Comment on Hrmmmmm
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoDo you actually think that’s worse than the elite deciding who is going to starve and who’s going to be disappeared to maintain their power?
I think that’s how it is accomplished. Divide and conquer.
bobzer@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I think you’ve been living in a broken democracy too long, you can’t examine it objectively anymore.
The alternative is that you actually believe authoritarianism to be morally superior, which is just disturbing.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Which enemy state of the US isn’t classified as “authoritarian” in the modern era? The very etimology of the term gets chased back to the Anarcho-Capitalist heyday of the Coolidge Era. It’s a token phrase that’s intended to denounce any government institution. Since Reagan, we’ve adopted it to mean “any government we don’t like”.
I don’t believe the system of government establishes any inherent morality. A democratic slave state is not morally superior to a liberated theocracy. A multi-party parliamentary system that starves and imprisons its homeless population to the applause of a supermajority is not ethically superior to a revolutionary junta that strives to feed every mouth and shelter every head.
I think the long term impulses of a single-party state or a consolidated leadership tend towards corruption. And egalitarian governance can alleviate tension between state bureaucrats and lay civilians by offering them a hand in oversight and intervention. But the sin is in the corrupt practices, not the composition of the state. Corrupt mass media, disinformation, and corporate capture of social institutions undermine the foundations of
Go crack a copy of “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”. Its a fairly short story, but it illustrates my point. Democracy is not a panacea nor should it be expected to function as such.