Is western democracy on the way out?

that only works because Iranians are dumb enough to believe none of this matters because heaven is real

Yep. Pretty much.
Sad, but true.
In theory - it is possible to construct something, that we may thing, can work better than democracy, but putting it in real-life : nope, won't work.

Abiding the logic of chaos : group of non-perfect individuals is not destined to forge perfect set of rules / government.

From watching the nature: bee hives / ant colonies -> work only when there is zero individuality... once a queen -> forever a queen.

Maybe people may find common goal, big enough to make them willingly strip of their individuality, but so far the only common goal was hatred --> war. What just won't work as soon the hate/war ends.

>Why are countries like the US and UK becoming more authoritarian?

Authoritarians get their power from fear. Change causes fear. As technological and social change accelerates and exposes simpleminded plebs to all sorts of things they never thought about before, they get scared and turn to authoritarians who promise to make things like an imaginary past.

>How much worse will it get before something gives?

Impossible to say exactly, but I do think a correction is coming.

I don't know if democracy is entirely on it's way out, but universal participation in it certainly needs to be restricted. Return the vote to heads of families, and use a monarchy as a veto of last resort

I find it highly unlikely that it would be "on the way out" by itself.

If it ever would happen it would be because of dangerous ideologues saying that it's "on the way out" and trying their best to destroy it.

Yes, it's over.

I give it 10-20 years before the food shortage and soil depletion really starts to hit and then we'll quickly turn atavistic.

>Impossible to say exactly, but I do think a correction is coming.

I pray to KEK, for you being right...
but I am afraid there is not a slightest chance for a change (unless usurped by power... or brainwash - brainwash is strong with normies)
But both those scenarios would probably lead to worse, more than to better settings.

I would prefer AI totalitarianism, despite the risks of hacking and the general hate / refusal of anything AI by masses.
Probably as we are not meant to forge perfect government, we also cannot create perfect AI, right?

As are the majority of americans.

not enough want a theocracy

""""NG""""Os kek

I hate /pol/ just wanted an educated answer.

Pretty hard to give an accurate prediction of the future. Especially when you're talking about something this complicated. It would be hard for an expert to give you a compelling answer, never mind asking these layabouts.

In America at least, it seems like American values themselves are contradictory. Capitalism tends towards wealth and power consolidation, modern democracy is a kinda communist type distribution of power amoungst all the citizenry, and elected congressmen are a sort of aristocracy who in theory derives its authority from the masses, but derive wealth and influence from the capitalists. And the president is the more populist figure who at times can appear as the advocate of the masses against the tradition and establishment of the rest of the government, and at other times can seem as the cause of all evil as everything is blamed on the president, like a king.

Modern American government can be described as a bunch of different political theories and government models all blended together in an attempt to keep all the different aspects of each other at bay. Its an ill-defined bundle of compromises.

For instance, prosperity is linked with freedom for the vast majority, but only in regards to themselves and not other communities in America. You got people going 'we don't want government interference or taxes or welfare' when they are doing good, and then all of a sudden they want government to help them when they are in trouble, which is a big reason Trump was elected.

I give us 10-20 years until some Caesar type politicans take power in most western countries.

Caesarism has already happened, it's just not a person but it's Americanism/Post-politics, Marshall Plan, UN, Pentagon, IMF and so on is Caesar, not a singular person.

Ah that's interesting. And part of why I asked the question. I have read multiple articles saying the US is already a type of plutocratic oligarchy. I can see the merit to their claim when private interests with billions of dollars are literally writing legislation in the US. Is it fear mongering to get clicks/views, or is it social engineering?

>America is the new Roman Empire

This meme needs to stop.

>continued

Therefore, its natural to look at the bundle of compromise and feel like its a sick system and thus a desire to 'bring back/move forward' to what it's supposed to be.

So if you are a populist you may value the capitalist system because that is what you were told to believe in, you want to enrich the power of the peoples vote and thus value the 'freedom' of the government to be controlled by the masses, and set taxes and other policies according to such. You don't want those elitists crushing the common man,.

If you are an established businessman or someone who depends on them you want the aristocracy to value the freedom of enterprise and capitalism and thus want to limit the role of government by lowering taxes, you don't want those dirt peasants taxing you to oblivion and turn your country into another communist/fascist hell hole run by retards who demand your money as their rights.

The more desperate people become, the more likely they are to fall into either those two categories.

>denying facts

Yes wealth is a form of power, and wealth influences the government.

The question is whether this is a problem to such a degree that it is justified destroying the entire societal structure.

Not America but Americanism/internationalism/neoliberalism, it's not a location or a person but an idea that is our Caesar.

It's not a fact it's an extremely lazy comparison. And when people make it they are so vague about it that it's completely pointless.

>the British Empire
>Napoleon
>Russia
>the Ottoman Turks
>Holy Roman Empire
>Byzantine Empire
>Mussolini's Italy
>Nazi Germany

All these states compared themselves or were compared by others to be like the Roman Empire. It means nothing.

I don't see why we would need to have a total socioeconomic meltdown to fix some of our issues.

Like what's the point of saying that? Like you could make the same argument about Marxism during the Cold War amongst Comintern countries. It doesn't mean anything.

Are you that American guy who thinks USA will turn into a monarchy?

Sure, but I thought that was implied by OP's wording. "On the way out" implies to me complete change.

Communism was already over at that point, it was merely a polymorphism. The fall of the USSR simply signifies the emergence of a new Russian culture and its shedding of the western.

Marxism was along with National socialism two desperate attempts at revival of Western culture (the peak of western culture being Luther ---> Kant ---> Hegel), it ultimately succumbed to the Caesar of the Neoliberal/American order.

Some ok info hear but hatred isn't the most powerful unifying force. It's fear and specifically fear of loss and death.

I mean the "neoliberal American order" hasn't even been around that long. And it doesn't seem like it's going to last too much longer. Seems presumptuous to compare it to idea of Caesar, which was going strong until the 20th century.

I don't have much to add, but I wanted to compliment your well thought out response.

Caesarism = The death of a culture.

It can be a slow labored death, or it can be a swift one, either way it signals the end. As we live in an accelerated age and our destruction of the natural world is unprecedented, I predict our (the western world's) era of Caesarism will be rather brief.

I see what you mean now. Well here's hoping to a technocratic post scarcity society before a complete collapse of the current system.

I think first you should define the 'peak' period of democracy in the west (please also define 'west' for the sake of clarity). Modern democracy is pretty indirect and is only active on election days.

modern military and economics are tailored to democracy so until that isn't the case the answer is no.

Isreal is the only country I see going down the authoritarianism path atm.

>modern economics
>tailored to democracy
Literally W H A T?

industrial merchant economy likes contracts (since it secures their assets) and constitutional governments are governments by contract (including the constitution itself), so when merchants took over the societies they bring about the government tailored to them (as opposed to agricultural, landowning societies which values aristocracy and clan/tribal systems more).

>Impossible to say exactly, but I do think a correction is coming.

Soon...

There's been a rise in "illiberal democracies" a term applied to states like Poland and Turkey where a populist executive, usually with a strong nationalist bent, consolidates power and curbs traditional checks & balances on power, sidelining or co-opting the judiciary & legislature and positions itself against the open 'liberal democracies', especially on issues like immigration & support of intergovernmental bodies like the EU or UN

The inevitable fall of the USA (along with what's left of Western Europe) and the rise of China/India/Africa over the next century is the incredibly obvious trend that people in the West choose to ignore.
The rising nations of the world no longer see liberal democracy as a prerequisite for development, or even as a desirable goal. China's success story is proof that you don't need liberalism to have economic growth driven by capitalism. By all measures, for an unbiased side onlooker, China's way of doing things appears to be the healthy "best of all worlds" middle-road approach.

Even ignoring all that, there is also the simple fact that the vast majority of Western nations (USA being at the forefront) have been moving away from liberal democracy too. In the latter half of the 20th century, and especially in the first couple of decades of the 21st, Western nations have been morphing into post-democratic oligarchies/corpocracies. Most important day-to-day decisions are made by unelected bureaucratic technocrats, while big broad-view choices are made by incompetent statemen whose only notable skill is fundraising. This is not a state that can be maintained for long, at least not without dropping the "democracy" label.

Of course they are. Militarization of the police force, increasing omnipresence of the surveillance state, growth of the military-industrial complex, erosion of basic liberties in the face of even mild lobby pressure... Not to speak of much broader trends, like the Imperial Presidency, general disassembly of governmental checks and balances, or the general explosion in the scale of our bureaucracies over the last 70-80 years.

Israel is actually more genuinely democractic than most western nations.

>Some ok info hear but hatred isn't the most powerful unifying force. It's fear and specifically fear of loss and death.

Technically I would easily agree.
Practically, hate can "move" a group (geographically / anti-morale-wise / motivation-wise / out-of-box-wise) much wider/further. While hate itself is not constructive, group driven by hate can be unbelievable constructive. (Neo-nazis excluded - those are dumb as tree trunks, and their hate is basically a supplement of success - they did not achieve as individuals)

Different story is when fear turns into hate.

But fear itself is paralyzing in it's nature and is prone to negotiation. Hate us stimulating and can bring whole group into an trans that allows them to actually overcome fear of death (for example).

Fear is applied to control masses either for manipulation, or to bring them into submission. While hate can drive masses to overcome their own morals and make them kill (as extreme example)

Of course I am well aware of "cornered rat" theory, when even the deepest coward may turn into vicious warrior. But when I think of some group-based or nation-wide examples, hate is much more occurring IMO.

jesus christ how underage can you get

Muh moderate middle road

This