Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Democracy vs. Authoritarianism

  1. #1 Democracy vs. Authoritarianism 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9
    There are really only two broad categories of governments in international politics today: the democracies and the authoritarian regimes.

    What is the one factor that causes states to become either democratic or authoritarian? Is it the social milieu, past experiences with either form of rule, or is it something else? What was it that made the people of the USSR so loyal to their authoritarian institutions and what was it that made the steadfast democracies of today what they are?

    Also are there any educated predictions as to what the balance between authoritarianism and democracy will look like in the future? Are we going to see the victory of democracy as Francis Fukuyama predicted or will there be a resurgence in authoritarianism? The economist had an interesting article in the most recent issue stating that the number of democracies have decreased in past years. Is this a short term trend or the beginning of a long decline?

    Here's a link to the article:
    (http://www.economist.com/world/inter...ry_id=15270960)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    This sounds a bit oversimplified

    Many so-called democracies (US, UK) are quite undemocratic in many ways but wrap themselves around the label and use more sophisticated propaganda and deception to conceal the reality that democracy is more or less fake.

    Others are less sophisticated, such as Egypt which has an Elected Dictator called a President, but have the virture of not fooling their citizens as much.

    From one perspective it looks like western countries are getting less democratic but its hard to tell because in part we now know what a sham democracy is or more precisely that we dont have democracy afterall, where as previously we were drinking the koolaid and believing the MSM and gov propaganda. Nothing says freedom like slave-owning founding fathers.

    Athoritarian regimes are just less sophisticated and since they arent fooling their citizenry to the same extent and have less 'bread and circuses' to keep the people sedated they have to use more direct and obvious methods to keep the people in line.

    Its also interesting to note that imperialist countries that masquerade as democracies are the biggest supporters of dictatorships, which makes sense because it allows the imperialist foreign power to plunder the target countries out of its ressources and riches while the people that live there starve. Africa is rich with ressources, from diamonds to oil to gold, etc, but the people starve because they dont benefit from the ressources, and when someone is elected like Mossadeq so that a greater portion of the ressource benefit the people, the wallstreet/london organized crime cartel send their henchemen (CIA/MI6) overthrow the government to put a rubberstamping puppet instead.
    I recommend watching the documentary "War on Democracy" by John Pilger
    (cant check the link but its easy to search on the web)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9
    icewendigo,

    You are way overcomplicating

    A democracy is a political institution that is centered around political liberalism. They have free and regular elections and ensure their citizens at least some degree of political and civic freedoms. The US is evidently a democracy. The UK is evidently a democracy. Im not sure what idealized notion you have regarding democracy but its definitely real and of course its not perfect. Also its obvious that there are vary degrees of democracy but im not being specific here. I'm referring to democracy as a broad category, Go to freedomhouse.org and look at what countries are free (democracy), partly free, and not free (authoritarian).

    Also, Im not asking about the core vs. periphery, dependency theory, Imperalist pigs are stealing our resources!!! spiel. Trust me.....I have heard it enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Bootsy1661
    icewendigo,

    You are way overcomplicating.
    That's probably a lesser evil than oversimplifying.

    While your definition of a democracy is not wrong it is arguably incomplete. There is often (usually) a sense that in a democracy people enjoy freedoms and rights. These may be defined, as with the US constitution, or arrived at through precedence and convention, as in the UK.

    These freedoms are being eroded in the West today to - in my view - an alarming degree. One hundred years ago I could travel across Europe without a passport. Shortly, in the UK I will be expected to pay for and produce on demand an identity card containing many particulars about me that, frankly, I do not consider to be any business of the state. The state is there to serve me, not the other way around.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    This sounds a bit oversimplified

    Many so-called democracies (US, UK) are quite undemocratic in many ways but wrap themselves around the label and use more sophisticated propaganda and deception to conceal the reality that democracy is more or less fake.

    Others are less sophisticated, such as Egypt which has an Elected Dictator called a President, but have the virture of not fooling their citizens as much.

    From one perspective it looks like western countries are getting less democratic but its hard to tell because in part we now know what a sham democracy is or more precisely that we dont have democracy afterall, where as previously we were drinking the koolaid and believing the MSM and gov propaganda. Nothing says freedom like slave-owning founding fathers.

    Authoritarian regimes are just less sophisticated and since they aren't fooling their citizenry to the same extent and have less 'bread and circuses' to keep the people sedated they have to use more direct and obvious methods to keep the people in line.

    Its also interesting to note that imperialist countries that masquerade as democracies are the biggest supporters of dictatorships, which makes sense because it allows the imperialist foreign power to plunder the target countries out of its resources and riches while the people that live there starve. Africa is rich with resources, from diamonds to oil to gold, etc, but the people starve because they dont benefit from the ressources, and when someone is elected like Mossadeq so that a greater portion of the ressource benefit the people, the wallstreet/london organized crime cartel send their henchemen (CIA/MI6) overthrow the government to put a rubberstamping puppet instead.
    I recommend watching the documentary "War on Democracy" by John Pilger
    (cant check the link but its easy to search on the web)
    I think there is a huge difference between countries that adhere to the principles of liberal (parliamentary) democracy and countries with totalitarian or authoritarian systems of government. Perhaps you would be happy to live and then state your opinions in North Korea. I don't think you would be posting on the Internet for very long!
    There are lots of authoritarian regimes in African, Asian and South American countries where extremely nasty individuals are in charge. The people in these states, have little freedom and do not have the power to change the government.
    I wouldn't say that everything in your last paragraph is wrong. I am pretty sure such events have occurred but I believe your analysis to be, at best, a gross over-simplification, of some events, using such clichés as the "wall street/London organised crime cartel". The "cartel and their "henchmen" have little interest in protecting Mugabe, for example, but he still survives.
    Years ago, I remember reading an article, in a British newspaper, by the journalist James Cameron. Cameron hated the former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and he said he would rather live in a society ruled by "Big Brother" (by which he meant Stalin) than one ruled by "Little Sister" (by which he meant Thatcher). Cameron 's views were criticised by another writer, Robert Conquest, who paraphrased the words of George Orwell when he said that only a pseudo intellectual could believe that because "no ordinary man would be such a fool". I believe your opinions, on this topic, could be described in that way.
    I certainly do not believe the Western liberal democracies to be anything close to perfect systems of government. I am sure some of these regimes have committed many mistakes and crimes, but in terms of political freedom, economic efficiency and social justice they have generally far outperformed states with totalitarian/authoritarian systems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Bootsy1661
    icewendigo,

    You are way overcomplicating.
    That's probably a lesser evil than oversimplifying.

    While your definition of a democracy is not wrong it is arguably incomplete. There is often (usually) a sense that in a democracy people enjoy freedoms and rights. These may be defined, as with the US constitution, or arrived at through precedence and convention, as in the UK.

    These freedoms are being eroded in the West today to - in my view - an alarming degree. One hundred years ago I could travel across Europe without a passport. Shortly, in the UK I will be expected to pay for and produce on demand an identity card containing many particulars about me that, frankly, I do not consider to be any business of the state. The state is there to serve me, not the other way around.
    I suppose we're always left with that ageless assessment of Democracy from Churchill, it's the worst form of government except for all the others.

    However, I'm not ready to say that freedom within democracies has really eroded all that much. Besides, even if it has eroded we need to remember that within a democracy, so far as it remains a democracy, we always have the power to influence and shape policy.

    One may say that it is not the citizenry that shapes the public policy, but even a corporation buying the interest of a politician can't influence that politician into proposing policy that is distasteful to the entire population.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Perhaps you would be happy to live and then state your opinions in North Korea. I don't think you would be posting on the Internet for very long!
    I would rather be in a golden cage with nice curtains and cable tv then in a bare and cold cell, but I have no illusion that a comfortable golden cage is freedom.

    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
    - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    What you call democracy is a travesty
    The elections are rigged to have the two main parties in power, a third party canditate faces an up hill battle and wont get much airtime, and even within a main party the least corrupt get short changed and the most pro-establishment are at the top(more media coverage). And Media oligarchs shape public perception of reality with Media propaganda and decoys, the modern verison of circuses as in 'bread and circuses'. Did you vote for a War in Iraq? No. That descision was made by unelected aristocrats who then provided the marching orders for the media, think tanks and bureaucrats to shape public perceptions and fool people into supporting the war. Donahue was a very popular figure, he invited two guests one for the war and one against the war, because an opposite view was not tolerated at that time his show was canceled. Thats not democracy, its phony democracy, even it voting wasnt rigged to favor establishment candidates and irrelevant. In 2006 the population voted to get the troops home from iraq, that didnt change anything. US Military strain of anthrax was used against the Media and Congress, afterwards members of congress demanded updates and the FBI basically told them to go fly a kite.

    yep at least george had a clue


    Btw the spectacle of infighting between parties isnt anymore a sign of freedom for the people than a feud between Nero and Caligulla, and even then you have to consider that the Presidential debates is the object of "secret* agreements" between both parties.

    *Secrecy is Repugnant - JFK (1961 Speech)

    Imo, the struggle for democracy is not about pointing fingers at totalitarian regimes(while ignoring [ the dog that didnt bark] the puppet regime dictatorships that support our corporate aristoctats), but about understanding how democracy can be improved and made effective, transparent and relevant here.


    Last comment, the UK is a Police State, it no longer puts much effort in pretending the contrary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    This all just sounds like an awful lot of shifting the blame. Clearly you're free enough to go about declaring the state to be distasteful to you without fear of reprieve.

    If you want to define free as the ability to make any decision you like without any constraints whatsoever you might as well allow complete anarchy.

    Elections aren't rigged to maintain two parties in power, it is simply the nature of pluralistic election systems. If you have a proportional system, selection favours large coalitions of diverse parties. If you have a pluralistic system, selection favours the formation of two centralized parties. Canada is an exception amongst pluralistic voting systems because of largely diverse populations, even with 4 competitive major parties the government really only shifts between the Liberals and Conservatives even though between them they only hold 60 per cent of the seats.

    If you don't like a two party system, push for a proportional electoral system.

    Blaming the elite and corporations is just an excuse to sit on your ass and not do anything about changing the things you dislike. Be proactive, then if you get locked up in jail for it, well then maybe I'll accept we don't live in democracies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9
    Not the direction I had hoped this thread would go towards, but im not really surprised, after all what can you expect from an internet forum on polysci?

    My original intent here was discuss whether there were any social, cultural, political preconditions that would determine whether a not a country would lean towards democracy or authoritarianism. Not on the pros and cons of two and ESPECIALLY NOT on the radical "omg where living in a police state right now!?!?!" I can go anywhere else for that, after all this is the internet and anyone with a wikipedia page open on socio-economic conditions in the third world is all of a sudden a credible expert.

    I suppose it's kind of my fault as well as the first post wasnt directed enough towards this subject i guess, so Ill provide some questions to give a jumping off point:

    -Is wealth a determining factor for democracy/authoritarianism?
    -Is eduction a factor?
    -Does the amount of natural resources or their standing in the international community matter?
    -What about racial diversity or political culture?

    Which of these factors is the most critical and deciding factor or is the answer somewhere else?

    If you would like to spew your radicalism and discuss how the mega-corporations are raping you of your livelihood you are free do so anywhere else...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    If you would like to spew your radicalism and discuss how the mega-corporations are raping you of your livelihood you are free do so anywhere else
    You ask about totalitarianism, if you read and analyse whats said instead of throwing labels you might have broader perspective

    Lets take Iran in the 50s. They had an elected government, a democracy. They had oil, being plundered by BP. They democratically elected a government, their choice, their decision, to nationalize oil.
    What happened next?
    BP/Big Oil had their henchmen MI6/CIA orcherstrate a coup d'etat to put into power a puppet dictator and a totalitarian state. They used false flag terror which was falsely blamed on the government and agent provocateurs stired the crowds to give cover and the coup was made. Then the CIA trained Savak state police into the fine art of torture.
    So they went from a democracy enacting policies intented to benefit te people to a totalitarian state acting for the benefit of an elite few and foreign corporations.
    Something similar happeded to Chili which had elected Allende but the US supported the Pinochet dictatorship. And United Fruit installed many puppet dictators in central america from which was coined Banana Republic.

    Is wealth a determining factor for democracy/authoritarianism?
    -Is eduction a factor?
    Education is too generic since it can go both ways, it depends what the education consists of, if its relevant it ca help if it supports the established order its not as helpful, if its controlled by the military well I dont need to qualify that I hope.
    -Does the amount of natural resources or their standing in the international community matter?
    No, the amount of ressources by itself is not determinant (Iran had just as much Oil as a democracy as it did when the US intalled a totalitarian state) but are a factor for various corelated aspects
    -What about racial diversity or political culture?
    Race is a human fabrication, any difference can be exploited to divide a population, Machiavelli observed this, as did the Romans(divide to conquer) and others before.

    Which of these factors is the most critical and deciding factor or is the answer somewhere else?
    Ill get back to you on that (and as always you can ignore what I point out and dismiss it as spewed radicalism :wink: )
    but in the meantime I propose whatching this 1946 video about despotism
    (you might find it elsewhere with better sound/image though)


    i_feel_tiredsleepy
    From your response it appears I have failed to convey the point I intented
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Bootsy1661
    Not the direction I had hoped this thread would go towards, but im not really surprised, after all what can you expect from an internet forum on polysci?

    My original intent here was discuss whether there were any social, cultural, political preconditions that would determine whether a not a country would lean towards democracy or authoritarianism. Not on the pros and cons of two and ESPECIALLY NOT on the radical "omg where living in a police state right now!?!?!" I can go anywhere else for that, after all this is the internet and anyone with a wikipedia page open on socio-economic conditions in the third world is all of a sudden a credible expert.

    I suppose it's kind of my fault as well as the first post wasn't directed enough towards this subject I guess.
    Sorry for being one of the posters who went off at a tangent!
    I don't know if I could fully answer your question, but I do know I would need a lot of time to compose a relevant response.
    This will be my last post, on this thread, so you will have to forgive me if I wander off topic again!
    I find it odd that these individuals who tend to be very critical of liberal/parliamentary democracy (often called "bourgeois" democracy in left-wing circles) appear to believe this system genuinely reflects the will of the people only when governments, they approve of, are elected. This is especially true if the elected governments are hostile to Western "imperialism".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    You asked these questions:
    -Is wealth a determining factor for democracy/authoritarianism?
    -Is eduction a factor?
    -Does the amount of natural resources or their standing in the international community matter?
    -What about racial diversity or political culture?


    Good questions and I might have believe you seriously wanted to hear some thoughts on them if you had not posted this deliberately provocative and emotional final sentence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bootsy1661
    If you would like to spew your radicalism and discuss how the mega-corporations are raping you of your livelihood you are free do so anywhere else...
    I'm going to pretend you did want some answers. You missed the most important issue: history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You asked these questions:
    -Is wealth a determining factor for democracy/authoritarianism?
    -Is eduction a factor?
    -Does the amount of natural resources or their standing in the international community matter?
    -What about racial diversity or political culture?


    Good questions and I might have believe you seriously wanted to hear some thoughts on them if you had not posted this deliberately provocative and emotional final sentence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bootsy1661
    If you would like to spew your radicalism and discuss how the mega-corporations are raping you of your livelihood you are free do so anywhere else...
    I'm going to pretend you did want some answers. You missed the most important issue: history.
    I think he was specifically addressing the "corporations run the world and democracy doesn't exist" rhetoric, rather than rejecting anybody's ideas out of hand.

    You're right of course that history is certainly an important factor. We look at Russia and see this is a country where democracy has never once been allowed to function, and it gives us a good indication of the potential for democracy to arise. Where as, a state like the UK has had a long history of political participation even before true suffrage and effective democracy. The culture and philosophies of a group of people will play a large part in what kinds of governments are possible. I'm frankly amazed at India being able to manage a relatively functional democracy in a country of 1 billion people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9
    I was being facetious but im pretty sure it was more than justified:

    What you call democracy is a travesty
    The elections are rigged to have the two main parties in power, a third party canditate faces an up hill battle and wont get much airtime, and even within a main party the least corrupt get short changed and the most pro-establishment are at the top(more media coverage). And Media oligarchs shape public perception of reality with Media propaganda and decoys, the modern verison of circuses as in 'bread and circuses'. Did you vote for a War in Iraq? No. That descision was made by unelected aristocrats who then provided the marching orders for the media, think tanks and bureaucrats to shape public perceptions and fool people into supporting the war. Donahue was a very popular figure, he invited two guests one for the war and one against the war, because an opposite view was not tolerated at that time his show was canceled. Thats not democracy, its phony democracy, even it voting wasnt rigged to favor establishment candidates and irrelevant. In 2006 the population voted to get the troops home from iraq, that didnt change anything. US Military strain of anthrax was used against the Media and Congress, afterwards members of congress demanded updates and the FBI basically told them to go fly a kite.
    How does this in anyway describe to me how a democracy is created? I "re-analyzed" your statements as you suggested and just as i figured they are still pretty vacant. It's just incessant bitching about democracy. I understand how outside forces can contribute to the creation/destruction of democracy like in Iran but that is not what your talking about here and dont try to cover it up by telling me to analyze it because trust me there is NOTHING THERE. I would like to have a spirited debate on how regime type is determined not on the faults of democracy. I stand by my comment...go post about it somewhere else.

    Now back to the topic:

    I would argue that there is a high degree of empirical correlation between economic growth and democratization:

    Industrialization is a necessary condition for democracy as a successful industrialization process initiates a chain of events that all contribute to a strong democratic state

    -Industrialization creates jobs -> poor and uneducated people living in rural areas move to cities seeking better opportunity - Urbanization -> A growth in the size, density and number of industrial cities in a country eliminates the transportation costs for goods, people, and ideas. Also cities are hard for authoritarian regimes to govern because of this free flow of ideas.

    -Industrialization also creates a demand for highly skilled and specialized workers (factory workers, managers, accountants, etc.) to fill in new positions in industries. In order to specialize a workforce education is required. An educated social class is more aware of their rights and role in government and education gives them the means to participate in government. A middle class is born because of this increase of demand for specialized laborers and education. A middle class (the bourgeois) demands greater access to profits (which means less government interference) so they will lobby the government for economic liberalism (Capitalism) => Democracies are better equipped to handle the rapidly proliferating amount of interest groups.

    In conclusion the motives behind the choice to democratize are not fundamentally economic, but rather they are facilitated by industrialization which leads into urbanization -> education -> middle class -> capitalism -> democracy

    I would also posit that natural resources are way more important than one might think. A valuable resource like oil or minerals like diamonds allows authoritarian regimes to acquire the wealth and trappings that are commonly associated with democracy without ever having to democratize.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Bootsy1661
    -Industrialization creates jobs -> poor and uneducated people living in rural areas move to cities seeking better opportunity - Urbanization -> A growth in the size, density and number of industrial cities in a country eliminates the transportation costs for goods, people, and ideas. Also cities are hard for authoritarian regimes to govern because of this free flow of ideas.
    Really good point. Compared with a small town, most large metropolitan areas seem to teeter on the edge of anarchy. The police usually have better things to do than sit around all day and try to catch people speeding. Get the whole population angry, like what happened in L.A. California with the Rodney King beating, and and pretty much all of your business and trade in a whole area of the city can be disrupted.




    I would also posit that natural resources are way more important than one might think. A valuable resource like oil or minerals like diamonds allows authoritarian regimes to acquire the wealth and trappings that are commonly associated with democracy without ever having to democratize.
    Also a really good point. I guess whenever economic success doesn't require anyone's voluntary cooperation, the people in power won't be as interested in seeking it.

    I can see why people in places like Iraq and Afghanistan might be a little bit worried about the whole idea of having a central government. It doesn't really matter what kind of government they get. The potential is always there for it to rapidly stop seeking their input about how things will be run.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Is a wolf in sheep's clothing a sheep because it has the all the appearances of a sheep? And, if we compare wolf and sheep, but use as a model of the sheep a wolf in sheeps clothing, we could draw some inacurate conclusions.

    "Industrialization is a necessary condition for democracy"
    Democracy from the greek dēmokratía was coined several centuries before industrialization, and note that Attica and Athens had allotment mechanisms and direct democracy mechanisms (As mentioned, if the US people had voted on bringing the troops home in 2006 the troops would be home, but they voted for representatives who supported the military establishment and its permanent bases instead). It appears that Athenians view Oligarchy as one of the main enemy of democracy and indeed the elite was against democracy. Also note that when Athens fell to outside rule, many of the trappings of democracy were there in appearance, but were subverted and a local puppet administrator was in charge (the same way the president of Egypt though elected can hardly be seen as anything but a dictator even if there are all the trappings and staging decorations of an election).

    "Industrialization creates jobs"
    I would say it displaces job(old to new) and enables greater production to be performed with less people, mechanized farming makes less farmers required but more factory workers needed
    "people living in rural areas move to cities seeking better opportunity"
    yes
    "Also cities are hard for authoritarian regimes to govern because of this free flow of ideas"
    I dont agree, theres more people, Controling China is harder than controling George and Larry, but the free flow of ideas is more or less moot if the authoritarian regime controls information and propaganda. Historical large cities have been ruled by Kings in the past, Soviets did not appear to have any problem ruling Moscow, Pyonyang has over 3 million citizens and there not getting free by virtue of free flowing information as far as I know.

    "A middle class is born because of this increase of demand for specialized laborers and education"
    " but rather they are facilitated by industrialization which leads into urbanization -> education -> middle class -> "
    False in my opinion, a form of bourgeoisie predates industrialization(ex:merchants) and industrialization existed before the expansion of the US worker middle class. Before the 30 (which brought New Deal, Unions, Glass-steagall, etc) factory workers were bonified slaves.
    And North Korea has nuclear scientists that are more educated than a Wal-Mart associate and theres no democracy there.


    "capitalism -> democracy"
    Thats a stretch, Pinochet was Milton Friedmans boy, and Banana Republic dictators were all capitalists favoring local elite and US corporations. Saudi Arabia is capitalist last I checked unless people vote for the king? Athenean democracy had nothing to do with capitalism.

    :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1
    Hello I'm new to this forum and I won't lie I don't know near the amount of politics to make a good point, but I will try. It seems that this thread has become more of a dispute between modernists and post-modernists. Now I am not I do not believe largely in the "conspiracy theories" but there is merit to both sides. We can see this by thinking simply, and some might call rationally. There are 7.1 billion people in the world, it is very obvious that not everyone can live like kings, as we do in the West. It can be seen through history a million times over there are those who have and those who don't. It is those who don't living poorly that allow those who do to live freely. From Romans to Americans to outsourcing, slaves build empires. It is when people are rich that they can be "free." I can sit here on my computer and spout my opinions all day and no one will arrest me or worse, but just because people have freedom of speech does not mean their voices will be heard. I wonder how many Americans would have supported Iraq without 9-11. Even with 9-11 how many supported it. I don't believe in any of that paranoid conspiracy theory stuff but their government did capitalize on peoples paranoia. Like the red scares did to enact a policy of containment. But they went in, for a what seems like a somewhat obvious reason. Maybe they were looking for weapons to ensure the peoples safety, but they also helped themselves to some oil and gained some nice contracts rebuilding the destruction they caused. The sad thing is that the world runs on oil, as a source of fuel to making plastics, and although there are the rich and the corporations on top we are still to blame. We are the "empire." We go "oh that's terrible that they live under dictatorships," "Arab spring" but it is fairly obvious why they get so much air time and a place like Somalia gets so little. To try and convince people that we are doing good, which in a way we are, but it is certainly not out of the kindness of our hearts. People say "Oh! that is terrible how instead of protecting refugees we guard oil rigs." Then they drive off in SUV's to our massive, (in comparison) houses. So we are the problem, and we are a free democracy, because it is human nature to take advantage of one another and is exactly what we do in a free nation. But I drift with my own bias uneducated opinions. Back to your question: I would like to believe the greatest factors to determine whether a nation becomes democratic or authoritarian is its current social and economic situation. That is a broad answer, what I mean is if the nation is abundant with natural resources: oil, water, coal, ect. If so are they in domestic (nationalized) or foreign control. If a nation is involved in a war, or civil unrest. Things such as apartheid, civil wars, terrorism tend to cause a shift from Individual freedoms protected by democracy's to issues of security promised by authoritarianism. Education plays a large role as well, it is more difficult to make people submit under control when they are aware of liberal freedoms then those who never had them in the first place. The greatest factor I would say for todays world would be what out founders were doing centuries before, the legacy of colonialism and racism have shaped much of the world we see today, whether you view it as good or bad. As for the have-nots I don't think that any system will truly benefit them because they will still be poor in that system. As for the future authoritarian and liberal principles will always exist, All free economic systems are said to descend into oligarchy which is authoritarian, and no regime lasts forever. Eventually there is revolution to create liberal values. The question is will that nation be rich enough to keep them or will they just be abused by a nation that is. The world is flawed and I accept it, I think democracy is the worst system except maybe when compared to all others. Even though our freedom is somewhat of an illusion I still love it. One final note, if the world were indeed perfect, what do you think would be the previous greatest factors required create that free world? Mine are: 1 Massive population die offs. 2: The haves losing over three quarters their wealth. 3: Humans would have to stop being human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,618
    For claiming ignorance, that is a well thought out, if slightly rambling, post. You're aware of certain political nuances that skip over the heads of many people.

    The last response to this thread was about two years ago For lurkers, it's very easy to miss the dates. That's usually called thread necromancy. Personally, I say it's nice to see it happen with an insightful post, rather than an "I agree!"

    I would ask, though, that you use paragraphs to make your posts more engaging. A wall of text will intimidate many readers. I know that seems weird, considering we all read books... But forum posts tend to usually be concise and to the point.
    It is actually a credit to you that I read the entirety of it because what you had to say overcame the daunting appearance of that much text in one go and the wording was engaging on its own.

    Critiques and compliments aside, welcome to the board.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Yikes.... we don't care for resurrected threads, most times it's better to start new ones as the author of the thread isn't active anymore. Going to let this one fly though, but don't make it a habit.

    Please take the time to break up your wall of words into paragraphs though--it's darn hard to read.

    Welcome to the forum.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,618
    See what I mean? Lynx_Fox just said what I said in fewer words.

    Sigh... I am such a failure...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •