MovieChat Forums > Politics > In defense of Dictatorship

In defense of Dictatorship

posted 2 days ago by curiousMInd101 (4565)
4 replies | jump to latest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcSil8NeQq8
This is a recent interview with Curtis Yarvin. If you want to understand what’s happening with Trump and his administration, I highly recommend listening to this talk. Many key figures around Trump — including J.D. Vance, Marc Andreessen, and Elon Musk — have been ideologically influenced by Yarvin’s philosophy of governance. At its core, Yarvin argues that the U.S. functions best as a dictatorship and that democracy is inherently weak and flawed.

To put this into context, many of you probably fear the idea of a dictatorship, but the U.S. has already had one — and it was the most popular and effective administration in American history: FDR’s. In practice, Roosevelt was a dictator. This isn’t meant as a criticism or a pejorative; it’s simply a fact. He dictated U.S. policy, strong-armed Congress into granting him near-total authority, and ran his administration no differently than Hitler or Stalin. The key difference? Unlike them, he made his country stronger — which is why he was elected four times and would have served 16 years had he not died in office.

[–] Lige (355) 2 days ago

Unlike them, FDR wasn't a moron.

[–] filmflaneur (3014) 2 days ago

An interesting argument and link, thanks. But I think it stretches things somewhat to accommodate a view. A dictatorship is defined as a government or a social situation where one person makes all the rules and decisions without input from anyone else. Are you saying that FDR ignored or accepted no input from Senate, Congress or SCOTUS over his term of office? Also, while one can always point to the benefits of a very strong government (something the German yeaned for when Hitler appeared as an alternative to the way things were up until then) one can also point to the deleterious effects dictatorships usually have on a people: witness North Korea today.

Roosevelt was a dictator,, he ran his administration no differently [my emphasis] than Hitler or Stalin.

Hmmm. I can think of quite a few differences: the treatment of opponents for instance, with show trials, assassinations etc, or the cruel punishment of whole swathes of the population common to Stalin or Hitler's regimes, for a start. Also, a dictator typically runs his dictatorship as if any chances of political change are unthinkable or to be prevented at all costs. FDR knew that, someday, he would have to relinquish control via the ballot box and accepted that. Finally, FDR was embroiled in a war, and so some special measures and strong central control was essential for things to proceed. It is important not to confuse the emergency requirements of a wartime economy with 'dictatorship'. I might also add that dictator Stalin's deep paranoia and his efforts to weed out disaffection and 'plotters' did the Soviet state a huge disservice before WW2 started, wiping out an entire officer class and severely weakening the armed forces, for instance.

[–] curiousMInd101 (4565) 2 days ago

I see your point, and I understand where you're coming from, but I still stand by my argument that FDR was effectively a dictator.

When he took office, the U.S. was in a deep depression, on the brink of collapse, with communism gaining traction. Socialists and trade unionists essentially told FDR, give us what we want, or we’ll side with the communists and start a revolution. In response, FDR warned the ruling class — either share some of your wealth, or they’ll take all of it and kill you. The Marxian economist Richard Wolff has pointed this out. Fearing total upheaval, the elites conceded, allowing FDR to govern as a near-monarch.

Yes, Congress and the courts initially resisted, but he crushed their opposition. He threatened to pack the Supreme Court with loyalists, forcing the judiciary to submit. He strong-armed Congress, making it clear that anyone who stood in his way would be politically obliterated, as he had the the socialists, the workers, and the ruling class on his side. With that, the entire government fell in line, granting him unprecedented power. His cabinet followed his orders without question, and his administration executed his vision.

I won’t even get into the war period, but suffice it to say, he consolidated even more authority. Just a few facts — he was the longest-serving president, elected four times. Like Hitler, he was elected, and like Hitler, he built concentration camps — the Japanese internment camps. Stalin admired him, and like Stalin, he ruled with an iron fist. But he was a good dictator, a strong leader who pulled America out of its worst economic crisis and transformed the country for the better. That's why most Americans — especially those on the left — view him as one of the, if not the, best presidents of all time. The only people who hate him are right wing libertarians, but they are retarded so they their opinion doesn't matter.

[–] curiousMInd101 (4565) 2 days ago

One more small fact — FDR was disabled due to polio and largely confined to a wheelchair, but his administration carefully managed his image. While the public knew he had polio, they were largely unaware of the full extent of his disability, as he took great care to appear as able-bodied in public.