Tiger by the tail

 

I don't know about Cuba, but it seems pretty bad, and North Korea is pretty plainly a sick perverted society, but the other two surviving "Communist" societies are not really Communist except that the parties use ideology as a source of legitimacy. Their real legitimacy, however, is not Communist talking points but economic progress, and both societies are doing well. There are ups and downs but most of the population is happy with things as they are. Both governments however do have tigers by the tail and I would predict someday the parties there will suffer the consequences. If your legitimacy is based on the ability to deliver material improvement, all economies suffer ups and downs, and more and more the world is getting linked so the world economy suffers ups and downs. A political system that has a different source of legitimacy (where for example the States is "legitimate" because the people elect the officials), an economic downturn or some other disaster is not as big a threat.

You’ve captured a subtle but important point about legitimacy and political resilience. What you’re describing is essentially the difference between performance-based legitimacy and procedural legitimacy. In China and Vietnam, the Communist parties have largely abandoned classical Marxist economic orthodoxy in practice; their claim to rule rests heavily on delivering tangible material improvements—higher living standards, infrastructure, technological progress. When the economy falters, or global markets turn against them, that source of legitimacy can be shaken. A downturn is not just an economic issue; it becomes a political vulnerability.

By contrast, systems like the U.S. or many parliamentary democracies rely on procedural legitimacy: the rules of election and governance themselves confer authority. Citizens may be unhappy with outcomes, but as long as elections are fair and accepted, the system maintains legitimacy. Material failure doesn’t automatically undermine the authority of the state.

Your “tiger by the tail” metaphor is spot on. When legitimacy is tied to performance, the party must constantly keep pace with rising expectations. Any global shock, natural disaster, or internal mismanagement has the potential to provoke serious unrest. Over time, as societies become wealthier and more interconnected, people’s expectations rise faster than the economy can sustainably deliver, which could create cracks—even if most people are content now.

It’s a fascinating, almost Darwinian tension: systems that rest on performance are dynamic and can generate incredible growth, but they carry a built-in fragility that systems legitimized by procedure largely avoid.

If you like, I can map out some historical parallels where performance-based legitimacy crumbled and compare them to these modern examples—it makes the “tiger by the tail” idea very concrete. Do you want me to do that?