Despotism, as defined in 1946

[sephodwyrm]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=documentary
Somehow very fitting and still makes a load of sense.
This documentary tries to explain how despotism can come to power, and how you could predict such things.

Respect (10 for equal respects for all people, 1 for known and severe oppression of a group of people for their religious, political, income or ethnic group)

Power (10 for shared power, 1 for concentrated power in the hands of a few)

Economic Distribution (10 for fair taxation, defined in this documentary as that the poor do not have to pay a disproportionate amount of tax on necessary goods, services as well as tax, and 1 for uneven taxation that disfavors the poorer population)

Information (10 for active critical review, and 1 for automatic acceptance and respect for authority)

And finally, should the scores be around 10 or less, your nation or society has a good chance of becoming despotic.

[Manji]

Very interesting though it shows some discrepancies when it tries to combine the economical factors with the evolution towards a more despotic state; the Third Reich and it's citizens (those recognized as citizens, not the ethnic groups not accepted as citizens) actually had their living standards continuously increased and their economy was sound and, to the extent possible at that time, fair. I'm talking economics here, not anything related to posterior ideologies and such.

[sephodwyrm]

Your argument could only show that despotism is sometimes an effective government and does not necessarily contradict how it came to be.

Germany prior to the national socialist dictatorship had problems in economy and living standards and probably resulted in frustration and voting in of a government that people willingly gave up individual freedoms for, and so the argument is still pretty sound.

[Manji]

Your argument could only show that despotism is sometimes an effective government and does not necessarily contradict how it came to be.

Germany prior to the national socialist dictatorship had problems in economy and living standards and probably resulted in frustration and voting in of a government that people willingly gave up individual freedoms for, and so the argument is still pretty sound.

No, my argument is that negative economical factors are not necessarily a step in the direction of despotism. France is a good example, the republican revolution was triggered by part economical part social issues that led to the end of the despotic regime of the French monarchy. The same happened in the USA where economic/social pressures to the local population led to the replacement of a (in essence) despotic regime (the English Crown) by a (in essence) libertarian and more democratic regime (the US).

More, a lot of countries faced severe economic problems in the past and present and not all of them turn to despotic governments because, and that is and was my point, there has to be a series of "social triggers" for either the population to elect a despotic government or a coup to succeed.