11 ms·

> Compared to ruling by force, yes, democracy is inherently good for the people I don't understand why people here see democratic system as a replacement for r

> Compared to ruling by force, yes, democracy is inherently good for the people I don't understand why people here see democratic system as a replacement for ruling by a force. Democratic countries also rule by force in the end. Democratic countries also need polices, guns, armies, prisons, tax inspectors, prosecutors etc. Those same institutions are also the tools for dictatorships, they are just governed in a different way. (I also think democracy is good, but however in the end both democracies and dictatorships rely on violence to be effective. I think that's quite basic lesson on how society works.)

merpnderp 7y ago
Dictatorships rely solely on force. Democracies mostly rely on a common agreement to follow a social contract. There’s not nearly enough police in the US to quell a rebellion of the people if they lost faith in Democracy.
- jiveturkey 7y ago
  Isn't it true though, there's not nearly enough police in any country to quell a rebellion of the people? This is how dictators get overthrown.
  - disintegore 7y ago
    There might just be enough police and military to quell any feasible rebellion, seeing as pretty much every country is divided along ideological lines. MAGA types would, for instance, would never participate in a syndicalist general strike.
- V-2 7y ago
  > Dictatorships rely solely on force. Not necessarily. Some dictatorships do enjoy genuine support. (Obviously they make it easier for themselves it by controlling the media etc.) > There’s not nearly enough police in the US to quell a rebellion of the people if they lost faith in Democracy. By the same token it's also possible to topple a dictatorship. At some point even your security forces will say "no". A good example would be the failure of "Plan X" in East Germany, when Stasi agents boycotted the orders, since they realized the cause was lost anyway.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    If you've never seen it, this is a good watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
CPLX 7y ago
The relevant word isn’t “force” it’s “consent”. All forms of government to some extent or another have to maintain a monopoly on legal violence and use force. The distinction with democracy is that the government secures and maintains the consent of those being governed.
- cheschire 7y ago
  There are plenty of people who don't consent on a daily basis. The actions range from peaceful protests to traitorous acts. How does a democracy deal with them? Force.
  - disintegore 7y ago
    Also much of the consent is, as Chomsky would put it, manufactured.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      Don't invoke Chomsky for this nonsense. > What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous dizz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government. -- Noam Chomsky
      - disintegore 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sputr 7y ago
> I don't understand why people here see democratic system as a replacement for ruling by a force. I would hazard a guess that a lot of us, that see it this way, are from culture backgrounds that still have historical recollection of "not democracy". The definition of state is it's monopolisation of violence. But the difference is if it uses violence to keep the specific section of the ruling elite in power ... or just to keep the state (i.e. the entirety of the ruling elite) in power.

merpnderp 7y ago

Dictatorships rely solely on force. Democracies mostly rely on a common agreement to follow a social contract. There’s not nearly enough police in the US to quell a rebellion of the people if they lost faith in Democracy.

jiveturkey 7y ago
Isn't it true though, there's not nearly enough police in any country to quell a rebellion of the people? This is how dictators get overthrown.
- disintegore 7y ago
  There might just be enough police and military to quell any feasible rebellion, seeing as pretty much every country is divided along ideological lines. MAGA types would, for instance, would never participate in a syndicalist general strike.
V-2 7y ago
> Dictatorships rely solely on force. Not necessarily. Some dictatorships do enjoy genuine support. (Obviously they make it easier for themselves it by controlling the media etc.) > There’s not nearly enough police in the US to quell a rebellion of the people if they lost faith in Democracy. By the same token it's also possible to topple a dictatorship. At some point even your security forces will say "no". A good example would be the failure of "Plan X" in East Germany, when Stasi agents boycotted the orders, since they realized the cause was lost anyway.
- malandrew 7y ago
  If you've never seen it, this is a good watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

CPLX 7y ago

The relevant word isn’t “force” it’s “consent”. All forms of government to some extent or another have to maintain a monopoly on legal violence and use force. The distinction with democracy is that the government secures and maintains the consent of those being governed.

cheschire 7y ago
There are plenty of people who don't consent on a daily basis. The actions range from peaceful protests to traitorous acts. How does a democracy deal with them? Force.
- disintegore 7y ago
  Also much of the consent is, as Chomsky would put it, manufactured.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    Don't invoke Chomsky for this nonsense. > What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous dizz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government. -- Noam Chomsky
    - disintegore 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sputr 7y ago

> I don't understand why people here see democratic system as a replacement for ruling by a force. I would hazard a guess that a lot of us, that see it this way, are from culture backgrounds that still have historical recollection of "not democracy". The definition of state is it's monopolisation of violence. But the difference is if it uses violence to keep the specific section of the ruling elite in power ... or just to keep the state (i.e. the entirety of the ruling elite) in power.