Democracy as a form of government

[Ghost Land]

Why is democracy so widely seen as a good and/or great form of government? What has been it’s fruits?

I’m an American, maybe I’ve just never lived under other government forms, but to me democracy just doesn’t seem that great, it’s the system that elects socialists and communists who, historically speaking, have devastated economies and entire countries and societies and caused immense human misery. To quote Pinochet: “democracy is the system that chooses Barabbas over Jesus”
What do y’all think, NSG?

"Democracy is bad because it's (sometimes) lead to dictatorships I disagree with, instead we should have a dictatorship I agree with!"

Democracy is the only form of government that guarantees every citizen has a say in what their government is doing. And, in practice, modern democracies have been the best at actually guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of their citizens (which isn't to say their perfect, but at least in Britain the government won't rape you with dogs for disagreeing with them--as opposed to good ol' Pinochet).

Yeah, right. Look at the United States. By design the average middle-class Joe has exactly no say in policy decisions at a national level; he just picks a few of the many oligarchs who have power. And because the two sides are at each other's throats all the time, arguing back and forth and spending a lot of their time just reverting the other side's changes, nothing changes regardless of whether we have a Republican or a Democrat in power. And if we were to believe our elementary school teachers, we're the only free and democratic country in the world.

[Byzconia]

You don't understand why people like freedom?

If you do not have authoritarianism then you don't have a functioning society.

Yep, Nazi Germany and the USSR functioned so well that they functioned right out of existence.

[Byzconia]

"Democracy is bad because it's (sometimes) lead to dictatorships I disagree with, instead we should have a dictatorship I agree with!"

Democracy is the only form of government that guarantees every citizen has a say in what their government is doing. And, in practice, modern democracies have been the best at actually guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of their citizens (which isn't to say their perfect, but at least in Britain the government won't rape you with dogs for disagreeing with them--as opposed to good ol' Pinochet).

Yeah, right. Look at the United States. By design the average middle-class Joe has exactly no say in policy decisions at a national level; he just picks a few of the many oligarchs who have power. And because the two sides are at each other's throats all the time, arguing back and forth and spending a lot of their time just reverting the other side's changes, nothing changes regardless of whether we have a Republican or a Democrat in power. And if we were to believe our elementary school teachers, we're the only free and democratic country in the world.

Which is exactly why the US isn't a democracy. Nor did I ever claim it was.

[Yusseria]

If you do not have authoritarianism then you don't have a functioning society.

Yep, Nazi Germany and the USSR functioned so well that they functioned right out of existence.

You're mixing up authoritarianism and totalitarianism, friendo.

[Byzconia]

Yep, Nazi Germany and the USSR functioned so well that they functioned right out of existence.

You're mixing up authoritarianism and totalitarianism, friendo.

A completely arbitrary distinction based on how much one agrees or disagrees with the ruling philosophy of the state's government. Nazi Germany is "totalitarian," but Pinochet's Chile (as an oft-used example of this bullshit) is "authoritarian," despite both being murderous ideologically-driven regimes that rule through violence and fear. Why? "Well, Pinochet wasn't as bad as Hitler!"

[Greater Westralia]

A completely arbitrary distinction based on how much one agrees or disagrees with the ruling philosophy of the state's government. Nazi Germany is "totalitarian," but Pinochet's Chile (as an oft-used example of this bullshit) is "authoritarian," despite both being murderous ideologically-driven regimes that rule through violence and fear. Why? "Well, Pinochet wasn't as bad as Hitler!"

The difference is not arbitrary at all, if you look at the definitions. Authoritarian regimes concentrate power among a select few, who tend to repress dissent and opposition but otherwise let the people be. Typical examples are monarchs, tinpot banana republics and suchlike. Totalitarian regimes aren't happy with a population that just pays taxes. They want the state and ideology to be everywhere, to control thoughts and feelings. They don't want acceptance, they want loyalty and will stoop to any means necessary.

There's a distinct difference between a totalitarian regime like the USSR and Nazi Germany, to the authoritarian Russian Empire.

[Byzconia]

A completely arbitrary distinction based on how much one agrees or disagrees with the ruling philosophy of the state's government. Nazi Germany is "totalitarian," but Pinochet's Chile (as an oft-used example of this bullshit) is "authoritarian," despite both being murderous ideologically-driven regimes that rule through violence and fear. Why? "Well, Pinochet wasn't as bad as Hitler!"

The difference is not arbitrary at all, if you look at the definitions. Authoritarian regimes concentrate power among a select few, who tend to repress dissent and opposition but otherwise let the people be. Typical examples are monarchs, tinpot banana republics and suchlike. Totalitarian regimes aren't happy with a population that just pays taxes. They want the state and ideology to be everywhere, to control thoughts and feelings. They don't want acceptance, they want loyalty and will stoop to any means necessary.

There's a distinct difference between a totalitarian regime like the USSR and Nazi Germany, to the authoritarian Russian Empire.

No, there really isn't. The difference you described is one between ideological dictatorships and non-ideological ones (well, non-ideological to a degree, anyway, as Fascism and Communism are radically different beasts from monarchism and militarism, but that's a whole other discussion). The Soviet political system was largely inherited from the Tsars. While the specific people in them changed, the institutions themselves were barely affected (the Cheka literally just directly replaced the Okhrana and used all of their leftover resources). I never said authoritarian societies were all uniform in their degrees of oppression, but the distinction between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" is absolutely arbitrary with "totalitarian" basically meaning, "A little too repressive for me, thanks."

[Greater Westralia]

No, there really isn't. The difference you described is one between ideological dictatorships and non-ideological ones (well, non-ideological to a degree, anyway, as Fascism and Communism are radically different beasts from monarchism and militarism, but that's a whole other discussion). The Soviet political system was largely inherited from the Tsars. While the specific people in them changed, the institutions themselves were barely affected (the Cheka literally just directly replaced the Okhrana and used all of their leftover resources). I never said authoritarian societies were all uniform in their degrees of oppression, but the distinction between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" is absolutely arbitrary with "totalitarian" basically meaning, "A little too repressive for me, thanks."

Okay, excuse my diversion, but no, the Cheka was not a literal replacement of Okhrana. Okhrana was dissolved right after the February Revolution, for a period until the October Revolution there were no secret police forces in Russia. The Petrograd Soviet particularly opposed them. Following the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks considered making an investigative body to act as the "Sword and Shield' of the revolution, mainly to combat sabotage and "counter-revolutionary" activity. This became known as the Cheka, which began with only 40 investigators. All it was supposed to do was carry out preliminary investigation before bringing counter-revolutionaries to the Tribunals. However Lenin mostly left the running of the Cheka to Feliz Dzerzhinsky, who basically did whatever he wanted and before you know it, the Cheka was a massive police state with 100,000 agents. Obviously the Bolsheviks didn't mind repression against their opponents, no matter how brutal. Okhrana pursued and infiltrated revolutionary organisations, whereas the Cheka would go on to arrest and execute literally anyone that opposed the Bolshevik government.

So yes, there is a difference between totalitarianism which demands total unconditional loyalty to the state and ideology, and authoritarianism. It's more accurate to say that totalitarianism is an extremist subset of authoritarianism. It's not arbitrary, to find the difference one just needs to analyse how prevalent the state's ideology is in civil life.

[Dushan]

One of the bigger advantage is that Democracy provides a form where bad rulers (be individuals or collectives thereof) can be relatively easily replaced by elections rather than by violent means, thus limiting the damage that would arise from those means as well those from them staying in power longer than good.

When, in a representative democracy, the choices are too bad or limited nor are able to bring required replacements in leadership then this advantage becomes moot.

[Byzconia]

No, there really isn't. The difference you described is one between ideological dictatorships and non-ideological ones (well, non-ideological to a degree, anyway, as Fascism and Communism are radically different beasts from monarchism and militarism, but that's a whole other discussion). The Soviet political system was largely inherited from the Tsars. While the specific people in them changed, the institutions themselves were barely affected (the Cheka literally just directly replaced the Okhrana and used all of their leftover resources). I never said authoritarian societies were all uniform in their degrees of oppression, but the distinction between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" is absolutely arbitrary with "totalitarian" basically meaning, "A little too repressive for me, thanks."

Okay, excuse my diversion, but no, the Cheka was not a literal replacement of Okhrana. Okhrana was dissolved right after the February Revolution, for a period until the October Revolution there were no secret police forces in Russia. The Petrograd Soviet particularly opposed them. Following the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks considered making an investigative body to act as the "Sword and Shield' of the revolution, mainly to combat sabotage and "counter-revolutionary" activity. This became known as the Cheka, which began with only 40 investigators. All it was supposed to do was carry out preliminary investigation before bringing counter-revolutionaries to the Tribunals. However Lenin mostly left the running of the Cheka to Feliz Dzerzhinsky, who basically did whatever he wanted and before you know it, the Cheka was a massive police state with 100,000 agents. Obviously the Bolsheviks didn't mind repression against their opponents, no matter how brutal. Okhrana pursued and infiltrated revolutionary organisations, whereas the Cheka would go on to arrest and execute literally anyone that opposed the Bolshevik government.

So yes, there is a difference between totalitarianism which demands total unconditional loyalty to the state and ideology, and authoritarianism. It's more accurate to say that totalitarianism is an extremist subset of authoritarianism. It's not arbitrary, to find the difference one just needs to analyse how prevalent the state's ideology is in civil life.

And like I said in my original post, your entire argument basically boils down to, "The difference is that authoritarians aren't as bad as totalitarians!" Again, why create a distinction based on ideology? Why does that matter? Where's the rational justification for this? There isn't one. That's what I mean by arbitrary--it's a distinction for the sake of distinction (also known as "splitting hairs").

[Greater Westralia]

And like I said in my original post, your entire argument basically boils down to, "The difference is that authoritarians aren't as bad as totalitarians!" Again, why create a distinction based on ideology? Why does that matter? Where's the rational justification for this? There isn't one. That's what I mean by arbitrary--it's a distinction for the sake of distinction (also known as "splitting hairs").

Well, the distinction was initially created by Italian fascists for their view of a fascist state. It was then used to showcase the horseshoe theory with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia by Franz Borkenau, and then became the go-to-term by fascists and anti-fascists and anti-Stalinists. But really, its thanks to Hannah Arendt that we have our modern understanding of totalitarianism as a dictatorship dominated by ideology. Why does it matter? It's an academic distinction, which is useful in showing how dictatorships change over time. That's Hannah Arendt's rationale anyway.

[Byzconia]

And like I said in my original post, your entire argument basically boils down to, "The difference is that authoritarians aren't as bad as totalitarians!" Again, why create a distinction based on ideology? Why does that matter? Where's the rational justification for this? There isn't one. That's what I mean by arbitrary--it's a distinction for the sake of distinction (also known as "splitting hairs").

Well, the distinction was initially created by Italian fascists for their view of a fascist state. It was then used to showcase the horseshoe theory with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia by Franz Borkenau, and then became the go-to-term by fascists and anti-fascists and anti-Stalinists. But really, its thanks to Hannah Arendt that we have our modern understanding of totalitarianism as a dictatorship dominated by ideology. Why does it matter? It's an academic distinction, which is useful in showing how dictatorships change over time. That's Hannah Arendt's rationale anyway.

Yes, thank you, I'm aware of the history of the term. And it's not at all a universally accepted distinction in academia. How exactly does such a distinction "show how dictatorships change over time"?

[Greater Westralia]

Yes, thank you, I'm aware of the history of the term. And it's not at all a universally accepted distinction in academia. How exactly does such a distinction "show how dictatorships change over time"?

No, very few things are, that is the nature of academia. That doesn't stop it from being an academic term though.

Totalitarianism was partly coined to describe how 20th century fascist and communist dictatorships differed from older tyrannies, in that they used repression and terror against the masses as well as opponents, and spread their ideology to every facet of life, whether school, economy, military and culture. In a sense its similar to the leftist term "Late Capitalism", which is used to describe the developments of modern capitalism in the 20th century. Really, Totalitarianism can be described as a term describing the developments of autocracy in the 20th century.

By this point we can agree to disagree. Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism are both immoral and flawed systems, and there's no use in quibbling over whether its an arbitrary definition. I don't think it is, and many academics agree. You think it is arbitrary, and I'm sure that there are academics who agree with that.

[The Republic of Fore]

Democracy could work in a nation with a small, educated populace. The US has too many celebrity obsessed morons for it to ever work here though.

[Byzconia]

Democracy could work in a nation with a small, educated populace. The US has too many celebrity obsessed morons for it to ever work here though.

This is elitist and counterproductive. The reason many Americans are "celebrity obsessed morons" is exactly because we're not a democracy. If the government has no incentive to educate its citizens, it won't.

[North German Realm]

Democracy could work in a nation with a small, educated populace. The US has too many celebrity obsessed morons for it to ever work here though.

That's a hilariously wrong view. Democracy "does" work, anywhere, regardless of the level of literacy and education the citizens of a nation have. The thing that changes is the quality of that democracy (and whether or not it is a liberal democracy).

[The Republic of Fore]

Democracy could work in a nation with a small, educated populace. The US has too many celebrity obsessed morons for it to ever work here though.

That's a hilariously wrong view. Democracy "does" work, anywhere, regardless of the level of literacy and education the citizens of a nation have. The thing that changes is the quality of that democracy (and whether or not it is a liberal democracy).

No, it would not work here. The same people who think chocolate milk comes from brown cows shouldn't be deciding anything, let alone how to run a country.

[North German Realm]

That's a hilariously wrong view. Democracy "does" work, anywhere, regardless of the level of literacy and education the citizens of a nation have. The thing that changes is the quality of that democracy (and whether or not it is a liberal democracy).

No, it would not work here. The same people who think chocolate milk comes from brown cows shouldn't be deciding anything, let alone how to run a country.

Why? What gives you the right to decide what the limit for the level of education "necessary" for deciding how to elect people is?
Hell, who the hell are you to decide you even have the right to enfranchise or disenfranchise anyone based on anything? (other than citizenship, obviously)

[The Republic of Fore]

Democracy could work in a nation with a small, educated populace. The US has too many celebrity obsessed morons for it to ever work here though.

This is elitist and counterproductive. The reason many Americans are "celebrity obsessed morons" is exactly because we're not a democracy. If the government has no incentive to educate its citizens, it won't.

People shouldn't rely on the government to educate them. They're free to educate themselves. We live in the information era, you can learn more in a few minutes on google than four years of college. But of course, why do that when you can just blame someone else?

[Byzconia]

This is elitist and counterproductive. The reason many Americans are "celebrity obsessed morons" is exactly because we're not a democracy. If the government has no incentive to educate its citizens, it won't.

People shouldn't rely on the government to educate them. They're free to educate themselves. We live in the information era, you can learn more in a few minutes on google than four years of college. But of course, why do that when you can just blame someone else?

Dude, I'm sorry, but this is just an utterly stupid argument. "Bro, you don't need school, there's like, the internet and stuff!" You know that not everything on the internet is true, right? Schools have (or, at least, are supposed to have) actual quality control in what they teach people, which the internet doesn't have.

Good rule of thumb: "personal responsibility" arguments are horseshit--unless you just literally ignore how the real world works.

[Confederate States of German America]

And what is your preferred form of government then, so it can be easier for me to understand your position here. Because "not democracy" is a very broad stance to take.

Obviously one not run by an insane individual. Personally I lean towards a limited franchise authoritarian republic.

[Wawakanatote]

Why is democracy so widely seen as a good and/or great form of government? What has been it’s fruits?

I’m an American, maybe I’ve just never lived under other government forms, but to me democracy just doesn’t seem that great, it’s the system that elects socialists and communists who, historically speaking, have devastated economies and entire countries and societies and caused immense human misery. To quote Pinochet: “democracy is the system that chooses Barabbas over Jesus”
What do y’all think, NSG?

This man really be quoting Pinochet and talking about how socialists devastate economies...

Like tf???

[The Halseyist Faction]

I'm all for autocracy, personally.
People are stupid. [Even Autocrats.] Democracy isn't a way forward it's a way of hapazardly stumbling forward often repeatly shoving short term 'popular' solutions to long term problems.
Not to mention the insane waste of resources on trying to get elected, which often dissolves into outright lying, or at the very least misrepresentation.

All I need to figure out is a system of chosing the autocrat, and a reliable kerb on their ability to change the system.
Some ideas include autocrat by election for life - One popular referendum per lifetime of leader.
Autocrat for ten years, then nominate a successor then the previous autocrat is executed.
Autocrats whom are provided a living wage of exactly the lowest level in the country.
Autocrats whom have their powers restricted [and thus arn't really autocrats anymore] by a council of advisors drawn from the heads of various competing insitutions. [I'm not sure this one would work.]

There's various other ideas but I am flat out against democracy. The US is an excellent example of a nation who has been demonstrating 'democracy' for a long time, and as a result is destroying itself, capable of destroying the world, and contributing considerably to incidental destroying of the world through massive climate change related issues, none of which it's going to stop doing as a democracy because it wouldn't be 'popular'.

Protip - The right thing to do is rarely the popular thing to do and only making popular decisions is a surefire way to fuck up. Ask anyone whose ever run any organisation, a club, a charity, a small business, a shop, or a Corporation.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I'm all for autocracy, personally.
People are stupid. [Even Autocrats.] Democracy isn't a way forward it's a way of hapazardly stumbling forward often repeatly shoving short term 'popular' solutions to long term problems.
Not to mention the insane waste of resources on trying to get elected, which often dissolves into outright lying, or at the very least misrepresentation.

All I need to figure out is a system of chosing the autocrat, and a reliable kerb on their ability to change the system.
Some ideas include autocrat by election for life - One popular referendum per lifetime of leader.
Autocrat for ten years, then nominate a successor then the previous autocrat is executed.
Autocrats whom are provided a living wage of exactly the lowest level in the country.
Autocrats whom have their powers restricted [and thus arn't really autocrats anymore] by a council of advisors drawn from the heads of various competing insitutions. [I'm not sure this one would work.]

There's various other ideas but I am flat out against democracy. The US is an excellent example of a nation who has been demonstrating 'democracy' for a long time, and as a result is destroying itself, capable of destroying the world, and contributing considerably to incidental destroying of the world through massive climate change related issues, none of which it's going to stop doing as a democracy because it wouldn't be 'popular'.

Protip - The right thing to do is rarely the popular thing to do and only making popular decisions is a surefire way to fuck up. Ask anyone whose ever run any organisation, a club, a charity, a small business, a shop, or a Corporation.

Because autocrats have such a great history of being open, transparent, incorruptible, and primarily concerned with their subjects' well being.
You do raise a good point, but this sounds like an argument for having a system where the leader has a longer term but there's a term limit of 1, sort of like how the Confederates did it (their president had a six-year term, but the president couldn't be reelected). Which is the one thing they did that I agree with - it would have largely solved the problem of populism that's plaguing America right now, but that policy alone isn't even vaguely enough to redeem them in my eyes.

[Ifreann]

You don't understand why people like freedom?

If you do not have authoritarianism then you don't have a functioning society.

Sure you do. See: almost the entire West.

The government having authority isn't authoritarianism.