You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

DanArmak comments on Orwell and fictional evidence for dictatorship stability - Less Wrong Discussion

16 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 24 May 2013 12:19PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (79)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DanArmak 27 May 2013 08:55:49PM 2 points [-]

I'm not sure why you're asking this. That long regimes can (or tend to?) get progressively worse wasn't part of my argument. I was saying that there tends to be more change at the start of a reign than later on. And therefore, absent data to the contrary, I see no reason to believe these changes trend towards relaxation after regime changes, rather than merely showing regression to the mean.

As for long-term regimes that got worse later on: Mao seems to qualify, since the worst of his tyranny (e.g. Cultural Revolution) happened later on. Hitler didn't commit any world-scale atrocities until World War II started. Stalinism was worse in the Thirties than in the Twenties, and worse again in WW2.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 27 May 2013 09:27:21PM 1 point [-]

Points taken. A dangerous individual at the beginning of a regime can make that regime go much worse over time.