United Muscovite Nations wrote:Most of human history has been under authoritarian rule.
War Gears wrote:Not really. It wasn't democratic, but I'm not sure "authoritarianism" applies to premodern societies.
United Muscovite Nations wrote:So, absolute monarchy and feudalism aren't authoritarian systems?
Conserative Morality wrote:Absolute monarchy is a comparatively recent development, feudalism restricted to narrow regions and eras.
Aillyria wrote:1.) Most of those were shortlived, saved for the USSR.....and even then the Soviets made great strides in physics and astronomy. But I was referring to much older empires like Rome and China's various dynasties, the Russian Empire under Peter the Great, Prussia under Fredrick the Great, France under Napoléon I.....etc.
I don't think any prominent political scientist would describe the pre-modern regimes as authoritarian. It'd be stretching the use of the term beyond its breaking point, making it apply to two widely different periods; different regimes and methods of rule. Svolik, who literally wrote the book on authoritarian rule, uses the term for post-WW2 states, and only goes further back for illustrative purposes. Likewise Caramani in Comparative Politics. Fukuyama, in Origins of Political Order, mentions authoritarianism a few times, and always either in post-WW2 times, current authoritarianism as a legacy of earlier political institutions or in passing.
Authoritarianism is decidedly a modern concept that applies to modern states.