I have several questions and would like to discuss a political system that I find fascinating, authoritarianism.

"Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo,
and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting."


Some of the questions I have include,
What are the advantages and inefficiencies of authoritarianism?

What are the common misconceptions about authoritarianism?

How is it to live in a country with authoritarian government?

Anyone noticed that alot of people are fascinated by the idea of "One strong leader" ? Is it pack or group instinct ?

a lot of people are faggots

Discovered this term today while researching.

"caudillismo"
A system of political-social domination, based on the leadership of a strongman, that arose after the wars of independence from Spain in 19th-century Latin America.

I would say the premise of "caudillismo" is generally related to examples of "modern authoritarianism" today.

Authoritarian regimes can enact radical change much quicker than more democratic systems, their power isn't stifled by concepts such as individualism or personal rights/freedoms, it is more focused on the collective.

They can be much more efficient and productive than democratic regimes because of this but it is entirely dependant on the leadership. If they have good leadership they can outperform democratic systems in most areas, but that is countered by the damage that can be done by bad leadership.

Due to the massive affect a change in leadership can have in countries like that, it also makes the transfer of power a much more dangerous and significant event than it would in a democratic system. You may disagree with a change in a democratic system but you aren't generally worried that the entire system could change when someone you don't like is elected, life will be more or less the same whether it's Trump or Obama in the Whitehouse.

I'd say the most common misconception I've seen is that there is no need for that type of leadership anymore, I think this is a western view that comes from the privilege of living in such safe and prosperous societies.

And living in one can be great or unbearably bad, it all depends on the leadership and what group you are a part of. China is a great example, it's almost a fairytale in how many people it has lifted out of extreme poverty in such a short amount of time, but they did so at intense human cost and the concentration of power required to do it also gives them the power to abuse segments of the population they view as a threat to their plans.

how about the emergence of an "hive" instinctive behaviour, where the working class is ready to kill itself for its queen/king ?

Agree with alot of that.

Can you elaborate on this?
"I'd say the most common misconception I've seen is that there is no need for that type of leadership anymore"

Do you mean that there is a need for authoritarianism, and that a western perspective see's no need for it?

Authoritarianism is not a synonym for autocracy. 1990s-2010 China was authoritarian despite lacking an autocrat. Nor is authoritarianism incompatible with rule of law, e.g. Singapore.

Disagree on both minus a bit on first: we can see how china failed its zero covid policy and how individualism is exacerbated in corrupted authoritarian countries like Russia or in Middle East.
This said authoritarian countries are effective on hard, quick, decisions. Because there's no need for status-quo and no protests, on the other hand... It's not sure the crushed population will show zeal or creativity/initiatives...



Disagree: We see how the R&D, self driving, is bad in authoritarian countries. There has being a very long time we didn't see a "good dictator..." Basically this can't happen anymore since it's a rush to who-will-be-the-worse-and-take-the-power: IE Religious or Nationalistic powers: It ending up in a competition of who will have the hardest speech.



It is not a misconception, it is an opinion, that is probably justified considering the historical failures we had with authoritarian regimes (nationalism, religion, both...) And then again the obligation for warlords to do war, even if it's not necessary. AKa if you don't do war you aren't a strong leader. We have millenia of examples.



It is not a fairytale: the whole GLOBAL hunger diminished during last 30 years and China was ordered enought to build first factories. In Africa hunger didnt change much BUT while population drastically increased...
But once the extreme poverty is gone, what's next ? Working in poor conditions, with the right to shut it up.

Valid point. I think it is easy to assume authoritarian regimes have a single figurehead, leader, strongman.
Interesting point about Singapore and the rule of law. Generally its assumed authoritarianism and the rule of law are incompatible.
Is it accurate to say Singapore is an anomaly or an outlier? Or perhaps that the level of authority in the Singaporean system is not fully realized?