Another one is Thomas Sankara. He did make significant efforts to improve the educational and healthcare conditions of his people, reduce corruption and excess, and from what I’ve heard did not commit any major human rights abuses.
Too much a Police State, sorry.I think the DDR is probably one of the better ones. It gets a bad rep mostly cause it gets compared to West Germany, but if you compare it to any other 20th century dictatorship it probably ends up better than the vast majority on both human rights, standard of living, and political stability.
He Is considerer a dictator ? I know by his own quotes he admitted he wasn't a Saint , but isnt a bit of a Stretch?Lee Kuan Yew, I guess. He seems like a decent leader and I don't really mind Singaporean strict laws. Since I'm not an Aryan, Mussolini is not a choice for me, and I'm not a Turkish either so Ataturk is the same thing, albeit he would be higher on my list. Pol Pot, Stalin and the like are definitely a "no".
Of the other Maritime SEA-variety, since father talks rather glowingly about living under Suharto (mostly the economics, and just stay out of politics) I won't really be opposed if I were to happen to live in that era, if only because I'm curious.
I seem to recall he did but It was according to a French president, Who wanted the country to be kept neofeudal/feudal situation though.Another one is Thomas Sankara. He did make significant efforts to improve the educational and healthcare conditions of his people, reduce corruption and excess, and from what I’ve heard did not commit any major human rights abuses.
I am kinda working on something like thatYeah, if it weren't for Hitler's influence, I doubt if Mussolini would've ever taken any action against Italy's (small) Jewish population... considering that several prominent Italian fascists were Jewish, including a mistress and occasional speech-writer...
He was good for Burkina Faso's standards but it isn't like Burkina Faso was ever a good place to live even with all his efforts to better the situation. I rather live under Stalin.Another one is Thomas Sankara. He did make significant efforts to improve the educational and healthcare conditions of his people, reduce corruption and excess, and from what I’ve heard did not commit any major human rights abuses.
Better than Mussolini is indeed a low bar. Though I will point to the Trans-Siberian railway to say you are oversimplifying as anticommunists tend to.low bar. Russia was hardly developed outside the cities before WWI
I'm picking the different dates because Mussolini was in power for a different period of time than Stalin. I have picked the dates (as close as I can, Statistica only gives numbers every 5 years) because these were the dates Mussolini and Stalin were in power. Like sure, stuff got a lot better in Italy between 1945 and 1955. I wonder why?Is picking different dates and 1945 especially not going to totally throw any comparison? (by your own source 45 USSR was under 30....) Do you not need to plot it on the same graph and then work out how much to weight that life expectancy is harder to keep increasing, so smaller gains at later age require the same level of effort as larger for lower ages?
But you are comparing directly post war with mid 50s...... it's basically statistical rubbish as USSRs numbers also dropped hugely in WWII as much if not more than Italy so comparing any 45 and 55 nations involved in WWII would probably give the 55 an advantage no matter the leader? You're not comparing leaders, you are comparing WWII and recovery, as thats the dominant effect?I'm picking the different dates because Mussolini was in power for a different period of time than Stalin. I have picked the dates (as close as I can, Statistica only gives numbers every 5 years) because these were the dates Mussolini and Stalin were in power. Like sure, stuff got a lot better in Italy between 1945 and 1955. I wonder why?
Russian Life Expectancy 1925: 30.68 years
Russian Life Expectancy 1955: 58.52 years
Russian Life Expectancy 1965: 67.88 years
The USSR kept bringing it up at a rapid rate to way higher than it ever was Mussolini's Italy (mid 50's).Life expectancy in Russia was 29.6 in the year 1845, and over the course of the next 175 years, it is expected to have increased to 72.3 years by 2020.www.statista.com
Ok, lets do just that.I think you need to compare up to 1939/40 numbers,
But the law did not stay the same and so much changed. Child labour (re-legalised by Mussolini) was outlawed. Trade unions became legal again. Loads of laws that outlawed labour practices which endangered the health of employees were (re)introduced. The government took measures to provide healthcare which Mussolini would never have dreamed of. It wasnt a dictatorship anymore.if you want to talk about USSR going into 55-65 then why not look at Italy in 55-65.....after the unspoken truth is that many of the mid/low functionaries stayed the same?
But 56 is far higher than 41, so much so that it's not a straight line graph, as improving life expectancy is not linear for effort as you go up? Improving at the high end is far harder than the low end, so a gain of 30-41 might not be better than 50-56?Russia 1925: 30.68
Russia 1940: 41.44
Italy 1925: 50.71
Italy 1940: 56.59
I am not sure why I have to type this out when you could just look at the graphs I linked but the Russian increase was double the italian one. Just look at the graphs pal, please.
He started higher because of factors having nothing to do with him. And 50 years old isn't high end life expectancy, it starts getting harder at 70ish.But 56 is far higher than 41, so much so that it's not a sight line graph, as improving life expectancy is not linear for effort as you go up? Improving at the high end is far harder than the low end, so a gain of 30-41 might not be better than 50-56?
56 is also far better than 41, so how does it show M was worse than S? Doing less improvement isnt really objectivly worse if you start much higher?
But you need to compare all the numbers with similar time frame nations, average life expectancy improved due to things developed outside the national control ie for example antibiotics etc over the decades, and you need to removed them to look at any effects from each leader? You also need to remove the effect of it getting ever harder to improve.And 50 years old isnt high end life expectancy.
You can look at the USSR in the 1950's to see a dictatorial regime which was stalins legacy do much better than Mussolini at improving the high end
1950: 50.2 years
1960: 64.8 years
So thats doing more than double what the Mussolini regime did pre war in 2/3 of the time.
But thats the issue most of the stats have nothing to do with any of the leader's actions, and we would need to work hard to actually get numbers that are meaningful.... unless we just want to post numbers to make one side look good or not (And personally all are different shades of bad)?He started higher because of factors having nothing to do with him.
They have a lot to do with the regime's actions when the regime is Socialist. When the regime has massive education and healthcare programs, guaranteed work and subsidised necessities, life expectancy and literacy go up. It is criminal when capitalist regimes do not do such things, just as it was criminal when the USSR did not do effective famine relief in 1933.But thats the issue most of the stats have nothing to do with any of the leader's actions
All this affects stuff like life expectancy.Michael Parenti
In Italy, during the 1970s, there emerged a veritable cottage industry of books and articles claiming that Mussolini not only made the trains run on time but also made Italy work well. All these publications, along with many conventional academic studies, have one thing in common: They say little if anything about the class policies of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. How did these regimes deal with social services, taxes, business, and the conditions of labor? For whose benefit and at whose expense? Most of the literature on fascism and Nazism does not tell us.
After World War I, Italy had settled into a pattern of parliamentary democracy. The low pay scales were improving, and the trains were already running on time. But the capitalist economy was in a postwar recession. Investments stagnated, heavy industry operated far below capacity, and corporate profits and agribusiness exports were declining.
To maintain profit levels, the large landowners and industrialists would have to slash wages and raise prices. The state in turn would have to provide them with massive subsidies and tax exemptions. To finance this corporate welfarism, the populace would have to be taxed more heavily, and social services and welfare expenditures would have to be drastically cut-measures that might sound familiar to us today.
But the government was not completely free to pursue this course. By 1921, many Italian workers and peasants were unionized and had their own political organizations. With demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, factory takeovers, and the forceable occupation of farmlands, they had won the right to organize, along with concessions in wages and work conditions.
To impose a full measure of austerity upon workers and peasants, the ruling economic interests would have to abolish the democratic rights that helped the masses defend their modest living standards. The solution was to smash their unions, political organizations, and civil liberties. Industrialists and big landowners wanted someone at the helm who could break the power of organized workers and farm laborers and impose a stern order on the masses. For this task Benito Mussolini, armed with his gangs of Blackshirts, seemed the likely candidate.
In both Italy in the 1920s and Germany in the 1930s, old industrial evils, thought to have passed permanently into history, re-emerged as the conditions of labor deteriorated precipitously. In the name of saving society from the Red Menace, unions and strikes were outlawed. Union property and farm cooperatives were confiscated and handed over to rich private owners. Minimum-wage laws, overtime pay, and factory safety regulations were abolished. Speedups became commonplace. Dismissals or imprisonment awaited those workers who complained about unsafe or inhumane work conditions.
Workers toiled longer hours for less pay. The already modest wages were severely cut, in Germany by 25 to 40 percent, in Italy by 50 percent. In Italy, child labor was reintroduced. To be sure, a few crumbs were thrown to the populace. There were free concerts and sporting events, some meager social programs, a dole for the unemployed financed mostly by contributions from working people, and showy public works projects designed to evoke civic pride.
Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their big business patrons by privatizing many perfectly solvent state-owned steel mills, power plants, banks, and steamship companies. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry. Agribusiness farming was expanded and heavily subsidized. Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations while assuming most of the risks and losses on investments. As is often the case with reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital.
At the same time, taxes were increased for the general populace but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business.
During the radical 1930s, in the United States, Great Britain, and Scandanavia, upper-income groups experienced a modest decline in their share of the national income; but in Italy the top 5 percent enjoyed a 15 percent gain.