Here is a list by a fairly left leaning publication. Note the type of regime that is responsible for the most appearances and the most deaths.
As terrible as Hitler may have been, he struggles to make the podium.
Also note, how many of them didn't first confiscate all the guns from their countryman?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/...est-dictators-photos

^^^^ Hehe

I must have scrolled too fast. I didn't see any capitalist, constitutional republics founded on Judeo-Christian values listed, but I thought those were the worst?

Chiang Kai-Shek is guilty of a lot of things and 2-28 should never be a covered-up or minimized same with the Shanghai massacre but, the deaths in China during his time there can not be entirely laid at his feet. The then Republic of China, was barely a government, held together with bailing wire and duct tape. Little fiefdoms and warlord controlled territories flourished in the non-urban areas, not to mention that pesky guy Mao and his horde of communists that roamed the central & eastern regions. A famine raged throughout southern China which led to the immigration of S.Chinese to North and South America during that period.

Typical Liberal Rag, just can't get their facts correct. As in identifying Hitler as a Fascist when he was in fact a Socialist. It was Mussolini, his partner in the Axis who was the Fascist.

Curious. The deadliest regimes were socialist. And many in the US (maybe the majority of Californians) believe socialism is a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Curious. The deadliest regimes were socialist. And many in the US (maybe the majority of Californians) believe socialism is a good thing.

Which of course brings us back to the discussion of severe mental illness again, doesn't it?.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Curious. The deadliest regimes were socialist. And many in the US (maybe the majority of Californians) believe socialism is a good thing.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..... Pfft, dude I got free healthcare, abortions, and college!

This site claims over 53,000,000 abortions since Roe v. Wade. I can't verify that number, I'm sure it's a lot.

Not a regime but I'd think the mentality is similar. The victims are less than human or simply a problem.

Whether or not those aborted are "victims" is your choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Curious. The deadliest regimes were socialist. And many in the US (maybe the majority of Californians) believe socialism is a good thing.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..... Pfft, dude I got free healthcare, abortions, and college!

Very true, I am both laughing and crying at the same time.

I guess what interests me is the question; what is it about a political system that is supposed to have everyone's best interest as the centerpiece, that ends up as a organized mass murder system?
Human nature makes a certain portion of the population strive to achieve, a certain part to be unmotivated, etc.
All of those communist regimes, designed to appeal to and benefit the masses (mostly underachievers) end up with a powerful and evil leader.

quote:

Originally posted by Scooter123:
Typical Liberal Rag, just can't get their facts correct. As in identifying Hitler as a Fascist when he was in fact a Socialist. It was Mussolini, his partner in the Axis who was the Fascist.

Hitler was a fascist. And a socialist. Many socialist regimes are also fascist. Fascism is marked by authoritarian, central control, and generally dictatorial control.

As to the list, I don't know how responsible for Japanese policy Hirohito was. I don't think he is blameless, but I have always thought he did have a lot of control over Tojo and the military/political system.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:....All of those communist regimes, designed to appeal to and benefit the masses (mostly underachievers) end up with a powerful and evil leader.

I think that needs a repreat.

In the name of serving the masses, socialist leaders only serve themselves. And that is their plan to begin with.

Socialism...Fascism....Naziism...Communism....
(Leftists....Liberals....Progressives...)

They all try to make subtle distinctions and separate themselves from the others. But in reality, they are all just variants of "centrally-controlled collectivism".
Why do they actually fight and oppose one another at times ?
Just like religious sects and fanatical cults, each version thinks the others are "misinterpreting things" or "not pure enough" or "too dogmatic" or "corrupting the fundamentals".
That's why Sunnis fight Shias, and the Sufis and B'hais have been exiled by the entire "Muslim World", even though they are all "Islam". (Of course an analogy exists in Christianity also.)

The most amusing example is when "Liberals" try to distinguish themselves from "socialists". When asked point blank in separate interviews, by Chris Matthews, both Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wassermnan Schultz were reduced to stuttering blather when ask to articulate how the positions of the Democratic Party were different from "socialism". You can probably find those interviews on youtube.

And then there is a slight difference in character between "socialism" and "communism", but "socialism" is merely the "transition state" from free-markets to "full communism", EXACTLY AS THE COMMUNIST THEORISTS ENVISIONED IT. (This can be easily googled. It is even in the very definition of the word "socialism")

So "socialism" really IS "communism". It is just the planned transition state.

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:

The most amusing example is when "Liberals" try to distinguish themselves from "socialists". When asked point blank in separate interviews, by Chris Matthews, both Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wassermnan Schultz were reduced to stuttering blather when ask to articulate how the positions of the Democratic Party were different from "socialism". You can probably find those interviews on youtube.

While I don't agree with him at all, at least Bernie Sanders would straight-up admit to being a socialist. He was honest. Wrong, but honest.

Dinesh D'Souza - PragerU:



https://youtu.be/m6bSsaVL6gA

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
While I don't agree with him at all, at least Bernie Sanders would straight-up admit to being a socialist. He was honest. Wrong, but honest.

Socialism does have a powerful theoretical appeal to naive people. Maybe Bernie is sincere, I don't really know. Our education system, and the Socialist promoters, have convinced many people that socialism means "being nice to people" and capitalism means "being greedy, and mean to poor people". So of course people pick socialism.

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
While I don't agree with him at all, at least Bernie Sanders would straight-up admit to being a socialist. He was honest. Wrong, but honest.

Socialism does have a powerful theoretical appeal to naive people. Maybe Bernie is sincere, I don't really know. Our education system, and the Socialist promoters, have convinced many people that socialism means "being nice to people" and capitalism means "being greedy, and mean to poor people". So of course people pick socialism.

In my experience in Silicon Valley, there are three catagories of people who favor socialism. There are elitists who want socialism for the masses, but capitalism for themselves. This includes politicians and bureaucrats who seek power. Then there are the self identified "underlings" who feel they have a right to eat from someone elses garden. And there are the ignorant/apathetic who don't know the difference between capitalism (freedom) and socialism (captivity), or don't care about the difference, thinking it won't hit them.

I think the problem is human nature. That's why the pattern is consistent throughout time and has happened all over the world.
A large part of any population, is only motivated by need. For food, shelter, for protection from the elements, just the basic necessities. They want more but lack the motivation unless it threatens their very existence.

A smaller group is much more motivated, usually more intelligent, and is responsible for the production of most things. They are motivated by the rewards, both monetary and the satisfaction of accomplishment.

To do that they create the enterprises that employ, use the labor in exchange for wages, of the less motivated. Those people, the largest percentage of the population, see their labor as being 100% responsible for the success of others but are only partly right. Then that other human nature, jealousy kicks in and there always seems to be someone there to exploit that.

The leaders, exploiters of the mob do the same thing first, round up all the smart motivated people other than their small group of cronies and kill them off. Removing the means to defend themselves is just a regular part of this process. Weapons, freedom of speech, free association, freedom of movement and to leave, free and fair elections are all eliminated.

Communism, socialism, fascism, birds of a feather, are all basically mob rule. They make this system work for a while with force and intimidation by killing millions of their own citizens but eventually without the smart, motivated, and free people the laws of economics take over and their closed society implodes.