4 ms·

I disagree, democracy is literally the power of the people. A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power, as opposed to a

I disagree, democracy is literally the power of the people. A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power, as opposed to a corrupt/inept elected official who will deny it.

dartos 2y ago
> A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power Wtf? No. A dictator maintains all the power. The people have no power. Just because the interests of the people are supported by the actions of a dictator does not mean the people have any power. Because they don’t… Now you’re using the term “power” incorrectly. The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically. That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power.
- ossobuco 2y ago
  > The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically. A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power. > That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power. We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.
  - dartos 2y ago
    > A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power. This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract. > We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end. Yes and no. A lot of revolutions against dictators have other nations as sponsors. Also, having the physical power to revolt is not the same as having political power. Often post revolution, those with previous political power (who were not the dictator) maintain some, all, or even gain power after a revolution. You’ll never see Joe Schmoe office worker gaining political power through revolution unless they amass support (a.k.a. Political power) beforehand.
    - ossobuco 2y ago
      > This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about. I'm glad we agree on this, but I'll add that all so-called democracies suffer from the same problem. > I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract. Yes, talking in the abstract is all we can do, because honestly, I can't find any true examples of democracy at the moment.
      - brianmcc 2y ago
        As is so often the case in these sorts of "countries that function quite well", the Scandinavians aren't doing too badly: https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking USA is #36, a "deficient democracy". Not a surprise and sadly I can see it only dropping further in the near future. The scale, interestingly, goes: - Working Democracy - Deficient Democracy - Hybrid Regime - Moderate Autocracy - Hard Autocracy Further details on methodology -> https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix
        ossobuco 2y ago
        https://x.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1891776006236618793 https://x.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1891776006236618793 Germany is fifth. Tells me all I need to know about this ranking.
      - dartos 2y ago
        Pure democracy is not very good. It's just governance by mob rule (which is bad for the same reason populism is bad) Which is why republics have been succesful. Ideally me, as an idividual, should be able to trust a local leader enough to have them represent me in government. That way I am free to live my life and trust the local leader to handle politics in my best interests. It rarely ends up that clean, but it happens sometimes.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    > We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Revolution is the act of changing governments, it is not itself a feature of a particular system of government.
marcusverus 2y ago
> I disagree Imagine disagreeing with the dictionary.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Do you believe dictionaries are descriptive or prescriptive?
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    I believe in ignoring stupid questions.

dartos 2y ago

> A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power Wtf? No. A dictator maintains all the power. The people have no power. Just because the interests of the people are supported by the actions of a dictator does not mean the people have any power. Because they don’t… Now you’re using the term “power” incorrectly. The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically. That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power.

ossobuco 2y ago
> The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically. A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power. > That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power. We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.
- dartos 2y ago
  > A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power. This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract. > We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end. Yes and no. A lot of revolutions against dictators have other nations as sponsors. Also, having the physical power to revolt is not the same as having political power. Often post revolution, those with previous political power (who were not the dictator) maintain some, all, or even gain power after a revolution. You’ll never see Joe Schmoe office worker gaining political power through revolution unless they amass support (a.k.a. Political power) beforehand.
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    > This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about. I'm glad we agree on this, but I'll add that all so-called democracies suffer from the same problem. > I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract. Yes, talking in the abstract is all we can do, because honestly, I can't find any true examples of democracy at the moment.
    - brianmcc 2y ago
      As is so often the case in these sorts of "countries that function quite well", the Scandinavians aren't doing too badly: https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking USA is #36, a "deficient democracy". Not a surprise and sadly I can see it only dropping further in the near future. The scale, interestingly, goes: - Working Democracy - Deficient Democracy - Hybrid Regime - Moderate Autocracy - Hard Autocracy Further details on methodology -> https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix
      - ossobuco 2y ago
        https://x.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1891776006236618793 https://x.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1891776006236618793 Germany is fifth. Tells me all I need to know about this ranking.
    - dartos 2y ago
      Pure democracy is not very good. It's just governance by mob rule (which is bad for the same reason populism is bad) Which is why republics have been succesful. Ideally me, as an idividual, should be able to trust a local leader enough to have them represent me in government. That way I am free to live my life and trust the local leader to handle politics in my best interests. It rarely ends up that clean, but it happens sometimes.
- itishappy 2y ago
  > We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Revolution is the act of changing governments, it is not itself a feature of a particular system of government.

marcusverus 2y ago

> I disagree Imagine disagreeing with the dictionary.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
Do you believe dictionaries are descriptive or prescriptive?
- marcusverus 2y ago
  I believe in ignoring stupid questions.