(June 14, 2021 at 10:36 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(June 14, 2021 at 10:32 am)Brian37 Wrote: No, sorry, that autocrat, like any other power, still has to pander for support, and needs funding, once they get that power. If they fail to garner that support, and keep rivals at bay, they are as subject to revolution as any other form of power. Power regardless of label, has to be funded in some way, open society or closed.
Revolutions in our species history have gone in both directions, from closed states to open states, and from open states to closed states. The labels don't matter. Power is just that, power. And there are countless examples in human history worldwide, where power keeps for a while then fails and gets replaced by another power.
But that’s not the same thing. An oligarchy and (usually) a plutocracy involve the sharing of power, whereas an autocracy does not.
Boru
Again you are still missing my point. I can accept that distinction, but it still amounts to group support.
The autocrat/plutocracy still needs to maintain their power by convincing those below them they deserve the power. If they fail to provide, just like if a zookeeper fails to feed the tiger/lion, for long enough, the animal will turn on them.
I think that is human nature in all political/government structures regardless of label. Humans can be oppressed by an iron fist for sure. Even in open societies like in the west, it is hard for a poor person or middle class person to fight a wealthy person in court. But in both open and closed societies, power is power, and if those powers, in either case are not providing enough support to keep their power, when given the chance, under the right conditions, those below that top power will turn on that power if they can.
