Is democracy just a meme that despots use to install weak ineffective governments that can be overthrown whenever they want?
>Roman republic
>BTFO by Caesar
>Iran 1953
>BTFO by shah
>Chile democracy BTFO by Pinochet
>Brazil democracy BTFO by military
>Weimar republic BTFO by hitler
>many such more cases
Im starting to think that democracy is just a waiting-room form of government until the despotic coup happens bros....
Other urls found in this thread:
users.erols.com
twitter.com
Despotic regimes have been overthrown by democracies, too. What's your point? Everything is transitional in the long run you dumbshit.
this
>The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread. In its most extreme form, parliamentarianism created a 'monstrosity of excrement and fire,' in which, however, sad to say, the 'fire' seems to me at the moment to be burned out.
Hitler thought so. He saw that world as either being ruled by a right wing dictator or a left wing dictator and he overthrew the whole thing before they could install a left wing one.
Meanwhile in reality, Marxism is dead as shit. Russia, Cuba, the PRC and even North Korea are no longer really Marxist, but western stormfags try hard to contrive any form of liberalism as basically Marxism, because everything outside of stormfaggotry is just one giant judeo-freemason-sjw-reptilian conspiracist menagerie or something.
Cincinnatus was right
Durring times of trouble and crisis, the nation needs a strong despotic leader.
Durring times of peace and harmony, the nation needs a benevolent peace-loving democracy.
users.erols.com
>There has been a lot of turnover in regimes over the past hundred years, and you can easily find examples of any kind of transition you want.
>Consider this instead: Nothing lasts forever, and almost every nation on the planet has seen at least one violent or unconstitutional change in leadership over the past hundred years. In fact, there are only a handful of countries that have had an unbroken chain of legitimacy since 1900 -- the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, probably Canada -- all democracies. In theory, it doesn't have to be this way. Monarchies, for example, are supposed to pass father to son, but none have survived the past hundred years without surrendering power to liberal parliaments. (The only absolute monarchies still around are younger than the 20th Century. [q.v.])
>Single-party states are supposed to have orderly transitions of power, but here too, none have managed to go a full century without collapsing. Compared to all these failures, democracy looks a bit tougher.
tl;dr - Democracy is the most stable government form and has the best track recording when it comes to respecting its own rules for succession
>Is democracy just a meme that despots use
FYI literally every despot will always try to start shit with every democracy that's near them
>the ABSOLUTE STATE of stormfags
Democracy is a cancer that needs to be eradicated.
DO
What if the strong despotic leader doesn't have a clue?
Sit down you subverted bitch.
lmaoooooooooooooo hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahaha lol
>>subverted
That's an odd word for buys cheap plastic crap from pic related.
You mean gets ripped apart internally utilizing numerous bullshit like race baiting and anti-patriotism.
Imagine the face of the idiot who posted this
Democratic institutions can be helpful in attaining justice. Emphasis on 'intuitions' because it should be very limited.
Democracies are merely a tool for oligarchs to secure their power through populist manipulation.
Read Plato you plebs.
>tl;dr - Democracy is the most stable government form and has the best track recording when it comes to respecting its own rules for succession
Isn't the longest running Democracy a third of the lifespan of the Roman Empire?
The modern Shah family (Pahlavi) had been ruling in Iran since 1925, whereas the line of Shahs (kings) in Iran go back to 550 B.C. It was only in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution that the line of shahs was truly extinguished. Reza Pahlavi abdicated in 1941 and gave power to his young son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. By 1952, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was still the king, still the Shah, but didn't have absolute power anymore (think Queen of England vs the Prime Minister.) His rank became more historical and symbolic while Mohammad Mosaddegh became Prime Minister in 1952 and had the real power. Then, one year later, he was ousted by CIA and M16 operatives who returned the Shah back into absolute power, expecting him to be their puppet, like what they did with the Saudis. It didn't quite turn out that way, and the West eventually sided with the Ayotollah, thinking he would be more cooperative, and that REALLY didn't work out for them.
tl;dr democracy in Iran was a ONE YEAR experiment that never got off the ground and returned to absolute monarchy thanks to help from Western powers. The Shah was already always there and he himself certainly didn't oust the PM by himself.
So, what I'm saying doesn't refute your hypothesis on weak democracies being intentionally installed as weak so that they can be overthrown, but your facts around Persia/Iran are wrong.
Are you implying the Roman Empire was stable? The order of succession broke down a thousand times, coups and civil wars were extremely common. Democracy is supposed to limit, if not prevent, that sort of instability.
>what is the Frankfurt school?
>What is the KGB ?
>What is subversion?
wew lad
Democracy isn't actually a form of government. It's a vector for despotism and oligarchy. Democracy is a process that will follow the same routine once initiated, ultimately reaching the same conclusion every time.
>how long has the United States existed compared to other European countries? And it's not a democracy its a republic.
>Not realizing that the UK used to be an absolute monarchy and Canada used to be one of its colonies.
>Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a unitary parliament
>Switzerland was a confederacy governed by nobles
>he thinks this some how translates into democracy being a long lasting system while ignoring the fact that it didn't exist when these countries were founded.
>it's not a democracy its a republic
Speak English correctly
Frankfurt school wasn't considered Marxist by anyone but themselves
It's a right winger talking point because of the electoral/popular vote. They pretend they're mutually exclusive and the only democracy is direct democracy without a bill of rights.
Democracy never works because people will vote for whats best for them, not hats best for their country.
Democracy is like a train