Is a benevolent dictatorship possible? If yes, then what would look like?

Is a benevolent dictatorship possible? If yes, then what would look like?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/jmE6i4SCMLE?t=5m2s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Define benevolent dictatorship
You mean a dictatorship where the leader cares about his people? We already had some, don't you think?

Based greek

Naturally. Take Catherine the Great, for instance. However, not for long time. If guided by the Humanist ideas of the Enlightenment at first, she quickly realized that you can't reign over people without hurting them in one way or another. If not by making mistakes (as all tyrants are human), then by taking aggressive measures to maintain your power.

Adolf Hitler

...

>You mean a dictatorship where the leader cares about his people?
In its most simple definition, yes.
We already had some, don't you think?
Honestly I don't know, hence why I ask. My view of what would be one might wildly differ from another person's and thus I want to know others' versions.
>also Sup Forums is severely lacking in more philosophical threads since space elevator left, so I thought I might try to make one

I actually thought of him when I made this thread

Well, I honestly think that, towards the end of the war, he believed that the German people hadn't served him well. That's why he refused to surrender and let Berlin be plundered.

No

>Implying dictators don't consider themselves benevolent
What's your definition of benevolent op? because it varies between people

LKY or Tito come to mind. Except latter wasn't as successful as commies like to point out.

>what would look like?
Pic related.

Gadaffi was a rapist pedophile who statched girls from schools to rape

He deserved to die

Yeah, it’s called cuba

Read up on Thomas Sankara

>proofs required

Well hitler definitely cared about his people, so did mussolini, so did Franco, so did Metaxas, they were benevolent in that sense, they can be considered benevolent tyrants
Then you have dictators like pol pot and Stalin, who murdered millions for more power and wealth, that is a corrupted tyranny, power for the sake of power
Remember that tyranny isn't always bad, many tyrants in ancient Greece have done great things, ancient Greek tyrants often made great works to be remembered and loved by their kind.

To me benevolent would mean to do what is necessary for the general welfare of the public for the foreseeable future regardless of how it affects the dictator..
If I become supreme ruler and use my power to remove a cancerous elite at the expense of the current economy, but in doing so create a freer more mobile economy a generation later am I not benevolent even though abusive?

Sure is possible, happened lots of times in history.

The problem is dealing with the guy who comes after who has the same rights and powers.

Why did you used him as pic related?

That is why the leader should pass it on someone he picked himself, that way a wise leader can pick another wise leader
Nepotism in the ideal benevolent tyranny should be outlawed however, "he's my son!" carries the risk that the son is a materialist fool who only seeks personal gain. Even Marcus Aurelius, as wise as he was, gave power to his son, who ended up putting the empire in a downward spiral

He was on the wikipedia page

the most objective example of a benevolant dictator is Lee Kuan Yew desu, but you could argue that Deng Xiaoping, Enver Hoxha and Tito count too

Ataturk comes to mind.

He wasn't a dictator at all, he even leave the power when he lost a referendum.

Even left*

Wouldn't a dictator that left power because the people wanted him to be a benevolent dictator though?

Yes. Like this.
I will never understand why so many brainlets here jerk off to warmongering failures like Hitler while ignoring the man who actually made his system work in a contained and efficient way.
He turned Portugal from an indebted shithole into a country with above average living standards in a span of few years. He distanced himself from Hitler's incoherent racial theories and focused on economic nationalism, not military nationalism. And instead of neopagan occult wewuzery he kept the country Christian, because he understood how much Christian values are worth when it comes to upbringing of young citizens.
Can't get more based than Antonio Salazar.

>Franco

Enver Hoxha made a lot of improvements, but Albania under his rule was one of the most repressive countries in Europe. He didn't commit mass murder in the way Stalin or Rakosi did, but the country was poorer than most in the region, and entering and leaving were very difficult.

Salazarism will rise again

Possible examples would be Josip Broz Tito, Albert Rene, Lee Kuan Yew, Muammar Gaddafi, Paul Kagame, or Antonio de Oliveira Salazar.

You can add Miklós Horthy and Józef Piłsudski to this list.

Only thing Hoxha did right is crack down on religion, especially Islam. Shut down all the mosques, cut off all the beards. No other state went as hardcore on Abrahamic religion as he did. This is why modern Albania has Christians and Muslims living side by side peacefully and why there's no Islamism and terror attacks there. Former Yugoslavia wasn't as strict, that's why modern Kosovars and Macedonian Albanians are more radical.

Everything else was North Korea tier. You could get a jail sentence in a gulag for wearing white pants in public because it's too Western.

This

Although Portugal was always a stable society and wealthy. Its just that shitty republics waste it all away like our current 3rd one.

I truly believe we still have men capable of achieving Salazar's vision one day again.

Park Chung-hee of South Korea. This man single handedly saved the fucking country, starting the Miracle on the Han River in which the country went from Somali levels of poverty and illiteracy and crime etc. and became a worst world nation in a single generation, all through a military dictatorship that overthrew the republic.

He is literally one of the greatest men to have ever lived.

Pretty sure there were lots of nice kings in history.

I didn't even know a third of these examples, wow.
Why would you say that Gaddafi is benevolent? Yes he stopped the shitskins from going on a refugee wave, but any dictator can do that.

first not worst fuck me, need more coffee, here's more data. They didn't even have 24 hour fucking electricity when he took power.

Of course it is, there were hundreds of kings like that and they outnumbered the tyrants.

The true great men of history have this tendency to go unnoticed by the mouth breathing masses because they dont inflate their huge egos.

The Pericleses of our time.

I don't think that he was really a dictator.

Despite the memes, Germany still followed the constitution during his rule. That's why generals(except from the SS) were not allowed to become members of the NatSoc party

South Korea itself is a massive red pill on capitalism vs socialism/communism. Same people, same culture, same religion, same race, give the northern commie side a head start with industry and significantly more wealth and leave the south capitalist side to die. Then the south doesn't just survive but thrive and the north because a dystopian nightmare.

There's a reason most Americans don't know about Korea, they don't teach it out of fear of the truth.

Sulla did a pretty good job.

The king's job is to mediate between his people and the gods. He is to be chosen by the warrior class and be held accountable by them

>communism is why you can't farm in the mountains
I hate commie bastards but you're a fucking sperg

>bully a country to death
>look how miserable it is
Why do expect such a two-bit trickery to be plausible? Vietnam did reject a fine way of capitalism and you were on all the horses to right the wrong.

Me+ a bunch of robots to ensure no corruption below me and my will enforced. Thats about the only way you'll ever get it. As a kicker my enforcers can be robot hotties.

A minimally benevolent dictatorship is possible in the form of a non-interventionist government. A dictator can rule the military, and this is how our military works. If the government is only concerned with maintaining the military, they can be benevolent. A defensive military as their only job lends itself to a citizen serving, benevolent culture.

The problem is that eventually competition comes up. Even if everything is great, people are free and rich, someone will promise the citizens more, just so long as they are handed power. The dictatorship can either bend to these unreasonable demands, taxing people to make it happen, or risk being usurped in. bloody coup.

Other than that, dictatorships work great on a small, voluntary scale. The branch Davidians were so financially efficient that the government assumed they had massive illegal income, when in reality it is a lot easier to do more with less when you centralize leadership and don't waste cash.

>what would it look like?

It looks like this

-Singapore under Lee kuan yew
-malaysia under mahathir
-yugoslavia under tito
-Germany under hitler
-Italy under mussolini
-Turkey under ataturk
-Getúlio Vargas in Brazil
-Joszef Pilsudski in Poland
-Thomas Sankara,sierra leon leader

Yes

>post war both South and North decide to change their farming system.
>North declares all land and property belong to the state.
>South decides to go full capitalist.
>purchases the farmland from the land owners
>sells them to their citizens
>citizens take out loans with the government to buy farms
>pay off loans with the profits from each harvest
>in a few years they all own their farms
>can decide to expand, their their land, etc. but they own it
>North struggles to feed itself
>South has productivity skyrocket
The north was nowhere near as "bullied" as the south was. They couldn't even feed themselves post Korean war and yet the north could.

Also don't assume that I am defending the actions of my government.

would be fine so long as its run by the best person. and that's me. so the hard part is assimilating / neutralising rival dictators.

hopefully not have to ruin their life in the process of doing that.

In other words the Sins of dictatorship is that you can put the sins of the entire people on one man.

The right to violate the rights of the people are the people themselves.

It IS possible, and I think that it's the most efficient way of running a country. No time and money wasted on bureaucracy and shit gets done fast.
The problem starts when the "benevolent dictator" dies and someone has to replace him. Who gets to choose his replacement? The party? Then it's likely that the party interests will get in the way of improving the people's conditions. Or they will get someone they can manipulate instead of someone competent.
Another member of his family will rule the country? What if the new guy is an incompetent? And there's also the problem of sometimes needing excessive use of violence to keep the country going. No matter how you look at it, if you need to beat everyone down so they respect you, you're a shitty ruler. Kings in the past didn't need to massacre their people to be respected.
I won't pretend that I know how to solve this, Brazil had both dicatorships and "democracies" relatively recently and none of them work if the country is a shithole made up of shitty people.

youtu.be/jmE6i4SCMLE?t=5m2s
5:02

>rapist pedophile who statched girls from schools to rape
Sounds like a brittish lord tbqh

>Is a benevolent dictatorship possible?
Yes.
>If yes, then what would look like?
pic related.

the party can is coming for you, fritz

>yes
Such a benevolent dictatorship that he splattered his brains in his office

Badass Augusto did it. At the beggining he was a little tough but then it became a dictablanda. Ataturk in Turkey too.

Based