You are trying to be way too specific in your counter questions for it to ever be meaningful. A better question would be, why isnât it possible to get a perfect democracy.
Iâm trying to use the specific questions as a rhetorical device, so that you canât avoid defending your position with a vague out like this:
I have not stated any specifics on what constitutes what to what degree, I only defined the entire solution space. So itâs no wonder itâs not clear.
Your final question does not make sense. The point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditions. Forced transparency for people in power for example increases democracy, nice, then we do.
Iâm trying to get you to argue for the political system you support. Iâm frankly not very clear on your explanation of an authoritarian gradient, but itâs very common for âanti-authoritariansâ to support a wide range of things that are very authoritarian.
Iâd like to highlight one bit you said:
The point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditions.
This is basically the goal of the political philosophy of Marxism-leninism. Like, idk if we have much to argue about if thatâs your goal.
Iâm trying to use the specific questions as a rhetorical device, so that you canât avoid defending your position with a vague out like this:
I canât avoid defending my position? I havent stated my position⊠How can you attack something I havent even stated. I just stated the only possible solutionspace which is valid regardless of position. Go watch Rules for Rulers by CGPgrey, it gives a better description than what I can.
This is basically the goal of the political philosophy of Marxism-leninism. Like, idk if we have much to argue about if thatâs your goal.
What are you talking about? I have absolutly no idea what âMarxism-leninismâ is, so this label means nothing to me. The possible combinations of political policies is WAY larger than the total combinations of a list of political philosophists⊠So trying to collapse it any position into these few labels is just crude.
You state âbut itâs very common for âanti-authoritariansâ to support a wide range of things that are very authoritarianâ and then point at my âThe point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditionsâ. You are literally saying that trying to make society more democratic is authoritarian. There is absolutly no logic to this and you need to really clear up your ideas, cause and effect, because that does not compute in any universe.
So I agree, using a math metaphore, if we are discussion any solution, but you have made up your own axioms, then you can never get a good understanding, because your priors are incompatible with eachother.
I canât avoid defending my position? I havent stated my position⊠How can you attack something I havent even stated. I just stated the only possible solutionspace which is valid regardless of position. Go watch Rules for Rulers by CGPgrey, it gives a better description than what I can.
You clearly hold a position, otherwise we wouldnât be here going back and forth. Youâre going to have to submit to the mortifying ordeal of being known. You canât argue against something, without arguing for something. What are you arguing for? Is your position (as Iâve assumed) that authoritarian government is bad?
Iâm not going to watch your video. You need to make your arguments for yourself. No one else can.
I have absolutly no idea what âMarxism-leninismâ is, so this label means nothing to me.
Marxism-leninism is the dominant communist tendency in the world, and the tendency of the Lemmygrad instance this post is in.
Itâs not weird that youâre not familiar with it as such; education in the West is super anti-communist.
You are literally saying that trying to make society more democratic is authoritarian.
Yes. Thatâs my point! Marxism-leninists hold authoritarian (here Iâm using it to mean âthe state monopoly on violenceâ or âthe oppressive power of the stateâ) means as a necessary tool.
You canât seize the means of production without fighting the owners for it (a revolution) and you canât hold onto that means of production without continuing to defend against capitalism/the owner class. Once that class contradiction has been removed (by oppressing the bourgeoisie out of existence), and once foreign capital isnât fighting for control of your society. You can drop the use of state oppressive power - because itâs not a tool you need anymore!
Holy shit, bro actually linked CPG Grey as a source. The dude notorious for making videos based on a single book/source, and deliberately ignoring criticism of that book when making his videos. The video in question splits ârulersâ into âdemocratic rulersâ and âauthoritariansâ and makes no attempt to actually define these terms. Essentially, it argues that a ruler has a certain number of âkeysâ that they need to keep happy in order to stay in power (the people, the military etc.) and that democracies are democracies and authoritarian dictatorships are authoritarian dictatorships and one cannot be halfway between them lest it collapse or something. Dude is the epitome of the smug reddit intellectual who reads a single source and believes themselves to be an expert on a topic they didnât know existed 5 minutes ago. Only difference is Grey makes videos rather than reddit posts.
If that isnât enough, he also said that the Monarchy in the UK shouldnât be abolished because of âtourism.â Yeah.
