From the ashes (take 2)

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I talked about the english revolution in 17th century...

[filecore]

Sorry I got once more a little off-topic when talking about the difference between Scotland (or, for that matter, the rest of the UK) and England today.  So maybe in past times it would have been correct to classify it that way (well, actually, according to my argument, it would still be incorrect) - in which case it is still wrong to use "England" to refer to the UK now.

One of my worst habits is dragging topic threads off-topic...

[Caid Ivik]

That's no problem. I get myself nearly banned for offtopicism when I came here  ;D

[Leto le Juste]

I've ever go in Scotland ( Perth) with friends and it was very nice. Scottish received us as friends while in our trip throughout UK the Englilsh were not so cool. It was the same in Ulster.

So I agree with you Filcore, UK is not England.

And it is pretty fun because a "6 nations tournament" whitout Scotland and Wales would be awful  ;) ;D

[Dante]

I'm Scottish

[Caid Ivik]

Well, scottish flag is a part of union jack, we can say the most visible  ;D

[Edric O]

*ahem* When did this become a topic about Scotland? ???

Let's get back on topic...

I mainly put that point in to argue that absolute horizontal decision making would be unfeasonable, but since you said you don't support that, nevermind.

I do support horizontal decision making - when it's practical.

I don't go as far as to support absolute horizontal decision making in all things, because I believe in the importance of flexibility.

Decisions should be taken horizontally whenever it's feasible to do so. When it's not feasible, other kinds of democratic decision making should be used.

Because in many cases neither alternative is morally or efficiently better then the other, uniformity is all that's important. Some things are to insignificant to bother voting for. When a traffic light turns to a particular color you aren't allowed to cross a road section, but who cares if that color is red, or if it is blue or brown? As long as it's the same everywhere. A democracticly elected leader can afford to make an arbitrary decision here without bothering to organise a vote for it.

Why would you need a leader for those decisions? If uniformity is all that matters, and no alternative is superior to another, you might as well toss a coin. Voting will only be necessary if people feel particularly attached to their respective alternatives - for example, if group A feels attached to the metric system and group B feels attached to inches and feet, neither a random coin toss nor a decision taken by a leader will get the acceptance it requires. Democratic voting gives legitimacy to the decision-making process.

If a government is extremely decentralised it doesn't mean that it's not a government. Authority and the ability to correct disobedient behaviour is required to make sure everybody keeps to certain uniform rules.

In the case of the metric system, if the vast majority of the world wants to use the metric system but in America people want to stick to their inches because they're to lazy to transfer to an entirely different system, who will make them?

Eventually they'll realize that the costs of sticking to their inches far outweigh the benefits. They'll run into countless problems due to the differences between their system and the metric system used by the rest of the world, so they will decide to adopt the metric system themselves.

In other words: When uniformity is mutually beneficial, you don't need a leader to impose it. When uniformity is not mutually beneficial, why would you want to impose it in the first place?

Now, assuming there is a situation in which some sort of authority is really needed, the people will use the democratic authority of the majority, not the arbitrary power of any leader.

Perhaps my wording has been a bit poor. Both types are leaders, bound by the will of the people one way or the other.

"vague reminiscient of a state"? I thought that the whole point was that in communism there would be no state at all, or anything remotely similar!

If the people hold the power, that means they are also free to delegate that power if the need for such an act arises. Normally, that need would NOT arise, and there would be no reason to have anything remotely similar to a government. The people can rule themselves in democratic communes without any political leaders.

Still, you can't predict the future, and the final form of the communist system will be up to the people to decide. Different communes will probably have different ways of running things.

[Edric O]

And now say, who had a better position? That peasant, who worked on his field, had food at hand and no bindings to flee (of course, we don't talk about Russia or 17th century dictatorships...), or a noble, who was fully dependant on far support, who could be each day killed or lost in foreign land?

Keep in mind that the peasant could be killed at any time by the noble just for fun. The peasant also had to give the majority of his harvest to the local noble, and he had no way to defend himself from all manner of injustice and arbitrary rule by that very same noble. Peasants litteraly broke their backs working from dawn to dusk, only to have their homes destroyed in various pointless mini-wars that had nothing to do with them. They were the first to suffer from famine, bad harvests, or any other natural calamity. Not to mention the man-made ones.

Basically, peasants lived in misery and endured every imaginable hardship, while nobles lived in luxury and only had to bother about the occasional war.

Maybe sadism of some individuals was tougher, but look at average slaver today, it's same. Only scale is another. Hitler and Stalin weren't sadists, they were calm tyrants, annihilators. I would say this is even worse than when someone just likes blood. Such person takes his victim at least as a human, flesh...

A murder is a murder. Trying to rank murderers according to their personal preferences is beyond insane. I frankly don't care if a dark age barbarian was sorry for the guy he chopped to pieces. He's still a murderer.

You have France, nice. However, in whole Europe a true democracy came with WW1, after first american intervention on our soil.

Yes, and how long did that democracy last in most countries? 10 years?

By the 1930's, most of the former young democracies were ruled by fascist dictators of one kind or another. Czechoslovakia was the only democratic country left in Eastern Europe.

Of course, democracy was eventually re-established - but it wasn't thanks to the Americans.

Ok, there was a small intelligence in Europe, but it had no power. Democratization process after 1849 was based on buying of votes by land. Lord Esterhazy sold few parcels to his former peasants and had ensured a place in parliament. And you see, Adel bleibt... You call this a moral victory of french revolution?

Oh, sure, in those days the countries of Europe weren't anywhere near what we would call a "democracy" today - but they were far closer to it than before 1789. The French Revolution marked the beginning of a slow democratization process all across Europe, with the occasional revolution now and then.

Oh, and America wasn't particularly democratic in those days either. They still had slavery, for one thing...

[Caid Ivik]

As I said, we don't talk about Russia and such countries. Romania was under turkish pressure those times, Hungary too. There was a permament war, if not, there were thousands of lower nobility uprisings. Of course supported by sultan against Habsburgs. Only threat for peasants was a turkish or rebel raid. When there was a famine, all suffered. Their lords as well.

I would say motive of murder is a very differentiative thing. When in middle of heavy nahkampf barbarian's axe in swing hit a fleeing child, it is sad and cruel. But I would say it is much worse when someone simply orders to erase a specifical number of people, just because they are unfitting his ideology.

When the Austria fell, Poland, Austria and Czechoslovakia were fully democratic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania became constitutional monarchies. Hungary was hit by communist revolution and attacked its neighbors. Pilsudski took over Poland in 1926, I think, in this time was Wilson few years dead and USA were again self-isolated. Every state has right to not intervene. When they come to Iraq to set an order you are against, but what else was WW1? You can't blame that they left responsibility on our backs.

USA had democracy from its beginning. We can say that french forces, which fought with americans against Britons were inspired by their ideals, just only perverted it to jacqueric version. And don't fool around with slavery, what French did with each child who has stolen bread is well known...

[Anathema]

I still disagree with you that every issue can be dealt with democraticly. It would require the people to know a fair deal about almost everything, and sometimes decisions must be taken quickly. Of course people who hold power would need democratic legitimation. You said that you won't hammer on horizontal decision making when it's not practical, but I don't think it's practical in most cases.

Now, a good example where you'll have need of uniformity, and some sort of pyramid of authority is the judicial branch of state. I'll reason this using the example of the Dutch system.

In the Netherlands you have 3 layers of judges: court (rechtbank), high court (hof) and the High Council (Hoge Raad). If you disagree with a courts decision you can appeal to the high court, and that doesn't work out you can ask the High Council to nullify the high courts decision. Knowing that in the end, the High Council can undo their decision should it end up there, courts and high courts usually base their decisions on the High Councils jurisprudence, even though they're not legally obliged to do so (unlike for example England). And usually the High Council also uses its own jurisprudence when deciding.

So even when they're not legally obliged to do so, they accept the High Councils jurisprudence, they accept its "authority" over them. The advantage is that in similar cases, even on a lower level, similar cases end up in similar rulings. This results in uniformity and therefore legal security, people know what to expect.

Now I have 2 questions for you.

1) How will uniformity and legal security take form in communism, a system void of authority?

2) How are judges selected? They're not democraticly elected over here, I won't go into details but our state has so many inherent checks and balances that usually reliable judges are selected, but how is this done in communism? You can have them democraticly elected but the problem of that is that judges are then no longer above politics and therefore not above populist whims of the electorate.

[Sneakgab]

''I still disagree with you that every issue can be dealt with democraticly. It would require the people to know a fair deal about almost everything, and sometimes decisions must be taken quickly. Of course people who hold power would need democratic legitimation. You said that you won't hammer on horizontal decision making when it's not practical, but I don't think it's practical in most cases.''

Nor can every decision be dealt with by authority for the same reason. I would say that the people (As such) probably know best eg: Factory full of workers... decision to be made... surely the workers with all their skills better know how to make such a decision that somebody whose skills mainly consist of applying authority, management,e.t.c. Any important decision can be made fairy quickly with modern technology. As for minor decisions... Well, since authority is usually central to a few people, you would think that those people would be more distracted by important matters anyway. Somebody who manages minor things, perhaps through use of authority, could be elected and removed at will by the workers anyway.

[Caid Ivik]

I would say that engineer, which creates plan of device knows more about it than worker, who will just follow this plan.

[Edric O]

Caid:

As I said, we don't talk about Russia and such countries. Romania was under turkish pressure those times, Hungary too. There was a permament war, if not, there were thousands of lower nobility uprisings. Of course supported by sultan against Habsburgs. Only threat for peasants was a turkish or rebel raid. When there was a famine, all suffered. Their lords as well.

If you're going to pick and choose the most unstable and war-torn feudal lands, of course you're going to see nobles killing each other on a daily basis. But the fact that nobles had a very low life expectancy doesn't change the fact that peasants were treated like animals, or that they had to suffer the brutality of arbitrary rule. And when you talk about the "only threat for peasants", you forget that they were forced to work like slaves for their feudal lords every day. They were serfs, after all...

The days when they also had to face an enemy raid were the particularly bad ones.

Everyone suffered from famines, of course. But while the peasants died in the thousands, the feudal lords rarely faced serious hunger. The only thing that killed peasants and lords alike was disease.

I would say motive of murder is a very differentiative thing. When in middle of heavy nahkampf barbarian's axe in swing hit a fleeing child, it is sad and cruel. But I would say it is much worse when someone simply orders to erase a specifical number of people, just because they are unfitting his ideology.

No, I would say it is exactly the same thing. I don't care what sick justification the murderer finds (or doesn't find) for his act. A barbarian going on a killing spree is no better than a bunch of SS troops doing exactly the same thing.

When the Austria fell, Poland, Austria and Czechoslovakia were fully democratic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania became constitutional monarchies.

Yes, and by the late 1930's neither of them was constitutional any more... Just goes to show that the democracy imposed by Versailles was a castle of sand. Stable democracy rarely comes from the outside.

Hungary was hit by communist revolution and attacked its neighbors.

That's your point of view, since you look at things from a national perspective. From our point of view (the class perspective), the Hungarian working class wanted to help the working classes of neighboring countries to overthrow their respective governments.

Pilsudski took over Poland in 1926, I think, in this time was Wilson few years dead and USA were again self-isolated. Every state has right to not intervene. When they come to Iraq to set an order you are against, but what else was WW1? You can't blame that they left responsibility on our backs.

WW1 was an ongoing war - and a bloody one at that. What war was there in Iraq before the invasion? Intervening in a war is one thing. Starting a war is another matter entirely.

Besides, I don't really oppose the war in Iraq itself. I oppose the Bush doctrine of "we'll invade whoever we want, and you'd better bow to us or else!".

USA had democracy from its beginning.

Really? So you consider the pre-Civil War system, which allowed slavery, as "democracy"?

We can say that french forces, which fought with americans against Britons were inspired by their ideals, just only perverted it to jacqueric version.

You got things the wrong way around. The ideals of the American Revolution originally came from Europe. Keep in mind that the American colonists were still practically European at that time.

And don't fool around with slavery, what French did with each child who has stolen bread is well known...

Well, yes, but they didn't turn it into an industry that lasted for over 80 years...

[Caid Ivik]

Well, that's just another view on the thing. Peasants could die in thousands, but there were not so many feudals... But also, which country was stable in these times? We can say until Versailles Treaty in 1648 there was a big mess in Europe. Anybody could attack anybody with blood relation. And they did so. 30-year War ended with such treaty just because warfare became too brutal for its era. Same we've seen after Napoleon, Crimean War and World Wars as well. But still, we can't say that in permanent warfare are laws silent. During 30-year War peasants lost many rights, but still they couldn't be killed for fun as animals.

If something can be "worse", it doesn't mean that second thing you've compared must be "good" then.

Czechoslovakia remained until 14th march 1939, when Germans annected Bohemia. Austria voted for anschluss in regular referendum. They are weird, you know why they have light switches a half meter higher than we do?  ;D

You say like working class is a one-body one-mind. How democratic. If someone wants they CAN be...

Slavery exists in democracy. Look around yourself, maybe you'll see some girls around main roads near Bucharest if you don't see any slaves today.

American colonists, who made USA, were english. But it wasn't first generation. They were children of a new land, idealistic and with land potential for it.

[Edric O]

Anathema:

I still disagree with you that every issue can be dealt with democraticly. It would require the people to know a fair deal about almost everything, and sometimes decisions must be taken quickly.

The people know enough to take the decisions that directly affect their own lives. Also, the people who are working in one field usually know enough to take decisions in that field. The only problem that might arise is large-scale co-ordination. This can be solved in a variety of ways: keeping the size of the commune small, using modern technology to exchange information and vote quickly, or elect various experts in managerial positions (a manager doesn't necessarely have to hold much power - he could act as an advisor, giving the people various development options to choose from).

Now, a good example where you'll have need of uniformity, and some sort of pyramid of authority is the judicial branch of state. I'll reason this using the example of the Dutch system.

In the Netherlands you have 3 layers of judges: court (rechtbank), high court (hof) and the High Council (Hoge Raad). If you disagree with a courts decision you can appeal to the high court, and that doesn't work out you can ask the High Council to nullify the high courts decision. Knowing that in the end, the High Council can undo their decision should it end up there, courts and high courts usually base their decisions on the High Councils jurisprudence, even though they're not legally obliged to do so (unlike for example England). And usually the High Council also uses its own jurisprudence when deciding.

So even when they're not legally obliged to do so, they accept the High Councils jurisprudence, they accept its "authority" over them. The advantage is that in similar cases, even on a lower level, similar cases end up in similar rulings. This results in uniformity and therefore legal security, people know what to expect.

Now I have 2 questions for you.

1) How will uniformity and legal security take form in communism, a system void of authority?

2) How are judges selected? They're not democraticly elected over here, I won't go into details but our state has so many inherent checks and balances that usually reliable judges are selected, but how is this done in communism? You can have them democraticly elected but the problem of that is that judges are then no longer above politics and therefore not above populist whims of the electorate.

1) Communism is a political and economic system. You might have noticed that I talk a lot about the politics and the economics (especially the economics) of socialism and communism, and about how a communist society would work, but never about the justice system. This is because we communists never had any objections to the present-day justice system. We want to keep it as it is. Communism is not a system void of authority - it is a system in which all authority rests with the people. Communism is based on the democratic decision-making of the people.

However, democracy is only a method of taking decisions that benefit the majority of the people, not a way of discovering the truth. The purpose of the justice system is to discover the truth, so democratic principles are useless in this field. Even in communism, the justice system will have to be based on some heirarchy and some sort of authority. The people will not be able to vote to elect judges or to vote on verdicts, but they will be able to vote to remove a judge from his position, as a safeguard against corruption.

2) First of all, there will be standardized examinations to determine a judge's competence. When there is a vacancy, a judge will be selected randomly from the pool of candidates who have passed the required examinations for that position.

The principle is: When you can't use democratic elections, pick a candidate at random. Otherwise you leave the door open to various forms of corruption.

And finally, another answer to Caid:

I would say that engineer, which creates plan of device knows more about it than worker, who will just follow this plan.

Perhaps. But that device should be used for the benefit of all, so you can't let one man decide what to do with it. No one knows the people's interests better than the people themselves.

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, but everyone has own interest, which may be colliding with other one's... And by the way I'm not interested in how ie fridge is constructed, I just want it to work correctly. That's what I expect from engineer.

[Edric O]

Well, that's just another view on the thing. Peasants could die in thousands, but there were not so many feudals... But also, which country was stable in these times? We can say until Versailles Treaty in 1648 there was a big mess in Europe. Anybody could attack anybody with blood relation. And they did so. 30-year War ended with such treaty just because warfare became too brutal for its era. Same we've seen after Napoleon, Crimean War and World Wars as well. But still, we can't say that in permanent warfare are laws silent. During 30-year War peasants lost many rights, but still they couldn't be killed for fun as animals.

The point is that the feudal lords were the masters and the peasants were their serfs - and that the peasants were ruthlessly exploited and oppressed, with the kind of brutality that is characteristic of the Middle Ages. And your claims that feudal lords were in touch with the needs and wants of their people are laughable. They saw their people as little more than livestock.

Oh, and while they couldn't exactly kill peasants for fun, they could invent all sorts of excuses to have someone executed. Arbitrary rule means that there's no such thing as a fair trial.

Czechoslovakia remained until 14th march 1939, when Germans annected Bohemia. Austria voted for anschluss in regular referendum. They are weird, you know why they have light switches a half meter higher than we do? ;D

I thought I mentioned the fact that Czechoslovakia was the exception. In 1939, it was the last remaining democracy of the ones created by the Versailles Treaty (the "made in America" East European democracies didn't last very long).

You say like working class is a one-body one-mind. How democratic. If someone wants they CAN be...

Strawman. I never said (or implied) such a thing.

The working class in all countries has common interests - that's what I said, and that's what I meant.

And there is a big difference between having common interests and being "one-body one-mind".

Slavery exists in democracy. Look around yourself, maybe you'll see some girls around main roads near Bucharest if you don't see any slaves today.

Who said that we are living in a proper democratic system? Our capitalist democracies are actually a very limited form of democracy. But in the past, capitalist democracy was even more limited, and even less democratic. So the overall trend in the 19th and 20th centuries has been a trend of democratic improvement.

American colonists, who made USA, were english. But it wasn't first generation. They were children of a new land, idealistic and with land potential for it.

Nevertheless, the philosophical foundations of the American Revolution were laid in 18th century Europe, as part of the Enlightenment.

Yes, but everyone has own interest, which may be colliding with other one's... And by the way I'm not interested in how ie fridge is constructed, I just want it to work correctly. That's what I expect from engineer.

The interest of the majority should always be followed - that's what democracy is about. (but at the same time, of course, every minority has certain rights which cannot be violated)

As for the engineer you're talking about, he sounds like a worker on equal footing with everyone else, not a leader with authority and power. So in fact, there is no conflict between this view of yours and communism.

[Caid Ivik]

You are talking about renaissance, not middle ages. Feudalism replaced tribal economics in most countries around the partation of frankish empire (which was feudal from time of Merovegians, same could be said about ie England or Italy - but not about Greece, which was centralized with free economics or eastern tribes which hold slaves). Lords controlled villages, but only trough taxes. There was a king, which controlled them. Some lords wanted more, some less. Worst situation for peasant was in France and in England of Plantagenetes. French had in medieval era weak kings and strong adel. However, until 15th century was most of Europe based on relatively free villages. Then came feudal wars for Holy Empire. Feudals lost a king above them, so they started to do what they want. So I wouldn't say the brutal rule is typical for Middle Ages.

Which trial is fair? Justice isn't blind, never was, and never will be. Human is an emotional being.

Our state had that fortune, that we were attacked by socialistic forces so late. Poland was under permanent pressure from Russia, so they have chosen a dictator in 1926. Dictatorships defend themselves better. Hungary abolished democracy on the beginning, first they have chosen communism, then Horthy's regentship. Same turn to british monarchy system was in Romania, Jugoslavia and Bulgary. It is true american voluntarism. If you want democracy, let you have it. If you want justice, let you have it. If you want bordell, you have it...

Well, we all have a common interests, to live with so much as we can. Some of us have some special wants like salvation or freedom, but most people are materialists. If you want to help them all, change their minds. You know, when we have enough, we want more. And it isn't enough for 6 billions.

Such things like people enslaved by drug distribuers, that's a new thing. These dealers were in past, we can say it is far about 3 centuries, burnt as witches by enraged folk. Now try this, and you will be burnt by his lawyers. Or assassins. Only way is to have better lawyers and courage.

Herbert in Dune mentioned a thing of "hydraulical despotism", form of rule based on controlling water supplies. It inspired Muad'Dib to take control of universe trough spice. This system has most victims in survivors of system, which made them dependant on itself. I don't have to tell you which it was.

[Edric O]

You are talking about renaissance, not middle ages.

The situation of the peasants and serfs was pretty much the same in both periods. If anything, it was worse during the Middle Ages. From the point of view of the common man, it didn't matter that his feudal lord had certain limits to his luxury or that he stood a good chance of being killed by another feudal lord. No matter which particular feudal lord ruled over him, the common man was still oppressed, exploited and miserable.

...So I wouldn't say the brutal rule is typical for Middle Ages.

What is typical for the Middle Ages is arbitrary rule. It didn't always get brutal, but it always had the possibility of going in that direction. With no written law, your life was at the mercy of your feudal lord. Many people were tortured and killed for trivial reasons.

Which trial is fair? Justice isn't blind, never was, and never will be. Human is an emotional being.

Oh bullsh*t. This is the most pathetic apology of random punishment I've ever seen.

Of course that no trial can be 100% fair. But that's no excuse to throw all fairness in the wind and hand out random punishment to people who may well be innocent!

Medieval trials were no trials at all - they were various gatherings at which the local lord decided who to kill and who to spare, according to his mood.

Anyway, don't you think we're going a little off-topic with this discussion about the Middle Ages?

Our state had that fortune, that we were attacked by socialistic forces so late. Poland was under permanent pressure from Russia, so they have chosen a dictator in 1926.

You always find plenty of excuses for your conservative dictator buddies, don't you? Poland was "under pressure" from Russia (which translates as: the Polish right-wingers were mortally afraid of a communist revolution of the people and so they wanted to enforce conservativism with an iron fist), your state was "attacked by socialistic forces" (which translates as: socialists began challenging the status quo and workers began demanding their rights)... so of course the best protection from evil foreign influences is to appoint a dictator who starts a campaign of terror against his own people! ::) 

Dictatorships defend themselves better.

Except that defence was not what these dictatorships had on their mind... most of them became Hitler's allies.

It is true american voluntarism. If you want democracy, let you have it. If you want justice, let you have it. If you want bordell, you have it...

I completely agree with that principle. Unfortunately, the modern US government doesn't seem to remember it...

Well, we all have a common interests, to live with so much as we can. Some of us have some special wants like salvation or freedom, but most people are materialists. If you want to help them all, change their minds. You know, when we have enough, we want more. And it isn't enough for 6 billions.

There is more than enough for 6 billion people to live comfortable lives. There isn't enough for 5.999 billion to live comfortable lives while the other 0.001 own half of the world's wealth, however.

People will never be satisfied with what they have? Very good! Excellent! This is what will push communism forward, and avoid stagnation! Human curiosity and ambition...

Such things like people enslaved by drug distribuers, that's a new thing. These dealers were in past, we can say it is far about 3 centuries, burnt as witches by enraged folk. Now try this, and you will be burnt by his lawyers. Or assassins. Only way is to have better lawyers and courage.

Speaking of lawyers, notice this interesting little aspect of capitalism: since the rich can afford far better lawyers, capitalist justice is not handed out equally to the rich and to the poor. In essence, our justice system is biased in favour of the rich.

[Caid Ivik]

Having a luxury means oppression? You sound jealous... Tortures for trivial reasons are typical for full human history. In fact middle ages brought first cursings from religious authority for it... I don't apologize for unfairness. It is sad, but real.

Pilsudski's rule wasn't brutal, say one name of person killed by his rule. I can't morally judge him, that I leave in your hands, I just told you what happened. In fact I don't even know his political align. It was no evil demonical conspiracy, just uneducated people which did not knew what are they doing. Don't forget they lived three centuries under iron russian hand. If Turks will want a base on your soil now you won't be very happy of it as well... Polish remained in defensive politics. Czechoslovakia and Jugoslavia too. Austrians democratically voted for anschluss, Hungarians had intentions to reclaim their losses in Slovakia and Romania.

Today are USA rather monopolistic superpower. They aren't a new idealistic state no more, so don't expect it. But you see Bush is criticized for it.

And at the end I would like to read from you a concept of socialistic justice system...

[Edric O]

Having luxuries thanks to other people's work, while those people are forced to live in poverty and misery, DOES mean oppression.

If a thief steals something of yours and you demand it back, does that mean you're "jealous" of him?

And just because torture was common and widespread in medieval times, that does not justify it and it does not make it right.

When I talked about the conservative dictators in Central and Eastern Europe between WW1 and WW2, I wasn't referring to Pilsudski in particular - as you pointed out, his rule was mostly benevolent, and he didn't stay in power for too long anyway. As for his political alignment, it seems to have shifted a lot during his life. He was even a socialist at one point, although that changed after WW1. See what Wikipedia has to say about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilsudski

Most of the conservative dictators across Central and Eastern Europe came to power through some form of political maneouvering, rather than democratic vote. In Romania, we had the "royal dictatorship" in the late 30's (king Charles II assumed absolute power, and ruled like an absolute monarch), followed by a short-lived fascist regime in 1940, which was overthrown in 1941 by Marshall Ion Antonescu, who established an equally brutal military dictatorship (complete with massive deportations of Jews to the 3rd Reich). What can I say, those were truly dark times...

Finally, I can tell you one thing about the socialistic justice system: It is equally fair for all and it does not favour the rich over the poor (as the capitalist one does) because all legal expenses are covered by the state.

[Caid Ivik]

From other people's work he had mostly only food. What servants could not produce, was bought by taxes. And that's part of state's system. For me it is egal how fast computers receive slovak MPs from our taxes.

Torture was an usual fact in any era, Robespierre's rule used it as well. Nobody wants to justify it. I just want to say that it is more oftenly appearing phenomenon.

Wikipedia is some kind of ultimative historical authority? I know few people which can remember on those time. He was like a policeman. He wanted order, that was all. However, if we look on central Europe, we haven't much states left. Romanian monarchy, as you see, was overthrown in 1940, when war already raged. Czechoslovakia was crushed by Germans in 1938 (btw yesterday was 65.anniversary). Hungary remained a monarchy until 1944. And last country left is Austria, which democratically became a part of the Third Empire. So which "conservative dictatorships" do you mean? Britain?

Before law and God we are all equal. Law is corruptible, to be exact, its executive might be corrupted. I was curious about differences, which would block possibility of this corruption.