15 ms·

I grew up in a third-world country, and I've noticed a palpable shift in the moods of my educated, middle-class friends and family back home. People in many th

I grew up in a third-world country, and I've noticed a palpable shift in the moods of my educated, middle-class friends and family back home. People in many third-world countries have been fed the line that democracy is the correct form of government. This isn't accidental: the soft power of Hollywood and the myth of American exceptionalism have been powerful incentives to have faith in the ability of democratic institutions to improve lives: it's an odd form of cargo-cultism, and if you are a believer in freedom and democracy, a "helpful delusion". The educated elites in third world democracies have recoiled from the notion of authoritarianism, and from the idea of having every aspect of their lives surveilled for safety. Political events in the US, the rise of social media, and the risks of virality unexpectedly unleashing mob chaos have made them a lot more wary. Openness and the exchange of ideas exposes the worst of human nature: the trolls whose ideas are magnified by algorithms seeking to capture attention. The propagandists and bots with their massive reach are noticed by educated people, who can see how powerless or unwilling social networks and governments are to stop them. It doesn't matter whether the propagandists succeed or not-their mere unfettered existence is enough to disturb people. With the weakening of democratic norms, other options are suddenly back on the table. As people have theoretically become freer, they seem to seek more security. Blanketing a city with CCTV seems to be a pragmatic trade-off for personal safety. The censorship of China seems to be attractive because of the endless hateful noise of social media, the orderliness of having criminals removed from society permanently via the death penalty suddenly seems attractive. The lesser-educated never really cared for abstract notions of liberty anyway. In short, the authoritarian surveillance state is an increasingly attractive proposition to large swathes of humanity.

bluetomcat 8y ago
The unquestionable notion that democracy with capitalism is the only reasonable form of society has created highly corrupt states with facade institutions pretending to be democratic, serving the interests of the local elites behind the scenes. Democracy is just one possible way for a society and it has to be developed organically through history, not forced upon populations. Many people are perfectly happy with someone else making decisions for them, as long as they trust that other person.
- shuaib 8y ago
  > as long as they trust that other person Trust isn't everlasting, specially for a "person". I can put more of my trust in a "process" (e.g. democracy) and its continuous evolution towards betterment, than letting "someone else" make my decisions for me.
- thunderbong 8y ago
  > Many people are perfectly happy with someone else making decisions for them, as long as they trust that other person. Isn't that why we vote?
  - huffmsa 8y ago
    In some countries yes. The US system is more intended for you to pick the person you distrust the least.
  - bluetomcat 8y ago
    Casting a vote in a "real" democracy means putting your trust in a person or group with the promise of representing you and your interests. Without the ability to define your interests in a practical way, you are voting for the most charismatic, most loudly speaking representative. Not being able to define your interest can be due to lack of education, unwillingness to take part in the political process, etc.
    - asark 8y ago
      BINGO! It's been taken as a given that more voting is always a better idea. In fact limiting the voter pool for more distant offices (Senators chosen by state legislatures, President elected by... electors) as was originally done in the US might have been a pretty good idea, though the system might need some tweaking Electors are a fine idea, but it's de-facto just a low-information-voter popularity contest vote—when's the last time you even knew who the electors you were voting for were? Have you ever? No one votes based on who the elector is, just who they've pledged to support. Maybe state legislatures, or some part of them, should take that over, too. Similarly, we've done a decent job of crushing political machines and corrupt unions... but a poor job of crushing the powerful business interests and anti-the-small-guy forces they (sometimes) effectively opposed. As a friend of mine put it, our system used to feature various kaiju fighting, all of them wrecking cities, but some of them doing so while trying to save us, some while trying to harm us. We eliminated all the kaiju that were working to save us (smashing a city block here and there and eating the occasional fire truck, sure) but didn't do anything about the ones trying to harm us, with predictable results.
Juliate 8y ago
> who can see how powerless or unwilling social networks [...] are to stop them They're not powerless. They're certainly unwilling, and demonstrate an obvious active mindset _against_ democracies: 1. Nothing, nothing in Facebook' or Twitter' CEOs, PR deparments or boards demonstrate an inch of knowledge or understanding of what a democracy is. 2. On the other hand, their actions and their words clearly speak that they ought to make their (privately owned and controlled) platforms fundamental building and governance blocks for society.
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  Perhaps there is no democratic will to remove content on social media. I know at least one person. I would see it as negative if opinions are removed for political reasons. And that is what I see advocated here.
luckylion 8y ago
> It doesn't matter whether the propagandists succeed or not-their mere unfettered existence is enough to disturb people. Are you sure that the demonopolization of the marketplace of public opinion isn't disturbing a small minority that in turn riles up the public? That is: are you sure that "the people" at large are worried about "populism", "propaganda" and "trolls", or are they merely worried because the media tells them that it's basically the end of the world as we know it?
shuaib 8y ago
I don't understand where these sweeping statements are coming from. I grew up in a third-world country too, and transitioned myself from belonging to a lower middle class family, into an upper middle class life. I don't have an iota of acceptance for any form of surveillance being put in place without it being approved through proper channels of well put process in place (i.e. democracy, representatives of people debating and agreeing upon it)
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  >I don't have an iota of acceptance for any form of surveillance being put in place without it being approved through proper channels of well put process in place... I don't know man? I'm an American, so I really have no dog in this whole "Third World Viewpoint" fight. Having said that, it sounds to me like you have no problem at all with the surveillance state... so long as they do the proper paperwork first.
  - shuaib 8y ago
    You read that wrong. I don't have a problem with "discussing issues" and "coming to an agreement (or disagreement)".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- intended 8y ago
  That just makes you an exception. A majority of india uses aadhar, a biometric ID. The govt constantly coerced and frightens the remanant people into getting aadhar. A biometric ID is as obviously a lynchpin of a surveillance state as the necessity of a unique key to run a database. London and the U.K. had invested surveillance in old school cameras even before the internet blew up. China is China. A majority of the world is already OK with a surveillance state. And most of the affected aren’t in a position to understand why it matters. ————— Further- after the impact of the American election and brexit on america and the U.K. respectively, all nation states are aware that other nation states can hijack their national “thought streams” or whatever you want to call them. No matter what, countries are not going to let that happen to them. The added bonus of political advantage is not lost on the political class. It’s not much to make sweeping statements from that position. Especially given that all of private tech enterprise depends on snooping on your private information. Hah. We are well and truly the product being sold on the larger global market. Perhaps Nations are simply building fences to keep their products from being stolen.
vixen99 8y ago
"The lesser-educated never really cared for abstract notions of liberty anyway". You know this for sure, do you? This is the kind of unpleasant sweeping generalisation that should at least come with strong supporting evidence.
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  This is the kind of statement that comes from a well-connected, upper class dictator supporter who enjoys reaping the benefits but tries to come up with a different reason for why the status quo must remain.
  - throwanon 8y ago
    The country is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and a slowly failing state. The only thing keeping it from turning into an autocracy is the (eroding) faith of its educated elites in democracy. And when I refer to the less educated, I mean that literally...
    - Cyph0n 8y ago
      I come from a country that is in a similar situation. In general, I try to (1) look at the overall situation in a positive light and (2) avoid belittling and dismissing those who were less fortunate than I am when it comes to education.
0815test 8y ago
"Openness and the exchange of ideas" is not something that developing countries are known for, though - and not something that would be promoted by having government-sponsored "propagandists and bots" around, either! In general, while democracy in the sense of having regular elections might be a bit overrated (as shown, e.g. by the failure to "export" it in places like Iraq!), basic freedom, openness and widespread awareness about the values of a "commercial society" (sometimes called "bourgeois values") are extremely important and the closest thing we know of to a recipe for successful development and enduring wealth.
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  But the failure of democracy in Iraq isn't due to systemic failure of democracy. That can quickly be falsified. It was due to interest groups. Not differentiating here is a mental short circuit. It would have failed with any other form of governance. A democracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Autocratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point.
  - cjslep 8y ago
    > A democracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Autocratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point. This is a powerful manifestation of implied bias. This and the whole preceding sentence make it all seem weirdly propaganda-y. Like trying to say "no government will succeed forever" and yet also the doublethink that democracy is special, despite autocratic rule dominating human history. For example, consider the opposite and whether it sounds "normal": > Autocracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Democratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point. Edit: I am pro-democracy but have no delusions that it is free (as in beer), natural (as in humans will naturally tend towards it), nor easy (as in effort is required to maintain it). It's none of the above.
    - raxxorrax 8y ago
      True, I do have a clear bias for democracy. Additionally, democracies excel in freedom, wealth, safety and stability against any other form of government in today's world. And then some. Let me take a guess: You are living in a first world country and you are a bit unsatisfied with your life? If the answer is yes, I extracted that solely from bias. Helpful, isn't it?
raxxorrax 8y ago
While true, they are wrong of course. I also don't really think that trolls are a real issue, even if they have been thoroughly fed the last years. They also don't represent the worst in humanity. Everything that happened people did to themselves and they are looking for scapegoats and someone to blame. This is the worst of humanity. Granted, you could blame trolls, but that should not convince anyone. At least not worse than the frightful recoil, abandoning ideals like free expression/speech, democracy and freedom. Equality still seems to be the holy cow even if it will collide with freedom at some point. Stability can be convincing, but people in western nation do not have that excuse. Reading something on the net you don't like is no reason to abandon principles that any modern nation is based upon. Democracy is the correct form of government, since it is the only form of governance that doesn't extract its legitimacy from power. Democracy requires emancipated voters. You cannot apply that to any third world country and suddenly things get better. It has to come from within a society. There is also a secret to online mobs/trolls: ignore them and nothing happens. I also do not believe in the power of bots aside from faking ad reach. That would require an example of a talking point. This is why it was difficult to believe in far reaching Russian propaganda efforts: The message was lacking. I do see the "hateful noise" of social media. If that matters to me is fully in my hands. > their mere unfettered existence is enough to disturb people. Mostly induced by false media reports.
Cyph0n 8y ago
I know many from various Middle Eastern countries who share a similar viewpoint. As an Arab myself, I see it as nothing more than a defeatist attitude that is typically held by those who have enough money and connections (typically upper class). Safety and democracy can coexist and are not mutually exclusive as you claim. The safest countries in the world are democracies last I checked. Democracy is not only about “abstract notions of liberty”, but also (and more importantly) about justice and equality for all. When these “lesser-educated” people are held in prison without trial for watching the wrong Youtube video or practicing the wrong religion, they also realize this fact.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  I guess the problem is that if the government doesn't represent the people it will become a far greater risk to the average person's safety than criminals ever were.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    "Criminals" as in "a thief in a modern society": certainly. "Criminals" as in "an aggressive group/tribe that will enslave or murder you if giving the chance": probably not.
- 0815test 8y ago
  The thing that makes authoritarianism superficially attractive in the Middle East is the absolute lack of anything even loosely resembling civil-society institutions of the sorts that are ubiquitous in Western societies. Why allow basic freedoms when the people aren't going to use them for the good of society? It's a vicious cycle and a very thorny issue to address. Ironically enough, the closest thing these folks get to actual civil society, is their religious institutions - the mosques, the madrassas and so forth. This also makes Islamic fundamentalism a lot more seductive to them than it might otherwise be, because in many ways they experience religion as the best working, least corrupt, etc. part of their society, and they naturally seek something that can replicate that relative openness and lack of corruption across the board.
logifail 8y ago
> As people have theoretically become freer, they seem to seek more security. Blanketing a city with CCTV seems to be a pragmatic trade-off for personal safety. Is there informed consent for CCTV, or does it just happen when technology vendors end up working with politicians, the former caring only about selling their product, the latter caring about only getting re-elected? My son's kickboard scooter was stolen last month, he left it parked less than 20 paces from the front entrance to his school, in a courtyard with only one way in and out. There's no CCTV. Despite the theft, I'm still against the use of CCTV, particularly around schools.
grecy 8y ago
I've just spent three years driving through 35 countries in Africa. Before that I spent 2 years driving through 16 countries in Latin America. I completely agree with your comment. It's fascinating to sit in a third world country watching the developed world preach on and on about capitalism and democracy being the greatest thing since sliced bread, while on the news we get to see extremely violent protests in France, Brexit completely grinding the UK to a halt, the longest government shutdown in US history, Australia have 7 Prime Ministers in 10 years[1], fears of another giant economic collapse, etc. etc. These are supposed to be the leaders of the free world, and for all intents and purposes they're dysfunctional. From the outside looking in, Democracy hasn't turned out to be the "magic" solution it was marketed as. This was never more true than when I was sitting with a bunch of locals watching the violent protests in DC when Trump was inaugurated. None of the locals could understand why there was violence, and kept asking me "But don't they have democracy there?" ... "Why are they being so violent"?" [1] I like to say Australia has had more Coups can the Congo.
- dictum 8y ago
  > on the news we get to see extremely violent protests in France It's unwise to compare a country in which protests are allowed (and ingrained in the political culture) with countries that suppress them.
- wil421 8y ago
  Protests mean Democracy is working. Look at protests in France and the US vs protests in the Middle East or even Turkey. How do protests fair in China? Ask the unknown number of citizens in education camps.
pjc50 8y ago
Sounds like the propaganda is working, then. > In short, the authoritarian surveillance state is an increasingly attractive proposition to large swathes of humanity. The dark side is that people are generally far too comfortable or even gleeful at having their inconvenient neighbors "removed". They just assume it won't happen to them. By the time they realise the authoritarianism is a problem it's too late and too dangerous to complain. This is a problem even in the freest parts of the West.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  If you take a step back, both major US parties represent a majority of people whom want the other side to abide by their tyranny. Even to get progress on gay rights it ended up being pushed through as more of something about pride and "against-hate" than about liberty and freedom. At first this distinction may sound strange to people, but it is important. This has led us into such a strange time when gay men like Peter Thiel are criticized as hateful simply because they don't see why they should be proud to be gay... Granted we traded one form of tyranny for what many argue is a much lesser one, the point is to illustrate that people don't understand human liberty. It is much, mucher easier to get them to go along with justified tyrannies. And if that weren't the case, the US legacy of liberal, constitutional democracy wouldn't be such an outlier in history. I think this reality is scary, and hopefully more people take it more seriously.
  - gerbilly 8y ago
    > the US legacy of liberal, constitutional democracy wouldn't be such an outlier in history. Any nation given an entire continent of temperate arable land nearly for free¹, might have fared as well. 1: Cleared of inhabitants mostly by disease but also with brutal wars.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      Well China also had pretty amazing luck in this regard. Japan is the opposite...
  - 8y ago
ctulek 8y ago
Your argument and supporting comments below are not new arguments against democracy. Democracies were always attacked both from outside and inside. No system is perfect but democracy has one big advantage: it is the only system that can learn from its mistakes and improve itself. For other systems, mistakes result in people suffering or dying in masses.
- Swenrekcah 8y ago
  Robustness against mistakes comes from dispersion of power, it is not necessary for a democracy. A genocide can happen in a democratic system, but in that event people theoretically have some way of reigning in the powers that be.
  - ctulek 8y ago
    That is true. I used the term democracy too broadly. Dispersion of power is crucial for the health and longevity of a democracy.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  >For other systems, mistakes result in people suffering or dying in masses... Well, just trying to be evenhanded here, but even for democracies, people will suffer and die in masses due to mistakes. I'm American, and in the US we had slavery. Which I believe qualifies as a mistake for which people suffered and died in masses. (Though in some parts of the US that certainly may not be the consensus view.) In my opinion, the great virtue of any democracy is not that it can correct its mistakes. (Indeed, oftentimes many democratic governments will not correct their mistakes.) Rather the great virtue of democracy is that a democratic people always get exactly the government they deserve. For good or for ill.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Does rather raise the distinction between "democracy" in which only some people have the vote and a "liberal democracy" which widens the franchise as far as possible, includes guarantees on basic rights of minorities against majoritarianism, and so on. By that reckoning, America wasn't a democracy until 1964.
roenxi 8y ago
> Blanketing a city with CCTV seems to be a pragmatic trade-off for personal safety. There isn't a theoretical problem with having a democratic surveillance state. Indeed, the major democracies basically are surveillance states. My understanding is that Britain has invested heavily with CCTV, for example. Surveillance is a threat to personal liberty, because it makes it easier for a centralised government to control what people do and do not. Liberty has historically been a core western value, but liberty and democracy are very separate things.
shusson 8y ago
> As people have theoretically become freer, they seem to seek more security I don't think it has so much to do with being free as to China having growth for the last 40 years. If you're poor but becoming richer, then you're a lot more happy then someone who was rich and is now poorer. I'm curious to see how the Chinese population reacts to a recession.
NotPaidToPost 8y ago
Development is more important than democracy because it caters to more basic needs. China can demonstrate that its system has led to rapid development, although of course the cultural aspect means that it cannot be copied verbatim (but Western systems cannot either). The West has been going on about 'freedom' and 'democracy' for 70 years. It didn't really help develop any country. Even if people believe that democracy is the 'best' form of government for individuals I think that they want to see development results even if it means an authoritarian government for the time being.
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  Countries need to develop themselves. You will not find any form of government that you can prescribe other countries to follow. > The West has been going on about 'freedom' and 'democracy' for 70 years And came up mostly on top regardless of the metric that is applied. Wealth, culture, influence, you name it... Democracies can be very good at developing themselves. It is hubris to think that anything rises or falls by the form of governance, if a country doesn't perform to economic standards. Especially if said governance is externally imposed. China is comparably successful with its investments in Africa because there is less contrast between economies, so real trade can flourish. But if that will be a success story is still in question.
  - NotPaidToPost 8y ago
    The West has been telling the 'third world' to adopt Western democracy like if that was a silver bullet and a requirement for development. Most of these countries are very poor and without any democratic experience. Now China comes and provides an example of a country that managed breathtaking development without democracy. > It is hubris to think that anything rises or falls by the form of governance Good governance is crucial. Western democracy does not seem to. > China is comparably successful with its investments in Africa Well, Western countries do not invest in Africa. China is successful because they are willing to.
    - raxxorrax 8y ago
duxup 8y ago
Isn't that last paragraph "the weakening of democratic norms" ... also a description of doing exactly that?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 8y ago
> Political events in the US, the rise of social media, and the risks of virality unexpectedly unleashing mob chaos have made them a lot more wary. I heard a saying during the Dubya years: The good thing about democracy is that anyone can become President; the bad thing about democracy is that anyone can become President.
tagrun 8y ago
You're presenting a false dichotomy. There are CCTV cameras everywhere in Japan too (most of them are not operated by the government, but the government asks for footage when necessary), which is one of the safest countries in the world and the Japanese government is not authoritarian. China, on the other hand, is authoritarian government using safety as an excuse for government-based mass surveillance, most famously used for oppression of dissidents. Somehow, some people are buying this.
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
Interesting. As someone who was raised in and still lives in America, I agree that our media and government propaganda has been strong, but I have a different takeaway. For all the talk of democracy in our country, it has been just that - talk. More propaganda to make the people believe they have a voice, when in reality property owners are the ones in control. This leads me and others clamoring for genuine democracy, not oligarchy where we are told to be thankful for our fake democracy. And we already feel the pain from oligarchs, so it's clear a more centralized authority would only be worse.
XuMiao 8y ago
Hypocrisy is one of the originals of the Western culture. For example, I can be evil because the God will forgive me eventually. I can commit crimes and invade you but you can't because you need to be a Saint. I'm talking about the society as a whole instead of any individuals. This is the same as the Totalitarianism is one of the originals of the Eastern culture. These cultural traits date way before Democracy and Science, and start crawling back during the past decades. The Democracy was only invented several hundreds of years ago. It's an political ideal that's implemented with the Scientific methodology systematically. Without the sophisticated design over the system, the Democracy would never be successful. In fact, It's far from being mature and has been stalled for nearly half a century compared with the advancement of the Science. We need to put down our arrogance and emotional attachment to the good old days. We need to stop the Hypocrisy and reinvent the Democracy with the new Science. It sucks but it is necessary for the future of the entire human race.
dforrestwilson 8y ago
"myth of American exceptionalism"* *Typed up on an America-based forum for startups, using a medium invented within America, on a device created, refined, and popularized inside of America.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> People in many third-world countries have been fed the line that democracy is the correct form of government. This isn't accidental: the soft power of Hollywood and the myth of American exceptionalism have been powerful incentives to have faith in the ability of democratic institutions to improve lives American exceptionalism is largely, in America, an excuse for advocating against the value of pursuing liberal democracy in the developing world as general policy; it's intimately tied into the effort to export neoliberal economics for the benefit of US I terests with less concern for democracy, especially Western-style liberal democracy. The idea that US success is attributable to replicable social technologies like liberal democracy (or even liberal economics; exceptionalists seek exporting liberal economics as a way of extending US economic power on the view that US hegemony is a moral imperative, and that people around the world benefit from US power because other countries are fundamentally unable to replace the US as leaders) is opposed to exceptionalism.

bluetomcat 8y ago

The unquestionable notion that democracy with capitalism is the only reasonable form of society has created highly corrupt states with facade institutions pretending to be democratic, serving the interests of the local elites behind the scenes. Democracy is just one possible way for a society and it has to be developed organically through history, not forced upon populations. Many people are perfectly happy with someone else making decisions for them, as long as they trust that other person.

shuaib 8y ago
> as long as they trust that other person Trust isn't everlasting, specially for a "person". I can put more of my trust in a "process" (e.g. democracy) and its continuous evolution towards betterment, than letting "someone else" make my decisions for me.
thunderbong 8y ago
> Many people are perfectly happy with someone else making decisions for them, as long as they trust that other person. Isn't that why we vote?
- huffmsa 8y ago
  In some countries yes. The US system is more intended for you to pick the person you distrust the least.
- bluetomcat 8y ago
  Casting a vote in a "real" democracy means putting your trust in a person or group with the promise of representing you and your interests. Without the ability to define your interests in a practical way, you are voting for the most charismatic, most loudly speaking representative. Not being able to define your interest can be due to lack of education, unwillingness to take part in the political process, etc.
  - asark 8y ago
    BINGO! It's been taken as a given that more voting is always a better idea. In fact limiting the voter pool for more distant offices (Senators chosen by state legislatures, President elected by... electors) as was originally done in the US might have been a pretty good idea, though the system might need some tweaking Electors are a fine idea, but it's de-facto just a low-information-voter popularity contest vote—when's the last time you even knew who the electors you were voting for were? Have you ever? No one votes based on who the elector is, just who they've pledged to support. Maybe state legislatures, or some part of them, should take that over, too. Similarly, we've done a decent job of crushing political machines and corrupt unions... but a poor job of crushing the powerful business interests and anti-the-small-guy forces they (sometimes) effectively opposed. As a friend of mine put it, our system used to feature various kaiju fighting, all of them wrecking cities, but some of them doing so while trying to save us, some while trying to harm us. We eliminated all the kaiju that were working to save us (smashing a city block here and there and eating the occasional fire truck, sure) but didn't do anything about the ones trying to harm us, with predictable results.

Juliate 8y ago

> who can see how powerless or unwilling social networks [...] are to stop them They're not powerless. They're certainly unwilling, and demonstrate an obvious active mindset _against_ democracies: 1. Nothing, nothing in Facebook' or Twitter' CEOs, PR deparments or boards demonstrate an inch of knowledge or understanding of what a democracy is. 2. On the other hand, their actions and their words clearly speak that they ought to make their (privately owned and controlled) platforms fundamental building and governance blocks for society.

raxxorrax 8y ago
Perhaps there is no democratic will to remove content on social media. I know at least one person. I would see it as negative if opinions are removed for political reasons. And that is what I see advocated here.

luckylion 8y ago

> It doesn't matter whether the propagandists succeed or not-their mere unfettered existence is enough to disturb people. Are you sure that the demonopolization of the marketplace of public opinion isn't disturbing a small minority that in turn riles up the public? That is: are you sure that "the people" at large are worried about "populism", "propaganda" and "trolls", or are they merely worried because the media tells them that it's basically the end of the world as we know it?

shuaib 8y ago

I don't understand where these sweeping statements are coming from. I grew up in a third-world country too, and transitioned myself from belonging to a lower middle class family, into an upper middle class life. I don't have an iota of acceptance for any form of surveillance being put in place without it being approved through proper channels of well put process in place (i.e. democracy, representatives of people debating and agreeing upon it)

bilbo0s 8y ago
>I don't have an iota of acceptance for any form of surveillance being put in place without it being approved through proper channels of well put process in place... I don't know man? I'm an American, so I really have no dog in this whole "Third World Viewpoint" fight. Having said that, it sounds to me like you have no problem at all with the surveillance state... so long as they do the proper paperwork first.
- shuaib 8y ago
  You read that wrong. I don't have a problem with "discussing issues" and "coming to an agreement (or disagreement)".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
intended 8y ago
That just makes you an exception. A majority of india uses aadhar, a biometric ID. The govt constantly coerced and frightens the remanant people into getting aadhar. A biometric ID is as obviously a lynchpin of a surveillance state as the necessity of a unique key to run a database. London and the U.K. had invested surveillance in old school cameras even before the internet blew up. China is China. A majority of the world is already OK with a surveillance state. And most of the affected aren’t in a position to understand why it matters. ————— Further- after the impact of the American election and brexit on america and the U.K. respectively, all nation states are aware that other nation states can hijack their national “thought streams” or whatever you want to call them. No matter what, countries are not going to let that happen to them. The added bonus of political advantage is not lost on the political class. It’s not much to make sweeping statements from that position. Especially given that all of private tech enterprise depends on snooping on your private information. Hah. We are well and truly the product being sold on the larger global market. Perhaps Nations are simply building fences to keep their products from being stolen.

vixen99 8y ago

"The lesser-educated never really cared for abstract notions of liberty anyway". You know this for sure, do you? This is the kind of unpleasant sweeping generalisation that should at least come with strong supporting evidence.

Cyph0n 8y ago
This is the kind of statement that comes from a well-connected, upper class dictator supporter who enjoys reaping the benefits but tries to come up with a different reason for why the status quo must remain.
- throwanon 8y ago
  The country is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and a slowly failing state. The only thing keeping it from turning into an autocracy is the (eroding) faith of its educated elites in democracy. And when I refer to the less educated, I mean that literally...
  - Cyph0n 8y ago
    I come from a country that is in a similar situation. In general, I try to (1) look at the overall situation in a positive light and (2) avoid belittling and dismissing those who were less fortunate than I am when it comes to education.

0815test 8y ago

"Openness and the exchange of ideas" is not something that developing countries are known for, though - and not something that would be promoted by having government-sponsored "propagandists and bots" around, either! In general, while democracy in the sense of having regular elections might be a bit overrated (as shown, e.g. by the failure to "export" it in places like Iraq!), basic freedom, openness and widespread awareness about the values of a "commercial society" (sometimes called "bourgeois values") are extremely important and the closest thing we know of to a recipe for successful development and enduring wealth.

raxxorrax 8y ago
But the failure of democracy in Iraq isn't due to systemic failure of democracy. That can quickly be falsified. It was due to interest groups. Not differentiating here is a mental short circuit. It would have failed with any other form of governance. A democracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Autocratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point.
- cjslep 8y ago
  > A democracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Autocratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point. This is a powerful manifestation of implied bias. This and the whole preceding sentence make it all seem weirdly propaganda-y. Like trying to say "no government will succeed forever" and yet also the doublethink that democracy is special, despite autocratic rule dominating human history. For example, consider the opposite and whether it sounds "normal": > Autocracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Democratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point. Edit: I am pro-democracy but have no delusions that it is free (as in beer), natural (as in humans will naturally tend towards it), nor easy (as in effort is required to maintain it). It's none of the above.
  - raxxorrax 8y ago
    True, I do have a clear bias for democracy. Additionally, democracies excel in freedom, wealth, safety and stability against any other form of government in today's world. And then some. Let me take a guess: You are living in a first world country and you are a bit unsatisfied with your life? If the answer is yes, I extracted that solely from bias. Helpful, isn't it?

raxxorrax 8y ago

While true, they are wrong of course. I also don't really think that trolls are a real issue, even if they have been thoroughly fed the last years. They also don't represent the worst in humanity. Everything that happened people did to themselves and they are looking for scapegoats and someone to blame. This is the worst of humanity. Granted, you could blame trolls, but that should not convince anyone. At least not worse than the frightful recoil, abandoning ideals like free expression/speech, democracy and freedom. Equality still seems to be the holy cow even if it will collide with freedom at some point. Stability can be convincing, but people in western nation do not have that excuse. Reading something on the net you don't like is no reason to abandon principles that any modern nation is based upon. Democracy is the correct form of government, since it is the only form of governance that doesn't extract its legitimacy from power. Democracy requires emancipated voters. You cannot apply that to any third world country and suddenly things get better. It has to come from within a society. There is also a secret to online mobs/trolls: ignore them and nothing happens. I also do not believe in the power of bots aside from faking ad reach. That would require an example of a talking point. This is why it was difficult to believe in far reaching Russian propaganda efforts: The message was lacking. I do see the "hateful noise" of social media. If that matters to me is fully in my hands. > their mere unfettered existence is enough to disturb people. Mostly induced by false media reports.

Cyph0n 8y ago

I know many from various Middle Eastern countries who share a similar viewpoint. As an Arab myself, I see it as nothing more than a defeatist attitude that is typically held by those who have enough money and connections (typically upper class). Safety and democracy can coexist and are not mutually exclusive as you claim. The safest countries in the world are democracies last I checked. Democracy is not only about “abstract notions of liberty”, but also (and more importantly) about justice and equality for all. When these “lesser-educated” people are held in prison without trial for watching the wrong Youtube video or practicing the wrong religion, they also realize this fact.

whatshisface 8y ago
I guess the problem is that if the government doesn't represent the people it will become a far greater risk to the average person's safety than criminals ever were.
- luckylion 8y ago
  "Criminals" as in "a thief in a modern society": certainly. "Criminals" as in "an aggressive group/tribe that will enslave or murder you if giving the chance": probably not.
0815test 8y ago
The thing that makes authoritarianism superficially attractive in the Middle East is the absolute lack of anything even loosely resembling civil-society institutions of the sorts that are ubiquitous in Western societies. Why allow basic freedoms when the people aren't going to use them for the good of society? It's a vicious cycle and a very thorny issue to address. Ironically enough, the closest thing these folks get to actual civil society, is their religious institutions - the mosques, the madrassas and so forth. This also makes Islamic fundamentalism a lot more seductive to them than it might otherwise be, because in many ways they experience religion as the best working, least corrupt, etc. part of their society, and they naturally seek something that can replicate that relative openness and lack of corruption across the board.

logifail 8y ago

> As people have theoretically become freer, they seem to seek more security. Blanketing a city with CCTV seems to be a pragmatic trade-off for personal safety. Is there informed consent for CCTV, or does it just happen when technology vendors end up working with politicians, the former caring only about selling their product, the latter caring about only getting re-elected? My son's kickboard scooter was stolen last month, he left it parked less than 20 paces from the front entrance to his school, in a courtyard with only one way in and out. There's no CCTV. Despite the theft, I'm still against the use of CCTV, particularly around schools.

grecy 8y ago

I've just spent three years driving through 35 countries in Africa. Before that I spent 2 years driving through 16 countries in Latin America. I completely agree with your comment. It's fascinating to sit in a third world country watching the developed world preach on and on about capitalism and democracy being the greatest thing since sliced bread, while on the news we get to see extremely violent protests in France, Brexit completely grinding the UK to a halt, the longest government shutdown in US history, Australia have 7 Prime Ministers in 10 years[1], fears of another giant economic collapse, etc. etc. These are supposed to be the leaders of the free world, and for all intents and purposes they're dysfunctional. From the outside looking in, Democracy hasn't turned out to be the "magic" solution it was marketed as. This was never more true than when I was sitting with a bunch of locals watching the violent protests in DC when Trump was inaugurated. None of the locals could understand why there was violence, and kept asking me "But don't they have democracy there?" ... "Why are they being so violent"?" [1] I like to say Australia has had more Coups can the Congo.

dictum 8y ago
> on the news we get to see extremely violent protests in France It's unwise to compare a country in which protests are allowed (and ingrained in the political culture) with countries that suppress them.
wil421 8y ago
Protests mean Democracy is working. Look at protests in France and the US vs protests in the Middle East or even Turkey. How do protests fair in China? Ask the unknown number of citizens in education camps.

pjc50 8y ago

Sounds like the propaganda is working, then. > In short, the authoritarian surveillance state is an increasingly attractive proposition to large swathes of humanity. The dark side is that people are generally far too comfortable or even gleeful at having their inconvenient neighbors "removed". They just assume it won't happen to them. By the time they realise the authoritarianism is a problem it's too late and too dangerous to complain. This is a problem even in the freest parts of the West.

wallace_f 8y ago
If you take a step back, both major US parties represent a majority of people whom want the other side to abide by their tyranny. Even to get progress on gay rights it ended up being pushed through as more of something about pride and "against-hate" than about liberty and freedom. At first this distinction may sound strange to people, but it is important. This has led us into such a strange time when gay men like Peter Thiel are criticized as hateful simply because they don't see why they should be proud to be gay... Granted we traded one form of tyranny for what many argue is a much lesser one, the point is to illustrate that people don't understand human liberty. It is much, mucher easier to get them to go along with justified tyrannies. And if that weren't the case, the US legacy of liberal, constitutional democracy wouldn't be such an outlier in history. I think this reality is scary, and hopefully more people take it more seriously.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  > the US legacy of liberal, constitutional democracy wouldn't be such an outlier in history. Any nation given an entire continent of temperate arable land nearly for free¹, might have fared as well. 1: Cleared of inhabitants mostly by disease but also with brutal wars.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Well China also had pretty amazing luck in this regard. Japan is the opposite...
- 8y ago

ctulek 8y ago

Your argument and supporting comments below are not new arguments against democracy. Democracies were always attacked both from outside and inside. No system is perfect but democracy has one big advantage: it is the only system that can learn from its mistakes and improve itself. For other systems, mistakes result in people suffering or dying in masses.

Swenrekcah 8y ago
Robustness against mistakes comes from dispersion of power, it is not necessary for a democracy. A genocide can happen in a democratic system, but in that event people theoretically have some way of reigning in the powers that be.
- ctulek 8y ago
  That is true. I used the term democracy too broadly. Dispersion of power is crucial for the health and longevity of a democracy.
bilbo0s 8y ago
>For other systems, mistakes result in people suffering or dying in masses... Well, just trying to be evenhanded here, but even for democracies, people will suffer and die in masses due to mistakes. I'm American, and in the US we had slavery. Which I believe qualifies as a mistake for which people suffered and died in masses. (Though in some parts of the US that certainly may not be the consensus view.) In my opinion, the great virtue of any democracy is not that it can correct its mistakes. (Indeed, oftentimes many democratic governments will not correct their mistakes.) Rather the great virtue of democracy is that a democratic people always get exactly the government they deserve. For good or for ill.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Does rather raise the distinction between "democracy" in which only some people have the vote and a "liberal democracy" which widens the franchise as far as possible, includes guarantees on basic rights of minorities against majoritarianism, and so on. By that reckoning, America wasn't a democracy until 1964.

roenxi 8y ago

> Blanketing a city with CCTV seems to be a pragmatic trade-off for personal safety. There isn't a theoretical problem with having a democratic surveillance state. Indeed, the major democracies basically are surveillance states. My understanding is that Britain has invested heavily with CCTV, for example. Surveillance is a threat to personal liberty, because it makes it easier for a centralised government to control what people do and do not. Liberty has historically been a core western value, but liberty and democracy are very separate things.

shusson 8y ago

> As people have theoretically become freer, they seem to seek more security I don't think it has so much to do with being free as to China having growth for the last 40 years. If you're poor but becoming richer, then you're a lot more happy then someone who was rich and is now poorer. I'm curious to see how the Chinese population reacts to a recession.

NotPaidToPost 8y ago

Development is more important than democracy because it caters to more basic needs. China can demonstrate that its system has led to rapid development, although of course the cultural aspect means that it cannot be copied verbatim (but Western systems cannot either). The West has been going on about 'freedom' and 'democracy' for 70 years. It didn't really help develop any country. Even if people believe that democracy is the 'best' form of government for individuals I think that they want to see development results even if it means an authoritarian government for the time being.

raxxorrax 8y ago
Countries need to develop themselves. You will not find any form of government that you can prescribe other countries to follow. > The West has been going on about 'freedom' and 'democracy' for 70 years And came up mostly on top regardless of the metric that is applied. Wealth, culture, influence, you name it... Democracies can be very good at developing themselves. It is hubris to think that anything rises or falls by the form of governance, if a country doesn't perform to economic standards. Especially if said governance is externally imposed. China is comparably successful with its investments in Africa because there is less contrast between economies, so real trade can flourish. But if that will be a success story is still in question.
- NotPaidToPost 8y ago
  The West has been telling the 'third world' to adopt Western democracy like if that was a silver bullet and a requirement for development. Most of these countries are very poor and without any democratic experience. Now China comes and provides an example of a country that managed breathtaking development without democracy. > It is hubris to think that anything rises or falls by the form of governance Good governance is crucial. Western democracy does not seem to. > China is comparably successful with its investments in Africa Well, Western countries do not invest in Africa. China is successful because they are willing to.
  - raxxorrax 8y ago

duxup 8y ago

Isn't that last paragraph "the weakening of democratic norms" ... also a description of doing exactly that?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

throw0101a 8y ago

> Political events in the US, the rise of social media, and the risks of virality unexpectedly unleashing mob chaos have made them a lot more wary. I heard a saying during the Dubya years: The good thing about democracy is that anyone can become President; the bad thing about democracy is that anyone can become President.

tagrun 8y ago

You're presenting a false dichotomy. There are CCTV cameras everywhere in Japan too (most of them are not operated by the government, but the government asks for footage when necessary), which is one of the safest countries in the world and the Japanese government is not authoritarian. China, on the other hand, is authoritarian government using safety as an excuse for government-based mass surveillance, most famously used for oppression of dissidents. Somehow, some people are buying this.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

Interesting. As someone who was raised in and still lives in America, I agree that our media and government propaganda has been strong, but I have a different takeaway. For all the talk of democracy in our country, it has been just that - talk. More propaganda to make the people believe they have a voice, when in reality property owners are the ones in control. This leads me and others clamoring for genuine democracy, not oligarchy where we are told to be thankful for our fake democracy. And we already feel the pain from oligarchs, so it's clear a more centralized authority would only be worse.

XuMiao 8y ago

Hypocrisy is one of the originals of the Western culture. For example, I can be evil because the God will forgive me eventually. I can commit crimes and invade you but you can't because you need to be a Saint. I'm talking about the society as a whole instead of any individuals. This is the same as the Totalitarianism is one of the originals of the Eastern culture. These cultural traits date way before Democracy and Science, and start crawling back during the past decades. The Democracy was only invented several hundreds of years ago. It's an political ideal that's implemented with the Scientific methodology systematically. Without the sophisticated design over the system, the Democracy would never be successful. In fact, It's far from being mature and has been stalled for nearly half a century compared with the advancement of the Science. We need to put down our arrogance and emotional attachment to the good old days. We need to stop the Hypocrisy and reinvent the Democracy with the new Science. It sucks but it is necessary for the future of the entire human race.

dforrestwilson 8y ago

"myth of American exceptionalism"* *Typed up on an America-based forum for startups, using a medium invented within America, on a device created, refined, and popularized inside of America.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> People in many third-world countries have been fed the line that democracy is the correct form of government. This isn't accidental: the soft power of Hollywood and the myth of American exceptionalism have been powerful incentives to have faith in the ability of democratic institutions to improve lives American exceptionalism is largely, in America, an excuse for advocating against the value of pursuing liberal democracy in the developing world as general policy; it's intimately tied into the effort to export neoliberal economics for the benefit of US I terests with less concern for democracy, especially Western-style liberal democracy. The idea that US success is attributable to replicable social technologies like liberal democracy (or even liberal economics; exceptionalists seek exporting liberal economics as a way of extending US economic power on the view that US hegemony is a moral imperative, and that people around the world benefit from US power because other countries are fundamentally unable to replace the US as leaders) is opposed to exceptionalism.