[Skynet]

I'm in full agreement that succession should be meritocratic. But you can't just award a leadership position on the basis of an IQ or general knowledge test. The leader must have the right orientation, such as full identification with the State and willingness to prioritize a greater Whole (the State, its Worldview and its cause) over anyone's personal interest. Modern totalitarian systems had the right basic approach of a party apparatus. They failed as their ideologies were flawed but I view them as precursors of an ultimate system of this kind.

IQ and general knowledge tests, then MMA contest (A ruler has to be fit and young) and a real Base-Battle a la "command and conquer" (The succes of Roman Emperors was they were excellent commanders).

[late]

Depends how you define succesful? Most of the Roman expansion was done under the Republic and Rome collapsed with the empire. Long term the dictatorial system wasn't able to manage the empire properly which impacted its long term stability with civil wars and then finally was split in two because of those management issues. At start it did provide some stability though.

Taiwan dictator is hard to categorise but most Taiwan was democratic while South Korean dictator was assasinated in the end and south korea is a democracy.

The only authoritarian state that does good or did good economically without relying on x resource (oil) is Singapore.

Great post, that should have ended it.

[Rancid]

Depends how you define succesful?

What if it's surviving to a ripe old age?

[JohnRawls]

What if it's surviving to a ripe old age?

For whom? The dictator? Most of them end up dead, being the dictator is as dangerous as being the opposition leader in dictatorships because chances are super high that you will end up dead or in prison. Elected leaders have like a 50x less chance to go to prison or die compared to dictators.

[Rancid]

For whom? The dictator? Most of them end up dead, being the dictator is as dangerous as being the opposition leader in dictatorships because chances are super high that you will end up dead or in prison. Elected leaders have like a 50x less chance to go to prison or die compared to dictators.

Yes, the dictator.

I think Castro is #1.

[Potemkin]

Yes, the dictator.

I think Castro is #1.

When Castro came to power in Cuba in the 1950s, nobody expected him still to be standing half a century later, probably not even Castro himself. His regime even survived the collapse of Communism in the early 90s. Credit where credit is due - this guy knew what he was doing. He was probably the most successful caudillo of all time, and in Latin America that’s saying something. Lol.

[KurtFF8]

When Castro came to power in Cuba in the 1950s, nobody expected him still to be standing half a century later, probably not even Castro himself. His regime even survived the collapse of Communism in the early 90s. Credit where credit is due - this guy knew what he was doing. He was probably the most successful caudillo of all time, and in Latin America that’s saying something. Lol.

The dictatorship in Cuba could more accurately be described as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" rather than that of Fidel.

And you make it out to be as if he was just one among many "dictators" in Latin America. But in reality, he led a state that was fundamentally different in that it is a socialist state based on mass support and participation. This makes it quite distinct from Latin American dictatorships which were mostly right wing capitalist dictatorships.

[Potemkin]

The dictatorship in Cuba could more accurately be described as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" rather than that of Fidel.

And you make it out to be as if he was just one among many "dictators" in Latin America. But in reality, he led a state that was fundamentally different in that it is a socialist state based on mass support and participation. This makes it quite distinct from Latin American dictatorships which were mostly right wing capitalist dictatorships.

Indeed, and this explains why the regime survived so long, why it still survives to this day, and why Fidel Castro is remembered with respect instead of opprobrium. Capitalist dictatorships, by their very nature, cannot muster strong popular support, since their entire raison d’etre is to suppress the majority of the population in favour of the interests of the economic elite. But the regime acted as the representative of the proletariat in Cuban politics, rather than being that proletariat in political action. This distinction may be a subtle one, but it makes a huge difference. The Cuban state never withered away, as it inevitably must in a truly communist society, and in fact - given the political and historical environment in which Cuba existed and still exists - it could not do so. So describing Castro as a “caudillo” is not inappropriate - he was the most successful and the most beloved of all caudillos.

[Rugoz]

Indeed, and this explains why the regime survived so long, why it still survives to this day, and why Fidel Castro is remembered with respect instead of opprobrium. Capitalist dictatorships, by their very nature, cannot muster strong popular support, since their entire raison d’etre is to suppress the majority of the population in favour of the interests of the economic elite. But the regime acted as the representative of the proletariat in Cuban politics, rather than being that proletariat in political action. This distinction may be a subtle one, but it makes a huge difference. The Cuban state never withered away, as it inevitably must in a truly communist society, and in fact - given the political and historical environment in which Cuba existed and still exists - it could not do so. So describing Castro as a “caudillo” is not inappropriate - he was the most successful and the most beloved of all caudillos.

Cuba is a revolutionary regime. Besides, Iran also falls into that category. It's not only commies with their delusions of popular support .

This article explores the causes of authoritarian durability. Why do some authoritarian regimes survive for decades, often despite severe crises, while others collapse quickly, even absent significant challenges? Based on an analysis of all authoritarian regimes between 1900 and 2015, the authors argue that regimes founded in violent social revolution are especially durable. Revolutionary regimes, such as those in Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam, endured for more than half a century in the face of strong external pressure, poor economic performance, and large-scale policy failures. The authors develop and test a theory that accounts for such durability using a novel data set of revolutionary regimes since 1900. The authors contend that autocracies that emerge out of violent social revolution tend to confront extraordinary military threats, which lead to the development of cohesive ruling parties and powerful and loyal security apparatuses, as well as to the destruction of alternative power centers. These characteristics account for revolutionary regimes’ unusual longevity.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 5EC123D2A9

[KurtFF8]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/abs/social-revolution-and-authoritarian-durability/B62A931E63978E8B8466225EC123D2A9

Terms like "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" are largely just Cold War terms meant to promote the Western narrative that the West is "free and democratic" while workers states are "scary and authoritarian"

[late]

Terms like "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" are largely just Cold War terms meant to promote the Western narrative that the West is "free and democratic" while workers states are "scary and authoritarian"

Ever been in an authoritarian state?

[KurtFF8]

Ever been in an authoritarian state?

What does this even mean? I live in the United States, so yes.

[late]

What does this even mean? I live in the United States, so yes.

It means I went to Hungary in the 70s. The border was studded with tall machine gun towers to keep people in. Russian soldiers patrolled the streets with a well armed garrison ready to put down any revolt.

You don't know what the word means.

[KurtFF8]

It means I went to Hungary in the 70s. The border was studded with tall machine gun towers to keep people in. Russian soldiers patrolled the streets with a well armed garrison ready to put down any revolt.

You don't know what the word means.

So what you're saying is that the country had security forces to defend the state? I'm not aware of any states in the world that lack this. Have you seen the US-Mexico border? Have you ever been to a protest in the United States that was repressed by the police?

The fake outrage over security forces existing and equating it to "authoritarianism" is lazy at best.

[late]

So what you're saying is that the country had security forces to defend the state? I'm not aware of any states in the world that lack this. Have you seen the US-Mexico border? Have you ever been to a protest in the United States that was repressed by the police?

The fake outrage over security forces existing and equating it to "authoritarianism" is lazy at best.

What I am saying is that talking could get you thrown into prison for an extended vacation.

Russians weren't security forces, they were an occupying army.

Stop dodging the obvious.

[Tainari88]

Yes, the dictator.

I think Castro is #1.

Read some CIA documents Rancid regarding Castro. They basically say that he had enormous popular support throughout Cuba and if they killed him off and deposed him through violent means the probability of getting a puppet fake like they loved having since Fulgencio Batista was a fake puppet one...that failed to hold power for long and had to leave to the US in disgrace....that to get a yes man again in Havana was going to be extremely difficult to achieve. What might have worked was a Bay of Pigs type of invasion and some exile Cuban guy who was a Right wing USA backed man with some credentials might have been the answer, and then give him BILLIONS of dollars to do infrastructure projects and start importing goods at reasonable prices.

But, they again did not want to do that because it was expensive and the US had internal issues like the Civil Rights movement.

Puerto Rico by the way Rancid, did not have any political party advocating for statehood until 1968, when the US was scared of having Puerto Rico have some kind of revolutionary independence movement since the only parties on the island were founded both by socialists. Luis Muñoz Rivera y Luis Muñoz Marín hijo, and Dr. Gilberto Concepción de Gracia.

Dr. Gilberto Concepción de Gracia (July 9, 1909 – March 16, 1968) was a lawyer, journalist, author, politician and founder of the Puerto Rican Independence Party. He is the great uncle of maternal siblings Residente and ILE of Calle 13, and Lin-Manuel Miranda.

On the founder of the PIP party he is related to the following interesting Puerto Rican people who are famous for their artistic achievements in Latin America and also on Broadway in NYC.

Residente Calle 13 aka René Pérez Joglar:

Lin Manuel Miranda:

And both of them are pro independence for Puerto Rico. The beat goes on....

[Tainari88]

What I am saying is that talking could get you thrown into prison for an extended vacation.

Russians weren't security forces, they were an occupying army.

Stop dodging the obvious.

Late why don't you realize that the coercive tactics are the field of action of EMPIRES.

The US did the very same shit. They had a gag law in Puerto Rico. Not allowed to even discuss independence or fly the Puerto Rican flag at all or be thrown in jail for ten years.

That is under US government rule. No one in Puerto Rico who was Puerto Rican was allowed to vote for any local representation from 1898-1948. That is 50 years of military dictatorship from Washington DC. Backed by force.

Why? Fear of losing control of their little colony.

Playing the role of being real democracy loving, freedom of speech outside of the USA and without being wealthy, white and powerful is really hypocrisy. But you love criticizing the authoritarian types in the rest of the world.

The US is super HYPOCRITICAL and Two Faced. In the extreme. Do not be surprised when the rest of the world does not trust what the fuck they say to others with ill intent.

[Rugoz]

Terms like "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" are largely just Cold War terms meant to promote the Western narrative that the West is "free and democratic" while workers states are "scary and authoritarian"

Francoist Spain was a "workers state"? Either way, you didn't address the conclusions of the article.

[late]

Francoist Spain was a "workers state"? Either way, you didn't address the conclusions of the article.

I also went to Franco's Spain, not as bad as what the Russians were doing, but bad.

The more power gets concentrated into the hands of a few, the worse it is for everyone else.

[KurtFF8]

What I am saying is that talking could get you thrown into prison for an extended vacation.

Russians weren't security forces, they were an occupying army.

Stop dodging the obvious.

People don't get thrown into prison in the United States? Last I checked, the United States has the largest prison population (by percentage of population and raw numbers) in the world.

And if you want to get into foreign deployment as an example of occupations or security, there's no shortage of much worse examples by the West. (Vietnam, Korea, countless US backed coups that led to dictatorships, etc.)

Francoist Spain was a "workers state"? Either way, you didn't address the conclusions of the article.

When did I claim that Francoist Spain was a workers state? It was literally the opposite: it was an anti worker fascist dictatorship.

I also went to Franco's Spain, not as bad as what the Russians were doing, but bad.

Sadly never surprising to see anti-Communists like yourself prefer fascism to workers power.