Honestly depends more on the context than anything. Many dictators still call themselves 'President' for example, and after then it depends on how strongly they exert their will, spread their influence, tighten their grip and, possibly most importantly, retain their power.
Stalin or Mao are probably the two most powerful figures in modern politics. Doesn't really matter what you term them, they were both autocrats who retained power until their natural deaths, and their respective influences are still felt today.
On the other hand, Hitler and Mussolini were powerful, but they both ****ed up by pissing off foreign powers (and in Mussolini's case his own people) and their reigns were curtailed very suddenly due to this.
edit: Also not to forget the Kim dynasty, especially Kim Il-sung. You don't need a flashy title to be a ruthless and effective autocrat.
Originally posted by ScribbleGood post thanks 👆. What do you think would happen if the next US president was a autocrat?
Honestly depends more on the context than anything. Many dictators still call themselves 'President' for example, and after then it depends on how strongly they exert their will, spread their influence, tighten their grip and, possibly most importantly, retain their power.Stalin or Mao are probably the two most powerful figures in modern politics. Doesn't really matter what you term them, they were both autocrats who retained power until their natural deaths, and their respective influences are still felt today.
On the other hand, Hitler and Mussolini were powerful, but they both ****ed up by pissing off foreign powers (and in Mussolini's case his own people) and their reigns were curtailed very suddenly due to this.
edit: Also not to forget the Kim dynasty, especially Kim Il-sung. You don't need a flashy title to be a ruthless and effective autocrat.
Originally posted by HumbleServantI'm not sure how they'd do that. It would probably cause major schisms in the state system and the country would possibly just straight-up fall apart (and into civil war). The US is fairly well-designed so as to avoid easy domination by a president.
Good post thanks 👆. What do you think would happen if the next US president was a autocrat?
That isn't to say it isn't controlled by other extra-governmental forces that essentially govern autocratically, but state-by-state (and on the small scale) there's still a lot of self-governance.
That being said, I'm not American and I'm not that well-versed in the intricacies of their system, so perhaps I'm wrong.
Re: Question about the types of government that exist
Originally posted by HumbleServant
You have
President
Monarch
Dictator
Emperor
Communist
EtcWhich one does the ruler have the most power? Which one does the ruler have the least power?
Of the six you listed, from most to least:
-Monarch, Emperor, these are essentially the same. Kings and such where often seen as given their rule by a divine power and therefore infallible. eg In 2006 the Sultan of Brunei made himself infallible, whatever he does is right and legal in his country.
-Dictator
-Communist, though many Communist regimes are really dictatorships. eg Castro, Mao. Even Xi is dictator-lite, he gives himself power with little checks and balances.
-President. In the sense of a democracy where they have a set term and they're held in check by other governing bodies like our Congress.
-Etc.
Re: Re: Question about the types of government that exist
Originally posted by RobtardThanks, good post 👆
Of the six you listed, from most to least:-Monarch, Emperor, these are essentially the same. Kings and such where often seen as given their rule by a divine power and therefore infallible. eg In 2006 the Sultan of Brunei made himself infallible, whatever he does is right and legal in his country.
-Dictator
-Communist, though many Communist regimes are really dictatorships. eg Castro, Mao. Even Xi is dictator-lite, he gives himself power with little checks and balances.
-President. In the sense of a democracy where they have a set term and they're held in check by other governing bodies like our Congress.
-Etc.
Originally posted by Scribble
Honestly depends more on the context than anything. Many dictators still call themselves 'President' for example, and after then it depends on how strongly they exert their will, spread their influence, tighten their grip and, possibly most importantly, retain their power.Stalin or Mao are probably the two most powerful figures in modern politics. Doesn't really matter what you term them, they were both autocrats who retained power until their natural deaths, and their respective influences are still felt today.
On the other hand, Hitler and Mussolini were powerful, but they both ****ed up by pissing off foreign powers (and in Mussolini's case his own people) and their reigns were curtailed very suddenly due to this.
edit: Also not to forget the Kim dynasty, especially Kim Il-sung. You don't need a flashy title to be a ruthless and effective autocrat.
Damn you know you're geopolitics
Monarchies, outside of the total monarch, had alot more checks and balances in terms of long term fiscal strategy.
Modern communist, fascist, and democratic leaders are all comparable in power - the deciding factor is the size of the country and it's resources.
America is big and could achieve relative autarky, not that that's a good thing, but I don't think Russia or china could.
Originally posted by RobtardBingo 👆 Absolutely, that's why your democratically elected 45th President did his best to become a dictator.
A dictator/fascist is going to have more absolute power over their people than a democratically elected president like we have in the US, the size/resources of the countries being equalized.
Originally posted by Robtard
A dictator/fascist is going to have more absolute power over their people than a democratically elected president like we have in the US, the size/resources of the countries being equalized.
A dictator, as with a democratically leader, doesn't have power over the people, the people gladly hand it over.
20th century leaders were disproportionately powerful because the turbulently dynamic geopolitics precipitating ww1 and extending through until present day.
Add to this fact the emerging info tech at the time, allowing for mass propagandizing.