Why Do the Democrats Hate Democracy?

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Agathon


Not really. The British ruled much of the earth and had a similar sense of moral righteousness. What they also had was a genuine interest in the places they were running, because the British were not fundamentally isolationist. They also tended to leave institutions that looked a lot like theirs in place when they left. India, for example, is the world's largest democracy. These places had a pretty big effect on British culture, as one can see in the works of Kipling, for instance.

Hm. You have a point about building institutions. The French, the Dutch, the Portuguese, and the Spanish (arguably) all failed their African colonies and colonies around the world in not educating their people and preparing them for a post-colonial era. For example, I believe that although the Congo had a nuclear power plant (and it still does), when the colonialists pulled out, no one could operate it because perhaps only 3-8 (Zaire) Congolese had college degrees.

Still, many argued the British oppressed the people they ruled, perhaps in a more hands-on manner than the Americans did.

The British massacred Zulu, brutally crushed the Kikuyu rebellion (the Mau Mau rebellion In Kenya, and were involved in other atrocities. Admittedly, the Brits conducted themselves better than other colonial powers- but still, they abused their power.

Americans have very little interest in any of the places they dominate. Most of them can't even find them on a map.

An anti-imperalist would say this is good? Get in- fix things then get out. Regrettably... the US gets in, but doesn't necessarily fix things and then gets out too quick... like they did in Afghanistan in the 1980s and are threatening to do in Iraq right now.

Americans are only really interested in themselves, and aren't a very cultured people (the British weren't and still aren't by European standards - to be fair, neither are the Australians or NZers).

Ha. Look at the Swedes and the Nobel Prize committees awarding almost all the prizes to Europeans... talk about insular parochialism.

The US is extremely aggressive. We just haven't seen this because western news media tended to downplay it during the Cold War for obvious reasons. In the Cold War, the Soviet Union was supposed to be the aggressor, but a simple record of military deployments gave the lie to that.

Hmmm... Maybe. The US invaded Grenada, and intervened in many latin america countries, they sponsored insurrection in Ti&&&et and in Southeast Asia.

On the other hand-
Russia occupied Czechoslovakia, Hungary (1956?), the Baltic States, Kazakhstan, destroyed Mongolian culture, etc. and would have taken all of Germany if they could have gotten away with it. They also wanted to absorb Austria. And Italy (with Soviet-funding) probably would have joined the Iron Curtain but for a few serendipitous circumstances.

Their method of war is also pretty nutty. It's been the case for a long time that the American way of war is to stand as far away from the enemy as possible and rain down insane amounts of ordnance with little or no concern for friendly fire or collateral damage. I've spoken to veterans of four wars who fought as allies of US troops and all of them without prompting said that they were often more concerned about being victims of friendly fire than they were about the enemy.

Don't see how this relates. Interesting comment though!

Both. But Americans are too insular and ignorant to make any good come of it.

* I still don't see how insularity is necessarily bad.
* But then again, I admit I personally dislike insularity and narrow opinions because they can be limiting... I LIKE free trade deals between countries, I LIKE NAFTA, I LIKE the EU, and follow international news almost exclusively.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
And this is the whole point. Democracy is based on the idea that all human beings are equally rational autonomous choosers.

Socialist democracy is NOT based on the idea that human begins are equally rational autonomous choosers. Socialism is about mass democracy, mass politics. We are not about making decisions individually, but collectively. If democracy can't work, then socialism cannot work, and we live in the best of all possible worlds right now.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Agathon
And this is the whole point. Democracy is based on the idea that all human beings are equally rational autonomous choosers.

Socialist democracy is NOT based on the idea that human begins are equally rational autonomous choosers. Socialism is about mass democracy, mass politics. We are not about making decisions individually, but collectively. If democracy can't work, then socialism cannot work, and we live in the best of all possible worlds right now.

Unless you assume that there is something called "collective knowledge" over and above the knowledge that each individual has, it is no different. If you mean "consensus", then I think that is probably impossible.

Socialism and democracy have no more necessary connection than capitalism and democracy. Democracy is simply a means of decision making. There is no reason to think that it is intrinsically connected with any political or economic system.

That said, if we live in the best of all possible worlds now, it clearly isn't good enough and we won't be living in it for too much longer. I can't say that this bothers me as much as it used to. Species go extinct all the time and ours is about up by historical averages, or so I read.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Hm. You have a point about building institutions.[..]

Still, many argued the British oppressed the people they ruled, perhaps in a more hands-on manner than the Americans did.

They did. They were in many ways despicable and only look good, as you say, compared to lowlives like the Belgians. That being said, the kinds of education they provided to people (Nelson Mandela is a good example, and is proud of his) and their institutions kept working.

The difference is that the British were very interested in the places and cultures they colonized. Colonization changed Britain as well as the colonies. Americans have never really been that interested in other cultures to the same degree. They have a more NIH philosophy.

An anti-imperalist would say this is good? Get in- fix things then get out. Regrettably... the US gets in, but doesn't necessarily fix things and then gets out too quick... like they did in Afghanistan in the 1980s and are threatening to do in Iraq right now.

American anti-imperialism died over 100 years ago when they decided to "Christianize" the Filipinos (who had been Roman Catholics for 300 years, but let's not quibble).

Hmmm... Maybe. The US invaded Grenada, and intervened in many latin america countries, they sponsored insurrection in Ti&&&et and in Southeast Asia.

They are everywhere and are impossible to get rid of, kind of like herpes.

Russia occupied Czechoslovakia, Hungary (1956?), the Baltic States, Kazakhstan, destroyed Mongolian culture, etc. and would have taken all of Germany if they could have gotten away with it. They also wanted to absorb Austria. And Italy (with Soviet-funding) probably would have joined the Iron Curtain but for a few serendipitous circumstances.

Absolutely. But do you notice one thing about all those places – that's right, they were more or less right next door to the Soviet Union. Soviet policy for most of its existence was simply to prevent an attack on itself. Buffer states were one means of achieving this goal. What the Soviets did not do was attempt to colonize places halfway across the planet and litter them with bases. Look at the Cuban missile crisis for one example where the Soviets thought about retaliating in kind.

To say that the Soviets were the aggressor in the Cold War is risible. They were no angels by any means, but compared to the west, they were nowhere near as aggressive.