Well, I think strongman rule is just the general failure mode of more advanced forms of government, I mean, it's either a single strongman or complete splintering into several states. there is nowhere further down to go.

Of more advanced forms of government or... all forms? I suppose societies that have always been strongman-governed aren't slipping into strongman government as a failure mode, but still.

It depends where you start.

If you start with feudalism (Russia), the Confucian equivalent (China) or post-colonial ~slavery (most everywhere else) then sure.

But if you start with industrialized states with decent education, you can end up with Scandinavia.

The Scandinavian countries started from a fundamentally different premise. They're not based on a socialist principle--i.e. that property should be owned in common with the government controlling its use. They're dedicated market economies that evolved a strong social safety net. But their governments don't presuppose the right to control property and production. They impose taxes, which propertied interests can push back on. (And do--Sweden for example has abandoned its wealth tax, and its corporate taxes are competitive with those in the U.S. or U.K.)

See: https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/25/socialism-didnt-work-in...

> Sweden stood as the world’s fourth wealthiest country nearly five decades ago. Its taxes were lower than most western countries, including the United States. The economy was deregulated, and public spending was hardly above 10 percent gross domestic product (GDP).

> The 30-year experiment “was a brief interlude of failure,” Norberg said. To reform and save its economy, Sweden reverted back to its capitalist structure. It reduced public spending by a third, demolished taxes on property and inheritance, and reduced taxes in other areas. Defined benefits were cut and only defined contributions were permitted.

> The Scandinavian countries started from a fundamentally different premise. They're not based on a socialist principle--i.e. that property should be owned in common with the government controlling its use.

This cannot be emphasized enough. It’s social democracy, not socialism as in USSR. It’s as different from socialism as national socialism is.

Our regulations on private sector are aimed at keeping the markets free, thus efficient. Free doesn’t mean free from regulation, but free from natural monopolies etc.

One of the best examples is our mobile/internet regulation. There are no local monopolies and competition works quite well.

So while we do have a big public sector the private sector that actually pays for all of this has to be really efficient.

None of the Scandinavian countries had a violent revolution. They were never Communist. They're all still constitutional monarchies!

This is the kind of mistake that lazily equating communism with social-democrat governments leads you to make.

Or you can start as France which also was feudalism and end up in a republic. With Napoleon as a speedbump.

The difference is the aims of those rebellions.

Seeing as all the communist rebellions have resulted in hellholes kinda supports this.

I live in Finland so not scandinavia, but none of us nordic countries formed our system via rebellion.