When and how did the title of "dictator" become associated with generic tyranny, and lost its specific political and constitutional connotation?
When America needed a way to convince its citizens that foreigners needed to be liberated.
>>1196131
But why use 'dictator'? What's wrong with tyrant/despot/autocrat/etc?
>>1196143
You have to understand the perverse purpose for the tergiversation of the word.
The words "tyrant", "despot", and to some extent "autocrat", already had "negative connotations" within popular consciousness, while "dictator", was a neutral word within popular consciousness, but if you know its actual etymological meaning, it has "positive connotations", so in order to vilify that which was good, they had to actually refer to it by its word, but perverting its meaning into something "negative", thereby damaging the notion of dictator's repute in popular consciousness for generations to come.
>>1196262
Alright. But when and how? Names, dates, all that jazz.
When they stopped standing down at the end of a crisis, and started precipitating crises to gain and keep power.
So pretty much as soon as the term was invented.
>>1196275
Europe, around the second half of the 1930s.
Go figure.
>>1196291
Nope doesn't ring a bell.
>>1196288
Dictators in ancient rome did that?
>>1196124
because dictator sounds like dick
>>1196300
That was the idea.
You'd get absolute power, for strictly limited time, and you'd be personally responsible for what happened under your rule.
Almost as soon as this became a thing, every dictator for the last 2500 years tried to stay in power forever, and tried to avoid responsibility for their actions when in power.
>>1196295
Allied propaganda (i.e. British-French) started using it with "negative connotations" against the third Reich, and Adolf Hitler.
>>1196322
Bullshit, the dictatorship didn't fall apart until after the Second Punic war, and at that point all Roman precedents were being shit on. Before that, a dictator stepping down before his 6 months was up wasn't uncommon
>>1196330
No... tyranny is a different thing. Especially when we're talking about it in classical terms.
Dictator in the original Roman sense is a guy who is given temporary absolute power. That's the ideal that was being besmirched, the ideal that was rarely if ever practiced in reality.
>>1196332
So a hundred or so years of dictators doing what they say they'll do, followed by thousands of years dictators acting pretty much like I said.
Hi guys, whats going on in this thread?
>>1196345
More like 300 years of the dictatorship working as intended, followed by a period of of the dictatorship losing all power because the senate, in a time of great crisis, made the unprecedented decision to add a second dictator to Fabius Maximus' dictatorship because he wasn't following their directions.
Which was then followed by an oligarchical descent into corruption, which lead to demagoguery, which led to powerful warlords proclaiming themselves "dictator for life" (a completely new term) for the sole reason of adding historical legitimacy ("hey guys i'm just a dictator, we've had these before") to what was in reality a naked tyrannical power grab.
tl:dr: Dunning Kruger rears his ugly head again
>>1196342
That is just the Roman aspect of the concept. The concept of dictatorship/The Dictator itself is far more ancient than the Roman instance, being based on the ideal of the absolute ruler/monarch which defined the first civilizations, and which is present in mythology (e.g. Sumer, Egypt, , ultimately stretching back to Saturn/Kronos/Ilus.
The Romans still accurately, but faintly, regarded, even amidst the murk of bureaucratic democracy, and republicanistic sterility, dictatorship (absolute rulership) as the ideal/archetypal form of government, thus, the magisterial position of "Dictator".
>>1196357
>1806
>a humble consul is called upon to become a dictator and save the motherland with his military genius
What did he mean by that?
>>1196374
So you're correcting me, it was three hundred years of it working mostly as intended, then it no longer worked, and hasn't worked since.
>>1196383
But this is not a positive concept, not when it's only good if you're dictator. The ideal of the Roman dictator was that they were doing it for other people, people taking power for themselves has of course been normal in all times in history.
>>1196430
>But this is not a positive concept, not when it's only good if you're dictator.
But that is not what dictatorship entails, nor in what dictatorship consists; that would be tyranny (i.e. possession of power, or authority, by illegitimate means, or without legitimacy).
Absolute rulership is a "positive concept", and provided that both, the people, and the ruler, are noble, it is the best form of government, but since humans have been progressively degrading in quality through time, dictatorship doesn't function now.
You don't know what dictatorship is.
>>1196457
Anon you need to read Montesquieu.
>>1196457
Then tell me what dictatorship is.
It's not the possession of power or authority, it's not the idea of giving up power following the resolution of a crisis, what is it?
If you're definition honestly includes 'dictators are the good ones', then I don't even.
>>1196487
A dictator, is the leader of the people; the one person who rules the nation, literally, and figuratively, dictating the laws, and customs, of society, defining and explicating what is good, and what is bad, for the people as a society, and as a nation.
The literal aspect of the dictator's dictation becomes more prominent the further back in time.
It is only later that absolute rulership started to acquire "negative connotations" in popular consciousness due to biological, and psychological, human degradation, the concept of "Dictator" itself becoming "popularly negative" during the XX century.
The fact that "you don't even [sic]" is due to the fact that you are unable to set aside the preconceptions that have been instilled in you your whole life, and actually think.
>>1196143
Tyrant and despot were already in use to designate a powerful and autocratic monarch.
We needed a new term for autocrats that were not and did not pretend to be royalty.
And autocrat was too generic and also sounds too neutral.
Btw, despot had another meaning in the past too.
>>1196569
I'm actually not sure dictators in Rome had the power to make laws.
>>1196569
>A dictator, is the leader of the people; the one person who rules the nation, literally, and figuratively, dictating the laws, and customs, of society, defining and explicating what is good, and what is bad, for the people as a society, and as a nation.
So it's like your description of a tyranny. But it differs how?
>The literal aspect of the dictator's dictation becomes more prominent the further back in time.
>It is only later that absolute rulership started to acquire "negative connotations" in popular consciousness due to biological, and psychological, human degradation, the concept of "Dictator" itself becoming "popularly negative" during the XX century.
If it was tyranny all the way back to the start, it was collecting negative connotations the whole time.
>The fact that "you don't even [sic]" is due to the fact that you are unable to set aside the preconceptions that have been instilled in you your whole life, and actually think.
I'm not as willing as you to give someone else power over my life, no.
>>1196609
>So it's like your description of a tyranny.
>A dictator, is the leader of the people; the one person who rules the nation, literally, and figuratively, dictating the laws, and customs, of society, defining and explicating what is good, and what is bad, for the people as a society, and as a nation.
>tyranny (i.e. possession of power, or authority, by illegitimate means, or without legitimacy).
How are those two definitions equivalent, moron?
>If it was tyranny all the way back to the start, it was collecting negative connotations the whole time.
Do you have mental deficiencies?
TYRANNY =/= DICTATORSHIP
>I'm not as willing as you to give someone else power over my life, no.
A dictator has absolute power over the nation, and the country, not over individuals.
>>1196383
Absolute monarch is a completely and entirely European early modern concept. This entire post is anachronistic as fuck. Not to mention your entire point lacks consistency: why would the Romans need to define this new office when they already knew exactly was monarch was (Rome was founded as a monarchy of sorts).
>>1196641
>Absolute monarch is a completely and entirely European early modern concept.
No.
>why would the Romans need to define this new office when they already knew exactly was monarch was (Rome was founded as a monarchy of sorts).
You seem to be conflating absolute rulership with monarchy. Monarchy doesn't necessarily entail absolute rule.
>>1196684
>No.
Yes.
>You seem to be conflating absolute rulership with monarchy. Monarchy doesn't necessarily entail absolute rule.
I'm not conflating anything. According to your definition "The concept of dictatorship... was based on the ideal of the absolute ruler/monarch which defined the first civilizations". Why the redundancy then? Romans already had kingdom and even "imperial" rule before they had a republic; why go through the effort of enshrining a specific office for a dictator?
>>1196702
Fuck off, idiot.
>>1196724
Ok, bye.
>>1196632
>How are those two definitions equivalent, moron?
One says legitimate power and one says illegitimate power, the difference is subjective.
>TYRANNY =/= DICTATORSHIP
Your definition includes whether you agree with them or not. It's a tyranny if you don't, and a dictatorship if you do.
>A dictator has absolute power over the nation, and the country, not over individuals.
How does this work?
No individual has to obey their laws or follow their policies, but the whole country does?
>>1196767
I can't believe I'm bumping this. These are relevant points that aren't being answered.
>>1196896
They are not relevant, and they're not being answered because they're the result of faulty thought polluted by false notions, so refuting the points is futile when the mind behind them is irredeemable.
>>1196912
Anon would have to explain the difference between the legitimate authority and the illegitimate authority.
At least, if they were interested in telling us what the definition of dictator is.
>>1196896
He ain't coming back son
>>1196124
Dictatorships are often bad, especially by today's standards of governance.
