Yes, Virginia (and other states), there is an American plutocracy

[pecksniff]

Ok so then you understand why China isn't one either.

China is not a democracy because, while the people get to vote for public officials, they only get to choose among candidates approved by the CCP.

We -- not always, but usually -- only get to choose among candidates approved by the plutocracy. It's different but not too different.

 

[LittleDixie]

Ok so then you understand why China isn't one either.

Which is why I used it as an example. I'm not sure why you are posturing as if we disagree here.

People in China vote. If democracy just means that people vote, then the conclusion is obvious.

I don't think representative democracy is anything special. It seems to cheapen the concept.

Europe, several different times.

What times, and where specifically?

You mean like Athens and Rome? Would you consider those failures?

 

[LittleDixie]

China is not a democracy because, while the people get to vote for public officials, they only get to choose among candidates approved by the CCP.

We -- not always, but usually -- only get to choose among candidates approved by the plutocracy. It's different but not too different.

It is different in that the elite in China speak Chinese. Other than that, it's pretty much the same.

 

[Cubantripod]

I glad you understand it is true....we are a democracy and you just admitted it.

The last 4 years should have taught you that's not the case. Trump was a rebellion by middle America against the Washington Establishment. The establishment and their backers wanted Hillary and they spent Trump's entire 4 years making a mountain out of every mole hill to make it impossible for him to get re-elected.

 

[pecksniff]

It is different in that the elite in China speak Chinese. Other than that, it's pretty much the same.

Well, the American plutocracy is not nearly so tightly organized as the CCP. It's a social class, with several political organizations under its control.

 

[CornusKousa]

China is not a democracy because, while the people get to vote for public officials, they only get to choose among candidates approved by the CCP.

We -- not always, but usually -- only get to choose among candidates approved by the plutocracy. It's different but not too different.

OMG with your imaginary plantocracy boogeyman bit.

Which is why I used it as an example. I'm not sure why you are posturing as if we disagree here.

Because you seem to be disagreeing with the definition of the term.

I don't think representative democracy is anything special. It seems to cheapen the concept.


What times, and where specifically?

I don't think it's special.

Currently Switzerland has direct democracy at a few levels of government, ancient Greece, a few city states had a rather rough go at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

 

[LittleDixie]

Currently Switzerland has direct democracy at a few levels of government, ancient Greece, a few city states had a rather rough go at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Which of those do you consider to be failures?

 

[CornusKousa]

Which of those do you consider to be failures?

All of them... both countries are trash.

Letting the idiots run shit because they are the majority is fucking retarded.

 

[pecksniff]

All of them... both countries are trash.

Letting the idiots run shit because they are the majority is fucking retarded.

The only alternative to that is always some form of elitism, and "meritocratic" elitism never really is.

 

[LittleDixie]

Because you seem to be disagreeing with the definition of the term.

I'm not disagreeing with the definition.

I don't respect representative democracy. I don't think that electing your kings to make all the decisions about your life truly represents the will of the people, and I've cited examples of how representatives have in the past and currently go against popular opinions - which is the opposite of rule by the people.

But, definitions are what they are whether I approve or not.

 

[CornusKousa]

The only alternative to that is always some form of elitism, and "meritocratic" elitism never really is.

Says the guy who wants HIS elitism enforced at gunpoint

The alternative is to not have the elitism enforced, limit government's ability to oppress and abuse.... liberalism.

I know, but then how would YOU and the comrades enforce YOUR brand of elitism??

You wouldn't be able too, which is why I support it.

 

[CornusKousa]

I'm not disagreeing with the definition.

The start of this conversation led me to believe otherwise.

I don't respect representative democracy. I don't think that electing your kings to make all the decisions about your life truly represents the will of the people, and I've cited examples of how representatives have in the past and currently go against popular opinions - which is the opposite of rule by the people.

Except it's not, because the people voted for it.

Not getting it exactly their way all the time, doesn't make it not democracy.

But, definitions are what they are whether I approve or not.

Well that makes you more intelligent than most of the "Words mean whatever I want because that's convenient for my political arguments!!" progressive leftist on the board so you're doing well.

 

[pecksniff]

Says the guy who wants HIS elitism enforced at gunpoint

The alternative is to not have the elitism enforced, limit government's ability to oppress and abuse.... liberalism.

No, that is not an alternative. It never happens, in any way that would satisfy you. This world will see Marx' classless society before it will ever see a libertopia distinguishable from a Somalia-style failed state, which is itself elitist in a might-makes-right sense. One is tempted to suspect that is the sort of elitism RWs truly yearn for -- a feudal hierarchy of the strong over the weak -- and certainly that is the form of social order most likely to emerge in the absence of more civilized forms of government.

 

[LittleDixie]

Except it's not, because the people voted for it.

My objection is that by the definition, a society could vote in a dictator who could claim that his country is a democracy. Media and the establishment could only cover the candidates who were in on "it" and essentially block anyone who wasn't from public view. If people are only given a choice to vote for two candidates who essentially both a part of a dictatorship, the whole thing would rightly be defined as a democracy.

It is kind of like learning that the definition of freedom includes "a slave that is allowed to drink water without the permission of their slave owner."

If that was inserted, then slavery (that allows the free drinking of water) would be freedom. But, obviously, it isn't any definition of freedom that we'd accept.

But, again, maybe the problem is that I've just been misunderstanding the word. I thought it was universally a good thing, but really it can mean something good as easily as it can mean something bad.

 

[CornusKousa]

My objection is that by the definition, a society could vote in a dictator who could claim that his country is a democracy.

Because it is.... as long as the elections aren't total shams like in China/N. Korea etc. where you "vote" but Xi or Kim or Castro is the ONLY choice on the ballot. And if you don't choose it with enough enthusiasm then labor camp for you and your family. That is of course, not actual democracy, it's a sham for propaganda purposes done by an autocracy.

Now there are EFFECTIVE dictatorships in actual democracies too.... Venezuela for example, those people really did vote themselves into that and then double and tripled down on their dumb. Real democracy... just made a few bad choices and would rather suffer than acknowledge any mistakes and learn from them.

USA is heading down the same path with it's dogmatic partisanship/tribalism.

 

[LittleDixie]

Because it is.... as long as the elections aren't total shams like in China/N. Korea etc. where you "vote" but Xi or Kim or Castro is the ONLY choice on the ballot.

It just destroys any positivity I have for the word.

Democracy isn't anything special. It makes me sad to type that.

 

[pecksniff]

USA is heading down the same path with it's dogmatic partisanship/tribalism.

Only to the extent the plutocracy allows it.