, I am saying, have a balanced view when considering such a thing.

AdmiralKanos wrote:How is this any different from the "benevolent dictator" scheme? The nature of a dictatorship is completely dependent upon the whims of one man. That is precisely what is wrong with it, and while some dictators are better or worse than others, the fact remains that it is a fundamentally unjust society. Fascism, in and of itself, is still wrong.

As for transitioning to democracy, all you need for a democracy is a reasonably aware populace, hence the importance of public education (which the Founding Fathers of the US understood, but which right-wingers today dismiss in favour of vouchers/private schools for elites and shit for everyone else).

Huh, I doubt that a system of public education under a dictatorship is going to teach material encouraging movements toward democracy.

public schooling in this country is such crap. eugh. its also horrible that so many kids in this country place enormous emphasis on sports. have my damn class obsesses over sports such that they never stop talking about it. its like they think theyll all get into the NBA or something. amazing how so many people actually aspire to getting into the leagues instead of studying. idiots.

i think we need more hands on personalised education tho. ive heard it said that a student "should learn newtons laws by playing baseball". its true. we should learn things through experience and understanding, not through rote.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: One of the examples of a failed attempt at democratization in these regions was in South Vietnam; the assasination of a popular dictator by JFK was part of our reason for losing the Vietnam war, before it even started.

I thought Kennedy did not order Diem's assasination, just a coup. And I don't think Diem was popular either.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
It's the not the question of his wanting a democracy to replace him or not. I know full well he had a fantasy of Juan Carlos ruling as an autocrat after he died. It's the fact that he created the conditions for democracy to prosper after his death, which we know he did, since it did. Obviously had Franco not been there, we would have had someone else - Who might have been a tyrant - Or the Republicans would have won, and we would have had a Communist Spain (The Republican government was wholly a Soviet front by the time the Civil War was in full swing - The Soviets did a good job of making sure of that once the aide started flowing).

The civil war radicalized both sides positions. Any of the possible victorious regime woud be worse than if the war hadn't happened in the first place. Still, that's no excuse for Franco's attachement to power. He could have relinquished it voluntarily after a decade (like Pinochet) and gone into history as a victorious leader instead of a fossilized old man with his hands full of blood.

It's the same thing in the other cases. It's not so much the intent of the previous regime but rather their success in creating conditions where democracy could prosper after they were gone, and come into power with minimal violence and disorganization.

So, you're using the fact that those regimes do not work (they fall after a certain period of time) as a proof they're beneficial to democracy, despite being completely opposed to the idea of it.

It's not a very valid reasoning. Of course, a heavy hand is necessary in difficult times, and democracies have mechanisms to enforce it (England, throughout WW2). But, after the crisis has been solved, it's impossible to maintain a prosperous society and at the same time restrict basic civil rights.

What you're defending isn't more than a short period of heavy governemnt enforcement, during a difficult period,

So, dictatorship is certainly a hit-and-miss thing, but because there isn't much of another option for the creation of functional democracies in the third world, and because of its ability to "hit", one cannot rule it wholly negative. It can have positive traits. Not always, and depending on the ruler. But sometimes it does. One must merely, I am saying, have a balanced view when considering such a thing.

Spain and Portugal were fully prepared to be working democracies since the early fifties (or sooner, just to give an example). Stable societies, strong middle class, etc. Fascism just fossilized them for decades and provoked a delay from which we still suffer the consequences.

Pu-239 wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: One of the examples of a failed attempt at democratization in these regions was in South Vietnam; the assasination of a popular dictator by JFK was part of our reason for losing the Vietnam war, before it even started.

I thought Kennedy did not order Diem's assasination, just a coup. And I don't think Diem was popular either.

Coup-vis-assasination was the same thing in that case, as the new men coming to power had to secure their place by eliminating Diem and other people high up in the old regime. JFK was complicit in this and aware of plans for it.

Diem was actually quite popular in the south - You have to remember that South Vietnam was largely made up of a region called Cochin China in the west, which originally had been an independent country and adminstered seperately by the French - And he'd been a leader of the independence movement in the same way Ho Chi Minh had.

He was able, therefore, to make himself look independent of America, gaining support as a nationalist, even while pursuing a foreign policy that supported American interests. His successors had no genuine interest in democratization despite what they said, and lacked his legitimacy as a leader in the independence movement - And besides, had been pretty clearly installed by the USA.

If we'd left Diem in power and worked through him, accepting the non-democratic state of South Vietnam for the time being, he could have rallied Cochin nationalism and his own credentials as a leader of the cause of independence, and quite possibly held out with merely aide, and not the worthless commitment of combat troops. It was Kennedy that brought about the entire Vietnam War through his worthless demand of "democratization".

Colonel Olrik wrote:
The civil war radicalized both sides positions. Any of the possible victorious regime woud be worse than if the war hadn't happened in the first place. Still, that's no excuse for Franco's attachement to power. He could have relinquished it voluntarily after a decade (like Pinochet) and gone into history as a victorious leader instead of a fossilized old man with his hands full of blood.

But Franco rose to power only during the Civil War. He was hardly the initiator of it, but rather a production of it. Furthermore, if his regime started out as totalitarian, he would first have to have loosened its grip before relinquishing power. You're right, though, he held on too long - Franco does not compare nearly as well to Pinochet - But the ultimate result of the regime was positive.

So, you're using the fact that those regimes do not work (they fall after a certain period of time) as a proof they're beneficial to democracy, despite being completely opposed to the idea of it.

No - They're beneficial to democracy when they create conditions for democracy to work after they're gone. Democracy is not just institutions. In theory, after all, the USSR was democratic, and so are Iraq and Zimbabwe. I'm saying they're beneficial when they create a Civil Society and structure of Capitalism which can support the smooth functioning of democracy, where one either previously did not exist, or had been destroyed by a prior tyrant or civil chaos.

But, after the crisis has been solved, it's impossible to maintain a prosperous society and at the same time restrict basic civil rights.

I'd really have to disagree with that. Many societies have been generally prosperous without great freedom, though, granted, often lacking in dynamism. I think there is a certain point, however, when the prosperity therein naturally leads towards a demand for democracy. The question is if the result is a peaceful shift or the destruction of the elements that have created that demand. When a largely peaceful shift occurs the dictatorship has had a generally beneficial effect on the country.

Spain and Portugal were fully prepared to be working democracies since the early fifties (or sooner, just to give an example). Stable societies, strong middle class, etc. Fascism just fossilized them for decades and provoked a delay from which we still suffer the consequences.

I'd agree with the fifties as being a point when Spain and Portugal were ready for democracy again. The thing is - Without the dictatorships - Where would they have gone? We can posit a basically positive result, but we cannot be sure. Invasion and devastation during the Second World War, and an uncertain result to that conflict? Communism and alliance with the Soviet Bloc leading to a much worse result overall? Something else? The negatives of the eras that the two countries were guided through seem to outweigh any potential gradual positive developments.

Spain had already suffered through the Carlist Wars and the 19th century had been a time of massive bloodshed in the country. The 20th could have been even worse. The Civil War was disastrous but brought about stability and eventually a democratic organization that had previously eluded that country. Portugal, of course, suffered from the disturbances after the loss of the monarchy but ultimately followed the same course of success after shedding that rather oligarchic system of power-sharing.

Ultimately I think that the price paid - though heavy - was not steep enough to lament when the alternatives could have been impossibly higher.

When it comes to politics, I have a motto that goes: "The less hierarchy, the better." I'm not a total anarchist, on the other hand. But I believe that modern society could do well with less bureaucracy and fewer pecking orders.

Mr Bean wrote:Dicatorship or Facism only works if you get a Perfect Leader, While thats more likley than finding the Perfect People you need of Communsim to succed its still pretty damn unlikley

That is true. A selfless leader can call all the right shots and set his/her people up for success. There are darn few selfless leaders at that level of power.

I'd really have to disagree with that. Many societies have been generally prosperous without great freedom, though, granted, often lacking in dynamism. I think there is a certain point, however, when the prosperity therein naturally leads towards a demand for democracy. The question is if the result is a peaceful shift or the destruction of the elements that have created that demand. When a largely peaceful shift occurs the dictatorship has had a generally beneficial effect on the country.

This is what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as the "revolution of rising expectations." People don't revolt so much when they're dirt poor as much as they do when things are getting better (usually economically) for them and they naturally desire to move forward politically and ideologically as well.

The problem with your argument, Duchess, is that you are operating under the thoroughly immoral priniciple that the ends justify the means. Just because once and a while it turns out well in the end doesn't make the process any more just or good. It's funny, take the number of people that were tortured and killed thanks to scum like Franco, and then call it good in the end... using this principle you can actually use mathematics to assign an exact value for human life. Just take the number killed thanks to those fascists and divide by the number of dictatorships you deem good in the end, it will give you an exact baseline number how many people it's worth killing for the possiblity that it will all work out in the end.

Duchess, ever read about Trujillo and the Dominican Republic?

The USA's own "Son-of-a-bitch"?

The Americans actively supported his brutal regime for 31 years, even though Trujillo was an avid admirer of Franco.

Also, look at the state that the Dominican has been in for the past 42 years, when Trujillo was assasinated.

Several Revolutions, coup d'etat's, and atleast 2 invasions by the US Marine Corps.

Now claim that fascism always brings democracy when it falls.

Ted wrote: Now claim that fascism always brings democracy when it falls.

Gong! I never claimed that. Did you read my argument? No, of course you didn't - You're Teddy.

Gil Hamilton wrote:The problem with your argument, Duchess, is that you are operating under the thoroughly immoral priniciple that the ends justify the means. Just because once and a while it turns out well in the end doesn't make the process any more just or good. It's funny, take the number of people that were tortured and killed thanks to scum like Franco, and then call it good in the end... using this principle you can actually use mathematics to assign an exact value for human life. Just take the number killed thanks to those fascists and divide by the number of dictatorships you deem good in the end, it will give you an exact baseline number how many people it's worth killing for the possiblity that it will all work out in the end.

Why is that immoral? Why couldn't you have a legitimate and absolute morality based around the principle that the end always justifies the means? It certainly would be more legitimate, at least in my view, than an arbitrary morality system like that espoused by many religions. It also seems to fit largely with the way the world seems to work, IE, it is a liveable and functional morality because it is realist.

I'm not saying I have that sort of morality, but I'm arguing you can't call it "immoral" - It is a potentially legitimate moral philosophy. I also don't think you could assign a baseline number for people killed before a dictatorship becomes bad in such a situation, because it really depends on the positive result, and negative results may also be more complex than just slaughter - A fixed number like that would be impossible to calculate when you consider all the moral, perceptual, and other variables that influence it - a thing beyond the limits of even the extremities of Game Theory.

Henry Kissenger:

"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."


Then you have Mr Colin Powell's interview on BET (IIRC) the other night where he all but admitted that the US had sponsored Pinochets coup and regime. Heil - I mean HAIL the bastion of the free world.

weemadando wrote:Henry Kissenger:

"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."


Then you have Mr Colin Powell's interview on BET (IIRC) the other night where he all but admitted that the US had sponsored Pinochets coup and regime. Heil - I mean HAIL the bastion of the free world.

And this is relevant how? Of course we sponsored the regime, though - It was wartime, and they were an ally. That's what you do in wartime. As for the coup, we provided funding to opposition groups against the Allende regime, but the planning was purely in the realm of Pinochet and the other generals.

Hey, as long as it's taken this turn ... what about Marcos?

*tee hee*

*runs away*

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:It was wartime, and they were an ally. That's what you do in wartime.

IT WAS WARTIME?????????

WHO THE FUCK FORGOT TO TELL ME THAT WORLD WAR 3 BROKE OUT IN THE 80s?!?!


No congressional declaration of war, it ain't war.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
And this is relevant how? Of course we sponsored the regime, though - It was wartime, and they were an ally. That's what you do in wartime. As for the coup, we provided funding to opposition groups against the Allende regime, but the planning was purely in the realm of Pinochet and the other generals.

How the fuck were you at war. And don't start the "it was the cold war" thing. That wasn't a war. And even IF it was it could have been resolved PEACEFULLY in the 70s if it was not for American intervention.

I can understand sponsoring a coup, but sponsoring a regime that slaughtered any political opponents and dissidents and is widely regarded as one of the worst of the century? I'd choose my allies more carefully in future.

weemadando wrote: How the fuck were you at war. And don't start the "it was the cold war" thing. That wasn't a war. And even IF it was it could have been resolved PEACEFULLY in the 70s if it was not for American intervention.

I can understand sponsoring a coup, but sponsoring a regime that slaughtered any political opponents and dissidents and is widely regarded as one of the worst of the century? I'd choose my allies more carefully in future.

The Cold War fits Sun-Tzu's definition of War, and that's good enough for me. The Soviets had no intention of a peaceful resolution in the 70s; they broke every one of the agreements they signed during detente and would have kept pushing for more if Reagan hadn't showed up and pushed back against the inherent weaknesses of their system.