15 Answers

  1. It is difficult to understand what is meant by final democracy. If you mean a society where any decision is made exclusively by voting, and not limited to the simple majority vote, then yes-this is some strange way of social organization, and you will not get very far on it. Fortunately, the ideal democracy is not seen anywhere like this.�

    Society evolves by inventing new ways of organizing decision-making. Modern democracy-with its branches of government, checks and balances that limit the expression of will by the constitution-is the most advanced method at the moment. Obviously not perfect, it will improve over time and perhaps one day it will improve so much that we will no longer be able to call it the good old democracy. What you can be absolutely sure of is that in the process of this improvement, it will not turn into a monarchy, because the latter has definitely outlived its usefulness and discredited itself. A return to it is possible only if all of humanity is rolled back in time as a result of a nuclear war. Then you'll have to go through all those dark ages all over again, and there will probably be time for all sorts of backward forms of government, monarchy, or worse.

  2. Epigraph: It's not scary that we're adults now. It's scary that we're adults now.

    Democracy is simply the maturity of the people. Its legal capacity. And what kind of people will dispose of their adulthood – such a life will turn out for them.

    Democracy is not so much about rights, it is much more about duties and responsibilities. Making decisions is a responsibility. Democracy is when the fact that someone pisses in your entrance is not the fault of Putin or Obama, but specifically you, because you need to put an intercom and surveillance cameras.

    This is when you team up with people to solve your problems and complete your tasks, not because they are cool and you like the same things, but because you have a common interest.�

    This is when no one will protect your rights for you, no one will give you anything for free and no one will care about your whining, because you are an adult and your life is in your hands.

    And how great it is is already a personal taste of each individual. Personally, I like being an adult, I've always liked it and I'm not afraid of responsibility, freedom of decision-making is much more valuable to me than being unworkless and expecting benefits from someone else. And someone so to old age and dreams of happiness in a kindergarten, where you are fed, walk and wipe your ass, and at 3 o'clock lights out and that everything is in bed, but you are not responsible for anything.

  3. No, of course not.

    Democracy is a perfectly normal form of governance. Here it is important to understand that, like any system, democracy has the conditions for effective work.

    Initially, democracy came from Greece. There is a demos that rules – these are free citizens who did not bother to work, analyzed the meaning of the decisions made, listened to the explanations of specialists and then voted. Slaves, women, and non-citizens were not allowed to make decisions. Under such a system, democracy works for 5+.

    In other words, the success of democracy requires a certain level of development and consciousness of people. If there is such consciousness, democracy helps. If it doesn't exist, if the decision is made by dullards and triplets, then the quality of this decision will be appropriate. The Polish Sejm of modern times, when the most important decisions were disrupted because of one half-drunk nobleman who wanted to assert himself and take revenge on his enemy, is a vivid example of such a mimodemocratic choice.

  4. The most correct and primordial democracy is civil war. When everyone is armed and the winner is the one who calls more thugs into their ranks. And in a non-current democracy, the one who gets the most likes wins.

  5. Democracy is a State structure that has yet to be achieved. Communism is a social system that has yet to be built.

    What we call communism or democracy today are vulgar versions of them

    And they are vulgarized only by the level of consciousness of humanity as a whole, its moral component as the main one. A new person is needed to implement the “final” democracy. We need a conscious, responsible, honest, compassionate person.

    Humanity has other depths of swampy darkness: slavery and dictatorship.

  6. Did Berdyaev say that? If you said it, you need to look at a specific place to understand what you meant.

    But we can answer in general. And to find out the philosophical answer to any question, first look carefully at the concepts in question. Where did they come from, where did the word come from, when did this phenomenon first appear, what is it in essence? If you repeat this question in relation to each part of the question, you will generally have a formal answer – and you will be able to fill it with a specific subjective meaning when the insight comes.

    Democracy, on the other hand, means the rule of the people, which means that the society has a device for itself in order to be aware of itself as a source of power. What would be the “ultimate democracy”? The people are made up of individual people, and what would be the “final power”? “The power of one over many?” The power of many over one? “Ultimate democracy” is either the name of something impossible, because the interests of the individual and the group in this world will never coincide absolutely, or the name of the best real form of democracy possible on Earth.

    To perish in the darkness of ignorance is a constant danger for our kind, it always walks beside us regardless of our system – even if communism itself is, the fall and elimination of humanity will always be our danger.

  7. why? if you care that people are stupid and don't understand a damn thing themselves..

    so in fact, in a democracy, they do not solve anything.
    the average man in the street simply votes for someone he likes ( perhaps even outwardly) and then these people decide the fate.

    it turns out almost the same royal court))) only it's called something else

  8. Well, democracy is not the worst thing in the world, but it is obvious that the “people's will” has to be adjusted one way or another by people who are stronger, more influential and more pedigreed. In principle, many countries do not hide: in the United States, the same aristocratic surnames flash in politics.life, president-senior, president-junior, etc. You can't join the Republican or Democratic Parties from the street, you can only work for them. In Sweden, one party has been running the country for almost a hundred years, turning the steering wheel of the state right and left – either genetic cleansing is carried out, or ethnically enriched – as the “working people” in the nth generation from the party want. In France and other countries, there is a system of complex elections, in which only certain forces get access to leverage, and it is customary to exclude others who are not very sympathetic. In England, there is a monarchy in general – even local communists pray for it, and in referendums on the independence of post-colonies, mass loudmouths of independence are always won by quiet and inconspicuous supporters of the crown.

    Therefore, I believe that if people got absolute and real power, and the authorities turned into depersonalized mechanisms, sharpened for performing certain operational tasks, and there would be nothing more in the state , then the world would look different. It is also possible as described by the author of the question.

  9. Democracy has only a few disadvantages:
    – a decision contrary to the opinion of 49% of the people (in such cases, lacks the concept of consensus);
    – to vote can participate, even those who are not versed in politics/social issues from the word at all (electoral law to deprive you can not, or will abuse);
    – the possibility of electing not the most worthy candidate, and the candidate of the populist demagogue or;

    On the other hand:
    – if a completely stupid person is at the helm, he can be replaced in 5 years, or even impeached altogether. In the case of a monarchy – or a bloody revolution, or to wait for decades until the king dies;
    – in the case of developed countries, the President can be any more or less educated person with people, and not just a representative of some of the dynasty;
    in a democracy, there is a kind of system of checks and balances – you can't just take any laws, because once the rating will drop or be accused of exceeding his authority. Sometimes you have to make a bunch of amendments to the bill, so that it would be more satisfying for all parties.
    – The President, Prime Minister and deputies are just posts. The state is not the property of any of them. And no citizen is obligated to bow down to them, respect them, or have no doubts or objections about their policies.
    – There are limits to democracy – not all decisions can be made at all, even if 80% of the population votes for the death penalty for oppositionists – such a decision cannot be made, as it contradicts the rights and constitution (laws, of course, can be changed, but not too quickly and radically). In a dictatorship or an absolute monarchy, you can issue any decrees even if you are drunk or sleepy (in such cases, the law obeys the ruler) or refer to the dubious “will of the people” (most dictators are formally considered people's deputies who serve exclusively the interests of the common people).
    – The presence of an “iron hand”, a strong government, an irremovable government does not guarantee the beginning of order in the state…Maybe, with relative luck, a dictator will improve at least someone's life, boost the economy and lead the country out of a long-term crisis (like Franco or Musolini, whose role is considered ambiguous). Or maybe, on the contrary – from a weak but promising state to make a semblance of the Middle Ages, the consequences of which will need to be corrected for more than one year.

  10. “Democracy” is a WORD that everyone understands as they like. For example, in the United States, the first person is elected by several thousand, in the course of computer simulation (against the background of an insane number of violations), in the Russian Federation absolutely by the entire population by direct vote (against the background of speculation about violations), in Britain by several hundred, with a living monarch who can flush all decisions down the toilet!

    In all cases – democracy!?

    In addition, in all programs that most Americans watch, they show that the United States is the most democratic and the people decide everything there, but in all serious programs and publications of the States, they say and write that in the country everything is decided by large corporations, either information and financial (for Democrats) or industrial (for Republicans). Let's say there are two real political and financial forces of the state.

    That is, in fact, no one is trying to say or write the WORD “people”, it is not there, it is not discussed by serious people.

    Healthy-not healthy. Democracy is not a form of government or a regime, but a TIME (period) when the elite of the state can afford theatrical performances instead of serious solutions to issues. Remember the State Duma meetings of the late 80s and 90s: continuous fights, thick matting, psychopathic deputies disguised as pioneers and long, long consideration-voting on most issues, WITH INSTANT APPROVAL OF a RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE REDISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS AND PROPERTY! This was the THEATER, when the bright plots hid the ROBBERY of the country!

    The state CAN AFFORD(!) democracy, in a relatively narrow time frame, when he has a good financial situation, in other circumstances, democracy can really easily lead the state to decay.

  11. In general, democracy is a flexible concept. There are a lot of models (antique, participatory, liberal, etc.). All of them are achievable to varying degrees.�

    Democracy in the most common sense (the power of the people) is quite a good thing. It implies the freedom of the market, which means the development of the economy, including attracting capital, TNCs, and so on. With developed democratic institutions, the ruling elites have to take into account the opinion of the population, ensure their rights, and so on.�

    The problem with democracy is not the idea itself, but the fact that it is difficult to fully implement it. The population can often be manipulated (populism has not been abolished). They often vote not for the candidate's program, but for his image. At the same time, in countries where new institutions have not yet taken root, democratization looks as strange as possible (the same post-Soviet space).

    In general, most of the models were created as something to strive for, and if they could be fully implemented, it would be quite good.

  12. Monarchy is the way out. I can't imagine why our ruler hasn't declared himself a monarch yet. Democracy is an invention of the USA. In fact, democracy exists to destroy Russia.

  13. Democracy is the turnover of power through elections.

    Democracy doesn't mean anything else.

    There is another condition for the existence of democracy: equality between the ruling party and the opposition party.

    Democracy can be slave-owning, aggressive, or on the contrary, have various kinds of qualifications – all this is secondary.

    Based on this, there has never been a democracy in Russia in its history, there was no change of power through elections, but there was an imitation of democracy.

  14. Democracy is a form of political regime. It has nothing to do with the “state of the people”. The most complete democracy known to us existed in early primitive society, in small human collectives. Later, humanity went and with difficulty came to a representative form of democracy only in the twentieth century (when women and racial minorities received the right to vote). Let me explain what I mean. Democracy for me is a political regime and a state structure in which there are two things – universal suffrage and an alternative and equal (uncensored) electoral system. Neither other Greece, nor Other Rome, nor the bourgeois republics of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In Europe, based on this definition, they were not a democracy at all. Nor was the United States a democracy until the repeal of racially discriminatory laws that prevented blacks and reservation residents from voting, but did not de facto apply to whites. And these laws were repealed only in the 50s and 60s of the twentieth century. Contrary to popular myths, formal (representative) democracy is not the “most perfect form of democracy”, since it does not exclude deception of voters by means of a manipulative media machine, inequality of candidates on the basis of access to money and information resources, abuse of representation (such as, for example, refusal to follow election programs, etc.). The highest form of democracy by definition is direct democracy, and its tools are gradually being introduced in some countries of the world.�

    Now, as for the “unhealthy state of the people”. The unhealthy state of the people in developed countries is not evidence of the existence of “final democracy” or even “rampant democracy”, but evidence of the reduction of democratic rights for the majority of the population, the withdrawal of these rights by the political elite and their restrictions. All these “noisy campaigns for the protection of minorities” have long been hidden behind elite “games” related to the struggle for power, resources and influence. The fact that neurotic sexual disorders (paraphilia) are normalizing in the public consciousness, people with psychotic disorders are being deprived of the right to psychiatric care, people with low incomes are being deprived of the right to have a family (social services are taking children away from such families, moving them to “comfortable conditions”), propaganda for the use of new types of narcotic drugs (in addition to old, already existing and habitual drugs, such as nicotine and alcohol) is growing, the movement for the legalization of”sex trafficking” is growing – all this is not evidence of democracy. This shows that it is advantageous for the political and economic elites of developed countries that the population should be poorly educated, neurotic, suffer from addictions, be deprived of normal socialization in a family with native parents, and so on. How is this policy accepted by the masses? It is very simple – by controlling the education system and the media, you can convince voters that these things are for their own good. Moreover, it can be suggested that a noble moral duty requires voters to protect the rights of minorities (and then we make a substitution and replace the real rights of minorities with the abomination that I described above). Minorities, by the way, suffer from this situation not less, but even more. Mentally ill people who are no longer subjected to “psychiatric abuse” simply lose their minds and live as homeless people on the street. After all, they are “completely free” to choose whether to take medications or not to take them. As a result, their quality of life decreases (especially if they belong to the poor). Women do not benefit from the expansion of porn propaganda in society, because such propaganda leads to an increase in the number of rapes, sexual exploitation of underage girls, and so on. “charms “(and it is conducted on behalf of some “feminist” groups). Homosexuals are unlikely to benefit from being indoctrinated with a “victim mentality” on the one hand, and on the other hand convinced of the “normality of attraction”. In reality, it's either one or the other. Either homosexuals are a minority and victims of violence by the majority, or they are just a variant of the norm and everyone should perceive them normally, and the persecution is just a historical accident. Drug addicts are unlikely to improve their quality of life and life expectancy by continuing to use drugs. Even light drugs lead to changes in the consciousness of the individual and changes in the hormonal chemistry of the brain. Long-term use of them leads to a gradual decrease in cognitive abilities (not as strong as with old alcoholism, but nevertheless). In general, instead of and under the guise of “complete freedom”, the elites offered the masses total enslavement (not for the first time in the history of mankind).

    So it turns out in the end that only the power of the majority (and democracy is the power of the majority, and not of enlightened elites) can save humanity from o…shih (sorry for the mat, but there are no other words) they are not used to the impunity of big capitalists and political power lovers, who will do anything to preserve their state power and large profits (and even start a world war in the limit).

  15. In Athens, at one point there was more or less “final democracy”. This was not a period of most effective management, but there was no catastrophe either (with the exception of the Sicilian expedition).

Leave a Reply