Very good from the non PS’s perspective. It was readily understandable. It is very tempting to comment on the weakness of the first as reheated models of authoritarian rule. Different wrapper but it will taste the same and the current president seems to be delivering lessons on it’s effectiveness. I could see the second works for small sovereign states but couldn’t see this taking hold in France! the third is very thought provoking personally. As a European these are very real issues, as you highlight. I await the second lesson which l will hope will neither induce panic and the need to book the first available ticket to Mars.
I would love to have seen Konstantin Pat's 1938 Estonian Constitution actually be put in effect for an extended period of time.
It might've provided a model for nations which, for various structural reasons cannot do democracy effectively, but a 'formalist, semi-democratic regime' like that would have provided it with the 'rule of law'.
Syria under Hafez Al-Assad I guess was kind of similar. That was a 'formalist regime'.
The Interwar Estonian regime is a fascinating one, which I bring up regularly when discussing corporatist experimentation during the 1920s and 1930s. One of the more fleshed out attempts, although sadly we can't know how it would have turned out.
I'm not quite sure I'd call it 'formalist,' but I might not be fully understanding - what would you define the term to mean?
'Formalist' means 'a system that operates in theory how it operates in practice'.
Putinist Russia would be a very non-formalist authoritarian regime as it wears a liberal democratic skinsuit. A very 'formalist' regime would be the United Arab Emirates, and to a lesser extent Singapore (even though that does use representative democratic mechanisms it isn't a complete sham like in Russia.)
It often corresponds to level of corruption, and my personal understanding of what 'rule of law' means (the liberal meaning just means liberal kritarchy)
I think we need a better term for the technocracy concept. Perhaps the Europeans have a better word? I bet there is something long winded in German.
It also seems like all three schools are centered in Silicon Valley type theories. Perhaps you should take a field trip to SF? They must have something new, especially after the last round of tech layoffs.
Alternatively, are there understudied non Silicon Valley theories of future authoritarianism, or are they just focusing on anachronistic theories? Most of what I see around the world are party states and juntas, so perhaps I am biased.
Caesarism doesn't typologically *have* to be 'Silicon Valley' in its approach of course, although I agree there's plenty of potential (and existing) overlap!
This nicely lined up Sam Freedman’s weekend Substack entitled Hayeks Bastards. This outlines the people and history within these movements up to the present. US focus.
Very good from the non PS’s perspective. It was readily understandable. It is very tempting to comment on the weakness of the first as reheated models of authoritarian rule. Different wrapper but it will taste the same and the current president seems to be delivering lessons on it’s effectiveness. I could see the second works for small sovereign states but couldn’t see this taking hold in France! the third is very thought provoking personally. As a European these are very real issues, as you highlight. I await the second lesson which l will hope will neither induce panic and the need to book the first available ticket to Mars.
Glad to hear it! And yes, you'll just have to wait to decide whether to book that Martian vacation...
I would love to have seen Konstantin Pat's 1938 Estonian Constitution actually be put in effect for an extended period of time.
It might've provided a model for nations which, for various structural reasons cannot do democracy effectively, but a 'formalist, semi-democratic regime' like that would have provided it with the 'rule of law'.
Syria under Hafez Al-Assad I guess was kind of similar. That was a 'formalist regime'.
The Interwar Estonian regime is a fascinating one, which I bring up regularly when discussing corporatist experimentation during the 1920s and 1930s. One of the more fleshed out attempts, although sadly we can't know how it would have turned out.
I'm not quite sure I'd call it 'formalist,' but I might not be fully understanding - what would you define the term to mean?
'Formalist' means 'a system that operates in theory how it operates in practice'.
Putinist Russia would be a very non-formalist authoritarian regime as it wears a liberal democratic skinsuit. A very 'formalist' regime would be the United Arab Emirates, and to a lesser extent Singapore (even though that does use representative democratic mechanisms it isn't a complete sham like in Russia.)
It often corresponds to level of corruption, and my personal understanding of what 'rule of law' means (the liberal meaning just means liberal kritarchy)
I think we need a better term for the technocracy concept. Perhaps the Europeans have a better word? I bet there is something long winded in German.
It also seems like all three schools are centered in Silicon Valley type theories. Perhaps you should take a field trip to SF? They must have something new, especially after the last round of tech layoffs.
Alternatively, are there understudied non Silicon Valley theories of future authoritarianism, or are they just focusing on anachronistic theories? Most of what I see around the world are party states and juntas, so perhaps I am biased.
They usually call it technocracy! :) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technokratie
Caesarism doesn't typologically *have* to be 'Silicon Valley' in its approach of course, although I agree there's plenty of potential (and existing) overlap!
This nicely lined up Sam Freedman’s weekend Substack entitled Hayeks Bastards. This outlines the people and history within these movements up to the present. US focus.