Authoritarians: “Bet.”
The entire principle of authoritarianism is either public support or public apathy. An authoritarian regime is only as stable as its populace.
A government that butchers its people against the will of the populace cannot survive even if it is democratic. A government that butchers people with the will of the populace will survive regardless of whether or not it’s authoritarian.
See: Israel, America, Canada, Australia, UK
There’s no fundamental difference between a democratic and authoritarian government in this regard. The primary difference is (and has always been) whether property is managed as a function of the state (monarchies, socialism) or as a function of the individual (democracies, anarchy).
Well, that and the “people” that get killed in democracies are usually of a different skin colour than you, so maybe you just don’t care?
“Authoritarian” is connected to horseshoe theory which has holocaust trivialization history, please avoid using it
What would you say if I characterized the third reich as authoritarian? Would that make me a Holocaust trivializer?
Why would you call them authoritarian when you can just call them fascist?
It’s a square-rectangle situation in my view. All fascists are authoritarian bit not all authoritarians are fascist
Okay but bow is authoritarian useful? Can you find a definition that applies to Vietnam, Cuba, China, etc, that doesn’t also apply to the governments of NATO countries like the US, France, England, etc?
I think Juan Linz created a decent criteria. It’s useful as a descriptor of how much personal liberty a person residing in a particular state can assert and how easily a person can petition their government without fear of reprisal.
Can you post the definition you’re citing?
I’m taking it back.
That was a stretch but do you mean that the theory of totalitarianism was used to conflate Nazi Germany and USSR, and to an extent, justify double genocide theory…?
That being said, I don’t see how it relates?
That’s the kind of energy we need over here
If anyone wanted more evidence of how IMF loans are not in the best interests of the countries that take them, see here.
Such a badass quote. I salute the ppl of Kenya
This is where China’s “debt trap diplomacy” might actually be beneficial for Kenya…
China’s loans serve to improve the top-line (economic growth), and China’s loan concessions don’t affect that. When Kenya puts Mombasa Port’s 50-year operating and port fees up for collateral, that’s a hit on the bottom line (Kenya’s government revenues) but does not change the fact that the port still exists to drive economic growth. Moreover, often the short-term hit in port revenues is less than the interest that would’ve been paid on the loan, so these collateralized loans are often cashflow neutral or even cashflow positive to default on.
The IMF and World Bank are more focused on padding the bottom line (tax revenues) by increasing taxes and decreasing subsidies. What an insane policy.
If a country can’t grow, how can you expect it to pay off it’s loans? The entire principle of government loans in the 21st century is that GDP growth makes loans progressively less expensive. The IMF and World Bank exist only to keep developing countries poor.
Isn’t that what happened to Greece before, too?
I agree that China would be better to work with than the IMF.
Closing some of the international investor tax exemptions that were on the chopping block might still be beneficial in that case though, imo.
We can thank the IMF for this bloodshed.
