3 ms·

Democracy can be called dictatorship of the majority. Problem is even communism looked good on paper assuming perfect people and conditions. Nothing you'd find

Democracy can be called dictatorship of the majority. Problem is even communism looked good on paper assuming perfect people and conditions. Nothing you'd find in any real scenario. You can't guarantee you get the benevolent dictator more than you can guarantee the fulfillment of the majority's wishes. They both rely on "hoping" that the person in power actually does the right thing regardless of how they got there and what powers they have. And more importantly, you can hope that you are on the right side of that "right thing". One thing democracy gets better than dictatorship is that it guarantees that it has to keep at least a consistent slice of the population happy, not just one dictator and their apparatus. What dictatorship gets better is that a single person's will and vision is easier to plan and achieve, instead of the many voices and wills of the "majority".

magduf 7y ago
>Problem is even communism looked good on paper assuming perfect people and conditions. Strawman argument. Can you point to any real-life communist governments (and I don't mean "communist" governments either, like China's, I mean true Marxist ones) that actually worked out great? Of course not. That's not like dictatorships, where I can point to a bunch that worked out fine, historically. >You can't guarantee you get the benevolent dictator more than you can guarantee the fulfillment of the majority's wishes. You can't guarantee anything with any kind of government, period. You can't guarantee a democratic government will work well for the people. You can't guarantee a democratic government won't turn into a dictatorship (see: Nazi GermanY). There's absolutely nothing that can be guaranteed; this isn't a computer. >One thing democracy gets better than dictatorship is that it guarantees that it has to keep at least a consistent slice of the population happy, not just one dictator and their apparatus. A dictatorship also has to keep a consistent slice of the population happy. How do you think the dictator keeps his power? If everyone hated him, he'd be instantly ousted. Can you point to any dictator at any time in history that didn't keep a consistent slice of the population happy?
- close04 7y ago
  The points you make are basically rehashing what I said (or missing the mark) and making it look like we have a debate. We aren't and you didn't bring any new ideas. The fact that some dictators had passable results doesn't mean dictatorship is a good system. It just had more "attempts" at success because dictatorship (absolute monarchs) are more in line with human nature. Democracy has achieved better which would suggest it's overall a better system. > Can you point to any real-life communist governments that actually worked out great? If only I would have written that: >> communism looked good on paper assuming perfect people and conditions. Nothing you'd find in any real scenario. > You can't guarantee anything Yes, which is why I said you can't guarantee anything. > A dictatorship also has to keep a consistent slice of the population happy. For a carefully chosen definition of "consistent". At a minimum a dictator has to keep a small slice happy, themselves and their apparatus. This is very far from being "consistent" relative to the population and a far cry from what a democratically elected leader is expected to keep happy. On the other hand a democracy may see a candidate lose even when having the support of the majority of the population (see the electoral college system in the US). Both dictatorship and democracy have advantages and disadvantages, some theoretical, some practical. But in real life the chances of a dictatorship going wrong are so high it makes the system a no-go. It's fishing with nitroglycerin.
- thu2111 7y ago
  I can point to a bunch that worked out fine, historically. In modern times? Which ones are you thinking of? I can't think of any except maybe China, which is a curious definition of fine given how badly beaten they've been by their nearby neighbours e.g. compare the trajectories of South Korea/Taiwan vs China.
  - sweettarts92 7y ago
    South Korea had massive economic boosts under Park Chung-hee , he industrialized the country, destroyed corruption, and laid the complete foundation of what South Korea's economy is now today. Pre-Park Chung-hee was a democracy that the US implemented and it was terrible. There was massive widespread corruption, the economy was worse than the Congo, and it was awful. Compare pre and post dictatorial South Korea and there is a stark contrast. Another example is Singapore.
    - close04 7y ago
      Didn't his rule turn into an actual dictatorship only when growth was slowing down, his popularity was waning, and he had a close call in the democratic elections? A couple of examples of successes that can only very debatably be attributed to dictatorship in itself don't make it inherently successful. Not more than China's successes prove that communism is successful and sustainable. Why are you ignoring the overwhelming majority of cases where dictatorship failed? Democracy had far more consistent and successful examples. Using dictatorial-like power to escape a dire situation is not the same as successfully ruling a country. Dictatorship is like a slap. It's useful if you're chocking and need to get out of that pinch but treating all emergencies with a slap is a misguided approach.

magduf 7y ago

>Problem is even communism looked good on paper assuming perfect people and conditions. Strawman argument. Can you point to any real-life communist governments (and I don't mean "communist" governments either, like China's, I mean true Marxist ones) that actually worked out great? Of course not. That's not like dictatorships, where I can point to a bunch that worked out fine, historically. >You can't guarantee you get the benevolent dictator more than you can guarantee the fulfillment of the majority's wishes. You can't guarantee anything with any kind of government, period. You can't guarantee a democratic government will work well for the people. You can't guarantee a democratic government won't turn into a dictatorship (see: Nazi GermanY). There's absolutely nothing that can be guaranteed; this isn't a computer. >One thing democracy gets better than dictatorship is that it guarantees that it has to keep at least a consistent slice of the population happy, not just one dictator and their apparatus. A dictatorship also has to keep a consistent slice of the population happy. How do you think the dictator keeps his power? If everyone hated him, he'd be instantly ousted. Can you point to any dictator at any time in history that didn't keep a consistent slice of the population happy?

close04 7y ago
The points you make are basically rehashing what I said (or missing the mark) and making it look like we have a debate. We aren't and you didn't bring any new ideas. The fact that some dictators had passable results doesn't mean dictatorship is a good system. It just had more "attempts" at success because dictatorship (absolute monarchs) are more in line with human nature. Democracy has achieved better which would suggest it's overall a better system. > Can you point to any real-life communist governments that actually worked out great? If only I would have written that: >> communism looked good on paper assuming perfect people and conditions. Nothing you'd find in any real scenario. > You can't guarantee anything Yes, which is why I said you can't guarantee anything. > A dictatorship also has to keep a consistent slice of the population happy. For a carefully chosen definition of "consistent". At a minimum a dictator has to keep a small slice happy, themselves and their apparatus. This is very far from being "consistent" relative to the population and a far cry from what a democratically elected leader is expected to keep happy. On the other hand a democracy may see a candidate lose even when having the support of the majority of the population (see the electoral college system in the US). Both dictatorship and democracy have advantages and disadvantages, some theoretical, some practical. But in real life the chances of a dictatorship going wrong are so high it makes the system a no-go. It's fishing with nitroglycerin.
thu2111 7y ago
I can point to a bunch that worked out fine, historically. In modern times? Which ones are you thinking of? I can't think of any except maybe China, which is a curious definition of fine given how badly beaten they've been by their nearby neighbours e.g. compare the trajectories of South Korea/Taiwan vs China.
- sweettarts92 7y ago
  South Korea had massive economic boosts under Park Chung-hee , he industrialized the country, destroyed corruption, and laid the complete foundation of what South Korea's economy is now today. Pre-Park Chung-hee was a democracy that the US implemented and it was terrible. There was massive widespread corruption, the economy was worse than the Congo, and it was awful. Compare pre and post dictatorial South Korea and there is a stark contrast. Another example is Singapore.
  - close04 7y ago
    Didn't his rule turn into an actual dictatorship only when growth was slowing down, his popularity was waning, and he had a close call in the democratic elections? A couple of examples of successes that can only very debatably be attributed to dictatorship in itself don't make it inherently successful. Not more than China's successes prove that communism is successful and sustainable. Why are you ignoring the overwhelming majority of cases where dictatorship failed? Democracy had far more consistent and successful examples. Using dictatorial-like power to escape a dire situation is not the same as successfully ruling a country. Dictatorship is like a slap. It's useful if you're chocking and need to get out of that pinch but treating all emergencies with a slap is a misguided approach.