Democracy (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Quite simply is democracy for everyone?

As a concept it developed in the west and is arguably a product of the bourgeois. We tend to regard it as the best form of Government and typically include the right to vote or other democratic principles among other 'universal human rights'.

Is this some kind of western imperialism though? Are we forcing democracy on a developing world which doesn't want or need it?

 

[Iron]

I think it generally needs a strong and coherent middle-class without whom the nation couldnt be governed. When it comes to the developing world, sometimes a benevolent dictator isnt such a bad thing seeing as though youre dealing with a large and uneducated agrarian class.

I mean, you look at America's first attempt at democracy and it was an economic and military disaster which almost collapsed in on itself. What they needed and got was a myth so powerful and deceptive that the agrarian/industrial majority were simply fooled into thinking that they had an important say and stake in society. The reality was and is that things are controlled by a few small and crucial sectors; democracy is basically a lie, and lies are the only way a state works.

 

[Freedom_]

Democracy? LOL. throughout modern history, despots and ruling elites of States have used services of intellectuals against peaceful citizens in a society. The establishment have always needed opinion-moulding intellectuals to con the public into believing that its rule is wise, good, and inevitable, when the truth is our system is corrupt to the core.

The basis of a democracy is that public opinion translates into government, the people's representatives, policy. this doesn't happen. All States, whether democracy or dictatorship or some other brand of rule, are run by a ruling elite.

While public opinion has to be gauged in either case, the only real difference between a democracy and a dictatorship on big decision making is that in the former propaganda must be beamed at one’s subjects to engineer their approval. Intensive propaganda is necessary in any case—as we can see by the zealous opinion-moulding behavior of all modern warring States. But the democratic State must work harder and faster. And also the democratic State must be more hypocritical in using rhetoric designed to appeal to the values of the masses: justice, freedom, national interest, patriotism, world peace, etc. So in democratic States, the art of propagandizing their subjects must be a bit more sophisticated and refined. But this, as we have seen, is true of all governmental decisions, not just war or peace. For all governments—but especially democratic governments—must work hard at persuading their subjects that all of their deeds of oppression are really in their subjects’ best interests.

 

[Iron]

hahaha

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Imo, democracy is the best we're gonna get. I mean...socialism is a good idea in theory, but look what happens when it's implemented...

 

[ComingUpForAir]

The establishment have always needed opinion-moulding intellectuals to con the public into believing that its rule is wise, good, and inevitable

All States, whether democracy or dictatorship or some other brand of rule, are run by a ruling elite.

While public opinion has to be gauged in either case, the only real difference between a democracy and a dictatorship on big decision making is that in the former propaganda must be beamed at one’s subjects to engineer their approval. Intensive propaganda is necessary in any case—as we can see by the zealous opinion-moulding behavior of all modern warring States. But the democratic State must work harder and faster. And also the democratic State must be more hypocritical in using rhetoric designed to appeal to the values of the masses: justice, freedom, national interest, patriotism, world peace, etc. So in democratic States, the art of propagandizing their subjects must be a bit more sophisticated and refined. But this, as we have seen, is true of all governmental decisions, not just war or peace. For all governments—but especially democratic governments—must work hard at persuading their subjects that all of their deeds of oppression are really in their subjects’ best interests.

quite the repungent persecution complex....
Modern democracy (allthough imperfect) is nothing like the past and present despotisms. Our polititions are primarily focused on furthering their own careers, many are populist and rather vapid, but your perculiar perception of them as 'stalinist oppressors' is laughable.
I'm certainly not persuaded by alot of their stale rhetoric, theirs a decent amount of debate in the media about policy, its even pretty easy to enter politics yourself.....no secret police or 're-education' camps for dissentors..
Mabye you're unable to differentiate the politically motivated statements? and thus perceive your mind as being 'run by a ruling elite'..
solipsistic paranoia IMO

 

[Lentern]

Imo, democracy is the best we're gonna get. I mean...socialism is a good idea in theory, but look what happens when it's implemented...

Socialism and democracy are in no way comparable. One pertains to how thepowers that be exercise that power, the other is about how the powers that be come to be powerful.

 

[JonathanM]

Yes.

Not the perfect system, but the best we have. If anyone can think of something that isn't individualism stifling, that doesn't involved shared wealth and doesn't suffocate enterprise, determination, free will and hope, then please enlighten me.

 

[Freedom_]

Yes.

Not the perfect system, but the best we have. If anyone can think of something that isn't individualism stifling, that doesn't involved shared wealth and doesn't suffocate enterprise, determination, free will and hope, then please enlighten me.

lol

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Socialism and democracy are in no way comparable. One pertains to how thepowers that be exercise that power, the other is about how the powers that be come to be powerful.

Which is why democracy is more practical. Socialism is simply an ideal...i.e. 'Everyone should own everything', but doesn't actually provide ideas about HOW to go about this. Democracy does, to some extent...ideally there should be a socialist democracy with a free market.

 

[Iron]

[youtube]hTk3E4xefhc[/youtube]

 

[Tangent]

I believe that democracy isnt not for everyone. Just because it works for us doesnt mean it works for everyone

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Yeah fair enough. What else do you think could be successful?

 

[yoddle]

The notion that the United States initiates or intervenes in foreign conflicts to 'liberate' an oppressed people and install democracy is usually fiction. Most historical analysis of U.S. intervention in Latin America, the Pacific and the Middle East shows that it was driven out of pure economic self-interest and often the people of the 'oppressed' nation in question are simply drying to govern independently of some American conglomerate.

It's also a fact that the U.S. shut down heaps of elections being set up in different areas of Iraq because it was likely that people who opposed U.S. corporate intervention would be victorious.

Read Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change

In regard to democracy itself, I don't confess to be highly knowledgeable on political philosophy. Although I do know that in Australia at least, the government's primary motivation seems to be winning the next election, as opposed to always doing what is in the interest of the nation and the people.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

The notion that the United States initiates or intervenes in foreign conflicts to 'liberate' an oppressed people and install democracy is usually fiction.

Totally agree. Look no further than:

- Vietnam
- Iraq
- Afghanistan
- 'Dollars for Democracy' during The Cold War...

But I would argue that this is simply one interpretation of 'democracy', and, is in fact not true democracy.

 

[Empyrean444]

In regard to democracy itself, I don't confess to be highly knowledgeable on political philosophy. Although I do know that in Australia at least, the government's primary motivation seems to be winning the next election, as opposed to always doing what is in the interest of the nation and the people.

Of course democracy has its flaws, and while this over-concern over elections is (functionally speaking) undesirable, ultimately there will be a fair few decisions made for the good of the nation (ie every now and then something more than an empty promise will be necessary to gain voters). In an oligarchy / autocracy etc such decisions are even less guarranteed - they are totally at the whims of someone who, provided they keep the military onside, does not really have to worry about the opinion of the public. If such a despot is deemed to be intolerable, then the only means by which to depose him is by violence, which will generally lead to chaos in the state and at least a partial breakdown of the workings of society. While the concept of a 'benevolent' dictator is appealing, and such men have existed, they are generally the exception, not the rule. Moreover, such a system is not sustainable - sooner or later, a tyrant will come around. On top of this, a working democracy should and generally does limits the centrifugal political influence of the army, which does not tend to happen in other forms of govt.

But most of all, proper democracies are accompanied by wide ranging social freedoms which are not guarranteed and are generally not really existent (certainly not to an appropriate or desirable degree) in other forms of govt, esp. authoritarianism and communism (for example, look at the extinction of libertas after the transition of Rome from a Republic (this wasnt a complete or 'true' democracy, but still had many strong democratic elements) to Principate/Imperial rule). Political freedoms and social freedoms are inextricably conjoined, and, most of all, this is what makes democracy appealing.

 

[Freedom_]

of course democracy has its flaws, and while this over-concern over elections is (functionally speaking) undesirable, ultimately there will be a fair few decisions made for the good of the nation (ie every now and then something more than an empty promise will be necessary to gain voters). In an oligarchy / autocracy etc such decisions are even less guarranteed - they are totally at the whims of someone who, provided they keep the military onside, does not really have to worry about the opinion of the public. If such a despot is deemed to be intolerable, then the only means by which to depose him is by violence, which will generally lead to chaos in the state and at least a partial breakdown of the workings of society. While the concept of a 'benevolent' dictator is appealing, and such men have existed, they are generally the exception, not the rule. Moreover, such a system is not sustainable - sooner or later, a tyrant will come around. On top of this, a working democracy should and generally does limits the centrifugal political influence of the army, which does not tend to happen in other forms of govt.

but most of all, proper democracies are accompanied by wide ranging social freedoms which are not guarranteed and are generally not really existent (certainly not to an appropriate or desirable degree) in other forms of govt, esp. Authoritarianism and communism (for example, look at the extinction of libertas after the transition of rome from a republic (this wasnt a complete or 'true' democracy, but still had many strong democratic elements) to principate/imperial rule). political freedoms and social freedoms are inextricably conjoined, and, most of all, this is what makes democracy appealing.

No

 

[Empyrean444]

No

Bullshit.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

No

Um...wtf? That's certainly true in an ideological sense.

 

[jules.09]

I think it's fair to say that a country should come to this alleged 'democratic state' on its own terms, considering that in contemporary times, many instances of foreign intervention have been detrimental. The US, being a Western superpower championing liberty and justice are largely hypocritical and if there's anything that supecedes their cultural arrogance, it's their fixation with commerce. No country is willing to 'promote democracy' in another country without the impetus of ulterior, economic motives.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the decisions which impact a nation at large, it is made by the ruling elite who are largely removed from our sphere and yet, ironically elected by us. 'Democracy' and 'free will' for all we know, can be an elaborate social construct which has over time, materialised in our psyche and thus, become integral to our perception of being 'equal' and 'valued'. Perhaps, these words highlight (what I consider to be) very basic human requirements and 'democratic Western' governments promote them as 'privilege', to contrast against regimes where it is evidently stifled. It can be discerned as an extension of political propaganda. In this way, these governments promote their cultural superiority and offer the people a cushion of words, to reinforce the idea in the masses that they are truly 'free'. In the context of political control over the masses, yes, democracy has become a necessity. Other countries are just publicly and shamelessly authoritarian perhaps?

Ah, who knows if we're free or not in a democratic nation. The only certainties in life are death and taxes.