Vlad the Impaler - more from me

[Mazdak]

Since i cant defend myself in this thread in the history forum i will do it here. First of all, i never advocated pointlessly killing innocents. I use him as an example of successful authoritarian rule. Look at how he ruled. He ruled a state that was virtually crime free. His will was law.

His protection of the Catholic Church was more or less a machiavellan style put on act. He knew that he needed support so he painted himself as a Crusader for Christianity.

"he wasn't a communist"

Ok. . . . . Thank you captain obvious but i challenge you to name any medieval monarch who actually WAS A COMMUNIST. I was looking at him from an authoritarian standpoint. Did he ensure stability and order? Yes. Did he manage to stave off invaders.

I am speaking from an authoritarian standpoint. not a communistic one on this.

As warlock himself said, vlad was a patriot and a hero to the romanians.

[The Sniper]

WTF this is the guy who had hundreds of ppl impaled on stakes and who Dacula was based on!! Now i dont know much about him but come on you cant say he is a hero!

[Mazdak]

As i said this is a response and a defense to my thread in history. Look at the damned thread and read the link before talking.

[The Sniper]

sorry bout that may have sounded a little harsh all I was saying is that I wouldnt brand anyone who viscoiously kills ppl as a hero. I wasnt actually addressing you directly but more commenting on what Warlock said. Sorry for the confusion...

[Guardia Bolivariano]

Well I really can't judge Vlad he lived in a time whithout human rights or respect for the peasents.But strangely enough romanians view him as a hero.

[RedComrade]

Quote: from Mazdak on 9:08 pm on Feb. 23, 2003
Since i cant defend myself in this thread in the history forum i will do it here. First of all, i never advocated pointlessly killing innocents. I use him as an example of successful authoritarian rule. Look at how he ruled. He ruled a state that was virtually crime free. His will was law.

His protection of the Catholic Church was more or less a machiavellan style put on act. He knew that he needed support so he painted himself as a Crusader for Christianity.

"he wasn't a communist"

Ok. . . . . Thank you captain obvious but i challenge you to name any medieval monarch who actually WAS A COMMUNIST. I was looking at him from an authoritarian standpoint. Did he ensure stability and order? Yes. Did he manage to stave off invaders.

I am speaking from an authoritarian standpoint. not a communistic one on this.

As warlock himself said, vlad was a patriot and a hero to the romanians.


I am curious as too your opinions on Adolph Hitler, he was an extremely sucessful authoritarian and under his rule Germany emerged from being ridden with crime and instability to an extremely disciplined authoritarian state, he was also the most popular leader of any nation at the time, needless to say Hitler was a son-of-a-***** and I despise the man but it seems like all the traits you admire Vlad for would lead you into being a Hitler admirer if your views are consistent anyway (*note* please do not read this as being sympathetic to Hitler reread it if that is how you take it)

[Larissa]

http://hamsterrepublic.com/html/vladhistory.html

FYI

[Mazdak]

Vlad, unlike hitler did not focus on eliminating a single group. He didnt activity persecute a minority. His impalements were purely political. He dealt with them on an individual level. Once again i do not support many actions he took, but i am proving a point. Proving authoritarianism works.

"A time without human rights." More and more i am finding this obsession with "human rights" to be a great weakeness. Execution of criminals or stripping them of their "human rights" is no crime. They stripped themselves by committing the crime in the first place.

[RedComrade]

Quote: from Mazdak on 1:40 am on Feb. 24, 2003
Vlad, unlike hitler did not focus on eliminating a single group. He didnt activity persecute a minority. His impalements were purely political. He dealt with them on an individual level. Once again i do not support many actions he took, but i am proving a point. Proving authoritarianism works.

"A time without human rights." More and more i am finding this obsession with "human rights" to be a great weakeness. Execution of criminals or stripping them of their "human rights" is no crime. They stripped themselves by committing the crime in the first place.



Ill admit im no expert on Vlad the Impaler but didnt he ruthlessly persecute the non catholic minority in his territory? From what I have read he killed much to many people to have dealt with them on an individual basis. In Japan a privatized capitalist country there is 60 homicides a year, crime is low does that mean capitalism is working just because there is low crime? Many systems of government work as far as ruling affectively and not having much opposition, basically any type does really, so is authoritarianism that much better? Is it really worth it when the price you pay is covered from head to toe in blood? As far as criminals go what about rehabilitation man?

[Kapitan Andrey]

Hey, people! Who was Vlad???

[RedComrade]

Andrey if you need to more on Vlad check the link Comrade Larissa provided in one of the earlier messages on this thread, it is a good introduction on Vlad the Impaler.

[Mazdak]

RedComrade, why should a government waste time rehabilitating a murder? An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is simple and it gets the job done. If she/he didn't kill in self defence, then that person should be promptly shot. What use are they to the world? They have taken away the human rights of another innocent, so why should we be so concerned with their human rights?"

Japan didnt go as far as Vlad. And Vlad sometimes had impalements done for irrational reasons. For example, he had a guard impaled for entering Vlad's house without being invited in(the officer was after a thief who had entered the house). He also had impalements done for entertainment.

He was insane too. However, my goal was to show how he proved so well how it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved. He was basically the Machiavellan ideal on steriods.

[Anonymous]

an eye for an eye is stupid..
violence cannot be fought with violence...
as i said before vlad did not eliminated crime, he only transformed it into one type... the statualist crime... now there werent murders but A muder...
it was basicly the same to have 1000 murders...

[CruelVerdad]

He was a bastard that had control over people, because they feared him...
But, everyone has the right to think whatever they want, Mazdak.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from CruelVerdad on 12:24 am on Feb. 25, 2003
He was a bastard that had control over people, because they feared him...
But, everyone has the right to think whatever they want, Mazdak.

You nagate the prospect of thought's relation to action. Does everyone have the right to in act whatever they want CruelVerdad? do they.

Thought is undeniably related to action. However, thought can ratify its effectivity through crticism. Criticism is entirely acceptable. Action in specific nature i.e. class antagonism and the bearing of suppression to the mass class, is unaccaptable to Marxism. Therefore, conceptive actions that expropriate the power of the working class are absolutely undesirable, and thus must be anihilated for the victory of socialism.

Simply; thought and action that attempts to corrupt or destroy socialism must be comabatted. Action and thought are two alternate realities and concepts, they can both be removed from society with force and thought. It is necessary to use bpth weapons against reactionism since reactionism will fight with both weapon. Those who deny the use of though vilify the use of force AND thought on the part of the reactionaries.

[Mazdak]

I dont know what you meant anarchist, but an eye for an eye isnt stupid, as you would put it. What would you prefer, allowing someone to kill and then telling them it's ok?

Like that Andrea Yates case here in the US. Now, its obvious she killed them. Whats the big deal? She should have been hanged or decapitated! She kills 5 children and is allowed to live and waste taxpayers money on sustaining her for what?!

What kind of message does this send people? It's ok to kill anyone and commit crimes because there is a 99% chance you can plea insanity or have some mental disability (almost anyone can have some sort of problem dug up) and get to live.

Homeless? Not enough food? Smash a few people's heads in with bricks and plea insanity. Thanks to those obsessed with "human rights" you will live knowing when your next meal is and in a stable environment(not comfortable, but living in a prison is far better then sleeping on park benches or in subway stations).

Is this what you want? In that case i think i will start today. Better yet, i am a minor so even if i am not found to be insane, i am too young to be executed!!!!

Now come on, is this the message you want sent to people? Murder is murder. State execution is not murder. State execution is JUSTICE.

Now back to Vlad-
Cruel Verdad- You proved exactly what i wanted proved. He ruled the people through "fear" as you would have it. Did he create order? Yes. Did he create stability? Yes. Did he create security? Yes. Was he cruel and brutal? Yes, i am not denying this. I WAS TRYING TO PROVE A POINT BUT YOU ARE NOT QUICK ENOUGH TO CATCH IT. The point was, he ruled by having those that disobeyed the law executed, no questions asked. AND IT WORKED. That was the idea. It worked. He created a society where crime didnt exist, despite what anarchist's barely understandeable post tried to show differently.

I did not say i thought the man was a hero, i do not think he should be glorified, but i think he should be studied and analyzed from a less "sensitive" point of view.

[RedComrade]

The criminals executed under Vlad were not all murderers, you cant reasonably argue that they were. Even with murder victims you dont execute them you should send them to labor camps. Punishment and production what could be better?

[Weatherman]

Mazdak, when you say ruling through fear "works". What do you mean, it obviously doesnt work for everyone. Maybe only for the people who agree with the leader. Those who discover a better way of doing things would be persacuted. The system is static and living in fear isnt my ideal society. Also its not hard to rehabilitate someone. You can start by treating them like a human being. People arent born evil. They commit murder for a reason; try to understand that reason to fix the problem. Locking them in cages like animals only makes thing Worse. Consider the rehabilitation center the Malcom X was sent to. Basicly a house that you live in with other inmates and your not allowed to leave. These "prisons" have much success. In addition it is fear of other people that contributes largley to crime. Add in equality and you have dramaticly less crime. If you have an apple you wont steal one. Authoratative doesnt work unless the leader is doing exactly what the people want; in which case it wouldnt be authorative, it would be leading by obeying. The Zapitista philosophy.

[Mazdak]

Weatherman, i will respond in more detail later, but i do not support the prison system. I was attacking it. I support labor camps and death penalty. Locking someone in a cage is too humane for a murderer.

I am aware that not everyone vlad had killed was not a murderer. I even mentioned it. The idea is to keep the people fed and happy yet make sure they obey the laws.


Weatherman, give me a logical reason for Andrea Yates killing her 5 children?