Science topic

Authoritarianism - Science topic

The personality pattern or syndrome consisting of behavioral and attitudinal characteristics reflecting a preoccupation with the factors of power and authority in interpersonal relationships.
Questions related to Authoritarianism
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 108: Can we approach socially friendly capitalism through social externality management? If yes, how can this be done?, In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 14 Nº 8, December, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Taoreed, thank you for commenting.
Did you make time to read the article? Your comment is not directly related to the article.
You are right in what you indicate , and as Thomas Kuhn in his structure of scientific revolutions said you need to think outside be box or you need some one from outside the box to see what can be done that you can not be seen within the environment you are living in...That is why this paper is written FROM OUTSIDE THE BOX, so that the socially unfriendly capitalism box can be corrected to be socially friendly and how that could be done.
Respectfully yours;
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
Sharing this 2025 article on RETHINKING DEMOCRACY that just came out, you can check it when you have time
Rethinking democracy 108: Democratic and non-democratic systems: How external and internal paradigm dynamics should be expected to work under changing present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law conditions and competition for power?
(PDF) Rethinking democracy 108: Democratic and non-democratic systems: How external and internal paradigm dynamics should be expected to work under changing present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law conditions and competition for power?
Rethinking democracy 108: Democratic and non-democratic systems: How external and internal paradigm dynamics should be expected to work under changing present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law conditions and competition for power?
Relevant answer
Answer
Kirk, read the paper when you have time and then feel free to comment and bring A ACADEMIC COUNTER ARGUMENT...against the ideas in this paper, it is about paradigm dynamics ideas..contrasting internal and external paradigm completion, all exism movements like Brexit/brecism, Usexit/trumpism, Brazilexit, italianexit, argentinexit..fall withing the ideas in this paper as it is an academic article, NOT A POLITICAL ONE.
Scientist usually read if the are not familiar with something before they make conclusions...
Thank for taking the time to comment!
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
423 answers
The structure of global politics over the past several decades, could be discerned through three distinct phases. Initially, the world was characterized by ideological bipolarity, where two major ideological blocs dominated international relations: the liberal democratic world (led by the United States and its allies) and the communist world (led by the Soviet Union). This era, known as the Cold War (approximately 1947–1991), was marked by intense rivalry between these two superpowers, each promoting its own political, economic, and social systems.
After the Cold War ended, a shift occurred towards a multipolar world, in which multiple influential powers (such as the United States, the European Union, China, Russia, Japan, and others) emerged on the global stage. This phase, spanning the next two decades, was characterized by a diffusion of power and a relative balance among different regions and nations. There was no single dominating rivalry, allowing for a more complex and interconnected global order, driven by economic interdependence, technological advancements, and new regional alignments.
In recent years, however, there has been a move towards a new form of bipolarity, now framed as a democracy-authoritarianism binary. This phase sees the global landscape divided between nations that support democratic governance and those that favor authoritarian rule. Unlike the Cold War, where the conflict was based on economic and ideological systems (capitalism vs. communism), this current division centers around political values and governance models (democracy vs. authoritarianism), with countries aligning themselves along these lines.
Overall, the shift represents a significant change from ideological divisions rooted in economic theories to a focus on the nature of political power and governance structures. The re-emergence of bipolarity reflects deeper tensions about how societies should be organized and governed in an increasingly interconnected world.
The new bipolarity reflected through the alliance of the undemocratic (Russia-China-North Korea) letting the multilateralism and its agencies down. The new binary challenges the global questions and their settlement through the legitimate means and facilitates the rule of the force and coercion.
Relevant answer
Answer
Albert, Michael,
AGAIN THE QUESTION OF ETHICS APPEARS:
AI offers placements in :
AI Trainers and Supervisors: Training AI models to understand human nuances, such as ethics, cultural contexts, or specific industries.
Prompt Engineers: Designing and refining prompts to optimize AI outputs in various applications.
AI Ethics Consultants: Ensuring AI systems align with ethical guidelines and legal standards.Algorithm Auditors: Evaluating AI algorithms for bias, transparency, and compliance.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1 answer
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz. Lucio, 2019. The 1991 fall of red socialism and the flip back to pure capitalism: Pointing out the market structure of the paradigm shift from red socialism to economy friendly red socialism that never took place, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 13 No.9, October, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
The theory of Red Socialism (or Communism/Marxist Socialism) is based on the assumption that by eliminating class differences, the state can achieve comprehensive economic equality and social welfare. This philosophy promises to achieve a society without exploitation and without the gap between rich and poor through nationalization, planned economy and class struggle.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article normal democratic outcomes and extreme democratic outcomes?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2017. Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 10, No. 8, October, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Amel, thank you for taking the time to comment.
Take a look at this article when you have time, it has the founding theory behind a series of articles on the structure, working, and dynamics of exism movements born inside liberal democracies ausing effective targeted chaos to induce full true majority complacency as the point of original entry, and then while in power focus attention on dismantling democratic institutions and the rule of law to remain in power in case they fail to sustain effective targeted chaos permanently,,,and normal democratic thinking keep making the original mistake since 2016 UK, THINKING THEY ARE COMPETING AGAINST ANOTHER NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME,,,And issue I am addressing currently systematically with my series RETHINKING DEMOCRACY....
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1 answer
Using present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law theory where the true majority view(T) competes with the true minority view(M) for access to power, the structure of two forms of liberal democracies and permanent authoritarianism can be stated as follows,
where
E = effective targeted chaos present,
e = effective targeted chaos is absent,
I = Fully independent rule of law system is present,
i = fully captured independent legal system = Fully non-independent legal system
Normal liberal democracy = NLD = (T.M)(eI)
Extreme liberal democracy = ELD = (T.M)(EI)
Permanent authoritarianism = PA = (T.M)(Ei)
So the question: Can you see how the structure of the death of liberal democracies can be stated in terms of effective targeted chaos and fully captured independent legal systems?
What do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
In my coming paper on Rethinking Democracy, the solution to this question using QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE THINKING is:
(i)(ELD.NLD) = T.M(Ee)i = THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY
Can you see how to get there from the information shared above?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
do you know about that.
Relevant answer
Answer
They are not rising but have aalways been there. It is just that they are dressed up in different ways.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article? Some food for thoughts here:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2015.  Moral and Practical Sustainability Gaps: Implications for the Current Liberal Development Model, Weber Sociology & Anthropology (ISSN:2449-1632), Vol. 1 (4) 2015, Article ID wsa_149, 317-320.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for taking the time to write. Hope you find some good food for thoughts in that article. Today I am writing about RETHINKING DEMOCRACY to understand the post 2016 Brexit and USEXIT structure of the liberal democracy landscape.....
Sharing here one of five already out there:
Rethinking democracy 102: What are the 3 fundamental lessons learned from facing exism movements and dictatorship threats 2016-2024?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
6 answers
Are you familiar with the lessons learnt from the coming and going of BREXIT/Brexism and USEXIT/Trumpism in 2016-2024?
Here is a simple academic way of looking at the NEW LIBERAL DEMOCRACY LANDSCAPE where you have normal democratic outcomes competing for power against extreme democratic outcomes….
Muñoz, 2024. Rethinking democracy 102: What are the 3 fundamental lessons learned from facing exism movements and dictatorship threats 2016-2024?. In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 18, Nº 11, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Carolina, gracias por escribir
Es una buena idea leer los artículos antes de comentar para poder compartir las ideas de manera efectiva.
Su comentario es coherente con las recomendaciones dadas después de compartir las ideas en el artículo utilizando el marco P-A-ETK-IRL, puede encontrarlas al final del artículo REPENSANDO LA DEMOCRACIA 102 compartido anteriormente pero que usted no menciona.
Para comprender completamente qué ha cambiado en la estructura del panorama de la democracia liberal desde 2016, debemos pensar en tres conceptos: polarización/caos, polarización/caos dirigida y polarización/caos dirigida efectiva. La ultima forma cambia el panorama ya que esta es mas que solo polarización or emoción.
Aquí comparto las cuatro publicaciones, que están vinculadas por la misma teoría y pensamiento, una apoya a las otras. Y otras publicaciones estan por salir.
Rethinking Democracy 101: How can a general present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law quadrant-based framework be built to capture the necessary and sufficient conditions for democratic and non-democratic models to come to exist and persist in power once in power?
Rethinking democracy 102: What are the 3 fundamental lessons learned from facing exism movements and dictatorship threats 2016-2024?
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
ethinking democracy 104: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law quadrant-based framework be used to show how the democratic landscape has changed since 2016 Brexit and 2016 Trumpism?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
You have seen the comings and goings now of Trumpism, Brazilianism, and Brexism, 2016 to 2024 and the common theme is why they failed to persist in power ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER. You have seen the direction that exism movements take towards permanent authoritarianism. And you may be familiar with the environment in countries with permanent authoritarianism.
If you look at the evolution of democracy theory since 2016 paradigm shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies in some countries you and you adjusted your previous democratic thinking as now EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS and THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN A CONJUNCTURAL CAUSALITY MODE play a key role. And you compare this environment to the one found in countries UNDER permanent authoritarianism you may see some similarities in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for them to keep power for ever between the structure of permanent authoritarianism from within and well as from outside.
If you take into account this, then you may be able to see that the necessary and sufficient conditions for permanent authoritarianism to stay in power for ever using this new thinking has technically not changed, it is the same before 2016 and it is now in 2024..
And this raises the question: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for permanent dictatorships to remain in power regardless of opposing democratic movements?
What do you think the necessary and sufficient condition is?
Note: The answer is short.
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
11 answers
Are you concerned about the future of democracy, locally or globally?
What do you think the fundamental lessons learned for democracy are since 2016 BREXIT?
How can we come out with a permanent shield for the continuation of democracy regardless of type of future threat?
Perhaps they coincide with my thinking.
The question is: What are the 3 fundamental lessons learned from facing exism movements and dictatorship threats 2016-2024?
What do you think?
The answer should be short as my answer is short.
Note: I am currently putting these ideas together in one article.
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
If you understand what is the necessary and sufficient condition for exism movements like Brexism, Trumpism, Brazilianism.... to persist at all cost in power once they have power are within a liberal democracy under independent rule of law system you should not be surprised by ideas like USA Project 25 to come up as once exism players realized why they can never be in power for ever inside the democracy they are born into they will try to, if possible, proactively, create the conditions for staying in permanently in power once back in. And this raises the question: Should ideas like USA PROJECT 25 be expected to come up in places where exism movements came and went like in the UK or Brazil in the future?
I think Yes, what do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
6 answers
You are families with coming and going of exism movements like Brexism 2016-2024, Trumpism 2016-2020, Brazilianism 2019-2023, and other exism movements still active out there, and this raises the question, Can exism movements gain power and/or remain in power without the existence of effective targeted chaos?
I think No. What do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
Since 2016 Brexit, the world needed to change the thinking behind traditional democracy as the democratic landscape changed, yet traditional democratic thinkers and actors have been acting as if the competition for power is STILL BETWEEN NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES that are happy to live within an independent rule of law system, when it is no longer the case as now a new variable came into play, legal targeted chaos, that when effective it is a game changer as it leads to extreme democratic outcomes that should be expected to be unhappy living under an independent rule of law system.  To be able to answer general questions as the one here, we need to rethink democracy thinking.
And this raises the question: In terms of chaos, what is the necessary and sufficient condition for authoritarianism, permanent or temporary, to come to exist and persist?
What do you think is the answer to this question is from the point of view of just CHAOS?
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
Perfect democracy thinking assumes no chaos so no need for independent rule of law system and liberal democracies assume the possibility of normal democratic chaos that can be sorted out by an independent rule of law system.
So when rethinking democracy we have to think now about normal chaos, targeted chaos, and effective targeted chaos affecting voting complacency under an independent rule of law system so we can explain both the coming and going of normal and extreme democratic outcomes within liberal democracies in terms of normal and extreme democratic outcome competition....,
And this raises a key current question that was made relevant by the coming and going of 2016 Brexit/Brexism and 2016 Usexit/Trumpism:
What is effective targeted chaos?
What do you think?
Keep in mind: This is an academic question, not a political one.
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1 answer
You see some democratic countries since 2016 Brexit failing to deal proactively to avoid or reactively to neutralize internal democracy threats like local exism movement or deal with external democracy threats like permanent authoritarianism and temporary authoritarianism or the cooperation of authoritarianisn. In 2016 perhaps Brexit came as a surprise because of knowledge gaps in democratic theory, but maybe 2016 Trumpism should not have been a surprise as THE SAME PLAYBOOK was at play, and this should have been a wake up call to traditional democracy theory based thinkers to adapt liberal democracy thinking to absorve to the coming new liberal democracy landscape where normal democratic outcomes are competing for power, no longer against other normal democratic outcomes as before 2016, but AGAINST EXTREME DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES.
It seems in the UK, in the USA, in Europe as a whole, they have been treating extreme democratic outcomes as either normal democratic outcomes or abnormal outcomes without probably realizing that if certain conditions are met, extreme democratic outcomes can become long term temporary authoritarianism periods, and if some other especific conditions are met, democracy will end and extreme democratic outcomes will become permanent authoritarianism. The liberal democracy landscape changed in clear ways in 2016 yet democratic countries keep running the system the same way as they did in the past giving space to exism movements not just to materialize by to gain power. And this raises the question, relevant to all democracies and democratic thinkers: The rise of effective target chaos in 2016 and the failure for democracies to adapt and deal with it, how are they link to exism movements?
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
3 answers
Paradigms shift perfectly to correct distortions/abnormalities under free market thinking, if perfect shifts are avoided then we moved to a world under NO FREE MARKETS, a world under permanent policy authoritarianism.
In 2012 Rio +20 we were supposed to go from perfect traditional market thinking to perfect green market thinking to correct environmental distortions/abnormalities under free green market thinking, but instead we went to a world under DWARF GREEN MARKETS, creating the period of green market paradigm shift avoidance 2012-2024,
and this raises the question: Does green market paradigm shift avoidance means a world under permanent environmental authoritarianism? Why?
What do you think? Yes or no and why you think so.
Note: This is an academic question, not a political one.
Relevant answer
Answer
You may find the following paper interesting in terms of food for thoughts related to this question:
Sustainability thought 181: Dwarf green markets versus green markets: Which one is environmentally clean economy transition friendly? Why?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
6 answers
Exism movements after gaining power within liberal democracies under majority rule and independent rule of law system become permanent dictatorship threats, but why this is the case is not clear yet apparently neither to politician's pro and contrary to exism movements, and this raises the question: Why do exism movements once in power become permanent dictatorship threats within liberal democracy thinking under majority rule and independent rule of law system?
What do you think is the reason why?
Note;
This is an academic question, not a political one.
Relevant answer
Answer
Exism movements once in power Lucio Muñoz can become permanent dictatorship threats within liberal democracies under majority rule and independent rule of law systems because of a variety of factors. One reason could be the tendency of these movements to consolidate power and marginalize dissenting voices, leading to an erosion of the democratic values that must be upheld for a functioning democracy. Additionally, such movements might manipulate the rules of the democratic system to suit their ambitions, including altering election processes, limiting press freedom, and suppressing opposition. Such actions can create an ongoing cycle of power retention, making these movements a permanent dictatorship threat. Finally, these movements often appeal to populist sentiments, which can generate a significant support base and maintain their hold on power long-term, even in countries that uphold the rule of law and majority rule.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1 answer
You see internal and external dynamics in majority rule-based countries with actual extreme democratic outcomes at play and in countries with want to be extreme democratic outcome around, all majority ruled based countries, but even though this has been going on since just before 2016 BREXIT and 2016 USEXIT and continues today with the coming of an extreme democratic outcome in Argentina...
Yet politicians in normal democratic outcome run countries have not yet CLEARLY figured out that the idea that DEMOCRACY is a mess within democratic competitors like NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME AGAINS NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME, where both are normal democratic outcomes with the best interest of the majority at hand but different approach has CHANGED as when competition is between A NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME VERSUS AN EXTREME DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME the nature of the MESS changes as the extreme democratic outcome is not restricted or bound or it does not believe in the democratic values and rules under which it is born; and hence, cometition has a different structure. Hence, the way democratic outcomes compete with extreme democratic outcome needed to change since 2016, but it has not changed yet.
It seems normal democratic outcome run countries appear to be still following normal democratic theory when competing with EXTREME DEMOCRATIC THEORY/ exism theory, which indicates why they have been more often than expected been taken victim of the Murphy’s law under efficient targeted chaos.
Hence, everything changes when we shift from normal democratic outcome to extreme democratic outcome in majority ruled based countries, both internally (extreme democratic outcome vrs normal democratic outcome) and externally (extreme democratic outcome-based country versus normal democratic outcome-based country, and there is a reason to rethink to keep democratic norms where the best interest of the majority, not the minority, rules under majority rule democratic based systems.
And this raises the question: Does paradigm exism theory explain why normal democratic outcome-based countries should not be expected to get along with extreme democratic outcome-based countries?
What do you think? What is your view on the answer to this question.
Relevant answer
Answer
You may find the following article interesting:
Rethinking Democracy 101: How can a general present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law quadrant-based framework be built to capture the necessary and sufficient conditions for democratic and non-democratic models to come to exist and persist in power once in power?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1 answer
You have seen the comings and goings now of Trumpism, Brazilianism, and Brexism, and the common theme is why they failed to persist in power ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER. If you look at the evolution of democracy theory since 2016 paradigm shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies in some countries you and you adjusted your previous democratic thinking as now EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS and THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN A CONJUNCTURAL CAUSALITY MODE play a key role you may be able to see that the necessary and sufficient conditions for extreme democratic outcome to come to exist as temporary authoritarianism is different than the necessary and sufficient condition binding to persists under reelections at all costs and become permanent authoritarianism.
And this raises the question: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for exism movements to become permanent authoritarianism from within liberal democracies?
What do you think the necessary and sufficient condition is?
Note: The answer is short.
Relevant answer
Answer
You may find the following article interesting
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1 answer
You have seen the comings and goings now of Trumpism, Brazilianism, and Brexism, 2016 to 2024 and the common theme is why they failed to persist in power ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER.
If you look at the evolution of democracy theory since 2016 paradigm shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies in some countries you and you adjusted your previous democratic thinking as now EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS and THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN A CONJUNCTURAL CAUSALITY MODE play a key role.
If you take into account this, then you may be able to see that the necessary and sufficient conditions for normal liberal democratic outcomes to come to exist and persist has changed as conditions have changed.
And this raises the question: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for normal democratic outcomes to maintain power regardless of the coming and going of exism movements and dictatorship threats?
What do you think the necessary and sufficient condition is?
Note: The answer is short.
Relevant answer
Answer
You may find the following article interesting
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
3 answers
Some research indicates that the fist steps toward democratization of an authoritarian regime actually lowers state capacity. How strong is the evidence for this hypothesis?
Relevant answer
Answer
The problem in answering this question we need to ask what is the degree of political and social development the given nation has. That if you have no real formation of civil society--which is when all remember of that nation see each other as fellow sharers of a common bond or seeing them more as strangers they accidentally live nearby--or not. In that case, the authoritarian body is the only thing holding things together. Democracy can only work where there exists a healthy civil body where the members see themselves as being part of one community sharing a common good which they all believe they are benefiting from and would be far worse off if they did not share.
We tend to forget that Western European states only developed viable democratic political systems after several hundred years of autocratic/monarchial rule that produced a viable civic and national common good that became the basis for the civil society that all members of those nations see as a shared common benefit.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
5 answers
There was widespread social discontent/protest in the UK in 2016 after Brexit/2016 and in the USA after Trump/2016 after their exism movements won the democratic contest under effective targeted chaos.
The same has happened in other countries where liberal democracies under majority rule have produced an extreme democratic outcome since 2016, the latest case is ARGENTINEXISM/2023.
And this raises the question: Murphy's law remorse and widespread social protest/discontent after exism movements/extreme democratic outcomes come in to power: Are they linked?.
What do you think?
If you think that they are linked why do you think so?
If you think they are not linked why do you think so?
Note:
Key concepts: Murphy's law, Murphy's law remorse, effective targeted chaos, exism movements, extreme democratic outcomes, social discontent after the fact
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for reading and commenting Estaniel.
What is your view on the question?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1 answer
What are the factors contributing to the rise of authoritarianism and democratic backsliding around the world, and how can we strengthen democratic norms and institutions?
Relevant answer
Answer
I would say an important contributor is the quality of political education. This includes both curricular instruction about political institutions and practical experience making collective decisions. If education systems and all institutions an individual is exposed to when they are growing up are authoritarian, how can the individual be expected to suddenly begin practicing good democracy when they are an adult?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
What is the Ultimate Goal of Any Revolution?
Continuity until radical change occurs
Revolution is a type of violence.
Revolution has a beginning and an end.
Revolution has a beginning, like the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 and the French Revolution of 1789.
The French Revolution began on May 5, 1789, and continued until November 9, 1799.
It caused the abolition of absolute monarchy, established a secular democratic republic that became increasingly authoritarian and militaristic, radical social change based on liberalism and other enlightenment principles, the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, and armed conflicts with other European countries.
As for the Egyptian revolution, it began on January 25, 2011. The repercussions of its events are continuing to the extent that its participants object to the lack of political freedoms, the state of emergency, the increase in poverty, the difficulty of finding job opportunities, police brutality, the lack of housing, the high cost of living, the rise in food prices, the spread of corruption, the lack of free and fair elections, and the lack of freedom of expression, poor living conditions, deviation from the path of truth, and the spread of falsehood.
The radical change has not taken place yet. The revolution is still alive within us and continuing till radical change is done if God Almighty wills. If God wills something, it will be done.
Relevant answer
Answer
I think regime change (or institutional change) is the ultimate goal of any revolution. Revolution is indeed violence, but violence is not necessarily bad and sometimes it is needed. For example, police is state-sanctioned violence and everybody agrees it is needed.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
8 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
i am sorry. what an affliction it is to believe in a mythical being called 'god'.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
4 answers
People have often compared Donald Trump to being in ‘the skin’ of Adolf Hitler, with many Americans laughing off the comparison since they believe that Hitler was smart but a devil, while Trump is dumb and leading a party of buffoons. But recall that at the time of Hitler in the 1930’s, many elites thought he was a misguided fanatic (so much so) that they believed he could be manipulated into getting the electoral votes while they, the elites, remained in power. This is exactly what Mitch McConnell used to think of Trump; but given hindsight, if he is a smart man, he (like Liz Cheney) should be having second thoughts about this theory, which was refuted after Hitler dissolved Congress and started building concentration camps. Shortly, Stephen Miller (a Trump loyalist and political aide) will be putting the deplorables of America into concentration camps with all the illegal immigrants now working in America. So, if Trump wins the next election, then based on his behavior on January 6th (2021) expect him to dissolve Congress and commission crews to start building those concentration camps that will be overseen by Commandant Miller, which will be advertised as one of the central achievements in Trump’s first 100 days of the presidency. Expect 20% of the population (i.e., those who voted for him with passion) to react by asserting their 2nd Amendment right by taking up arms in defense of Trump’s draconian policies as he assumes the role of Dictator. Finally, expect a mass exodus by the non-European deplorables to places like Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and so on, to avoid being ‘concentrated’ in a camp. If and when this 'fiction’ transpires, Margaret Atwood will be smiling as she gives another lecture on her prescient book ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’.
Relevant answer
Answer
Señor Phillips.
You are quite right, we do need politicians like Trump just as we need organisations like Antifa and BLM.
That is what pluralist democracy is all about.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1092 answers
The greater emergence of authoritarianism in politics and society?
Authoritarian religions will gain greater political power?
The influence of the US will substantially decline?
America is substantially weakened?
A dark or darker age will descend overseeing the end of liberal values?
Relevant answer
Answer
The USA owes Ukraine a debt, a commitment. According to the Budapest Memorandum, the USA acted as guarantors! Moreover, the USA, in agreement with Russia, they told Ukraine to transfer nuclear weapons (warheads, missiles, aircraft) to Russia in exchange for US guarantees. Now Russia is destroying the people of Ukraine with these weapons! And part of the republicans exchange the lives of Ukrainian soldiers for their political demands. It's disgusting and vile!
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
How does one gauge sincerity to a cause against mere self-righteousness? Why? My answer: One gauges sincerity to a cause against mere self-righteousness by discerning the observed‘s adherence to reciprocity, harm avoidance, the golden rule(treating others as the treater wants to be treated), the silver rule(NOT treating others as the treater does NOT want to be treated), tradition(what led previous generations to survive and to be anti-fragile), risk analysis(everyone analyzes risks because NO human has complete information to act on), symmetry, empathy, common sense(evolutionary set instincts), human dignity and skin in the game(those paying a more immediate price for the consequence have the greater right to opine as goes with reciprocity and harm avoidance). Plus admitting all humans have the impulses to commit unethical acts and anyone claiming otherwise is disingenuous because no act is completely selfless nor completely selfish. Which consistently leads to an open society with negative utilitarianism(reduce suffering as much as possible without violating before mentioned risk analysis, reciprocity and skin in the game due to desired societal anti fragility).
Relevant answer
Answer
Your question is difficult to understand. Let me contextualize it with a historical example, that of indoctrinated and brainwashed German boys who were initiated into Jungvolk, were promoted to Hitler Youth, attended the special schools run by the SS, and were subsequently selected to be SS officers.
Those men presumably regarded themselves as indubitably correct in their ideological convictions and morally superior to their subordinates, as well as all of those outside the Nazi fold, Germans as well as non-Germans. I take it that that would epitomize both self-righteousness and sincerity in adherence to the Nazi cause and its Führerprinzip.
You seem to be suggesting that mere self-righteousness is differentiated from sincere adherence to a cause, in that sincerity requires adherence to a host of moral principles. However, it seems to me that for such indoctrinated men such principles were adhered to mostly in regard to their Nazi superiors and equals, less so to their Nazi subsordinates, even less to (non-Jewish) Germans, and entirely optional as regards Jews and non-Germans.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
6 answers
If you think outside the box, it is possible to see similarities and differences between the economy model used by china after the fall of the soviet bloc and the economy model used by the USA then and now. Knowing and understanding these similarities and differences can help to see the nature of inverse paradigm dynamics that may play in the future.
And this raises the question: In terms of equality and freedom, what are the similarities and the differences between the Chinese economy model and the USA economy model?
Can you see the similarities and the differences in this context?
If yes, please share them.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Relevant answer
Answer
In many areas of social significance, both the US and China are not number one. Far from it, the two often find themselves way down the list when compared to other countries. It is critical that we not lose sight of the fact that in many areas of life – from governance to healthcare to crime to the environment – the two countries have a lot of catching up to do.
Happiness is not the be all end all of life, but it’s not irrelevant either. And on this score the US and China do not fare particularly well, ranking 18 and 94, respectively, far behind Finland. The US ranks higher than China on metrics of democracy and freedom, but even there the US is far from preeminent, something we’ve witnessed in vivid terms the last few years.
The Gini coefficient, one of the most widely used metrics of inequality, shows that in 2019 the United States (0.481) and China (0.465) both still have highly unequal income distributions in absolute terms and relative to other countries.
Inequality was far lower in China in the late 1970s, but then soared following the launch of the “reform and opening” policies. Marketization succeeded in delivering decades of high overall growth, but a number of factors – among them corruption, credit policies favoring a shift of wealth from households to companies, privatization of SOEs, and an insufficient availability of welfare services – have raised inequality far higher than would otherwise be the case. It likely resulted in the share of public wealth (as a portion of national wealth) to drop from about 70 percent in 1978 to 35 percent by 2015.
Trends in the United States are similarly concerning. The bottom 50 percent of wage earners experienced a collapse in their share of the nation’s wealth between 1978 and 2015, from 20 percent to 12 percent of total income, while the top one-percent’s income share rose from 11 percent to 20 percent. Inequality was exacerbated by educational and wage policy failures, resulting in insufficient support for the underprivileged. In addition to this, as in China, the United States lacks a well-funded welfare state when compared with other advanced industrialized economies.
Ref/
My best wishes Lucio Muñoz good question as almost all of yours 👍
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
19 answers
As all of you may know, we can take the experience of Trumpism(November 2016-January 2021) in the USA to explore questions such as when a democratic contest can lead to partial and permanent authoritarianism. The failure of the USEXIT/Trumpism to persist by losing reelection means that we just witness temporary authoritarianism, but it could have been worse as one more step was needed to move towards permanent authoritarianism in the USA and the lost of the most relevant normal democratic system in the world. Which raises the question, When can permanent authoritarianism take hold under majority rule liberal democracies?. Any ideas about what the missing step was to transition from temporary to permanent authoritarianism in the USA in 2020. Feel free to share your ideas.
Relevant answer
Answer
Robert, thank you for taking the time to write.
This is an academic question, not a political one: your description of the canadian problem in your view is the same as the description of the problem by holders of exism views like in the USA, Brazil, UK, Italy, Argentina,.,,,, My work explains how exism movements can come out of liberal democracies and how they can come to exist and persist or the condition needed for then to fade away.... From 2016 Brexit and 2016 USEXIT/Trumpism to the present, the expectations documented in my work seem to be consistent with the coming and goings of exism movements that come from majority rule liberal democratic thinking under independent rule of law rule.
Not to desviate, Robert, Do you have a view on the answer to this specific question: When can permanent authoritarianism take hold under majority rule liberal democracies?
As all of you may know, we can take the experience of Trumpism(November 2016-January 2021) in the USA to explore questions such as when a democratic contest can lead to partial and permanent authoritarianism. The failure of the USEXIT/Trumpism to persist by losing reelection means that we just witness temporary authoritarianism, but it could have been worse as one more step was needed to move towards permanent authoritarianism in the USA and the lost of the most relevant normal democratic system in the world. Which raises the question, When can permanent authoritarianism take hold under majority rule liberal democracies?. Any ideas about what the missing step was to transition from temporary to permanent authoritarianism in the USA in 2020. Feel free to share your ideas.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
69 answers
In some of my recent papers, I have demonstrated a return to medieval tropes evident in Russia, the Middle East and indeed the USA, which has been expressed as a return to authoritarianism. I will expand on that as indicating a re-embrace of irrationality whether through strident and implausible nationalism, pogroms, and an increase in state violence and a decline in humanitarian ideologies.
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, history is repeating. The historic recurrence or eternal return of things and events is due to unsolved deeper problems of the human nature or psyche. Some people might learn from some of their mistakes , but the historic record shows that humanity does not learn from its mistakes, Humanity does not learn from its past. There is no evidence that we know how.
'Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' (George Santayana).
Scientific modes of thought cannot be developed and become generally accepted unless people renounce their primary, unreflecting, and spontaneous attempt to understand all their experience in terms of its purpose and meaning for themselves. The development that led to more adequate knowledge and increasing control of nature was therefore, considered from one aspect, also a development toward greater self-control by men.
Norbert Elias
Conlusion: The materialist consumer society can provide no answer or solution to the improvement of the human condition, with respect to greater self-control,moral reflection and ethical engagement.
For a humanitarian transition away from our predatory psyche , two factors are needed. The first is a shift in the mode of production, which may be happening with the transition from the industrial age to the knowledge age. The second is a transformation of the level of consciousness through a spiritual leap forward.
History is always repeating itself, but each time the price goes up.
Will Durant
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
What is the best chronological procedure to cite 2/3 authors in a text, recent-old or old-recent?
Relevant answer
Answer
It depends partly on the citation format you are following in your discipline. In my field, anthropology, we do citations in the text (within parentheses) as: authors listed alphabetically by last name; if an author has multiple publications being cited, most commonly we list those in the text (and the References Cited section) chronologically, oldest to most recent.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
7 answers
Dear reader,
I am about to embark on a PhD in political science focusing on left wing authoritarianism.
To what extent do left wing politics go too far in informing decision making in Western higher education?
Any and all faculty member's experiences are welcome.
Note: discussion on this thread is not for data gathering purposes.
Relevant answer
Answer
The "left" -- or anyone -- goes too far when it cancels conversation.
Welcome to the tolerance witch trials:
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
4 answers
What is the propensity for authoritarian regimes to use quazi-democratic institutions, such as sham elections, stacked legislative bodies, etcetera, to undermine the public's confidence in democratic principles, thereby averting opposition?
Relevant answer
Answer
We need to perhaps distinguish between democratic processes and institutions from processes, networks, and institutions that facilitate effective feedback. This is because successful authoritarian regimes need to be able to manage and optimize feedback from the forces and sectors that the body political they are ruling is composed of. Effective management of feedback permits them to optimize the benefits and minimize the costs in the classic "Coercion–Extraction" Cycle and thus permits them stability and longevity that could not be achieved by mere coercion.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
Hager Ali, in the essay linked above, makes what I believe to be a profound argument. Today, "autocracies around the world are emulating democratic features and democracies [are adopting] authoritarian characteristics". Perhaps this has always been the nature of regimes for as long as there have been regimes. Some are better at being "democratic" whilst others less so.
Ali demonstrates that we, private citizens, residents, and visitors of various sorts, need to get better at differentiating what makes a "real and existing democracy" - be that in a country or school or family - and why that's the case.
This is a formidable challenge as most of us are ill-equipped to understand the often delicate or nuanced differences between an act of democracy and an act of authoritarianism. Some say that "you know it when you see it" but I am not convinced. Today's ars politica are often sophisticated and power, as John Keane wrote a few years ago, has taken on a more spectral (shadowy) quality. We require an upgrade to whatever the perceptive faculty of ours that is responsible for detecting a democratically-formulated order of power.
Ali offers one approach to help us detect democratic order: democratic states control their militaries through civilian oversight.
What approach might you offer to help others detect "democracy"?
Relevant answer
Answer
In today's world, an interesting trend has emerged where autocracies are increasingly incorporating democratic elements, while democracies are adopting certain characteristics of authoritarian regimes. This phenomenon raises questions about the evolving nature of governance and the blurring lines between these two distinct forms of government.
Autocracies, traditionally characterized by concentrated power in the hands of a single ruler or a small group, have recognized the appeal of democratic practices. By implementing certain democratic features, autocratic regimes aim to enhance their legitimacy and present a facade of inclusivity. These features may include holding periodic elections, creating pseudo or controlled opposition parties, and establishing institutions that mimic the checks and balances seen in democracies. While these measures may provide an illusion of popular participation, the core power and decision-making authority ultimately remain with the ruling elite.
On the other hand, democracies, which have long prided themselves on their commitment to individual freedoms, rule of law, and inclusive governance, have faced challenges and internal pressures that have led to the adoption of authoritarian characteristics. These pressures often arise from concerns over security, stability, and the ability to effectively govern in a complex and rapidly changing world. Democracies may resort to strong executive powers, limiting civil liberties, increasing surveillance, and centralizing decision-making processes in the name of efficiency and swift action. Such measures can erode the democratic values that form the foundation of these systems.
This convergence between autocracies and democracies can be attributed to various factors. One significant factor is the spread of information technology and social media, which have enabled autocratic regimes to control narratives and manipulate public opinion more effectively. Democracies, too, have grappled with the impact of these technologies, facing challenges such as misinformation, polarization, and foreign interference. In an attempt to combat these issues, some democracies have sought to exert greater control over online platforms and limit free speech, blurring the lines between democratic principles and authoritarian practices.
Furthermore, the rise of populist movements around the world has contributed to the erosion of democratic norms. Populist leaders often exploit societal divisions and grievances to consolidate power, challenging the established institutions and norms of democracy. In their pursuit of strong leadership and decisive action, populists may exhibit authoritarian tendencies, disregarding the importance of checks and balances and undermining democratic institutions.
It is crucial to recognize and address these shifts in the political landscape. While autocracies adopting democratic features may appear to be progressing towards openness, transparency, and inclusivity, it is essential to scrutinize the extent of genuine democratic practices and assess the concentration of power behind the scenes. Similarly, democracies must guard against the erosion of civil liberties and the concentration of power in the hands of a few, reaffirming their commitment to democratic values and accountability.
In conclusion, the blending of autocratic and democratic characteristics in today's world raises concerns about the future of governance. As autocracies emulate democratic features and democracies adopt authoritarian characteristics, the distinction between these two forms of government becomes increasingly blurred. It is imperative for societies to remain vigilant, ensuring that democratic principles are upheld and that power remains in the hands of the people rather than concentrated within ruling elites. Only through such vigilance can we strive for governance systems that truly reflect and protect the values of the people they represent.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1 answer
We live in strange times. Extraordinary economic inequalities, extraordinary technological developments, authoritarian states and reversal of social and political thought. In such contexts, is it possible to think of a society where family, private property and the state do not exist?
Relevant answer
Answer
I think we need basic institutions such as the family and property rights and a state monopoly on the use of moderate violence. Otherwise, advanced civilisation would have no right to exist. However, I think your question is about a different issue. Namely, it is about the imbalances in the current globalised and financialised economic system that lead to huge inequalities within societies, although inequalities between countries seem to be decreasing. Questions that could be asked are, for example, how to increase the extent of common property not belonging to any private interests. The problems raised in the question are being discussed, nevertheless within heterodox approaches rather than mainstream economics. One can mention Prof. Thomas Picketty and his Capital and Ideology, or Prof. Michael Hudson including his recent and excellent treatise on the collapse of ancient civilisation in the West (The Collapse of Antiquity). Interestingly, both authors point out that the change required to improve social cohesion and reduce inequality will certainly not come from within the system, but rather will be realised through a dynamic process of crisis or worse, war. . .
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
8 answers
It is possible, using dominant system equality and freedom theory to map the structure of the market model in China before and after the fall of red socialism in 1991, and this raises the question, Can you see the structure of the 1991 flip from red socialism to non-democratic capitalism in China in terms of equality and freedom?
If you can see the structure of the flip please share it.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Note:
It is best stating the structure of red socialisl and non-democratic capitalism in terms of equality and freedom separately and then comparing them to see the context of the 1991 flip in those terms
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Ange, good day, Thank you for writing and see you are familiar with related material by me. My goal this year is to expand those ideas in terms of equality and freedom.
I have written and share several articles on how to give structure to all possible dominant component based development models, and link those structures to paradigm shift and paradigm shift theory from the point of view of dominant component equality and freedom.... For example, red socialism as you know it is a social equality without freedom model so you can represent it by a social dictatorship structure. Democratic capitalism is an economic freedom without equality model so you can represent it as a liberal economy model. Non-democratic capitalism is an economy without freedom and equality so you can represent it as an economic dictatorship.
Once you know how to write or express those structures in terms of dominant component equality and freedom, then you can provide analytical support to all the things you listed in your comment as well as be able to answer the current question using this freedom and equality thinking.
One of my goals this year is to expand these ideas and apply them for example to state the paradigm evolution path of red socialism had it had been able to win the cold war by going economy friendly and what would have come next and what is at the end or to state the paradigm evolution path of non-democratic capitalism if it were to outsmart democratic capitalism and what would come next and what is at the end or what is the paradigm evolution path of democratic capitalism if it loses to non-democratic capitalism and what comes next and what is at the end.
Attached I shared the figure 3 of a paper I am working on to present the theory on where to base and complete those goals of the year mentioned above, notice that democratic capitalism(DC), red socialism(RS), and non-democratic capitalism(NDC) are not yet represented there in terms of equality and freedom yet:
How the models needed to answer the relevant question here can be stated in terms of equality and freedom and how paradigm evolution in this case is expected to work can be found at:
Sustainability thoughts 151: An overview of market variability based on dominant component equality and freedom: What is the structure of a true perfect market?
Sustainability thoughts 152: How to highlight the four market structures that dominant component markets can have in terms of equality and freedom variability when under externality neutrality assumptions and without them?
Sustainability thoughts 138: How does a general red socialism market evolution model is expected to work? The cases of expanding red socialism, of saving red socialism from collapse, and the case of the fall of red socialism due to binding economic sustainability pressures
Sustainability thoughts 135: How can a general paradigm evolution model aimed at capturing all possible market evolution routes in response to binding sustainability gap pressures be stated step by step?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
5 answers
I think yes, what do you think?
Please share your own ideas.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear David, I provided you my definitions so as to share the ideas behind the question to help you provide your view/answer to the current questions, NOT to comment on the concepts: Should woke populations under majority rule be expected to tend towards a more perfect democracy through time? yes, why you think so? No, what you think so?
If you answer the question, I will politely respond and expand.
Note:
-But keep in mind, if you look at the situation as if exism movements are normal democratic outcomes(parties) competing with normal democratic outcomes(parties), then your comment may make sense, but if you look at the situation from the point of view of competition for power between normal democratic outcomes and extreme democratic outcomes, then your comment shows you can not see this.
You may find these publications full with food for thoughts related to the nature of this question:
Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Conditions Under Which Extreme Democratic Outcomes Such as BREXIT and USEXIT Should Be Expected to Take Place Using Qualitative Comparative Means
Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically.
Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can Affect the Democratic Process?
The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically
Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal liberal democracies to extreme liberal democracies be used to extract the democratic structure that leads to the rise of temporary and permanent authoritarianism from within?
Sustainability thoughts 133: Stating the expected step by step road from majority rule based liberal democracies to permanent authoritarianism: The case of the 2016-2020 rise and fall of Trumpism
True Democracy and Complacency: Linking Voting Outcome Expectations to Complacency Variability Using Qualitative Comparative Means.
Sustainability thoughts 134: How can normal and extreme democratic outcome theory be used to point out the structure of the 2016 shift from true democracy thinking to temporary democratic authoritarianism thinking and its main implications?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
4 answers
If you look carefully as how exism movements like Trumpism or Italianism or Brexism or Brazilianism come to exist under majority rule based democracies, they all need the same conditions to exist,....without this condition they can not come to power....
which raises the question, what is the necessary and sufficient condition for an exism movement to come to exist under majority rule based liberal democracies?
What do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Ludo, thank you for taking the time to write.
Keep in mind, in a normal liberal democratic environment based on majority rule and the independent rule of law, power moves from one normal democratic outcome to another normal democratic outcome through a peaceful transfer of power, where the normal democratic outcome is the one that reflect the majority view rule.....If the current normal democratic outcome is not working in the best interest of the majority as it should, then voters can vote with their HEADS AND FEETS and keep electing normal democratic outcomes that actually reflect the best interest of the majority....If somebody lies to you and you have the power to get rid of him/her with your vote, they you vote him/her out at the first opportunity and bring someone else committed to the best interest of the majority. The voter can use happiness to re-elect RESPONSIBLE normal democratic outcomes or to vote out irresponsable ones to bring in a responsible or more responsible one....
If the majority allows unhappiness to lead to natural full complacency or be the victim of effective targeted chaos induced full complacency, then it allows an extreme democratic outcome to win instead of another normal democratic outcome and then the majority rule process will be held hostage by the minority view as the minority view wins the democratic contest....
The minority view is the exism view, with values contrary to the normal democratic thinking and rule of law as it places the best interest of the exism movement over the best interest of the country and places the best interest of the minority over the best interest of the majority.
So Ludo, to understand the direction where informed and independent rational voter discontent should go to ensure the preservation of the best interest of the majority is always the outcome or where they go to lead to the lost of the best interest of the majority you need to think in terms of NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES/NORMAL LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES and EXTREME DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES/EXTREME LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES, then you can understand how they can compete for power and persist in power as a competition between normal democratic outcome vrs extreme democratic outcome instead of the USUAL normal democratic outcome agains normal democratic outcome.
Luco, do you have a view on the actual question now that you have the context shared above?: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for an exism movement to come to exist under majority rule based liberal democracies?
If yes, please share that necessary and sufficient condition.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
13 answers
There is a necessary and sufficient condition for exism movements to come to power under majority rule based democracy and rule of law when competing in elections; and there is a necessary and sufficient condition for exism movement to lose power when going through reelection.
Exism movements like Trumpism, Brexism, Brazilianism and Italianism came to power under the same condition to gain power; and both Brazilianims and Trumpism lost power when seeking reelection under the same condition to lose power, Trumpism fell in 2020 and Brazilianism fell in 2022.
And this leads to the question: Under majority rule and the independent rule of law, what is the necessary and sufficient condition for exism movements to lose power?
What do you think?
This is an academic question, please provide your own comments, not third party comments
Relevant answer
Answer
Good day Jeffrey, if you are thinking inside the box, you may not be able to see the answer to this question, you need to be able to think outside the box to understand the nature and working of exism movements within democratic contest....Just defining exism will not help you much.....I think you need to read more of what is out there....However, the definition used in my publications is below:
All my publications related to this question directly or indirectly have a list of operational concepts relevant to each question.....
In one of the article EXISM is defined as concept No. 30
30) EXISM, the extreme democratic movements aiming at destroying majority rule based institutions, locally and globally.
Now that you have the concept, the context is: There is a necessary and sufficient condition for exism movements to come to power under majority rule based democracy and rule of law when competing in elections; and there is a necessary and sufficient condition for exism movement to lose power when going through reelection. Exism movements like Trumpism, Brexism, Brazilianism and Italianism came to power under the same condition to gain power; and both Brazilianims and Trumpism lost power when seeking reelection under the same condition to lose power, Trumpism fell in 2020 and Brazilianism fell in 2022.
And this leads to the question: Under majority rule and the independent rule of law, what is the necessary and sufficient condition for exism movements to lose power?
What do you think?
This is an academic question, please provide your own comments, not third party comments
And the question is: Under majority rule based democracies and the rule of law, what is the necessary and sufficient condition for exism movements to lose power?
What do you think?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
5 answers
There are indications that a not insignificant segment of the US population favors or actively supports a government that centralizes political power in one official or small group and which only nominally respects democratic elections, political plurality, the rule of law, and the separation of powers in maintaining control and the status quo. Neither political science nor suicidology seem to have pondered how suicide prevention will be affected under an authoritarian form of government. It might not be too early to start pondering,
We know something of the relationship between this form of government and suicide. Countries with some type of authoritarian rule have among the highest suicide rates in the world. There is evidence that this may be due to some degree to the detrimental effects such systems have on individual mental wellness. Depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and a general sense of helplessness seem inherent to even low doses of civil authoritarianism. These are all risk factors that may beget other risk factors.
There are several not so subtle hints as to how an authoritarian system may affect suicide prevention. Restrictions on free exchange of information and an aversion to scientific inquiry top any list. The behavior of authoritarian officials and governments towards prevention and control of public health challenges like COVID-19 do not raise hopes regarding meaningful suicide prevention. Warping institutions that suicide prevention relies on for support and objective data (e.g., the US CDC) will take a heavy toll.
A lack of empathy for the suffering that suicide causes may be the most harmful consequence. Worst yet authoritarians are not known for their compassion toward the vulnerable. Benign neglect may be the best that an authoritarian government can muster and maybe not even that. Even authoritarian regimes require some measure of buy-in from those they rule. However, with the vast array of societal problems that tend to worsen under authoritarian systems, suicide prevention is not likely a concern that the masses will take to the street over.
We’ll leave it at that and hope you can add other factors. Thanks!
Relevant answer
Dear Tony,
Authoritarians are most likely to be pathological narcissists with an unwillingness yo show any empaty with vulnerable people. In contrast, they do all they can to torture them. Y have read about my facorite V. Frankle who was put to in KZ to talk inmates out of touching the electrified borders around the concentrationcamps. Then, in Bosnoa and Herzegovina I read in WHO's manual what to do when one of these psychopaths, who have been tortured victims, repent and want to purify themselves from all awful things they have done.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
2 answers
I think Yes, what do you think?
Below are some articles with some food for thoughts shared recently in order to understand the nature, structure and expected working of exism movements
Sustainability thoughts 133: Stating the expected step by step road from majority rule based liberal democracies to permanent authoritarianism: The case of the 2016-2020 rise and fall of Trumpism
Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can Affect the Democratic Process?
The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically
Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal liberal democracies to extreme liberal democracies be used to extract the democratic structure that leads to the rise of temporary and permanent authoritarianism from within?
Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal liberal democracies to extreme liberal democracies be used to extract the democratic structure that leads to the rise of temporary and permanent authoritarianism from within?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yusuf, if you look at exism movements from the point of view of an paradigm shift from normal democratic outcomes to extreme democratic outcomes you need an outside the box thinking model to solve the problem of the paradigm shift knowledge gap created, you need new concepts/ideas no found in dictionaries that how the growth of knowledge works if you remember thomas kuhn's paradigm evolution loop.
If you know what exism movements are you can point out to the answer without looking at the specific concepts.
What is your view on the answer to the question?
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
5 answers
There are 3 leadership styles - autocratic, authoritarian, transformational with each having about 5 indices. I am the view that the appropriate tool should be the mode or the one that has the highest frequency after transforming each of the 5 indices in each of the 3 leadership styles to one single variable and then find the mode. But there has been diverse opinions that the one that has the highest weighted means will measure this.
Relevant answer
Answer
If your research is a descriptive survey, that is, if there is no dependent variable, whereby only three leadership styles are being investigated as independent variables, then you can use analysis of variance to analyse your data. However, if you are correlating the three leadership styles with dependent variable (performance for instance), then you may want to consider using regression analysis.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
4 answers
Hello Seniors I hope you are doing well
Recently I've read some very good research articles. In those articles datasets were taken from V-Dem, Polity and Freedom House. Though they have shared the link of supplementary datasets and the process of how they analyzed these datasets in SPSS or R in brief but I couldn't understand and replicate these findings. It may be because I am not very good at quantitative data analysis.
So I want to know how could I better understand this Datasets analysis easily like V-Dem etc. Is there any good course online, lectures or conference video etc. Or good book?
Article links
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks in anticipation.
Relevant answer
Answer
Please find some online course for learning R on Edx and Coursera platforms.
Thanks ~PB
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
5 answers
Does anybody know of any work that links authoritarianism and the Inferiority/Superiority complex. I know that T. Adorno in his 1950 book The Authoritarian Personality used psychoanalytic theory to explain authoritarianism but I am looking for work specifically connecting the two. Thank you in advance for your help.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hm, this is an interesting point. Relatedly, in a yet unpublished research I have tested relationship between basic psychological needs from the Self-Determination Theory and authoritarianism as defined by the Duckitt/Bizumic ATC paradigm and there was no correlation what so ever between the two. As you said, this sounds good on paper but in reality it fails, I cant put my finger on it why. I will keep digging on this. Thanks for the support.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
5 answers
Good morning,
I am a psychology student and I want to do a research about attitudes to eugenic abortion and authoritrianism. As far as I know there is RWA and RWAS to measure right-wing authoritarianism, but I didn't found any tool for measure left-wing authoritarianism. If you came across for such a tool, please write to me.
Relevant answer
Answer
Oh My God! Don't you know that LWA is dubbed democracy, I won't be surprised if it appears as a synonym for democracy in Thesaurus.
Anyway, Justyna Kusiak has posed a highly engrossing question and Laurens ten Horn has aptly warned us about entering into the dreary terrain. I would love to recommend all the answers.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1 answer
Good morning,
I have a question about Robert Altemeyer's RWA scale. As far as I know, Robert Altemeyer defines right wing authoritarianism as a combination of conventionalism, authoritarian agression and authoritarian submission. So my question is whether the RWA scale has subscales which measure these 3 costructs? And if so, which items belongs to which subscale?
Best regards,
JK
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi, Justyna,
Interesting question!
However, I think it follows from a misunderstanding of measurement theory. The authors of The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950) originally distinguished even 9 aspects, later-on reduced to the 3 core-characteristics you mention. They are all aspects of the same variable and not independent and unrelated like orthogonal factors in a factor-analysis. May be you can find something by using some sort of highly sofisticated statistical analysis (or a factor analytic approach using very oblique rotation), but in essence all items in the scales are supposed to contribute to the measurement of the same trait. This can be checked by item analysis available in software for reliability analysis (look for 'coefficient alpha if item removed').
As you are a student, I suggest you discuss your question with your supervisor.
Laurens
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
3 answers
Hi, I'm looking to find any measures which ask adults to reflect on their parents' parenting styles, more specifically whether they think their parents showed more authoritarian styles or encouraged their children to be competitive, however anything asking the respondent to reflect on their early experiences and parenting styles would be useful. I am struggling to find parenting measures from the perspective of the child.
Thanks, Tommy.
Relevant answer
Answer
You can look at the Ronald Rohner's acceptance rejection theory and the scales about this. The scale name is Adult Parental Acceptance - Rejection Questionnaire.
I hope it benefits for you.
Sincerely
Esra IŞIK
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
131 answers
The coming of exism movements in 2016 led to the coming of extreme democratic outcomes within majority rule based liberal democracies like in the USA.
And this brought a change in the nature of democracy as it has led to a shift from true democracy thinking to temporary democratic authoritarianism thinking.
We are probably familiar with the structure of the forces competing for power in a true democracy, I think. but not with the forces competing in a temporary democratic authoritarianism system. Which raises the question, what is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism? Any ideas?
Feel free to express your own views so we can exchange ideas in a positive academic environment as this is an academic question, not a political one.
Relevant answer
Answer
Lucio Muñoz , I would like to correct your impression, as follows: "If she would have thought that my answer was lacking, she would have said so including why she thought my answer was lacking so I have the change to reply, but she did not say so…
If there is a paradigm shift, Thomas Kuhn told us in the structure of scientific revolutions, those inside the box cannot see it and they will resist it at the beginning…. During the time of resistance in my view “they are a kind of living in the past”….
The question and focus here is: What is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism?"
This is my first opportunity to read your response to my question(s) because I had to work on several manuscripts, in case you are wondering, (1) a theoretical paper on Sacajawea as the matriarchal leader of the United States of America; and (2) East-West influences on Derek Walcott, the 1992 Nobel Award Winner in Literature, the first African American to win it, which blazed a pathway for Toni Morrison, in 1993 the first African American woman to win a Nobel Prize in Literature. If I had been here, I would have thanked you for responding to my request to define "outside of the box." However, it is true that my question, or rebuttal and supporting timeline, with regard to your assertion of what you posited as Trumponomics' dependency on warfare has remained unanswered.
I apologize in advance if there is another delay. Today's email brought a request that I revise a manuscript I wrote a couple of months ago and submitted for consideration for publication as a refereed journal article, which tries to argue my case for the multifaceted depiction of Capitalism in a classic film by Hitchcock, in which I also attempt to indicate ways in which the film coincides with the ideas of Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Freud, Marx, and Veblen. Needless to say, there is a good deal of generalized topical material, which makes a study like this quite vulnerable to (constructive) criticism, for which I am grateful.
I am still interested in knowing whether or not you still hold the view that what you call "Trumponomics" is inextricably bound together with a wartime economy, or have you changed your view?
With best wishes.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
4 answers
I have seen most of the Research papers will calculate Mean for Gender
as Gender is Categorical variable only we can calculate percentage as it comes under Nominal scale
the following article is showing please confirm
How Authoritarian Leadership Affects Employee's Helping Behavior? The Mediating Role of Rumination and Moderating Role of Psychological Ownership"
Relevant answer
Answer
@Madasu Yes you're right that many studies report mean value for Gender as well but in my opinion, it's senseless to report mean value for Gender.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
15 answers
We all know about the traditional perfect market of Adam Smith and its place at the heart of pure or perfect capitalism.
We usually associate perfect market thinking with no government intervention unless there is market failure, but the perfect market of Adam Smith, like any other possible perfect market, can better be defined in terms of equality and freedom so as to be able to link it for example to imperfect markets such as dictatorship based markets or link it to distorted markets from the democracy point of view, which leads to the question, what is the conjunctural necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of perfect markets for example a la Adam Smith?
Feel free to provide your views, and keep in mind the angle of this question is “equality and freedom”, not government intervention or supply and demand interactions, even though they are linked.
This is an academic question, not a political one, and as usual my questions usually have a simple answer.
Relevant answer
Answer
Steven, nobody is accusing anybody here. When you say that an entity has more power than another in the market and that is why there is no equality and freedom, by definition you are not talking about Adam Smith's perfect market...
If you look carefully at the pareto efficient and optimal point/conditions of the perfect traditional market, you can not be there without freedom and equality, but if you assume equality away you can be there only with freedom.
Let's leave it here. I am here to exchange ideas, not to impose ideas.
Respectfully yours;
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
6 answers
The memory policies constitute an interesting scope of analysis when we are investigating individual and collective memory. Different government regimes, authoritarian or not (sometimes even in democracies), have for decades been reinforcing or even building memories aligned with their ideological goals. However, due to the panoply of approaches in the scope of social memory, which authors are essential in an investigation about the relationship between memory policies and individual and collective memory?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Rooney,
As a Ph.D. social anthropologist who focuses on cultural survival and human rights/democratization, I can understand why you might find it difficult to find reliable scholarship in this area. In my field of anthropology, this idea of "politics of memory" is one of the many slogans that leads scholars down paths of cocktail party discussions without a firm basis in the practicality of either how memory works (which is cognitive psychology), how culture change and social change work (which are social science questions on change), how to measure sustainability and cultural survival (which can become legal questions as well as multi-disciplinary measures) and how to memorialize cultural and environmental artifacts as part of community education (memorialization and preservation are really tools of public education and awareness as well as behavioral change, which is part of "social marketing" and "behavior change"). So, the material you really want depends on whether you are part of just a philosophical discussion or whether you are part of practical action on teaching history and using the natural and human environment as a part of public education on values like tolerance, sustainability and cultural survival. Here are a couple of pieces of mine that are on my ResearchGate page in which you can see the approaches that I have taken in public education, discussion and protection directly on the natural and human landscape.
“Taking History Back to the People: An Approach to Making History Popular, Relevant and
Intellectual,” Democracy and Education, Volume 21, Issue 2, Article 1, Fall 2013.
and
“A New Approach to Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia: Why it is so Difficult to Protect Cultures and Build Bridges in this Region,” Transcience, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2020.
Best,
David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)
Founder and CEO, Unseen America Projects, Inc.
Founder and CEO, Southeast Asia Cultural and Environmental Heritage Protection Project
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
10 answers
Perfect market thinking can be applied to one dominant component based markets or to two dominant component based markets and to three dominant component based markets.
Adam Smith's market, the perfect traditional market is a one dominant component based market as it is an economy only market so it it is a perfect economy market.
Red socialism was a one dominant component based market too as it was a society only market, but it was not a perfect social market?, which raises the question, Why was the red socialism market not a perfect social market?
This is an academic question, not a political one. I expect a simple answer, what do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
The analysis of the inferior efficiency of wholly socialist centrally planned economies vis-à-vis social market economies is a multifaceted and complex problem. Answering the above question, I conclude that the aforementioned lower efficiency occurred in completely socialist centrally planned economies, because central planning with economic entities that function as state and not private and operate in the absence of real market structures and competition is not motivated to improve economic and financial efficiency., is not effectively activated to innovative solutions, in which the consumption of inputs should be optimized and limited while increasing the efficiency and achieved economic effects, satisfying the needs of citizens, gaining a significant position in competitive markets (because these attributes typical of market structures in the systems of socialist economies centrally planned for reasons, ideological assumptions do not exist).
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
36 answers
Big tech is constrained by the political environment in which they operate, locally and globally.
If the world is divided between democracy and non-democracy given current capitalism dynamics, we should expect big tech to face fewer constraints; and therefore enjoy more business stability under democracy than under a non-democracy, and this should expected to affect future globalization trends. Which raises the question, Democratic capitalism vrs non-democratic capitalism: Is this the end of true globalization?
I think, perhaps yes and perhaps no. What do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thanks; I agree with you, we need to leave here.
Have a nice evening.
Mohamed
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
8 answers
Working on a theory of paradigm shift and flips that is linked to equality and freedom it is possible to see clearly the structure of markets, including deep social markets and red socialism/communism based markets….
This understanding helps us see the options available to markets in terms of flips or shifts when under specific sustainability gap pressures, and it allows us to see which option they would exercise if they have a choice before paradigm death/collapse like the one we saw in 1991 related to the fall of Karl Marx's world/Red socialism.
From this angle, knowing the difference between different types of markets, especially close ones, is very relevant.
Looking at the deep social markets and red socialism/communism based markets, raises the question, can you see what was or is the difference between deep social markets and red socialism/communism based markets?
If you think you can see it please share it or describe it so we can exchange ideas.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Lucio,
Dear Dariusz,
If You do not analyze in this respect the communist China politically and its capitalism economically nowadays, and Yugoslavian system before 1990-s, which can be characterized as "self-governance socialism" politically and "market socialism" economically, You will lack the main points in Your raised problem. Additionally You need to analyze carefully "the Swedish model" of the seventies in 20-th century with its "functional democratic socialism" politically, Meidner "wage-earners funds" economically and elements which implemented economic efficiency and social justice at the same time (as Saltsjobaden agreement of social dialogue from 1938), etc. Other countries are much less important to analyze in this respect.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
12 answers
Paradigm death, shift and flip expectation theory suggest that a perfect paradigm flips to take the form of the perfect inverse opposite paradigm, and when it does that the order of political and legal loyalty flips at the same time. And when, the opposite process takes place, the inverse is expected to happen.
When the capitalism a la Adam Smith model(TM = aBc) was flipped in 1848 to take the form of the Karl Marx red socialism model(KM = Abc) the order of political and legal loyalty that existed in the pure capitalism system then was flipped to the inverse political and legal loyalty that existed in red socialism countries during the period of red socialism(1848-1991).
Yet in 1991, when red socialism fell and China flipped back to pure capitalism, China did not flip its political and legal loyalty structure to that of Adam Smith’s capitalism structure, but kept the one it had from the old red socialism era.
And this raises the question, why was China able to flip back to pure capitalism in 1991 after the fall of red socialism and still maintain intact the order of political and legal loyalty that it had before the fall?
Any ideas? Please, share them, but Please keep in mind, this is an academic question, not a political one.
Relevant answer
Answer
The People's Republic of China is the only country that has been able to build capitalism under the banner of communism.
Left-wing economists are convinced that such a model gives the maximum advantage precisely because of centralization. But if you talk to the Chinese themselves, they will say that they did what they do in the entire developed world: they decentralized the economic sphere of life to such an extent until it led to success. The Chinese were carrying out structural reforms. But they did it carefully and wrote about it only after each measure carried out proved its success. Why are China's reforms successful? This is a matter of decentralization. Today, the economy in China is much more decentralized than, for example, in the entire post-Soviet space or in South America.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
22 answers
The fall of red socialism in 1991 led to the flip in those countries from social responsibility to economic responsibility as the paradigm shift from red socialism to economy friendly red socialism that Karl Marx probably had in mind in the long term did not materialize.
This flip of responsibilities in 1991 led to the coming of the new members of the capitalism family, cementing for once, the two current families of pure capitalism, democratic capitalism and non-democratic capitalism.
The flip from pure capitalism to red socialism since 1848 was a flip from economic responsibility to social responsibility, which shifted the loyalty structures found in pure capitalism.
The flip back from red socialism to pure capitalism in 1991 was a flip from social responsibility to economic responsibility, which maintained the loyalty structures as they were.
Had red socialism shifted to economy friendly red socialism, then the loyalties in those countries would have shifted to the same structure of loyalty in pure capitalism countries, and authoritarian parties and leaders would have fallen as a consequence of the paradigm shift.
Hence, the loyalty structures of a system may change or may remain the same as a result of paradigm flips up and paradigm flips back or due to paradigm shifts.
Therefore, there is a link between the direction of paradigm dynamics and loyalty structures in the systems affected by sustainability or responsibility pressures, so the question:
“Democratic capitalism and non-democratic capitalism: Do they have the same political and legal loyalty structure?”
What do you think? Can you see the political and legal loyalty structure in those two systems?
Feel free to share your views.
This is an academic question, not a political one.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Lucio, you are welcome
Outwardly, these two systems may be similar, but they have a different structure of existence. Capitalism must breathe freely. And this is possible only in a democratic society. But democratic capitalism is also not perfect. In any case, internally these two systems are very different, and for example Bolivian capitalism does not look like Chinese capitalism.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
1 answer
Hello,
How do I upload an article that is not showing up?
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2013, Volume 25, Number 2, 248-261 http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ ISSN 1812-9129 Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills Among Authoritarian Students Martha Henderson Hurley and David Hurley
Regards,
Dr. David Hurley
Relevant answer
Answer
Consider saving a copy of your manuscript in a different format or upload a copy of the same manuscript again under a new description
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
14 answers
In a liberal democracy, there is a free market, and in a free market big tech has the freedom it needs to maximize profits even when their actions are not socially and/or environmentally friendly. Big tech can spread easier around the world in countries under liberal democratic structures as the risk of expanding and operating freely there is technically small, rarely futile, than in places where there are non-liberal democracies where the risk of operating freely is very high, even futile.
Usually democracies have been defended by ordinary citizens during elections, not by big tech, but since 2016 and more after the covid19 pandemic big tech has taken a bigger role as it has been expected by their costumer to do so to promote and protect democratic rights using their economic muscle, specially the right to vote/participate, as the case of the USA shows.
Now it seems to be that big tech has realized that profits are more secure the better democracy works, and profits are more at risk when democracy is at risk or when there is no democracy or when democracy ends. They seem to know now that the stability of freedom of operation and expansion is directly related to the freedom that comes from operating under a true democracy.
In other words, current dynamics seem to show that true democracy to succeed needs the support of big tech and big tech to continue to succeed freely needs the support of liberal democracy.
If acting in a coordinated way, big tech can have a huge impact on the political systems inside which they work, be it democratic spaces or non-democratic spaces, which raises the current question, true democracy and big tech, do they need each other now more than ever to succeed locally and globally?.
I think yes, what do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
Characteristic postmodern society information capitalist economy that is, the so-called speculative economy which is imbued with neoliberal ideology whereby most states democratic arranged except the USA where liberal is present politically arranging. A society in which we live it is also post-industrial in which agriculture and industry are losing the role they once had. In fact, not correct to say that these two sectors go out, but the service sector has already gained importance in which it opens a vast number of jobs, while in the previous two we have a considerable reduction of the same. Economic globalization enabled the transfer of production units from developed countries to underdeveloped countries where employees do the same job as their colleagues for 8 to 10 times fewer wages. Globalization processes have affected all world societies, not only society Western Europe and the US but also the rest of the world.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
33 answers
Once extreme democratic outcomes like Trumpism come to exist they must behave autocratically as their model structure, including the political and legal loyalties structures that they needed to persist, are the opposite as those of the normal liberal democracy model inside which extreme democratic outcomes came to exist.
Then when time for re-elections comes for extreme democratic outcomes, there is the possibility of winning or losing if playing the normal liberal democracy way, but there is the need to win at all cost if playing the extreme liberal democracy way.
Which leads to the question, what is the sufficient condition for extreme democratic outcomes like Trumpism to win re-elections or persist in power at all cost? Can the absence of this condition sufficient condition explains why Trumpism failed to persist in 2020?
Any ideas? Please share your own ideas in order to exchange ideas.
Keep in mind; this is an academic question, not a political question as I am a scientist, not a politician.
Relevant answer
Answer
George as shown in my pictures, under an independent rule of law system and without effective targeted chaos that induces full true majority complacency, exism movements like Trumpism cannot come to exist, and if they come to exist and when they go into re-election the targeted chaos that once worked is ineffective, they will lose re-election and nothing they can do, but to fade away, as independent courts without proof or evidence of electoral fraud will validate the winner of the contest…..
In 2016 against Hillary Clinton, systematic targeted chaos was effective, trumpism won; in 2020 against Biden, systematic targeted chaos was ineffective, trumpism lost. The dilemma the Trump party has now is how to make targeted chaos be effective again…otherwise; they cannot come into power again as long as there is no full true majority complacency….
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
19 answers
Is it better to treat your team members as a friend (soft way) or as a boss (authoritarian way)?
Relevant answer
Answer
I think the answer to this question can vary depending on your team
If you work in a volunteer team or have a research team that does not pay researchers, I do not think you can be authoritarian, and you have to be more patient in order to enjoy team cohesion.
But if the team desperately needs your help, you can be a little more decisive!
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
28 answers
Under normal liberal democracy there is war between several views on how to advance the common good either at the expense of the minority(e.g. traditional liberal democratic parties) or at the least cost possible to the minority(e.g. traditional liberal conservative parties). ...War here simply means " a usually heated conflict between competing ideas....".
In normal liberal democracies, science plays a central role, and if science is not followed or it is partially followed or it is ignored completely and things go bad, the opposition party will use that rational in the next election and the incumbent party may spin the reality, but the buck stops there…and the people decide at election day….
Hence, liberal normal democracies of all sorts are incompatible with authoritarianism.
When we have an extreme liberal democracy such as USEXIT or Trumpism, the whole thing changes….extreme liberal democratic outcomes should be expected to align better with authoritarianism than with normal democratic thinkers,,,
I can see several reasons why that is the case, which leads to the question, Which are the central links between extreme liberal democracy and authoritarianism/dictatorships?. Can you see them? Or What do you think?
Please express your views on the question.
Relevant answer
Answer
No worries Michael, I appreciate your comments, and I am here to share ideas and learn too.
Have a nice day
Lucio
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
8 answers
In Arendt, masses are distressed due to traumatic events, economic hardships imposed upon them, or political crises, systemically marginalized and pushed out of the boundaries of the political realm. Therefore, they are out of the boundaries of the ‘rational’ decision-making processes such as voting. But did Arendt include electoral behavior as irrational, mass action which, in the German case, eventually catapulted the Nazis to power through democratic means? When did German society become a 'mass' a la Arendt: when they voted en masse or when they gave in to emotional, demagogic narratives depicting particular groups as the culprit of their collective misery?
Relevant answer
Answer
Role of the electoral process will immensely help in eradicating many social, political and economic evils, but the condition is that there should be a massive exercise through the help of various electoral processes even at the grassroot levels.
  • asked a question related to Authoritarianism
Question
31 answers
In times of coronavirus-crisis and fear, democracy is suffering. How can we protect our democracies and our right to rebellion in such times? Albert Camus, author of philosophical essays, political texts and novels such as The Plague can be a very inspiring thinker with regard to these questions. Berghahn Journals offer free access to all journals and articles, including my article "Democracy Needs Rebellion. A Democratic Theory inspired by Albert Camus". Would be great to discuss the above mentioned questions with you: https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/theoria/66/161/th6616105.xml
Relevant answer
Answer
سلامة الشعب فوق القانون
الضرورات تبيح