And he is just a neoliberal one trick pony, emphasizing pluralism and democracy more than functioning institutions. There were working institutions even in absolutist countries you know?
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
rpgcodex > the threads can be improved by adding more replies
whydoibother
Oh yeah, he's definitely a democracy fetishist. One of those people that insists freedom and democracy are good even in when they don't result in good outcomes. They are good in of themselves. I don't mind a good CEO running things from his office. However, I am not sure Pyotr Alexeyevich was such a leader. Didn't he start Russia's self-colonization by importing ministers from the west, like Japan did a bit later?
whydoibother
Regardless, in the Stalin book I'm reading (by Stephen Kotkin), the initial chapters about the tzardom talk about the autokrator concept, and how Nicky had a strong religious feeling about being an absolute ruler, and how having a parliament is a sin and evil. That's the despot fetishism, where having absolute rule is a good in of itself, regardless of the outcomes. This is worse than democracy fetishism.
Üstad
The thing is despotic systems especially systems with winner-takes-all ones tend to get corrupt and stagnate easily. Despotism is not everything bad or good, democracy is not everything bad or good, these are childish takes of these terms.
Üstad
A benevolent despot would still try to institutionalize the country and create middle class. Institutionalized democracies are the least corrupt systems so they should prepare the country for this path. The other options are tyranny of rabbles or oligarchy of elite strata, even the functioning ones serving only for their interests for example Prussia.
whydoibother
The good thing about absolute rule is that there is no power on the table. This means that interest groups don't need to fear that their enemies will take power. As in, the Republicans in the USA don't need to fear the Democrats will seize power and ban Creationism teaching in school; the Democrats don't need to fear the Republicans will seize power and ban abortions.
whydoibother
At least based on modern political rhetoric, fear of the other guy fucking you over is a big driver of division. But if the autokrat has all the power, you don't need to rush in and claim power yourself, because there's no risk that the other guy will claim it. This would make people less interested in political life, because they can't be mobilized by threats of the bad things about to happen unless they vote.
Üstad
Democracy with elite institutions keep checks and balances. Elites run things yet the legitimacy comes from both modern values and constitutions but also the consent of the people.
Üstad
But nowadays the elites manufacture consent too easily, much of the stupidity of politicians happens thanks to it. They're having it too easy nowadays. The media proved itself too powerful, just like legislature, judiciary and executive powers, it should be controlled and seperated from the other powers.
whydoibother
On oligarchy, I feel that this is always the end result of any system. In a democracy, the few best orators will form it. With mass media, the few media moguls will form it. With lobbying, the few richest people will form it. With a king, the few influential advisors will form it. In any organization of people, some will be smarter, more cunning, more able, more driven to power, and over time they will claim it.
whydoibother
"They're having it too easy nowadays." Eh? Used to be you can just buy consent with a bread dole and organizing feasts, or with cancelling debt every 10 years or so. Its not easier to buy mass consent now than it was for medieval kings. This has to do with the fear of the other party doing something bad with power, in concentrated power there's less fear.
Üstad
I see what you say, but compare Corinthian oligarchy and Athenian democracy. Corinth was ruled by despots enjoying full popular support, Athens had checks and balances so there were less tyranny there.
People who rule will be powerful that's a fact. But how much power will they have, that's the question. It's about internal balance of power.
People who rule will be powerful that's a fact. But how much power will they have, that's the question. It's about internal balance of power.
whydoibother
If how much power you have is a question, then you can try to get more power. This usually prompts other people with power to also try to increase their power, to defend themselves. This usually results in bad times.
However, if how much power you have is not a question, since the autokrat has all the power, then there's no power struggle.
However, if how much power you have is not a question, since the autokrat has all the power, then there's no power struggle.
whydoibother
Of course this has to be deeeeply ingrained in the system, to the point where its a sin and disgusting and a disgrace for the autokrat not to have full power. Where anyone trying to gain power is met with disdain from his potential competitors and the masses. And this would ensure a stability, which however may turn to ultraconservative slow rot and decline, eg tzarist Russia or Mughals.
Üstad
>Eh? Used to be you can just buy consent with a bread dole and organizing feasts
Well your people didn't live to see the golden age of liberal democracies due to commie rule. So you don't understand what the people have lost, I'm not trying to be dick here. I'll just sum it up shortly, liberals don't give a fuck about liberal values and top rich dogs don't fear from organized working class movement anymore.
Well your people didn't live to see the golden age of liberal democracies due to commie rule. So you don't understand what the people have lost, I'm not trying to be dick here. I'll just sum it up shortly, liberals don't give a fuck about liberal values and top rich dogs don't fear from organized working class movement anymore.
whydoibother
When westerners talk about ideology and are optimistic about power, I can't help but think they are retarded. I guess this golden age liberal experience is what I am missing and why I don't get it. Everyone here is cynical about power, and instinctively recoils from ideology.
whydoibother
(unless its Grug tier nationalism, that sells every time)
Üstad
Being cynical is good, being content with the situation is not. "It's just how it is" is acceptance.
> This usually prompts other people with power to also try to increase their power, to defend themselves.
The struggle for power can be beneficial especially as long as it's waged via soft power.
> This usually prompts other people with power to also try to increase their power, to defend themselves.
The struggle for power can be beneficial especially as long as it's waged via soft power.
Üstad
In pure anarchy company A hires thugs and brutalize the owners of company B. In regulated competitive free market (I know it's a meme but still) they have to just git gud and this will breed quality, innovation and all the rainbow cool stuff.
>When westerners talk about ideology and are optimistic about power
I'm not a foolish idealogue, I hope I'm not coming as one of them.
>When westerners talk about ideology and are optimistic about power
I'm not a foolish idealogue, I hope I'm not coming as one of them.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
If not for Petro I, Russia couldn't even be a 2nd rate power. An idealistic tsar could do ever of these things I've mentioned, it's just they coincidentally didn't do it.