danger/u/
Autoritarian state. yay or nay?

| personally, i think any community would need control since it is rich enough to be able to create legislative and executive authority


| Nay. Authoritarian state sucks. Democracy is better, even thought that the currently known bourgeois democracies also have increasing authoritarian tendencies. I'd prefer a real, council/syndicate based democracy.
It's no coincidence that the "western" bourgeois democracy stand side by side with "eastern" bourgeois autocracies nipping any alternative approach in the bud at all costs.


| Technocratic stratocracy


| >>534584
The term "technocracy" is, like "pragmatic", already occupied by neoliberal and transatlantic ideologues. According to their "technocracy" military interventions with horrible consequences and the policy of privatizing profits for a few while socializing debt for the masses is "mandatory".

And "stratocracy" is nothing but an euphemism for military dictatorship.

Also governments like in the "DPRK" see themselves as "technocratic stratocracy".


| >>534496 I think you mixed up authoritarian and autocratic. Authoritarian has nothing to do with power distribution within the government, so the comparison to "democracy" is a little strange, as authoritarian democracy is a possible form of government. Whereas autocracy is absolute rule by a single entity, authoritarian is simply the strict regulation of a population by the government, the limiting of personal freedoms by law.


| Also, the largest example of a "technocracy" are militaries and businesses, where the model is employed extensively, though obviously not purely. Who is generally the head of a department? Typically one of the more educated amd competant people in that department. Ofc, this is barring favoritism, bias, and politicking, but the general model is followed across most private organizations and militaries.


| The policies employed by nations claiming to adhere to this model have little to do intrinsically wuth this model, as warmongering has little to do with simply putting technically competant people into positions of leadership. Now, is this system flawed for application to a nation? Yes. But thats a larger discussion.


| >>534702
>Who is generally the head of a department? Typically one of the more educated amd competant people in that department.
Ahahaha. Don't tell me you really believe that shit. This illustrates just the hypocrisy if "technocrats" call others "idealistic utopists".
Who is generally the head of a department? Typically a relative or ass-kisser of the previous head with a high chance this person is much dumber. Societies built on this usually suffer from stagnation & degeneration.


| I did state barring favoritism and bias. Also, not like popular election gets much better results. In those cases its marketing and popularity. Either way its the same results. Any time you have people picking people you get bias. But besides that, my main point in mentioning technocracy was in that it was not inherently tied to many of the traits ascribed to it above.


| >>534776
>Either way its the same results.
No it isn't. The problem of most current democracies is that the people that can be elected have no real power. They are just servants to the ruling class, which are without any doubt capitalists who aren't elected at all. They came into power in a rotten social darwinist system idealized as "free" or even more ridiculous "social" market. Their increasing power decreased the power of any democratically controlled institutions.


| Everytime elected politicians do stuff that is unpopula, like military interventions or economical deregulation and cutting social measurements, there come some non elected "experts", introduced as "technocrats" that say "it has to be that way and people don't understand but have to accept"


| ...Technocratic stratocracy


| >>534818
Go to the DPRK, there you have your beloved technocratic stratocracy.


| Go to China and North Korea and then tell us about your experiences, OP. If I value personal privacy (which I bloody do, thank you very much), it'd be a nay, no questions asked.


| >>535002
argumental fallacy
dprk is a communist dictatorship


| >>535128
Congratulations, you fell for capitalist propaganda!
Because the DPRK isn't even officially "communist" anymore. They removed any relation to communism/socialism in their constitution years ago and replaced it with "Juche", which is some kind of religious cult around the Kim-dynasty, a knife and a mountain. On top it's not clear to anyone in the west how much power the "dictator" (in fact more an absolute monarch) or the military has (there you have your stratocracy).


| It's not even clear in which relation the kim-dynasty stands to the military. Are they really opponents? Are they symbiotic or is one dominating the other? No one really knows.
The only thing that is clear, is how liberal, conservative and far-right capitalist propaganda use their own interpretation of the DPRK to denounce real or supposed socialist/communist opposition. Especially the far-right is funny, since the DPRK matches their ideals except for the "socialist" folklore.


| Also it is very probable that those who have the power in the DPRK see themselves as (and possibly even are) "technocrats".
The problem about "technocracy" is, that it is a pure question of power to define/decide what counts as "technocratic" and what does not. It's just another empty word to justify (usually bad) politics.


| Nay.


| So, we keep mentioning democracy, capitalism, communism, and technocracy. But none of these are really directly related to authoritarianism. Unless we assume that communism means anarchocommunism, but it hasnt been discussed in that context. An autjoritarian state could technically exist in conjunction with any (non-anarcho) of these systems. Authoritarianism is about the level of involvement of the government in the lives of its citizens. How much control and personal freedom.


| >>535374
>Authoritarianism is about the level of involvement of the government in the lives of its citizens. How much control and personal freedom.
This definition of authoritarianism ignores the fact that a government can be organized open, transparent and democratically, while on the other hand also non-government institutions such as big companies and banks massively involve in the lives of citizens, control them and restrict their personal freedoms.


| "Between the poor and the rich, it is liberty that oppresses and law that liberates."
~Voltaire


| >>535478 Okay, I'll give you that using the word government might limit the definition too much. But I feel the rest of it holds up fairly well in thebcontext you stated. Also, a transparent, democratic government can still be authoritarian. But I'll agree that limiting it to governments was my mistake.

On another note, that Voltaire quote is perfect for this thread.

Total number of posts: 23, last modified on: Sat Jan 1 00:00:00 1552079048

This thread is closed.