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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
One time I was in a class and the teacher rudely lowered his own hand to silence me.
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
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?
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.
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’.
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?
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).
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
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.
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.
What is the best chronological procedure to cite 2/3 authors in a text, recent-old or old-recent?
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.
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?
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"?
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?
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
I think yes, what do you think?
Please share your own ideas.
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?
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
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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"
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.
The subject of operative technique of caesarean section is quite dear and relevant to most obstetricians. I hope you will find the articles below thought stimulating. I will greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions regarding these articles.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Is it better to treat your team members as a friend (soft way) or as a boss (authoritarian way)?
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.
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?
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