The Death of Democracy

It is becoming redundant because millennials are fulfilling a technological prophecy of corporate rule?

What does that even mean?

It means that our modern needs our meeting the criteria for various teleological predictions which predicated an evolution of Democracy into an all encompassing political rule, in this case it will evolve into corporate rule. Some predicted communism, some universal liberal democracy, some the end of times through nuclear warfare.

“There should first be substantive socio-economic preconditions to installing Western Democratic views”, although a “growth of democracy is no longer possible”? Did you mean the former in accordance with the work of Fukuyama?

The greatest illusion of democracy is that it has never really existed historically in the first place. Government controlled democracy is oligarchical to its core.

For comparison only: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185646 .

I will read that thread later tonight. I am trying to say that any teleological perspective of a final stage is misleading but always has underlying characteristics/explanations which are evident in how we live in modern day. An organic growth of Democracy is impossible, a manufactured exportation of Democracy is never true Democracy, the future is at stakes with millennials and corporate globalism (moral vs instrumental), and the process of seeing countries become fit through, not fit for, Democracy is what ultimately caused Democracy’s demise; a self-contradiction of growing internal moralism to deploy ideals without preconditions because of our Western naivety as an advanced Democracy.

Have you actually defined what you mean by ‘democracy’? :-k

When someone has to type 2000 words to make a point on a forum post, you can bet that at least half of what they typed is intended to obfuscate a much simpler point. I always think, “what a coward, why doesn’t he just say what he means?”

“The basic elements a Democracy (not its inhabitants) should guarantee is voting and fair election, protections of rights and liberties, respect for legal entitlements, free discussion and uncensored distribution of news. These are only basic aspects which are highly transfigured into the mixed economies and cultural backgrounds which I am sure we all could argue about. This thread is about what Democracy will be in the near future, not what it is now. Although it is relevant to discuss these elements to understand your perspective of Democracy in the future, that discussion should be denoted as secondary to the speculations for the future of Democracy, not only focusing on the incredible advantages or ideological fallacies of the current state of Democracy.”

This was stated in the OP. If you would like to discuss what you agree and disagree with, I would happily abide.

I have obfuscated some ideas in this post but it is more suitable for you to demand clarification or engaging discussion. 2000 words is barely a Sunday morning shit stain compared to other papers I have written. I have not made one simple point in this post, but many complex/disputable ones which have yet to be unraveled. Instead of attacking me personally, explain why you think this entire argument is obfuscated, fallacious or misleading.

That was buried in the fourth paragraph of the OP. Seems fairly vague.

There are lots of governments where people can vote but it doesn’t mean anything in practical terms. Lots of dictators get 99% of the vote.
What are the rights and liberties that would be protected in a democracy as opposed to another system? For example, communists guarantee 100% employment. Why don’t democracies do the same?
All news is censored to some degree. What’s reasonable censorship?

“This thread is about what Democracy will be in the near future, not what it is now.” - Is democracy alive now? That has to be the starting point of the discussion. Then one can move on to the death of democracy.

Democracy is in an elderly state of self-contradiction and contagious preaching. Democracy is in the process of dying because of what you asked. The elements I listed were only the seemingly guaranteed aspects of a ‘true’ Democracy. Democracy can produce tyranny or decay (e.g. Cromwell, Hitler, Habyarimana, Mussolini, etc.). Democratic rights and liberties are generally ambiguous and change over time because the needs of society change. A Communist’s ideal of employment could be much different than a Democratic ideal of employment. Democratic employment rights and liberties are ambiguous in so far as they give the individual a choice of not working or choosing enjoyable work, which in both cases, is never a manageable reality. Concerning reasonable censorship, who is to decide what is reasonable? Should that power reside within national or municipal jurisdiction? Should corporations or the distributors of news be able to make their own policies on reasonable limitation on censorship? Or should all cases be left to the public or the consumers of that which is censored (who might be considered most important stakeholders)?

Is Democracy alive now?

Well, what is Democracy? Does a ‘true’ or ‘just’ version of Democracy exist at all? In my opinion, Democracy has been deteriorating since the early 1960s and is reaching the final stages of dying; evolving into a new form of global oligarchy.

I asked that and I still don’t have an answer. :smiley:

That means that you think prior to 1960, there was something which was a legitimate democracy. What/where was it and what were its characteristics?

“Voting and fair election” warranties are the main elements of democracy, “protections of rights and liberties, respect for legal entitlements, free discussion and uncensored distribution of news” are main elements of a constitutional state (a state of law). But because the constitutional state can also be called a constitutional democracy, I would say that you are referring to a constitutional democracy. I would nevertheless say that e.g. “protections of rights and liberties, respect for legal entitlements, free discussion and uncensored distribution of news” can also be guaranteed without democracy. Democracy is mor a form of government than a form of state. - Anyway. - There has never been a real or 100% democracy in history.

I would have to disagree with the last point on the basis that Democracy has existed as various forms of itself; existing at some points in time as more of a state-defined system and at other points in time, strictly a non-concentrated humanistic governance system. The variance between the almost countless forms of Democracy are entirely ambiguous at this point in history. Although you have agreed on a form of constitutional Democracy, I would not say those traits belong exclusively to it. For example, respect for legal entitlements is not exclusive to constitutional Democracy, nor to Democracy as an all-encompassing ambiguous ideal (it could apply even to fascist regimes or socialist oligarchies). The protections of rights and liberties is not necessarily exclusive to constitutional Democracy, but definitely seems to prove recurrence throughout Democratic systems since Charlemagne. Democracy could be characterized constitutionally, economically, systematically, lawfully, or in most cases, a mix of all these prior characterizations with the illusory affects of corruption and complex legislative structures.

I have a challenge for everybody in this thread and you only get five days to complete it. Show one single instance of human history of a pure unadulterated form of government managed and controlled democracy. I just want one single example shown in this thread.

For something to die it had to exist in the first place, right? Let’s call this the democratic challenge.

Ready, set, go!

There is no pure, unadulterated form of Democracy (is there a pure unadulterated first-order form of anything that does not beg the question?). There are only variations of fundamental Democratic elements. When you say ‘democracy’ in your post, you have to create meaning for it by relating it to other systems of governance or other forms of Democracy. You obviously have a conception of what Democracy entails terminologically, so just because you have an abrasive view towards Democracy, does not imply that you think it never existed. In order to negate the affects of Democracy, you must believe there were affects in the first place, and that each possessed a Democratic resemblance. There are countless occurrences of seemingly Democratic systems, but one of the points of ‘The Death of Democracy’ was not to take jabs at Democracy and analyze its nature and origin; I was hoping to discuss the evolution and possible demise of Democracy because of a more globalized or oligarchical systems of governance in the near future. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘managed and controlled’, maybe something along the lines of disciplinarian stabilization? Maybe neo-authoritarianism? Are you trolling or contributing something thoughtful to this thread? With you, I’m never sure.

I am saying since the time of Pericles and Cleisthenes that the political organization known as democracy has been oligarchical in nature where no true uncorrupted form of democracy has ever existed beyond paper.

This is what I mean when I say no true democracy has ever existed in history.

Any kind of government sponsored democracy by its very definition is a controlled and influenced one.

So could you be implying that there are alternatives to all the various forms Democracy which are less oligarchical? Or less corrupted?

What do you mean by ‘true’ Democracy?

Are you implying that Athenian Democracy was the most favourable form of Democracy to date?

Are you implying that all variant forms of Democracy since Pericles have intended to function benevolently in principle, but not in reality? Which cases in particular are most corrupted in your view? ~ (assuming you think there are absolutely no successful cases of Democracy after the Hellenistic age)

What are you speculations for Democratic nations in this century and are these projections justifiably so?

Your premises arrive at seemingly self-explanatory conclusions without tying everything together with coherent argument and evidence. More explanation and elaboration would be appreciated.

I’m implying that the history of democracy around the planet have in no way been successful period.

Yes, also I’m an anarchist.

Maybe it is better to define “democracy” in order to avoid misunderstandings.

“Democracy” means “popular government” / “popular sovereignty”, thus that the “people” (“demos”) “govern” (“kratein”), that people have the “power” or at least the main power. This already shows that the word “democracy” is based more on wishful thinking than on real action. In other words: A 100% democracy is not possible. There are always others who have an interest in government but no interest at all in democracy. Therefore other mechanisms are needed to implement democracy, for eample: state of law (constitutional state - as I already said) and division of powers. But there are nevertheless not enough mechanisms for a 100% democracy. It is just not possible because of nature, of life, especially of the human nature and life.

The best prospects for having a democracy are: homogeneity, a common enemy (a natural or a cultural one) or something like a (seemingly) permanent danger, and everyone must be needed (compare: “SAM”).

[size=80](Greetings from Maleswhale, by the way.)[/size]