Why did Communism inevitably lead to dictatorship and totalitarianism?
The central communist tenet demanding that private property be relinquished to the State necessitates violence."From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," rapidly gives way to its echoic distortion, "From each according to his virtues, to each according to his flaws." Why would a Russian or Cambodian farmer yield his well-tended 40 acres to be held in common trust alongside the weed-choked drunkard neighbor's lot, except by fear for his and his family's lives? In this specific instance (which is a historical fact) his ability (to grow food and feed his village), not won through heritage or capricious fortune but through conscientious effort and ethics, is sacrificed to meet another's needs, which befell him not through ill fate but through poor choices. Do not interpret that to mean that in all instances, poverty is the result of poor choices. I refer only to the expropriations (and death) which have begun all communist regimes: Cuba, China, Cambodia, Russia, North Korea. My point is specific to the fact that many productive farmers and workers were forced to "be equal" to their less dedicated countrymen, destroying their incentives to continue to strive. In order to have a centrally-planned economy and destruction of the principle of private ownership, "despotic inroads" are the means. The authoritarian use of force is innately repressive, giving undue and unrestrained power to those who wield it: if they were not already corrupt by dint of their attraction to the opportunity to employ violence, then they are certainly corrupted by the power to abuse it. The peacelover does not wish to bully his neighbor and take his land, for himself or for "the State."That is how tyranny is born. The vaunted ideals of abundance, comradeship and common property inevitably becomes the reality of an unbalanced and unjust system, with grandees living in the party's inner circle, protected by a cruel regime of fear, while serfs abound, forever oppressed.
Why has Donald Trump's candidacy been successful so far?
Plenty of reasons for this (and I'm the first to admit I didn't think he would get the nomination when he announced his candidacy)Economics: Hollowing out of US middle and working class. Globalization and US leadership on global issues...isn't actually working for a large swathe of the American public. They want to go after the establishment; "kick the bums out," and Trump is an ample opportunity to do that.Identity Politics: Obama is America's first black president, and I personally think that's pretty cool. But there's not much recognition that a lot of older white people feel they can no longer identify with what the United States today looks like. Younger Americans are much more multicultural--particularly Hispanic. They generally support immigration. They're much less religious. They're more likely to support drug legalization, oppose the death penalty, support gay marriage. Obama has empowered all of these views...while not having much time for those "clinging to their guns and their religion," as he put it. Trump is a big screw you to all of those people.Social Media: Trump is a master. I'd say he's the world's most effective troll with a truly significant following. He had vastly more followers than any other Republican candidate (only Ben Carson was close). And the twitter folk tell me that despite having roughly as many followers as Hillary, he had 10x the impressions in the past month. That's the way more and more people are getting their news...and it also is framed by the candidate himself (which the mainstream media then picks up on), rather than having the agenda set by someone else.Regular Media: Falling apart, needs ratings and, relatedly, ad revenue. Trump delivers. And so we've seen literally billions in free media coverage.There are other reasons -- ability to be an "everyman" aspirational rich person as opposed to the more effete/cosmopolitanism of Romney; narcissism that allows for relentless I'm the greatest which plays better than you might think in politics; extremely effective speechmaking through repetition of simple slogans, etc.Ok on to the next one...
Which is more dangerous the far right or the far left?
Assume that there is a simple 2D spectrum. Than the answer is a very simple: both.Just take the two most prominent examples:Right: Nazi-Germany. A very conservative, work ethic driven, "we for the Führer/nation/people" regime.Left: Stalins UDSSR. A very conservative, work ethic driven, "we for Comrade Stalin/nation/people" regime.Continue to observe their common traits:Very strict rule set which may turn against you at any time.You may work as hard as you want, if there's someone in the political party of the nations leader which has more influence than you, you're probably already gone.Gulags and KZs (concentration camps) to kill people.No legal allowed opposition. Illegal opposition ended in Gulags or KZs.A very inhuman attitude against people and life in general.Very aggressive foreign politics.Focused on military spending. Don't forget. Almost the whole 20th century in Europe is the history of right-winged and left-winged dictations battling each other. There was Italy, Spain, Germany, Hungary, Austria, etc. etc. each either communist or facist.