Malevolent Democratic state
- Thread starter Maxell
- Start date
Thomas1195
Banned
OTOH, I would say that an agrarian economic structure dominated by land-owning aristocrats (like that of Rome IOTL) was way less likely to make democratic reforms occur than a commercial-based economy.
This is an exaggeration, but yeah, 'democracy=peace'n'love" is at least partly propaganda.
Martinus Padueius
Banned
@Shevek23 You are right the cooperation multiplies productivity. However the fact of human nature remains, that once an individual finds a way to benefit from the labor and cooperation of others without contributing a fair share, without consequences, that individual will do so as we've seen throughout history. The only sure way to avoid consequences is by use or threat of force, thereby making even a democracy malevolent.
I don't really think it's an exaggeration. Even the most cooperative democracy has the implicit threat of force in it. If you don't agree with the group's decision then you can't remain with the group. If you're allowed to remain then the democracy has no power. If you're forcefully removed them there is violence.
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
Almost all major states, including those with some level of democracy - be it franchise for all, for all men, for rich men or for some combination of the above - tolerate things they in theory ideologically do not tolerate. Today, we buy clothes made by hungry children in sweatshops, buy oil from dictators, condone violence by our troops and those of our allies on targets who may or may not deserve it. Yesterday we bought sugar from slavers and denied people the vote on colour and gender. The day before that we WERE the slavers. The day before that most of our own people were de facto slaves, tied to their lord's land, unable to even leave his lands without permission. The day before that we were subjects of a foreign power.
The difference is that the discrimination, violence, and forced labour move further from the centre. In the past, before we had machines to give our thinkers time to think, we had to use people to do their work. No coincidence that the first time in modern history the global primate power abolished slavery came at a time when machines had been built to do the work more efficiently. Even then, the sweat, tears, and blood of factory workers had to oil the machinery.
I'm certainly no Marxist, but I'm not blind to the fact that our and all civilisations have foundations of pain. It's what we do now they are no longer necessary that matters.
The truth is, in a world with both democracies and other systems, the democracies can outsource their misery. Even then, it is easy to ignore the failings in a democracy if it becomes a political football tossed around by demagogues. And most of our democracies are, to an extent, susceptible to demagogues (current political content redacted).
The difference is that the discrimination, violence, and forced labour move further from the centre. In the past, before we had machines to give our thinkers time to think, we had to use people to do their work. No coincidence that the first time in modern history the global primate power abolished slavery came at a time when machines had been built to do the work more efficiently. Even then, the sweat, tears, and blood of factory workers had to oil the machinery.
I'm certainly no Marxist, but I'm not blind to the fact that our and all civilisations have foundations of pain. It's what we do now they are no longer necessary that matters.
The truth is, in a world with both democracies and other systems, the democracies can outsource their misery. Even then, it is easy to ignore the failings in a democracy if it becomes a political football tossed around by demagogues. And most of our democracies are, to an extent, susceptible to demagogues (current political content redacted).
SuperZtar64
Banned
Democracies aren't any different from other states in their capacity for violence. Leaders in democracies don't treat their people well because they're nicer than dictators, they treat people well because the institutions of their society make it so that the same actions that keep them in power also make their lives better.
The thing there is that if a leader in a democracy is not accountable to a group, they do not have the same immediate incentive to make people's lives better. This is why even the most shining examples of free and tolerant societies one day can commit atrocities the next.
The thing there is that if a leader in a democracy is not accountable to a group, they do not have the same immediate incentive to make people's lives better. This is why even the most shining examples of free and tolerant societies one day can commit atrocities the next.
Let's say you're a fairly wealthy but widely disliked minority in a country. Do you favor democracy or a king?
Well, a king, because he owns the country and expects to leave it to his heir has an incentive to not kill you (the golden geese). He might use you as a convenient scapegoat from time to time, but hardcore pogroms are unlikely. Now lets consider a democracy, especially one without a lot of layers of intermediation. The people don't like you, and the negative economic feedback for them expressing their hatred for you is very tenuous. So you're way more likely to get that pogrom that a dictator or king probably wouldn't have the incentive to permit. Whether a democracy if malevolent or not depends primarily on who....whom, as Lenin put it.
Well, a king, because he owns the country and expects to leave it to his heir has an incentive to not kill you (the golden geese). He might use you as a convenient scapegoat from time to time, but hardcore pogroms are unlikely. Now lets consider a democracy, especially one without a lot of layers of intermediation. The people don't like you, and the negative economic feedback for them expressing their hatred for you is very tenuous. So you're way more likely to get that pogrom that a dictator or king probably wouldn't have the incentive to permit. Whether a democracy if malevolent or not depends primarily on who....whom, as Lenin put it.
So many Western states with democratic constitutions and structures and growing liberties within their societies still until the second half of the 20th Century had colonies where these rights had not been granted. France, England and Netherlands for examples.