I've been wondering Veeky Forums are there any hard scientific stats or statistics that prove democracy is the best form of government?
Whenever people seem to argue against dictatorships or one party states it seems their arguments are feelings based.
Most of the world's "democracies" all follow the same neolib playbook anyway. All parties end up doing the same exact shit. So no matter who you vote for it doesn't matter. Is that different to a one party state?
Politicians can amass a bigger mountain of wealth in that system. They might also avoid taking scientific advice on a gut feeling. Not giving people an outlet to their misgivings might be a bad idea.
Also a one party state can get more stuff done because it's not trying to win votes with short term flashy goals that impress stupid people.
China has "5 year plans" that it follows. You can't have a 5 year plan in democracies as in 5 years you might not be in power.
Not really.
All American foreign policy post WW2 has basically been Feels before Reels
>post ww2 feels before reels
Yeah because ww2 american intervention was purely logical.
Imagine being such a massive brainlet that you think modern western governments are democratic.
If you live in the West, you live under a moderate oligarchy. Stop trying to WE WUZ the glory of Ancient Athens.
Democracy leads to Brexit and Trump
News Flash: direct elections are just a way of filling select offices and transferring power. It has nothing to do with democracy and is actually an oligarchic practice.
considering your picture why don't we use the PRC as an example, look at Mao's reign. This was someone who ran a campaign where he encouraged intellectuals to speak out against policies they thought were wrong, then when lots of people started actually doing it he purged anyone who had criticized him.
en.wikipedia.org
Then after that no one was willing to speak up against the clearly insane methods of the great leap forward because they'd seen what happened to those that did. I don't know how much you know about the GLF (and I could go on at length about it if you want) but there were a number of policies that had absolutely no basis in agricultural science and bordered on magical thinking. Things like close planting, where plants of the same type were planted much closer together than normal because it was thought (incorrectly) that plants of the same species would not compete with eachother, or deep planting where trenches several feet deep were dug into fields and plantings done in that because it was thought if the topsoil was exhausted then soil further down must still have nutrients. In reality the topsoil is the only part that has any nutrients at all because its the only part exposed to decaying matter. All of this was causing agricultural production to drop, but no official wanted to report lower production and not meet their quota because obviously that would mean they weren't a good communist and would be purged. So instead they just lied and reported outrageously high production, and the government taxed them accordingly, there wasn't enough food left to feed the farmers and this sparked the worst famine in human history while most of the grain rotted in storehouses.
>every 4 years Americans get a choice between two out of touch globalists who agree on 90% of all issues
Democracy fucking sucks and people are starting to realize it
>hard scientific stats
>Cherry picking
You just proved OP's point user
At the Lushan conference of 1959 to discuss if the GLF was working Peng Duhai, a long time friend of Mao and CiC of the PLA during the Korean War told Mao plainly that the policies had failed and needed to be reversed. Mao was coming into Lushan with plans to scale back the GLF but seemingly out of spite that someone DARE to criticize him he purged Peng and EXPANDED the GLF. Millions of people died as a result of that.
This is what you can get in a dictatorship, is that really what you want?
I don't understand what you're trying to say, power corrupts. If a leader in a dictatorship does something you think is very harmful to the country what recourse do you have?
The days of Mao were a very long time ago user. in Modern China you can say anything you like. What you're not allowed to do is have a platform to say whatever you like.
Democracy may or may not suck, but modern western governments are not democratic.
All we're saying is that moderate oligarchy, and specifically the method whereby western oligarchies fill positions and exchange power, suck.
Western people calling their governments democratic is epic WE WUZZERY. So embarrassing.
>If you live in the West, moderate oligarchy
Literally the best from of government ever.
>in Modern China you can say anything you like
as long as its not about
-Tienanmen Square
-The Cultural Revolution
-Taiwan independence
-Hong Kong independence
-corruption of current or former party leaders
-demands for greater political freedom
-anything critical of Xi
Xi has lead a major crackdown on independent intellectual thought, its the worst its been at universities since Tienanmen.
And regardless of all that it has nothing to do with my arguments, which are in a dictatorship that can arbitrarily imprison you for speaking out against the regime no one will dare to criticize an obviously harmful policy and terrible things can happen.
>statistics that prove democracy
businessinsider.com
Look at the top ten best countries by standards of living. You may gues that all of them are western democracies.
t. pyongyang
isn't oligarchy what the west has now, how many millionaires are in the US congress? Nearly all of them.
You can say any of those things. I talk about all that stuff with friends in China. What you are not allowed is to have a platform to express those thoughts. You are not allowed to spunk your thoughts all over the internet. But in private conversation it's fine.
Is that a stat or a statistic?
Have you lived in an Autocratic state?
Are you not just relying on anecdotal evidence?
Nothing you have stated has answered OP's question you mong
direct democracy would be even shittier that (((western democracy)))
>some nigger rapper gets shot
>jews in the media make it a big muh feels story
>all guns suddenly banned
>some guys makes a convincing muh feels rant about how guns should be legal on facebook
>it goes viral
>suddenly RPGs and nukes are legal for consumers
The vast majority of people are fucking retarded
Good. The US is one of the best performing countries.
ok I'll give you a hard stat then
the great famine of 1959-1961 in China caused between 15-30 million deaths and was entirely man made because it was a dictatorship where no one dared criticize the party line
not in terms of education access to healthcare or life expectancy it isn't
you have to go back
On one state, not all autocracies in general.
Again, cherrypicking
Fuck off you socialist scum
t. communism will work this time trust me goy
So you don't like democracy. That's fine, own it, maybe your argument against democracy is really good.
However, this shit is brainlet tier:
Make up a new term, "direct democracy", and use it to refer to democracy.
Make up some more new terms, "western democracy" or "representantive democracy". Use these terms to refer to a type of moderate oligarchy.
Hurrr look the west is democratic.
>Make up a new term, "direct democracy", and use it to refer to democracy.
>Make up some more new terms, "western democracy" or "representantive democracy". Use these terms to refer to a type of moderate oligarchy.
en.wikipedia.org
t. brainlet who has never heard of basic political terminology
>direct democracy
>representative democracy
>new term
HURR
There are several boards on Veeky Forums, on which it is acceptable to use 'ad hominem' -arguments. This, however, is not one of them. From now on, you can: >A) Refute other posters points by means of civilized discussion
>B) Lurk silently and keep your opinions to yourself
>C) Move to some other board where such behavior is tolerated.
how about I just call you a faggot instead?
global rule 3 is enforced on this board, your posts are in direct violation
the mods on this board are not fast acting, but they do act, if you don't delete these posts you will be banned for it
Ah yes, I must be the brainlet. It's not like we teach everyone that democracy was born in Ancient Athens, and refer to such great authors as Aristotle who specifically say that direct elections are an oligarchic practice.
You see, we accept that democracy is an ancient political theory. That theory, and the people who lived at that time, dealt with direct elections and considered them an oligarchic practice. So we are left with two true brainlet hurr moments:
1. Direct elections are democratic - this totally contradicts the historic foundation and relevant texts.
2. The method of filling certain offices determines if something is democratic or not - this is a myopic and deceitful argument that allows all sorts of oligarchic practices and institutions in the back door (besides direct elections actually being oligarchic).
The bottom line is, modern, western citizenship has none of the authority and responsibility required of democratic citizenship. All of the major institutions are oligarchic, from the legislature to the court system. You have no say; you are closer to a registered metic, afforded certain protections and expected to make payments and be represented by someone superior to you.
>asks a question on a history forum
>responds by pointing to historical examples to give a contextual analysis
>HURR CHERRYPICKING
that's really not a counter argument, the great famine was the direct result of China's autocratic government clamping down on dissent, that in itself is a fine argument against autocracy as it shows how it can lead to arbitrary government.
I'm not sure you know where you are, Plebbit might be a better fit for you :^)
The supreme kick in the balls from the brainlet coalition is that western "democrats" go on to try and claim the glory and legitimacy due an actual democracy.
Absolute deception, absolute bait and switch, western government is a two faced lie and if you think that moderate oligarchy is democracy then you have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker.
I am not even a democrat, I just loath people who talk out both sides of their mouth, and it is frustrating to see so many brainlets who don't realise what's happening.
...
No it's not because it's a single example instead of a stat or all encompassing analysis of autocracies as a whole. I can make Autocracies look fucking amazing if I compare 21st century China to 21st century India but I don't because that's still cherrypicking you dingus
>The meaning of terms can't evolve over time
>words always mean exactly what they meant at the exact moment they were created
user, if you haven't already you should get checked for autism
...
so what is your argument then?
>I'm wrong but I can't admit it
FTFY
That the claim that democracies are inherently better than autocracies is a meme based on feels before reals instead of hard empirical statistical evidence and the discrepancies between autocratic and democratic governments is due to industrialization and development instead of their political system
So what recourse do you have in an autocracy if a corrupt, brutal, or murderous leader gets into power? In a democracy you can wait a few years and vote them out of office, or if they do something really bad they can be removed through the courts. But in an autocracy you have to have a revolution.
also btw you complain that no one is using hard empirical data to back up their claims (or feels before reals as you put it) but they're just following your example
Lets compare like for like.
India (democracy) vs China (one party state)
Which is better?
ok, what time period
>inb4 modern day because this is history and whatever the fuck you want just call it humanities
>So what recourse do you have in an autocracy if a corrupt, brutal, or murderous leader gets into power?
The rest of the party purge him.
Why not modern day?
>inb4 modern day because this is history and whatever the fuck you want just call it humanities
>I know im wrong so you can't use that argument
wew laddy
I don't need statistics to know that not being tortured by secret police goons is much better than being tortured by secret police goons.
>Being tortured by secret police never happens in a democracy
What did he mean by this?
Am I claiming that there is evidence to the contrary? No I'm claiming that there is no hard evidence to back up the claim that democracies are better than autocracies. I'm critiquing the lack of hard evidence for your position, I'm not arguing for vice versa. And you have a legitimate critique of autocratic systems but it's still not hard statistical evidence
Democracies serve only one good purpose: and that is so at least the majority of the populace has a voice. But a tyranny of a majority is very much a reality.
That's why a Republic, like that of Rome and the early United States is best. It provides an avenue for the plebian to voice his concerns and not become disgruntled, while the learned aristocrat runs things in government, and if it all runs as it would, he should arrive there on merit.
What needs to rule is virtue and Justice, and the government should best meet this, not to serve it's means of governance by virtue of itself.
>inb4 someone rips on Plato without substantiating any of it
Did he criticize him in public?
>tfw you are british and get thrown in jail for not being on a rightwing website
t-thanks democracy
25 year rule, read the sticky
>comes to a history forum to talk about modern day politics
wew laddy
then why wasn't stalin purged?
That as long as your a citizen and not a terrorist you don't have to worry about enhanced interrogation techniques, just being drone striked without being convicted in court
>the majority of the populace has a voice
>rome and early america
If by the majority you mean landowning males
Sure, it happens, but it seems to happen a lot less often in democracies/republics than in dictatorships.
>I am incorrect and butthurt so I make any argument that proves me wrong off limits
wewest of lads
>a history forum
I think you mean a humanities forum :^)
>unsubstantiated claim
>comes to a history forum to talk about modern day politics
This is a place to discuss history and philosophy and culture. Political theory falls into that category. Where else would you discuss political theory? /pol/? Don't make me laugh.
Read it again, the Roman Republic and United States were not Democracies, and I wrote so.
>So what recourse do you have in an autocracy if a corrupt, brutal, or murderous leader gets into power?
No man is an island.
There are more failed democracies than successful democracies. Really makes you think.
Words can change meaning, but the underlying facts don't shift depending on the weather. Modern western oligarchies teach their children that they are democracies, democracy comes from Ancient Greece, and the legitimacy and glory due to a democracy is rightfully claimed by modern western countries.
Because of those further claims to legitimacy, glory, and pedigree, it is clear that "democracy" is still very much that theory from the Classical world. Hence, everything I have said is valid, and western governments are merely moderate oligarchies that strongly push a certain type of propaganda to try and promote themselves and attack their enemies.
I'm sorry that you're upset over the current state of the board but Veeky Forums isn't going to change its posting criteria just because /pol/ is an unnavigable shithole
Democracy means whatever people think it means, you're definition is not what most people consider to be correct which is all that actually matters
lmao listen to yourself.
"My definition" is the one that is providing the foundation for all the claims to legitimacy, glory, and pedigree by modern oligarchs. Furthermore, to depart from the definition, or rather the foundational texts I'm putting forward and the oligarchy specifically adopts, will mire the discussion in a semantic maze that will destroy any intellectual conversation.
You can't just wake up one day and say "well most people think democracy strictly means direct elections to the legislature", and then go on to borrow all the claims and boasts that are grounded in the values of actual democracy.
>You can't just wake up one day and say "well most people think democracy strictly means direct elections to the legislature", and then go on to borrow all the claims and boasts that are grounded in the values of actual democracy.
except that literally what western democracies have done, as you've argued. So yes that can be done.
>Mao represents all authoritarians
There are numerous examples of successful authoritarians. There just happen to be many more failures.
I am in China and will write and say these things out loud right now.
>in Modern China you can say anything you like as long as its not about
-Tienanmen Square Massacre against protestors
-The Cultural Revolution was a failure.
-Taiwan independence is good.
-Hong Kong independence is good in the long-term for China.
-corruption of current or former party leaders. The Party is corrupt, like all political parties.
-demands for greater political freedom. I want more freedom of speech. The constitution says it is our right.
-anything critical of Xi. Xi has made mistakes in his tenure.
Xi has lead a major crackdown on independent intellectual thought, its the worst its been at universities since Tiananmen. Not true. No private media or private universities or private conversations were allowed during the 1990's. People could not legally own houses or change provinces.
You seriously want that claim to be substantiated? Would you dispute me if I said that the vast majority of the torture that took place in the 20th century took place in nations with authoritarian governments, like Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and so on?
>USA has the highest incarceration rates of any country
>freedom
>NSA monitors all citizens communications
>free society
>oh boy I sure would hate authoritarianism
(this comment has been approved for posting by the NSA)
True democracy isn't possible in mass society. See the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
Right, hence my point and the implication of what you quoted: it is both wrong and dishonest or confused. Glad we're on the same page that western governments are moderate oligarchies.
>Glad we're on the same page that western governments are moderate oligarchies.
They are democracies because they have usurped the meaning of the word democracy.
>no one has answered this
>I am in China
prove it
I never said the US is perfect. I will, say, however, that it tortures fewer people than Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR did, and it's a much better place to live than those places were.
sure, if you're white
Wut
What makes you think you'd have a better life in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia as a non-white than in the modern US?
The point is still going way over your head.
The word hasn't been usurped, because it's still being used in the old sense for purposes of pedigree, legitimacy, and glory. It's just being misapplied by dishonest or confused We Wuzzers for a variety of reasons, and fundamentally we ought therefore to refer to modern, western governments as moderate oligarchies.
Dictatorships and centralized government are always inefficient and also frequently lead to mass murders and genocides.
Laissez-faire free market capitalism with limited government has been proven to be the best way.
>democracy is the best form of government?
no it isn't, but it is the least shitty form of government
>memes and not hard statistical evidence
>It's just being misapplied by dishonest or confused We Wuzzers for a variety of reasons,
How is what their doing any different from you being a WEWUZZER and saying We Wuz the real democracy?
Heres a quick rundown:
Authoritarianism works best in developing countries where the state needs to move lots of people and make them do lots of things
>example the USSR and China (this only applies the the industrial development and mechanization of agriculture)
Democracy is shit for developing nations like India and everything in Africa but good for developed countries. As soon as an economy leaves the development stage it is too large and complex for the state to efficiently manage then the authoritarian state must reform towards liberal democracy like china or collapse due to stagnation like the USSR.
>science
>hard
LMAO
>science
>proof
ROFLXDDD
Under a democracy like in America or the UK you get seesaw back and forth every few years depending on which ideological faction is able to convince more constituencies that year over whether they should have higher or lower taxes and more or less public spending, on a purely ideological basis, run by ivory tower PoliSci graduates, lawyers and Oxford PPE degree holders, and decided by people who think a country's budget can be run like a household budget.
With a one party system ruled by technocrats, without the need to worry about looking good for re-election, they can simply look at the numbers and decide the optimal course of action according to sound economic principles and not Tea Party morons, and let the results speak for themselves.
Literally the thesis.
>anything I don't like is a meme