4 ms·

Truth is, historically human civilizations has always been based on some kind of authoritarian rule, slavery, serfdom, etc. Democracy is just temporary anomaly

by mamon 8y ago

Truth is, historically human civilizations has always been based on some kind of authoritarian rule, slavery, serfdom, etc. Democracy is just temporary anomaly created by the fact that during industrial revolution the need arose for mass education (to have factory workers that could read). Now that appropriate tech (online banking, smartphones with GPS tracking, AI, etc.) is in place the things will soon revert to the natural order, i.e. totalitarism.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
Maybe, but I guess that argument is what ‘gun ownership as a civil right’ people say the whole point is, right? The idea being that maybe authoritarianism “the natural order” but combined with ‘ok, but you’ll have to kill me first’. I don’t know what your beliefs are on the matter, nor if you have an entirely valid point. I just wonder if anyone agrees but also feels that citizens shouldn’t have a means to protect themselves from their government that they beleive has an eventual tendeancy to turn authoritarian? Edit: very strange reaction to asking questions that don’t imply any side one way or another but no responses... if you can’t even recognize another side of an argument without an emotional response... I mean... okay, but I think it’s odd.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > ok, but you’ll have to kill me first’. Bang, you're dead. The US romanticises revolution on the idea that every revolution will be like the US war of Independence, which is a really bad guide to how they tend to go in practice. People would do better to look at violence in South America as an example.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    You are quite right about the romanticization of the US, but there are also multiple non-state political vectors, and the state itself is far from homogenous. Any breakdown of civil society int he US is not likely to be a simple rebels vs tyrannical government scenario. Even kinetic (shooting) conflicts also involve psychological and moral warfare that has greater impact on the outcome than individual contests of violence.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    Except you’re argument here is that Revolution didn’t happen because the British just shot everyone dead - right? If the government wanted to demolish everything they could glass the entire country with the push of a button.. but to what end? To rule over nothing? This argument inevitably leads to one where you say tanks and drones vs civilians, but like your ”bang you’re dead” example that isn’t a solution to policing a populace, to keep routes open, to keep production going. Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners. For that you need boots on the ground, and for that, you need people willing to go through doors knowing that the first guy or two will die. The supply is those guys runs out fast. I don’t think it has anything to do with romanticism. It’s an honesty that we’ve seen in Iraq/Afghan/Syria for almost 20 years, even if you have the best miliary in the world with dozens of allies, that you can’t rule over people that don’t want to be if they can retaliate. So... do all government roads lead to authoitarianism? IDK! But it surely happens slower when the people pose an individual threat, wouldn’t you think?
    - pjc50 8y ago
      My argument is that the Revolutionary war was fought in 1776, right at the start of the Industrial revolution, and we've been through several reinventions of war in response to technological change. It's not going to go like it did back then. It would, as you say, be more like Syria. This view also presumes that there isn't a big chunk of the populace that voted for the authoritarianism and actively supports it.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Democracy is just temporary anomaly created by the fact that during industrial revolution How does this explain Athenian democracy or the Roman Republic? (Or, for that matter, Sparta’s elected ephors?) Totalitarianism is the novelty. It has never, before recent decades, been feasible for a state to completely monitor all its citizens.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  At least for Rome and Sparta, it was a small group of elite families that lorded over the mass of people. In addition, the Greeks and Romans considered their representative form of government to be the exception among their neighbors and took great pride in it.
  - riffraff 8y ago
    but Rome's plebe still had a role and vote in politics. It's not SPQR for nothing. Also, the venetian republic lasted for a thousand years and for about half of that it had a mostly democratic system.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Technological totalitarianism is the novelty. But there have been plenty of totalitarian governments that didn't use technology to completely monitor their citizens. As I read history, I'd say that totalitarianism has been common throughout recorded history, perhaps even the majority.
FilterSweep 8y ago
Unfortunately I agree. but the on my mind - is the trend toward authoritarianism due to those in power seeking lordship, or select vocal groups among the serfs seeking to be lorded?
yosito 8y ago
I'd agree except that democracy, by name, was invented before the industrial revolution.

by mamon 8y ago

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

Maybe, but I guess that argument is what ‘gun ownership as a civil right’ people say the whole point is, right? The idea being that maybe authoritarianism “the natural order” but combined with ‘ok, but you’ll have to kill me first’. I don’t know what your beliefs are on the matter, nor if you have an entirely valid point. I just wonder if anyone agrees but also feels that citizens shouldn’t have a means to protect themselves from their government that they beleive has an eventual tendeancy to turn authoritarian? Edit: very strange reaction to asking questions that don’t imply any side one way or another but no responses... if you can’t even recognize another side of an argument without an emotional response... I mean... okay, but I think it’s odd.

pjc50 8y ago
> ok, but you’ll have to kill me first’. Bang, you're dead. The US romanticises revolution on the idea that every revolution will be like the US war of Independence, which is a really bad guide to how they tend to go in practice. People would do better to look at violence in South America as an example.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  You are quite right about the romanticization of the US, but there are also multiple non-state political vectors, and the state itself is far from homogenous. Any breakdown of civil society int he US is not likely to be a simple rebels vs tyrannical government scenario. Even kinetic (shooting) conflicts also involve psychological and moral warfare that has greater impact on the outcome than individual contests of violence.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Except you’re argument here is that Revolution didn’t happen because the British just shot everyone dead - right? If the government wanted to demolish everything they could glass the entire country with the push of a button.. but to what end? To rule over nothing? This argument inevitably leads to one where you say tanks and drones vs civilians, but like your ”bang you’re dead” example that isn’t a solution to policing a populace, to keep routes open, to keep production going. Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners. For that you need boots on the ground, and for that, you need people willing to go through doors knowing that the first guy or two will die. The supply is those guys runs out fast. I don’t think it has anything to do with romanticism. It’s an honesty that we’ve seen in Iraq/Afghan/Syria for almost 20 years, even if you have the best miliary in the world with dozens of allies, that you can’t rule over people that don’t want to be if they can retaliate. So... do all government roads lead to authoitarianism? IDK! But it surely happens slower when the people pose an individual threat, wouldn’t you think?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    My argument is that the Revolutionary war was fought in 1776, right at the start of the Industrial revolution, and we've been through several reinventions of war in response to technological change. It's not going to go like it did back then. It would, as you say, be more like Syria. This view also presumes that there isn't a big chunk of the populace that voted for the authoritarianism and actively supports it.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Democracy is just temporary anomaly created by the fact that during industrial revolution How does this explain Athenian democracy or the Roman Republic? (Or, for that matter, Sparta’s elected ephors?) Totalitarianism is the novelty. It has never, before recent decades, been feasible for a state to completely monitor all its citizens.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
At least for Rome and Sparta, it was a small group of elite families that lorded over the mass of people. In addition, the Greeks and Romans considered their representative form of government to be the exception among their neighbors and took great pride in it.
- riffraff 8y ago
  but Rome's plebe still had a role and vote in politics. It's not SPQR for nothing. Also, the venetian republic lasted for a thousand years and for about half of that it had a mostly democratic system.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Technological totalitarianism is the novelty. But there have been plenty of totalitarian governments that didn't use technology to completely monitor their citizens. As I read history, I'd say that totalitarianism has been common throughout recorded history, perhaps even the majority.

FilterSweep 8y ago

Unfortunately I agree. but the on my mind - is the trend toward authoritarianism due to those in power seeking lordship, or select vocal groups among the serfs seeking to be lorded?

yosito 8y ago

I'd agree except that democracy, by name, was invented before the industrial revolution.