Tyranny, whether it’s that of Syria, Iran, North Korea, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet bloc under Stalin, aggressively selects against altruism. The most-altruistic people were among the first executed in all those places.
What support do you have for this claim? Do you have specific knowledge about the history of each of these regimes, or are you writing based on vague stereotypes?
(It takes a very extraordinary level of historical knowledge and understanding—far beyond mere detailed knowledge of names, places, and dates—to discuss such things meaningfully.)
Indeed, thinking of these systems I find it perfectly plausible the majority of altruist intentions where successfully channelled and employed by the regimes in question.
Also wouldn’t the term authoritarian be better? Syria and Iran don’t really compare to North Korea.
Most of the time, I find this term devoid of any real meaning. It’s an ideological term of opprobrium, which gives little or no useful information about the structures of authority in the society to which it is applied. It merely communicates that the speaker disapproves of them for ideological reasons. In particular, the academic usage of this term, from Adorno till present day, has been mired in ideological nonsense so badly that I really think the term is better left unused.
You are certainly right that it makes no sense to conflate various mildly and moderately repressive regimes with the greatest extremes like North Korea or Stalin’s USSR under the “totalitarian” label. On the other hand, as long as it’s not diluted by overuse, this label makes more sense than the vague and ideologized “authoritarian” one.
What support do you have for this claim? Do you have specific knowledge about the history of each of these regimes, or are you writing based on vague stereotypes?
(It takes a very extraordinary level of historical knowledge and understanding—far beyond mere detailed knowledge of names, places, and dates—to discuss such things meaningfully.)
Indeed, thinking of these systems I find it perfectly plausible the majority of altruist intentions where successfully channelled and employed by the regimes in question.
Also wouldn’t the term authoritarian be better? Syria and Iran don’t really compare to North Korea.
Most of the time, I find this term devoid of any real meaning. It’s an ideological term of opprobrium, which gives little or no useful information about the structures of authority in the society to which it is applied. It merely communicates that the speaker disapproves of them for ideological reasons. In particular, the academic usage of this term, from Adorno till present day, has been mired in ideological nonsense so badly that I really think the term is better left unused.
You are certainly right that it makes no sense to conflate various mildly and moderately repressive regimes with the greatest extremes like North Korea or Stalin’s USSR under the “totalitarian” label. On the other hand, as long as it’s not diluted by overuse, this label makes more sense than the vague and ideologized “authoritarian” one.