Better to be Loved or Feared

[Captain Communism]

Im not exactly sure if this belongs in the Theory section but anyway. In ruling a country, state or province is it better to rule by fear or be loved by your people? Ive brought this up because of the numerous dictators and tyrants who have used fear to keep control of their population.

[Raúl Duke]

If we are discussing Marxist-Leninism....the Vanguard party and its leaders are suppose to be loved by the people and vice versa ( :wub: )

However....historically it hasn't been that way always ( :unsure: :( )

Yet, if you mean it as in generally by any dictator/tyrant.... why not have both? (that is, have some love you and others fear you...and those that fear you would also fear the other, and hopefully -for the tyrant- bigger, population that loves you because they would lynch them or something just for disrespecting their "great leader")

[Die Neue Zeit]

This belongs more in the philosophy thread.

"The first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror." (Robespierre)

In some sociology courses, there's stuff taught about at least five bases of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(sociology)#Five_bases_of_power): coercive, reward (primarily $$$), legitimate (who orders who around in the military), expert, and referrent (involves charisma and interpersonal skills). Later stuff about "informational" and "correctional" (WTF???), but the idea is that the best exercise of power is the usage of as many bases as possible, hence what Robespierre said.



Historically speaking, even Stalin had to manufacture an image of having immense expert ("Brilliant General" attributed to him by Zhukov in the Victory Parade celebrations :rolleyes: ) and referrent power ("Father of the Peoples") to back up his coercive power exercised upon his successful use of reward power (his organizational maneuverings as General Secretary before becoming Nash Veliki Vozhd and assuming legitimate power :rolleyes: ).

[Ihavenoidea]

Well..... Depends on the people. lol.


Love in any circumstance is nice, because there is trust. But it would open some doors for people to try and rip the loving leader off. Fear but maximum freedom is good (human rights are protected and unbiased, but the leader has a very intimidating face, leaving people to know that in making these laws, he/she cares, but wont take any shit from anyone)


I advocate for IN THE MIDDLE. I think the ideal leader would show that he/she has control, but he/she is caring enough never to abuse it. There should be freedom, but a sence of intimidation when you know you are doing something that is taking your leader for granted. I think that it would be kick ass to have cirtain people in their place (KKK, neo-nazis, anti-abortion activists, anyone abusing human rights) but freedom to the usually opressed, and they can know they are protected from a loving, but FIRM leader.

:D

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Leaders are only people who are doing what they have in some way been elected to do. Whether this is liberal democratic or a socialist democracy, the leaders are not supposed really to be loved or feared, because theoretically you can recall them in socialism and just wait and vote for the other guy in liberal democracy.

Only when the leaders are not elected is their a question of loving or fearing to rule the people.

Niether are what communists or socialists want.

[redcannon]

well, there shouldn't be a single leader in power to begin with, but in that situation, it is more beneficial that you be loved by your people, but more likely that you be feared by them

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by Captain [email protected] 09, 2007 02:21 am
Im not exactly sure if this belongs in the Theory section but anyway. In ruling a country, state or province is it better to rule by fear or be loved by your people? Ive brought this up because of the numerous dictators and tyrants who have used fear to keep control of their population.
I think a leader hoping to keep his/her rule for as long as possible should definately be both. The leader should take pains to be loved by his/her people, while at the same time instilling a sense of great fear in those who would greatly oppose his/her programmes. I think a strong sense of nationalism within a country often plays a large part in this. Take Cuba for example. In those who share his views Fidel often inspires outright adoration, while those who oppose his policies have good reason to fear him (they only have to remember the numerous executions of enemies of the revolution following the take-over). Fidel inspired both love and fear and has managed to hang on to his rule for many years.

[anti_fa01]

FEARED...........Fear lasts longer than Love

[Red_Pride]

I believe it would be best to be loved and feared. Much like God, you love him and you fear his creation (Hell).

[Sentinel]

I have only one thing to say to any central authority in a given society, whether it chooses to enforce it's power with the whip, or the carrot: abolish yourself or you will be abolished by force. :)

A government which chooses to manage society by fear is generally one that fears the people, one that feels threatened -- in other words one would presume that the people would be more conscious and rebellious and a revolutionary situation more likely to emerge.. On the other hand dissent might prove to be very dangerous in practice.

It's hard to answer the question without more details about the hypothetical situation.

[VeratheFastest]

I agree that this thread is more philosophical, this question was brought up most famously by Machiavelli.
Though it's debated against by Frederick the Great in his Anti-Machiavel. I prefer the Prussian King's version, as the leader should be a servant to the state and people.

[More Fire for the People]

The rebel is loved by those who would in heartbeat be at his side but barred by some circumstance from doing so — the infirm, the elderly, the very young, etc. ranks of the working class & lumpenproletariat. The rebel is feared by his enemies — the bourgeoisie & petty-bourgeoisie.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The answer is, of course, to reject this entire way of talking -- since it reflects bourgeois individualism.

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

I would suggest reading Machiavelli's The Prince. I tend to agree with him on the topic. It is better to be feared than loved. If you are loved, then people will try and take advantage of you and everything will fall apart. It is better to be feared, if there is wrong doing, punish harshly and quickly and then the people will fear you, not hate. To be feared is the sort of golden mean, in between being loved and hated is being feared and respected. Ergo, being feared is better than being loved.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:34 pm
I would suggest reading Machiavelli's The Prince. I tend to agree with him on the topic. It is better to be feared than loved. If you are loved, then people will try and take advantage of you and everything will fall apart. It is better to be feared, if there is wrong doing, punish harshly and quickly and then the people will fear you, not hate. To be feared is the sort of golden mean, in between being loved and hated is being feared and respected. Ergo, being feared is better than being loved.
The Prince is a good book, I haven't read it for a year or so though. I remember Machiavelli saying it is important to be loved and fear at the same time. In the sense the people love you for your benevolent rule, however they fear the penalty for disobeying your rule. If the people love you, they will abuse your leadership. If you are feared, but not loved, people will try to undermine your rule and overthrow your government. So a good leader tries to balanced love and fear through the population.

I would say modern dictators, such as Saddam made this Balance in certian sections of society. Certian people enjoyed the privileges under Saddam, so they loved him for this. Though they feared what he could do, looking at the examples of dealing with Kurdish and Shia rebellion.

[luxemburg89]

would suggest reading Machiavelli's The Prince. I tend to agree with him on the topic. It is better to be feared than loved. If you are loved, then people will try and take advantage of you and everything will fall apart. It is better to be feared, if there is wrong doing, punish harshly and quickly and then the people will fear you, not hate. To be feared is the sort of golden mean, in between being loved and hated is being feared and respected. Ergo, being feared is better than being loved.


It is important to remember that with Machiavelli he is stating what has worked - not what he thinks is right. Machivelli was a very left-wing thinker - he even implemented a people's malitia in the Florentine Republic. He is often miquoted, "the ends justify the means" is actually "the ends justify the means, if the benefit is for the whole of society." If you read Machiavelli don't just use it for face value you have to do a proper study of it to understand it properly.

[RedAnarchist]

I would say it depends what you mean by loved and feared. I wouldn't mind if a fascist feared me if I was in a position to cause him harm, but I wouldnt want that same fear to be present in a weaker or smaller person, because I dont want to hurt most people, espeically not those who are weaker. Same goes for loved - do you mean mutal love, like between friends/family/boyfriend/girlfriend, or do you mean more distant love which might arise from an action of mine? I would prefer to be loved by those who love me mainly, and also "loved" as a fellow human being by others, a love which would be given back.

[Zumerius]

Originally posted by Captain [email protected] 09, 2007 02:21 am
In ruling a country, state or province is it better to rule by fear or be loved by your people?
These psychological dispositions cannot be qualified categorically. Different people respond to emotions differently. Fear can elicit respect in some, and thus love on some level. In others, it can cause reactionary and irrational behaviors. Not only do responses to emotions differ from person to person, they all differ within the individual from moment to moment. At first fear can inspire awe and respect. But, after a certain level of tension can no longer be maintained, it can inspire avoidance and resentment. The same is true with love. At first is can inspire unity. After a time, decadence and indulgence.

Since you asked the question in the context of leadership, I would say the only good advice to give to new leaders is this: There is no perfect system. Perceive constantly. Adapt accordingly. There are no universal tactics we can cling to for assured perpetual stability.

[Angry Young Man]

Loved. That removes the paranoia of will the peeps overthrow you.

Also, with fear you become isolated, as peeps only hang around with you for fear that you will lynch them if they don't, and secretly they hate everything about you. They even hate your cat!

[Lynx]

The methodology of the ministries of Fear or Love is not nearly as important as whether the rulers are Honest or Corrupt. History has too many examples of the latter, as well as of rulers who were deluded or insane or both.

The ultimate goal is to rid ourselves of the necessity of having rulers :ph34r:

[Pawn Power]

Well, it would be quite difficult to rule soley on the bais of fear. And it is also unthinkable to have complete love. In general terms, state power is not sustained only through fear of physcial force. There is aways some sort of consent from the populace which gives those in power legitimacy.

[Rabid]

I agree with the posts above that said both. You cannot be loved by all, thats basically impossible, since every person has a different idea of how things should be ran, but at the same time, if you're ruling on fear alone, you run the risk of those who helped you come to power (the "masses" persay) turning against you and overthrowing you.

[Angry Young Man]

I suppose one argument in favour of coercion is coercing people away from the wrong decision like fascism or the silver-ring-thing!

In all of the liberal democracies of western Europe, fascism grew in popularity because the fash were allowed to preach their views.

In Soviet Russia, the fash were lined up and shot :)

Do you want to sacrifice socialism and justice to facilitate a bunch of racist fucks?

And yes I know that 'justice' is a subjective concept, and I know I don't believe in a state, but hopefully, like Rousseau said, the majority would hold the correct position.

So in answer to J.S. Mill's diatribe against the tyranny of the majority, the minority might be the fash.

[Comeback Kid]

Neither love nor fear them.

You must appreciate the work done by leaders that work for the people, but still be unflincingly critical of their actions at all stages.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Gaining fear is far easier than gaining love or respect. To be feared, you just have to kill off a bunch of people. Easy, simple. But, fear loses it's power over time, and it spawns hatred against you. Hatred is *the* most powerful human emotion, bar-none. If someone truly hates you, nothing is going to stop them from trying to hurt you.

But, fear has it's uses, of course, like all things in life. If you need to get alot of power really quickly...fear. Hell, alot of the Communist movements are based off fear. Fear of the capitalists/fascists/ect. Is that a bad thing? No. It's precautionary, it's sort of like a "pre-emptive war", against an enemy you *think* will attack...but hasn't yet.

Ups and downs to both, for love last longer...but is really hard to get, as you can't please all of the people all of the time(hell, you can't please some of the people some of the time).

It really depends on the personality of the one in charge. Some people are just better suited to using fear, and vice-verse.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I've always liked the thought of a "double wall". An outer wall of love and respect but if one go past a certain border one should expect brutal and swift action, violence, misery and fury.

The inner wall should be "hinted" at, seeing its faint reflection through that otuer wall, but never set into action before that border is abused.

[La Comédie Noire]

You love your leaders' in the good times when you are well fed and hate and fear them in the bad times when they have to be coercive and forceful. Either way your being ruled over, it's all bad.

Burgeiose Democracy, or anyother form of benevolence, is just a delusion of the well fed.

[hajduk]

ITS BETTER FOR THE RULER THAT PEOPLE LOVE HIM BECOUSE THEY HATE HIM :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why the hell do we need leaders anyway???

[bretty]

There are always obvious natural leaders that just come out of circumstances when they arise like Lenin and Trotsky. But the type of 'leader' I'm concerned with are like bosses at work and military 'leaders' and politicians.

we don't need them.

[PRC-UTE]

Love is more powerful.

[hajduk]

read the boock by NIKOLLO MAKKIAVELI "THE RULER"