This is why you shouldn't trust capitalists

[Edric O]

Poland's former president, Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, has been put on trial for his actions in the early 1980s:

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080912/116738698.html

He imposed martial law in 1981 in order to suppress the Solidarity movement, which was becoming a major threat to the government and risked provoking a Soviet intervention. But that's not what makes this story interesting. What makes it interesting is that Jaruzelski made a deal with pro-capitalist forces in 1990, under which he would surrender power in exchange for being allowed to retire and live the rest of his life in peace.

Whoops, I guess the deal is off.

Also, I wonder what they mean by "communist crimes." Do they mean that only communists have ever declared martial law? Or that declaring martial law is illegal for communists, but legal for everyone else? If Jaruzelski can prove that he wasn't a communist, does that mean he's innocent of the charges brought against him?

[Anathema]

Considering that "capitalist" is a slur denoting everyone who's not a socialist, I'm guessing that you don't trust a lot of people in real life  :P

I don't know enough about him to judge the merits of this case, but if it's "only" about him declaring martial law once I don't see it succeeding nor do I think it's particulary urgent that he be put behind bars if it were feasonable.

I don't really understand what this is supposed to mean:

"The charges of 'communist crimes' are totally groundless. Poland has never been called the Polish Communist Republic. In accordance with the Constitution, it was the People's Republic of Poland," he said.

[Caid Ivik]

If declaration of martial law shouldn't be a "communist" crime only because it occured during the communist era, then also such a betraying move cannot be called "capitalist" just because it occurs in the capitalist era. "Procapitalist forces" in 1990 may have not included anybody from the Kaczynski's band...

[Edric O]

Considering that "capitalist" is a slur denoting everyone who's not a socialist, I'm guessing that you don't trust a lot of people in real life  :P

No, the political world isn't divided just between capitalists and socialists. For instance, some people support feudalism. There aren't any of them left in Europe any more, of course, but you could still find them in places like Bhutan, for example, or Saudi Arabia.

And most people in real life are neither capitalists nor socialists - because most people in real life are apolitical. ;)

If declaration of martial law shouldn't be a "communist" crime only because it occured during the communist era, then also such a betraying move cannot be called "capitalist" just because it occurs in the capitalist era. "Procapitalist forces" in 1990 may have not included anybody from the Kaczynski's band...

Fair enough. Jaruzelski made his deal with Lech Walesa and Solidarity, but now he's being put on trial by a different pro-capitalist group (possibly the Kaczynskis, but I'm not sure, because the article doesn't mention it). Still, the point is that Jaruzelski was betrayed, and it was a mistake to make the deal in the first place.

These days, from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, it seems that if you're a dictator (even if you're a relatively harmless one), the best course of action is to fight to the death. If you make a deal to save your life, you'll almost certainly be betrayed.

[Tatar Khan]

He should have left the country and became a university professor in US like Gorbachev did.

[Edric O]

Gorbachev lives in Russia now... he even leads a small social democratic political party, but he doesn't have any popular support.

[Caid Ivik]

These days, from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, it seems that if you're a dictator (even if you're a relatively harmless one), the best course of action is to fight to the death. If you make a deal to save your life, you'll almost certainly be betrayed.

But of course, when the revolution scatters the former ruling party, their leader becomes an ultimate scapegoat. Sooner or later the new regime will try to use the political potential of his punishment. I just envy the last president of communist Czechoslovakia, who died shortly after his fall. Which he made smooth without any backstage deals. Jaruzelski perhaps saw Walesa as a new dictator, who would protect him; he seems to omit the fact the changes occur often in democracy. Hard situation to solve.

[Dante]

These days, from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, it seems that if you're a dictator (even if you're a relatively harmless one), the best course of action is to fight to the death. If you make a deal to save your life, you'll almost certainly be betrayed.

I came to the decision a while back that the best kind of dictator to be is the invisible kind.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

I came to the decision a while back that the best kind of dictator to be is the invisible kind.

Then you would love noocracy.

Just figure out how to manipulate gravity and you'll be good to go. ;)