Is it fair to say that on "a spectrum with Totalitarianism being on one side and Authoritarianism being on the other", that the core metric is the degree of Party control as an institution, somewhat separate from the leader or leadership cadre? The Party IS the "Dynasty", not the family of the current most prominent personage? There is a Politburo or set of committees of increasing authority, but it is not all that important who is on a given committee, etc. at a given time? There might, be but does not have to be, a cult oriented around the leader/ leadership?
On the authoritarian end then, the set of courtiers assembled around the court (and the monarch or perhaps an oligarchy?) are not a Party in this sense since they have no established authority separate from that/those persons?
Reflecting on the typical transition of one authoritarian regime to another (the "Baron" rises up during or after the reign of the previous sovereign), what about the initiation of the Totalitarian state? Does the initiation of the T state require a charismatic leader promoting his own ideology or that of some poor intellectual schmuck who died in poverty? But eventually his role is subsumed into the history and mystic of the Party.
I suppose a transition between an A state and a T state could go in either direction (based on personality, interests, domestic or foreign disturbances, etc.)?
Is it fair to say that on "a spectrum with Totalitarianism being on one side and Authoritarianism being on the other", that the core metric is the degree of Party control as an institution, somewhat separate from the leader or leadership cadre? The Party IS the "Dynasty", not the family of the current most prominent personage? There is a Politburo or set of committees of increasing authority, but it is not all that important who is on a given committee, etc. at a given time? There might, be but does not have to be, a cult oriented around the leader/ leadership?
On the authoritarian end then, the set of courtiers assembled around the court (and the monarch or perhaps an oligarchy?) are not a Party in this sense since they have no established authority separate from that/those persons?
Reflecting on the typical transition of one authoritarian regime to another (the "Baron" rises up during or after the reign of the previous sovereign), what about the initiation of the Totalitarian state? Does the initiation of the T state require a charismatic leader promoting his own ideology or that of some poor intellectual schmuck who died in poverty? But eventually his role is subsumed into the history and mystic of the Party.
I suppose a transition between an A state and a T state could go in either direction (based on personality, interests, domestic or foreign disturbances, etc.)?
This comment is not related to the topic of the post. Please move it to another post on my Substack column that is related.
I have plenty of other posts related to historical economic growth (and will write many more in the near future).
Thanks for moving the comment to the appropriate post.