Is democracy here to stay?

>>1685969
plato warned us

>>1685969
of course, because it is 2016, and history is a straight forward path coming from a bad past with oppression going to a glorious future were everybody is free

>>1685969
Politic is like any form of human creation, we slowy improve it, Modern western state are some of the most stable state ever. Also agricultural developement and massive technologie improvement have erase some of the most basic revolte reason: FOOD.

>>1685969
>implying totalitarianism is bad
>implying democracy is good

The coming of socialism and utopian communism is inevitable

Then, and only then, society will be truly free

Democracy, as you see it, is just a false vision

NO FAMINES
O

F
A
M
I
N
E
S

>>1686037
hey anon, eat a snickers, you arfe not yourself when you are hungry

>>1685969
No, but oligarchy is.

>>1686037
the implication is not that democracy is good, at least I didn't try to make it sound that way. I'm just surprised by the abruptness with which society transitioned, with monarchy/despotism being the norm for so long.

>>1685984
The narrative is almost childishly comical in it's inaccuracy, at this point.

the enlightenment meant that the general population could no longer be ruled by god or someone supposedly chosen by god because the freethinkers noticed the bullshit and stood up to it in places like france America Italy and many others

>>1685969
No we spent most of our existence in small local communities, they were probably more democratic then what we are today. I increasingly believe that there is only one form of government for large groups and that is a oligarchy.

>ask someone anything relevant to the most basics of world events
>"Uh...haha what??!!!! lol"
Nearly everyone I know barely knows who or what they vote for, so they go for whatever their favorite Instagram post says.

I believe leftist intellectuals will want to get rid of democracy in Europe and North America for a while, at least until they finish their demographic replacement of whites.

Just look at Austria, they had to blatantly fraud an election because a right-wing populist candidate was poised to win, and now they postponed the elections because they couldn't stop frauding it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-election-idUSKCN11I0NA

Democracy was useful to the left when it got what they wanted. Now that angry natives can use democracy to vote for anti-establishment parties against mass immigration, free trade and other items of the globalist agenda, you already see people lamenting it.

>>1686333
it's worship. of course it's comical and absurd. in fact, the MORE absurd a religious story becomes, the better a test of faith it is.

the narrative won't simpl break down because it's untrue any more than people will stop worshipping invisible sky men

>>1686544
yea you put yo dick in that monkey I also put mah dick in that monkey - everyone puts dicks in everybody so my baby is your baby and your baby is my baby we should all take care of each other.

Do you mean democracy or universal suffrage?

The modern democracies have only been in existence for ~100 years, in most cases they have collapsed into despotism: fascism and socialism. The few modern democracies that have staggered into the 21st century are in crisis and on the brink of collapse.

Unfortunately.

They might be a good way to get a consensus, as a nation grows in size, it gets harder and harder to appease everyone. Look at the US, the EU, or maybe even Australia, where every states wants something different. You have to compromise too much, and then no one gets anything.

>>1685969
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_universal
scroll down and find "de facto oligarchy" in the list.

no matter what the official term for the system in place, no matter the place or time, irrelevant of culture - every human society, be it labeled "democratic" or "totalitarian", "socialist" or "capitalist" - every society is in fact oligarchic.

hierarchy is inevitable, it is natural and unavoidable, and that implies that the few will always hold most power, be it through wealth, political capital, whatever.
this is not a bad thing, it's simply the way things are.

however, with inevitable technological progress as well as the subsequent cultural changes and fundamental alterations to human biology and psychology through genetic engineering and tech, this may change.
with the power of technology we can improve our governance, who knows how we'll be organized in the future

Literally all a democracy needs to be knocked off is a rough patch followed by a charismatic / forceful leader who pushes the boundaries. Or a military coup. Or its own retarded citizens electing jackass representatives who regularly chip away their democratic / constitutional rights until there's just a charade remaining.

Remember, too, that many of the Romans under Augustus right up until he died were convinced he restored the republic.

>>1687275
>modern democracies are on the brink of collapse
Haven't heard this suggested before. Would anyone care to elaborate?

>>1687589
Of course not because he's talking out of his ass.

>>1685969
Hard to say, but its certainly effective and stable

>>1687589
Its just reactionary memeing

>>1687589
He's just being retarded.

>>1685969
Nah fuck the people. It's about making the proles think they have a vote when they really don't.

What's important is maintaining the character and intelligence of the bourgeoisie

>>1685969
No, but a pretense of democracy in order to hide plutocracies and oligarchies is, at least in societies that posses weapons.

Despots and monarch rely on total monopoly of force that cannot be established anywhere near as easily as it could before the advent of repeating firearms.

The information age also means it's much harder to establish a control over information, stop people from gathering, or create cults of personality.

The mob of commoners is more dangerous that it has ever been.
Ever.

You'll notice that societies that relied on free, non aristocratic men to make war tended to treat those men well, or even give them a say-even in monarchies. Why? Because they may well kill you all otherwise, and even if you win the fight... you need them.

>he thinks he lives in a democracy

>>1685969
>society spends the majority of its existence governed by monarchy or some form of despotism
most was probably anarchism before the whole "civilization" thing got going

>>1686315
>monarchy/despotism being the norm for so long.
there are a great many flavors of despotism. the trends have changed over time.

>>1688241
This

the ruling class only understand three things; money, power, and force

They have a monopoly on power, and it's unlikely that the commoners have the money to buy votes, so it's a good idea that the citizenry have the monopoly on force.

>>1685969
Democracy, or the illusion of democracy?
Also, a monarchy can be democratic.

Most people i know don't know much about political issues. They fall into the bread and games trap. They just eat up what the media tells them, or are not concerned with politics at all. There hasn't been a voter turnout of above 60% in my country since 1993. Pretty much what this annon said >>1687228

This leads politicians to cater to big business which fuels both their campaigns and their pockets in return for their personal interests.
Which leads to crony capitalism.

In most countries oligarchies rule. In some more openly, in some not so apparent.
The willingness of a government to bail out companies that are "too big to fail" undermines the whole point of capitalism. It just creates endless economic bubbles that affect the average citizen, while the oligarchs that caused them are shielded for it.

>>1689314
I suppose, personally, I don't consider anarchy "society." I suppose "civilization" would have more aptly applied.

>>1685969
>Is this how it is from now on, /his/?

No, I agree with Zizek when he says the system that will define the 21st century will be Asian Authoritarianism.

I honestly think many western nations are already on that path, look at how blatantly corrupt and oligarchical Politicans are openly becoming, knowing they will just get away with it 100% because they are actively in bed with the vested media interests.

Also the vast majority of people these days are fucking so politically ignorant it's absurd. With the collapse of the Labour movement, came the collapse of the working class actually being involved with politics or ever giving a shit beyond reactionary tentpole issues.

Seriously, you can spend 1 fucking hour reading up Politics and basic economic theory and know exactly who to vote for and follow for years to come, yet most people can't even be fucked to do that.

>>1685969


You can't just lump "all monarchies" into a bag and call it a day. The feudal monarchies in most of Europe for a lot of the medieval and renaissance were way, way different from the absolute monarchies in the early enlightenment.

But yes, you probably won't see a return to monarchies anytime soon. Governments are stable primarily when the class with the most wealth and fighting ability has its interests represented. Feudal monarchies worked because the feudal class actually did most of the fighting in addition to holding most of the wealth. As barriers to entry to wealth have started to fall away, you don't have that same preservation of wealth in the form of land which tends to stay in families. In turn, you have a society where anyone (but not everyone) can make it big, and that sort of noveau rich will want their voices heard. They don't need a monarch, and a monarch can't have a stable basis of support among a primary class whose constituent members rarely stay stable. Ergo, monarchy declines.