4 ms·

The difference between oligarchy that deliberately maintains balance of power and interests between, say, dozens or hundreds of prominent players, and a one-man

The difference between oligarchy that deliberately maintains balance of power and interests between, say, dozens or hundreds of prominent players, and a one-man rule where the "courtiers" are just richer than an average citizen, but equally subjugated to the Dear Leader, is enormous. Both Russia and China developed since 2000 from one to the other, and I wonder what the end game will be. In Russian case, the development led to re-establishment of the imperial idea and an attempt to conquer formerly held lands by force; that is something that the oligarchs wouldn't start, but a neo-Tsar absolutely did. Communist China used to be way less externally aggressive than Russia / USSR, but I don't like the current military gestures by Xi. Not at all.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
So the degree of authoritarian decision making felt by ‘courtiers’ within the party can vary from year to year? I guess that is possible, but if that’s the case, wouldn’t that naturally be their goal? To concentrate power and authority in one place, or person, that they can more readily manipulate.
coliveira 2y ago
[flagged]
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  You don't read my mind well if you think that I am against China defending itself. Most nations have an army for that purpose. I am against China performing threatening exercises near Taiwan and against China claiming the majority of the South China Sea for themselves when hundreds of millions of other people live on its shores. Ever heard of "the Nine Dashes"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line That has zilch to do with defense. That is expansionism, every bit as bad as its Western equivalents.
  - coliveira 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ninjagoo 2y ago
      > Do you understand that it is called "South China Sea" for a reason right? So by this yardstick you're acknowledging that India has the right to control the entirety of the "Indian Ocean", correct? And the same with the Sea of Japan, and that Inner Mongolia is really a part of Mongolia, not China? :-)
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      Taiwan is literally an independent country, although they promote a policy of strategic vagueness about this in hopes that it will discourage China from launching an invasion. The arguments China makes for its ownership of Taiwan are no more defensible, and arguably less, than Portugal's justifications for maintaining ownership of Goa.
      - ninjagoo 2y ago
        Well, by the OP's naming standards, it's Taiwan (Republic of China) that is the primary entity, and they have the rights to all of China :-)
      - coliveira 2y ago
        It is not a country, just ask the united nations, for example. The US likes to pretend it is, but it won't happen.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        It's not a country according to the UN because China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Does Taiwan have its own military? Yes. Does it issue its own passports? Yes. Do you have to have their visa to land there? Yes. That's a country. And you, sir, on this thread, sound more like a propagandist than someone trying to have an actual conversation. You're not here to converse, to listen, but only to trumpet your talking points. That's not what HN is for, and you've been here long enough to know it.
- cyberax 2y ago
  The problem is not the army, but military posturing. It can too easily transition into an actual war. Case in point: Russia. Putin's ratings were falling, and he decided to commit "a small victorious war", based on faulty assumptions. And his assumptions were faulty because all the secret agencies were filled with yes-men who were just telling Putin what he wanted to hear. That's the problem with the authoritarian regimes: they don't have people who can stop the Dear Leader if the Dear Leader starts seriously believing in conspiracy theories and/or just goes mad with power.
  - coliveira 2y ago
    The US starts a new war for posturing every few years. They have the faulty assumption that they can control the world, even as they keep losing wars. So, not a problem unique to Russia.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      The US is not in a real danger of becoming an authoritarian state. So any top-level war-mongering is somewhat self-limiting. And while the US presidents can and do ignore intelligence data, they at least _have_ it.
      - coliveira 2y ago
        > The US is not in a real danger of becoming an authoritarian state So you're saying democrats are lying? They say that may happen by the next election, so at least 50% of the population believes this is possible. Moreover, from the point of view of foreign policy the US is already an authoritarian state. People have no say on weather to start or stop a war, anymore than the Russians have.
        cyberax 2y ago
        > So you're saying democrats are lying? They are not lying. Trump is literally saying that he's going to use the military to suppress his opponents, after all. I just happen to think that the US has far more resilience built into its political system than it seems. E.g. Project 2025 is terrible and if it's implemented, it'll result in pure hell for the regular people. But a hypothetical Trump administration won't be able to implement even a fraction of it. It'll need many dozens of new laws passed, and probably even new Amendments. And then there are also individual states that hold a lot of power to sabotage the laws that they don't like. For an example, look at the "sanctuary city" laws in California or Washington. Mind you, it doesn't mean that a hypothetical Trump administration won't hurt a lot of people. I'm just saying that it won't be able to totally monopolize the political power.

MichaelZuo 2y ago

So the degree of authoritarian decision making felt by ‘courtiers’ within the party can vary from year to year? I guess that is possible, but if that’s the case, wouldn’t that naturally be their goal? To concentrate power and authority in one place, or person, that they can more readily manipulate.

coliveira 2y ago

[flagged]

inglor_cz 2y ago
You don't read my mind well if you think that I am against China defending itself. Most nations have an army for that purpose. I am against China performing threatening exercises near Taiwan and against China claiming the majority of the South China Sea for themselves when hundreds of millions of other people live on its shores. Ever heard of "the Nine Dashes"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line That has zilch to do with defense. That is expansionism, every bit as bad as its Western equivalents.
- coliveira 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ninjagoo 2y ago
    > Do you understand that it is called "South China Sea" for a reason right? So by this yardstick you're acknowledging that India has the right to control the entirety of the "Indian Ocean", correct? And the same with the Sea of Japan, and that Inner Mongolia is really a part of Mongolia, not China? :-)
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    Taiwan is literally an independent country, although they promote a policy of strategic vagueness about this in hopes that it will discourage China from launching an invasion. The arguments China makes for its ownership of Taiwan are no more defensible, and arguably less, than Portugal's justifications for maintaining ownership of Goa.
    - ninjagoo 2y ago
      Well, by the OP's naming standards, it's Taiwan (Republic of China) that is the primary entity, and they have the rights to all of China :-)
    - coliveira 2y ago
      It is not a country, just ask the united nations, for example. The US likes to pretend it is, but it won't happen.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        It's not a country according to the UN because China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Does Taiwan have its own military? Yes. Does it issue its own passports? Yes. Do you have to have their visa to land there? Yes. That's a country. And you, sir, on this thread, sound more like a propagandist than someone trying to have an actual conversation. You're not here to converse, to listen, but only to trumpet your talking points. That's not what HN is for, and you've been here long enough to know it.
cyberax 2y ago
The problem is not the army, but military posturing. It can too easily transition into an actual war. Case in point: Russia. Putin's ratings were falling, and he decided to commit "a small victorious war", based on faulty assumptions. And his assumptions were faulty because all the secret agencies were filled with yes-men who were just telling Putin what he wanted to hear. That's the problem with the authoritarian regimes: they don't have people who can stop the Dear Leader if the Dear Leader starts seriously believing in conspiracy theories and/or just goes mad with power.
- coliveira 2y ago
  The US starts a new war for posturing every few years. They have the faulty assumption that they can control the world, even as they keep losing wars. So, not a problem unique to Russia.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    The US is not in a real danger of becoming an authoritarian state. So any top-level war-mongering is somewhat self-limiting. And while the US presidents can and do ignore intelligence data, they at least _have_ it.
    - coliveira 2y ago
      > The US is not in a real danger of becoming an authoritarian state So you're saying democrats are lying? They say that may happen by the next election, so at least 50% of the population believes this is possible. Moreover, from the point of view of foreign policy the US is already an authoritarian state. People have no say on weather to start or stop a war, anymore than the Russians have.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > So you're saying democrats are lying? They are not lying. Trump is literally saying that he's going to use the military to suppress his opponents, after all. I just happen to think that the US has far more resilience built into its political system than it seems. E.g. Project 2025 is terrible and if it's implemented, it'll result in pure hell for the regular people. But a hypothetical Trump administration won't be able to implement even a fraction of it. It'll need many dozens of new laws passed, and probably even new Amendments. And then there are also individual states that hold a lot of power to sabotage the laws that they don't like. For an example, look at the "sanctuary city" laws in California or Washington. Mind you, it doesn't mean that a hypothetical Trump administration won't hurt a lot of people. I'm just saying that it won't be able to totally monopolize the political power.