3 ms·

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

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.
- margalabargala 5y ago
  Your original comment reads like an absolute: > autocracies are inherently unstable Making that claim, and holding up democracies in contrast to that, implies that democracies are inherently stable in a way that autocracies are not. I don't think that's a reasonable claim to make. > Comparatively democracies are more peaceful than autocracies. > And autocracies for sure have committed far worse atrocities in total numbers. Completely agree here. I would certainly agree that autocracies tend to commit worse atrocities, but that isn't necessarily directly connected with the stability of the regime.

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.

margalabargala 5y ago
Your original comment reads like an absolute: > autocracies are inherently unstable Making that claim, and holding up democracies in contrast to that, implies that democracies are inherently stable in a way that autocracies are not. I don't think that's a reasonable claim to make. > Comparatively democracies are more peaceful than autocracies. > And autocracies for sure have committed far worse atrocities in total numbers. Completely agree here. I would certainly agree that autocracies tend to commit worse atrocities, but that isn't necessarily directly connected with the stability of the regime.