The Western Democratic Idea has been de-legitimized once and for all

submitted by VarangianRasputin from self.debatealtright

Usually when arguing with normies on the topic of Democracy, they've always treated it as if it's the be-all and end-all. "It's a threat to our Democracy!", "How will we maintain Democracy!", etc.

Their shallow devotion to the Democratic ideal was always just that, shallow, but it was ingrained so deeply into their psyches that "Yes, YOU run the country!". I remember in school (I was 13-15 at the time) we had a lesson in which we were given a piece of paper asking us who ran the country, with vague options ranging from 'the People', to 'the Military', to 'the Government'. Like a normal person, I ticked 'The Government', and was admonished. I argued that in the end it was government who made these decisions. Looking back, I imagine the staff had their arms held behind their backs (this is the UK, in case you were wondering). Either way, the intention was that I leave that building with the Democratic ideal in my head, and it worked to an extent, as I was a Sargonite back then anyway.

The point is, the modern idea of Democracy has been injected into mainstream thought with the same intensity as the Juche Idea in North Korea, or the National Socialist one in the Third Reich. The main difference is that while the latter two were and are unifying, the Democratic ideal by it's very nature is divisional; and when you base your society on such a rocky foundation, it can't possibly survive. It will tear itself down. This, we already knew.

Most working class people look at modern-day politicians with disdain, and only vote because, 'Well, what else are you going to do?'. But it's no wonder that Working-Class men are often drawn to Radical Trade Unions. They're divided into the Radicals and the Apathetic. The Radicals no the Politician's will only give them token support in the current system, and that if they won't represent them, they may as well represent themselves. The Apathetic simply doesn't have a mind for politics, and more power to him. He just wants to kiss his wife in the morning, get his kids ready for school, send them off, go to work, laugh with the lads, come home, sleep, repeat. He hasn't got time for 'Organizing' and 'Strikes'.

I'm not here to cry and whine about 'muh rigged elections', because look, they've been like this for nearly a whole century. We got 'lucky' in 2016 because some dude fucked up his numbers. I remember hearing that Clinton had popped Champagne early before the winner was announced (I wish I could have seen the room when the news was delivered).

What I'm trying to say, in what could vaguely be called English, is that this idea's coffin was already being created, probably even before Mussolini came to power in the 1920s. The 2020 election was the final nail. Now when we argue about Democracy, we just have to say "What Democracy?". And in a serious discussion, they'll just admit, at least to themselves, what they've known for decades now.

TL;DR: Democracy's life support is about to get turned off by his family because he's costing too much and not getting any better, and truth be told, he was kind of an asshole who always started fights at family gatherings anyway (but it would be impolite to mention that bit).

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

You're using the language of our enemies. The West doesn't have democracy, not even close. We have plutocracy, because that's what liberal "democracy" really is. Liberalism - through its bourgeois parliaments - will always lead to plutocracy. The will of the people doesn't matter. Our so-called representatives almost never enact what we actually want. The only way to get what we want is either through direct democracy - by plebiscites and sortition - or by putting a strongman in power who will do what we want, like the fascists did. Those are the only two ways to get real democracy. A combination of the two is the most likely - and the best - outcome in my opinion. The only question is, will it require a revolution?

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The West doesn't have democracy, not even close. We have plutocracy, because that's what liberal "democracy" really is. Liberalism - through its bourgeois parliaments - will always lead to plutocracy.

All that is correct, but I was talking about the Democratic Ideal as the average Joe understands it.

The only question is, will it require a revolution?

Depends how you define Revolution. The Russian Revolution, despite much romantic artwork to the contrary, was really just a bunch of militias and pissed off workers seizing control of key buildings with very little, if any resistance. I'd imagine that when the time comes to seize power, it will go something like that, but we've still got our ways to go to that right now.

Might sound weird to use the Russian Revolution as an example, but to be honest, that's how a revolution should go. A literal textbook example. No blood, just determination, and the Will-To-Power.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

All that is correct, but I was talking about the Democratic Ideal as the average Joe understands it.

The average Joe knows it's bullshit, which is why so many of them don't even vote.

The Russian Revolution, despite much romantic artwork to the contrary, was really just a bunch of militias and pissed off workers seizing control of key buildings with very little, if any resistance.

Every revolution is like that. There's no real difference between a revolution or a coup apart from intense energy among a certain percentage of the masses.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The average Joe knows it's bullshit, which is why so many of them don't even vote.

No they don't. The voting turnout for the 2020 US election was the highest it has been in a century with 66.2% of the voting eligible population that voted. This is really just wishful thinking if you believe the average Joe thinks it's bullshit.

The plutocracy clearly has more power than the people's will, but the people still have some say.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you combine half the electorate - who have now lost all trust in the electoral system - with that 33.8% you get a majority.

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

with that 33.8% you get a majority.

I hate to jump back in, genuinely, but that kind of proves my point. Democracy as an idea has been killed. At the very least, the seeds of doubt have been planted, and that's all it takes. I'm not overly bothered how many people have taken part, I'm interested in that group that have lost faith.

[–]ChancellorMershekel 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Thankfully I never went through the kind of indoctrination you describe in your second paragraph. The government obviously governs (are they called the government for any other reason?) irrespective of how democratic a nation-state is.

Democracy is indeed religiously perceived as a sort of panacea in the contemporary world. It is common to see democracy hailed as a value in the same way as freedom and equality. No longer is it merely a political system. It's a 'value' that will solve every political problem and that only stupid or evil people oppose. Even if democracy has problems, we automatically assume that these are problems with its implementation that can be solved simply by... more democracy. We must absolutely never question democracy as a theory.

This kind of democratic extremism is exemplified by authors like Fukuyama, for whom democracy is not only the ideal system but will also inevitably be the only system. When the whole world becomes democratic, the only problems will stem from poor implementations. So the world just needs to strengthen its implementations of democracy to achieve the elusive 'true democracy'™. Then it will be paradise!

Fukuyama's idea is of course the neoliberal version of Bolshevik delusions about communism. A perfect political system (neoliberal globohomo or Bolshevik globohomo) is inevitable. Political problems are only the result of imperfect implementations of a perfect theory and can be solved by erasing the imperfections in the implementation. The only people who oppose this inevitable development are trying to prevent history from unfolding and cannot possibly win. There will be minor setbacks (e.g. Trump) but we'll make it towards paradise in the end. The same thing can be seen in Islam—problems in the Islamic world are the result of impure interpretations of Islam, the solution is to purify Islam. Just double down on whatever you believe—democracy, communism or Islam—and there will be paradise.

Democracy has practically replaced God. Nobody calls themselves the 'free republic of' or the 'egalitarian republic of', but many continue to call themselves the 'democratic republic of'. As Fukuyama observed, almost everyone justifies their own political agenda using democracy. Socialism is more democratic than liberal democracy. Trump will repair the damage the Left has done to democracy. Biden will repair the damage the Trumpians have done to democracy. And so on.

I think this is one of the many strengths of the 'Far-Right'. It lacks a utopian delusion and only aims at collective survival. That's all we can really hope for—of what use are utopian visions to people living as hated minorities within their own land and with nowhere to 'White flight' to? Yet this is the inevitable reality without a complete U-turn happening within the next few decades. The only thing that matters is finding some way to get that U-turn to happen. Utopian delusions are for the many cowards who cannot stomach the simple fact that civilization is but a thin layer, the existence of which is anomalous and far from being some kind of permanent development. It is less taxing on the mind to take it for granted and assume that the only way that we can go is forward.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Everytime neoliberals talk about democracy they mean liberalism. If we had real democracies - like plebiscites and sortition - a lot of our problems wouldn't exist.

I think this is one of the many strengths of the 'Far-Right'. It lacks a utopian delusion and only aims at collective survival.

Fascism - and especially National Socialism - was utopian.