[Max]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Yes, can be confusing.
Maybe this can help explain it:

Encyclopedia > Autarchism
The term autarchy has two different meanings. In its first definition, formulated by Aristotle, it refers either to a form of self-government, or to the absolute rule of an individual over others. The word comes from the Greek autarkhos (απολυταρχία), "auto" meaning self and "arkhos" meaning "ruler". Aristotle (Ancient Greek: AristotélÄ“s 384 – March 7, 322 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. ... Self-governance is an abstract concept that refers to several scales of organization. ...

Traditionally, autarchy refers to a system of absolutism (see also: autocracy, despotism, dictatorship, monocracy, tyranny). It also implies a state enjoying absolute sovereignty. Absolutism is a political theory which argues that one person, who is often generally a monarch, should hold all power. ... An Autocracy is a form of government in which unlimited power is held by a single individual. ... Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either a single person (ie. ... It has been suggested that Dictator be merged into this article or section. ... A tyrant (from Greek τυραννος) is a usurper of rightful power, possessing absolute power and ruling by tyranny. ... Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political...

In its self-government meaning, autarchy refers to a libertarian idea, championed by Robert LeFevre, of stateless self-governance, distinct from anarchism. Robert LeFevre (1911–1986) was a libertarian businessman and radio personality.

More recently autarchy is the term that came to be used for a national economic policy that aims at achieving self-sufficiency and eliminating the need for imports (by imposing tariffs, for example). It is more often spelled autarky when referring to such a policy. The goal may be difficult to achieve, if not impossible, for a small country. Countries that take protectionist measures and try to prevent free trade are sometimes described as autarchical.
*********

What is interesting is that autarky is an English word that was derived from a German word, which was originally borrowed from Greek. But when you spell the word as autarchy, then we are talking about the English word that was adopted directly from Greek. And there are also variations within the English language, whereby the word autarchy is more often associated with the concept of economic self-sufficiency in the British usage than the American usage. Keeping in mind that these words were derived from Greek, we must consider that the Greek language has words to express some concepts that do not exist in the English language, so the meanings in Greek may have a slightly different quality than the English versions.

It must be hard for people who don't have English as a first language to sort out all the intricacies of words that are not often used for conversational English. Strang how an off-topic post about the Lightning Bolt can turn into an off topic post about learning language skills.

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi,

me too think the Lightning Bolt thread is a really strange place to discuss about learning language skills!

Some concepts... are confusing...

I know that formerly USA are not an autocracy. There are elections, the president who hold big part of power has limitations, the congress members are elected etc etc etc

I know... and that's what we find e.g. in books about USA political system.

Ok, then... there's another concept of autocracy there... hidden and subtle... like exist also in other places.

I mean, I think who is the president is not so relevant issue.

And from which party he's supported ? Same stuff, change nothing.

Why I write this ?

Simple... to me president/party could play a truly different role when govern have to define e.g. taxation! (internal affairs)

In that case could be really different having Obama instead of Reagan at White House.

But what about foreign affairs ??? What about strategic role of US in the world scenario ???

Do you think Obama will be different from Bush about that ?

Hmmm...

I think not.

When US supremacy (not economic only) is the target... well... things can be really flat regarding the approach to take about foreign affairs.

You know... I think much of US economy is related to weapons productions... and US have a desperate need of oil at fair price.

These things will not change just cause there's someone instead of another on that chair.

Lobbies make candidates win elections, not ideas or programs.

And lobbies follow strictly the rules of above: mantain US world supremacy at any costs, including all that's needed for that.

If that means you need to invade another country from time to time... ok, fine.

Let's recruiters find new soldiers, let industries make and sell weapons and vehicles... and let oil companies get all oil needed.

The real autocracy, in my point of view about US, is that hidden way of doing that end with examples... we see on tv... like the gen. Colin Powell show at UN.

These shows are product of "realpolitik" of people like mr. Kissinger (more recent example is mr. Wolfowitz) and other smart guys there... (cause they ARE smart, no dubt).

Hidden reasons and secrets... and always very same lobbies sharing the bear!

US politics is (and will be) Machiavellian kind, like happens in most other countries too... but US are bigger than others and very powerful, that's only difference.

It's like with ancient Rome... different emperors (and even republic and monarchy before)... but very same strategy and objectives: world supremacy.

That's why I like US! I like people that make FACTS, not words!

I'd like to visit US... could be interesting having a close view of average americans.

Kind regards,
Max