Can democracies even be considered real?Given how most shit just goes out of our control, either through scapegoats or malicious incompliance, and the fact that I can barely do anything about it;I would just assume that it has only become a theoretical concept and nothing more.
Honestly what I have seen out of the democracy that I live in gives me true doubts about the viability of the system. What it seems to really be is a veil, which essentially makes it a system of deception. It's like an extra layer of protection, to blame the citizens and attribute abuses of high power to poor people. It actually seems kind of funny, to imagine. Generations of people convinced that the most powerful persons in the world would simply abdicate the power due to words and technicalities on paper. It was going in that direction even back in the age of monarchy I assume, the real powers of the world buying representation and managing scapegoats essentially. I do think that everyday people benefit from the enforcement of social decorum that comes from a system of deception. It makes physical authority more expensive. Back in the old days the cheapest possible way to enforce something would be to send enforcers. Today we can efficiently distribute words and rest assured that the reader will attribute the belief of those words to untold millions of people, and many other techniques made possible by efficient information distribution, and use these arts to head off a huge amount of enforcement in an affordable and pre-emptive way. It must have reach, it must trigger automatedly, it cannot be done manually at scale without making sacrifices. Truly rich people never intend to lose or sacrifice anything at all, ever.
The flock thing demonstrates the problem in a real simple easy way. 1. Democracy is good because it gives you a voice2. Everyone's voice in a democracy says fuck flock3. The democracy responds by using tax money to gaslight people and manufacture consent for flockClearly the whole voting thing and the value of voting is not really there at heart. It is purely a technicality and paper that we can vote and that they're supposed to do the thingy based on the vote. Based on their behavior. I really feel no inclination to trust the numbers reported on the vote, or a politician to adherence to the intent of the vote, or really anything which would actually connect the democratic mechanism to any particular thing literally anybody wants based purely on a vote. It seems like rich people can get stuff they want within and without the vote shstem, though. There are millions of people who really believe in democracy. I don't think that we just need to believe in it hard enough and it will work. I don't think you can make a law that stimmies human nature. Ruiner-people will always abuse any situation to its fullest extent. Therefore, whatever system you have has to be resilient to corruption. Holding a secret vote tally that I can't actually inspect in any meaningful way to elect people who don't actually have to do any particular thing, means the system is not insulated against corruption and win't work no matter how great the idea sounds in theory. This is the problem with marxism, too. Somehow people feel so comfortable saying that communism is a sham or can't work due to the corruption in people's hearts or whatever, and miss the irony. Its something that plagues every system, including resilient ones, and which totally prohibits the existence of idealistic systems of any kind. The system must be set in game theory of some kind or it will get realism'd out of reality.
>>541359829>>541360811For the most part, I believe you're right, although we can't really say much about other socioeconomics because we never truly had any actual attempts of it, some of these are abolished and tainted in history for the sake of power and long term psychological operations including the marxist leninism communism like you've mentioned, just like the current events we are facing in this century
>>541358620Arknights has the first one, but four ears is jarring
