The entire principle of authoritarianism is either public support or public apathy. An authoritarian regime is only as stable as its populace.
A government that butchers its people against the will of the populace cannot survive even if it is democratic. A government that butchers people with the will of the populace will survive regardless of whether or not it’s authoritarian.
See: Israel, America, Canada, Australia, UK
There’s no fundamental difference between a democratic and authoritarian government in this regard. The primary difference is (and has always been) whether property is managed as a function of the state (monarchies, socialism) or as a function of the individual (democracies, anarchy).
Well, that and the “people” that get killed in democracies are usually of a different skin colour than you, so maybe you just don’t care?
Okay but bow is authoritarian useful? Can you find a definition that applies to Vietnam, Cuba, China, etc, that doesn’t also apply to the governments of NATO countries like the US, France, England, etc?
I think Juan Linz created a decent criteria. It’s useful as a descriptor of how much personal liberty a person residing in a particular state can assert and how easily a person can petition their government without fear of reprisal.
Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.
Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat “easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency”.
Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities.
Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive.
He wrote this in the 1960’s, mainly in reference to Spanish Fascism but not exclusively.
Authoritarians: “Bet.”
The entire principle of authoritarianism is either public support or public apathy. An authoritarian regime is only as stable as its populace.
A government that butchers its people against the will of the populace cannot survive even if it is democratic. A government that butchers people with the will of the populace will survive regardless of whether or not it’s authoritarian.
See: Israel, America, Canada, Australia, UK
There’s no fundamental difference between a democratic and authoritarian government in this regard. The primary difference is (and has always been) whether property is managed as a function of the state (monarchies, socialism) or as a function of the individual (democracies, anarchy).
Well, that and the “people” that get killed in democracies are usually of a different skin colour than you, so maybe you just don’t care?
“Authoritarian” is connected to horseshoe theory which has holocaust trivialization history, please avoid using it
What would you say if I characterized the third reich as authoritarian? Would that make me a Holocaust trivializer?
Why would you call them authoritarian when you can just call them fascist?
It’s a square-rectangle situation in my view. All fascists are authoritarian bit not all authoritarians are fascist
Okay but bow is authoritarian useful? Can you find a definition that applies to Vietnam, Cuba, China, etc, that doesn’t also apply to the governments of NATO countries like the US, France, England, etc?
I think Juan Linz created a decent criteria. It’s useful as a descriptor of how much personal liberty a person residing in a particular state can assert and how easily a person can petition their government without fear of reprisal.
Can you post the definition you’re citing?
He wrote this in the 1960’s, mainly in reference to Spanish Fascism but not exclusively.
Removed by mod
I’m taking it back.
Removed by mod