67
Fewer people now say representative democracy is a very good way to govern in many countries surveyed.
(www.pewresearch.org)
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
67 points (88.5% liked)
World News
32314 readers
478 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s not a political system at all. It’s a process that could be implemented in many styles of government. It is not incompatible with representative democracy either. It is a bad idea though. It means that a government has a hard time changing course, even when it needs to. Because it silences people from questioning decisions.
Everyone can see that the US government is ossified, incapable of changing course (or of representing the people). And it’s no accident: it was designed to be so. The Separation of Powers is BROKEN, Here’s Why
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
The Separation of Powers is BROKEN, Here’s Why
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
The Separation of Powers is BROKEN, Here’s Why
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You’re talking about an implementation of representative democracy and you’re not offering any concrete alternative. So I refer you to my first comment where I said that representative democracy is bad, but still better than the others.
I was talking about bourgeois democracies, which have only ever represented the capitalist class. A concrete alternative has already been suggested, socialist democratic centralism, a form of proletarian democracy, but you dismissed it as not even being a political system, despite it having been practiced in various countries throughout the last century. Capitalist states and corporate media label socialist states as “authoritarian,” because the capitalist class doesn’t want us to consider any alternatives that would usurp them.
Can you link something describing what that system of government looks like. Because all I’ve heard of is descriptions of the principles and the Italian party from history. And looking how, that’s all I can find also.
This is demonstrably false because in the real world Chinese system has proven itself to be far more flexible and adaptable than any western regime. That's the reality. In fact, it's obvious that multiparty parliamentary systems are the ones that have hard time changing course. They're literally designed to prevent that. It's not possible to do any sort of long term planning when governments keep changing and people keep pulling in different directions. The horizons for planning become very small. And of course, it's pretty clear that western systems do a great job silencing opinions that fallout of the Overton window. Entire books have been written on the mechanics of this.
This is not true at all, despite what our governments and corporate media keep feeding us. As part of China’s affirmative action policies, the Uyghurs and other ethic minorities were excepted from the One-Child policy, and in Xinjiang they have grown in numbers relative to Hans as a result, and this happened similarly with other ethnic minorities. The “Uyghur genocide” (“cultural” or otherwise) psyop is BS.
Those are some wild and unreliable sources for why it isn’t a genocide. You’re burying your head in the sand.
How am I the one burying my head in the sand if I’m exposed to the same propaganda and media that you are?
What “reliable” sources do you want? Western governments, Western corporate media, Western think tanks, who have a Cold War II agenda for regime change in China, and want to bury the threat of a good example?
Joseph Kahn, the managing editor of the New York Times, is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, as are the CEOs of NPR & PBS. And those are the ones I know off the top of my head: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations
The Council of Foreign Relations is a place where the government and the capitalist class hash out the media’s agenda. On its founding, Walter Lippman was its head of research. The title of Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman’s Manufacturing Consent came from a quote in Lippmann’s book, Public Opinion. Are you familiar with Edward Bernays, who literally wrote the book, Propaganda? Are you familiar with the Powell memorandum or the Trilateral Commission’s report, The Crisis of Democracy?
thanks for letting us know that you're a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect