Why do right-wing authoritarian regimes allow so much citizen exit?

Derek Bonett emails me:

I’ve been considering the differences between left-wing authoritarian regimes and right-wing authoritarian regimes throughout history. One particular difference springs to mind that I do not believe has been explored:

Left-wing authoritarian regimes very frequently restrict emigration. Legal emigration from the U.S.S.R. and the Eastern Bloc was very difficult, same with Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, the DPRK, “Democratic Kampuchea”, Ethiopia under Mengistu, the list goes on.

But, strikingly, it seems to me that with the partial exception of the Third Reich, fascist/ultranationalist/right-wing authoritarian regimes generally do not restrict emigration. In the Third Reich, it seems that even Jews were allowed to emigrate until 1941. Mussolini’s Italy didn’t impose extensive emigration controls either. And, accordingly to my admittedly casual familiarity with these regimes, neither did Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Pinochet’s Chile, nor the more generic authoritarian regimes of Chiang Kai Shek’s Taiwan or Park Chung He’s South Korea.

Does your much more comprehensive reading of history confirm this difference? Has someone already written about this?

Perhaps the more “right-wing” regimes tolerate different sorts of income inequality.  Cuba and the USSR had plenty of inequality, but the main earners, in terms of living standards, are restricted to people within the state apparatus.  That means a lot of the talent will want to leave.  Many fascist regimes, however, are quite willing to cultivate multi-millionaires and then try to co-opt them into supporting the state.  Since you can still earn a lot in the private sector, exit restrictions are less needed.

What would be other hypotheses?


We have a bias in that we have blown up a lot more large right wing regimes than left. Our model of right wing nations are small Central American nations where the dictator is really running a business..

I always think the Third Reich leftist - the German brand of a Socialist controlled economy.

Anyone believing that the Nazis were 'leftists' in the 3rd Reich would have had the opportunity to learn about their mistake in a concentration camp.

You are welcome to think whatever you wish about a genocidal totalitarian regime, of course. The Nazis themselves essentially saw Nazism as the final solution to the Communist problem.

I'm sorry...are you seriously suggesting that "concentration camps"--by which I assume you actually mean "death camps," a different set of entities entirely--are a monopoly of the Nazis or that the Nazis were the only "genocidal totalitarian regimes"?

Long before the Nazis even existed, the Soviets were literally working people to death in places like the White Sea Canal. To make it worse, those folks were VOLUNTEERS who credulously thought they were coming to Russia to actually help build the Workers' Paradise!

As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski once observed, the Jewish shopkeeper in Lwow is equally repugnant to the Nazis and the Communists, both of whom wish him dead: to the Nazis he is a race enemy, and to the Communists he is a class enemy. This distinction may have some meaning to a philosopher: but it is of little significance to the shopkeeper.

Here are a few additional historical facts for you:

1. If you read the official party platforms of the Soviets and the Nazis they are disturbingly similar.

2. A substantial number of Nazi voters were former KPD (Communist Party of Germany) voters. Many of those who became street thugs for the Nazi Party had previously done the same for the KPD.

3. Hitler and Stalin infamously negotiated a treaty to divvy up Poland and the rest of the borderlands between themselves. From August 1939 to June 1941 the Nazis and Soviets were officially allies.

4. The Nazis weren't particularly interested in wiping out Communism per se: they were interested in taking Russia off the table as a player in Europe, same as they'd wanted to since the time of Frederick the Great.

These are historical, proven facts that are not in dispute. To suggest that there was any meaningful difference between the Soviets and the Nazis is to ignore the historical record.

This was a setup to once again try to change history and label the Third Reich as right wing. It was as far left as Russia, Antifa, communism, socialism, the KKK and the Democrats. The left needs to disassociate themselves from these terrible failed far left groups because they can't get young recruits if they tell the truth. So we get this constant effort to change history.

The Nazis, like the Imperial Japanese, were hard-core anti-communists to the core.

German elites managed an accommodation with the Nazis that would have been unthinkable under a truly socialist regime.

Partisans gonna partisan. There has never been an evil right wing state (to right wingers). There has never been an evil left wing state (to left wingers).

There is ZERO in common between modern day conservatives in Western society and Nazis. We always have and always will repudiate Nazism and Fascism.

Modern day liberals ARE socialists and communists. They always have and always will defend every evil socialist and communist regime.

'Modern day liberals ARE socialists and communists.'

Strangely, the German SPD, a party on the left, had its members imprisoned by both the Nazis and the communists.

There are plenty of people who one accurately call on the left who are not socialists and communists. Particularly if one looks at how they were treated by socialists and communists.

Trump, Putin and Orban are all fascists, yet conservatives seem eager to get in bed with them.

About the only thing those three have in common is a commitment to a patriotic view that their country has meaning. Other than that, to bracket the three of them is insulting to both our intelligences.

If you'd care to provide specific examples of "fascist" acts by either Trump or Orban, maybe we'd have something to discuss.

Fascism: "a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy" . That describes both Orban and Putin exactly. Orban doesn't promote militarism the way Mussolini did, or Putin does, because he's not stupid and he realizes Hungary is a little small for that.

Trump is a fascist wanna-be. He clearly has no love or patience for constitutional niceties. He is enamored with military spectacle, demonizes opposition as "enemies of the people", constantly harps on a return to mythical greatness (a la Mussolini), loves rallies that celebrate his personal bond with his followers, etc. I mean come on, the only thing that is not fascist about Trump is that he himself is too lazy to be a real leader.

But the true thing all three of these men share is a deep cynicism about their fellow countrymen, whom they see as sheep. If you believe that fascists are sincere patriots, then, it is true, none of these leaders are true fascists.

Hilarious. Even RUSSIA is right wing to you now.

Fascism is inherently left wing. The Nazis were strongly supported philosophically by the left wing intelligentsia in America and Western Europe. The leftist elites were enamored of them until Poland.

The Nazis were merely anti-Russia. Communism in the Russian model was globalist—or, from the German point of view, imperialist. Nazism was a home grown flavor of communism with more modern scientific philosophy tacked on. That’s all.

They were anti-Russia. They had much in common with the communists. Their problem was that Russia was a competitor not that Russia believed in very different things.

Actually, they had much in common with other totalitarian states.

Socialism, Fascism, communism are all children of the same father. Socialism is a political system where the law and the political power takes your wealth and your freedom. Fascism is a political system where the law, political power and the police power takes your wealth and your freedom. Communism is a political system where the law, political power, the police state and the military takes your wealth and your freedom. They are all the same but disagree on tactics. Inevitably socialism gives way to a more oppressive and powerful fascism which in turn gives way to communism where the state takes complete control of your life through naked oppression.

People in fascist regimes don't try to leave because the economy more or less continues to function.

In fascist regimes, most that want to leave are stuck in concentration camps. The economy sort of functions since the return on capital extracted from labor that slowly turns into a pile of bones because you don't feed them can be very high.

Nonsense. You are thinking Third Reich, which is an exception noted. Imprisonment rate in other right wing dictatorships and slave labor were/are irrelevant.

For instance, in fascist Italy, the number of political prisoners was substantially irrelevant before the war (and the "confino" or forced staying in, but with freedom of movement within, a remote location was much more common) while, during the war, the concentration camps population was lower than 30.000 and consisted mostly of foreigners and jews.

Also executions at the raise of a rightwing dictatorship are generally on a much smaller scale than a leftwing one and usual in connection with a civil war or the immediate period following one (in Italy, the number of people executed by the order of the "Special Tribunal" was 28.. over 20 years of rule while the somewhat brutal white terror in Spain under Franco feels like a nice and short time compared with the decades of purges in Soviet Union and China or the genocidal Cambodia...)

The Third Reich is not an outlier. You are forgetting the third country of the Axis powers. Japan's Empire is possibly more brutal because people are more numerous in Asia with deaths in the tens of millions with concentration camps galore. Indonesia's mass purges in 1965-1966 left 1M in one year with another 1.5M in prison. Considering the country had roughly 3M communist, this was an especially effective and near complete purge. Their later invasion in 1974 of East Timor and later occupation reached genocidal levels wiping out ~20% of the population, basically a right-wing version of Cambodia. Anyway, I'm glad the 20th century is over. This stuff is depressing.

It's hard to really map these events and regimes to classic Western ideologies. The Japanese model is particularly problematic as it was an eclectic mix of democratic, civil and military-authoritarian, proto-fascist and other features that make it difficult to fit into a single box.

Consider: the Japanese maintained the forms of liberal democracy, but required the cabinet to include a general as Army minister and an admiral as Navy minister. This in turn held the ostensibly-civilian government hostage to the preferences of the military, who were themselves far from unified in their thinking. And of course, atop all that was the Emperor, who reigned without ruling, except at the very end, when he intervened decisively to end the war...though even that was a near-run thing, as the military launched a coup attempt to prevent his speech from being broadcast...

As to Indonesia, that was a pretty bog-standard military/civilian coup against what was--rightly or wrongly!--perceived as an existential threat. And genocide is hardly a monopoly of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes or even dictatorships more broadly.

Oh, you are so wrong!!!

Of course, there is massive emigration in right wing dictatorships: look at Fascist Italy or at Fascist Portugal! Also in Spain (a very empoverished country during Franco's regime) and several other right-wing dictatorships around the world.

When there are economic hardships people want to leave, whether democratic or undemocratic, that's a rule. The only dictaroships where people don't want to leave are the absolutist monarchies in the Gulf. Why? Because they are swimming in money, that's why!

That comes back to the original question, though. The right-wing regimes you mentioned, to the extent that they generated poor economic conditions that made people want to leave, appear to have been willing to see that outcome. Contrast with the GDR or the rest of the USSR's puppet states.

Communism requires the assertion that their country is a workers’ paradise. To imply otherwise is treason. Fascism doesn’t require that demand from its citizens.

Yes, when you look at Germany, not many left. Southern Italy and Spain practically hemorrhaged people, though.

Generalizations don't apply, dictatorships must be assessed case by case.

Portugal was under a dictatorship from 1930s to 1074. GDP per capita was less than $1000 during the war to keep their colonies in Africa (1960-1974). Literacy rate was around 50% by 1950. Can we describe this situation as more or less to function?

Around two million people left Portugal from 1930s to 1970s. Some of them escaped poverty, the young ones ran from the military draft to fight the colonial war in Africa (deserters). The Portuguese dictatorship was decaying, the poor enforcement of emigration rules allowed 500-600K people to emigrate illegally from Portugal.

Portugal had a right-wing dictatorship that regulated emigration, but the body count is much less than any Communist regime. What could have happened there? a) the dictator did not have an ideological motivation to punish(execute) the people leaving, b) the dictator wanted to punish them but the police/military was too weak to do anything, c) the police/military were strong but corruptible so people could buy freedom.

Anybody here with deeper knowledge on the Portuguese dictatorship?

Portuguese here, know of many people from the older generation that were forced to emigrate. You seem to have generalised as well, as it was easier to emigrate in some periods compared to others. A good amount of emigration was legally for temporary visits abroad only and emigres just did not return. But in a majority of cases should be option b); the border with Spain is very big, and from the other side on things were easier.

@Dave, thanks for the insight.

I generalized. My comment was already long enough =)

Indeed, the main difference I read about is that the early 1960s were a watershed. Before there were restrictions to emigration while other countries in Europe needed workers badly. After the watershed Portugal relaxed the emigration restrictions but the others countries in Europe started to close the doors to immigrants.

The only question left is why the Portugal dictatorship was not as brutal as other dictatorships that restrict emigration? Lack of will, lack of capacity, high morals?

Class: Communist regimes oppress their higher class, higher human capital subjects, who have options in other countries, so they want to leave, causing a big brain drain (e.g., from East Germany before the Berlin Wall).

Nazi Germany suffered a brain drain of Jews, and Pinochet's Chile of educated leftists, but in general this didn't have as big an economic detriment as, say, the Khmer Rouge shooting Cambodians who wore glasses.

Putin’s Russia has experienced a brain drain far more severe than the Post-Stalin USSR did. In general right wing dictatorships lose a lot of educated population to emigration, but don’t care. The people who stay are more likely to be loyal.

Left authoritarianism strives for a state of universal human equality: thus anyone wanting to leave is seen as betraying the entire endeavor and potentially every person on earth.

Right authoritarianism is concerned with national aggrandizement: thus anyone wanting to leave 'the great national' would be unwanted anyway, why try to stop them?

Seems on the money to me. Leaving - or not committing to - the left wing state is a morally culpable betrayal of "your own" greater best interests. The right wing narrative is more about harnessing the government and institutions to the aims of the elite.

'The right wing narrative is more about harnessing the government and institutions to the aims of the elite.'

However, the fascist narrative is more about controlling government and institutions to the aims of the people, as represented by their unchallenged and unquestioned leader.

Controlling government and institutions to the aims of the people also pretty much what all democratic narratives are about too, and pretty much any mass political movement that seeks to gain power through numbers and mass mobilization.

Sure - but democracy fails when someone manages to claim that they alone should be the unchallenged and unquestioned leader. Along with making that claim stick, of course.

America's apparently favorite president (at least according to the tweeter in chief) is a fascinating ongoing case to test how well the Constitution can deal with a president who seems to feel he is not only above the law, but the one who makes the law - we seem poised on the edge of implementing America's second national emergency to allow the president to do what he likes, after all. A second national emergency that just might motivate the Republican members of Congress to assert Congress's authority - which if the past is any guide, means that they too will have to bow to America's extremely stable genius leader's will.

Or else, in some sort of bizarre fashion that seems to terrify a number of members of Congress.

Are you talking about FDR here or someone else?

FDR was never known as America's tweeter in chief no did he refer to himself as our favorite president, and to the best of my knowledge, never repeatedly referred to himself as a very stable genius.

But FDR did come up with a cockamamie scheme to pack and stack the Supreme Court, which his advisers had to talk him down from. And he rounded up American citizens of the "wrong" ethnicity and sent them to internment camps. And he naively appeased the Russians at the Yalta Conference.

FDR may not have been "tweeter-in-chief" but he certainly knew how to get his thinking out to the American people while bypassing the media gatekeepers.

Or perhaps you've not heard of the weekly "fireside chats"?

The fascist narrative seems to deviate where it differs on the definition of "the people". In a fascist state, it seems to me, they are trying to recapture a perfect past cultural equilibrium that was upset by "low quality people" and naive interlopers.

So, yes, controlling all for the sake of the "good people" with the right genetic makeup and the right moral framework.

That was my thinking as well.

Yeah, something like that. A totalitarian state cares about what everybody thinks. If you think of leaving that's a thought crime right there and you could contaminate other people by example. Authoritarian states want to control what you do and if you want to leave because you're, say, a Jew in Germany, that's in line with the program. That gets into the question of whether Nazi Germany was "totalitarian" - if you were Jewish or another undesirable they didn't care what you thought it was your existence that was the problem. If you were racially acceptable then yes they want you to be a goodthinker. However you can definitely argue the case - in 1984 Big Brother didn't care what the Proles thought.

Yeah, pretty much. I would put it this way: the collectivist nature of left-wing authoritarian regimes makes any attempt to exit essentially an act of treason, while the tribalist nature of right wing authoritarian regimes makes exit for outgroup members a desired goal.

I like this way of stating it. +1

Correct. One method of achieving nationalism is eliminating those who are different, one way or another.

Socialists have always viewed the people as a tool of the state, until they are no longer useful.

This follows what I've been thinking.

Communism - Remake the existing populace into one where communitarian ideals are second nature to create Utopia. All people are valued as raw material and none of their ideas are or were worth preserving.

Fascism - Restore the lost Utopia where the right kind of people with the right morality were previously on the right path. Only certain people are valued and they already had the right ideas before they got misled.

In this framework, the emigration patterns described make sense.

Possible exceptions to this would
1. Venezuela has not tried too hard to keep their citizens in during the ongoing crisis there as much left wing powers in the past.
2. During Apartheid movement by black residents was regulated in South Africa. I was too young during the era to know off the top of my head if emigration was regulated to hold back individuals.

Apart from a handful of anti-government activists who were denied passports, blacks were never prevented from emigrating by the SA government. But very few attempted to do so.

Similarly to present-day Venezuela, I don't think Nicaragua under the Sandinista's tried to prevent emigration. I think it's correct rather to say that left-wing *totalitarian* regimes restrict emigration, whereas regimes - right-wing or left-wing - that fit a more ordinary strongman/authoritarian pattern do not.

Not necessarily a different theory but a different formulation.

In a left-wing authoritarian regime, the ones who want to leave tend to have traits that contribute to a productive society, hence it's against the authority's best interest to allow them to emigrate. In a right-wing authoritarian regime, the ones who want to leave tend to have traits that are detrimental to a productive society, hence it's in the authority's best interest to allow them to emigrate.

' the ones who want to leave tend to have traits that are detrimental to a productive society, hence it's in the authority's best interest to allow them to emigrate'

Well, except for the Nazis, who seem to have gotten that wrong. Which also explains why everyone mocks their grandiose claim of a 1000 year Reich.

However, the democratic West,broadly speaking, will take in those who are able to escape any totalitarian regime, left or right.

The Nazis would have disagreed with you. Very few talented engineers, industrial designers, military officers or industrialists emigrated. A lot of writers, artists, film directors, musicians and lawyers left. That was not seen as a major loss by the regime, and saved them the bother of imprisoning people. The loss of Jewish organizational and management talent was compensated in the short term by taking all their assets when they left. In retrospect, the loss to emigration of some brilliance Jewish scientists may seem a little stupid when you are gearing up for a war but didn’t make that much difference in the end. The Nazis got quite a lot wrong, but being lenient on emigration doesn’t seem to have hurt them much.

'The Nazis would have disagreed with you.'

Absolutely, as they would have disagreed with me on a huge number of points. However, the Nazis lost, utterly and completely.

'The Nazis got quite a lot wrong, but being lenient on emigration doesn’t seem to have hurt them much.'

It made plain their delusional attitudes toward having a master race in charge. From an American perspective, that was likely their largest single error, as it made it easy to know precisely what sort of genocidal ideology the U.S. was fighting against.

The Nazi view of the master race was mainstream science at the time. The homicidal tendencies of the Nazi regime disturbed most people, but most of the intelligentsia believed that the underlying assertions were self-evident.

I agree with all 4 of the previous commenters. And to add my 2 cents, I would suggest that it is the exceptionally poor and impoverished countries that are highly incentivized to restrict emigration for the obvious reason that if they didn't, a substantial portion of the population would leave, resulting in a brain/talent drain and thus depleting the country's human capital. North Korea comes to mind as an example. Perhaps left authoritarian countries tend to be more impoverished than right leaning ones, or perhaps that has just been the case in the past century, thus leading to the trend you observe. I'm inclined to believe the former, and thus agree with Commenters Meets and Steve Sailer.....but I'm not sure.

Was East Germany " exceptionally poor and impoverished" when the Berlin Wall went up? It was poor compared with West Germany, but on an international scale hardly "poor and impoverished."

A basic difference between left- and right-wing authoritarian rule seems to be that the left is far more intellectual, spending considerable energy cooking up grand theories. Whereas the intellectual foundations of right-wing authoritarianism are often incoherent and inconsistent. Marxism can be spun into a grandly self-consistent High Theory; Nazi "race science" or Il Duce's Second Roman Empire, not so much. Perhaps right-wing authoritarian governments are just so arrogant that they figure they don't need the riff-raff that wants to leave anyway? For leftist totalitarianisms can be rational in a crazed sort of way, yet nationalist authoritarian regimes lean heavily on emotional appeals and thus tend to discard rationalism as unworthy.

In the former, the fist is there, but it's (somewhat) hidden; there's always the pretence that, really, government truly is expressing The People's Will. in the latter there is no pretence; the naked display of power is the whole point.

"A basic difference between left- and right-wing authoritarian rule seems to be that the left is far more intellectual, spending considerable energy cooking up grand theories. Whereas the intellectual foundations of right-wing authoritarianism are often incoherent and inconsistent. "

This seems backwards, and your example also proves the opposite. Te Nazis were evil, but very competent. There has yet to be a Marxist government that doesn't crumble in on its own incompetence. Pinochet taking over from a Marxist government is another example. Brutal, but competent regime takes over a failing Marxist regime.

It's really the divide between producers and non-producers. The left wing attacks producers and the right attacks the non-producers of society.

"Intellectual" in this sense does not mean "competent," or anything close to competent. It refers to an ability to build huge cotton-candy theories in the sky out of nothing more than hopes and wishes.

Not surprisingly, such theories collapse when real-world feedback shows their foundational assumptions do not reflect human realities.

Right-wing regimes just don't bother spinning these grand theories, but dispense romantic nationalist-racialist myths aimed more at mob-emotionality than reason.

It's already been said in different ways, but here's another way to explain it:

Left-wing extremism is knocking down people doing well.

Right-wing extremism is knocking down people doing poorly.

People doing well want to leave if you're oppressing them. The far left needs them as resources and so needs to trap them.

People doing poorly want to be included and the far right wants to kick them out (or in some cases, genocide them).

'Right-wing extremism is knocking down people doing poorly.'

Kistallnacht shows just how poorly the Nazis handled that aspect, doesn't it?

Two questions:

Are you upset they didn’t succeed more?

How much of today’s German success can be attributed to 1935-1944 Germany?

I understand these questions may be difficult for you as they can’t be found in a Google or Wikipedia search but do your best.

"How much of today’s German success can be attributed to 1935-1944 Germany?"

would think that west germanys post ww2 success was not due to
1935-45 germany it was mostly due to
the Amerikan Marshal plan

'Are you upset they didn’t succeed more?'

What a bizarre question, or do you think that anyone describing a government using the words murderous genocidal ideology is actually praising the mass murderers? In case the answer is not clear, the Nazis represented an evil ideology, and Kistallnacht was merely one step along their dedicated path of mass extermination.

'How much of today’s German success can be attributed to 1935-1944 Germany?'

Does the German expression 'Stunde Null' mean anything to you? Basically, the broad German belief is that Nazis brought Germany to the absolute nadir of its existence. Sadly, you have to read German if you wish to know more about the term - but I am sure you can do your own searching.

The right likes to deport people. The left likes to import them. This is the exact opposite though if they are rich. Rich right wingers want to import cheap labor while the rich left wants to kick them out of their HOA'd neighborhoods.

left deported hundreds of thousands to ye olden gulag archipelago

With the thinking on display here, Donald Trump's immigration problem would be solved by turning all of Latin America into a worker's paradise. Instead Hondura's right wing shith*le government continues to make more and more waves of caravans according to what the fair and balanced news channel told me. Donnie should make peace with the CIA and install a Leninist or two to make it all disappear. More effective than a wall.

Park Chung Hee's regime restricted exit by not issuing passports. The reason was to limit outflow of money. He didn't care about bar girls leaving to marry American gerbs.

The title of the post gives a hint. Left wing produces totalitarian states, right wing produces authoritarian states. A totalitarian state wants to own and control it's citizens, control their thoughts and actions and for someone to leave is an existential threat to the regime. It is a thought crime. An authoritarian state wants to impose it's will upon the citizenry, and if someone wants to leave it is one less dissident to worry about. Their existence isn't a threat by simply existing.

Both are evil, just in different ways.

An example of both, of much less seriousness and threat is Alabama's abortion law vs. what happened at Evergreen College. Alabama wants to stop abortion so will penalize a doctor who performs it. Not the woman, who might choose to go out of state. At Evergreen, Bret Weinstein refused to not show up based of his skin color, then was guilty of wrong think which was intolerable. At that point nothing he had done previously had any bearing on his guilt, he had not submitted in his thinking to the totalitarian left that would not tolerate that. His existence as a dissident was intolerable and a reason to incite violence and threats against him and his family.

Lots to disagree with both situations, but the difference is illustrative.

A proviso, nothing to do with humans is black and white. The social pressures in Alabama might not be too different from Evergreen, and Evergreen was happy to see the Weinsteins leave and even paid them to get rid of them. The end results in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are very similar. The differences are on the margins, sometimes subtle.

Nazis count as totalitarian in my book. Alabama and Evergreen are silly examples. Neither are totalitarian nor authoritarian and don't belong in this discussion.

evergreen might not be a totalitarian state yet but
what was going last year was a textbook model of the totalitarian behavior that leads to a totalitarian state

You guys look at ants in the corners when you should look at the elephant in the room.

You use Evergreen as your get out of jail card. Both sides do it, etcetera. repeated ad infinitum.

evergreen is not a get out of jail card
it is a totalitarian model for how amerikan sociologists whose postmodern studies/narratives don't reproduce go after the jobs of extremely bright & dedicated biologists/teachers

there can be more than one elephant in the room

If it's an elephant, why do you keep going back to one college, Evergreen, with 3,327 students?

With a total of 18 million US college students, this represents a small fraction of the whole.

because it is an instructive model for domestic totalitarianism

I hope you are a bit self-aware on that answer.

How so?

If someone came to you with an example of the same weight, 3k/18m, or 0.02% of some whole, do you think you'd say "ah yes, this is an instructive model for society?"

yes definitely because the postmodern sociologists cultural marxist methodology at evergreen is a postmodern version of maoist & stalinism ideologies that ended up with
the deaths of mebbe 60-70 million which is way the fuck
more than 0.02% of the population
and also because buzzwords are stupid

what makes it even more instructive/funny is
the sillyones proudly recorded
the whole marxist con from beginning to end on their fancy
capitalist high resolution video phones

And while I'm down on you guys, look at what your boys, Bo Winegard and Noah Carl, are up to:


Straight up Sailerites, which is to say population genetics rejectionists. They prefer their *story* of migrations to a very deep global dna database.


we read ur links
why don't you summarize for us gentlepostmoderngender theorists what
you think they mean

I did. Winegard and Carl tell a story of migrations to defend a biological conception of race, and the biologists call bs.

If you want to skip down, in the first piece, search for "A more plausible conception of race, one that" and in the second, jump to "New findings in genetics tear down old ideas about race"

The Quillette article seems pretty well-argued and convincing. Not sure what you find so awful about it.

There are two paths, basically, to understanding human evolution. One path is to armchair it. That is to sit with your pipe and your adult beverage, and reason from what you imagine to be first principles. That's what a whole family of liberal arts based "evolutionary" approaches do.

Or, you can measure the frickin' DNA.

Plenty of empirical data was cited. They cited the work of several geneticists. The idea that there is "arm-chairing" anything is a figment of your imagination. The fact that you couldn't name a single specific is telling.

The armchair types sometimes back-fill selectively, but that almost makes it worse, right? They won't work from the data, they'll only use bits of it to prop up centuries old theories.

Yeah, you got nuthin'. Color me surprised.

What? I "got"


Why exactly do you throw it away? Inconvenient to your biases?

I skimmed it. Doesn't seem to contradict the Quillette guys in the way you seem to think.

In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry.

It seems to me what they're saying is there's a lot of crap bound up in the common notion of "race" but they agree with the general concept, so they invented a substitute term. Perfectly reasonable and compatible with what Noah Carl wrote, from what I see.

You might be muddling biological and social concepts, but I think this is enough for today.

Have a good one!

"You might be muddling biological and social concepts"
whose not so self aware this time?
you do realize your link to a Harvard narrative about genetics
starts with a sentence referring to the donald!

Note that Winegard and Carl actually invoke phrenology.


That's what you boys are defending.

not defending anybody
don't think twitter is peer reviewed
if you have something of theirs that is published/peer reviewed in a genetics (not sociology) journal
we will be happy to read it but twitter reviews of what somebody sez
about what somebody else sez is not good methodology

BTW, note to readers:

This is exactly the state of the "race science" to science division in a nutshell. I say "the biologists call bs" and Jeff (as stand-in for the movement as a whole) says "but if I don't look at that, I'm not convinced."

The whole point of "race science" is to avoid science.

You’re putting words in his mouth that he clearly did not say.

If you want to argue that eigenvalues are meaningless, then go ahead. But we still need a way to slice the data for medical science purposes, if nothing else.

reread your links
it sounds like sociologists arguing with sociologists
doesn't read like a peer reviewed genetics paper/

"Nazis count as totalitarian..." They were the National SOCIALIST Party.

And it's the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Names don't mean much.

Except Hitler hated the fascists and love the communists.

Stalin. Hitler loved that ol' commie bastard.

'right wing produces authoritarian states'

Well, the Nazis beg to differ, particularly as they considered themselves the peak of a totalitarian state, committed to total war for total victory.

If outlawing abortion is “authoritarian,” so is outlawing slavery, infanticide, or any other number of institutions that were normalized by past cultures.

You really are a piece of work.

It seems someone failed to do even a rudimentary search on Wikipedia before referencing travel restrictions during the Park Chung Hee regime in South Korea. but hey, I'll be your free research assistant

that's at least one solid data point against this thesis. i wonder how the rest of your fact checking will pan out, should you, you know, check.

South Korea was a special case, since there is no land border except with North Korea. It is far easier logistically to restrict exit when the only way out is by plane or boat across the sea. On the other hand, when citizens can cross a border on foot you have to make massive investments in troops and infrastructure to prevent that, whose very visible existence is a propaganda own-goal.

The cold war in Korea was also much "hotter" than the one in Europe, where there were diplomatic relations and Western tourism across the Iron Curtain and no real risk of sudden military hostilities. The government may have worried about draft dodgers, young tourists being targeted for radicalization and recruitment or kidnapping, or fifth columnists going abroad to receive training in sabotage.

So the cost-benefit ratio to restricting exit in South Korea was tilted quite differently from many other countries.

fair points, well said. would have appreciated this level of detail in the original post.

Left-wing regimes can't let Other People leave or else they will run out of Other People's Money sooner. A similar thing happens domestically. Left-wingers favor government monopolies in which participation is compulsory: Social Security, K-12 public schools, etc. Right-wingers like excluding undesirables: segregated schools, private clubs, etc.

tl;dr right-winger builds walls to keep people out; left-wingers build walls to keep people in.

Don’t forget the leftwing dream to take over health care, and Medicare for All’s banning of private insurance. Government can’t control the health care space if you have the choice to leave its central planning. The left is anti-choice in all things nonvaginal.

Then how do you account for private school use being higher among leftist elites? Or people on the right wanting school vouchers for all? The second means more brown people in white schools.

Trying to explain Communism and Fascism as anything but two different flavors of the left is desperately misguided.

Mussolini's Italy attracted a fair number of wealthy foreigners to reside there. Franco Zeffirelli's autobiographical movie "Tea With Mussolini" is about how he grew up a poor but charming illegitimate boy in interwar Florence, where he was more or less adopted by rich English ladies who introduced him to Shakespeare and opera. Lots of rich foreigners, like Guy Crouchback in Waugh's "Sword of Honor" trilogy, lived in Italy in 1920s-1930s.

There was an English ex-pat community in Florence going back to the 19th century (add 'Room with a View' to your viewing list). They did not all leave because of Mussolini, but they didn't come because he made it attractive either.

Good observation and reason. On the other hand, left-wing authoritarian regimes had a one-way open borders policy in favor of immigration while right-wing authoritarian regimes were closer to the Trump position on immigration.

Yep, with the lefties you got to wall them in, righties, wall to keep them out.

I'm more interested in regimes that will let people in. Obviously new world democracies like the USA and Canada will open their doors but who else? I found that Russia and Saudi Arabia are very high on the list. That surprised me:


Russia and Saudi Arabia are somewhat misleading cases, although in different ways. Immigrants to Russia are, to a very large majority, from the former Soviet Union, and among those, a very large percentage are "ethnic Russians", whom the Russian government has encouraged and subsidized to "return". Migration from places other than the former Soviet Union is pretty low. (Interestingly, there are almost as many Russians living abroad as there are immigrants to Russia.) The "immigrants" to Saudi Arabia are almost completely "guest workers", with no chance to become citizens or permanent residents. They do the work - of all sorts - for the ruling population, which doesn't want to do any. So, they are a sort of servant class. It's not a normal migration situation.

Dovetails nicely with discussion about emigration going on in comments to the Singapore post.

TC: Perhaps the more “right-wing” regimes tolerate different sorts of income inequality. Cuba and the USSR had plenty of inequality, but the main earners, in terms of living standards, are restricted to people within the state apparatus.

Good one; that would be my first thought. We know from Gregory Clarke that the same families (surnames) tend to be persistent in charge under any system.

But I would guess the "Middle Class" (affluent, outside any social or political elite) tended to be somewhat more robust under right regimes.

(Flows of talent tend to go less compressed->more compressed for less skilled than average workers, on the whole, e.g. European migration to the US in 19th-early 20th century, with US having higher income compression until the early to late middle 20th century divergence.)

The other one that sprung to mind is that the right regimes may tend on average to have a slightly different character in their belief that allowing emigration is allowing the removal of "undesirable elements" from society.

Left wing regimes may place a higher premium on not allowing challenge to the social ethos and ideology since they are much more ideological, not allowing information leaking to other countries ("What if they discover our Potemkin Village/true GDP numbers?") and on retaining bureaucratic punishment value, as punishment more important to the status and power of the apparat (who have no financial power outside the bureaucracy). Right wing countries may be more biased against these in favour of the value of emigration to eliminate dissenting elements.

Finally, the possibility is there that right wing authoritarian countries tended to be more allied to the West, specifically the US, which pushed more for right of emigration.

Definitions are important here. The first one is the difference between "civilians"and "combatants" in the Hague Regulations and Geneva Convention. So, a civilian is anyone who is not a member of the armed forces or of an organized armed group.

I assume Prof. Cowen is using "citizens" instead of "civilians". Otherwise, his text makes no sense because left and right wing dictatorships have consistently eliminated their armed opponents (combatants). Being alive is a requirement to be able to emigrate, so all dead combatants were implicitly not allowed to emigrate.

The Eastern Bloc has the most infamous record of keeping their civilians in a cage. In more recent times, things are that bad in North Korea that people emigrate illegally to.....China.

After the WW2 experience, it was not surprising that the Russians took for granted that a civilian leaving was a soldier leaving. For example, the Soviet Army was around 4 million before WW2, during the war they conscripted ~30 million civilians. Civilians leaving may have looked a lot like desertors to their eyes. Perhaps among the commenters there's someone who knows about the USSR laws, perhaps in their laws the divide between civilian and combatant was less clearthan ours. Same for North Korea, is there a clear difference between civilian and combatant for them?

Interesting point. At very high levels of mobilization / perceived threat (USSR 1945 - ~ 1990, NK post 1952), even in the absence of active war, almost all adults are at least potentially troops or critical support.

Based on experience (born in Czechoslovakia) I am not sure this is true. While travel to the west was severely restricted and *illegal* emigration was a crime, it definitely was possible to leave the country legally - there was a formal process to go through. Dissidents were even encouraged to leave.

^^^ Thanks for bringing actual facts to the table. +1 for you.

"While travel to the west was severely restricted"

are you referring to the mebbe 1about 40 people got shot around the berlin wall

Fellow Czech here.

There is a big difference between incentivizing the known dissidents to leave and letting hundreds of thousands / millions move to the West, even temporarily (as workers). The latter was perceived as a fatal danger by the regimes beyond the Iron Curtain. The only exception was non-aligned Titoist Yugoslavia.

Accidentally, this threat was sort-of reality based. Looking at the current enormous brain drain of qualified people out of the poorest EU countries (Romania, Bulgaria), I am not sure if they can survive that. It is so far impossible to balance problems like serious shortage of dentists by building more highways and cycling paths out of European subventions.

'it definitely was possible to leave the country legally'

Generally at a fairly high personal cost - often plus a noticeable amount of Western money. Germany probably played this game the most throughout significant parts of the East Bloc (including Czechoislovakia, Romania, the Soviet Union among others).

The Eastern Bloc was generally happy to sell its (often differing 'ethnicity') citizens to anyone willing to pay for them.

That this seems to resemble something like the inverse of slavery when paying for humans to have freedom was noted at the time, and there is no question that for some regimes, German money was a significant source of hard currency.

Cowen is correct: the rich don't want to leave and the poor can't afford to leave.

The reviewer of Tim Bouverie's new book Appeasement writes this:

"Sincerity typically requires consistency, but somehow Hitler’s volatility worked in his favor. He became so prone to tantrums that even when he talked to the British ambassador in Berlin about “annihilating Poland,” the relative lack of “the usual histrionics” meant that the genocidal comment wasn’t taken as an immediate threat. Hitler was constantly graded on a curve." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/books/review-appeasement-chamberlain-hitler-churchill-tim-bouverie.html

I suspect that this observation may apply to right-wing authoritarians generally, their threats and bluster always taken with a grain of salt, while left-wing authoritarians and their threats of confiscation and taxes are taken as serious threats to the status quo: the threats by the right-wing authoritarians are interpreted as threats to the somebody else (e.g., Jews), while the threats by the left-wing authoritarians are interpreted as threats to those in positions of power.

"the threats by the right-wing authoritarians are interpreted as threats to the somebody else (e.g., Jews),"

england and france did declare war on germany about 2 days
after hitler invaded poland

Eventually even the most credulous mark can wake up to the fact he's been rolled.

According to the received wisdom on the subject, Chamberlain woke up when Hitler occupied the rump of Czech land that were left after Munich, what became the "Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia."

Daladier, of course, knew all along: he is documented as having commented on returning to Paris to the plaudits of the crowd after the Munich summit, "Pauvres cons!" ("Poor fools!").

mebbe but you gotta look at it through the pre-postmodern gender lens of the british & french&american credulous non-elite marks
who got rolled, shot &gassed circa1914-1918
like in that documentary film called "They Shall Not Grow Old"

swordfish don't ingest much mercury as say cod fish. Still, granite speaks of permanence. But why do Lutherans drive around with verse on their license plates? Because small doses of humor heel faster than big ones. Bergens Tidende is thus foreign-owned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolanus#/media/File:Gavin_Hamilton_-_Coriolanus_Act_V,_Scene_III_edit2.jpg see any similarities to Eliza and the bears?

You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.

There is also the matter of the coleman survey of 1866. Comparison shopping for a catholic is red lip stick.

mock the bald fella
watch out for bears
the Battle of Midway musta been nuts

so that's who Thiago Ribeiro is in America.

you are correct your highness
if it is ok with you, just call me ribby


I agree with other readers. It seems to be a matter of degree. Left-wing regimes seem to be obsessed with controlling every little detail of life, so they might be more totalitarian on average.

Their economy seems to collapse earlier as well, so a lot more young people and talents might want to leave, so they feel the need to create a wall or something to restrict emigration. For example in the former GDR emigration was so massive that they really needed the Berlin Wall, otherwise their whole state would have collapsed.

Right-wing authoritarian regimes can simple adapt their economic policy in case of mass emigration, because strict anti-capitalism is not the core of their ideology. Left-wing regimes cannot adapt their economic policy so easily because anti-capitalism is their core DNA. So they really need a wall in order to survive for a few more years.

Historically, people emigrated mostly because of dire economic problems or severe persecution. Left-wing dictatorships tend to have both, whereas right-wing dictatorships generally kept the trains running on time and life was tolerable unless you were a scapegoated minority.

Cold-War Europe was a special case for two reasons. First of all, the three-decade post-World War II economic boom meant that even unskilled refugees without higher education were guaranteed good jobs and a better life. It was a very different story during the Great Depression: apart from top scientists and cultural figures leaving Nazi Germany, the average citizen had little prospect of being welcomed elsewhere.

Second, the Iron Curtain divided a single country into two: Germany. A lack of linguistic barriers and lack of cultural differences (at least in the earlier postwar years) made fitting into the new country much easier. West Berlin in particular was a magnet, a visible daily in-your-face reminder of a better alternative.

East Germany could not survive unless it sharply restricted travel to the West, and that meant that other communist countries had to do the same. Otherwise East Germans could travel to the latter and eventually make their way West. Indeed, eventually that's what actually happened: Hungary opened its border with Austria and the Iron Curtain sprung a leak. The Berlin Well fell because suddenly people could bypass it.

In a counterfactual alternate history without an East/West Germany and post-war economic miracle, the border controls in communist countries might have been considerably less restrictive.

I have a very basic question about this analysis that I've never been clear on. What is the criteria for classifying the an authoritarian regime as Left-Wing vs Right-Wing? I get that any Communist regime can be classified as Left-Wing but there appear to be Left-Wing authoritarian regimes that are not actually communist (Hugo Chavez's Venezuela). And I'm not at all clear on what marks a regime as Right-Wing. Nationalism seems to be a marker people use but most authoritarian regimes seem to be Nationalist to some degree. For example it certainly appears as a strain in a lot of Communist China rhetoric.

Another division that seems to fit a bit better with the use of the terms is to define the regimes in terms of their power base; A dominant elite (Right-Wing) vs an empowered populous (Left-Wing)? But in practice I'm not sure how often the groups actually fit cleanly into that division. Are any modern authoritarians not actually populists? As an example it doesn't seem to fit will with the Nazi's whose rise at least was a populous rise against a perceived elite.

Semantic. It was important to intellectuals to believe that conservatism and tradition gave birth to a strain of the ideological horror visited on the 20th century.

And that was largely wrong. The Nazi regime for example was about as revolutionarily novel and anti-traditional as one could get.

You also need to specify whether we're talking U.S. vs. Europe's definitions of Left-Wing vs Right-Wing. And current definitions vs. some other time period.

Various issues/concerns/traits cluster differently depending on where and when you define those terms.

Dictatorships that are not explicitly left-wing are considered right wing by default. This dates back to the cold war and "our bastards" vs "their bastards", then even further back than that to Stalin's charming habit of declaring everyone he didn't like to be right wing.

Concur with the above. Despite nationalism having emerged in the 19th century as a progressive force against the conservatism--mostly in the form of what are called "throne-and-altar alliances"--of the age, somehow in the late 20th century it became identified with the Right.

If you examine Soviet wartime propaganda, it invariably describes the Germans as "Fascists" or "Hitlerites" and never as "Nazis" or "National Socialists." The Russians were keenly aware that there was a great deal of overlap between their ideology and that of the NSDAP (that's the "National-Socialist German Workers' Party" aka the "Nazis") and went to great lengths to obscure the fact.

And of course as has already been said, socialism proclaims itself to be borderless and transnational, but even Great Stalin was obliged to retreat to a policy of "Socialism In One Country" after the various Leftist uprisings (Bavaria, Hungary, and others) failed in the 1920s.

So the reality is that the designation of a particular flavor of totalitarianism as "right-wing" tells you more about the speaker than about his subject.

Great comment. You said everything I wanted to say here.

"an empowered populous (Left-Wing)" - the empowered populous never last more than a very short time at best, you quickly get a "dominant elite" again, albeit it may be a different set of people - Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Lenin, Stalin and the immediate Party leaders

Perhaps it would help if we examined the planted axiom here--that all repressive regimes can be classified as "authoritarian."

In the taxonomy of political science, we distinguish between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" regimes. Authoritarian regimes seek to monopolize politics and are considerably less exercised about everything else: authoritarianism can coexist with most if not all non-state institutions and organized activity so long as they steer well clear of the fenced-off "politics" corner of the public square.

Totalitarian regimes, OTOH, not only monopolize the political sphere but seek to conform all of society's other institutions to their ideology, starting with the family and working upward through the voluntary associations and mediating structures that stand between the individual and the state--anything from sports associations to businesses to churches.

In my time, the Soviet Union and its various socialist-bloc client states in Eastern Europe, Cuba, and elsewhere were viewed as totalitarian, as was Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, and many others of similar type were viewed as authoritarian, as were any number of less-spectacular military and civilian dictatorships, absolute monarchies, and the like.

In the contemporary age, post-Soviet Russia is no longer totalitarian, but authoritarian. Indeed there's only one arguably totalitarian country left, which is the PRC (OK, North Korea too, but they are basically an appanage of the PRC).

Note that it was believed for a while that the PRC was transitioning out of their totalitarian phase into a more authoritarian one, possibly en route to some form of liberal democracy, as we saw in Eastern Europe, in Spain and Portugal, and--briefly, under Yeltsin--in Russia itself. Sadly those hopes and expectations were largely shattered three decades ago at Tienanmen Square.

I don't think there's a straightforward explanation for the differences that relies solely or even largely on economics. It's the intent of the state that counts. Both Italy and Hungary, for example, were ruled by authoritarian but not totalitarian regimes until 1943 and 1944 respectively--to pick the most obvious contrast, those regimes never did very much to ship Jews off to the camps, and indeed many of Hitler's smelly Eastern European allies ferociously resisted any attempt to do so, on--ironically--nationalistic grounds ("They may be Jews, but they're OUR Jews!").

In 1943, after the Allies secretly negotiated a separate peace with Italy, and in 1944, when the Hungarian government was desperately attempting the same, they were overthrown by the Nazis who imposed a far harsher regime on them, including the rounding up and deportation of Jews...at which point, people started making for the exits, mostly unsuccessfully. There's no economics-based explanation for that: it was about survival.

so using your definition of totalitarian
"Totalitarian regimes, OTOH, not only monopolize the political sphere but seek to conform all of society's other institutions to their ideology, starting with the family and working upward through the voluntary associations and mediating structures that stand between the individual and the state--anything from sports associations to businesses to churches. "

it looks like the political position defined below would qualify as a postmodern totalitarian

"The private is political, is a political argument used as a rallying slogan of student movement and second-wave feminism from the late 1960s. It underscored the connections between personal experience and larger social and political structures. In the context of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, it was a challenge to the nuclear family and family values.[1] The phrase has been repeatedly described as a defining characterization of second-wave feminism, radical feminism, women's studies, or feminism in general.[2][3]

1^ Angela Harutyunyan, Kathrin Hörschelmann, Malcolm Miles (2009) Public Spheres After Socialism pp. 50–1.
2 "The great thrust of radical feminist writing has been directed to the documentation of the slogan 'the personal is political.'" McCann, Carole; Seung-Kyung Kim (2013). Feminist theory reader: Local and global perspectives. London: Routledge. p. 191.
3 "At the heart of Women's Studies and framing the perspective from which it proceeds was the critical insight that 'the personal is political.'" Ginsberg, Alice E (2008). The evolution of American women's studies: reflections on triumphs, controversies, and change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 69. ISBN 9780230605794.

Well, yes...I'm afraid so. Indeed it has become clear that--as Glenn "InstaPundit" Reynolds often observes when commenting on the latest attempt to intimidate or otherwise compel people into conformity with the left-wing Zeitgeist--"You may not be interested in Gleichschaltung, but Gleichschaltung is certainly interested in you."

As I am sure you are aware, "Gleichschaltung" is a German term much used by the National Socialist regime: it means, literally, "the making-even" or perhaps "the equalization." As such it sounds bland and inoffensive, but in practice it was, shall we say, more Procrustean in application.

Mussolini had a similar goal--"Everything for the state: nothing outside the state"--but in practice was unable to follow through, I expect in part because--how to say this?--Italians are not Germans...

I hasten to add, we are nowhere near the state of 1930s Germany or even Italy...but the trends are not encouraging.

actually never heard of Gleishshaltung- before today1
but the concept is familiar
good/new +1word
1postmoderngendertheorists prefer to talk about their feelings!

The "love it or leave it" mentality of right-wing nationalists. No one could possibly wish to leave the world's greatest nation and if they did, good riddance.

Another hypothesis might be that right-wing governments philosophically have no problem with being exclusionary (in fact, it is often their goal) so they are quite happy to see people leave, where as left-wing governments have a philosophical view on being all encompassing and therefore find people leaving to be a challenge to their philosophical core. After all, it does not look very good if people are fleeing "the workers' paradise".

Perhaps it is that right-wing governments are willing to let the undesireables leave. The economies in those countries basically function and allow for wealth and growth opportunities (real or illusion) so there will be people remaining to perform the menial, backbreaking and necessary work to keep the society functioning. In a left-wing government the wealth and growth is kept bottled to a few. They therefore need to insure that the populace remain in order to perform the perfunctory tasks that are arduous, but necessary for society.

I think the differences are all about the way left-wing, communist dictatorships are sold. What was the main selling point of say Soviet Russia? Was that it was heaven on Earth... So, why should anyone want to leave Heaven? Is you allow anyone to leave, or even recognise the idea that someone might want to leave, you are going against your core beliefs. :-)

The same doesn't apply to right-wing dictatorships: they assume openly that some people will not be happy with the situation and that they may want to leave. In way, right wing dictators are more honest (or less delusional, if you want :-) :-) ) in assuming that they are nasty and evil.

Left-wing authoritarianism exploits workers (which is ironic since this is their criticism of capitalism). If the workers leave, they have less human capital to play with. The only emigration that left-authoritarians would likely welcome would be by the exploitative, "capitalist" class, since they represent a threat to the government monopolies.

Right-wing authoritarianism tends to be nationalistic, possibly with an ethnic bent, which means that emigration by dissenters or minorities would be welcomed. The exception to this is if there was a genocidal effort to totally get rid of a certain type of group.

This seems to make sense in the USA today: the left wants there to be more workers in the country and the right is pleased to hear when recent immigrants return back to their home countries (i.e., Mexicans during the financial crisis).

What countries restrict emigration today?

China restricts the Uighurs.

Who else?

I'd argue the U.S. Specifically, the Obama administration's tax on renouncing citizenship.

And it's not an aberration; Warren's net asset tax proposal greatly expands that 'virtual wall.'

It's probably useful to let dissenters leave so that they no longer disturb life for everyone else--and it's cheaper than housing them in prison. The whole idea behind a far Right regime isn't to "transform society" like the Left wants, it's a reaction to the Left. The entire purpose is to get the Left to leave, one way or another. If Leftists leave, that does the job of the regime for it and everybody wins.

"Why do right-wing authoritarian regimes allow so much citizen exit?

Perhaps the more "right-wing" regimes tolerate different sorts of income inequality.

What would be other hypotheses?"

Your analysis relies too much on economics.

A related question that should be asked is:

"Why do right-wing authoritarian regimes allow so many forms of poetry?"

Left-wing authoritarian regimes very frequently regulated and focused greatly on poetry.

The USSR had officially lauded poets, such as Mayakovsky and others, Mao himself was lauded as a poet, East Germany had Johannes Becher, etc.

Officially approved styles (not just themes) of poetry existed, as well as officially disapproved styles.

Right wing fascist regimes had little use for poetry, aside from the odd military paean to victory or to the dictator.

Left-wing regimes saw themselves as providing an entire cultural environment, that was not limited to those topics with a direct tie to things of obvious importance to the government such as the military.

Shostakovich, for example, was criticized for dissonance in his symphonies, as being a political act against the USSR.

Contrast that with Mussolini, who just liked music with a lively beat or that was popular, and his fascist party was indifferent to music, although it did promote military music.

Right wing authoritarians are typically very, very focused on the tools of power -- the military, etc.

They are generally indifferent to other issues, because their focus is on power.

As such, if people leave that does not affect power, unless they leave as armed rebels to overthrow the regime.

Left wing authoritarians are typically very focused on the creation of a new form of society, including culture.

As such, if people emigrate, that does vitally affect society because people are the foundational element of society, and their emigration from the new society is also a rejection of the creation of a new society.

The left wing is acutely aware of the instruments of power which Lenin called "the commanding heights."

Revolution of the proletariat or peasant class was always based on the Marxian notion that people "vote their interests." To this day, leftists will use the mocking "voting against your interest" for anyone who is not part of their identity monolith. This is part propaganda and part befuddlement about human nature. They firmly believe that the only thing separating adherents from enemies is their dogma. This is why they have re-education camps.

One historical event that should be topical but isn't was Castro's dumping the Marielitas on the Carter administration. You want "political prisoners" and "dissidents?" We got 'em! So crime went down in Cuba and up in Miami. That would make the Castro regime more rightist than leftist. Cuba generates a high enough standard of living that the remaining low-caste population doesn't rebel, so it was a great opportunity for Castro to get rid of his more problematic rabble.

That's probably what the Assad regime and the Iraqi and Afghan regimes did for Merkel as well. If I were a government official in those places, I'd be handing out backpacks and compasses. can't recall seeing anybody in the Syrian or Iraqi governments giving impassioned speeches begging millions of fighting age men not to leave.

With the practical elimination of poverty worldwide, immigration is just political weaponry at this point. But the debate is hilariously backward-looking and schmaltzy because everybody's frame of reference is great-uncle Shlomo steaming into New York Harbor one step ahead of the Tsar, or great-great-grand-pappy McGilicuddy and the Potato Famine.

"the practical elimination of poverty worldwide"

We did it! The poor will NOT always be with us, take THAT Jesus!

The modern poor can indulge in the vices of the Biblical rich, and have better than even odds of seeing every one of their children survive into adulthood. The world of the Sally Struthers Telethons is gone, and it really wasn't too accurate back then either.

My current favorite immigration story is the Nigerian beefcakes that Jussie Smollett enlisted in his harebrained scheme to get a better paying contract. They came here, two brothers, with literally nothing but the clothes on their backs and the protein shakes in their suitcases, just looking for a better life.

No, much of Tropical Africa is pretty desperate.

They are chaotic places with behavioral problems. Different issue entirely. If they were impoverished in the classical sense, their populations would be declining due to Malthusian scarcity.

This is of academic interest, for the most part. Authoritarian regimes you might validly classify as 'right wing' (e.g. military regimes not invested in populist programs, old-school monarchies, Islamic fundamentalist regimes, and fascistoid party-states) are few in today's world. Saudi Arabia, some of the Gulf emirates, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, the Sudan, and perhaps one or another place in Tropical Africa. It's too motley a collection to put in a single taxon, except by default.

It's really simple enough.

The usual defining distinction between left-wing and right-wing regimes is that the left-wing ones are the ones that viewed all capital as the property of the state, while the right-wing ones didn't.

Not being idiots, the regimes that considered themselves owners of capital included human capital in their definition of capital. Therefore the removal of human capital was theft from the state. They often, when asked about their emigration policies, quite explicitly made the argument that someone was not allowed to emigrate because their education was paid for by the State. Thus the very fact that caused them to be labeled "left-wing" is the same reason they were opposed to allowing free emigration.

In regimes that did not view the state as the owner of all capital, the removal of human capital was not theft from the state, and thus the same fact that caused them to be labeled "right-wing" is what caused them to be generally more relaxed about emigration.

Thus we can also explain variations. "Right-wing" regimes were not committed to the idea that people were allowed to emigrate, so when they thought they had a good (usually non-economic) reason to restrict it, they did. "Left-wing" regimes were thinking in economic terms, so they often could be convinced to trade human capital for some other form of capital, like hard currency.

And Venezuela? For all that Chavez and Maduro used the word "socialism", they never did a mass collectivization of private capital like a real Cold War Marxist-Leninist regime. Therefore, emigration has not generally been seen as theft of human capital.

Basically, lefties need everyone to like what they, say, think or do, and righties couldn't give a shit whether you like them or not, so long as you don't try to take their guns and shiny medals.

The key difference between left and right authoritarian regimes is that the left ones are inherently parasitical. Its an inherent part of Marxism. The left regimes have to parasitize their productive people in order to survive. Since right ideology is inherently more "producerist", they have government policies that are more conducive to productive people. The productive are more willing to remain in such a regime. So, the right does not have to shut off the Right of Exit in order to survive like the left does. It is precisely this trait alone that makes the right inherently more moral than the left. Leftism is pure parasitism, plain and simple.

Comments for this post are closed