Any books that redeem the idea of democracy?

>Monarchies have been the weapon of the people against the oligarchs throughout history.

I disagree with this. Feudalist obligations depended heavily on oligarchs (under other names) to empower a relatively weak monarch, and had little in the way of rights of the commons. Absolute monarchy was short lived, and empowered oligarchs as bureaucrats because the sovereign couldn't realistically handle the tasks assigned to one man without heavy delegation.

Constitutional monarchies are solid, but they themselves are generally a result of synthesis with democratic traits.

I agree that Communism sucks. It's one of those special types of idiocy that requires a certain level of intelligence to fall for it. Fascism is worse, as it's so militaristic and hostile that it lives a very short life before being overwhelmed by internal and external enemies of its own creation. Anarchy and technocracy come in last place as absolute shit-tier unfeasible "ideologies".

>our current system uses this knowledge to paint itself in the image it wants to have.
>Communism is utopian garbage and fails everywhere.

Hierarchy to some degree is important to stop disputes turning into violent bloodshed. I don't support autocratic government, but the presence of a designated authority can quickly settle matters with the necessary evil of a monopoly on force. Anarchy isn't even politicized argument like liberal democracies embody, just politicized riots.

It certainly would happen next to Turkey and numerous other countries as well, but Russia is the public enemy #1 in every western country at the moment, and libtards can see why it is a bad idea to be a part of Russia, or "the other". It is a bypass through brainwashing, in other words.

Communism has failed. Heck, the nazis innovated so much we still copy them. USSR didn't innovate, except in espionage and social manipulation.

Rogues - Derrida

>categorization is exclusive
>all thinking is a form of oppression
Take that kike out of here.

>USSR didn't innovate
Space travel?
Single party bureaucracies?
Planned economies?
Avant-garde movies?
Mass produced assault rifles?
Stem cell research?

Yeah, bro. The USSR never innovated at anything.

all of that is irrelevant jew shit, get zyklon b'd on pseudo-israelite

Most communist countries are still communist.

I thought lefty normies would like Putin, considering he's an ex-KGB agent

Normies don't like the USSR very much.

Leftist normies are usually Trotskyite or anti- Stalinist in some way, I think.

Lefty normies love EU, hate Putin because "he hates fags". Eurovision is the window to normies. It's not a beautiful thing.

But don't the further left and right parties in many EU member states want closer relations with Putin instead of the US?

Would monopoly on force still be evil if it were necessarily optimal? We're not as far from actually building a machinic Leviathan than we were back at the days of Hobbes, and the possibility of a non-human absolute agent (ironically, at the all time high of atheism) is more concrete than ever, even if still quite far.

Republic?

Democracy is not an idea.

Nations that rank highest in the Democracy Index are coincidentally some of the best places to live in.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Yall are a bunch of edgy fools.

This type of juvenile """""argument""""" is why no one takes leftist monkeys seriously.

Why do you need so many quotes? Are not two quotes enough?

Thats not the fundamental nature of a monarchy or dictatorship. You are simply working from an incredibly ignorant and limited historical perspective. The class of society that is the most natural base of support for a dictator is the common people.
>Greek tyrants
>Roman emperors
>Napoleon
>Hitler
>Stalin
>Mussolini
>Castro

the USSR innovated all over Berlin which is something I guess

Protip: if you think any "western liberal democracy" in the 21st century is actually a "democracy" then you should have STARTED WITH THE MOTHERFUCKING GREEKS YOU GODDAMN PSEUD PLEB RETARDS

Constitution of the United States, the Federalist Papers, political commentary of founding fathers.

U.S. when it was formed was like a updated version of democracy with much needed patches and fixes.

but now it has bugged.

I moved away from Finland because it was such a shit place.

The only evidence you need that Democracy is a terrible idea is a conversation with the average man.

If you're looking for something more explicit, my advice is to read history instead of philosophy, philosophers tend to produce very good excuses for bad ideas.

Here's a basic one, just read Roman history. That's all you need. Read Roman and Greek history and observe the parallels between their periods of Republican or Democratic government and what's happening to us today. The similarities are actually stunning. I'd go so far as to say that Democracy isn't actually a form of government, it's a transitionary period between literally anything else and fascism. In every society we see this trend--the moment you give the people franchise, it is just a matter of time before they realize that this means they can actually just vote for someone who kills people they don't like and gives them their stuff. It's just a matter of time before you go from democracy to Napoleon, or Hitler, or Caesar, or Mussolini, or Peron, or Lincoln. It's just a matter of time. Giving "the people" a say in government is a terrible idea, because as soon as danger presents itself, "the people" will want a strongman to protect them.

Democracy is not a system that creates or upholds freedom. The only thing a Democracy can possibly do is allow people to vote on what they should steal, from whom, and what they should do with their plunder. Democracy is in fact the enemy of human rights and human freedoms. A very rigid constitutional monarchy would be better because at least then populists cannot run on a platform of naked expropriation.

>If you're looking for something more explicit, my advice is to read history instead of philosophy, philosophers tend to produce very good excuses for bad ideas.
Nailed it.

>people running the country is bad because they'll steal things, instead a tiny section of people who are completely divorced from the plight of the people, will inevitably be greedy as most monarchs come to be and can annul the constitution or amend it such that its unrecognisable - these people are the ones who should lead and make decisions

I consider it more plausible that monarchs could be held to a constitution than that a voting public could be convinced not to destroy Democracy.

Turkish people destroyed their democracy when they had a referendum. Then again they're turks.

Most democracies go in the bin when shit hits the fan.
Can't deal with crises.

>I consider it more plausible that a voting public, who are by my own account selfish and shortsighted, are less likely to be easily distracted by superficial populist sophistry from monarchs so the monarchs get absolute control than for that voting public to realise the loss of democracy means the loss of their power and to be convinced of this by arguments such that less than a majority is inclined to fascism

Where did you move to? I heard the True Finns sort of split recently.

Read this.