RoR: Forum

Post 0

Saturday, June 9, 2012 - 12:57pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Though admittedly not in possession of all of the relevant facts of the matter (i.e., I've only looked into it for about an hour or so, and only on the internet!), I hazard to nominate King Mausolus as the earliest socialist dictator on planet earth.

While watching an A&E DVD entitled: "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" I could not help perking up straight in my seat in response to hearing the following commentary by one Leonard Nimoy (with regard to King Mausolus):

He envisioned ruling a utopian, multi-cultural society, without crime or poverty, where he would be worshipped as a god.

Narration continues and it is communicated that not only did Mausolus tax the bloody hell out of his people (for his grand public projects), but he went around in neighboring lands to kidnap other people and bring them inside the walls of his "kingdom." Rumor has it that he even taxed you if you had long hair (any longer than shoulder length). Karl Marx (and Stalin, Hitler, and Mao) would be proud of this man. Now, Mausolus is most known for his grand burial temple, the Mausoleum (astute readers will note that we now refer to all grand burial temples as "mausoleums") -- but what if he is the first progressive dictator?

Several days ago (perhaps several weeks ago), Glenn Beck asked on the radio for people to uncover who it was that was the first (earliest) truly progressive dictator. If Leonard Nimoy's narration can be considered to be valid (after all, he's "Spock" for chrissakes!), then I appear to have found the answer. Someone contact Glenn Beck for me.

:-)

Anyway, there doesn't seem to be much data floating around in cyberspace on King Mausolus, probably because he only spent about 24 years ruling and left no dynasty besides his wife/sister, Artemisia (who ingeniously conquered Rhodes with a pre-modern "bait-n-switch" tactic). My guess is that she killed her brother/husband Mausolus in order to trick the Rhodes army to attack -- only to capture their ships and sail back to Rhodes in their own ships (as if inside a Trojan Horse). Anyway, I'm getting off of the subject. What are the other possible nominations for "earliest socialist dictator"?

You can't just find some early ruler (e.g., Egyptian pharaoh, Chinese emperor, or Sumerian king) who was cruel, because pretty much all of them were. And even though cruelty goes with socialism/communism (ask people who tried to flee Soviet Russia) it's not the telltale or cardinal feature of socialism. The cardinal feature is a utopian, multi-cultural society without poverty or crime, held together (at least temporarily) by someone at the top -- someone who is expected, at some future date, to relinquish the nearly-unlimited power he has been given by the socialist society. It is one-party rule for the stated purpose of achieving a societal utopia.

I've come to the tentative conclusion (yeah, I know, that's an oxymoron!), I've come to some kind of a "conclusion" that it was King Mausolus.

The first socialist dictator of planet earth.

:-)

Ed

Related Links
Egyptian Kings (Pharaohs), Governors and other Rulers
Mausolus [Encyclopaedia Britannica]
Mausolus [Wiki-entry]
Sumerian King List [Wiki-entry]
The Seven Wonders of the World
Timeline for China to 1700
Timeline of Chinese history [Wiki-entry]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/09, 1:03pm)

Post 1

Saturday, June 9, 2012 - 4:08pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Ed, I'm not sure that multi-culturalism is a required part of socialism.

Here is my understanding of socialism at this point in time:

The government undertakes to be a provider of public goods that go far beyond military/police/courts/laws.
Economic planning of some significant degree is centralized under the government rather than free markets.

Those two are the core. The rest follows from them or are used to achieve them.

It goes beyond minimal welfare statism - which early Roman Emperors, Bismark and the Obama administration provide to 'buy' supporters.
A significant portion of the means of production are either controlled or outright owned by the state. This is just the mechanism for central control.
The psychology of socialism usually involves the following elements: Promises to eliminate risk in exchange for security and at the expense of liberties. Scare tactics to bring aboard those who don't respond to offers to make them the recipient of other people's money.
All of the forms of socialism that we've seen todate involve defining people as members of classes that are in conflict with each other - class warfare.
Altruistic propaganda - often just cliches, sometimes dressed up in psuedo-scientic jargo, but always attempting to steal the moral high-ground of political arguments.
Frequent use of cheap tactics on their principle that the ends justify the means. Lies, personal attacks, hidden agendas, violence, disruption, conflating welfare-statism with socialism, etc.
Revise history, turn other areas, like journalism, or English Lit to forms used to proselytize. Make up economic principles to support the goal of using class warfare, regulations, redistribution, and nationalizing.
Stated goals: The promise of a utopia that would be ours today, they say, if not for their enemies. The utopia would be the result of realizing social justice, egalitarian ends, redistribution of the wealth, elimination of pollution and poverty. But these aren't socialism, just the pretty colored wool pulled over they eyes that might question the real agenda.
The use of force where necessary to achieve control. Control is the primary goal - the one to which anything else can and will be sacrificed.
Regulations are concrete examples of control. The more the better, and the vaguer the better.

Post 2

Saturday, June 9, 2012 - 5:48pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Steve,

Of course, you are right. Multi-culturalism is not essential to socialism. I not only should have been communicating better, I should have been more clear-headed about that. For a second, it had grabbed hold in my mind that it was essential, but it's only because today's socialists in America, by the mere tides of culture, also happen to be multi-culturalists. You only have to look to the National Socialists Party of Germany (i.e., the Third Reich) to discover that socialism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with multi-culturalism.

Thanks for noting that and keeping me "honest."

:-)

Ed

Earliest Socialist Dictator?