3 ms·

Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule have been far more common modes of human governance. I don't disagree with the point, but there'

by netcan 8y ago

Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule have been far more common modes of human governance. I don't disagree with the point, but there's a blindness it. It's kind of like saying paganism and heathenism have been far more common modes of spirituality than religion. In reality, there have been a very large number of "modes of governance" that you (or they) can classify lots of different ways. The way the author chose to categorise them is "our sytem" and "bad systems." To a Marxist, liberal democracy goes into the "Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule" bucket. A current Chinese cultural narrative is thousands of years of empire, until the ccp.

m12k 8y ago
It could actually be argued that many monarchies were a rough form of democracy for the nobility, where the king only got to reign as long as he didn't make himself so unpopular as to make the aristocracy band together and depose him.
- brownbat 8y ago
  Malcolm X nailed one of the most salient features of democracy in his ballot or bullet speech. All forms of government have periodic changes of power. Democratic revolutions involve considerably less blood. All forms of government are eventually subject to public backlash. Democracy is just generally less violent.
  - netcan 8y ago
    Well... Revolutionariea are always interested in revolutions. The word "Democracy" is tricky because people with radically different politics generally disagree about what is democratic. Allowing for that... I wonder what gave Malcolm the impression that democratic revolutions involve less blood? The French and American Revolutions were very bloody (especially th french). The American civil war was a revolution in some sense, democratic in some sense too (in that black suffrage was on the line). You might call the 1989 revolutions democratic. Maybe even the revolutions of 1848. If you're not of the "liberal-demicratic" persuasion maybe you think Mao or Castro were the true democrats. Both of their revolutions were bloody. Elsewhere in that speech Malcolm (famously) addresses the African decolonisation revolutions, pointing out the bloodshed.
    - evgen 8y ago
      Revolting against monarchy to establish democracy is not a 'democratic revolution', that is a term used to describe a revolution that occurs within a democracy. The American civil war might qualify, but none of the rest of your examples come close.
    - atq2119 8y ago
      > I wonder what gave Malcolm the impression that democratic revolutions involve less blood? It sounds like he intended to use the term "revolution" to simply describe a transfer of power, against the will of the previously ruling party. Democratic transfers of power are unique in that they generally occur without violence. We might take this for granted today, but it is in fact something that must be cherished.
swarnie_ 8y ago
> Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule have been far more common modes of human governance. Maybe the statement would read better as: > Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule have been far more effective modes of human governance. You can't deny the monarchies/democracies of Europe and the oligarchies of Russia/USA have kept a relative peace for developed countries in the last 70 years.
jkingsbery 8y ago
I agree. It's also worth noting on this note that of the systems that proceeded democracy, there also was not uniformity. There were many times and places where the "king" was relatively weak, and relied on nobles for support. There were times and places where the authoritarian that mattered to an individual wasn't something like a centralized government, but rather more of a clan leader (and so someone he/she would know personally). It is extremely common in human history that people were citizens of a city-state rather than a larger nation or empire. So even if one claims that the nation-state-based-liberal-democracy is on its way out, it's not like there's only one thing that could replace it.

by netcan 8y ago

m12k 8y ago

It could actually be argued that many monarchies were a rough form of democracy for the nobility, where the king only got to reign as long as he didn't make himself so unpopular as to make the aristocracy band together and depose him.

brownbat 8y ago
Malcolm X nailed one of the most salient features of democracy in his ballot or bullet speech. All forms of government have periodic changes of power. Democratic revolutions involve considerably less blood. All forms of government are eventually subject to public backlash. Democracy is just generally less violent.
- netcan 8y ago
  Well... Revolutionariea are always interested in revolutions. The word "Democracy" is tricky because people with radically different politics generally disagree about what is democratic. Allowing for that... I wonder what gave Malcolm the impression that democratic revolutions involve less blood? The French and American Revolutions were very bloody (especially th french). The American civil war was a revolution in some sense, democratic in some sense too (in that black suffrage was on the line). You might call the 1989 revolutions democratic. Maybe even the revolutions of 1848. If you're not of the "liberal-demicratic" persuasion maybe you think Mao or Castro were the true democrats. Both of their revolutions were bloody. Elsewhere in that speech Malcolm (famously) addresses the African decolonisation revolutions, pointing out the bloodshed.
  - evgen 8y ago
    Revolting against monarchy to establish democracy is not a 'democratic revolution', that is a term used to describe a revolution that occurs within a democracy. The American civil war might qualify, but none of the rest of your examples come close.
  - atq2119 8y ago
    > I wonder what gave Malcolm the impression that democratic revolutions involve less blood? It sounds like he intended to use the term "revolution" to simply describe a transfer of power, against the will of the previously ruling party. Democratic transfers of power are unique in that they generally occur without violence. We might take this for granted today, but it is in fact something that must be cherished.

swarnie_ 8y ago

> Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule have been far more common modes of human governance. Maybe the statement would read better as: > Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule have been far more effective modes of human governance. You can't deny the monarchies/democracies of Europe and the oligarchies of Russia/USA have kept a relative peace for developed countries in the last 70 years.

jkingsbery 8y ago

I agree. It's also worth noting on this note that of the systems that proceeded democracy, there also was not uniformity. There were many times and places where the "king" was relatively weak, and relied on nobles for support. There were times and places where the authoritarian that mattered to an individual wasn't something like a centralized government, but rather more of a clan leader (and so someone he/she would know personally). It is extremely common in human history that people were citizens of a city-state rather than a larger nation or empire. So even if one claims that the nation-state-based-liberal-democracy is on its way out, it's not like there's only one thing that could replace it.