The Origin of Brutal Regimes

The Origin of Brutal Regimes
'Violence is the common origin of all regimes. Life, discussion, and political choice occur only against a background of violence.' ~ Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908 - 1961), 'Humanism and Terror'

I AGREE with Mr. Merleau-Ponty.

Ever notice when most people speak of a regime they usually describe it as brutal? The use of violence is unrestrained and motivated by either the lust for power (control over a land mass and the people who live on it) and/or a desire for revenge (action required against some wrong done to them). The blood of innocents (and of some who are guilty) must be shed for the rise of the empire and must continue to be shed in defense of the realm. People are evil. I blame Sargon. He started it. He may be written in the historical records as The Great or The Magnificent but I say the man was nothing but a troublemaker and a hell-raiser.

  • Do you have an opinion, one way or the other about, the Merleau-Ponty quote?
♦ ♦

Sargon the Magnificent

Sargon

Agree

jyy

Yes, I sort of agree.

Violent regimes rise out of unstable times. In fact, the stability of the US, like say between 1950 and 2000, is why the idea of a Hitler gaining power etc. is laughable. Anyway, the regime is in a cloud of economic inequality either at the start (like say in the Russian Revolution) or also during the reign (The South African Apartheid Regime).

Anyway, though, I said I sort of agree cause I don't really understand the OP intent when saying violence. I don't get what he/she is getting at.

Posted by jyy on 04-01-2018
overcast

Agree

It seems like lot of regimes have their own ways to deal with the things. You can see that not a lot of people are going to agree with the things that are out there. I can tell you that some of the time such regimes have their own set of the issues too. So it depends on how such regimes made sense in the past.
Posted by overcast on 03-25-2018
manmad

Two ways.

In a way yes, it might not be physical violence, but oppression, which is what most regimes lead to. Well, speaking mostly about totalitarian ones, where there is a certain leader. There are a lot of people who get drunk on their own power and forget themselves. There are also a lot of other people who want to take the power for themselves and are willing to use violence.
Posted by manmad on 03-26-2018

Disagree

Kakashi2020

Good and Evil

Light cannot exist without darkness, and there can never be peace without war. There is no such thing as a utopia. Life and society in general is all about the balance of good and evil. This cannot be contested because the evidence are the hundreds of wars fought through in the modern era alone. When one regime falls another one takes its place. This is because of greed for power and money, this cannot be eliminated but it can balanced.
Posted by Kakashi2020 on 04-02-2018

Comments

jaymish
I'm not sure that I agree with this quote. Violence in my opinion is never an end in itself. People are never violent, just for the sake unless they have a mental illness. In this case you also find it' s because of some imagined attack on them that they become violent. In brutal regimes, violence also comes as a result of some perceived threat. Like fear of loosing power or attack from some perceived enemy. Normally brutal regimes are as a result of dictators who are backward thinking and think by continuing to brutalize their people and quash descent they will stay in power.
Posted by jaymish on 03-23-2018
vinaya
You need to differentiate between necessary violence and unnecessary violence. Sometimes violence is necessary. When Hiter started the second world, the UK and the US needed to retaliate. Here, violence was necessary to stop violence. After 9/11, the US had to attack Afghanistan that was the most brutal regime of the time. It was never possible to stop Laden without a war on terrorism.
Posted by vinaya on 03-28-2018
NickJ
Regimes use violence to obtain and then to maintain, power. Ultimately, the same way they rose to power in the first place - is exactly how they end up falling from it much later.
Posted by NickJ on 03-23-2018
nekonieden
I think violence occurred because of power and money but there are a lot of reasons why violence happen aside from power and money. It can be individual's principle like if one person thinks that killing is not bad at all then that person can kill the other and use it to fright some folks. Creating laws is somehow important to lessen violence but we can't deny that it will not end. Violence is everywhere and mostly it involves competition between two foes or more. Mostly violence occur because of power, territory, money, jealousy and lust and being dominant and superior can make someone into violence.
Posted by nekonieden on 03-24-2018
vinaya
It is true the desire for power and money raise violence. However, there are other reasons for violence. Culture and religions are also two major causes of violence. In fact, most of the great wars that occured on earth were fired by culture and religion. The 9/11 is the result of culture war, the after match of 9/11 (everything that happebed in Iraq and Afghanistan) are also the religious wars.
Posted by vinaya on 03-28-2018
Barida
I always against the use of force to get into power for that has not really helped at the end of the day. The brutal regimes will always bring up issues where one person or the other is having a situation where gangs up to overthrow the government in power and as long as I am concerned, this is not really the best way to go about leadership and being the best people around.
Posted by Barida on 03-24-2018
overcast
I think most of the brutal regime were designed for some of the specific purpose. And it had it's place to manage if you ask me. Because those times were like that. If you don't be brutal then someone else is going to be. And that's how it went on and on as well. And we can see that these regimes have their own way of handling things.
Posted by overcast on 03-25-2018
JMS
violence was a way of life in the past. We have of course changed in recent years thank God. It was a different way of life back then. People were even cannibals. Look at just a few hundred years ago we here in the UK had used means of torture to get someone to admit guilt, even if not guilty. Then they would be hung drawn and quartered, burned at the stake or have their entrails taken out and burned in front of them. Beheading was actually thought of as a humane way to be executed. It was just the way we were.
Posted by JMS on 03-25-2018
vinaya
Violence was the main tactics to build countries and cultures in the past. The situation has changed but has not been completely replaced by the peaceful mean. Violence is still a way to grab power and control the country. It is true that past was very cruel times. Hitler murdered 6 million Jewish people, the US wiped two Japanese cities. Things like these are not happening, however, we still see the cases of civilian bombings and suicide bombings.
Posted by vinaya on 04-01-2018
babyright
A regime becomes brutal if the leader does not care for how to take care of its citizen but to remain in power by using all sorts of evil means.
Posted by babyright on 03-25-2018
vinaya
It does not matter whether the regime is brutal or not, every country stands on the mass grave. Every country is formed by killing people. The United States is not a brutal regime, however, the US gained prominence as the world power after bombing Japan in the second world war.
Posted by vinaya on 03-25-2018
overcast
I think that's how the people around the world are keeping tab on the growth of the population. And that does happen. So you can see that people need to be really understanding that sometimes things are not evil. It's just the way things are and we have to adjust with that part.
Posted by overcast on 05-15-2018
chatbox
I think that violence is either a means or an offshoot of an underlying desire for something, usually power, greed, or the desire to be in control. Not all regime start out on a violent note. In our country, for instance, a past president won a peaceful election fair and square. He was a brilliant man who could have done great things for his people. He was reelected and would have served the second and last term in full but he was spurred by his and his family's greed and lust for power that he instituted a military regime. Prior to this, there was a wave of violence that he used as a basis for his action to set up a martial rule. This effectively extended his term at the top. He also abolished congress and put up a rubber stamp supreme court. It was the combination of administrative brilliance and the use of arms/violence that had helped him rule the country for more than two decades. Many have perished in the night because of that regime. Oh, not much different from today, really. Leaders like him tend to bribe the military with high wages and top benefits because he needs them to perpetuate his rule. The lowest rank in the military earns 50% more than what teachers and other professionals earn in my country today. Signs of the times, I guess.
Posted by chatbox on 03-26-2018
vinaya
In the modern times, power transfers from the incumbent dejure ruler to the new rules is always peaceful (mostly in democratic countries). These days countries are run by law and order. The government is selected through peaceful means. However, this was not the case always. When the history of many countries was building, they were brutal regimes. The UK which is often touted as the mother of parliamentary democracy, was subjugated many cultures and countries.
Posted by vinaya on 03-28-2018
TheInsaneSakif
Regimes that seek to instil hatred and violence, do it for the sake of staying in power. The greed for power has caused so much bloodshed. There are many corrupt authoritative regimes that still exist today, and the common people have to suffer because their needs are not being met. How can a society prosper if such a selfish regime rules? I mean just look at what's happening in Iraq and Syria. Thousands of people, mostly children, die every day and no one is doing anything to bring this massacre to a halt! And why would they? If killing people gets them closer to their main agendas, then they will just continue.
Posted by TheInsaneSakif on 03-26-2018
Corzhens
My take on violence and brutality is the animalistic nature of humans. That proves that we are also animals with the mentality of the fittest survives which means you have to fight in any which way you can. And with the superiority complex of some people, it is a give that they will do their best to be superior even if they employ violence. The history of monarchs is replete with senseless brutality and killings because of man’s nature to be like the animals.
Posted by Corzhens on 03-26-2018
vinaya
Many years ago, I was listening to a philosopher. I still remember his main thesis. "Human beings are the cruelest animals on earth." That's so true. A tiger will kill an animal when he is hungry or feels threatened. However, human beings kill for fun. I might be using a harsh word (because I said human begins kill animals for fun), however, this is our reality. People use violent tactics just for vanity.
Posted by vinaya on 04-01-2018
JoeMilford
I understand what you are saying here in terms of regimes or of those who use or have used violent campaigns in order to conquer countries or to desecrate groups of people for whatever purpose. However, I have come to the conclusion that people are just violent by nature. The First World always exploits the Third World, so to speak, in order to rise to power, and this has been going on for thousands of years, and I am even sure that cave men did this--there are theories that different hominid species wiped each other out thousands of years ago, as well. It is sad, and it is ethically wrong, but I do not see humans stopping their violence towards one another ever.
Posted by JoeMilford on 03-27-2018
vinaya
I agree with your sentiments. India was a great country, it was first colonized by Muslim invaders and later by Britain. Britain became an empire through violent means. technically speaking, the US never colonized other countries, however, it has never stopped interfering other countries. The result of 9/11 is due to the grave errors the US committed in the Muslim world.
Posted by vinaya on 04-01-2018
lovely
Violence is always associated with total want of control and self centeredness by government or those in power, in a bid to show control and exert authority they decide to use whatever means to achieve their desire which violence is one weapon but I hate violence because it always detrimental to ones wellbeing and the society at large.
Posted by lovely on 03-27-2018
MomoStarr16
I think people only get to be violent when they have much power or control of some position. Having a not so knowledgeable mind plus power results to violence.
Posted by MomoStarr16 on 04-24-2018
EfficientNinja
It could be because of the history or the culture of the people. If their culture is more on the brutal or barbaric side, they will carry it on to the new generation. If they do not agree with something, violence will be their answer to those things because it is in their culture and that's where they grow up seeing and learning.
Posted by EfficientNinja on 06-22-2018