An autocratic country could easily spread propaganda in the democratic country, because of “free speech” rules that most democratic countries have, but a democratic country cannot easily spread its propaganda in the autocratic country.
An autocratic country can buy an election in the democratic country, but the democratic country cannot easily coup an autocratic country.
Are all democracies are doomed to fail?
Is the future of humanity, autocracy? For the rest of humanity’s existence?
Quite the opposite. Due to systemic corruption autocracies are economically highly inefficient with low productivity across the board with all kinds of long term effects this brings. And while it might look bad for democracies at the moment, I think many of the current crop of autocracies will be short lived. In the end, economy is where it’s at, and autocracies are horrible at it.
It’s one of those things where evil people actually don’t win - it just looks like it on the short term!
“I destroyed the country but I got rich”
Task failed successfully.
Rich, or bayoneted up the ass, strung up in the square by a mob, executed by the military, etc.
😂
I mean, if you’re rich and can leave for somewhere else, that still works for you. Assad being the latest example.
Until he gets shown out a window by his hosts for whatever reason.
Not many want to fight for the autocracy either. Bunch of slack-ass soldiers. Fight for freedom? You’ll get people volunteering.
No they’re not.
Look around history over the global and democracies consistently are he most powerful because of the transparency that roots out corruption and the freedoms that allow scientific progress and capitalism that allows for strong economy.
Now before lemmies start down voting: yes, capitalism has its issues and it needs to be tempered by strong laws or you get whatever the hell the US is, but in principle allowing free trade is a huge boon to a country and it’s citizens
Free trade with a reasonable safety net for those at the bottom. The safety net also ends up acting as a minimum standard, why pay your entire wage to a landlord for a slum when the state will provide you with better accommodation for less?
Removed by mod
Autocracies are short-lived power grabs by certain people or groups of people. They pillage what they can, oppress who they want, and then run or fall when the walls start closing in.
Many have come and gone during our history on this planet. Many more will rise and fall.
See Plato’s five regimes.
but the democratic country cannot easily coup an autocratic COuntry.
CIA: am I a joke to you? Look at my portfolio
I think your questions are more complicated than you realize.
Are Autocracies more powerful than Democracies?
If you separate the form of government from the governing, yes autocracy is a superior form of government. A dictator can instantly marshal resources to face any threat, or completely shift an entire nation, if a direction becomes clearly wrong. The reason they don’t work, is because the leader is always human. Humans make shit leaders, almost always. So distribution of power across a large number of people mitigates the risks of putting it all in one.
Are all democracies are doomed to fail?
Yes. Obviously. Everything eventually fails. The Sun will fail and take the earth with it.
Is the future of humanity, autocracy? For the rest of humanity’s existence?
No. Obviously. Everything eventually fails. The Sun will fail and take the earth with it. I would hope humanity (or whatever species humanity evolves to) lives past that.
Not stronger. Just faster.
The US is a democracy (for now), and has backed multiple coups in other countries. Nicaragua is probably the classic example, but there are many, many more. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
The US has never been a democracy, we’ve never been a particularly equitable representative republic either and our government was designed this way on purpose
Guess it depends on how you define the term. The US certainly fits the minimalist representative definition. I don’t think equity is inherently part of the definition… Obviously I think it should be, but that’s more of a value overlaid on the organisational system, I think…
Literally all communication depends on how you define the terms you use, that’s the whole point of having fixed definitions for words, and the US absolutely does not fit any reasonable definition of a democracy
- Fixed definitions for words do not exist. Language is constantly evolving.
- The US IS a representative democracy, and whether that’s actually functionally providing government by the people doesn’t really prevent this use of the term by a vast majority of people, whether you or I agree with it or not.
- In the context of the question, I think the US seems to fit more into the OP’s democracy category. I agree I’m using the term loosely, but does your terminology disagreement actually add anything?
-
Incorrect, fixed definitions don’t stay fixed forever, that doesn’t mean they aren’t fixed right now. Words mean things, if a word changes meaning in a generation or two or five it’ll mean fuck all for you right here and now.
-
The US is not a democracy at all and never was. It was arguably at various points in time a representative republic, not a particularly good one but that’s not part of the definition.
-
I don’t care what you think, I know you’re using the term loosely that’s my point, fucking duh
You still haven’t clarified what you mean by it…
Learn to read dipshit
-
Sure it does
Wrong
Are you 12?
What is a ‘reasonable definition’ of democracy according to you?
A 1 to 1 vote to citizen ratio that is the actual determining factor in decision making, the electoral college alone completely destroys any argument for the US being a democracy just by existing, and we’ve had that bullshit running since day one
“countries” are invisible lines draw on a map by someone. Propaganda and lies are a tool used by people to persuade others, free speech and freedom are a natural condition upon which humanity can evolve and prosper.
