If communism always fails because it doesn't properly account for human nature, is liberal democracy doomed to fail too?

  • Thread starter Thread starter QI 541
  • Start date Start date
Q

QI 541

Guest
kiwifarms.net
Humans are naturally tribalistic. It is the nature of humans to compete and destroy each other for their own gain, hence why most of human history is filled with wars. It is not natural for humans to care about the rights or freedoms of people outside their group, yet the concept of human rights is based on the idea that as long as you're human, you have a specific set of rights regardless of who you are. Humans are also naturally drawn towards strong authority figures over democracies, which you can see in how all of the most popular religions contain an omnipotent god, or how government intervention in virtually everything increases over time, which the people ask for. Notice how virtually every aspect of our society except for our government is a dictatorship or an oligarchy?

So if communism always fails because human nature is inherently corrupt and greedy, why would liberal democracy succeed when human nature is inherently the opposite of a liberal democracy?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: ConfederateIrishman, Posthumorous, Army Burger and 4 others
It doesn't, and can't. It just takes a lot longer to fuck it up. A objectively superior system with bad leadership is just as fallible as a totalitarian regime with a 'good' leader. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others,"

Humans fuck everything up eventually. It's just easier with more corrupt systems.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Coleslaw, ConfederateIrishman, NOT Sword Fighter Super and 6 others
Liberal democracy is an anomaly in human history. It's easy to forget this when you've known nothing but the prosperity it has brought for your whole life, but with the exception of the past 250 years or so, human life, without exception, has been nasty, brutish, and short. What I think made it work were external constructs with the ability to channel human nature into something productive for society. For example, capitalism rewards people who are greedy enough to do anything for money- within legal frameworks. But there's the rub: in order for people's negative attributes not to get the better of them, there must be someone or something that keeps watch. But as the saying goes, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchmen?
We look at people who assume dictatorship and deem dictatorship bad, but is it? At its core, dictatorship is just one person dictating what can, will, and should happen. The reason we have such a negative view of it is because, throughout human history, the most corrupt and incompetent people have assumed the position of dictator. Had those positions instead been filled by the honest and the just, would we still hold such a negative view? Of course, this leads to another question: who defines what is honest and just? The tyrant would define his actions as honest and just, as he is the highest authority in the land. Again, an authority higher than the tyrant is needed to curb his excesses.
In a dictatorship, if a tyrannical leader took the reigns, people would eventually have enough and stage a rebellion (this led to the Magna Carta and the United States). What sets liberal democracy apart from dictatorship is that, should a tyrannical leader take office, we could vote them out, removing the need for armed revolt. In a dictatorship, the man is king; in liberal democracy, the law is king. Liberal democracy can only endure so long as people believe that the law applies to everyone. When someone believes and acts otherwise, tyranny arises. We're seeing this today, as we've seen throughout human history.
So, to answer your question, why would it succeed in spite of tribalism? The answer is simple: lex rex. The law is king, and all are equal under the law. While that is believed, and held to be true by the population and government, liberal democracy can succeed (barring natural catastrophe and war).
Rate me Optimistic all you like, but that's my two cents.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Coleslaw, Randall Fragg, IAmNotAlpharius and 8 others
communism dosent work in the same way as any system where people rule: the people become slowly and steadily corrupted from their own negligence and ideas of what is right or wrong and the only thing that can become a surefire factor in such a system is who gets to kill who

the reason why us in democratic societies like the west is because unlike the other long term empires is that we have open discussions, across multiple countries, with multiple insights and perspectives coming from the countries that inhabit it. unlike communism we're also very feudal: not every country follows the same laws or values under some huge military spectre that keeps us in a totalitarian check and because of this everyone is forced to play with the same cards.

on top of that every country has their own armies that serve their country: this means you cant utilize military superiority to annihilate the other countries and thus issue forth a fascist hand. this is further emphasised with the amount of nuclear armaments we have available: if any system or party tries to take over they will swiftly and quickly cause worldwide annihilation of which none of us are capable of comprehending.

in short: liberal democracy has ruled for so long because we have advanced so far that everyone can supremely kill everyone else and thus we are forced to listen to and accept other peoples views which communism has not had the ability to do.

so thanks for the democracy nukes!
 
Sexy Senior Citizen said:
We look at people who assume dictatorship and deem dictatorship bad, but is it? At its core, dictatorship is just one person dictating what can, will, and should happen. The reason we have such a negative view of it is because, throughout human history, the most corrupt and incompetent people have assumed the position of dictator. Had those positions instead been filled by the honest and the just, would we still hold such a negative view?
Click to expand...
No dictator can rule alone, they always need a bunch of henchmen, or another privileged group to support them. Not only supporting this system of power drains resources, those middlemen are not necessarily sharing their boss's convictions and might be less moral than the society's average.
Liberal democracy is happens when the masses are fed with the current system and don't happen to go for a populist dictator like usual. The system works for a while, but soon either the ruling party descends towards dictatorship, or the corporations take over and maintain the illusion of equality, while slowly tightening personal liberties for the sake of profit and control.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
lol, read Hoppe nigger.

Yes, the only fair exchange or moral exchange is a willing one. I normally don't like one line semi shit posts in DT but Dr. Hoppe (Democracy the god that failed ) will sum it up much better than I could hope to.

I do agree very much it's the best govering system possible, but this goes back to that old game would you rather... When the option of shot in the foot or being bitten by a rattle snake both are bad. There's no reason either should or need to happen.

As we are seeing in the societies that "treasure" the vote, we are seeing literal replacements to get people whom will vote for those already in power, so really it's a rigged game. Anything aside a free and willing exchange between two people is unjust.
 
Liberal Democracy is the system that's most susceptible to mob rule and degrading into other systems. The concern is not that the leaders are doing a bad job, but that the voters aren't vetting these people first.

The weaker a system is, the less corruption you get, but also the more lawlessness and factionalism/separatism you will eventually get. Democracies in the past have repeatedly degraded into dictatorships under the premise of "We'll do more for you" or "We'll fix things up", and the only reason that that hasn't happened in certain areas is cultural.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Army Burger and Y2K Baby
communism (and you really mean socialist republics) doesn't fail because of "human nature" whatever the fuck that means (protip; it doesn't mean anything, its just shit people say), but because the plan-economies are difficult to create and maintain versus free market economies which arises naturally out of deals people make with each other regarding work and property. Can plan-economies werk at all zomfg? Sure, the millitary, public schools, Norway, etc, basically the entire goods and services provided by any state is planned economic activity.

Recommended reading to understand wtf is up with markets, communism, states, private industry; Books, not the memeternet, preferably noted economists such as (incomming shock) Marx, schumpeter, NOT dumb videos on the internet, not dumb videos that says "Economics Forum 2017, very smart guy talking about vague trade shit", read actual shit instead of consuming propaganda, there is one youtube-video which i really enjoy though about the US vs Soviet economy by an unbiased scholar looking at the US vs Soviet economy during the Cold War which might be fun for you if you like history and want to know more about different economic models (and this is from the US foreign policy institute, not some zealous maoist);
 
  • Agree
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Y2K Baby and KimCoppolaAficionado
Stalinist said:
communism (and you really mean socialist republics) doesn't fail because of "human nature" whatever the fuck that means (protip; it doesn't mean anything, its just shit people say), but because the plan-economies are difficult to create and maintain versus free market economies which arises naturally out of deals people make with each other regarding work and property. Can plan-economies werk at all zomfg? Sure, the millitary, public schools, Norway, etc, basically the entire goods and services provided by any state is planned economic activity.

Recommended reading to understand wtf is up with markets, communism, states, private industry; Books, not the memeternet, preferably noted economists such as (incomming shock) Marx, schumpeter, NOT dumb videos on the internet, not dumb videos that says "Economics Forum 2017, very smart guy talking about vague trade shit", read actual shit instead of consuming propaganda, there is one youtube-video which i really enjoy though about the US vs Soviet economy by an unbiased scholar looking at the US vs Soviet economy during the Cold War which might be fun for you if you like history and want to know more about different economic models (and this is from the US foreign policy institute, not some zealous maoist);
Click to expand...
Don't bother, anything besides "Communists should be given FREE HELICOPTER RIDES LOL OWNED LIBTARD" ends up getting shouted down in DT. The whole board is virtually just another TSIC at this point.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, ConfederateIrishman, Y2K Baby and 5 others
Stalinist said:
communism (and you really mean socialist republics) doesn't fail because of "human nature" whatever the fuck that means (protip; it doesn't mean anything, its just shit people say), but because the plan-economies are difficult to create and maintain versus free market economies which arises naturally out of deals people make with each other regarding work and property. Can plan-economies werk at all zomfg? Sure, the millitary, public schools, Norway, etc, basically the entire goods and services provided by any state is planned economic activity.

Recommended reading to understand wtf is up with markets, communism, states, private industry; Books, not the memeternet, preferably noted economists such as (incomming shock) Marx, schumpeter, NOT dumb videos on the internet, not dumb videos that says "Economics Forum 2017, very smart guy talking about vague trade shit", read actual shit instead of consuming propaganda, there is one youtube-video which i really enjoy though about the US vs Soviet economy by an unbiased scholar looking at the US vs Soviet economy during the Cold War which might be fun for you if you like history and want to know more about different economic models (and this is from the US foreign policy institute, not some zealous maoist);
Click to expand...
Planned economies can also lend themselves to certain abuses- but that's hardly unique to communism. What gave Russian communism a bad name was the corruption and abuse perpetrated by the government. It was tolerated as long as it was due to media blackouts and careful propoganda ("Do it for Mother Russia!") To argue my point a little more, had the rule of law been respected by the government, the USSR might still be around.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Like
Reactions: Stalinist and (deleted member)
Senior Lexmechanic said:
Don't bother, anything besides "Communists should be given FREE HELICOPTER RIDES LOL OWNED LIBTARD" ends up getting shouted down in DT. The whole board is virtually just another TSIC at this point.
Click to expand...
Lol, why should the politics board be the only board exempt from a sense of humor.
 
raymond said:
So if communism always fails because human nature is inherently corrupt and greedy, why would liberal democracy succeed when human nature is inherently the opposite of a liberal democracy?
Click to expand...

Except liberal democracy, or at least constitutional democracy, does take human nature into account, and sets the three major branches of government at each other's throats so they spend more time fighting each other than oppressing the people. This doesn't work perfectly but has worked with the U.S. for about 230 years now, vastly longer than most governments last.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: wylfım, ColtWalker1847, ConfederateIrishman and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back