Spreading Democracy?!

[Saktoth]

The smaller a democratic model is the more smooth and efficient it's actions are.

I couldnt disagree with this more. In my experiance with running online communities, democracy works better for the larger ones (1000+ people) and worse for the smaller ones. One of the major reasons for this is that a democracy takes a massive amount of bureaucracy.

You need people who are dedicated full time merely to arguing the issues at hand and gathering a consensus, you need people whose entire occupation in the organisation is the business of politics, of raising the issues, formulating and discussing the possible courses of action, and then making sure that a consensus is reached. Even then, there are people who are unhappy. A democracy is the tyranny of the majority- a minority is easily oppressed if it is the will of the majority.

It also takes an awful amount of time to reach these decision. A lot of the time many of the most important issues are never really totally decided on, as nobody can come to an agreement as to the course of action (as it is all so close to everyones hearts). You just cant run this sort of organisation with a small number of people, otherwise you will spend all your time arguing.

That is, unless, as you say, they merely elect one leader from among them, who then goes on to make all their decisions- but this is just electing yourself a dictator, and dictators dont come to power without the consent of the people anyway. Its very easy in a small group for a dictator to know everyone and make descisions while keeping each of their interests in mind.

To have any kind of democracy, no matter the scale, you have to cut down the options- thats why most countries have a two party system (Two choices mean one of them has to get over 50%) and thats why we use a representative democracy (You elect someone every few YEARS, but they are the one who actually makes all the decisions in your name). A full, complete, pure democracy, with everyone making every decision all the time, would be impossible.

With 'globalization', the increase in communications technology, it is actually easier to stay well informed and make well informed decisions. Of course, people dont want to stay well informed and make well informed decisions. They want a strong man who will make their decisions for them, an alpha, a silverback, to lead the pack. They would rather bread and circus's than a well run government. The failure is human nature, and its the same failure we've always had.

[AF]

Globalization works alright because then your global democracy deals with global problems. Its when the problem being dealt with are too localized that it becomes an issue.

And small groups tend to fail utterly. In a group of 20 people internal politics, friendship based preferences, and so on get in the way. Someone's much more inclined to elect a friendly incompetent leader in order to oust someone they don't like even if they're 100x better at the job.

The problem with failed democracies such as Palestine is they're not voting based on who would be best to run Palestine. They're voting on who got killed the week before, and who they've got old feuds with which is not good.

And I wholly disagree with digitalisation being an issue. That is you mean digital as in technology?

[Sleksa]

Sleksa, if you don't like democratic government, what do you prefer?

i already answered this once,

i prefer the finnish system of mixed democracy and socialism, instead of pure democracy or pure socialism, which both lack things from the other.

[rattle]

Nobody likes dictatorships... :'(

[Felix the Cat]

Sleksa, if you don't like democratic government, what do you prefer?

i already answered this once,

i prefer the finnish system of mixed democracy and socialism, instead of pure democracy or pure socialism, which both lack things from the other.

Socialism is an economic system, not a political one.

Try again.

[nemppu]

i already answered this once,

i prefer the finnish system of mixed democracy and socialism, instead of pure democracy or pure socialism, which both lack things from the other.

Socialism is an economic system, not a political one.

Try again.

he mean social system were it is free 4 u to go to hospital 4 health care even if u r bum living in bridge)

[nemppu]

in socialism everyone is take very good care of,, have good health care, school etc etc

[Sleksa]

i already answered this once,

i prefer the finnish system of mixed democracy and socialism, instead of pure democracy or pure socialism, which both lack things from the other.

Socialism is an economic system, not a political one.

Try again.

he mean social system were it is free 4 u to go to hospital 4 health care even if u r bum living in bridge)

[tombom]

scandanvia FTW))))

[Snipawolf]

scandanvia FTW))))

O__o

Scandinavia?

[tombom]

Yeah. I have a crush on Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Iceland/Finland

[Sleksa]

im sorry but i have to go back on this one;

Socialism is an economic system, not a political one.

Try again.

YOU ARE WRONG.




Socialism was, from the beginning a political system, driving basically the present western ethical views of everyone being equal, eradication of class-system, rights for working class, labour parties etc... Basically Karl Marx wrote the very democractic views of today in his manifesto, and the values you relate to democracy, are taken from socialism.



The finnish system has the following parties in the parliament;

* Centre Party of Finland (Suomen Keskusta, KESK)
* Christian Democrats in Finland (Suomen Kristillisdemokraatit, KD):
* Green League (Vihreä liitto, VIHR):
* Left Alliance (Vasemmistoliitto, VAS)
* National Coalition Party (Kansallinen Kokoomus, KOK)
* Social Democratic Party of Finland (Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue, SDP)
* Swedish People's Party (Svenska folkpartiet i Finland, SFP)
* True Finns (Perussuomalaiset, PS)

AS YOU CAN ALSO SEE, THE LIST HAS A "SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF FINLAND" i wonder what a economical system is doing in a political party list?


please try again?

now going back on topic;

I am not bashing Democracy in general at this topic, it has its uses too as i've already explained. The thing mostly in the article that hits me is the obvious statement that democracy will be automatically spawned when a country starts doing well, and can only do well when its adopting democracy


i want to be told about the choices available, not being told that this system is the best and then having that stuffed down my throat.

[rattle]

Yeah. I have a crush on Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Iceland/Finland :oops:

They have fast internets. That is the only reason to live there.

[Felix the Cat]

I stand by my statement that socialism is an economic system, not a political one. There are political parties that work within a political system to advocate economic and other issues - this is normal; it's the purpose of politics.

We have a Vegetarian Party here in the US, but I haven't heard anyone argue that vegetarianism is a political system. It's an ethical system and crosses slightly into economics.

Remember, we're talking about structure here, not policy. The democracy or democratic republic model can be expanded to many policy systems. You can have a democratic government for any social-economic system from anarcho-syndicalism to Communism.

If socialism is truly a political system that is different from democracy, you would be able to demonstrate to me that the way in which policy decisions are made in a "socialist" country is different from the way in which policy decisions are made in a "democratic" country.

The way in which the policy decisions are made is the important part; it's the definition of a political system. The policy decisions themselves don't matter.

[Saktoth]

Nobody likes dictatorships... :'(

If you didnt get the subtle undertones of my post, i implied that a dictatorship is much more efficient and less dysfunctional than democracy. It requires less red tape and is more capable of taking nuance and grey areas into account, whereas democracy works entirely by majority decision and lowest-common-denominator popularity contests.

The problem with failed democracies such as Palestine is they're not voting based on who would be best to run Palestine. They're voting on who got killed the week before, and who they've got old feuds with which is not good.

Hamas actually has incredibly strong grass-roots welfare initiatives.

Its popularity stems in part from its welfare and social services to Palestinians in the occupied territories, including school and hospital construction. The group devotes much of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programs, and funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup -------, and sports leagues. According to the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz "approximately 90 percent of the organization's work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities".

Either way, what do you think the rest of the world votes on? Do you really think they vote based on who is best to lead their country, or is it irrational bias based on grudges, fear and petty self-interest?

[rattle]

I haven't fully read any post yet, I'm allergic to text-walls...
Well I'm quite happy to live in a democracy with a strong welfare system.

[TheBigPK]

So I read most of the posts and you cant ignore the fact that economic structure plays a huge role in political systems... socialism is political as much as it is economic they tend to go hand in hand as much as you might want to ignore the reality of such an idea. The article is not trying to prove that democracy is the best idea, its showing when it works and why while at the same time pointing out it works more often than other systems of social organization.

The author's best point as far as I seen was how you cant start a democracy in a country where the wealth is static and localized, ie mineral deposits, oil, farms, etc. Once you have a large amount of wealth, who in their right mind would want to give it up because everyone else will be better off? Once education is higher and more mobile forms of industrialized capital are developed, democracy finds a much more favorable starting point because the rich can just move assets out of state after a democratic transition whereas those controlling geographically limited capital cannot and have a reason to care when their mountains of wealth are threatened.

That established, my own response to that part of the article is probably an obvious one... maybe democracy should be happening in the West as it is, and it shouldn't (essentially cant, as it seems to me) be instituted globally. If you need to have mobile forms of wealth that you can get out of a democratic area and keep to yourself somewhere else, there would always have to be that 'somewhere else' to go to. The proletariat has to be somewhere for the bourgeoisie to work correctly; if not in the same country it has to be somewhere else. The rich West will end up exploiting the non West as the media continues to ignore much of the hardship it's people experience and create fetish obsessions in a fake view of poor countries by showing us their music, food, etc and making it trendy to enjoy without understanding the non West is not a good place to be in the least. In such a way, no one will really care and even if they do few Western citizens will have the means to make any real difference in the other half of the world we are more and more separated from despite globalism.

One problem with democracy (err capitalism) as it stands, at least in America where pretty much everything is privatized and public institutions are slow and old, is that as the gap between even the middle class and the upper echelon of the rich is growing so fast that no one can expect the lower classes to sit around and enjoy their consumerism fetish forever. Well, I hope we cant... such is the ultimate flaw of every social system ever. The rich will always want to be richer until the middle class realizes they aren't sharing and creates some new system of social organization, taking the place of the old rich until they become what they envied so much and the cycle continues.

I cant think of the last time I've heard a positive generalized outlook on the future sooo I'm hoping democracy is ending its time in the spotlight sometime soon . Just cant think of what should take its place for the life of me... realistically communism and socialism don't quite work out considering the established norms and such.

I read too much Marx, so I forgot to consider empirical evidence, and that was all pretty random... erm tell me if I'm an idiot .

[Felix the Cat]

You're an idiot.

Move to North Korea if you want to live in the glorious proletarian workers' paradise kthx.

[Decimator]

Which is richer, Walmart or any given Tuxedo chain? Ford or Rolls Royce? Then ask yourself why they are richer. You don't get rich by only selling to the rich, you get rich by selling to the majority of the population. As for the wage gap here in the US, how many people had cars here 50 years ago? How many "impoverished" people here have TVs? Complaining about the wage gap here implies that the top end matters-it doesn't, only the bottom end matters, and here's why: When someone becomes wealthy, they either put said money back into their company and make it grow, providing more jobs, or they invest it in another company, which causes that company to grow and provide more jobs. A wealthy person is the first to buy a new invention, providing the lure for manufacturers to improve and cheapen that product. Oh, and by the way, the top 1% of income earners in the US pay 36% of the taxes.

Wage gap-my rear end.

[SwiftSpear]

Which is richer, Walmart or any given Tuxedo chain? Ford or Rolls Royce? Then ask yourself why they are richer. You don't get rich by only selling to the rich, you get rich by selling to the majority of the population. As for the wage gap here in the US, how many people had cars here 50 years ago? How many "impoverished" people here have TVs? Complaining about the wage gap here implies that the top end matters-it doesn't, only the bottom end matters, and here's why: When someone becomes wealthy, they either put said money back into their company and make it grow, providing more jobs, or they invest it in another company, which causes that company to grow and provide more jobs. A wealthy person is the first to buy a new invention, providing the lure for manufacturers to improve and cheapen that product. Oh, and by the way, the top 1% of income earners in the US pay 36% of the taxes.

Wage gap-my rear end.

Don't the top 1% also control like 60% of the total financial sum though?

Per dollar earned I doubt they pay as much tax as the bottom 50%...