Why Socrates hated Democracy

[vi-va]

Yes lot of this would need face to face talk I'm afraid, coz I would need to build up my case and analysis using archive material (I have collected) with proper context.

China is a different country on this matter altogether as we have discussed before. But for average country I believe overall republican democracy if implemented well is the best shot otherwise its too much coin flipping.

Imo, small nation has bigger chance to adopt republican democracy well. Even small nations, there are many failed cases when the small one has too much diversity.

The problem of republican democracy is not republic, it's democracy I think. In theory, almost every nation can call themselves republic as long as it's not Monarchy, or Theocracy. Nowadays, media is everywhere, so almost every democracy transformed to liberal democracy to some extent. The more power you give to mass, the more they want.

Imo, you can't have liberty and democracy in the same time. You can have illiberal democracy(partial democracy), or you can have liberty without democracy.

When we talked about Democracy here, we are talking Western Democracy. and Western Democracy is the tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses). How can you have liberty when you have to obey majority opinion? Impossible.

Liberty is free man, free of mind, free of choice and responsible for his own choice.
The tyranny of the majority means you are not free man at all, and your choice doesn't matter much, the mass matters.

The contradiction of nowadays Democracy Political System is overwhelming democracy. It's uncontrollable.

Western Democracy either ends with Strong Man rule, we have seen many, e.g. Erdogan, Modi, Putin, Viktor Orbán, Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte, Prayut Chan-o-cha.

Or Western Democracy ends with chaos, we have seen more, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Libya, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Span, even US.

Or Both Strong Man rule and chaos, Thailand, Turkey, Philippine, Venezuela, Bolivia, even US.

China is democracy, you can laugh as hard you can. But it depends on what standard and value you respect. Democracy by mass vote is the worst and low level of democracy. Real democracy is the government policy making involves the people, every single project and law making process take care their people's interest and allow professionals and mass to participate.

US mass can have vote, but their law making are hugely influenced by rich and big cop. That's why US is not democracy, it's Plutocracy or Kleptocracy, or even dictatorship. Do US majority mass want wars oversees? No. But Pentagon keep doing it regardless.

 

[Philosopher]

Democracy is nothing but a farce in my opinion. No nation gives its people the true freedom of choice. All candidates are pre-chosen one or another prior to the public selection. Once these people end up as the leaders, they do the bidding of the "deep state" (however you wish to define it) anyway. Democracy is really just about giving the public the illusion of freedom. The only real difference between a nation ruled by lets say a Monarch and a "democracy", is that the former does not resort to the farcical theatrics of democracy. The end point is usually really the same.

 

[Nilgiri]

Imo, small nation has bigger chance to adopt republican democracy well. Even small nations, there are many failed cases when the small one has too much diversity.

The problem of republican democracy is not republic, it's democracy I think. In theory, almost every nation can call themselves republic as long as it's not Monarchy, or Theocracy. Nowadays, media is everywhere, so almost every democracy transformed to liberal democracy to some extent. The more power you give to mass, the more they want.

Imo, you can't have liberty and democracy in the same time. You can have illiberal democracy(partial democracy), or you can have liberty without democracy.

When we talked about Democracy here, we are talking Western Democracy. and Western Democracy is the tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses). How can you have liberty when you have to obey majority opinion? Impossible.

Liberty is free man, free of mind, free of choice and responsible for his own choice.
The tyranny of the majority means you are not free man at all, and your choice doesn't matter much, the mass matters.

The contradiction of nowadays Democracy Political System is overwhelming democracy. It's uncontrollable.

Western Democracy either ends with Strong Man rule, we have seen many, e.g. Erdogan, Modi, Putin, Viktor Orbán, Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte, Prayut Chan-o-cha.

Or Western Democracy ends with chaos, we have seen more, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Libya, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Span, even US.

Or Both Strong Man rule and chaos, Thailand, Turkey, Philippine, Venezuela, Bolivia, even US.

China is democracy, you can laugh as hard you can. But it depends on what standard and value you respect. Democracy by mass vote is the worst and low level of democracy. Real democracy is the government policy making involves the people, every single project and law making process take care their people's interest and allow professionals and mass to participate.

US mass can have vote, but their law making are hugely influenced by rich and big cop. That's why US is not democracy, it's Plutocracy or Kleptocracy, or even dictatorship. Do US majority mass want wars oversees? No. But Pentagon keep doing it regardless.

Democracy is just naturally contoured and hewn to the inner power structures of the country over time (since its reflective of the people as they organise and project power in various groups). Then it basically can take form of more such -cracies as you prefer to name them with say personal perspective.

But in the larger absolute realm (that no one can really know) where that is good and bad (and how to garner the most perspectives possible for it in first place) is thus a larger debate.

Organising it all top down more "theoretically" as authoritarianism would prefer again is matter for debate and context of the country. Just lot of cases it goes awry over time because of misalignment to needs of society (and refusal to compromise and thus brittle erosion and possible collapse). Democracy (for all its flaws of how it harnesses the existing layers) generally tends to have a higher transmission of the raw forces.

How to build up the directional "enlightened" drive there (past say baser mob tendencies and non-enlightened populism) thus becomes a case of how to develop multi-partisan non-political institutions altogether. In early developing countries, this repository often becomes the military itself because its something most people understand the need to have quite readily. But more can develop with time depending on how good the leaders/philosophers are.

 

[vi-va]

Democracy is just naturally contoured and hewn to the inner power structures of the country over time (since its reflective of the people as they organise and project power in various groups). Then it basically can take form of more such -cracies as you prefer to name them with say personal perspective.

But in the larger absolute realm (that no one can really know) where that is good and bad (and how to garner the most perspectives possible for it in first place) is thus a larger debate.

Organising it all top down more "theoretically" as authoritarianism would prefer again is matter for debate and context of the country. Just lot of cases it goes awry over time because of misalignment to needs of society (and refusal to compromise and thus brittle erosion and possible collapse). Democracy (for all its flaws of how it harnesses the existing layers) generally tends to have a higher transmission of the raw forces.

How to build up the directional "enlightened" drive there (past say baser mob tendencies and non-enlightened populism) thus becomes a case of how to develop multi-partisan non-political institutions altogether. In early developing countries, this repository often becomes the military itself because its something most people understand the need to have quite readily. But more can develop with time depending on how good the leaders/philosophers are.

Western democracy is representative democracy, which different interest group and party compete with each other and represent their own mass behind them.

Culturally, western democracy is base on individualism. It's the opposite of Chinese collectivism tradition. And individualism culture + representative political system keep strengthening the difference, say it culture, language, geography, race, color of skin, religion, caste, class, clan, political opinion difference, rather than unity.

Nation is an imagined political community. Nation is not a natural thing, it's constructed by culture, language, race, religion, education, political system and many other things. Western democracy is one of the best tool to demolish nation, divide people and empower capital.

In the end of day, it's capital slavery.

 

[Nilgiri]

Western democracy is representative democracy, which different interest group and party compete with each other and represent their own mass behind them.

Culturally, western democracy is base on individualism. It's the opposite of Chinese collectivism tradition. And individualism culture + representative political system keep strengthening the difference, say it culture, language, geography, race, color of skin, religion, caste, class, clan, political opinion difference, rather than unity.

Nation is an imagined political community. Nation is not a natural thing, it's constructed by culture, language, race, religion, education, political system and many other things. Western democracy is one of the best tool to demolish nation, divide people and empower capital.

In the end of day, it's capital slavery.

This is why its important each country optimises to its needs.

Blindly copying stuff word for word, is similar to cheating on a test from smarter kid near you. It only gets you so far. Like I would never be proponent of copy pasting say the 2nd amendment of US into the constitution of India...because the context of both societies cultures and histories are very different (as you have rightly pointed out in the intrinsic level of trust reposed in the individual).

But its important in the end, all collectivism does come from individuals as the base unit in the end.

Thats why even in Communist theory, the final stage (pure communism) is doing away with the govt altogether, as the collectivst ideals are all inherently within every individual (every worker). It speaks to really Marxism being the process/agent of change theoretically, but acknowledging the inevitable role of individual force...and that authoritarianism can only be transient/cyclical.

To me it thus depends how much society is willing to accept individualism and how much the individual is willing to accept society....one cannot exist without the other. There is a balance each nation must find.

This is simply the result from in the end we exist as individuals. There is no way for you to enter the body/mind of another like a pure collectivist existence (from the essence of existence itself) would require.