Autocratic, Totalitarian, Dictatorship ?

Question

They all need People to control over to have true power right?... If there was no one to rule over or command would they still be a threat to freedom? Wouldn't it make sense if the authoritarian united the people, instead of supressing them that it would be a beneficial to him and his power ?

I AM NOT ENDORSING ANY OF THESE STYLE OF GOVERNMENTS. Its only a question.

Answer 1

I can see where your line of thinking is going, but, there's one important thing you are forgetting.....autocrats, totalitarians and dictators all have the mindset that makes it impossible for them to unite anything....domineering, imperious, arrogant, they must control every aspect of the daily lives of those around them. They are suspicious, feel superior, convinced of their own superiority, and sadly, paranoid, psychopathically cruel, incapable of taking personal responsibility. These people (autocrats, etc) generally are well respected peope, hard working, over-achievers whose idealistic goals often inspire great devotion, in the beginning.
Yet, if there could be a sane, responsible, caring "autocrat", then yes, it would benefit not only the person themself, but the society which they rule.

Answer 2

To be a dictator is to have strict authoritarian control of a
society. Authoritarian control implies suppression. Individuals
have to choose to be suppressed; suppression is voluntary.
Why is it that a society of individuals would willing accept
suppression. Dictatorship plays on society's desires.
The successful dictatorship must convince the society
that it is in the society's best interest to submit to
dictatorship. Therefore, the dictator will strive to convince
the citizens of the society that the citizens are not
content with their lives. Suppessed society's are like
crates of high explosives building up pressure. How
does the dictatorship control the explosive. By directing
the explosive at other societies. The dictatorship
vents the volatile tension of its society while simultaneously
engaging opposition to the dictatorship. The dictator
literally points to free society and states that those
societies are the cause for turmoil within the dictatorship.

To unite people would be to invite discussion regarding
policy. In order for the dictator to maintain control in
such a setting the dictator's policy would have to be
more efficient than the holistic policy created by the
united individuals of the society. In my opinion, if
a dictator was so intelligent as to convince a society
that the dictator's policy is better, then the individual who
was a dictator would clearly see the folly of attempting
to establish a dictatorship. For a single individual to
think that it is possible to govern a society without
representative delegation is ludicrous because the
one individual would have to believe that their single
policy could compensate for the mindlessness inherently
attached to the citizens of the dictatorship society.

Answer 3

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This is one of the great truisms of politics. No matter how altruistic a person may be when they enter politics, it is only a matter of time before they start to believe that they and only they have all the answers. Centralized power will always suffer from a lack of accountability that inevitably leads to mistakes, gross incompetence, corruption, and malevolence.

Authoritarians can indeed "unite" people, but as we have seen with the breakup of the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslav republics, this "unity" is only an illusion. Under the surface, resentment grows over time as the various factions believe they are being discriminated against by those in power. People can never be united by force; you can't force one person to like another. If anything, the most harmonious societies tend to be the freest ones. Peace, good education and free commerce are all great factors for promoting a harmonious society.

Answer 4

The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative. You are asking could there be such a thing as a benevolent dictator and would not beneficence for the people be beneficial for that dictators future. One would think so, but good thoughts and competent thoughts are not by necessity the same, or rather on reflection ARE by necessity the same thing but in reality are not. Competence does not always fulfill the promise for good social intention because competence needs work and experience but good will, the Will being positive in its self, needs no work to be what it is..

Answer 5

They have indeed been rare, but there are dictators who have been beneficial, seen primarily as spokesmen of their people. most are autocratic totalitarians. My peronal taste runs more to responsible anarchy, or barring that participatory democracy ((NOT REPUBLICANISM). I don't trust anybody to govern me by a party philosophy. deTocqueville wrote eloquently of the tyranny of the majority. I liked being governed by the Queen much better than Ronnie Reagan or either George Bush. The Queen (I speak of Elizabeth) listens, is intelligent, and has a sense of humour.

Answer 6

I will answer this question with a historic example. While the english colonies were disunited, they could be individually supressed without complaint or resistance. As they began to see eachother as brothers rather than neighbors, they began to challenge English rule, and toppled the distant authority overthem.

Never has a government been overthrown by a disunited people.

Answer 7

Dictatorship

Answer 8

Two quotes that I think answers the question.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"

This has been normally the case with a few exceptions.

Answer 9

Seems the only way to run a war - but once in the field it's individual initiative that can save the day.

Answer 10

Power is an illusion. I always have the ability to capitulate to you, or reject what you would have me do. Power is merely the fear of others. The more fearful a population, the more "powerful" the leader.