[metacritic12]

Is this really an authoritarian regime survival guide or a not-too-hidden jab at the Trump presidency?

Like I don't see too many of the items applying to classically authoritarian regimes like China.

Let's apply the guide's own advice:

> Always think critically, fact-check and point out the truth, expose ignorance with facts.

The guide after all is written by Eastern / Europeans, the people is getting expropriated the most by Trump, in January 2017, right as Trump got elected and the democratic "resistance" movement was all the range. (Surprisingly, Trump 2 is even more extreme, and no more talk of resistance).

[dragonwriter]

> Like I don't see too many of the items applying to classically authoritarian regimes like China.

The first (“Year 1 under an authoritarian regime”) is explicitly, and the rest also implicitly, about the transition from something loosely approximating a liberal democratic republic or Constutional monarchy to an authoritarian state; its not about surviving in an established authoritarian regime.

[ithkuil]

Perhaps because those things already happened at the beginning of the Chinese Revolution and we're just seeing a phase that's several generations on the future of the transition

[metacritic12]

The guide starts with the presumption they gained power through democratic elections. Neither China nor most other historic authoritarian regimes started this way.

(Nazi Germany and Putin's Russia being the classical examples of democracies going authoritarian).

[fcatalan]

Hungary, Turkey, India, Venezuela come to mind. Poland, Brazil are also recent near misses. South Korea also had a recent oops. So a well trodden path.

[herval]

Many of which (Brazil included) had direct involvement from the masterminds behind Agent Orange top (and they’re of course trying to bring them back https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/23/brazil-bolso... )

[EasyMark]

Why is it a bad thing to get more knowledge about authoritarianism and how it can sneak up on you? If it makes some people uncomfortable, that might should be an indicator that things niggling your mind often matter more than you think.

[ascorbic]

It's clearly a guide for regimes that are in transition from liberal democracy to authoritarianism, not regimes that are fully authoritarian. It looks like it's a jab to the current Trump presidency because it's following a well-worn path. Others have commented how it applies to Hungary too, and imagine there are plenty of others too. In 2017 these were more a threat than a reality, but this time most of them are already in place.

[atoav]

There are many flavours of authoritarianism, this is a guide how to act in the early phase of one of them (regimes that started from a democracy).

Maybe you are too US-centric (wouldn't be the first time that happened to someone from the US), but as someone from Central Europe I had to immediately think about Hungary — Trump is said to follow the Orban playbook, a mental line not only drawn by me, but also by the European Council for Foreign Relations: https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-orbanisation-of-america-hung...

Now China's regime is in power since 1949 and there was no democracy before. People who had the chance to enact the advice in the 50s are likely dead by now. So you literally criticized the article for not covering a thing they said in the introduction they are not covering.

Just a hint: critical thinking involves a step where you try to play the devils advocate and try to find all flaws with your own thinking. If you skip that step it means your goal isn't finding the truth, but finding a plausible counter-argument. This isn't critical thinking, it is contrarian thinking, so something that finds a point that could (to a non-critical audience) seem like a weakness of a thought, but doesn't hold water under close scrutiny. Good for use as an unfair rethorical tool, bad to establish good discourse.

Trump praises authoritarians, has said multiple things that showed he wanted to be one, uses authoritarian language and has done political things that square with being an authoritarian — he is a textbook authoritarian. No discussion needed at, all a spade is a spade. Whether it is still early authoritarianism is the interesting question.

[powerapple]

they don't, it is a playbook on how to win elections, and it is what's happening in democracy.

[DiscourseFan]

Yeah, I mean the supreme court already knocked down Trump's whole USAID thing. The US is very far from authoritarianism, the institutions seem quite strong and thats something I believe Americans recognized when they voted for him, that it was just a bit of a risk but it was unlikely he would actually be successful in toppling the government.

[mlinhares]

There’s a dude that doesn’t hold any office telling everyone what to do, who to fire and what will be paid, including his own companies, and you feel like writing “American institutions are quite strong”, I must be living in a different planet.

[outer_web]

I read that SCOTUS told the administration to pay for completed work. Considering USAID has been essentially dissolved, I wouldn't say they knocked down "the whole USAID thing". Unless I missed some news.

[alabastervlog]

Amazingly, four of five justices said the President should be able to refuse to pay contractors for completed work from funds Congress had already allocated. WTF.

Or maybe it’s more amazing it wasn’t six of them saying that.

One really lovely part is how this would permanently make every government contract more expensive, if they got their way. Just great.

[EasyMark]

Right they won't even acknowledge that there was nothing unreasonable about those funds. Already allocated and promised. Why even say it's backed "by the reputation of the United States" if we won't even pay the bills we've already told we were going to pay. If they find fraud then sure cancel the deal. However they are using "abuse and inefficiency" as weasel words to get out of paying our debts and contracts that the current regime doesn't like.

[saxonww]

SCOTUS said the money could not be frozen, but I don't think they put a deadline on when it had to be paid out. So it's not over.

The VP and Musk have both written recently about how the judiciary can't tell the executive branch what to do. I think Vance called it illegal. Regardless, law is meaningless if no one will enforce it.

[g-b-r]

The same supreme court gave him complete immunity

[piva00]

> Americans recognized when they voted for him, that it was just a bit of a risk but it was unlikely he would actually be successful in toppling the government

Americans voted in someone that risked their whole 200+ years of democratic history knowingly? That would make it all even more absurd than it already is, risking a whole system of government, trust from international partners, respect from adversaries, the trade-off would never make any sense.

> The US is very far from authoritarianism, the institutions seem quite strong

Do they? They haven't even be put to test yet, the Congress is definitely not strong (there's no pushback from any voice of reason from the president's own party), the Supreme Court is voting 5-4 on matters that are almost blatantly unconstitutional. I'll agree that institutions are strong when enforcement of a decision completely adversarial to the current administration's goals is put to test and prevail. At this exact moment there's no sign that American institutions are anywhere near as strong as it was once thought.

[GJim]

> when they voted for him, that it was just a bit of a risk

I'm genuinely speechless.