Mechanism of hidden authoritarianism in Western countries
- Context: Other
- Thread starter Spathi
- Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY
The discussion highlights the perception that Western democracies are influenced by a financial aristocracy, where laws ostensibly designed to address societal issues simultaneously enhance the wealth and power of the elite. Examples include EU agricultural subsidies favoring large holdings over small farmers and New Zealand's greenhouse gas emission quotas adversely impacting small agricultural businesses. The conversation critiques the oversimplification of linking free market economies to authoritarianism, emphasizing the need for a nuanced analysis of individual political figures and specific policies rather than broad generalizations.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of Western political structures and their economic implications
- Familiarity with agricultural policies and their impact on small versus large businesses
- Knowledge of historical and social perspectives on democracy and authoritarianism
- Awareness of key political figures and their influence on governance
- Research the impact of EU agricultural subsidies on small farmers
- Examine New Zealand's greenhouse gas emission policies and their effects on agriculture
- Explore the historical context of free market economies and their relationship with authoritarianism
- Analyze case studies of political figures like Berlusconi, Erdoğan, and Trump in relation to democratic principles
Political scientists, economists, sociologists, and anyone interested in the dynamics of democracy, authoritarianism, and the influence of financial elites in Western societies.
- 297
- 215
Grand systemic claims delivered with high confidence, minimal evidence, and resistance to any request for specificity. @fresh_42 repeatedly asks him to engage with complexity and he repeatedly responds with "everything becomes simple if you look at things from above."
I am not sure what you are expecting in the form of a substantive reply, or why you would be overly interested in it.
I am not sure what you are expecting in the form of a substantive reply, or why you would be overly interested in it.
It was the best I could muster by way of trying to diplomatically say 'do better'.
- 1,110
- 1,515
I have a suspicion about Tor, which is a bit of a pity. He always argues with referendums or other opinion polls. This is an interesting political and scientific topic. I bet that we do not get a symmetric result if we ask, e.g., "Shall we leave the EU?" versus "Shall we keep our EU membership?" And this is only one point out of many.
... is obviously a provocation that doesn't survive a second thought. And the equation burgeoning nationalism equals authoritarianism doesn't really make sense to me. Nevertheless, it is an interesting topic, too, even though a different one. People feel threatened by migration and globalization pretty much everywhere. It isn't surprising that populists take advantage of it, presenting nationalism as a presumable solution. One has to explain to them that globalization made their goods affordable, and migration can be an economic boost. I am a bit surprised to see nationalism in the US. I mean, the entire country is based on migration, the president and his wife included!
I was taught at the High School level to view US immigration as a series of consistent patterns. I don't recall the specific phases or what they were named, but the rough gist is that Nationalism is a consistent characteristic of mainstream US culture, and it initially rejects the newest immigrant groups who over a few generations assimilate and themselves adopt the same nationalist attitudes towards the next wave of immigrants. It really doesn't take very many generations for a group to lose any sense of immigrant identity and individuals in that group to take on nationalist perspectives. I guess I can say sometimes it doesn't take even one generation - I know Mexican immigrants who are naturalized citizens who voted for Trump - imo deliberately adopting a US centric nationalism and then virtue-signaling with their politics.
The man's only real principle, imo, is opportunism. I don't believe he's truly nationalist (or anything else, really) unless it suits him in the moment.
- Thread starter
- #37
As I have mentioned above, the authoritarianism in Western countries is mostly based on package voting, where each choice the voters have has both some good and bad decisions, and they can't separate them to vote for each point independently. For example, a frightening scenario of the near future is as follows: Trump dies or gets a dementia or becomes impeached by the US parliament, and the Americans choose a president of e.g. these two candidates - J. D. Vance vs Kamala Harris. A half of Americans will vote for Vance because they do not want transgenders in big sport, and another half will vote for Harris because they do not want the abortions to be prohibited. Possibly the choice will become even worse, because both candidates will not talk about cryptocurrencies (this will mean that they plan to forbid them), and they will promise to de-anonymise Meta and X (because people talk too much about politics in the social networks). Both choices will be terrible, and I am sure that the best vote in such situation will be NOTC, or, more exactly, spoiling the ballot.
The best thing Trump can do now, to prevent such a scenario, is the initiation of some all-US referendum with 4 proposals (each point will be voted separately):
1) Ending of "gender diversity";
2) Full legalization of abortions;
3) Legalization of cryptocurrencties;
4) Some declaration that the social network have all rights to make their users anonymous.
The best thing Trump can do now, to prevent such a scenario, is the initiation of some all-US referendum with 4 proposals (each point will be voted separately):
1) Ending of "gender diversity";
2) Full legalization of abortions;
3) Legalization of cryptocurrencties;
4) Some declaration that the social network have all rights to make their users anonymous.
- 1,110
- 1,515
Your response reminded me of a small talk I once had in the UK during a seminar. We were a colourful group gathered from all around Europe, and since it was summer, we discussed various habits in different countries, such as sunbathing in parks or swimming in public lakes, etc. I remember a Portuguese man telling us how they enjoyed a small waterfall in an old quarry when they were children. The British guy couldn't understand this. Lying around on a public meadow, eventually even naked, or swimming in places that were not meant to be, seemed unthinkable for him. We also debated migration on a different occasion, and he was convinced that every migrant to Europe seeks a way into the UK. I summarized those opinions by calling him more British than the British - he quite obviously had Indian or Pakistani roots.
I observed similar attitudes from Turkish people in Germany. I just thought that the US would be different with all these hobbies for searching their heritage, the larger the family tree, the better, the Mayflower myth, the jokes about various groups (Irish, Polish, Italian, Chinese), and so on. This all sounds as if Americans were much more aware of their migration background than others. And, of course, I still suffer from an overly idealistic view of the country. I grew up believing the propaganda about American values.
- 1,110
- 1,515
This ...
a) ... is an oversimplification
b) ... lacks provable evidence, such as scientific studies, or at least a report in a newspaper
c) ... is a personal assessment, since it is not clear who is frightened and why
d) ... is a deliberate collection of very different topics
And again:
translates to: "A representative democratic system is authoritarian", which is ridiculous. We could discuss the value of representative democracies and whether there are better alternatives, which I seriously doubt, but your conclusion is far-fetched. If Western countries were authoritarian, how would you call Putin's regime? Honeymoon? It seems as if you think there is no alternative to any political system but a direct democracy, which is not manageable and definitely not a free expression of the people's will. This has been proven wrong on many occasions (Goebbels, Brexit, popular vote in the US, ...). And is people's wish also people's best? This all makes no sense.
Many of us did.