- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
America is lost. Do not let Elon near your country.
Could? Lmao. Don’t you need laws and elected officials to count as a democracy to begin with?
“Could lose”? We are long past this point. When you can chose between two parties and they try to manipulate the election as hard as they can, then that’s a zombie democracy at best. And now? The president stands above the law. He can fire people illegally. He can disable law enforcement. Democracy in the US is gone. Hopefully only temporarily. Now it’s up to people to act, take their rogue government down and repair what can be repaired.
To be fair they did explicitly say that this report includes no data from 2025.
Oh fuck …
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
Oh, but were not a democracy, were a constitutional republic hardy har har har har
- my republican friends.
Oh, we are? Is that why everyone other than hetero white males is getting mentions removed or protections gutted and/or removed? What part of the constitution that provides rights to all Americans is in play when this is happening? Go ahead, I’ll wait…
That would be my response.
My response is to click that “unfriend” button and never see them on social media again.
That works as well. I was going to delete my Facebook but decided posting things supporting minorities and other groups while being an annoyance to the right was more important.
we’re a constitutional federal republic, with democratically elected representatives, but a plutocracy, in practice
- me, a political science pedant of highest/worst order
As a political science pedant, can you explain to me the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic? I tried to Google “constitutional republic” but I just got a Wikipedia page that said they were the same thing.
Which I guess would fit, since republicans are absolute dumbfucks, but if there’s actually some nuance there, I’m curious to know.
Thanks!
If the question is “What’s the difference?”, then, as is tradition, we must figuratively clear our throats before such discourse with the well-worn adage, “It depends.”
As a disclaimer, much of this content was copied from Wikipedia and arranged in a way to support my opinion; none of this should be taken as Gospel. This is not financial advice. And please accept my apologies for the tedious length.
If we limit our terms’ definitions to their etymological roots, then:
Democracy
-
The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens during classical antiquity. The word comes from dêmos ‘(common) people’ and krátos ‘force/might’.
-
In a direct democracy, the people have the direct authority to deliberate and decide legislation. In a representative democracy, the people choose governing officials through elections to do so. The definition of “the people” and the ways authority is shared among them or delegated by them have changed over time and at varying rates in different countries.
Republic
-
The term originates from the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia into Latin as res publica, and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as republic (or similar terms in various European languages). The term can literally be translated as ‘public matter’. It was used by Roman writers to refer to the state and government, even during the period of the Roman Empire. The term politeia can be translated as form of government, polity, or regime, and it does not necessarily imply any specific type of regime as the modern word republic sometimes does.
-
A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica (‘public affair’ or ‘people’s affair’), is a state in which political power rests with the public (people) through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy. Although a republic is most often a single sovereign state, subnational state entities that have governments that are republican in nature may be referred to as republics.
-
Representation in a republic may or may not be freely elected by the general citizenry. In many historical republics, representation has been based on personal status and the role of elections has been limited. This remains true today; among the 159 states that use republic in their official names as of 2017, and other states formally constituted as republics, are states that narrowly constrain both the right of representation and the process of election.
-
The term developed its modern meaning in reference to the constitution of the ancient Roman Republic, lasting from the overthrow of the kings in 509 BC to the establishment of the Empire in 27 BC. This constitution was characterized by a Senate composed of wealthy aristocrats wielding significant influence; several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates from the populace and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.
Plutocracy
-
A plutocracy (from Ancient Greek πλοῦτος (ploûtos) ‘wealth’ and κράτος (krátos) ‘power’) or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income. The first known use of the term in English dates from 1631. Unlike most political systems, plutocracy is not rooted in any established political philosophy.
-
Some modern historians, politicians, and economists argue that the U.S. was effectively plutocratic for at least part of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era periods between the end of the Civil War until the beginning of the Great Depression.
-
President Theodore Roosevelt became known as the “trust-buster” for his aggressive use of antitrust law, through which he managed to break up such major combinations as the largest railroad and Standard Oil, the largest oil company. According to historian David Burton, “When it came to domestic political concerns, TR’s bête noire was the plutocracy.” In his autobiographical account of taking on monopolistic corporations as president, Roosevelt recounted:
…we had come to the stage where for our people what was needed was a real democracy; and of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy.
On paper, we (the U.S.) are a not a direct democracy, though we do vote directly about some issues via referendums; our constitution codifies the extents and limitations of legislation, enforcement, and jurisprudence of our laws and our rights as citizens.
We directly elect representatives to carry out the business of governance from local, state, to the federal level as our country’s political union is a federation of States that simultaneously retain their autonomy via the parameters outlined within the constitution and cede ultimate authority of jurisprudence to our bicameral national assembly (in our case, Congress) and Supreme Court.
In practice, due to regulatory capture, political expedience and corruption, and the realities of our global economic expansion, our country is effectively ruled by 2 factions of a political class of wealth that use faux-populism to maintain their power and influence.
-
I’d like to subscribe to more political pedantry
FilthyHookerSpit
Discount for you, but on one condition:
You gotta spit on all of my tankie “friends” over at lemmy.ml, hexbear, and lemmygrad and say, “This service was prepaid, and I made a handsome profit, ultimately at your expense and exploitation.”
Unsubscribe!!!
“me, a political science pedant of highest/worst order”
Yo you single
spoiler
Sorry just funiest response I could think of
Suprisingly to everyone, happily married, brah.
constitutional republic
So we’re going to follow the constitution?
ohh
It’s like talking to MAGA about Christianity So you’re going to follow the bible?
ohh
I wish I could award this comment. It follows my occasional and unfulfilling conversations with Republicans extremely closely. If the conversation doesn’t end with wanting to pull my hair out and put my head through the nearest available drywall, did I really talk to Republican?
Oh don’t worry, they’re going to try to change the constitution to match the worldview they like.
Do your friends not understand that Republics are a small subset of Democracies?
Yes, though in all fairness, they were acquaintances. I unfriended them.
removed by mod
The US is one of the most watered down democracies, even for a liberal democracy (which is severely watered down). Its a system where the needs of the many are filtered through the needs of the few. We dont need to “fix” liberal democracy, we need workers democracy (syndicalism).
What are you even talking about, lol?
I think what they mean is, in theory in Democracy the majority decides about political actions by electing their representatives who in turn act on their behalf. In the US this is heavily manipulated by e.g. only giving a very limited number of choices which dont represent most peoples opinions. Not everyones opinion is worth the same, you buy influence with money.
Do you really think that the previous poster understands that? I highly doubt that.
What makes you think so?
There’s nothing liberal about US “democracy”.
Liberal democracy has a fixed definition, its not a term they came up with.
That doesn’t mean they understand that term.
- Democracy isn’t a status given by some watchdog.
- Democracy is shit
So you’re all for dictatorships then?
Democracy and dictatorship is not a dichotomy.
It kinda is, everything falls on that scale, either people are being represented and representing themselves or they aren’t. Everything else is just the mechanics of that.
Was Roman Republic a dictatorship?
I don’t know much about Romans. Eventually it became an empire with an emperor and all though.
Roman Republic exited for 500 years before Roman empire. They were the first to implement the division of government into 3 branches, so I guess they weren’t a dictatorship? They actually invented the word “dictator”. It was temporary authority given to the head of the state at the times of emergency. So, most of the time Rome wasn’t a dictatorship. And it wasn’t a democracy.
Oooh edgy.
I’ll guess they are a college freshman or younger.
Anything else than democracy is shittier
Demonstrably false.
Go ahead and demonstrate it then
Easy: democracies don’t last long compared to the other forms government. So they can’t be better than other forms of government.
Only for those who prefer the taste of boot leather.
We await patiently for your demonstration.
What’s the longest lifespan of a democratic state in human history? Now compare it to the average lifespan of monarchies, for example.
- 482 years
- 636 years
Roman Republic wasn’t a democracy. It was ruled by aristocratic families. Lol.
It was ruled by aristocratic families.
We’re not so different after all!
The argument is that they were a democratic republic.
several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates from the populace and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.
If you’re referring to direct democracy, I suppose we could consider the Athenian democracy, though I think there are other examples from different regions on the planet through antiquity.
The measure of whether a system of government is good or bad is not “how long it lasts”.
It’s the main criterion. If the system doesn’t last, then it’s shit regardless of what it is. The main purpose of the government (and any organization, for that matter) is to exist for as long as possible, everything else comes second. I wonder what other criteria do you have in mind?
okay russian shill, go back to /ML/.
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
What do you mean by that?
- Do you mean electoral politics is fundamentally flawed?
- Do you mean direct action by the working class (workers democracy) is better than liberalism?
- Or are you just begging to have the orange tyrants foot deep down your throat?
-
Yes. Obviously.
-
No. Both are shit.
-
No.
Looking at your past comments would suggest you’re a bootlicker
Well, seems like your deductive capabilities are subpar. Don’t try suggesting thing again, you suck at it.
-
deleted by creator
Really? Seems like we had a peaceful transition of power just this year.
We peacefully transitioned into a technocracy with a wanna-be dictator idiot at the helm.
As an exercise for anyone reading this who doesn’t already know: How did Hitler got into a position of power? Look that up, don’t use AI, actually check up on that yourself.
Technically the Nazis lost that election, but the Conservatives who won turned around and handed power to Hitler, all to prevent the Left from gaining power.
That’s not how elections work here. There is not really a “winner” in elections unless someone gets an absolute majority, which is almost never. Parties form a coalition to have a majority together.
That’s how it is nowadays, but I think the old system had coalitions too.
Alien school: For todays class we will begin Earth history, please open your text book titled “Earth: All to Prevent the Left From Gaining Power.” This book covers the vast majority of Earth history.
Unironically though, you can see the same pattern going all the way back to Rome.[Michal Parenti’s The Assassination of Julius Caesar]
Something about the history of all hitherto existing society being the history of class struggles.
Wait a minute, so democracy brings people like Trump, Hitler and Hamas to power? Does it mean that democracy is shit?
How about single party socialism? Has that ever turned back into stateless communism, comrade? Or did it turn into “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, Putin’s Russia, Pol Pot, and the DPRK that Trump wants to turn the US into?
I’m not a communist bro.
The Khmer Rouge was never socialist, they were some weird feudal ideology, hence why the CIA supported them and the US recognized them as the legitimate government of Cambodia for like 30 years after Vietnam liberated them and put an actual socialist government in power.
Russia hasn’t been socialist since 1992; Putin’s Russia is what happens when you overthrow a democratic state run by the workers for the workers with a vibrant, multiparty capitalist “democracy”.
“Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is more democratic than the US; the average Chinese person feels they have far greater influence on the government than the average American. They tend to be confused why Americans hate and fear the police and why we aren’t able to vote for politicians who will fix the problem.
There’s also Cuba, who had a referendum on a new constitution a few years ago. After years of debate at the community level, they came up with a final draft that 92% of Cubans voted yes on. Could you imagine if we had that level of influence over our own government?
See the thing you’re missing is that the communist parties of these countries themselves democratic; they’re typically structured such that every member above the rank-and-file is elected, with instant recall and “give us a better candidate” options.
The Khmer Rouge was never socialist
They weren’t socialist bc they took a step past socialism and into communism directly. They abolished money, replaced army with armed militia, achieved direct democracy, abolished institution of family, replaced farmers with agrarian proletariat, achieved 100% public housing. USSR is a capitalist shithole compared to Democratic Kampuchea.
Communism isn’t when everyone lives like a farmer from 200 BC.
Yeah it’s really amazing the number that Western propaganda has done on folks perception of China
They assume democracy requires more than one party. When it should be people you vote for, rather than raw tribalism.
Just a dictionary thing, Technocracy != tech bro president:
Government by technical specialists.
A system of governance where people who are skilled or proficient govern in their respective areas of expertise. A type of meritocracy based on people’s ability and knowledge in a given area.
When you call someone a technocrat, it means they’re more interested in research and quality than political debate
The US has purportedly been a technocracy for a few decades now. The second election of Trump will likely mark the end of the technocracy and the official start of something worse…kakistocracy, full blown oligarchy, kleptocracy, pick whatever word you want.
The administrative state – the exact thing Elon and his doge goons are targeting – is the home of the technocrats.
Degree of democracy has more to do with the size of the ruling coalition relative to the size of the pool of the interchangeables. When power is shared within a large ruling coalition, there tends to be a louder and more influential voice by the interchangeables, leading to more democracy and better living conditions for everyone, including those in the losing coalition. Autocracies on the ruling spectrum tend to have tiny ruling coalitions.
Source: my memory of reading The Dictator’s Handbook by Bueno de Mesquita and Smith. Highly recommended reading.
If the ruling coalition of the US is much smaller than it appears to be, then yeah, it’s at risk of losing its foothold as a democracy.
That makes one in a row now.
Optical illusion. Plutocrats sharing power among themselves is not democracy, friend.
conspiracy theories about elections are hardly democratic
It’s not about the elections it’s about who gets the support and opportunity and resources to win elections.
A footrace can be executed completely fairly and transparently but if you need to buy special expensive shoes to participate and you receive them at someone else’s discretion and you need to join one of two private clubs to get an invitation and the leaders and members of those clubs also apply discretion then a lot of unfair choices and decisions are being made before the starter pistol goes off.
I’d hardly call it a conspiracy theory that both the Democrats and Republicans serve the wealthy.
“sharing power” implies that non-plutocrats are not involved in the decision, i.e. implying elections are fake
Did you just get radicalized? Yes they are basically fake.
To quote Bill Hicks, sometimes the ship leans a little to the left and sometimes it leans a little to the right, but it’s still going the same direction.
But now it’s going clear off to the right, which actually fucked with a lot of neoliberal agendas that they’ve been enacting for decades regardless of who was in office.
And I hesitate to even call that a real election, even though the train went off the rails. Considering Trump blabbered about how Musk helped him steal it.
yeah you weren’t going to vote either way
Your conclusion is wrong, in that I didn’t say they’re fake, I said that they serve as a way for different mega wealthy people to take turns at serving their own interests. Which may be a synonym or not, depending on your perspective.
But I did imply that non-plutocrats have zero sway in elections, because of how the system is stacked for the two parties because of many different aspects, but one of the obvious ones is just how much money you need to run a successful campaign.
I didn’t know Bernie Sanders was a plutocrat. Just because one race is inaccessible from the working class doesn’t mean all elections are rigged.
Learned helplessness.
What part of it is theory? Citizens United was the final confirmation that made it legal and ever since it’s done in broad daylight.
The only party willing to accept defeat and not cry foul until their cult riots lost. It will never happen the other way around are you’d have be to a deeply vastly empty head to not know that.
'Bloodless coup" comes to mind…
How many eligible voters abstained?
Is there any way to tell who abstained and who just chose not to take time off work so they could pay their bills?
Unfortunately the system is fucked.
Yeah for sure.
How long is the voting window? Is it like 9-5?
It depends on the state. It does tend to be a bit broader than that and most states allow early voting.
However, red states tend to put more hurdles in to maintain their power, limiting polling access in working class districts, especially ones that aren’t predominantly white. Forcing folks to stand in long lines or get across town to cast a ballot. Or scrutinizing and tossing out more mail in ballots in those districts over something petty. Folks don’t have the spoons for that between bills, kids, work, and chores.
Also factor in that a lot of folks abstained because they know their state is already blue or red, and at least, in the swing state I live in, the turnout was actually very high.
Anyway, it’s not as simple as 1/3rd of folks abstained. While I imagine some did, just out of apathy toward the federal government and not understanding how dangerous Trump is to our planet, it’s just not the whole story is all I’m saying.
The US has a long history of making voting a privilege based on class. And while on paper it’s not supposed to be the case, there are certainly mechanisms at play that disinfranchise folks who would likely otherwise vote.
I would assume most monarchies transitioned just as peaceful. What does that prove?
…You might want to study some more history there bub
Sure mate. Hereditary successions were usually smooth. In elective monarchies, there were more power struggles. Do you have anything to add other than insults?
Not to mention that monarchies last way longer than democracies on average throughout history.
Is that so? I would assume democracies last a lot longer than 10 to 50 years? Considering that most of the world has democracies and they tend to be at least since WW2 that does not feel right.
Considering I don’t know any democracy that laster longer than 200-300 years and there are a lot of monarchies that lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years.
Every 4-8 years to all elected opponent?
No, but it’s irrelevant to the question.
I mean, term limits don’t make a democracy and there have been elective monarchies.
The Vatican is an elective absolute monarchy.
When do Catholics vote for the Pope?
When the Conclave elects a new one.
Democracy isn’t defined solely by peaceful transfer of power. Our government is completely captured by monied interests. Public opinion has a near zero influence on policy.
That’s not the only quality of a democracy.
We haven’t had a vote on the shape or priorities of our economy since 1980. This is an economic dictatorship, and has been longer than most of us here have been alive.
We just get a vote on how/if to address the social wedge symptoms that economy either causes or exacerbates.
And only IF addressing them won’t meaningfully harm quarterly earnings expectations for our sociopath class. Example: you know what would drastically reduce the number of abortions without any kind of ban? A living wage that can support a family. But that would cut into corporate metastasis and is therefore a non-starter by either party in anything more than rhetoric.
You can have scapegoating® or affirmation ribbons(D), so long as you vote for for profit prisons, legal murder for profit, millions of Americans dying of exposure on the streets, crumbling commons, public education in utter ruin… Freedom!
Damn. When Sweden (or any Nordic country) says it, it really hits hard.
sorry for derailing a little:
why is there multiple links to choose from as a source? What exactly created that choosable format - are they automated, is this some system like groundnews or something?
EDIT: Seems to be only on some interfaces. I see it on the photon interface for feddit.org but I dont see that on the base fedditorg
Idk, don’t have that on my client (Eternity) but that’s dope
Trump’s approval rating us TOO DAMN HIGH!
“You’ve only been a democracy for only 50 years. Not unless you don’t count black people… you are nearly as mature democracy as Botswana.” - Lukas Matsson (Swedish guy) on Succession
America deserves to be recognized as a Third World Country. I say this as an American, it’s deplorable how the citizens are treated.
We’ve been a third world country for a several decades already. Just because we use to change out guys in the office every 4-8 years, doesnt mean it was ever all that good here.
I think the term is “A third world country with a Gucci belt”
South Sudan is a third world country. America isnt third world, it’s heading into authoritarianism.
The cold war is over, they are called developing countries now. Your point still stands, the US has lots of developing to do, especially on the social/society front.
It doesn’t meet the definition of “developing nation” either.
To be clear- this is just your personal “vibe” and not an actual fact, because the term “third world country” literally means a country that is not aligned with the US or USSR. If you meant “developing nation” that term also has a definition the US does not meet.
