Mr. Xi is a curious case. He seems to have said in an interview that equality was a terrible thing, and yet he supposedly calls himself a Communist. I'll have to ask him about it next time I see him.
Like every Chinese leader, with the exception of Sun Yat-Sen, Xi is an authoritarian. He may be an authoritarian socialist, but he still believes in a small group of people telling the large majority what to do.
can you still elaborate? they contend to be communists, which would mean they'd espouse something like a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (less personal).
I mean it's a contradiction in terms. No doubt there have been dictators who thought they were benevolent because they didn't know any better, were victims of circumstance, and so forth, but surely the first task of a benevolent dictator would be to resign the dictator part.
When King Wangchuck of Druk Yul[Bhutan] abdicated the throne and started a democracy the people protested. One said, "they [the legislators] will only look out for themselves."
Heroic myths such as Smith's capitalism often employ the fallacy of the false alternative to produce (and reproduce) themselves. There is no philosophical warrant to respect that process nor any part of it.
Objectively, what you're saying makes no sense. "We must have this dictator, or that" is apparently a choice made collectively by the people; yet nobody wants to be a slave, which is what dictatorship is, and in reason no one should want to be. Why would they? Maybe these communities are under foreign duress, like Syria, Iraq, and Iran, who, as nations and communities, have been under attack for generations, mostly from European and American powers. Being invited to enslave yourself by armed thugs is not really a choice.
So you're saying people want, but don't want what they want? I'm not talking about people deciding they would rather eat than starve. I was trying to rule out force, fraud, bamboozlement, confusion, social pressure, and so on, which can certainly confuse or destroy people's will. What you seem to be specifying is a will to be without will, to be ruled. Well, maybe.
But I was wondering how those Cubans managed to imagine their revolution. Who authorized them?
Somewhere over the rainbow....
When Judy Garland's voice leaps up an octave into the Empyrean and says, "My pure will, my pure desire,l is more beautiful than anything on Earth," who sent for the cops of physics?
"Benevolent dictator" is pretty much an oxymoron.
Yes the words do not belong together, but Xi comes close.
Mr. Xi is a curious case. He seems to have said in an interview that equality was a terrible thing, and yet he supposedly calls himself a Communist. I'll have to ask him about it next time I see him.
Like every Chinese leader, with the exception of Sun Yat-Sen, Xi is an authoritarian. He may be an authoritarian socialist, but he still believes in a small group of people telling the large majority what to do.
Confucian?
why do you think xi is (or comes close to) a dictator?
He heads a one party authoritarian government and maybe is president for life. Close.
can you still elaborate? they contend to be communists, which would mean they'd espouse something like a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (less personal).
And why is it necessarily negative? Why does "dictator" carry a negative connotation?
Well, how would like being dictated to? If I may refer to a famous proverb of Mr. Lincoln's cast in slightly different terms.
Ah, and that is how I started this thread with the comment about benevolent dictators.
I mean it's a contradiction in terms. No doubt there have been dictators who thought they were benevolent because they didn't know any better, were victims of circumstance, and so forth, but surely the first task of a benevolent dictator would be to resign the dictator part.
When King Wangchuck of Druk Yul[Bhutan] abdicated the throne and started a democracy the people protested. One said, "they [the legislators] will only look out for themselves."
I could go on...
Heroic myths such as Smith's capitalism often employ the fallacy of the false alternative to produce (and reproduce) themselves. There is no philosophical warrant to respect that process nor any part of it.
Objectively, what you're saying makes no sense. "We must have this dictator, or that" is apparently a choice made collectively by the people; yet nobody wants to be a slave, which is what dictatorship is, and in reason no one should want to be. Why would they? Maybe these communities are under foreign duress, like Syria, Iraq, and Iran, who, as nations and communities, have been under attack for generations, mostly from European and American powers. Being invited to enslave yourself by armed thugs is not really a choice.
So you're saying people want, but don't want what they want? I'm not talking about people deciding they would rather eat than starve. I was trying to rule out force, fraud, bamboozlement, confusion, social pressure, and so on, which can certainly confuse or destroy people's will. What you seem to be specifying is a will to be without will, to be ruled. Well, maybe.
But I was wondering how those Cubans managed to imagine their revolution. Who authorized them?
Somewhere over the rainbow....
When Judy Garland's voice leaps up an octave into the Empyrean and says, "My pure will, my pure desire,l is more beautiful than anything on Earth," who sent for the cops of physics?
I don't think you know much about Syria.