On Autocracy: Trump, Putin, the renewed strongman fetish, & the moral limits of autocratic rule

Trotsky

Banned
Banned
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
34,432
Reaction score
15,874
There is no denying that there has been a recent revitalization of political interest in strong men in the liberal democratic West, particularly in the United States.

Just recently, a person I would consider to be "alt-right" lectured me about how liberal democracy is not suited for the political demands of the 21st century, and told me that we should look to Russia, "Putinism" if you will, for inspiration on how to organize political society going forward. I obviously disagree with his proposition, and think that (domestically, at least) Western citizens have become spoiled by liberal democracy and are taking for granted internal political rights like freedom of speech and association and freedom against search and seizure. To be clear, that is not to deny the fact that liberal democracy has still fueled many an illiberal horror abroad.

However, I recognize that his perspective is not novel, and is shared by a considerable portion of the modern right (and has been similarly shared by leftists of the past). The popularity of Trump, with his chastising of the media and of the clunky nature of the democratic process, has fueled this interest. And, with some surprise, the devotion and policy-fluidity with which some Trump supporters side with their leader over liberal democratic institutions does eerily remind me of what my Turkish friends have said about popular support for Recep Erdogan.

Coincidentally, I also recently came upon a speech by Christopher Hitchens on what he believed to be the most tyrannical and "evil" authoritarian regime in recent world history: that of Saddam Hussein. And he analogized Hussein's illiberal and iron-fisted consolidation and preservation of power to Adolph Hitler's Night of Long Knives and Stalin's Great Purge, while noting that Hussein embraced some surplus value in terrorizing beyond what was necessary.

This got me thinking about what would be the moral and political limits of autocracy in the new world, where information is instantaneously accessible and ability to organize on a moment's notice newly enabled. So, if the liberal democratic West were to backslide into autocracy, what level of suppression or internal violence would be permit?

Would we stop at a relatively benevolent and minimally oppressive dictator like Josip Broz Tito? Would we stop at a more generally oppressive dictator with benevolent populist aims like Muammar Gaddafi or Fidel Castro? Would we slide further yet to permit a purely nationalistic dictator with little ideology like Putin, Erdogan, or Hitler? Or could we even be fertile for a more tyrannical, violent, and non-ideological dictator like Stalin, Mussolini, or Hussein?



Discuss (and, if possible, save the shit slinging over Trump, commies, etc. to the extent that you can)
 
A "benevolent' dictator would only last while the going is good. Would be a slippery slope to more and more autocracy.
 
Dont we throw more in prison than anyone? I'd say we are not liberal at all.
 
Dont we throw more in prison than anyone? I'd say we are not liberal at all.

Certainly that is an issue, but that's a whole different discussion altogether and extends nearly as much from economic policy and the influence of private capital as it does from actual laws.

In terms of political imprisonment, such as for dissent, we have a pretty high bar. We still see demonstrators and labor activists arrested (such as in strikes or in protests like NaDPL), but that is again a fusion of private/public suppression. Our purely political suppression has been fairly admirable since the second Red Scare.
 
Strongmen are great till you get thrown from a balcony.
 
Benjamin Netanyahu has been in power off and on since before Putin. Who’s the strongest democraticaly elected strongman? Who most marginalizes ethnic minorities? Which of these two have more influence over American politics?
 
Last edited:
Benjamin Netanyahu has been in power off and on since before Putin. Who’s the strongest democraticaly elected strongman? Who most marginalizes ethnic minorities? Which of these two have more influence over American politics?

Putin only recently inserted his manchurian candidate into our gubment.
 
This got me thinking about what would be the moral and political limits of autocracy in the new world, where information is instantaneously accessible and ability to organize on a moment's notice newly enabled.
I don't think the "information age" is a safeguard against dictatorship at all. I'm a bit skeptical of the information available on the internet, both of the disinformation that is rampant and of how much information is needed to get people to rally and protest. This same (dis)information accessibility has allowed a guy like Trump to become president of the United States. Let's face it: conspiracy theories surrounding Hillary Clinton and the "mainstream mediur" have helped Trump to take place as head of the state.

I do think that autocracy is on fertile grounds in the west right now, and I hear/read a lot of people lamenting the lack of brutal intervention when it comes to criminals, foreigners, unemployed and political opposition. A large chunk of the population (in Belgium at least) is thirsting for a strongman to make them feel safe and protected.
 
I mean Eastern Europe is certainly heading that way and is gradually becoming the model for reactionary right-wing parties and movements in Western Europe. Hungary is basically a safehaven for disgraced Swedish rightwingers. A strong leader or autocratic party is seen as a safeguard against the percieved erosion of soverignty and national identity that western styled liberal democracy brings. Then giving up certain personal rights and the freedom of media etc. becomes a fair trade.

But as you say the rise of social media has had an immense impact on increasingly and already autocratic countries. In many ways it was the loss of monopoly on information that led to the overthrow of the Mubaraks, Ben Alis, Ghaddafis etc. during the Arabic spring. People didn't have to exclusively resort to underground movements in the shadows to organise protests.

In a country like Turkey, where the goverment is trying to take control of what information is accessible on the internet, you can currently just bypass it with proxies. That's why I believe the freedom of the internet is so immensely important. Trump and "fake news" might be a sad byproduct of the "wild west" nature of information available, but the positives far outweights the negatives in the long run in my opinion. This is if you don't think moving towards autocracy is a favourable outcome of course.
 
With the availability of the internet for information and communication, with the ability it provides to rally people, we should be able to establish society in such a way that we should be able to move even further away from strongman type leadership.

So, keeping that in mind it seems to me that if we HAVE to slide back into rule by a dictator your most genteel variety is the only thing that should be accepted. Any abuses of that power reported on and hope that your citizenry is willing to mobilize against any dictator prone to abuses of power. Obviously this requires a dictator of the variety that doesn’t limit the flow of information. If you do that you negate all the benefits of the “information age” and eliminate the reasons that a strongman could be different in this day and age to what they have been in the past.

And in the world where we don’t HAVE to be dictatorially ruled I think their should be more and more movement away from a position of high leadership as the ability for everyday people to become engaged in the things they find important becomes simpler.
 
Coincidentally, I also recently came upon a speech by Christopher Hitchens on what he believed to be the most tyrannical and "evil" authoritarian regime in recent world history: that of Saddam Hussein. And he analogized Hussein's illiberal and iron-fisted consolidation and preservation of power to Adolph Hitler's Night of Long Knives and Stalin's Great Purge, while noting that Hussein embraced some surplus value in terrorizing beyond what was necessary.
Coincidentally I think I listened to the same speech by Hitchens on Saddam. I think he described his regime as "radical evil", I like that term.
But as you say the rise of social media has had an immense impact on increasingly and already autocratic countries. In many ways it was the loss of monopoly on information that led to the overthrow of the Mubaraks, Ben Alis, Ghaddafis etc. during the Arabic spring. People didn't have to exclusively resort to underground movements in the shadows to organise protests.
I think that narrative about the role of the internet was overplayed. The countries with the highest amount of internet access, the GCC countries, did not have revolutions and only Bahrain, with its disenfranchised Shiite minority, saw any sort of unrest.

In contrast Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world with virtually no internet access, did see a revolution that toppled the government. This idea seems attractive to many Westerners(not saying you necessarily) because it almost implies that we saved the wretched savages from their own despots, that without our tech they'd still be beholden to these dictators.

I think we all want the internet to be this liberating, equalizing phenomenon but to me that is far from a given and we might be moving in quite the opposite direction. Look at what its wrought in terms of data collection with the recent social media scandals and the NSA scandal before that, that is a gold mine for a dictator. Only Allah knows what the likes of Saddam would do with that kind of info at his fingertips.
 
There is no denying that there has been a recent revitalization of political interest in strong men in the liberal democratic West, particularly in the United States.

Just recently, a person I would consider to be "alt-right" lectured me about how liberal democracy is not suited for the political demands of the 21st century, and told me that we should look to Russia, "Putinism" if you will, for inspiration on how to organize political society going forward.

Aside from everything else wrong with this, why would anyone think that a resource-dependent economy with per-capita GDP less than a sixth of ours is better suited to the modern world?
 
There is no denying that there has been a recent revitalization of political interest in strong men in the liberal democratic West, particularly in the United States.

Just recently, a person I would consider to be "alt-right" lectured me about how liberal democracy is not suited for the political demands of the 21st century, and told me that we should look to Russia, "Putinism" if you will, for inspiration on how to organize political society going forward. I obviously disagree with his proposition, and think that (domestically, at least) Western citizens have become spoiled by liberal democracy and are taking for granted internal political rights like freedom of speech and association and freedom against search and seizure. To be clear, that is not to deny the fact that liberal democracy has still fueled many an illiberal horror abroad.

However, I recognize that his perspective is not novel, and is shared by a considerable portion of the modern right (and has been similarly shared by leftists of the past). The popularity of Trump, with his chastising of the media and of the clunky nature of the democratic process, has fueled this interest. And, with some surprise, the devotion and policy-fluidity with which some Trump supporters side with their leader over liberal democratic institutions does eerily remind me of what my Turkish friends have said about popular support for Recep Erdogan.

Coincidentally, I also recently came upon a speech by Christopher Hitchens on what he believed to be the most tyrannical and "evil" authoritarian regime in recent world history: that of Saddam Hussein. And he analogized Hussein's illiberal and iron-fisted consolidation and preservation of power to Adolph Hitler's Night of Long Knives and Stalin's Great Purge, while noting that Hussein embraced some surplus value in terrorizing beyond what was necessary.

This got me thinking about what would be the moral and political limits of autocracy in the new world, where information is instantaneously accessible and ability to organize on a moment's notice newly enabled. So, if the liberal democratic West were to backslide into autocracy, what level of suppression or internal violence would be permit?

Would we stop at a relatively benevolent and minimally oppressive dictator like Josip Broz Tito? Would we stop at a more generally oppressive dictator with benevolent populist aims like Muammar Gaddafi or Fidel Castro? Would we slide further yet to permit a purely nationalistic dictator with little ideology like Putin, Erdogan, or Hitler? Or could we even be fertile for a more tyrannical, violent, and non-ideological dictator like Stalin, Mussolini, or Hussein?



Discuss (and, if possible, save the shit slinging over Trump, commies, etc. to the extent that you can)

Putin and Erdogan should not be in the same sentence as Hitler. And Erdogan is an ideologue and so was Hitler. Putin is at best wants ussr 2.0 but non communist. It obvious i think thst he knows for russia to remain powerful they need to form some type of EU structure with post soviet states and maybe a reformed Iran in eurasian union. He has some elements of Russian nationalism but not ethno nationalist. Yes Russia is not all about loving african immigrants or wanting them like America does or people from south Asia. Russia tolerance to muslims by Putin is because he cannot befriend and get Stan countries to want work with Russia if Russia is openly hostile to muslims. Also many powerful people in Russia are of non ethnic Russian descent. Serguéi Shoigú is rumored go be potential successor I doubt he will be but he will always have some high up place in government he and lavrov are trusted by mass public. Shoigú is mixed of half tuvan blood (asian). Lavrov is Armenian and Georgian blood.
 
Last edited:
Aside from everything else wrong with this, why would anyone think that a resource-dependent economy with per-capita GDP less than a sixth of ours is better suited to the modern world?
Because Putin has done a good job of presenting an image of national unity and strength whereas the liberal democracies of the world seem internally fractured. Of course I would prefer to live in a "fractured" democracy than a "united" Russia under Putin but the point is Putin has spent a lot of energy on his PR both domestically and internationally so as to present his leadership as one that unifies and strengthens his country despite whatever underling weaknesses and tensions exist over there.
 
I think it would take the form of what you see from Putin or in China where the democratic process remains superficially in place but not in practice by eliminating term limits and such. Probably the best U.S. example I can think of is FDR.
 
With the availability of the internet for information and communication, with the ability it provides to rally people, we should be able to establish society in such a way that we should be able to move even further away from strongman type leadership.

So, keeping that in mind it seems to me that if we HAVE to slide back into rule by a dictator your most genteel variety is the only thing that should be accepted. Any abuses of that power reported on and hope that your citizenry is willing to mobilize against any dictator prone to abuses of power. Obviously this requires a dictator of the variety that doesn’t limit the flow of information. If you do that you negate all the benefits of the “information age” and eliminate the reasons that a strongman could be different in this day and age to what they have been in the past.

And in the world where we don’t HAVE to be dictatorially ruled I think their should be more and more movement away from a position of high leadership as the ability for everyday people to become engaged in the things they find important becomes simpler.
I mean Eastern Europe is certainly heading that way and is gradually becoming the model for reactionary right-wing parties and movements in Western Europe. Hungary is basically a safehaven for disgraced Swedish rightwingers. A strong leader or autocratic party is seen as a safeguard against the percieved erosion of soverignty and national identity that western styled liberal democracy brings. Then giving up certain personal rights and the freedom of media etc. becomes a fair trade.

But as you say the rise of social media has had an immense impact on increasingly and already autocratic countries. In many ways it was the loss of monopoly on information that led to the overthrow of the Mubaraks, Ben Alis, Ghaddafis etc. during the Arabic spring. People didn't have to exclusively resort to underground movements in the shadows to organise protests.

In a country like Turkey, where the goverment is trying to take control of what information is accessible on the internet, you can currently just bypass it with proxies. That's why I believe the freedom of the internet is so immensely important. Trump and "fake news" might be a sad byproduct of the "wild west" nature of information available, but the positives far outweights the negatives in the long run in my opinion. This is if you don't think moving towards autocracy is a favourable outcome of course.
I don't think the "information age" is a safeguard against dictatorship at all. I'm a bit skeptical of the information available on the internet, both of the disinformation that is rampant and of how much information is needed to get people to rally and protest. This same (dis)information accessibility has allowed a guy like Trump to become president of the United States. Let's face it: conspiracy theories surrounding Hillary Clinton and the "mainstream mediur" have helped Trump to take place as head of the state.

I do think that autocracy is on fertile grounds in the west right now, and I hear/read a lot of people lamenting the lack of brutal intervention when it comes to criminals, foreigners, unemployed and political opposition. A large chunk of the population (in Belgium at least) is thirsting for a strongman to make them feel safe and protected.

I should have specified: I am working under the presumption that the West is now fertile for autocrats to entrench themselves.

My question: if one were to take hold and shortcut the liberal democratic organs (like Trump seems to desire to do), what would the "the line" at which the liberal democratic institutions, presumably with popular support, reaffirmed themselves? Or, is such a line was especially elastic, what exactly would the regime look like?

I tend to say Putin and Erdogan would be more likely systems to develop than China.

Aside from everything else wrong with this, why would anyone think that a resource-dependent economy with per-capita GDP less than a sixth of ours is better suited to the modern world?

You're preaching to the choir. I lectured him about their outdated economy, shit birthrates, and insufficient public investment, but all he could say was "GDP isn't everything: at least they'll have a nation state. Germany is doomed!" (I had mentioned Germany as positioning themselves to be a dynamic and powerful economic region leader). I didn't even bother with the response that, throughout history, GDP is as close to "everything" as can be said of any metric.
 
Putin is basically a mob boss who brings a semblance of order to an anarchic mess. He's pretty far from exercising the same level of control that some of his Soviet predecessors did. Domestically, he's not as powerful as he's made out to be. The guy basically lets 90% of Russia rule themselves autonomously. Foreign policy-wise, he has been able to project a "strongman" image, as a man who can "mobilize the troops" whenever necessary. He's the "father" of a lost generation of Russians, whose system completely collapsed from underneath them.

His style of rule is effective for certain regions, Russia, Middle East, etc., because he largely lets people decide small matters amongst themselves. But it will only be effective for a time.

Men just need to be better fathers for their sons, so that they don't start looking for their father figures elsewhere. Even politics. Confusion leads to the longing for stability and order.
 
Last edited:
Because Putin has done a good job of presenting an image of national unity and strength whereas the liberal democracies of the world seem internally fractured. Of course I would prefer to live in a "fractured" democracy than a "united" Russia under Putin but the point is Putin has spent a lot of energy on his PR both domestically and internationally so as to present his leadership as one that unifies and strengthens his country despite whatever underling weaknesses and tensions exist over there.

But the point was specifically about the modern world. What you're talking about is a kind of pre-modern idea of society, and I'm pointing out that the specific example is spectacularly unsuited for modern challenges.
 
Putin and Erdogan should not be in the same sentence as Hitler. And Erdogan is an ideologue and so was Hitler. Putin is at best wants ussr 2.0 but non communist. It obvious i think thst he knows for russia to remain powerful they need to form some type of EU structure with post soviet states and maybe a reformed Iran in eurasian union. He has some elements of Russian nationalism but not ethno nationalist. Yes Russia is not all about loving african immigrants or wanting them like America does or people from south Asia. Russia tolerance to muslims by Putin is because he cannot befriend and get Stan countries to want work with Russia if Russia is openly hostile to muslims. Also many powerful people in Russia are of non ethnic Russian descent. Serguéi Shoigú is rumored go be potential successor I doubt he will be but he will always have some high up place in government he and lavrov are trusted by mass public. Shoigú is mixed of half tuvan blood (asian). Lavrov is Armenian and Georgian blood.

Erdogan is not an ideologue by any definition I would use, and Hitler wasn't really any more of an ideologue than Stalin: probably less in fact. Hitler really showed himself to have no actual policy outside of ethno-nationalism and anti-Marxism. He openly said that his economic policy was the lack of coherent economic policy.
 
Coincidentally I think I listened to the same speech by Hitchens on Saddam. I think he described his regime as "radical evil", I like that term.

I think that narrative about the role of the internet was overplayed. The countries with the highest amount of internet access, the GCC countries, did not have revolutions and only Bahrain, with its disenfranchised Shiite minority, saw any sort of unrest.

In contrast Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world with virtually no internet access, did see a revolution that toppled the government. This idea seems attractive to many Westerners(not saying you necessarily) because it almost implies that we saved the wretched savages from their own despots, that without our tech they'd still be beholden to these dictators.

I think we all want the internet to be this liberating, equalizing phenomenon but to me that is far from a given and we might be moving in quite the opposite direction. Look at what its wrought in terms of data collection with the recent social media scandals and the NSA scandal before that, that is a gold mine for a dictator. Only Allah knows what the likes of Saddam would do with that kind of info at his fingertips.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying social media sparked the unrest, there are a ton of social and economical reasons it took place in Egypt and Tunisia instead of the subzidized population of the Gulf. I'm just saying communications, through social media and other means like cellphones, were invaluable tools in organizing and keeping the protests going. Maybe I'm seeing this through a personal lens because I know people who went down to participate in the protests at Tahiri square just to hand out unlocked cellphones, so people could communicate, when the regime scrambled to keep the lid on the protests in the early stages.

I still believe the internet played a vital role in getting the word out. This might be too anecdotal true and certainly less important in Yemen, that was already volatile and conflict-ridden. But even then there was something unique about the Arab Spring, never before has the world and in extent the region been flooded by such a massive amount of information, text, photos etc. about ongoing developments. Personal videos of the protests reached across the world in an instant and didn't have to be smuggled out in secret. Twitter was more up to date than the biggest newspapers and so on. It kind of swept across the middle east in that way. Certainly, it came with its own amount of lies, distortions and misinformation but this aspect of the protests shouldn't be undervalued. In many ways it was result of the old middle eastern regimes losing control over the information flow. How do you organize protests in North Korea?
 
Back
Top