Yes. Your argument is about de-democratisation. I talk about democratic vs. authoritarian.
I argue it’s better to be democratic than not. You argue that countries become less democratic. Those are different topics.
You mean their…
Quite the opposite, actually. They’re more lenient because they’re less stable, as it’s not guaranteed you’ll stay in the office after everything’s over. Russia’s status quo from a political standpoint is the strongest it has ever been.
All political opposition has been eradicated. Everybody’s threatened to speak out because they now they’ll just get jailed. There can be no mass protests because the current incumbent is simply too strong to oppose.
The countries that have been…
That’s not me they’re disagreeing with. Again, that’s not my classification. All I argue is that “artificial democracies” are far worse. Russia is one, BTW. It likes to hold a facade of being a democracy, when in reality, it’s a hybrid regime (namely, informational autocracy).
And it also…
So, you decided to ignore my question and be a douche about it… I’ll take it as “I don’t like it, so it’s fascist” then.
You’re arguing that a veneer of false democracy that exists purely to camouflage the exact same authoritarianism actually qualifies as democracy.
It doesn’t.
as it’s not guaranteed you’ll stay in the office after everything’s over.
Joe Biden leaving the White House doesn’t threaten the status quo in the US. You are confusing propaganda with the actual politics said propaganda is designed to obscure.
All I argue is that “artificial democracies” are far worse.
95% capitalism with 5% fake artificial democracy substitute (ie, so-called "liberal democracy) is about as artificial as “artificial democracy” gets.
This is what you don’t seem to understand. The so-called “democracy” that exists in the so-called “west” is stable because their electoral politics do not threaten the interests of the class of (thoroughly unelected) billionaire parasites who runs these societies. Regimes like Russia hasn’t attained this kind of stability yet - that is why the billionaire parasites that benefit from these regimes needs overt authoritarianism to protect their interests.
If the interests of this (again, thoroughly unelected) billionaire class is truly threatened in so-called “liberal democratic” states you will see them resort to the exact same type of authoritarianism. This is why ALL “liberal democracies” comes with built-in fascist institutions (such as the police and other paramilitary organisations) that can enable such authoritarian violence in the blink of an eye if necessary.
(Please don’t tell me you’re naive enough to believe that the police exists to protect YOU.)
In a truly democratic society, fascism couldn’t exist. Capitalism couldn’t exist.
The fact that they do should tell you something.
“I don’t like it, so it’s fascist”
I hate to be the one to break it to you… but Mussolini did not invent fascism. He merely gave it a name.
Yes. Your argument is about de-democratisation. I talk about democratic vs. authoritarian.
I argue it’s better to be democratic than not. You argue that countries become less democratic. Those are different topics.
Quite the opposite, actually. They’re more lenient because they’re less stable, as it’s not guaranteed you’ll stay in the office after everything’s over. Russia’s status quo from a political standpoint is the strongest it has ever been.
All political opposition has been eradicated. Everybody’s threatened to speak out because they now they’ll just get jailed. There can be no mass protests because the current incumbent is simply too strong to oppose.
That’s not me they’re disagreeing with. Again, that’s not my classification. All I argue is that “artificial democracies” are far worse. Russia is one, BTW. It likes to hold a facade of being a democracy, when in reality, it’s a hybrid regime (namely, informational autocracy).
So, you decided to ignore my question and be a douche about it… I’ll take it as “I don’t like it, so it’s fascist” then.
Citizens, obviously. How is that even a question?
You’re arguing that a veneer of false democracy that exists purely to camouflage the exact same authoritarianism actually qualifies as democracy.
It doesn’t.
Joe Biden leaving the White House doesn’t threaten the status quo in the US. You are confusing propaganda with the actual politics said propaganda is designed to obscure.
95% capitalism with 5% fake artificial democracy substitute (ie, so-called "liberal democracy) is about as artificial as “artificial democracy” gets.
This is what you don’t seem to understand. The so-called “democracy” that exists in the so-called “west” is stable because their electoral politics do not threaten the interests of the class of (thoroughly unelected) billionaire parasites who runs these societies. Regimes like Russia hasn’t attained this kind of stability yet - that is why the billionaire parasites that benefit from these regimes needs overt authoritarianism to protect their interests.
If the interests of this (again, thoroughly unelected) billionaire class is truly threatened in so-called “liberal democratic” states you will see them resort to the exact same type of authoritarianism. This is why ALL “liberal democracies” comes with built-in fascist institutions (such as the police and other paramilitary organisations) that can enable such authoritarian violence in the blink of an eye if necessary.
(Please don’t tell me you’re naive enough to believe that the police exists to protect YOU.)
In a truly democratic society, fascism couldn’t exist. Capitalism couldn’t exist.
The fact that they do should tell you something.
I hate to be the one to break it to you… but Mussolini did not invent fascism. He merely gave it a name.