6 ms·

So, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index (source for this bot), China is an authoritarian re

by joeyspn 10y ago

So, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index (source for this bot), China is an authoritarian regime and Xi Jinping is a "dictator"? https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102387539239021 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102387539239021

24gttghh 10y ago
What am I missing here? Yes, China is considered Authoritarian because they are a one-party-state...
- pabloski 10y ago
  Then Russia is a democracy. Agree? Because, you know, there are many more parties than in the US. Oh wait, they say Russia is a dictatorship. Oh yeah, in fact in Russia you have international observers during elections, in the US not. In Russia you have 4 parties in the Duma, in the US just two. In Russia you have a pletora of parties in the elections, in the US just two. I am seriously angry they didn't add the biggest dictatorship in the world, the American Empire!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
    - eternalban 10y ago
      > What do you think would happen in either of those countries if there were demonstrations like the ones that have been going on in the US (e.g. because of police brutality and greedy banks)? Well, before the world famous show called 'The War on Terror' premiered post-9/11, there were a series of violent clashes between dissidents in the West and Globalist forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Raid_on_Armando_Diaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Raid_on_Armando_Diaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests Thankfully, the Empire's Jihadists made a 'timely' decision to turn on and bite the hand that fed them shoulder fired missiles, and the Western voices that were raised against Globalism before 9/11 were no more. (Interestingly enough, if one speculates that the terror events in this period are false flag state terrorism, there is a straight line between the application of violence and intended consequences in the target, per "old school" terrorism.) > What do you think would happen in either of those countries if there were demonstrations like the ones that have been going on in the US (e.g. because of police brutality and greedy banks)? Apples and oranges. Every state will react forcefully and violently when its power basis, or vulnerabilities, are challenged. The specimens that you are referencing have not yet advanced to the level of Western states and still rely on fairly traditional means of maintaining their grip on power. Further, in many of these nations, the general urban population is far more politically literate than their Western counterparts.
      - saryant 10y ago
        InfoWars is leaking.
        eternalban 10y ago
        What is not leaking is an informed contribution, in your reply, to the conversation. (If you are insinuating that my views are formed by InfoWars.com, permit me to disabuse you of entertaining such thoughts regarding my readings and reflections.)
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    I'd consider Russia as being accurately described in that list. Putin has been in power..how long now? And yes I agree with your sentiments on the US as well. The thing about the US is that there isn't an apparent law forbidding the forming of 3rd+ parties like there is in other countries.
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    > Then Russia is a democracy. Agree? Because, you know, there are many more parties than in the US. It is important to look at what the phrase "1-party state" means. By its literal definition, you are right. But generally, it may not be used in a literal sense and one has to be open to it. In this case, it meant that side effects bought from a 1 party state such as issues with civil rights etc. This is the reason you have an index to measure it. It brings together different facets and creates a score.
  - dgudkov 10y ago
    And who is the dictator in that "American Empire" dictatorship?
    - eternalban 10y ago
      Names and faces are unknown, but their instruments of directing and managing the "empire" are becoming more visible by each passing day. 2016 was a crazy year but there is that silver lining. [p.s. edit]: Undoing Democracy: Neoliberalism's Remaking of State and Subject This book is a theoretical consideration of the ways that neoliberalism, a peculiar form of reason that configures all aspects of existence in economic terms, is quietly undoing basic elements of democracy. These elements include vocabularies, principles of justice, political cultures, habits of citizenship, practices of rule, and above all, democratic imaginaries. My argument is not merely that markets and money are corrupting or degrading democracy, that political institutions and outcomes are increasingly dominated by finance and corporate capital, or that democracy is being replaced by plutocracy -- rule by and for the rich. Rather, neoliberal reason, ubiquitous today in statecraft and the workplace, in jurisprudence, education, culture, and a vast range of quotidian activity, is converting the distinctly /political/ character, meaning, and operation of democracy's constituent elements into /economic/ ones. Liberal democratic institutions, practices, and habits may not survive this conversion. Radical democratic dreams may not either. Thus. this book charts both a disturbing contemporary condition and the potential barrenness for future democratic projects contained in this troubled present. The institutions and principles aimed at securing democracy, the cultures required to nourish it, the energies needed to animate it, and the citizens practicing, caring for, or desiring it -- all these are challenged by neoliberalism's "economization" of political life and other heretofore noneconomic spheres and activities. - Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution, Ch. 1 /emphasis/ in the original. [1]: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/undoing-demos https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/undoing-demos
  - aluhut 10y ago
    It's not like having more parties makes you automatically a democracy. Even North Korea has 4 parties. But having one is a clear no go. Always. There is not even anything to discuss or to whitewash. Like in NK or Russia.
  - yongjik 10y ago
    You're mixing two things, "empire" (i.e., whether a country is being a dick to other countries and people), and "dictatorship" (whether it is being a dick to its own people).
  - 1024core 10y ago
    > In Russia you have a pletora of parties in the elections, in the US just two. Nit: in the US, there are dozens of parties. Most don't get the votes to win, but they exist: Greens, Independent, Libertarian, etc. etc. Bernie Sanders was of neither party.
    - rat87 10y ago
      We do have a few elected Independents, not many though.
    - mveety 10y ago
      Most of those parties don't get a platform, which is a lot of the reason they don't get votes. The Republicans and Democrats control the debates, how to register as a candidate, etc and the media has failed by perpetuating the "two party system" myth.
  - e40 10y ago
    Then Russia is a democracy. Russia was added recently, according to the twitter stream in question.
  - squozzer 10y ago
    That's Mr. American Empire to you droogie! But going meta on pabloski's question, who decides which countries are dictatorships and which are bastions of liberty?
  - PrBNpKB8 10y ago
    After looking at your comment history, this might be the first time that I've seen the "web brigades" (Веб-бригады) at work on a site I frequent. I'm not sure how to feel about that. :| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades or https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B1-%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8B https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B1-%D0%B1%D1%8... (Though I do find it poetic that the Russian language page about the web brigades is proposed for deletion.)
- joeyspn 10y ago
  I'm puzzled because the power to tag someone as a "dictator" comes from some journos at TheEconomist (the company who builds the ranking which feeds the bot)... Meanwhile the rest of the world does business as usual with what some prefer to name as "political leaders". That's why I posted the image of Zuck doing business. Do you really think that Xi Jinping is a "dictator"?
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    I hope you understand that the final index scores come from an input of different factors that are considered crucial to a democracy. The Economist Intelligent Unit does not randomly sit around and tag countries as authoritarian regimes not. They have a systematic method that brings about those scores. You can argue with the method but it would be wise not to dismiss the rankings because "some journos do it". That would be ad hominem fallacy.
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    Well. Maybe? I'd certainly consider their government "Authoritarian", but I think that about the US in certain ways too...
    - denzil_correa 10y ago
      And you are right. All countries may be authoritarian on certain things while not being on others. Therefore, no country gets a perfect 10/10 score on the index.
  - spacehunt 10y ago
    People can say whatever they want; the "power" of the journalists at The Economist come from the number of people who agree with them and trust their judgement. Anyway, regarding Xi: yes, he is behaving more and more like one, actually. There's a reason why people nicknamed him "Xitler".
- dragonbonheur 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Institutional_minor_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_t...
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    From that article: >"In practice, only one political party, the CPC, holds effective power at the national level. Its dominance is such that China is effectively a one-party state. Eight minor parties also participate in the political system. However, they have limited power on a national level and are almost completely subservient to the CPC"
seren 10y ago
I don't know what is your personal assessment of an authoritarian state but in my book, a country with a single party (or where the single party decides who can be elected or not), and where the head of state is or was the head of the single party is an authoritarian regime.
- joeyspn 10y ago
  I'm not saying that it isn't authoritarian (in my Libertarian book most western countries including the US and most of the supranational EU organisms are authoritarian to some degree)... I'm saying that "authoritarian" doesn't equal "dictatorship".
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    > I'm saying that "authoritarian" doesn't equal "dictatorship". You have a point here. Note - that the index mentions China as an "Authoritarian" regime.
  - rat87 10y ago
    Usually authoritarian - Monarchy = dictatorship Maybe not Iran (Weird partial democracy with clerics ultimately in charge)

by joeyspn 10y ago

24gttghh 10y ago

What am I missing here? Yes, China is considered Authoritarian because they are a one-party-state...

pabloski 10y ago
Then Russia is a democracy. Agree? Because, you know, there are many more parties than in the US. Oh wait, they say Russia is a dictatorship. Oh yeah, in fact in Russia you have international observers during elections, in the US not. In Russia you have 4 parties in the Duma, in the US just two. In Russia you have a pletora of parties in the elections, in the US just two. I am seriously angry they didn't add the biggest dictatorship in the world, the American Empire!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
  - eternalban 10y ago
    > What do you think would happen in either of those countries if there were demonstrations like the ones that have been going on in the US (e.g. because of police brutality and greedy banks)? Well, before the world famous show called 'The War on Terror' premiered post-9/11, there were a series of violent clashes between dissidents in the West and Globalist forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Raid_on_Armando_Diaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Raid_on_Armando_Diaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests Thankfully, the Empire's Jihadists made a 'timely' decision to turn on and bite the hand that fed them shoulder fired missiles, and the Western voices that were raised against Globalism before 9/11 were no more. (Interestingly enough, if one speculates that the terror events in this period are false flag state terrorism, there is a straight line between the application of violence and intended consequences in the target, per "old school" terrorism.) > What do you think would happen in either of those countries if there were demonstrations like the ones that have been going on in the US (e.g. because of police brutality and greedy banks)? Apples and oranges. Every state will react forcefully and violently when its power basis, or vulnerabilities, are challenged. The specimens that you are referencing have not yet advanced to the level of Western states and still rely on fairly traditional means of maintaining their grip on power. Further, in many of these nations, the general urban population is far more politically literate than their Western counterparts.
    - saryant 10y ago
      InfoWars is leaking.
      - eternalban 10y ago
        What is not leaking is an informed contribution, in your reply, to the conversation. (If you are insinuating that my views are formed by InfoWars.com, permit me to disabuse you of entertaining such thoughts regarding my readings and reflections.)
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  I'd consider Russia as being accurately described in that list. Putin has been in power..how long now? And yes I agree with your sentiments on the US as well. The thing about the US is that there isn't an apparent law forbidding the forming of 3rd+ parties like there is in other countries.
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  > Then Russia is a democracy. Agree? Because, you know, there are many more parties than in the US. It is important to look at what the phrase "1-party state" means. By its literal definition, you are right. But generally, it may not be used in a literal sense and one has to be open to it. In this case, it meant that side effects bought from a 1 party state such as issues with civil rights etc. This is the reason you have an index to measure it. It brings together different facets and creates a score.
- dgudkov 10y ago
  And who is the dictator in that "American Empire" dictatorship?
  - eternalban 10y ago
    Names and faces are unknown, but their instruments of directing and managing the "empire" are becoming more visible by each passing day. 2016 was a crazy year but there is that silver lining. [p.s. edit]: Undoing Democracy: Neoliberalism's Remaking of State and Subject This book is a theoretical consideration of the ways that neoliberalism, a peculiar form of reason that configures all aspects of existence in economic terms, is quietly undoing basic elements of democracy. These elements include vocabularies, principles of justice, political cultures, habits of citizenship, practices of rule, and above all, democratic imaginaries. My argument is not merely that markets and money are corrupting or degrading democracy, that political institutions and outcomes are increasingly dominated by finance and corporate capital, or that democracy is being replaced by plutocracy -- rule by and for the rich. Rather, neoliberal reason, ubiquitous today in statecraft and the workplace, in jurisprudence, education, culture, and a vast range of quotidian activity, is converting the distinctly /political/ character, meaning, and operation of democracy's constituent elements into /economic/ ones. Liberal democratic institutions, practices, and habits may not survive this conversion. Radical democratic dreams may not either. Thus. this book charts both a disturbing contemporary condition and the potential barrenness for future democratic projects contained in this troubled present. The institutions and principles aimed at securing democracy, the cultures required to nourish it, the energies needed to animate it, and the citizens practicing, caring for, or desiring it -- all these are challenged by neoliberalism's "economization" of political life and other heretofore noneconomic spheres and activities. - Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution, Ch. 1 /emphasis/ in the original. [1]: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/undoing-demos https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/undoing-demos
- aluhut 10y ago
  It's not like having more parties makes you automatically a democracy. Even North Korea has 4 parties. But having one is a clear no go. Always. There is not even anything to discuss or to whitewash. Like in NK or Russia.
- yongjik 10y ago
  You're mixing two things, "empire" (i.e., whether a country is being a dick to other countries and people), and "dictatorship" (whether it is being a dick to its own people).
- 1024core 10y ago
  > In Russia you have a pletora of parties in the elections, in the US just two. Nit: in the US, there are dozens of parties. Most don't get the votes to win, but they exist: Greens, Independent, Libertarian, etc. etc. Bernie Sanders was of neither party.
  - rat87 10y ago
    We do have a few elected Independents, not many though.
  - mveety 10y ago
    Most of those parties don't get a platform, which is a lot of the reason they don't get votes. The Republicans and Democrats control the debates, how to register as a candidate, etc and the media has failed by perpetuating the "two party system" myth.
- e40 10y ago
  Then Russia is a democracy. Russia was added recently, according to the twitter stream in question.
- squozzer 10y ago
  That's Mr. American Empire to you droogie! But going meta on pabloski's question, who decides which countries are dictatorships and which are bastions of liberty?
- PrBNpKB8 10y ago
  After looking at your comment history, this might be the first time that I've seen the "web brigades" (Веб-бригады) at work on a site I frequent. I'm not sure how to feel about that. :| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades or https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B1-%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8B https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B1-%D0%B1%D1%8... (Though I do find it poetic that the Russian language page about the web brigades is proposed for deletion.)
joeyspn 10y ago
I'm puzzled because the power to tag someone as a "dictator" comes from some journos at TheEconomist (the company who builds the ranking which feeds the bot)... Meanwhile the rest of the world does business as usual with what some prefer to name as "political leaders". That's why I posted the image of Zuck doing business. Do you really think that Xi Jinping is a "dictator"?
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  I hope you understand that the final index scores come from an input of different factors that are considered crucial to a democracy. The Economist Intelligent Unit does not randomly sit around and tag countries as authoritarian regimes not. They have a systematic method that brings about those scores. You can argue with the method but it would be wise not to dismiss the rankings because "some journos do it". That would be ad hominem fallacy.
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  Well. Maybe? I'd certainly consider their government "Authoritarian", but I think that about the US in certain ways too...
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    And you are right. All countries may be authoritarian on certain things while not being on others. Therefore, no country gets a perfect 10/10 score on the index.
- spacehunt 10y ago
  People can say whatever they want; the "power" of the journalists at The Economist come from the number of people who agree with them and trust their judgement. Anyway, regarding Xi: yes, he is behaving more and more like one, actually. There's a reason why people nicknamed him "Xitler".
dragonbonheur 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Institutional_minor_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_t...
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  From that article: >"In practice, only one political party, the CPC, holds effective power at the national level. Its dominance is such that China is effectively a one-party state. Eight minor parties also participate in the political system. However, they have limited power on a national level and are almost completely subservient to the CPC"

seren 10y ago

I don't know what is your personal assessment of an authoritarian state but in my book, a country with a single party (or where the single party decides who can be elected or not), and where the head of state is or was the head of the single party is an authoritarian regime.

joeyspn 10y ago
I'm not saying that it isn't authoritarian (in my Libertarian book most western countries including the US and most of the supranational EU organisms are authoritarian to some degree)... I'm saying that "authoritarian" doesn't equal "dictatorship".
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  > I'm saying that "authoritarian" doesn't equal "dictatorship". You have a point here. Note - that the index mentions China as an "Authoritarian" regime.
- rat87 10y ago
  Usually authoritarian - Monarchy = dictatorship Maybe not Iran (Weird partial democracy with clerics ultimately in charge)