How would a Dictatorship make a country more successful?
$begingroup$
How would a Dictatorship make a country more successful (Wealthy, politically and materialistically powerful, secure, stable)?
Background:
In this instance the country is a monarchy to begin with. The provinces are controlled by different families who mostly do what they want... all of them have control over specific elements in the economy. Like the one family controls the Navy; another controls a large percentage of the country's produce; another controls the Banks. The Monarch is basically in place to give everyone a power check and keep the country united.
He is overthrown by the Family that happens to control the police force (but not the army, which is unprepared and not very large). The obvious answer for the benefit of a dictatorship is that the country is united behind one leader.
An important characteristic in this situation however, is that even after the change of power, the Families would still have some power...
Definition:
Dictator - a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
*
Note that this doesn't state that the Dictator is cruel or tyrannical. The common people actually aren't treated worse than before. The main difference is among the higher ups, like where the money goes and who has the final say in decision and international policy.
economy government politics dictatorship
edited 5 hours ago
Tyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
asked 6 hours ago
L MaenL Maen
12817
New contributor
L Maen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
How would a Dictatorship make a country more successful (Wealthy, politically and materialistically powerful, secure, stable)?
Background:
In this instance the country is a monarchy to begin with. The provinces are controlled by different families who mostly do what they want... all of them have control over specific elements in the economy. Like the one family controls the Navy; another controls a large percentage of the country's produce; another controls the Banks. The Monarch is basically in place to give everyone a power check and keep the country united.
He is overthrown by the Family that happens to control the police force (but not the army, which is unprepared and not very large). The obvious answer for the benefit of a dictatorship is that the country is united behind one leader.
An important characteristic in this situation however, is that even after the change of power, the Families would still have some power...
Definition:
Dictator - a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
*
Note that this doesn't state that the Dictator is cruel or tyrannical. The common people actually aren't treated worse than before. The main difference is among the higher ups, like where the money goes and who has the final say in decision and international policy.
economy government politics dictatorship
edited 5 hours ago
Tyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
asked 6 hours ago
L MaenL Maen
12817
New contributor
L Maen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
9
$begingroup$
You need to define "successful". History has countless examples of dictators turning very messed up nations into superpowers.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Ok, that's better. You may check this: Benevolent dictatorship
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Look up enlightened absolutism. Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia. Catherine II "the Great" of Russia. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Peter I "the Great" of Russia. Gustav I Vasa of Sweden. Napoleon I, Emperor of the French.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The description seems to indicate that almost nothing changes for most folks, which seems unlikely. You're describing a rift among the ruling classes - such situations often result in extremists seizing control from moderates, and extremists usually don't leave most folks unaffected.
$endgroup$
– user535733
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Not going to write a full answer, but for a very similar scenario actually played out in real history, look up the decay of the Merovingian kings of Francia (which was not yet France), the deposition of Childeric III, the acension to the throne of Pepin the Short and the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
How would a Dictatorship make a country more successful (Wealthy, politically and materialistically powerful, secure, stable)?
Background:
In this instance the country is a monarchy to begin with. The provinces are controlled by different families who mostly do what they want... all of them have control over specific elements in the economy. Like the one family controls the Navy; another controls a large percentage of the country's produce; another controls the Banks. The Monarch is basically in place to give everyone a power check and keep the country united.
He is overthrown by the Family that happens to control the police force (but not the army, which is unprepared and not very large). The obvious answer for the benefit of a dictatorship is that the country is united behind one leader.
An important characteristic in this situation however, is that even after the change of power, the Families would still have some power...
Definition:
Dictator - a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
*
Note that this doesn't state that the Dictator is cruel or tyrannical. The common people actually aren't treated worse than before. The main difference is among the higher ups, like where the money goes and who has the final say in decision and international policy.
economy government politics dictatorship
edited 5 hours ago
Tyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
asked 6 hours ago
L MaenL Maen
12817
New contributor
L Maen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
How would a Dictatorship make a country more successful (Wealthy, politically and materialistically powerful, secure, stable)?
Background:
In this instance the country is a monarchy to begin with. The provinces are controlled by different families who mostly do what they want... all of them have control over specific elements in the economy. Like the one family controls the Navy; another controls a large percentage of the country's produce; another controls the Banks. The Monarch is basically in place to give everyone a power check and keep the country united.
He is overthrown by the Family that happens to control the police force (but not the army, which is unprepared and not very large). The obvious answer for the benefit of a dictatorship is that the country is united behind one leader.
An important characteristic in this situation however, is that even after the change of power, the Families would still have some power...
Definition:
Dictator - a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
*
Note that this doesn't state that the Dictator is cruel or tyrannical. The common people actually aren't treated worse than before. The main difference is among the higher ups, like where the money goes and who has the final say in decision and international policy.
economy government politics dictatorship
economy government politics dictatorship
edited 5 hours ago
Tyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
asked 6 hours ago
L MaenL Maen
12817
New contributor
L Maen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
Tyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
asked 6 hours ago
L MaenL Maen
12817
New contributor
L Maen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
Tyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
edited 5 hours ago
Tyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
edited 5 hours ago
Tyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
4,1701729
asked 6 hours ago
L MaenL Maen
12817
New contributor
L Maen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
L MaenL Maen
12817
asked 6 hours ago
L MaenL Maen
12817
12817
New contributor
L Maen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
L Maen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
L Maen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
9
$begingroup$
You need to define "successful". History has countless examples of dictators turning very messed up nations into superpowers.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Ok, that's better. You may check this: Benevolent dictatorship
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Look up enlightened absolutism. Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia. Catherine II "the Great" of Russia. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Peter I "the Great" of Russia. Gustav I Vasa of Sweden. Napoleon I, Emperor of the French.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The description seems to indicate that almost nothing changes for most folks, which seems unlikely. You're describing a rift among the ruling classes - such situations often result in extremists seizing control from moderates, and extremists usually don't leave most folks unaffected.
$endgroup$
– user535733
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Not going to write a full answer, but for a very similar scenario actually played out in real history, look up the decay of the Merovingian kings of Francia (which was not yet France), the deposition of Childeric III, the acension to the throne of Pepin the Short and the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
9
$begingroup$
You need to define "successful". History has countless examples of dictators turning very messed up nations into superpowers.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Ok, that's better. You may check this: Benevolent dictatorship
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Look up enlightened absolutism. Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia. Catherine II "the Great" of Russia. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Peter I "the Great" of Russia. Gustav I Vasa of Sweden. Napoleon I, Emperor of the French.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The description seems to indicate that almost nothing changes for most folks, which seems unlikely. You're describing a rift among the ruling classes - such situations often result in extremists seizing control from moderates, and extremists usually don't leave most folks unaffected.
$endgroup$
– user535733
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Not going to write a full answer, but for a very similar scenario actually played out in real history, look up the decay of the Merovingian kings of Francia (which was not yet France), the deposition of Childeric III, the acension to the throne of Pepin the Short and the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
9
9
$begingroup$
You need to define "successful". History has countless examples of dictators turning very messed up nations into superpowers.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
You need to define "successful". History has countless examples of dictators turning very messed up nations into superpowers.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Ok, that's better. You may check this: Benevolent dictatorship
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ok, that's better. You may check this: Benevolent dictatorship
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Look up enlightened absolutism. Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia. Catherine II "the Great" of Russia. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Peter I "the Great" of Russia. Gustav I Vasa of Sweden. Napoleon I, Emperor of the French.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Look up enlightened absolutism. Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia. Catherine II "the Great" of Russia. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Peter I "the Great" of Russia. Gustav I Vasa of Sweden. Napoleon I, Emperor of the French.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
The description seems to indicate that almost nothing changes for most folks, which seems unlikely. You're describing a rift among the ruling classes - such situations often result in extremists seizing control from moderates, and extremists usually don't leave most folks unaffected.
$endgroup$
– user535733
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The description seems to indicate that almost nothing changes for most folks, which seems unlikely. You're describing a rift among the ruling classes - such situations often result in extremists seizing control from moderates, and extremists usually don't leave most folks unaffected.
$endgroup$
– user535733
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Not going to write a full answer, but for a very similar scenario actually played out in real history, look up the decay of the Merovingian kings of Francia (which was not yet France), the deposition of Childeric III, the acension to the throne of Pepin the Short and the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Not going to write a full answer, but for a very similar scenario actually played out in real history, look up the decay of the Merovingian kings of Francia (which was not yet France), the deposition of Childeric III, the acension to the throne of Pepin the Short and the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A well-run dictatorship is superior to any other form of government. Well-run dictatorships are unicorns though, since most of the goals I'm about to list are the exact opposite of what dictators are aiming for.
Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies. You can remove corruption. You can invest heavily in the future without worrying about temporary setbacks. You can engage in long-term planning. You can make decisions quickly.
Special interests and other inefficiencies. You said that one Family controls the Navy, one the banks, one the produce, etc. That sounds like your entire nation is a series of monopolies, which is probably inefficient. Use your dictatorial powers to open up the field for competition. Allow the free market to improve productivity.
Remove corruption. Ruthlessly execute corrupt officials and strip their family of all assets. Make it so that the rewards of corruption aren't worth the risks, and you'll find your nation operating more efficiently at all levels. This one will actually affect the lives of normal people - imagine a medieval peasant actually being able to trust the police.
Invest heavily in the future, ignoring minor setbacks. Build those infrastructure projects. Educate your populace. Invite foreign investment and make sure that they have sustained legal protection so that even more flows in (no "nationalizing/stealing" foreign assets.) Use your stability and vision to forge economic alliances that boost your economy and open up markets for your corruption-free, open market industries to compete in. Fund research and exploration. Be prepared for war even when peace is long-lived.
You can make decisions quickly. In a democracy, even the most sensible decision can take time. The dictator can cut through red tape, can issue direct orders, and can bring the nation to action as fast as his commands can be distributed. An okay decision today is often better than a good decision a year from now.
The best example I have here is Pinochet from Chile. Pinochet was no angel - he killed/disappeared thousands of people (many of whom would be considered innocent). But the general consensus is that he managed to set Chile on a path that has made them the best nation in South American by almost any economic measure except equality. Even there, the modern Chilean poor are better off and less numerous than the Chilean poor when Pinochet took power, so judge carefully.
answered 5 hours ago
JeutnargJeutnarg
2,858620
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
These are good points, but your answer would be better, IMO, if you discussed the likely results of these actions. For example, you can make decisions quickly, but you have to make more, so you can get a backlog. You can remove corruption, but if anyone is afraid of being executed for acting wrong, there'll either be a shortage, play the game more carefully, build their own loyal base of supporters, or do the bare minimum possible to avoid making the wrong move.
$endgroup$
– Hosch250
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies." The book The Dictator's Handbook argues the opposite: dictators have to have the support of flunkeys (special interests), and that support is gained by supporting inefficiencies that benefit those flunkeys. Since the dictator has to buy the support of the power players, the system is built on corruption.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A common effect of political fragmentation is the imposition of economic barriers. Each subsection of the realm will institute trade barriers such as high tolls for transshipping goods, and possibly tariffs whose intent is to increase the prices of imported goods and make them less competitive with locally-produced products. The practice occurred, for instance, in many of the original American colonies.
This has a very bad long-term effect on the larger economy. Successful economies generally encourage specialization, with trade to distribute each specialized areas goods to the others.
It's entirely possible for a dictator to eliminate these barriers to the free flow of goods. This will have excellent consequences for the economy as a whole, although not necessarily for any particular realm.
Depending on the smarts of the dictator, it's also possible for him to institute (at least partially) a command economy, with resources devoted to projects with long-term payoffs which would otherwise not occur. An example might be investment in civil waterworks and piping, which will provide clean water to all, with an attendant drop in disease rates.
Of course, none of this is guaranteed to succeed. As the saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." This will apply to the dictator, and (importantly) to his advisors. Corruption in the application of otherwise well-intended projects can easily offset any benefits, and in the worst case produce a kleptocracy. This pattern is widely seen in third-world countries today.
answered 5 hours ago
WhatRoughBeastWhatRoughBeast
23.3k23280
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thank you for the insight
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
A command economy can be highly effective at recovering from disaster (see, for example, the Soviet Union or North Korea immediately post-World War II). It's rather less effective at growing an already-functioning economy (see, again, the Soviet Union and North Korea).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In your specific case:
In your case, I think the new ruler is a new monarch, not a dictator. The new ruler doesn't have enough force or influence to rule with absolute power. Literally any of the other families could depose this new ruler in a heart beat. So I don't think they qualify as a dictator, unless one of the major families allies with them.
The problem is as follows:
Army beats Police Force.
Bankers + Money + Mercenary Army beats Police Force.
The specific scenario might make more sense if it was the army that took over and seized the whole nation. Or some group that can leverage extreme force.
In general:
That said, the ancient Greeks thought that a benevolent dictatorship would be one of the most ideal forms of government. They theorized many different ways to make this happen. But basically if you have a dictator who wants the good of their people, there are a lot of things they can do that traditional governments can't.
Income inequality, lack of jobs, civil rights abuses, almost anything can be solved with a hand wave and overwhelming force.
The problem is not having a benevolent dictator, the problem is that the people who tend to become dictators are not benevolent (usually traitors to begin with). And second, even if you get a benevolent dictator, as there have been in history, once they pass away their is no guarantee that the next person will be benevolent.
answered 5 hours ago
Tyler S. LoeperTyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
True... but not all the other families are against them... and if they were quick enough in their planning, they could destabilize the other families... for instance... if they had the family with the Navy, then they control lots of the trade and all of the shipping
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LMaen, that's the problem. The new ruler needs to wipe all the other families to become a dictator rather than new monarch, so they can't get much help from any. However, with good scheming to pit them against each other and some devoted followers a charismatic leader can do it. Many dictators raised to power using some kind of guerrilla (SS, Red Army, Revolutionary Guards etc.) that disabled or beat the official standing army, so (initial) control of army is not necessary.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The intent of this answer is not to glorify evil in any way. I simply wish to state some truth. It is true that Adolf Hitler did many evil things and I don't want to make him sound good. but it is also true that Germany and its allies got terrifyingly close to taking over the eastern world. Only were they stopped by a coalition of the greatest forces in the world and some battles won barely dangling by a strand. This occurred because of the dictatorship of Hitler. I suggest to find more information about this look up things like "how was Hitler so successful?" or "why did Hitler accomplish so much?". I can provide more information myself I just do not have the time to do so at the moment but leave a comment if you would like me to expound upon this answer.
answered 6 hours ago
Elias Rowan AlbatrossElias Rowan Albatross
18410
New contributor
Elias Rowan Albatross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I did and have studied it... but he also used an ideology, Nazism... which made his whole country weaker in that he was making enemies of a good chunk of the population that could and probably would have been quite loyal and devoted to Germany. That always seemed really impractical to me (which is the least of that whole notions problems)
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the context that i want to use this info for, the Monarch is basically removed (permanently) in a coup... and the other families don't want a civil war (because of the way the economy works), so they have to let it stand... and do as they're told. The object of the coup is to remove the weaker "puppet" king and build the country up to be stronger.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@LMaen I did not say everything hitler did was ideal. but he had a good basis. if your people get to where they believe there is no recovery, and are hopeless or discouraged, they're likely to accept any solution. this is a great way to band people together. every dictator though needs a scapegoat, someone to blame. In order to unite the people you have to unite them against something. hitler united them against their own. if you dont like this then unite your people against another country, blame a foreign government and you will have a solidly united group of good followers capable of a lot.
$endgroup$
– Elias Rowan Albatross
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm just saying, finding someone to blame after WW1 shouldn't have been too hard. Thank you for the idea... i'm still playing around with it.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Germany under Hitler is a case study in how not to run a stable, effective dictatorship. Yes, he brought Germany out of the Great Depression faster than any of the democracies, and his foreign policy up to 1939 was highly successful. But the level of infighting between his subordinates was incredible, and there was a distinct lack of coordination (three armies with four chains of command between them, at least six intelligence services, and so on).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
L Maen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f140495%2fhow-would-a-dictatorship-make-a-country-more-successful%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A well-run dictatorship is superior to any other form of government. Well-run dictatorships are unicorns though, since most of the goals I'm about to list are the exact opposite of what dictators are aiming for.
Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies. You can remove corruption. You can invest heavily in the future without worrying about temporary setbacks. You can engage in long-term planning. You can make decisions quickly.
Special interests and other inefficiencies. You said that one Family controls the Navy, one the banks, one the produce, etc. That sounds like your entire nation is a series of monopolies, which is probably inefficient. Use your dictatorial powers to open up the field for competition. Allow the free market to improve productivity.
Remove corruption. Ruthlessly execute corrupt officials and strip their family of all assets. Make it so that the rewards of corruption aren't worth the risks, and you'll find your nation operating more efficiently at all levels. This one will actually affect the lives of normal people - imagine a medieval peasant actually being able to trust the police.
Invest heavily in the future, ignoring minor setbacks. Build those infrastructure projects. Educate your populace. Invite foreign investment and make sure that they have sustained legal protection so that even more flows in (no "nationalizing/stealing" foreign assets.) Use your stability and vision to forge economic alliances that boost your economy and open up markets for your corruption-free, open market industries to compete in. Fund research and exploration. Be prepared for war even when peace is long-lived.
You can make decisions quickly. In a democracy, even the most sensible decision can take time. The dictator can cut through red tape, can issue direct orders, and can bring the nation to action as fast as his commands can be distributed. An okay decision today is often better than a good decision a year from now.
The best example I have here is Pinochet from Chile. Pinochet was no angel - he killed/disappeared thousands of people (many of whom would be considered innocent). But the general consensus is that he managed to set Chile on a path that has made them the best nation in South American by almost any economic measure except equality. Even there, the modern Chilean poor are better off and less numerous than the Chilean poor when Pinochet took power, so judge carefully.
answered 5 hours ago
JeutnargJeutnarg
2,858620
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
These are good points, but your answer would be better, IMO, if you discussed the likely results of these actions. For example, you can make decisions quickly, but you have to make more, so you can get a backlog. You can remove corruption, but if anyone is afraid of being executed for acting wrong, there'll either be a shortage, play the game more carefully, build their own loyal base of supporters, or do the bare minimum possible to avoid making the wrong move.
$endgroup$
– Hosch250
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies." The book The Dictator's Handbook argues the opposite: dictators have to have the support of flunkeys (special interests), and that support is gained by supporting inefficiencies that benefit those flunkeys. Since the dictator has to buy the support of the power players, the system is built on corruption.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A well-run dictatorship is superior to any other form of government. Well-run dictatorships are unicorns though, since most of the goals I'm about to list are the exact opposite of what dictators are aiming for.
Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies. You can remove corruption. You can invest heavily in the future without worrying about temporary setbacks. You can engage in long-term planning. You can make decisions quickly.
Special interests and other inefficiencies. You said that one Family controls the Navy, one the banks, one the produce, etc. That sounds like your entire nation is a series of monopolies, which is probably inefficient. Use your dictatorial powers to open up the field for competition. Allow the free market to improve productivity.
Remove corruption. Ruthlessly execute corrupt officials and strip their family of all assets. Make it so that the rewards of corruption aren't worth the risks, and you'll find your nation operating more efficiently at all levels. This one will actually affect the lives of normal people - imagine a medieval peasant actually being able to trust the police.
Invest heavily in the future, ignoring minor setbacks. Build those infrastructure projects. Educate your populace. Invite foreign investment and make sure that they have sustained legal protection so that even more flows in (no "nationalizing/stealing" foreign assets.) Use your stability and vision to forge economic alliances that boost your economy and open up markets for your corruption-free, open market industries to compete in. Fund research and exploration. Be prepared for war even when peace is long-lived.
You can make decisions quickly. In a democracy, even the most sensible decision can take time. The dictator can cut through red tape, can issue direct orders, and can bring the nation to action as fast as his commands can be distributed. An okay decision today is often better than a good decision a year from now.
The best example I have here is Pinochet from Chile. Pinochet was no angel - he killed/disappeared thousands of people (many of whom would be considered innocent). But the general consensus is that he managed to set Chile on a path that has made them the best nation in South American by almost any economic measure except equality. Even there, the modern Chilean poor are better off and less numerous than the Chilean poor when Pinochet took power, so judge carefully.
answered 5 hours ago
JeutnargJeutnarg
2,858620
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
These are good points, but your answer would be better, IMO, if you discussed the likely results of these actions. For example, you can make decisions quickly, but you have to make more, so you can get a backlog. You can remove corruption, but if anyone is afraid of being executed for acting wrong, there'll either be a shortage, play the game more carefully, build their own loyal base of supporters, or do the bare minimum possible to avoid making the wrong move.
$endgroup$
– Hosch250
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies." The book The Dictator's Handbook argues the opposite: dictators have to have the support of flunkeys (special interests), and that support is gained by supporting inefficiencies that benefit those flunkeys. Since the dictator has to buy the support of the power players, the system is built on corruption.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A well-run dictatorship is superior to any other form of government. Well-run dictatorships are unicorns though, since most of the goals I'm about to list are the exact opposite of what dictators are aiming for.
Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies. You can remove corruption. You can invest heavily in the future without worrying about temporary setbacks. You can engage in long-term planning. You can make decisions quickly.
Special interests and other inefficiencies. You said that one Family controls the Navy, one the banks, one the produce, etc. That sounds like your entire nation is a series of monopolies, which is probably inefficient. Use your dictatorial powers to open up the field for competition. Allow the free market to improve productivity.
Remove corruption. Ruthlessly execute corrupt officials and strip their family of all assets. Make it so that the rewards of corruption aren't worth the risks, and you'll find your nation operating more efficiently at all levels. This one will actually affect the lives of normal people - imagine a medieval peasant actually being able to trust the police.
Invest heavily in the future, ignoring minor setbacks. Build those infrastructure projects. Educate your populace. Invite foreign investment and make sure that they have sustained legal protection so that even more flows in (no "nationalizing/stealing" foreign assets.) Use your stability and vision to forge economic alliances that boost your economy and open up markets for your corruption-free, open market industries to compete in. Fund research and exploration. Be prepared for war even when peace is long-lived.
You can make decisions quickly. In a democracy, even the most sensible decision can take time. The dictator can cut through red tape, can issue direct orders, and can bring the nation to action as fast as his commands can be distributed. An okay decision today is often better than a good decision a year from now.
The best example I have here is Pinochet from Chile. Pinochet was no angel - he killed/disappeared thousands of people (many of whom would be considered innocent). But the general consensus is that he managed to set Chile on a path that has made them the best nation in South American by almost any economic measure except equality. Even there, the modern Chilean poor are better off and less numerous than the Chilean poor when Pinochet took power, so judge carefully.
answered 5 hours ago
JeutnargJeutnarg
2,858620
$endgroup$
A well-run dictatorship is superior to any other form of government. Well-run dictatorships are unicorns though, since most of the goals I'm about to list are the exact opposite of what dictators are aiming for.
Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies. You can remove corruption. You can invest heavily in the future without worrying about temporary setbacks. You can engage in long-term planning. You can make decisions quickly.
Special interests and other inefficiencies. You said that one Family controls the Navy, one the banks, one the produce, etc. That sounds like your entire nation is a series of monopolies, which is probably inefficient. Use your dictatorial powers to open up the field for competition. Allow the free market to improve productivity.
Remove corruption. Ruthlessly execute corrupt officials and strip their family of all assets. Make it so that the rewards of corruption aren't worth the risks, and you'll find your nation operating more efficiently at all levels. This one will actually affect the lives of normal people - imagine a medieval peasant actually being able to trust the police.
Invest heavily in the future, ignoring minor setbacks. Build those infrastructure projects. Educate your populace. Invite foreign investment and make sure that they have sustained legal protection so that even more flows in (no "nationalizing/stealing" foreign assets.) Use your stability and vision to forge economic alliances that boost your economy and open up markets for your corruption-free, open market industries to compete in. Fund research and exploration. Be prepared for war even when peace is long-lived.
You can make decisions quickly. In a democracy, even the most sensible decision can take time. The dictator can cut through red tape, can issue direct orders, and can bring the nation to action as fast as his commands can be distributed. An okay decision today is often better than a good decision a year from now.
The best example I have here is Pinochet from Chile. Pinochet was no angel - he killed/disappeared thousands of people (many of whom would be considered innocent). But the general consensus is that he managed to set Chile on a path that has made them the best nation in South American by almost any economic measure except equality. Even there, the modern Chilean poor are better off and less numerous than the Chilean poor when Pinochet took power, so judge carefully.
answered 5 hours ago
JeutnargJeutnarg
2,858620
answered 5 hours ago
JeutnargJeutnarg
2,858620
answered 5 hours ago
JeutnargJeutnarg
2,858620
answered 5 hours ago
JeutnargJeutnarg
2,858620
2,858620
$begingroup$
These are good points, but your answer would be better, IMO, if you discussed the likely results of these actions. For example, you can make decisions quickly, but you have to make more, so you can get a backlog. You can remove corruption, but if anyone is afraid of being executed for acting wrong, there'll either be a shortage, play the game more carefully, build their own loyal base of supporters, or do the bare minimum possible to avoid making the wrong move.
$endgroup$
– Hosch250
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies." The book The Dictator's Handbook argues the opposite: dictators have to have the support of flunkeys (special interests), and that support is gained by supporting inefficiencies that benefit those flunkeys. Since the dictator has to buy the support of the power players, the system is built on corruption.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
These are good points, but your answer would be better, IMO, if you discussed the likely results of these actions. For example, you can make decisions quickly, but you have to make more, so you can get a backlog. You can remove corruption, but if anyone is afraid of being executed for acting wrong, there'll either be a shortage, play the game more carefully, build their own loyal base of supporters, or do the bare minimum possible to avoid making the wrong move.
$endgroup$
– Hosch250
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies." The book The Dictator's Handbook argues the opposite: dictators have to have the support of flunkeys (special interests), and that support is gained by supporting inefficiencies that benefit those flunkeys. Since the dictator has to buy the support of the power players, the system is built on corruption.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
These are good points, but your answer would be better, IMO, if you discussed the likely results of these actions. For example, you can make decisions quickly, but you have to make more, so you can get a backlog. You can remove corruption, but if anyone is afraid of being executed for acting wrong, there'll either be a shortage, play the game more carefully, build their own loyal base of supporters, or do the bare minimum possible to avoid making the wrong move.
$endgroup$
– Hosch250
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
These are good points, but your answer would be better, IMO, if you discussed the likely results of these actions. For example, you can make decisions quickly, but you have to make more, so you can get a backlog. You can remove corruption, but if anyone is afraid of being executed for acting wrong, there'll either be a shortage, play the game more carefully, build their own loyal base of supporters, or do the bare minimum possible to avoid making the wrong move.
$endgroup$
– Hosch250
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
"Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies." The book The Dictator's Handbook argues the opposite: dictators have to have the support of flunkeys (special interests), and that support is gained by supporting inefficiencies that benefit those flunkeys. Since the dictator has to buy the support of the power players, the system is built on corruption.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
"Why can a dictatorship be great? Because you can ignore special interests and other inefficiencies." The book The Dictator's Handbook argues the opposite: dictators have to have the support of flunkeys (special interests), and that support is gained by supporting inefficiencies that benefit those flunkeys. Since the dictator has to buy the support of the power players, the system is built on corruption.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A common effect of political fragmentation is the imposition of economic barriers. Each subsection of the realm will institute trade barriers such as high tolls for transshipping goods, and possibly tariffs whose intent is to increase the prices of imported goods and make them less competitive with locally-produced products. The practice occurred, for instance, in many of the original American colonies.
This has a very bad long-term effect on the larger economy. Successful economies generally encourage specialization, with trade to distribute each specialized areas goods to the others.
It's entirely possible for a dictator to eliminate these barriers to the free flow of goods. This will have excellent consequences for the economy as a whole, although not necessarily for any particular realm.
Depending on the smarts of the dictator, it's also possible for him to institute (at least partially) a command economy, with resources devoted to projects with long-term payoffs which would otherwise not occur. An example might be investment in civil waterworks and piping, which will provide clean water to all, with an attendant drop in disease rates.
Of course, none of this is guaranteed to succeed. As the saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." This will apply to the dictator, and (importantly) to his advisors. Corruption in the application of otherwise well-intended projects can easily offset any benefits, and in the worst case produce a kleptocracy. This pattern is widely seen in third-world countries today.
answered 5 hours ago
WhatRoughBeastWhatRoughBeast
23.3k23280
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thank you for the insight
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
A command economy can be highly effective at recovering from disaster (see, for example, the Soviet Union or North Korea immediately post-World War II). It's rather less effective at growing an already-functioning economy (see, again, the Soviet Union and North Korea).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A common effect of political fragmentation is the imposition of economic barriers. Each subsection of the realm will institute trade barriers such as high tolls for transshipping goods, and possibly tariffs whose intent is to increase the prices of imported goods and make them less competitive with locally-produced products. The practice occurred, for instance, in many of the original American colonies.
This has a very bad long-term effect on the larger economy. Successful economies generally encourage specialization, with trade to distribute each specialized areas goods to the others.
It's entirely possible for a dictator to eliminate these barriers to the free flow of goods. This will have excellent consequences for the economy as a whole, although not necessarily for any particular realm.
Depending on the smarts of the dictator, it's also possible for him to institute (at least partially) a command economy, with resources devoted to projects with long-term payoffs which would otherwise not occur. An example might be investment in civil waterworks and piping, which will provide clean water to all, with an attendant drop in disease rates.
Of course, none of this is guaranteed to succeed. As the saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." This will apply to the dictator, and (importantly) to his advisors. Corruption in the application of otherwise well-intended projects can easily offset any benefits, and in the worst case produce a kleptocracy. This pattern is widely seen in third-world countries today.
answered 5 hours ago
WhatRoughBeastWhatRoughBeast
23.3k23280
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thank you for the insight
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
A command economy can be highly effective at recovering from disaster (see, for example, the Soviet Union or North Korea immediately post-World War II). It's rather less effective at growing an already-functioning economy (see, again, the Soviet Union and North Korea).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A common effect of political fragmentation is the imposition of economic barriers. Each subsection of the realm will institute trade barriers such as high tolls for transshipping goods, and possibly tariffs whose intent is to increase the prices of imported goods and make them less competitive with locally-produced products. The practice occurred, for instance, in many of the original American colonies.
This has a very bad long-term effect on the larger economy. Successful economies generally encourage specialization, with trade to distribute each specialized areas goods to the others.
It's entirely possible for a dictator to eliminate these barriers to the free flow of goods. This will have excellent consequences for the economy as a whole, although not necessarily for any particular realm.
Depending on the smarts of the dictator, it's also possible for him to institute (at least partially) a command economy, with resources devoted to projects with long-term payoffs which would otherwise not occur. An example might be investment in civil waterworks and piping, which will provide clean water to all, with an attendant drop in disease rates.
Of course, none of this is guaranteed to succeed. As the saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." This will apply to the dictator, and (importantly) to his advisors. Corruption in the application of otherwise well-intended projects can easily offset any benefits, and in the worst case produce a kleptocracy. This pattern is widely seen in third-world countries today.
answered 5 hours ago
WhatRoughBeastWhatRoughBeast
23.3k23280
$endgroup$
A common effect of political fragmentation is the imposition of economic barriers. Each subsection of the realm will institute trade barriers such as high tolls for transshipping goods, and possibly tariffs whose intent is to increase the prices of imported goods and make them less competitive with locally-produced products. The practice occurred, for instance, in many of the original American colonies.
This has a very bad long-term effect on the larger economy. Successful economies generally encourage specialization, with trade to distribute each specialized areas goods to the others.
It's entirely possible for a dictator to eliminate these barriers to the free flow of goods. This will have excellent consequences for the economy as a whole, although not necessarily for any particular realm.
Depending on the smarts of the dictator, it's also possible for him to institute (at least partially) a command economy, with resources devoted to projects with long-term payoffs which would otherwise not occur. An example might be investment in civil waterworks and piping, which will provide clean water to all, with an attendant drop in disease rates.
Of course, none of this is guaranteed to succeed. As the saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." This will apply to the dictator, and (importantly) to his advisors. Corruption in the application of otherwise well-intended projects can easily offset any benefits, and in the worst case produce a kleptocracy. This pattern is widely seen in third-world countries today.
answered 5 hours ago
WhatRoughBeastWhatRoughBeast
23.3k23280
answered 5 hours ago
WhatRoughBeastWhatRoughBeast
23.3k23280
answered 5 hours ago
WhatRoughBeastWhatRoughBeast
23.3k23280
answered 5 hours ago
WhatRoughBeastWhatRoughBeast
23.3k23280
23.3k23280
$begingroup$
thank you for the insight
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
A command economy can be highly effective at recovering from disaster (see, for example, the Soviet Union or North Korea immediately post-World War II). It's rather less effective at growing an already-functioning economy (see, again, the Soviet Union and North Korea).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
thank you for the insight
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
A command economy can be highly effective at recovering from disaster (see, for example, the Soviet Union or North Korea immediately post-World War II). It's rather less effective at growing an already-functioning economy (see, again, the Soviet Union and North Korea).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
thank you for the insight
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
thank you for the insight
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
A command economy can be highly effective at recovering from disaster (see, for example, the Soviet Union or North Korea immediately post-World War II). It's rather less effective at growing an already-functioning economy (see, again, the Soviet Union and North Korea).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
A command economy can be highly effective at recovering from disaster (see, for example, the Soviet Union or North Korea immediately post-World War II). It's rather less effective at growing an already-functioning economy (see, again, the Soviet Union and North Korea).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In your specific case:
In your case, I think the new ruler is a new monarch, not a dictator. The new ruler doesn't have enough force or influence to rule with absolute power. Literally any of the other families could depose this new ruler in a heart beat. So I don't think they qualify as a dictator, unless one of the major families allies with them.
The problem is as follows:
Army beats Police Force.
Bankers + Money + Mercenary Army beats Police Force.
The specific scenario might make more sense if it was the army that took over and seized the whole nation. Or some group that can leverage extreme force.
In general:
That said, the ancient Greeks thought that a benevolent dictatorship would be one of the most ideal forms of government. They theorized many different ways to make this happen. But basically if you have a dictator who wants the good of their people, there are a lot of things they can do that traditional governments can't.
Income inequality, lack of jobs, civil rights abuses, almost anything can be solved with a hand wave and overwhelming force.
The problem is not having a benevolent dictator, the problem is that the people who tend to become dictators are not benevolent (usually traitors to begin with). And second, even if you get a benevolent dictator, as there have been in history, once they pass away their is no guarantee that the next person will be benevolent.
answered 5 hours ago
Tyler S. LoeperTyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
True... but not all the other families are against them... and if they were quick enough in their planning, they could destabilize the other families... for instance... if they had the family with the Navy, then they control lots of the trade and all of the shipping
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LMaen, that's the problem. The new ruler needs to wipe all the other families to become a dictator rather than new monarch, so they can't get much help from any. However, with good scheming to pit them against each other and some devoted followers a charismatic leader can do it. Many dictators raised to power using some kind of guerrilla (SS, Red Army, Revolutionary Guards etc.) that disabled or beat the official standing army, so (initial) control of army is not necessary.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In your specific case:
In your case, I think the new ruler is a new monarch, not a dictator. The new ruler doesn't have enough force or influence to rule with absolute power. Literally any of the other families could depose this new ruler in a heart beat. So I don't think they qualify as a dictator, unless one of the major families allies with them.
The problem is as follows:
Army beats Police Force.
Bankers + Money + Mercenary Army beats Police Force.
The specific scenario might make more sense if it was the army that took over and seized the whole nation. Or some group that can leverage extreme force.
In general:
That said, the ancient Greeks thought that a benevolent dictatorship would be one of the most ideal forms of government. They theorized many different ways to make this happen. But basically if you have a dictator who wants the good of their people, there are a lot of things they can do that traditional governments can't.
Income inequality, lack of jobs, civil rights abuses, almost anything can be solved with a hand wave and overwhelming force.
The problem is not having a benevolent dictator, the problem is that the people who tend to become dictators are not benevolent (usually traitors to begin with). And second, even if you get a benevolent dictator, as there have been in history, once they pass away their is no guarantee that the next person will be benevolent.
answered 5 hours ago
Tyler S. LoeperTyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
True... but not all the other families are against them... and if they were quick enough in their planning, they could destabilize the other families... for instance... if they had the family with the Navy, then they control lots of the trade and all of the shipping
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LMaen, that's the problem. The new ruler needs to wipe all the other families to become a dictator rather than new monarch, so they can't get much help from any. However, with good scheming to pit them against each other and some devoted followers a charismatic leader can do it. Many dictators raised to power using some kind of guerrilla (SS, Red Army, Revolutionary Guards etc.) that disabled or beat the official standing army, so (initial) control of army is not necessary.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In your specific case:
In your case, I think the new ruler is a new monarch, not a dictator. The new ruler doesn't have enough force or influence to rule with absolute power. Literally any of the other families could depose this new ruler in a heart beat. So I don't think they qualify as a dictator, unless one of the major families allies with them.
The problem is as follows:
Army beats Police Force.
Bankers + Money + Mercenary Army beats Police Force.
The specific scenario might make more sense if it was the army that took over and seized the whole nation. Or some group that can leverage extreme force.
In general:
That said, the ancient Greeks thought that a benevolent dictatorship would be one of the most ideal forms of government. They theorized many different ways to make this happen. But basically if you have a dictator who wants the good of their people, there are a lot of things they can do that traditional governments can't.
Income inequality, lack of jobs, civil rights abuses, almost anything can be solved with a hand wave and overwhelming force.
The problem is not having a benevolent dictator, the problem is that the people who tend to become dictators are not benevolent (usually traitors to begin with). And second, even if you get a benevolent dictator, as there have been in history, once they pass away their is no guarantee that the next person will be benevolent.
answered 5 hours ago
Tyler S. LoeperTyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
$endgroup$
In your specific case:
In your case, I think the new ruler is a new monarch, not a dictator. The new ruler doesn't have enough force or influence to rule with absolute power. Literally any of the other families could depose this new ruler in a heart beat. So I don't think they qualify as a dictator, unless one of the major families allies with them.
The problem is as follows:
Army beats Police Force.
Bankers + Money + Mercenary Army beats Police Force.
The specific scenario might make more sense if it was the army that took over and seized the whole nation. Or some group that can leverage extreme force.
In general:
That said, the ancient Greeks thought that a benevolent dictatorship would be one of the most ideal forms of government. They theorized many different ways to make this happen. But basically if you have a dictator who wants the good of their people, there are a lot of things they can do that traditional governments can't.
Income inequality, lack of jobs, civil rights abuses, almost anything can be solved with a hand wave and overwhelming force.
The problem is not having a benevolent dictator, the problem is that the people who tend to become dictators are not benevolent (usually traitors to begin with). And second, even if you get a benevolent dictator, as there have been in history, once they pass away their is no guarantee that the next person will be benevolent.
answered 5 hours ago
Tyler S. LoeperTyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Tyler S. LoeperTyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
answered 5 hours ago
Tyler S. LoeperTyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
answered 5 hours ago
Tyler S. LoeperTyler S. Loeper
4,1701729
4,1701729
$begingroup$
True... but not all the other families are against them... and if they were quick enough in their planning, they could destabilize the other families... for instance... if they had the family with the Navy, then they control lots of the trade and all of the shipping
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LMaen, that's the problem. The new ruler needs to wipe all the other families to become a dictator rather than new monarch, so they can't get much help from any. However, with good scheming to pit them against each other and some devoted followers a charismatic leader can do it. Many dictators raised to power using some kind of guerrilla (SS, Red Army, Revolutionary Guards etc.) that disabled or beat the official standing army, so (initial) control of army is not necessary.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
True... but not all the other families are against them... and if they were quick enough in their planning, they could destabilize the other families... for instance... if they had the family with the Navy, then they control lots of the trade and all of the shipping
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LMaen, that's the problem. The new ruler needs to wipe all the other families to become a dictator rather than new monarch, so they can't get much help from any. However, with good scheming to pit them against each other and some devoted followers a charismatic leader can do it. Many dictators raised to power using some kind of guerrilla (SS, Red Army, Revolutionary Guards etc.) that disabled or beat the official standing army, so (initial) control of army is not necessary.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
True... but not all the other families are against them... and if they were quick enough in their planning, they could destabilize the other families... for instance... if they had the family with the Navy, then they control lots of the trade and all of the shipping
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
True... but not all the other families are against them... and if they were quick enough in their planning, they could destabilize the other families... for instance... if they had the family with the Navy, then they control lots of the trade and all of the shipping
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LMaen, that's the problem. The new ruler needs to wipe all the other families to become a dictator rather than new monarch, so they can't get much help from any. However, with good scheming to pit them against each other and some devoted followers a charismatic leader can do it. Many dictators raised to power using some kind of guerrilla (SS, Red Army, Revolutionary Guards etc.) that disabled or beat the official standing army, so (initial) control of army is not necessary.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LMaen, that's the problem. The new ruler needs to wipe all the other families to become a dictator rather than new monarch, so they can't get much help from any. However, with good scheming to pit them against each other and some devoted followers a charismatic leader can do it. Many dictators raised to power using some kind of guerrilla (SS, Red Army, Revolutionary Guards etc.) that disabled or beat the official standing army, so (initial) control of army is not necessary.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The intent of this answer is not to glorify evil in any way. I simply wish to state some truth. It is true that Adolf Hitler did many evil things and I don't want to make him sound good. but it is also true that Germany and its allies got terrifyingly close to taking over the eastern world. Only were they stopped by a coalition of the greatest forces in the world and some battles won barely dangling by a strand. This occurred because of the dictatorship of Hitler. I suggest to find more information about this look up things like "how was Hitler so successful?" or "why did Hitler accomplish so much?". I can provide more information myself I just do not have the time to do so at the moment but leave a comment if you would like me to expound upon this answer.
answered 6 hours ago
Elias Rowan AlbatrossElias Rowan Albatross
18410
New contributor
Elias Rowan Albatross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I did and have studied it... but he also used an ideology, Nazism... which made his whole country weaker in that he was making enemies of a good chunk of the population that could and probably would have been quite loyal and devoted to Germany. That always seemed really impractical to me (which is the least of that whole notions problems)
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the context that i want to use this info for, the Monarch is basically removed (permanently) in a coup... and the other families don't want a civil war (because of the way the economy works), so they have to let it stand... and do as they're told. The object of the coup is to remove the weaker "puppet" king and build the country up to be stronger.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@LMaen I did not say everything hitler did was ideal. but he had a good basis. if your people get to where they believe there is no recovery, and are hopeless or discouraged, they're likely to accept any solution. this is a great way to band people together. every dictator though needs a scapegoat, someone to blame. In order to unite the people you have to unite them against something. hitler united them against their own. if you dont like this then unite your people against another country, blame a foreign government and you will have a solidly united group of good followers capable of a lot.
$endgroup$
– Elias Rowan Albatross
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm just saying, finding someone to blame after WW1 shouldn't have been too hard. Thank you for the idea... i'm still playing around with it.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Germany under Hitler is a case study in how not to run a stable, effective dictatorship. Yes, he brought Germany out of the Great Depression faster than any of the democracies, and his foreign policy up to 1939 was highly successful. But the level of infighting between his subordinates was incredible, and there was a distinct lack of coordination (three armies with four chains of command between them, at least six intelligence services, and so on).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The intent of this answer is not to glorify evil in any way. I simply wish to state some truth. It is true that Adolf Hitler did many evil things and I don't want to make him sound good. but it is also true that Germany and its allies got terrifyingly close to taking over the eastern world. Only were they stopped by a coalition of the greatest forces in the world and some battles won barely dangling by a strand. This occurred because of the dictatorship of Hitler. I suggest to find more information about this look up things like "how was Hitler so successful?" or "why did Hitler accomplish so much?". I can provide more information myself I just do not have the time to do so at the moment but leave a comment if you would like me to expound upon this answer.
answered 6 hours ago
Elias Rowan AlbatrossElias Rowan Albatross
18410
New contributor
Elias Rowan Albatross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I did and have studied it... but he also used an ideology, Nazism... which made his whole country weaker in that he was making enemies of a good chunk of the population that could and probably would have been quite loyal and devoted to Germany. That always seemed really impractical to me (which is the least of that whole notions problems)
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the context that i want to use this info for, the Monarch is basically removed (permanently) in a coup... and the other families don't want a civil war (because of the way the economy works), so they have to let it stand... and do as they're told. The object of the coup is to remove the weaker "puppet" king and build the country up to be stronger.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@LMaen I did not say everything hitler did was ideal. but he had a good basis. if your people get to where they believe there is no recovery, and are hopeless or discouraged, they're likely to accept any solution. this is a great way to band people together. every dictator though needs a scapegoat, someone to blame. In order to unite the people you have to unite them against something. hitler united them against their own. if you dont like this then unite your people against another country, blame a foreign government and you will have a solidly united group of good followers capable of a lot.
$endgroup$
– Elias Rowan Albatross
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm just saying, finding someone to blame after WW1 shouldn't have been too hard. Thank you for the idea... i'm still playing around with it.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Germany under Hitler is a case study in how not to run a stable, effective dictatorship. Yes, he brought Germany out of the Great Depression faster than any of the democracies, and his foreign policy up to 1939 was highly successful. But the level of infighting between his subordinates was incredible, and there was a distinct lack of coordination (three armies with four chains of command between them, at least six intelligence services, and so on).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The intent of this answer is not to glorify evil in any way. I simply wish to state some truth. It is true that Adolf Hitler did many evil things and I don't want to make him sound good. but it is also true that Germany and its allies got terrifyingly close to taking over the eastern world. Only were they stopped by a coalition of the greatest forces in the world and some battles won barely dangling by a strand. This occurred because of the dictatorship of Hitler. I suggest to find more information about this look up things like "how was Hitler so successful?" or "why did Hitler accomplish so much?". I can provide more information myself I just do not have the time to do so at the moment but leave a comment if you would like me to expound upon this answer.
answered 6 hours ago
Elias Rowan AlbatrossElias Rowan Albatross
18410
New contributor
Elias Rowan Albatross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
The intent of this answer is not to glorify evil in any way. I simply wish to state some truth. It is true that Adolf Hitler did many evil things and I don't want to make him sound good. but it is also true that Germany and its allies got terrifyingly close to taking over the eastern world. Only were they stopped by a coalition of the greatest forces in the world and some battles won barely dangling by a strand. This occurred because of the dictatorship of Hitler. I suggest to find more information about this look up things like "how was Hitler so successful?" or "why did Hitler accomplish so much?". I can provide more information myself I just do not have the time to do so at the moment but leave a comment if you would like me to expound upon this answer.
answered 6 hours ago
Elias Rowan AlbatrossElias Rowan Albatross
18410
New contributor
Elias Rowan Albatross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 6 hours ago
Elias Rowan AlbatrossElias Rowan Albatross
18410
New contributor
Elias Rowan Albatross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 6 hours ago
Elias Rowan AlbatrossElias Rowan Albatross
18410
answered 6 hours ago
Elias Rowan AlbatrossElias Rowan Albatross
18410
18410
New contributor
Elias Rowan Albatross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Elias Rowan Albatross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Elias Rowan Albatross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
I did and have studied it... but he also used an ideology, Nazism... which made his whole country weaker in that he was making enemies of a good chunk of the population that could and probably would have been quite loyal and devoted to Germany. That always seemed really impractical to me (which is the least of that whole notions problems)
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the context that i want to use this info for, the Monarch is basically removed (permanently) in a coup... and the other families don't want a civil war (because of the way the economy works), so they have to let it stand... and do as they're told. The object of the coup is to remove the weaker "puppet" king and build the country up to be stronger.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@LMaen I did not say everything hitler did was ideal. but he had a good basis. if your people get to where they believe there is no recovery, and are hopeless or discouraged, they're likely to accept any solution. this is a great way to band people together. every dictator though needs a scapegoat, someone to blame. In order to unite the people you have to unite them against something. hitler united them against their own. if you dont like this then unite your people against another country, blame a foreign government and you will have a solidly united group of good followers capable of a lot.
$endgroup$
– Elias Rowan Albatross
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm just saying, finding someone to blame after WW1 shouldn't have been too hard. Thank you for the idea... i'm still playing around with it.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Germany under Hitler is a case study in how not to run a stable, effective dictatorship. Yes, he brought Germany out of the Great Depression faster than any of the democracies, and his foreign policy up to 1939 was highly successful. But the level of infighting between his subordinates was incredible, and there was a distinct lack of coordination (three armies with four chains of command between them, at least six intelligence services, and so on).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I did and have studied it... but he also used an ideology, Nazism... which made his whole country weaker in that he was making enemies of a good chunk of the population that could and probably would have been quite loyal and devoted to Germany. That always seemed really impractical to me (which is the least of that whole notions problems)
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the context that i want to use this info for, the Monarch is basically removed (permanently) in a coup... and the other families don't want a civil war (because of the way the economy works), so they have to let it stand... and do as they're told. The object of the coup is to remove the weaker "puppet" king and build the country up to be stronger.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@LMaen I did not say everything hitler did was ideal. but he had a good basis. if your people get to where they believe there is no recovery, and are hopeless or discouraged, they're likely to accept any solution. this is a great way to band people together. every dictator though needs a scapegoat, someone to blame. In order to unite the people you have to unite them against something. hitler united them against their own. if you dont like this then unite your people against another country, blame a foreign government and you will have a solidly united group of good followers capable of a lot.
$endgroup$
– Elias Rowan Albatross
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm just saying, finding someone to blame after WW1 shouldn't have been too hard. Thank you for the idea... i'm still playing around with it.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Germany under Hitler is a case study in how not to run a stable, effective dictatorship. Yes, he brought Germany out of the Great Depression faster than any of the democracies, and his foreign policy up to 1939 was highly successful. But the level of infighting between his subordinates was incredible, and there was a distinct lack of coordination (three armies with four chains of command between them, at least six intelligence services, and so on).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I did and have studied it... but he also used an ideology, Nazism... which made his whole country weaker in that he was making enemies of a good chunk of the population that could and probably would have been quite loyal and devoted to Germany. That always seemed really impractical to me (which is the least of that whole notions problems)
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I did and have studied it... but he also used an ideology, Nazism... which made his whole country weaker in that he was making enemies of a good chunk of the population that could and probably would have been quite loyal and devoted to Germany. That always seemed really impractical to me (which is the least of that whole notions problems)
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the context that i want to use this info for, the Monarch is basically removed (permanently) in a coup... and the other families don't want a civil war (because of the way the economy works), so they have to let it stand... and do as they're told. The object of the coup is to remove the weaker "puppet" king and build the country up to be stronger.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the context that i want to use this info for, the Monarch is basically removed (permanently) in a coup... and the other families don't want a civil war (because of the way the economy works), so they have to let it stand... and do as they're told. The object of the coup is to remove the weaker "puppet" king and build the country up to be stronger.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@LMaen I did not say everything hitler did was ideal. but he had a good basis. if your people get to where they believe there is no recovery, and are hopeless or discouraged, they're likely to accept any solution. this is a great way to band people together. every dictator though needs a scapegoat, someone to blame. In order to unite the people you have to unite them against something. hitler united them against their own. if you dont like this then unite your people against another country, blame a foreign government and you will have a solidly united group of good followers capable of a lot.
$endgroup$
– Elias Rowan Albatross
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LMaen I did not say everything hitler did was ideal. but he had a good basis. if your people get to where they believe there is no recovery, and are hopeless or discouraged, they're likely to accept any solution. this is a great way to band people together. every dictator though needs a scapegoat, someone to blame. In order to unite the people you have to unite them against something. hitler united them against their own. if you dont like this then unite your people against another country, blame a foreign government and you will have a solidly united group of good followers capable of a lot.
$endgroup$
– Elias Rowan Albatross
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm just saying, finding someone to blame after WW1 shouldn't have been too hard. Thank you for the idea... i'm still playing around with it.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm just saying, finding someone to blame after WW1 shouldn't have been too hard. Thank you for the idea... i'm still playing around with it.
$endgroup$
– L Maen
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Germany under Hitler is a case study in how not to run a stable, effective dictatorship. Yes, he brought Germany out of the Great Depression faster than any of the democracies, and his foreign policy up to 1939 was highly successful. But the level of infighting between his subordinates was incredible, and there was a distinct lack of coordination (three armies with four chains of command between them, at least six intelligence services, and so on).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Germany under Hitler is a case study in how not to run a stable, effective dictatorship. Yes, he brought Germany out of the Great Depression faster than any of the democracies, and his foreign policy up to 1939 was highly successful. But the level of infighting between his subordinates was incredible, and there was a distinct lack of coordination (three armies with four chains of command between them, at least six intelligence services, and so on).
$endgroup$
– Mark
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
L Maen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
L Maen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
L Maen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
L Maen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f140495%2fhow-would-a-dictatorship-make-a-country-more-successful%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
9
$begingroup$
You need to define "successful". History has countless examples of dictators turning very messed up nations into superpowers.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Ok, that's better. You may check this: Benevolent dictatorship
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Look up enlightened absolutism. Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia. Catherine II "the Great" of Russia. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Peter I "the Great" of Russia. Gustav I Vasa of Sweden. Napoleon I, Emperor of the French.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The description seems to indicate that almost nothing changes for most folks, which seems unlikely. You're describing a rift among the ruling classes - such situations often result in extremists seizing control from moderates, and extremists usually don't leave most folks unaffected.
$endgroup$
– user535733
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Not going to write a full answer, but for a very similar scenario actually played out in real history, look up the decay of the Merovingian kings of Francia (which was not yet France), the deposition of Childeric III, the acension to the throne of Pepin the Short and the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago