DBWI: A Democracy?

By all surviving accounts, they had slaves.

Exactly. Even Athens wasn't a democracy as these anarchists imagine it. The franchise of who could make decisions was limited to men who had completed military service for the city and excluded women, slaves, and foreigners. It was more akin to the frontier Volkstaats established through southern Africa - no pre-existing nobility and a reliance on every armed man to support the state.

"Real" democracy is a pipe dream.
 
OOC: Something has to keep democracy (as we know it) from developing. Given that deliberative and consultative assemblies are actually fairly common throughout history - from the Icelandic Althing, to the Anglo-Saxon Witan to the Estates General of France, and more besides (and that's just Europe) - something has to prevent said assemblies from becoming powerful enough to demand that the leader needs their permission to act. The best way of preventing them is tyranny, and the leader having a source of income independent of said body's control.

Non-democratic* utopias may be interesting, and all well and good in theory, but I don't see them lasting very long, human nature being what it is.

*At least, non-democratic as we would understand it.
OOC: Well, they don't have to be democratic, but they also don't have to be all thought police-y. I mean, think about it; without an alternative to absolute rule, the rulers have less motivation to restrict freedom of speech. I'm not saying it's plausible at all, but, hey, e point of a DBWI is to play around without writing a serious timeline.
 

CECBC

Banned
It'd never work. People couldn't handle it. Politics is too complex for the common man.

I really don't think the Caliph would like us using this newfangled technology to discuss such things...
 
I'd recall that Corsica under king Napoleon V was basically an (albeit indirect) democracy in all but name. He was that much of a playboy and a traveler, that the country ended up run by the national notables.
(For those not in the know the system of notables was created by Napoleon Bonaparte after the Corsican Independence War: All persons (originally only literate males) above 21 in an arrondissement elect 1/10th of their number to be notable. These arrondissement notables elect 1/10th of their number to be département notables. Which then elect among themselves (again, 10%) the national notables.
The king then choses the deputies among the national notables, the local councillors among the local notables, and the various executives. This system of election of potential office holders is sometimes credited to have caused Corsican prosperity by preventing both mobrule and sub-par rulers from ruining the country, it is also theorized to have led to Corsica's low corruption rate (relative to the rest Italy) by using two 'filters' against corrupt and incompetent magistrates.)

Perhaps someone could make a timeline wherein Napoleon Bonaparte (somehow) ends up as king of France and installs this system there, and eventually a chain of weak kings leads to a figurehead monarchy.
 
Perhaps someone could make a timeline wherein Napoleon Bonaparte (somehow) ends up as king of France and installs this system there, and eventually a chain of weak kings leads to a figurehead monarchy.

ASB. Napoleon only became King of Corsica because the country had just fought a war for independence. France has a thousand year history of monarchy and legitimate descent by that point, and multiple noble families to vie for the crown in a succession dispute. You're talking about a commoner being next in line to the throne of the Bourbons.
 
Well, originally I thought to make him a French Cromwell, but that needs some sort of French Revolution and all other states in Europe would take that as an excuse to gang up on France, any hypothetical French Commonwealth wouldn't last a few years.

Mmmh, maybe it would be more plausible if the Corsican Independence War fails and Napoleon emigrates to Egypt, converts to Islam and thanks to his military experience ends up as the leader of some sort of Egyptian independence movement. Eventually crowning himself sultan of Egypt and creating a modern bureaucracy and school system (possibly also conquering Syria and Libya when the Ottomans are distracted).
Though the circumstances are that different that I don't know whether any of his other reforms will also be executed.
 
OOC: Something has to keep democracy (as we know it) from developing. Given that deliberative and consultative assemblies are actually fairly common throughout history - from the Icelandic Althing, to the Anglo-Saxon Witan to the Estates General of France, and more besides (and that's just Europe) - something has to prevent said assemblies from becoming powerful enough to demand that the leader needs their permission to act. The best way of preventing them is tyranny, and the leader having a source of income independent of said body's control.

OOC: Those bodies could theoretically be oligarchical, like the Thermidorean regime's Council of Ancients.
 
ASB. Napoleon only became King of Corsica because the country had just fought a war for independence. France has a thousand year history of monarchy and legitimate descent by that point, and multiple noble families to vie for the crown in a succession dispute. You're talking about a commoner being next in line to the throne of the Bourbons.

Commoner? He was a minor aristocrat, I believe.

Mmmh, maybe it would be more plausible if the Corsican Independence War fails and Napoleon emigrates to Egypt, converts to Islam and thanks to his military experience ends up as the leader of some sort of Egyptian independence movement. Eventually crowning himself sultan of Egypt and creating a modern bureaucracy and school system (possibly also conquering Syria and Libya when the Ottomans are distracted).

That's insane. What's next, does he find the Greek-Egyptian Stone (OOC: Rosetta Stone) early?
 
OOC: Those bodies could theoretically be oligarchical, like the Thermidorean regime's Council of Ancients.

The same point applies. Something has to keep them oligarchical. What's to stop it from turning into a self-perpetuating elite that locks out everyone else. At the very least, there has to be a meritocratic method of proposing new members, and it has to respond to real events, whilst not succumbing to ideological blinkers.

I'm not saying that it is impossible, just that human nature being what it is, it takes a great deal of effort to keep it from turning bad.
 
OOC: some of the above commentators are correct. Its possible to have autocracies and oligarchies where censorship is pretty light. Though democracy is associated with liberalism, its a loose association. You needed to get permission from the UK government to produce plays, for example, until the 1960s.
 
OOC: Well, they don't have to be democratic, but they also don't have to be all thought police-y. I mean, think about it; without an alternative to absolute rule, the rulers have less motivation to restrict freedom of speech. I'm not saying it's plausible at all, but, hey, e point of a DBWI is to play around without writing a serious timeline.

OOC: some of the above commentators are correct. Its possible to have autocracies and oligarchies where censorship is pretty light. Though democracy is associated with liberalism, its a loose association. You needed to get permission from the UK government to produce plays, for example, until the 1960s.

OOC: At least personally, I wasn't envisioning orwellian thought police at all, just internet censorship, particularly of the sorts of anarchist manifestos my character buys into. Given the references to lords and religion, I assumed something more along the lines of a semi-theocratic international system with freedoms along the lines of say, Tsarist Russia, and much of the world still divided in the modern day into colonial spheres of influence. Discourse, particularly in some spheres, would toe the line, but my character particularly was advocating outright treason and linking to fictional radical pamphlets.

Going on about the death of god and the abolition of monarchies would almost certainly be banned in most premodern societies, no?

P.S. This would be more IC but I've been banned :p
 
Are you one of those anarchists that assassinated Papal Lord Theobald?

Your kind should be loocked up.

Oh, absolutely. Surely the monitoring protocols will have flagged this silly line of discussion by now.

I feel somewhat filthy even posting here, but it's best to dissuade these quaint traitors of their foolish delusions before they can sprout. And certainly the Infoshare is the wrong venue for this sort of sedition and blasphemy. This network is for exchanging economic communications, not pontificating about your fantasies of rebellion, @The Grudge Keeper!

I should expect you shall be receiving a visit from the Guard sooner than later.

Steady on, friends. Just because these foolish notions are capable of riling up the lower classes doesn't mean we ought to lose our heads. It is the grace and dignity under which we operate that defines our status more than anything else.

In response to the OP's question, a democracy probably wouldn't last long. When such power is granted to the masses, it inevitably returns to the hands of one or a few individuals, rarely more than a hundred. Eventually, someone among their numbers with noble blood will learn how best to appeal to them and do so repeatedly until their position is secure and their line guaranteed; it's human nature to choose a king.

As some have stated earlier, Athens wasn't really a democracy as we imagine it today. Only those deemed of proper lineage could participate in their assemblies and these were a minority of the population. They functioned more like a councilship than anything, much like we see in Syracuse, Turkey, and Hellas today (all of whom were influenced by Aristotle's writings at various points in history). I actually happened across a copy of Politics on a trip to Nippon a while back (it's not banned there) and brought it back with me as a curiosity. Even Aristotle recognized that there are lower classes (he calls them vulgar craftsmen) and argues that those without the leisure to pursue philosophy could never produce a virtuous government.

So in short, no, democracy just isn't a realistic possibility; we don't have a hive mind after all. Even if such a world existed where democracy became the lay of the land for a time, power would eventually concentrate into the hands of the virtuous (or the cunning) just like OTL. The lower classes would probably be similarly rowdy and distrusting of the status quo; they might even ironically clamor for a "dictatorship of the poor" instead of "democracy for the people".
 
Very bad things. Remember the close calls we had with the Spartacus Uprisings trying to eradicate various ethnicities? If it weren't for the various sovereigns looking out for all their subjects, we could easily have a situation where it is decided that wiping out an ethnic group is a good thing. The people are stupid, I'll admit to that. We're easily cowed, easily led, and easily convinced to support things we don't believe in. If the Spartacusts taught us anything, it's that the people can't be trusted.
 
Steady on, friends. Just because these foolish notions are capable of riling up the lower classes doesn't mean we ought to lose our heads. It is the grace and dignity under which we operate that defines our status more than anything else.

In response to the OP's question, a democracy probably wouldn't last long. When such power is granted to the masses, it inevitably returns to the hands of one or a few individuals, rarely more than a hundred. Eventually, someone among their numbers with noble blood will learn how best to appeal to them and do so repeatedly until their position is secure and their line guaranteed; it's human nature to choose a king.

As some have stated earlier, Athens wasn't really a democracy as we imagine it today. Only those deemed of proper lineage could participate in their assemblies and these were a minority of the population. They functioned more like a councilship than anything, much like we see in Syracuse, Turkey, and Hellas today (all of whom were influenced by Aristotle's writings at various points in history). I actually happened across a copy of Politics on a trip to Nippon a while back (it's not banned there) and brought it back with me as a curiosity. Even Aristotle recognized that there are lower classes (he calls them vulgar craftsmen) and argues that those without the leisure to pursue philosophy could never produce a virtuous government.

So in short, no, democracy just isn't a realistic possibility; we don't have a hive mind after all. Even if such a world existed where democracy became the lay of the land for a time, power would eventually concentrate into the hands of the virtuous (or the cunning) just like OTL. The lower classes would probably be similarly rowdy and distrusting of the status quo; they might even ironically clamor for a "dictatorship of the poor" instead of "democracy for the people".

I agree to an extent.

As a full citizen of the Atlanticanium Federation, I subscribe to the "Rule of the Qualified" philosophy that formed my nation when we broke off from the Nederlandic Kingdom. For those who don't know, the AF is ruled by a technocratic series of committees in a very efficient way. There are plenty of Neo-Sparticans and anarchists calling for a "Rule of All" but the "RotQ" has done wonders to our country's economy and global standing. We wouldn't have the largest city in the world or the Monument to Progress at the southern tip of Manhattan Island without it.

Very bad things. Remember the close calls we had with the Spartacus Uprisings trying to eradicate various ethnicities? If it weren't for the various sovereigns looking out for all their subjects, we could easily have a situation where it is decided that wiping out an ethnic group is a good thing. The people are stupid, I'll admit to that. We're easily cowed, easily led, and easily convinced to support things we don't believe in. If the Spartacusts taught us anything, it's that the people can't be trusted.

Those were some really bad revolts. It's crazy how many centuries of crazed anarchists were inspired by them.
 
Before I'm banned, I just want to share additional information with anyone interested. Firstly, anyone can mask their Infoshare Account using an Automated Network Scrambler (ANS) - further information can be found at 11.332.503.1910 INFODUMP 777. If anyone is interested in learning further information about the Calendar Organization or anarchic collectivism, we can be contacted at 22.344.993.1128 CHAT 333 - as long as your identity is Scrambled, you are in no danger. The Courts cannot pursue you.


The Crowns and the Ecclesiastical Courts Union and its Federates do not control the whole world. Rebellions in many places throughout history have been successful. India, Rio Plata, and New Denmark have all seen successful uprisings which have forced the Lords to come to terms. There are places in this world which are entirely free of monarchical despotism as well, geographically isolated and protected by the power of New Sunrise. Zeeland and Tibet are perfect examples of this.

Many of these rebellions have been inspired by the very information you seek, Grudge Keeper - indeed, the "Heathen/Forbidden Works" such as Aristotle's Politics and Constitution of Athens have been vital inspirations to the modern thinkers of the New Intelligentsia. Our war is an ancient one - the struggle of free thinkers against the systems that have ensured hierarchy and propaganda govern our daily lives.

We believe that all men and women have the right to be free to do as they please, so long as they hurt nobody. We believe that no man and woman has the right to own property, be it land or chattel. We believe that freedom is an inevitable process which will destroy the old order. We believe that innovation is not a crime. We believe that no artist should be imprisoned, no philosopher jailed.

No God, No Kings, No Courts.


You are in violation of several board rules.

We wish you luck.

Banned.

To all other members, please behave yourself. As stated in the Constitution, to obey is virtue. The owner and moderators of this site could be jailed because of the irresponsible behaviour of some members. Who is going to feed my family when I am behind bars?
 
As a full citizen of the Atlanticanium Federation, I subscribe to the "Rule of the Qualified" philosophy that formed my nation when we broke off from the Nederlandic Kingdom. For those who don't know, the AF is ruled by a technocratic series of committees in a very efficient way. There are plenty of Neo-Sparticans and anarchists calling for a "Rule of All" but the "RotQ" has done wonders to our country's economy and global standing. We wouldn't have the largest city in the world or the Monument to Progress at the southern tip of Manhattan Island without it.
The rule of the Qualified doesn't go far enough. It recognises merit, but what man (or men) can adequately decide merit? If they can, how do they truly know that the individual meets such important standards?

We Roarkians acknowledge this truth. There is a force that treats all according to their merit with just deserves; the Market. Let the invisible hand play its part and direct resources to those who have the brilliance to use them, filtering truly the diamonds from the rabble.
 
Top