5 ms·

> Frequently autocracies invade democracies because autocracies are inherently unstable Simply not true. Ask north korea, cuba, etc. No democracy could withsta

by qiskit 5y ago

> Frequently autocracies invade democracies because autocracies are inherently unstable Simply not true. Ask north korea, cuba, etc. No democracy could withstand an enemy 1000X its size attacking it. Can you imagine the US withstanding an enemy 1000X stronger than us? Not a chance. > need frequent propping up of internal support by fake "injections of popularity", such as war. Historically, it's usually the other way around. Democracies have invaded "autocracies". In the past 100 years, most of the invasions have been by democracies ( predominantly the US and our allies ) against other nations. Actually, "protecting democracy" was propaganda we used to get involved in ww1 against the wish of the american people. And it hasn't stopped since. In the name of "democracy" we've invaded dozens of countries and set ourselves a nice little empire. That democracy is a good is modern propaganda. Go read up on what the founders wrote about democracy. Go read about what Socrates did. Most intelligent people throughout history have not been fans of democracy. For a good reason, the greatest genocides in history have been committed by democracies. Just think about it.

oblio 5y ago
You must not be reading the same history books as me.
- qiskit 5y ago
  It's possible since each country has their own history books. What countries did north korea, cuba, etc invade in your history books. Now compare that with the list of countries britain, australia, france, canada, US, etc invaded. List the countries currently occupied by "autocracies". Now list the countries we occupy. List the nations genocided by democracies. It's rather shocking. So on and so forth. Not saying autocracies are good. Just that the idea that democracies are necessarily good is simply not true. Democracies have committed the worst crimes against humanity. It wasn't an autocracy that did hiroshima or nagasaki. But we each have our own history books I guess.
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    Democracy comes in three parts. It's possible to have elections, yet still not be a democracy. I suspect that has something to do with the confusion.
    - oblio 5y ago
      The linked article even mentions "electoral autocracies", precisely for your description.
  - swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
    Why don't you list them since you're the one making a claim. Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a limp argument. Emperor Hirohito controlled Japan when they committed an absolutely disgusting amount of war crimes. It had to end.
    - bllguo 5y ago
      > One thing to note: a huge threat to democracy is war. > Frequently autocracies invade democracies These are not claims? Evidence was provided for one side of this argument already, and it's not yours.
      - swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
        I don't understand what you are saying
  - oblio 5y ago
    You argument is that the worst atrocities were committed by the Allies, in a war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan???
    - qiskit 5y ago
      No. My argument is that being a democracy doesn't make a nation good. Democracies can be just as barbaric, evil and genocidal as autocracies. I provided a simple example - hiroshima and nagasaki. I think murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in seconds qualifies as evil. Don't you? If you think that only that democratically elected nazis ( people always forget that a democracy gave us nazi germany and that hitler actually won his election to gain power ) were evil in ww2, then you are missing at least half the story. Also, if you think only autocracies commit genocide, then you might want to explore the history of the genocide against the native americans, aborigines, africans etc by democracies.
- margalabargala 5y ago
  Could you elaborate? The parent makes a reasonable point. Cuba, an autocracy, has invaded no one in its history. North Korea is a bit of a special case as it's maintained a de jure state of war, but it has not invaded anyone new since the war that created it. Vietnam, an autocracy, has invaded no one since the war that created it and is doing quite well. There are numerous old (multiple generations) autocracies in the world that are indeed stable. There are plenty of old democracies that have invaded no one and are stable, and plenty of democracies that have performed plenty of invasions. It seems to me that there are enough counter-examples on both sides that claiming "democracy is stable and invades no one, and autocracy is unstable and must invade" doesn't fit with much of anything.
  - aksss 5y ago
    Foreign policy is more determined by consolidated power. And system of government doesn’t determine consolidation of power. The US had a very different global role before the world wars of the 20th century. It wasn’t because the US allowed women to vote that it became a superpower, for instance. North Korea is not insular because it’s an autocracy, it’s because it’s a vassal state of China and has no capability to exert its will independently in any meaningful way - arguably they would take the South given the elbow room. Throughout the globe and time you can point to plenty of autocratic nations with expansive foreign policy - not just meddling in other nations with kinetic actions but attempting to subsume entire territories into their own empire/nation. That this happens regardless of governing system seems to demonstrate that there is no strong deterministic bond there. I’m not saying there’s no indirect link - I tend to think that democracies when done right (separation of powers, rule of law, free and fair elections) make a country less brittle in the face of organic seasonal challenges - think agricultural society vs hunter gatherers. Being less brittle to the daily challenges may give them the adaptability to survive longer than the cresting and crashing empires. Maintaining continuity/momentum is beneficial to consolidating power, so there may be an indirect link. TBD. Democracies fall in on themselves too. Pure democracies in particular, implying pure democracy is probably not the ideal end state we should imagine ourselves working towards.
  - oblio 5y ago
    This is not about absolutes. Comparatively democracies are more peaceful than autocracies. And autocracies for sure have committed far worse atrocities in total numbers. Let's not cherry pick Cuba when the Soviet Union was around, or Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, or Communist China, etc, etc.

by qiskit 5y ago

oblio 5y ago

You must not be reading the same history books as me.

qiskit 5y ago
It's possible since each country has their own history books. What countries did north korea, cuba, etc invade in your history books. Now compare that with the list of countries britain, australia, france, canada, US, etc invaded. List the countries currently occupied by "autocracies". Now list the countries we occupy. List the nations genocided by democracies. It's rather shocking. So on and so forth. Not saying autocracies are good. Just that the idea that democracies are necessarily good is simply not true. Democracies have committed the worst crimes against humanity. It wasn't an autocracy that did hiroshima or nagasaki. But we each have our own history books I guess.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Democracy comes in three parts. It's possible to have elections, yet still not be a democracy. I suspect that has something to do with the confusion.
  - oblio 5y ago
    The linked article even mentions "electoral autocracies", precisely for your description.
- swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
  Why don't you list them since you're the one making a claim. Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a limp argument. Emperor Hirohito controlled Japan when they committed an absolutely disgusting amount of war crimes. It had to end.
  - bllguo 5y ago
    > One thing to note: a huge threat to democracy is war. > Frequently autocracies invade democracies These are not claims? Evidence was provided for one side of this argument already, and it's not yours.
    - swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
      I don't understand what you are saying
- oblio 5y ago
  You argument is that the worst atrocities were committed by the Allies, in a war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan???
  - qiskit 5y ago
    No. My argument is that being a democracy doesn't make a nation good. Democracies can be just as barbaric, evil and genocidal as autocracies. I provided a simple example - hiroshima and nagasaki. I think murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in seconds qualifies as evil. Don't you? If you think that only that democratically elected nazis ( people always forget that a democracy gave us nazi germany and that hitler actually won his election to gain power ) were evil in ww2, then you are missing at least half the story. Also, if you think only autocracies commit genocide, then you might want to explore the history of the genocide against the native americans, aborigines, africans etc by democracies.
margalabargala 5y ago
Could you elaborate? The parent makes a reasonable point. Cuba, an autocracy, has invaded no one in its history. North Korea is a bit of a special case as it's maintained a de jure state of war, but it has not invaded anyone new since the war that created it. Vietnam, an autocracy, has invaded no one since the war that created it and is doing quite well. There are numerous old (multiple generations) autocracies in the world that are indeed stable. There are plenty of old democracies that have invaded no one and are stable, and plenty of democracies that have performed plenty of invasions. It seems to me that there are enough counter-examples on both sides that claiming "democracy is stable and invades no one, and autocracy is unstable and must invade" doesn't fit with much of anything.
- aksss 5y ago
  Foreign policy is more determined by consolidated power. And system of government doesn’t determine consolidation of power. The US had a very different global role before the world wars of the 20th century. It wasn’t because the US allowed women to vote that it became a superpower, for instance. North Korea is not insular because it’s an autocracy, it’s because it’s a vassal state of China and has no capability to exert its will independently in any meaningful way - arguably they would take the South given the elbow room. Throughout the globe and time you can point to plenty of autocratic nations with expansive foreign policy - not just meddling in other nations with kinetic actions but attempting to subsume entire territories into their own empire/nation. That this happens regardless of governing system seems to demonstrate that there is no strong deterministic bond there. I’m not saying there’s no indirect link - I tend to think that democracies when done right (separation of powers, rule of law, free and fair elections) make a country less brittle in the face of organic seasonal challenges - think agricultural society vs hunter gatherers. Being less brittle to the daily challenges may give them the adaptability to survive longer than the cresting and crashing empires. Maintaining continuity/momentum is beneficial to consolidating power, so there may be an indirect link. TBD. Democracies fall in on themselves too. Pure democracies in particular, implying pure democracy is probably not the ideal end state we should imagine ourselves working towards.
- oblio 5y ago
  This is not about absolutes. Comparatively democracies are more peaceful than autocracies. And autocracies for sure have committed far worse atrocities in total numbers. Let's not cherry pick Cuba when the Soviet Union was around, or Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, or Communist China, etc, etc.