The wrong side won WW2.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

when you put up something for debate, by definition you are creating different sides.

No - the different sides already existed before the debate, and before the democracy. One can find common ground in debates and in democracies, as has happened quite often.

This makes them the most convenient form of government for plutocrats and tyrants

No - because a true democracy can limit their power. This is civics 101.

You do not have a good argument for the benefits of the authoritarian regime, and you'd be miserable in one. If you want someone to dictate all of your choices, there are places where you can get that kind of lifestyle. But generally, no one who wants the 'common good' wants a dictatorship. Read On Revolution by Hannah Arendt if you are curious, and perhaps her book, The Human Condition.

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

No - the different sides already existed before the debate, and before the democracy. One can find common ground in debates and in democracies, as has happened quite often.

Your first statement is technically correct, but that's precisely what makes my argument strong and yours weak. Democracy absolutises "the debate" with its different sides, its contradictions and its oppositions. On the other hand, an authoritarian system provides a superior unity which stands above any debates and any disagreements. In other words, it provides what some reactionary thinkers refer to as the "centre". Whatever disagreements there may be "democratically", on the horizontal plane, in the end of the day the entirety of society remains loyal to the vertical centre. If you remove that centre, then naturally the diverging horizontal forces will eventually rip the polity apart.

Your second statement is just wrong. What is sometimes, and only sometimes, reached in democracies, is compromise, not common ground. In the democratic system, plutocratic elements rule with impunity until their excesses provoke a massive and threatening reaction from below. In such cases, a "compromise" is reached as a way to secure the future of the plutocracy. This compromise is unilaterally defined and implemented by the elite, who address or ignore popular concerns at their leisure. It is in this light that reforms like the New Deal, the welfare state etc are to be understood.

No - because a true democracy can limit their power. This is civics 101.

Really? Who are the true democrats, then, the anarchists? In theory, the plutocratic elite could decide to follow the principles they espouse and demolish their own power. Of course, this will never happen, because liberal democracy is a completely cynical system by design.

You do not have a good argument for the benefits of the authoritarian regime, and you'd be miserable in one. If you want someone to dictate all of your choices, there are places where you can get that kind of lifestyle. But generally, no one who wants the 'common good' wants a dictatorship.

Liberal democrats are already trying to dictate everyone's life choices, often with the specific intention of spreading misery and demoralisation. It is on them to give "good arguments" for the existence of their self-annihilating system, since I am yet to see any.

Read On Revolution by Hannah Arendt if you are curious, and perhaps her book, The Human Condition.

You probably could not name a person I consider to be farther from my thinking and from what I consider to be the truth than Hannah Arendt.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

You're conflating Democrats and democracy in some of this. If we're discussing democracy, you must know that the US is an inclusive, wealthy, leading nation because of it. I see there is no common ground here about the importance of a democracy. With the wise of authoritarian leaders around the world, there are plenty of places for you to consider living, where you won't have to worry about democracy. But don't go to those places if you like your way of life in the US, brought to you by the democratic republic. But I also hope you don't believe what you've written to the extent that you would join anti-democratic groups and movements. This creates division.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

If we're discussing democracy, you must know that the US is an inclusive, wealthy, leading nation because of it.

For sure. Bourgeois systems relentlessly pursue the generation of wealth at the expense of everything else. How that wealth is spent and distributed is, of course, an entirely different question.

But I also hope you don't believe what you've written to the extent that you would join anti-democratic groups and movements. This creates division.

In my opinion, this is the type of hypocrisy that really decisively discredits democracy. Is it not my democratic right to hold whatever opinions I wish, join whatever movements I wish and hold whatever divisive opinions I wish? You would think that these things would fall under the category of "freedom of thought", but of course, that is not the case, because "freedom of thought" is merely a cynical slogan.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Is it not my democratic right to hold whatever opinions...

No one suggested this. No one is attacking your "freedoms". Rather than worry about any of that, think about the Big Corp and wealthy influencers who've lied to you about the dangers of democracy, so that you'll support the corporate destruction of that democracy. Hence my comment that "I hope you don't believe" that nonsense, but I am not telling you not to believe the corporate propaganda. If however you want to promote that anti-democratic propaganda, then you don't want to promote freedom, and the US may not be the place for you. For example, Steven Seagal moved to Russia, perhaps because he didn't like the US.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

Unfortunately, I am forced to conclude that you lack self-awareness and reading comprehension.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

Thus - if you accuse the other person of a problem you might have, then - you don't have the problem. Brilliant.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

That's what you did, which is why I was forced to reach this unfortunate conclusion.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

Forced by what, I wonder. Not to drag on the discussion, though the reason for my response (above) is that - if you want to note that you arrived at an appropriate conclusion - then you should not have been 'forced' to do so. Instead, you note the reasons for your conclusion, and if appropriate, offer evidence. To say that you were forced to arrive at that conclusion is like saying that you've given yourself the authority to be the arbiter of truth, without the usual expectation to note the appropriate reasons for this automatic authority. The 'forced' bit is "low effort" (per rule #4 for the sub). Whereas you can of course claim that I "lack self-awareness and reading comprehension," it's an anti-debate tactic merely to insult someone in that manner without providing and argument and/or evidence. And for what it's worth - I've never seen an insult that someone lacks "self-awareness". It's like saying that I am being operated by something or someone else and thus unaware of my 'self'. Anyway - these are just random thoughts about your really strange response. Best of luck making your own decisions whilst not being forced to do so, and that - if you want to insult people, especually on DAR - avoid low effort and anti debate approaches.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

Nothing about my response is strange, your thinking clearly lacks clarity and you seem obsessed with casting the people you speak to as MAGA cultists brainwashed by a neoreactionary version of Ben Shapiro or whatever. I am letting you know this for your benefit, on the off chance that you might be interested in becoming self-aware.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No - because a true democracy can limit their power.

Democracy doesn't limit their power, it only masks their power. It creates the illusion that power is centralized in the State and that the people have influence over the State by voting. NGOs, corporate/final elites, Zionists, etc, these are the areas where real power lies and they weld it over the State.

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

None of this is related to the standard approach of a 'representative democracy' as the US calls itself. It's a type of governance with the potential to limit corruption, abuse &c. When it's not working, there is corruption. It's that simple.