> I upvoted you for a thought-provoking perspective, but I think you're wrong historically. Most totalitarian governments fail on the battlefield, or they fail when the charismatic leader dies and his heirs are not so charismatic. Think of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, the empires that fell during WW1, the Axis powers in WW2, Libya post-Gaddafi, or Saddam Hussein. Totalitarianism seems to be an effective way to rapidly modernize a population to take advantage of already-discovered technological advances, and then to mobilize the population for war. It fails heavily at actually waging war, where the life-or-death competition between powers leads to a rapidly shifting reality that totalitarian governments cannot keep up with, because totalitarianism requires a near-total distortion of reality in order to keep the ruling clique in power. Additionally, liberal democracies often have a deeper bench of talent and technological developments waiting in the wings; totalitarianism requires the extermination of these institutions as potential threats to the regime, but liberal democracy cultivates these institutions in times of peace and then can draw on them in times of war. Witness how quickly the allies deployed radar, sonar, codebreaking, convoy systems, fire control computers, mass production, strategic bombing, and nuclear weapons during WW2: almost all of these inventions existed within Nazi Germany (some of them were discovered there), but their widespread development was blocked by Hitler's disfavor or inattention, and so they never got the resources they needed.

Most of modern China's advances came in times of freewheeling Jiang-Hu era, and Xi mostly coasts on inertia. Domestic electronics manufacturing has been on retreat for the last decade, being supplanted by government pushed initiatives. Billions are being bamboozled on "O2O," "AI," "5G," "Big Data" by people who don't have even a remotest idea of what those are besides nice CG animations.

Industrial parks that made local makes famous during Shanzhai era are being bulldozed year after year to be replaced by campuses of firms brandishing current tech fashion trend buzzword. This severely impacts the output of local original products. Things like cheap LED lighting, battery banks, vapes, selfie sticks, hoverboards, quadcopters, stick computers, damn fidget spinners, portable audio amplifier, loads of bluetooth gizmos, tons of cellphone accessories, and so on — all that stuff was originally a product of Chinese garage industry. I can not imagine anything like this coming in such amounts in current cultural and business climate.

Genghis Khan was neither a totalitarian leader nor did he fail on battlefields.

> or they fail when the charismatic leader dies and his heirs are not so charismatic.

As for totalitarianism - it's complicated, since totalitarianism in pre-modern societies looked very different. He would generally allow people in captured territories some degree of self-rule, as long as they sent the requisite taxes to support his war machine and didn't threaten his rule. But that's not all that different from the status of ordinary people in China: pay the requisite taxes and don't threaten the ruling party and you have a fair amount of latitude to go about your business unhindered. It's also very different from the degree of freedoms we're used to in the U.S, where threatening the ruling party is practically a national sport.

We're getting pretty far afield from the original discussion - now you're talking about the U.S. rather than China or historical dictators, and we're talking private organizations rather than governments. But since I like arguing...

Liberty does not mean equality. The average common person cannot really do anything to Mark Zuckerburg other than delete Facebook (which I've done, and other people probably should do but for some reason don't). But that's different from saying nobody can threaten Mark Zuckerburg. There was nothing preventing Kevin Systrom from founding Instagram or Jan Koum from founding Whatsapp and then forcing Zuckerburg to buy them out for $1B and $19B, respectively. Nor was there anything preventing Brian Acton from quitting FB once his options vested, donating $50M to a competitor, and starting to work for them. Under many other regimes, these founders would've been offered a small payout to toe the party line in the beginning, and then disappeared if they refused to play ball.

Similarly, there's nothing you can do to get Republicans to turn on Trump. Democrats have already turned on him (before the election), but there's plenty you can do to get independents to turn on him, starting with providing a compelling alternative and educating people on why his policies won't work anyway. The press attacks him on a daily basis, and he attacks back, but so far all of these are just nasty words that rally his base and generate pageviews for mainstream media. He doesn't have the power to actually shut down these attacks, the same way Xi Jinping has banned Winnie the Pooh memes in China. And ordinary folks like me who are just exhausted by the controversy can just tune it out; I largely just stopped reading Trump-related stories because all they do is feed his ego at my emotional expense and I don't want to be a part of that.

The most effective way to actually seize and exercise your personal power is to recognize what you do and do not have the means to change, and to focus all your efforts on the former.

Yeah, if they think Genghis Khan failed on battlefields, I don't know who succeeded.

If you come here for intellectual discussion, expect to have your ideas challenged.

FWIW, I thought the same as you when I got out of college, and it's only after reading a bunch more history and learning to separate reality as it is from reality as I would like it to be that I ended up revising that opinion.