[Beren]

As I've been saying for a while now, this 'democracy' thing isn't likely to survive in the brave new world which is currently emerging. The 'people' are fucking idiots who don't know what's best for them. I think Putin probably has the right idea - democracy has to be 'guided', otherwise the result will be unending crises caused by the idiot voters voting for idiotic things. Lol.

So you didn't vote I guess.

Anyway, the Chinese get it better than the Russians I think, which has been the case since Deng became paramount leader. I wonder if Putin's succession plan works out and his legacy can survive without his "guidance".

[layman]

The Chinese do better with authoritarian statism because I think it is more in their character.

The Russians take well to a strong leader but I still believe they are more European and individualistic in character, despite the serfdom thing dragging on a century too long.

Regarding democracy. It is reasonably effective and getting rid of bad leaders and keeping them in check. It is very bad though when it comes to choosing new ideas. For example, it is likely Corbyn might get in and not because there has been any move to the left but because the tories are so bad. People may yet again vote for something they don’t want in reaction to something they don’t like.

I am curious how such a vote would go in other countries. I suspect it would be 50 50 in a lot of places.

[Potemkin]

People may yet again vote for something they don’t want in reaction to something they don’t like.

The history of British politics summed up in one sentence. Lol.

[Beren]

The Chinese do better with authoritarian statism because I think it is more in their character.

I'm not sure if they're better with it in general, I think the Russians were better under Stalin than the Chinese were under Mao. However, the Chinese have been better at managing their country since Deng implemented his reforms, which had more to do with (his) intelligence and practicality and the Confucian tradition of being obsessed with good governance.

[layman]

Certainly Stalin did a better job than mao but he was dealt a Better hand. It is only my impression that the Chinese have a more collectivist and conformist character. I might be wrong.

@Potemkin the Corbyn movement has a big problem in that while they honesty believe they are building a grass roots movement, they are only really rallying like minded people to a flag. They do a poor job of converting people as they are too busy insulting the other side and being pig headed and puritanical.

It may well end up with a Corbyn minority government that can get nothing done. People will tire of his self righteous style and socialism will again be banished for another few decades.

Really, you need a solid 70 percent backing to get anything done in a democracy whether Scottish independence, brexit or indeed a radical socialist or Thatcherite renewal.

Hence, we are stuck in this mess.

[Beren]

Certainly Stalin did a better job than mao but he was dealt a Better hand. It is only my impression that the Chinese have a more collectivist and conformist character. I might be wrong.

Mao just couldn't beat Stalin at his own game as Maoism was the Chinese version of Stalinism, basically, and Stalinism was authoritarian statism at its highest. The Chinese may be more collectivist though, that's why collective leadership fits them more perhaps.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin
Really, you need a solid 70 percent backing to get anything done in a democracy whether Scottish independence, brexit or indeed a radical socialist or Thatcherite renewal.

Hence, we are stuck in this mess.

Precisely my point, layman.

[Atlantis]

As I've been saying for a while now, this 'democracy' thing isn't likely to survive in the brave new world which is currently emerging. The 'people' are fucking idiots who don't know what's best for them. I think Putin probably has the right idea - democracy has to be 'guided', otherwise the result will be unending crises caused by the idiot voters voting for idiotic things. Lol.

The left has never believed in democracy. So you are merely confirming that the left will never believe in democracy. It doesn't say anything about the merits and demerits of democracy.

I absolutely agree that, at this point in time, Putin's guided democracy is probably best for Russia and China's totalitarian rule is probably best for China, when we consider stable social and political conditions and prosperity as the aim of government.

However, no sane person would prefer to live under Putin's autocracy or Xi's totalitarianism rather than under European liberal democracy. China and Russia just haven't developed a civil society that would be able to sustain a democratic regime. That means they are less not more advanced.

While on the surface of it, the Russian and Chinese systems appear to be more efficient at dealing with problems quickly, in the end, the inherent corruption of these systems will retard development in Russia and China. Russia could become gradually more open if it were to cooperate with Europe, but for China I really don't see how it could develop. It'll just have to increase repression until the lid blows.

[Beren]

but for China I really don't see how it could develop.

China is continuously developing, they've been developing the most for the last 40 years. Now they seem to have a sort of strongman, but he's still far from dictator and there is always the risk of China falling apart looming. I'm sure party democracy will keep developing and they will let other parties be founded sooner or later, so they may become a dominant-party system like Japan sometime.

As to Brexit, my favourite part is:

The EU27 says, We're a club, here are our rules, you tell us how many of the rules you're prepared to accept and we'll kind of tell you where in the clubhouse you can go. That is not the British conception of what this is at all. They sort of see it as a negotiation between two equal parties.

The Americans seem to know how slow the British can realise when they are underdogs.

[Potemkin]

The Americans seem to know how slow the British can realise when they are underdogs.

The British ruling class have never adjusted to the loss of the Empire. Deep down, they still regard themselves as the Masters of the Universe, when in fact they have been demoted to running a whelk stall on Bognor Regis beach. It is both pitiful and hilariously funny to behold. Lol.

[Beren]

The British ruling class have never adjusted to the loss of the Empire. Deep down, they still regard themselves as the Masters of the Universe, when in fact they have been demoted to running a whelk stall on Bognor Regis beach. It is both pitiful and hilariously funny to behold. Lol.

Just imagine the horror the poor babies have been going through! They had to accept they're underdogs to their former colonies first, then they had to give back Hong Kong because the Chinese didn't have only junks anymore, and now they have to give in to Continentals! What's next? India ripping apart their arses like an elephant (outside the EU)?

[ingliz]

Maoism was the Chinese version of Stalinism,

Maoism is a form of left deviationism.

[One Degree]

Lighten up on the British. All countries like to hang on to their past glory and envision it’s return.

What about the poor Dutch?

[Beren]

Lighten up on the British. All countries like to hang on to their past glory and envision it’s return.

What about the poor Dutch?

The Dutch prefer living in the present and focusing on the future to remembering their dirty past amassing wealth as slave traders.

[Atlantis]

China is continuously developing, they've been developing the most for the last 40 years. Now they seem to have a sort of strongman, but he's still far from dictator and there is always the risk of China falling apart looming. I'm sure party democracy will keep developing and they will let other parties be founded sooner or later, so they may become a dominant-party system like Japan sometime.

Then you really don't know the first thing about China. I'm not talking about the economic development. The economic development that followed Deng's modernization was to be expected. The question is why the Chinese waited for 500 years to open up after the Jesuits first offered them Western science and technology at the start of the 16th century on a golden platter.

The problem is that with the straitjacket of totalitarian rule the Chinese will not reach their full creative potential. Japan is pretty much hemmed in by tradition and hasn't been able to get out off stagnation for the last 20 odd years, but China is a full-blown totalitarian dictatorship. Make no mistake about it. And with digital technology the regime will achieve total control of each citizen around the clock. It's the wet dream of every dictator. And it'll get worse over time. There is no question of going the way of Japan.

The Americans seem to know how slow the British can realise when they are underdogs.

The question is do they really not get it, or are they just pretending. With the Brits you never know.

[Atlantis]

Just imagine the horror the poor babies have been going through! They had to accept they're underdogs to their former colonies first, then they had to give back Hong Kong because the Chinese didn't have only junks anymore, and now they have to give in to Continentals! What's next? India ripping apart their arses like an elephant (outside the EU)?

You forgot the best. The Irish are having a fabulous time sticking it to their former masters. They will drag this out as long as possible to increase the butt-hurt in the British. Finally revenge after 800 years!

[Beren]

Then you really don't know the first thing about China.

What is it?

I'm not talking about the economic development.

I'm not talking about it either, there's social development in China as well. I also don't believe they can keep either the internet or society under total control forever. They can do it as long as there is consent about it, which will be harder and harder to achieve and more democratisation and liberalisation will be needed, in cities especially.

[layman]

They will drag this out as long as possible to increase the butt-hurt in the British. Finally revenge after 800 years!

That would be true if it were not for the significant economic harm the Irish and a few other European economies will suffer with no deal. This is the only genuine card the British have.

Also, no deal also means a hard border so walking away on the basis of it seems like a threat too far. Perhaps even a bluff.

Apart from that the brits look pretty fucked

[Albert]

As I've been saying for a while now, this 'democracy' thing isn't likely to survive in the brave new world which is currently emerging. The 'people' are fucking idiots who don't know what's best for them. I think Putin probably has the right idea - democracy has to be 'guided', otherwise the result will be unending crises caused by the idiot voters voting for idiotic things. Lol.

Um, that is what we have been having for decades now with mainstream party running similar narrative from which the establishment dared not to diverge. Then small window of actual democracy (the referendum) backfired, even though there were efforts to guide that vote as well.

You can not have "guided" and democracy, you either let people decide or you do not.

I do agree though there has to be reform of modern democracy for it to actually function properly. For one, women should not be allowed to vote. Second voting age has to be brought up to at least 30 years of age. Third, I would even support other restrictions that will make sure best able and capable are give the vote.

PS. Putin is an idiot. Russia is stuck with an idiot who is making all the mistakes that the monarchy did prior to the Red October Revolution, but with more incompetency and vulgarity akin to a mafiosi.

That is the trouble with dictatorship, it is the best system when you have a capable just ruler, but if you get an imbecile with dictatorial power then you are stuck with them. The only way to overthrow them then is through violent revolution which is difficult and destructive task.

[Potemkin]

Um, that is what we have been having for decades now with mainstream party running similar narrative from which the establishment dared not to diverge. Then small window of actual democracy (the referendum) backfired, even though there were efforts to guide that vote as well.

Indeed. The Brexit referendum was a serious strategic error on the part of the British ruling class. Normally, British 'democracy' is guided by Parliament, and (unlike America) it is Parliament which is 'sovereign', not the people. This is why the Brexit referendum was only advisory and was not and is not legally binding on Parliament. But if Parliament set aside the results of the referendum, they would be exposing for even the dumbest Daily Mail or Sun reader to see that British 'democracy' is largely fictional.

You can not have "guided" and democracy, you either let people decide or you do not.

Everything except direct democracy is 'guided' democracy. The American Founding Fathers had only bad things to say about democracy, and they deliberately established their new nation as a representative republic rather than a democracy.

I do agree though there has to be reform of modern democracy for it to actually function properly. For one, women should not be allowed to vote. Second voting age has to be brought up to at least 30 years of age. Third, I would even support other restrictions that will make sure best able and capable are give the vote.

Lol. I would go in the opposite direction. Direct democracy, and the right of recall of all elected officials. Basically, I agree with Lenin's position as outlined in State and Revolution.

PS. Putin is an idiot. Russia is stuck with an idiot who is making all the mistakes that the monarchy did prior to the Red October Revolution, but with more incompetency and vulgarity akin to a mafiosi.

That is the trouble with dictatorship, it is the best system when you have a capable just ruler, but if you get an imbecile with dictatorial power then you are stuck with them. The only way to overthrow them then is through violent revolution which is difficult and destructive task.

As one of Nicholas II's top officials once said, "it is a terrible thing to have an autocracy without an autocrat." Lol. The Soviet system, ultimately, kept the autocracy (in a modernised form appropriate for an industrial rather than an agrarian society), and made sure there was a competent and ruthless autocrat in charge of it. So long as Stalin was alive that system worked spectacularly well, but started to slowly fall apart after his death. Putin re-established the autocracy once more, with himself in the position of competent autocrat. However, it is unlikely to survive him.