No, it’s not separate, you don’t just get to say the leading cause of authoritarian states is a separate thing from the causes of authoritatian states.
That would be like claiming heart disease isn’t really what kills people, that’s just cholesterol finding opportunities for people to die.
They are different authoritarian states. There isn’t a one size fits all situation. An authoritarian state that comes before a state failure tends to exist using pre-established powers. Either nobility/premogenitor culture, liquid asset wealth, theocracy, assumption and exploitation of the mechanics of statehood - that kind of thing.
Once one of those crashes due to revolt you start dealing with new powers. Cult of personality militias which offer easy solutions to quelling the chaos. Your Napoleons, Cromwells and Stalins who just slip in and recreate old inequities. Or can become a civil war of factions and warlords fighting over scraps. They work on slightly different dynamics.
To my mind hierarchy to a certain extent is desired by a lot of people. There is a comfort knowing where you fit and an alleviation of anxiety in being told by someone you trust what to do and knowing that you have someone below you. Oftentimes when power is in disarray it congregates around people who just talk a good game. The danger I think of spreading power too thin is that if there isn’t some kind of structure people seem to like to default to very basic heirachies based on tribalistic notions and their preconceived notions of what power looks like.
No, it’s not separate, you don’t just get to say the leading cause of authoritarian states is a separate thing from the causes of authoritatian states.
That would be like claiming heart disease isn’t really what kills people, that’s just cholesterol finding opportunities for people to die.
They are different authoritarian states. There isn’t a one size fits all situation. An authoritarian state that comes before a state failure tends to exist using pre-established powers. Either nobility/premogenitor culture, liquid asset wealth, theocracy, assumption and exploitation of the mechanics of statehood - that kind of thing.
Once one of those crashes due to revolt you start dealing with new powers. Cult of personality militias which offer easy solutions to quelling the chaos. Your Napoleons, Cromwells and Stalins who just slip in and recreate old inequities. Or can become a civil war of factions and warlords fighting over scraps. They work on slightly different dynamics.
To my mind hierarchy to a certain extent is desired by a lot of people. There is a comfort knowing where you fit and an alleviation of anxiety in being told by someone you trust what to do and knowing that you have someone below you. Oftentimes when power is in disarray it congregates around people who just talk a good game. The danger I think of spreading power too thin is that if there isn’t some kind of structure people seem to like to default to very basic heirachies based on tribalistic notions and their preconceived notions of what power looks like.
Cope