blade_barrier @ blade_barrier @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

74

Joined

2 wk. ago

Well, seems like your deductive capabilities are subpar. Don't try suggesting thing again, you suck at it.

Popular assemblies composed of common citizens could maybe decide where to put a public toilet on a street. Most laws were passed by the senate (composed of aristocrats), and consuls/other top magistrates were appointed by the senate.

I live in a post soviet country so I experience the impact of socialism to this very day. It's appalling.

Roman Republic wasn't a democracy. It was ruled by aristocratic families. Lol.

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?

And how are the material conditions for the average working-class person in those monarchies?

Looking at today's monarchies, the conditions are about the same as in today's democracies.

How much autonomy did they have over their lives compared to the 200 or 300 years they would have lived under a democracy?

The same?

How much suffering happened under monarchy compared to democracy?

The same average amount of suffering.

Because if all of you are measuring is how long the ruling class can subjugate the working class, then sure I’m monarchy is better.

It's obviously the most important parameter. If the govt system can't even sustain itself for long enough, then it's not even worth considering it.

It doesn’t mean I want to live under one

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

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.

I'm not a communist bro.

Dunno. Dropping friends due to politics seems totally cringe. Civilized people should have the option of "let's not talk about politics" instead of breaking up relationships.

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.

Easy: democracies don't last long compared to the other forms government. So they can't be better than other forms of government.

What's the longest lifespan of a democratic state in human history? Now compare it to the average lifespan of monarchies, for example.

1. Yes. Obviously.
2. No. Both are shit.
3. No.

Democracy and dictatorship is not a dichotomy.

Demonstrably false.

There is no practical alternative to this

An alternative would be to stop trying to overthrow some classes and touch grass

Soviet Union bureaucracy was not the proletariat, they didn't use the mop to produce commodities, so they didn't have proletarian class consciousness. Whatever interests they had, it was not working class interests. Lenin, Trotsky and Sverdlov were one nobleman and two petty bourgeoisie.

The State is the only path to a stateless society

This is demonstrably false as first there were stateless societies and then states appeared. If anything, stateless society is a path to the State.

"More fairly" means "more in a way that the said government sees fit"

Moe is bourgeois.