Come to think of it, it also assumes that in "authoritarian" societies (whatever those are), decision-makers are completely divorced from the masses, receive no input from them, and do not care what they think, and in addition do not have internal debate. No society functions like this. The Soviets cared about public opinion a lot, as do the Chinese. Both had/have vigorous internal debate.
--- On Tue, 6/16/09, Itamar Shtull-Trauring <itamar at itamarst.org> wrote:
> From: Itamar Shtull-Trauring <itamar at itamarst.org>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] One or two flawed historical analogies (was Re: Stratfor: Western Misconceptions Meet Iranian Reality)
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 9:03 AM
> On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 03:17 -0700,
> Chris Doss wrote:
>
> > I don't think "authoritarian" is a meaningful
> category. If it just
> > means "place in which decision-making is generally
> done from above,"
> > that's every country 95% of the time. If it means
> "place in which
> > decision-making is generally done from above, but more
> than in the
> > United States" (which is what it usually really
> means," then, what,
> > there is no difference between Nazi Germany, China,
> North Korea,
> > Viet-Nam, and Cuba?
>
> "Authoritarian", or something like it, is a meaningful
> category because
> the structure of power can have a significant impact. Even
> if it's the
> elites that make the decisions, *how* that is done makes a
> huge
> difference.
>
> One the one hand we can imagine a system in which
> dissenting (elite)
> opinions are permitted, and where there is a standardized
> generally
> accepted method for changing who (among the elites) is in
> charge. On the
> other hand we can imagine a system where those in charge do
> not tolerate
> any dissenting opinions or criticisms; alternate power
> groups are
> treated with suspicion or suppressed, and authority tends
> to only come
> from whichever group is currently in power. These are two
> extreme
> endpoints on a spectrum of systems, of course.
>
> Given a well run bureaucracy, the latter system will be
> more effective
> in the short run; less time is spent debating, there are
> less
> restrictions on the decision makers.
>
> The former system will be more effective in the long run,
> since it can
> deal better with changing circumstances that invalidate the
> assumptions
> of the current rulers, and recover better from any mistakes
> they make.
> This is because they have generally accepted methods of
> changing
> policies that do not involve breaking the system or
> violence within the
> elites.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>