Does authoritarianism work?

Does authoritarianism work?

Yes

It certainly works to promote expression of authoritarian power

It worked for a very large portion of western history

Objectively yes

Even in the rare times it doesn't work we get great literature sooo

define work

I think that like other systems of governance, it works best on specific and limited scale. I haven't thought about it long enough to say what scale, but I am leaning towards it working best for medium to mid-large communities. Too small and it is inefficient; too large and there is concern for resistance.

Only if the authority is held by someone who isn't a retard, which almost never happens.

It depends on how it deals with power and how the it deals with their own scruture.
You can see more often than not that what kills authoritarianism is itself. The abuse of power leads to a gradual but persistent corruption of the internal structure of the political force that controls the political capital. This leads to dissent and/or internal factionalism, and also allows people from outside the structure who actualy may wanna reforma or destroy the structure gain power. It also breeds corruption... Fast... And if the money runs dry, be sure that the mass of people will revolt... Hard... And you would be unable to resist because in this, the armed brench of the authoritarian gov would also allow the population to rebel against the authority.
If a authoritharian governement is able to keep the budget positive, enought freedom that lets the masses quiet, avoid the unlimited corruption and factionalism inside its structure, it hardly fall.
It also can get bemefits from times of specialy unstable social and political distress. The last century was basicaly a great case study of how people usualy go for stability than great uncertanties.

Singapore seems to be doing fine.

>The last century was basicaly a great case study of how people usualy go for stability than great uncertanties.
What do you mean?

Over the XX century you can see the rapid decline of liberalism and the old nation-state structure. Specialy after the economic crisis.
In this period of instability, the relations between people and nations got more and more worked up, each fighting over some idological or economical gain.
The rise to power of the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were displays of people running for a authority when the older ones got discredited. Even the Soviet Union with was a revolutionary governement that truly came after a civil war was looked up by majority of people because it was the only authority that was working in the lands of Russia (there were other reasons, but this was is also true). The same happened in Germany, Italy and some others: the fear of a communist revolution in their country and the lack of political power to keep order lead to a increase in insecurity and a general mood of uncertanty (paramilitary groups like the Freikorps in germany were popping everywhere, and this also happened while the communist partys and organizations were getting increasinly active and effective). People were draw to authority because it promised (and in some level, gave them) the day-to-day confort of somewhat peacefull life. People were confident no communist revolution would take place and the lack of political groups fighting one another in the streets made people less unseasy. The non-liberal economys using their interventionism on economic life made life better in the lifetime of these people, what made many think at the time that a totalitarian or authoritharian state was for the best.
It was just during and after WW2 and the fall of communism in Russia that majority of people learned the failures os such systems, many of those the ones I mentioned in my previous text.
The Latin American dictatorships from last century also were a great proof of how stability can overcome freedom, specialy on places like Chile and Brazil.
In Brazil, the military dictatorship that started in 64 had majority of the population supporting it until the economic crises that eventualy led the military giving up the power to civil society eventualy.
And in Chile, even tho Pinochet was brutal and nowhere near as popular as other dictators, he was able to keep majority of people in line with a mixture of opression and economic liberty for personal gain by the majority.
And many of these just started because people wanted stability, because this was the Cold War, and the Red Scare and Nuclear Holocaust were a true fear that people felt at the time.
There are also more factors, but the fact that many authoritharian govs still live even when they clearly show their authoritarianism, many times is because the population allows it.

Only in short periods of time, just like Democracy only works in small populations. Nothing is absolute. World of duality, etc.

Only if it’s non-communistic authoritarianism.

t. Mussolini

...

>all these fucking retards answering an incomplete question
"Work" for whom, exactly?

Me, obviously, lol

Ask China and Singapore and the majority of history
Democracy is actually what's guaranteeing the downfall of the west.

Is fascism Veeky Forums?

What is the political alignment of this board, generally?

Are you that guy who made the Pepe drawing request thread on /pol/?

Radical centrism/post-modern christianity

Catholic Monarchist Theocracy

Significant minorities of communist and Fascists & Ancaps

Probably leans right overall

No, but Robespierre did absolutely nothing wrong.

Redditism

No. Pretty much any system can work as long as its not authoritarian.

Hard to tell with all the /pol/cucks shitting up the place.

It does if you're part of the ruling class. Not so much if you're a peasant.

Oh fuck off
>don't count anyone who isn't a communist

We're Neo-reactionaries larping as 18th and 19th century Aristocrats.

>Robespierre_crop

>If a authoritharian governement is able to keep the budget positive
Meme-tier analysis. National debt dies not function like personal debt and it has very little to do with the living conditions for people within the nation. Japan has the highest national debt as a percentage of their GDP for perspective
>Pinochet
>Personal gain by the majority
Don't you have helicopter memes to be posting somewhere else? The man ran Chile into the biggest depression in its history.
Not to mention he was installed in a CIA backed coup, which undermines your point about popular support for authoritarianism ( not that I think that point in particular is wrong, just that he's an awful example)

Oh fuck off
>assuming anyone not a Nazi is a communist

>any system can work as long as it's not the most successful form of governance for by far the longest period in history
Do I have to post the pic?

>Let's take a political survey of the board and not include anyone with far right views!
Brainlet

>Not to mention he was installed in a CIA backed coup, which undermines your point about popular support for authoritarianism
Holy shit read a history book

anarcho-monarchist here

Not that guy but still post the pic I'm interested.

Wouldn't you say that the nation-state structure actually emerged to its fullest extent post-Versailles? European countries demarcated along ethnic boundaries, attempts of racial homogeneity, destruction of dynastic monarchy and empire, etc.

This.

I forget the name, but Athens was once saved from ruin thanks to a single tyrant who knew how to fix everything.

Whatever's currently edgy/unfashionable.

What do you mean "work"?
I mean of course it does, unless you're thinking of a specific kind of "work", you didn't even ask if it "works well"

>>Let's take a political survey of the board and not include anyone without far right views!
Fuckwit.

Apolitical

National Socialism

Yeah, because even until today there is no Pinochet supporters on Chile.
Even more, no one close to him winning elections.
Also, even if my example of Chile is wrong, what about the other examples I gave? What about Brazil's history of several dictatorships?
What about Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany?
Also, recieving help from the outside dosen't change popular support.

moderate lolbertarian

Veeky Forums has gone through the most radical shift in ideology (and general board culture) in comparison with any other board.
It originally was pretty leftist with heavy irony, resulting in stuff like hypersphere. Then you had the DFW phase/ Zizek/ Hegel phase. And once moot left and Veeky Forums was created the shitposting sky-rocked and all the leftists went to /leftypol/, resulting in a massive right wing shift. Now you have hyper-ironic shitposting mixed in with neo-reactionaries and some /pol/ack spill over.
desu it is pretty comfy now, especially in the critique threads. Shame that you can't talk about philosophy here anymore tho.

This fat fuck's views

confirmed for never setting foot here

the caste system is ideal

There is a reason why the general trend has been towards democracy over the last few decades.

It's pesistratos.

Yes until you're guillotined

Because you get invaded if you aren't and don't have nukes or oil to sell a certain world pest.

yes, and it looks great doing it

radical individualist monarchic fascism

White Supremacist.

Anarcho-totalatarian-monarchist-catholic-theocratic-facist-fedualism

Fascist here

...

No read Bertrand Barère memoirs to see how ridiculously they squirm when held to account

just ask /pol/

right or left? which authors?

i hate edgy low IQ one word faggots like you.

i agree with you. id point more to the fall of the soviet union and the opening of the chinese market as the beginning of the decline of nation-states.

nwo instantiated by flotilla corporations functioning as quasi-sovereigns, transcending superannuated borders and impregnating ; countries slavishly curtail their laws as inveiglement for investment. recalcitrant states are to be emasculated and corrected by the deep state.

Took me seconds. Heh.

Not realy, because the notion of the nation-state was also deeply embeaded in the liberal tradition. The nation-state was more a outcome from liberal tradition in opossicion to the particularist world ruled by the ancient regime.
After Versailles and the decline of liberalism, the nation-state formula was getting less and less liberal because people no longer at the time trusted their ability to dela with problems.
The nation-state usualy works in the framework of liberal democracys, with were in a low-time, and the totalitarian narratives weren't exactly found of the notion of nation-states because, in those, there are partys and political powers who could coexist.
In the totalitarian system, there is no dinstiction of party or state, neither the private self, and much less about liberal tradition, with was one of the bases for nation-states. Not to mention the charismatic leader these systems promote.

The fall of the Soviet Union, China's market opening and other factors (one of these globalization and the increasing effort for more global cooperation) did had a impact on the nation-state system. Although it can be argued that, non-state actors and those outsider of one's country borders were always able to influence decisions, today this is much more deep and visible.
Terrorist groups are number 1# example people like to call out as a non-state actor and a "overseas" one too.
I can agree with this, also because a philosophical view of a cosmopolitan and united planet earth (be it methaphisicaly or in the world-state scenario) have been for decades promoted by more liberal elites (the liberal ones, no the pseudo-liberal that is the Left) and the intelligentsia.
It's only now that the detrimental effects of globalization and unwillingness of the power holders to solve these are getting unsuferable that the grand narrativa is dying of and giving rise to a more nationalistic vision, of puting one country before international community wishes or thinks.

This

based

Is it because brainlets conflate democracy with liberty?

He's literally Ignatius if he was a pretentious rich-NEET, but didn't discover this until his 40s.

This is and always has been a neoconservative zionist board.

Enjoy getting steamrolled by radicals on the left or the right.

Because a certain powerful country with the Atlantic and the Pacific on both sides has taken a keen interest in forcing it down the throat of various nations on the other side of the planet?

yes

I think the true enemy today is not capitalism or empire, but democracy. Only in the name of democracy can the US wage wars etc...