4 ms·

If anything, the war is showing the weaknesses of democracies. Authoritarian governments can push their agenda without distraction, while most politicians in de

by jeswin 5y ago

If anything, the war is showing the weaknesses of democracies. Authoritarian governments can push their agenda without distraction, while most politicians in democracies are fighting a popularity contest. In the race to get elected, politicians will embrace short term economic wins, and avoid hardship at all costs. It took a brutal war for Europe to realize that they have limited ability to defend themselves, and that they've made themselves dependent on Russian energy. A war with Xi's China will be a wholly different matter. In peace time, democracies shifted a large part of their manufacturing capacity into a dictatorship. And funneled trillions into their economy; a part of which is being spent on creating a powerful military. Democracies will continue to do this, since in the short term doing business with dictatorships may be good for their local economy. And It'll help with reducing emissions, because the factories are out of sight. Doing business with dictatorships will improve the prospects of getting re-elected, and getting re-elected is a politician's job.

southerntofu 5y ago
> Authoritarian governments can push their agenda without distraction, while most politicians in democracies are fighting a popularity contest. Correct. But i personally would argue if we had actual democracies in the global north, such dictatorships could not last. If we had power to the people, and everyone was housed, fed and healthcared (as we claim in our neocolonial propaganda), the West would appear like a suitable model for many people around the planet and everyone would rise for freedom. The truth is many people living under those dictatorships despise the USA and France (and others) for what they truly are: neocolonial oligarchies abusing people and destroying the environment. There is no freedom or equality here, we just have a different brand of authoritarianism than they do.
scotty79 5y ago
> Authoritarian governments can push their agenda without distraction, while most politicians in democracies are fighting a popularity contest. But that is exactly the strength of the democracies. Inability to push with horrible ideas is many times more valuable than ability to push with good ones. 'Do nothing' is in most cases still a decent strategy even though it's rarely optimal it is still better than vast number of active strategies.
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  > "Inability to push with horrible ideas is many times more valuable than ability to push with good ones." The electorate's disinterest in addressing climate change could be the thing that breaks that rule. Seems far too likely that the word megadeath won't just be the name of a band anymore within our lifetimes.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Unfortunately yes. Although dictatorships don't seem to be especially environmentally friendly either.
imtringued 5y ago
That is true but the population as a whole wants things this way. If you ask them whether they would accept higher gas prices or more expensive meat they would flat out tell you no. All those liberals aren't dreaming of upright and honest politicians with a conscience that are forcing their population into doing the right thing. You can argue that capitalism makes a lot of people desperate and unwilling to make small compromises I disagree because of the very same reasons. Capitalism is a choice that people actively make. Everyone is against allowing the market to actually express negative interest rates. Everyone is against fair land value taxes. Just those two things alone would get us so much closer to the end of capitalism but there is a complete lack of interest because everyone thinks that they will become the abuser at some point. Even Marx admits that the middle class, which has the vast majority of its needs met, would rather have the chance at becoming part of the "owning" class than give up that chance and let the lower classes have a better life even if the existence of an upper class that does not derive its wealth from work is actually against the interests of the middle class.

by jeswin 5y ago

southerntofu 5y ago

> Authoritarian governments can push their agenda without distraction, while most politicians in democracies are fighting a popularity contest. Correct. But i personally would argue if we had actual democracies in the global north, such dictatorships could not last. If we had power to the people, and everyone was housed, fed and healthcared (as we claim in our neocolonial propaganda), the West would appear like a suitable model for many people around the planet and everyone would rise for freedom. The truth is many people living under those dictatorships despise the USA and France (and others) for what they truly are: neocolonial oligarchies abusing people and destroying the environment. There is no freedom or equality here, we just have a different brand of authoritarianism than they do.

scotty79 5y ago

> Authoritarian governments can push their agenda without distraction, while most politicians in democracies are fighting a popularity contest. But that is exactly the strength of the democracies. Inability to push with horrible ideas is many times more valuable than ability to push with good ones. 'Do nothing' is in most cases still a decent strategy even though it's rarely optimal it is still better than vast number of active strategies.

ThrowawayR2 5y ago
> "Inability to push with horrible ideas is many times more valuable than ability to push with good ones." The electorate's disinterest in addressing climate change could be the thing that breaks that rule. Seems far too likely that the word megadeath won't just be the name of a band anymore within our lifetimes.
- scotty79 5y ago
  Unfortunately yes. Although dictatorships don't seem to be especially environmentally friendly either.

imtringued 5y ago

That is true but the population as a whole wants things this way. If you ask them whether they would accept higher gas prices or more expensive meat they would flat out tell you no. All those liberals aren't dreaming of upright and honest politicians with a conscience that are forcing their population into doing the right thing. You can argue that capitalism makes a lot of people desperate and unwilling to make small compromises I disagree because of the very same reasons. Capitalism is a choice that people actively make. Everyone is against allowing the market to actually express negative interest rates. Everyone is against fair land value taxes. Just those two things alone would get us so much closer to the end of capitalism but there is a complete lack of interest because everyone thinks that they will become the abuser at some point. Even Marx admits that the middle class, which has the vast majority of its needs met, would rather have the chance at becoming part of the "owning" class than give up that chance and let the lower classes have a better life even if the existence of an upper class that does not derive its wealth from work is actually against the interests of the middle class.