Why is dictatorship bad?

Why is dictatorship bad?

Human progression, little to no crime rate, welfare for its citizens, economy is controlled, etc...Why would anyone be against dictatorship?

Is it because Jews want their share in power?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Ovazza.
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because muh social justice from racism and equality and stuff. Also (((They))) told me it's bad for some reason

The populous want to feel like they have power even when its just an illusion

Is this picture supposed to be mocking the nazis? Everyone on there looks inbred or mentally retarded.

>Why is dictatorship bad?
because you have no recourse other than violent uprising when your leader does things you don't like? Power corrupts, and without any elections to face the dictator is free to be as corrupt as he wants so long as it doesn't spark an uprising. Additionally just because you're a conservative doesn't automatically mean your dictator will be.

Lets look at a modern example, pope Francis. He rules the vatican as an absolute monarch. He was so moved by the plight of Syrian and African refugees that he decreed that all residences in the vatican needed to house at least one family of refugees. How would you have felt if you woke up one morning and there was a letter from your king demanding you take in a family of refugees?

Now if only this painting was true

Because if the dictator does something that the majority disagree with, they hope that the next person they elect will do the opposite of that.
Amazingly enough, that never fucking happens because Democracy leads to any old shmuck being elected.

Also I believe it's human nature that prevents dictatorships from working. If the dictator is benevolent then people will be happy since all of the governments money goes to their benefit, but assets (Generals, Advisors, Secretaries, basically any big government positions besides the 'Grand Leader') will be butthurt faggots because they aren't being paid big chunks and end up killing the dictator after decades of leadership. If the dictator is a corrupt cockhead (Like many in Africa) then he will horde the money to himself and his assets.

Basically, human nature prevents a good dictator from coming in.

and even if you do get extremely lucky and get that one in a million benevolent autocrat what do you do when he dies and his son or whoever comes after him is inevitably a fuckup? Like this asshole.

>Is it because Jews want their share in power?
You got it. The Jews were favoring dictatorial rule after the bolshevik takeover, but then Stalin purged them and they became eternally butthurt and they're now way more comfortable influencing politics by being a bunch of oligarchs influencing (((democratic))) politics with their money.

What happens when you and the dictator disagree on policy? When their policy would, in your opinion, destroy the country?

What do pro-dictatorship sorts do in a dictatorship of the kind pro-dictatorship sorts want?

What's with all the fascism/dictator threads today?

Has the Trump-Putin Shill Skwad realized something big's going to be revealed about their Messiah soon?

That is where Nationalism comes into play. Hitler would have never forced you to house a family of gypsies or something ridiculous like that because he put the well-being of his own people first. Having the right leader is key.

no, he'd just start an unwinable war that gets a whole generation of men killed and a whole generation of women raising slav rape babies.

Such a great leader to the german people.

The only reason they lost was because Churchcuck wanted to continue fighting and got the US involved.

Prevent his son from becoming leader. As a matter of fact he would probably be overthrown by some angry General or Right-Hand Man. Sadly even if the dictator is some messiah when he dies nobody will meet his standards.

>HAHA DRUMPF BTFO!

Yes, having the right leader is key. But so many people think they are "the right leader".


To have a perfect leader you would have to (in my opinion) raise them from birth to be good at humanities, politics, economics, strategy, etc. Then again that is indoctrination and shits on free-thinking+ free will. People on the left believe what they believe in because "It's the correct way!" and people on the right believe what they believe because "It's the correct way!" So while you indoctrinate your child to become a Right-Wing dictator, the left-wingers will think you're some crazy psycho neo-nazi white supremacist because you didn't indoctrinate them into believing in left-wing ideas.

>will be butthurt faggots because they aren't being paid big chunks and end up killing the dictator after decades of leadership.
That didn't usually happen though, user.
Because the legitimate authority of the government is vested in that individual and his successors only.
A coup by lords/officials would result in a devolution of power at best and civil war at worst.

What does any of that have to do with what I said?

Hitler declared war on the allies without a way to beat Britain. Hitler declared war on America with no plan. Hitler's leadership led Germany to destruction and yet you still think he was great.

do you even history faggot? After Hitler humiliated the Britcucks in France and forced them back to their island he offered them the chance to surrender multiple times. The US only came into the war because Britain wanted to continue fighting even though the rest of their empire in Canada, India, and Africa didn't really give a shit.

>declare war on someone with no way to defeat them
>WTF WHY ARE YOU NOT ACCEPTING MY PEACE OFFER
What are you even trying to say? Hitler started ww2, ww2 was unwinable for Germany. Hitler was not a good leader.

>Human progression, little to no crime rate, welfare for its citizens, economy is controlled
Are you describing modern representative democracy, but it has all these things to a greater degree than the average dictatorship (besides maybe the last, which is hardly an inherent good)

Gee if only there was some way we can choose our great leader ... Oh wait

>Hitler started the war

This is what the goyim believe.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The best systems have checks and balances in place to keep the faction in power from drowning in excess. It gives stability to the system.

Even in its greatest expressions under truly great men, dictatorships fall to chaos or collapse in their absence. It happened to Alexander and Napoleon.

Autocracy is unstable under great men and a tool of oppression under lesser men.

>Also (((They))) told me it's bad for some reason
>the Enlightenment was Jewish

Why is [form of government that I like] bad?

Human progression, little to no crime rate, welfare for its citizens, economy is controlled, etc...Why would anyone be against [form of government that I like]?

Is it because [people that I don't like] want their share in power?

>Why is dictatorship bad?
>Human progression, little to no crime rate, welfare for its citizens, economy is controlled, etc...Why would anyone be against dictatorship?
Name one successful dictatorship

>turtling is cheating
>perfidious Albion cheeser dogs

Sounds like hitler needs to git gud.

That's really quite easy, but I get the impression you're going to argue that none of them worked because they eventually collapsed, like every other political system in history thus far.

Because holocaust.
Dictatorships, however great as a system of government allow abuse of power. Not to mention that, like monarchy, one bad dictator will ruin everything.

Rothschild screwed Napoleon over

>Human progression, little to no crime rate, welfare for its citizens, economy is controlled, etc...Why would anyone be against dictatorship?


That's an awful lot of assumptions. Do you have any shred of evidence to back up this grand, sweeping statement you have here?


What the hell does "human progression" mean exactly?

Technological advances

>((They)) told me
This implies the entire world isnt under a jew dictatorship in disguise..

Jews in Europe and America are the reason the two world wars happened. Hitler had no intention of fighting his fellow European brothers but had no choice if he was to free them from jew shackles THAT ARE STILL ON THEM RIGHT NOW.

>Veeky Forums was a good idea they said
>it wouldn't turn into /pol/ with dates they said

>boy I sure wish some strongman would come in and do all the things I want done with no political repercussions
>WOW HE DIDN'T DO WHAT I WANTED HIM TO DO

>FUCKING KIKES

>invade
>invade
>invade
>told to stop
>wow fucking anglos I knew you'd try and start shit!

>because you have no recourse
Stop this meme
The enlightenment was free mason

No, he'd just get you fired from your job and beaten half to death by a band of SA thugs because you'd previously expressed support for another political party, and maybe throw you in a camp where you were tortured every day if you'd expressed enough dissent during his rise.

all around the world so easy to see
people everywhere just want to be free

Holy shit when will these faggot wehraboos learn. Just shut the fuck up and never come back you edgy little 15 year old

>Human progression, little to no crime rate, welfare for its citizens, economy is controlled

If you listen to that particular dictatorship's propaganda, then yes.

Fascist Italy under Moosoleeny was a crime-ridden shithole. Especially in the end.

That's why he was strung to a pole on the first occasion,

>Why is dictatorship bad?

Some whiny bitch always thinks he knows better, pretty much.

because power without control corrupts
ofcourse you dont mind it since you are a neet retard from pol
but youd be up in arms if they take your free shekels then proceed not to give you a job, because you need connections

You just described modern democracies...

This. Mussolini had to literally add sound clips of clapping and cheering to videos of his fucking rallies.
Sad truth is that Italy was a shithole post Risorgimento and it's was equally shit under fascism, just with a veneer of paint over if.
Only mildly successful cases were barely fascists like Salazar and Franco, but even those regimes were only 'better than marxist' tier.

Fascism is bullshit.

>Is it because Jews want their share in power?
Italians jews were very supportive of fascist italy and well represented in the fascist party rught until 1937, when Mussolini went full retard and aligned himself with the racialist nazi germany.
Yjere were so well integrated in italian society than In WWI, there was 50 jewish generals in Italy and in 1906 and 1910 two jewish were elected as head of the governement. 230 jews participated in the March on Rome in 1922. Mussolini racial laws of 1937 were literally a treason against italians jews, check this guy's life : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Ovazza.
So, you know, they already had they "share in power" and antisemitism is retarded.

Since when do dictatorships do technology better?

Theoretically you want power dispersed as evenly as possible so that it can't concentrate anywhere and lead to disaster, because if it does concentrate and something goes wrong it affects the entire system instead of just that point on the network. It's as if you were to send a group of people on a activity, if you only tell one person in the group what the goal is and that person gets separated the whole group is helpless.

Can't. He's already been perma-banned from the game for poor sportsmanship.

>Fascist Italy under Moosoleeny was a crime-ridden shithole.
Wrong. Mussolini imprisoned the mafia. They were scared of him.

I think democracy can be equally as bad or worst than an autocracy in theory and in very edge cases in practice.

But dictatorships lack checks and balances that prevent an over accumulation of power.

This is bad because

1) Inevitably it means the dictator and his inner circle begin enriching themselves and their own friends at the expense of everyone else

2) You accumulate power towards the loyal and not the capable, look at military states like Egypt, Pakistan, Thailand, Venezula or Myamar as soft and hard cases of strong man dictators fucking things up.

At the end of the day, everyone is worst off than before.

I think ultimately you think you'll end up as some kind of high level general or one of the dictator's advisors or at least part of the aristocracy. The reality is, you'll enjoy a poor existence where civil society is little more than a joke.

>Human progression, little to no crime rate, welfare for its citizens

Except liberal democracies are consistently better at all of those?

> economy is controlled, etc

Planned economies have a rather bad track record.

Singapore is the best dictatorship ahah

Singapore is one of those rare cases where the leader was utterly incorruptible and made a stellar civil society (minus free press or democratic opposition).

Its also an important city state with a long history of peaceful coexistance of its inhabitants despite the different races.

>Why is dictatorship bad?

People who ask questions like this are always imagining themselves as the dictator.

Small and socially cohesive nations tend to be compatible with more extreme governments such as dictatorships or pure communes.

Singapore is extremely diverse.

Reddit invasion.

Whether a country is ethnically diverse or not is not really a factor. The real factor is whether the society is cohesive or not.

It's just that multi-racial societies TEND to be split and divided; Singapore is a rare exception considering multiple other factors that makes Singaporean society cohesive and united.

Also, about 75% of Singapore is Chinese, so it's not "extremely" diverse in my opinion. The Malay and Tamil population just happen to get along. Mostly because they are generally around the area. In America, Whites, Asians and Africans are competing for power in a foreign land, thus low social cohesion.

...

...

Yeah look at liberal murica with their crime rates lmao

>liberal 'murica

Except isn't "Liberal".

I concur

Its a reddit invasion. Sage and move on.

Absolutely subversive.

>implying that shouldn't happen to commies

Have you ever lived in one? Did you like it?

>take back Prussia (rightful german clay)
>Oy vey!

>take Czech regions back to stop genocide of germans
>Oy vey!

>take Eastern France, Austria, and Tyrol back
>Oy vey!

>make agreements
>break them
>'how is this MY fault??'

Because ((they)) can't suck money off the state.

Please keep the conspiracy theories on /pol/ and /x/.

>take back Prussia (rightful german clay)
nice meme
>take Czech regions back to stop genocide of germans
Check again, there were German terrorists murdering and kidnapping civilians. I think you have mistaken Czech borderlands for the memecide of Bydgoszcz.
>take Eastern France, Austria, and Tyrol back
nice meme

In the most immediate sense: maybe your dictator now is good at his job ... but what about the next guy?

People here bring up jews more than fucking /pol/

>Why is dictatorship bad?

It's based on resentment.

it's not
hobbes was right

Enlightened Absolutism / Benevolent Dictatorship are the political systems that would best progress society as a whole. A ruler unbound by bureaucracy and stonewalling can accomplish more than anything else.