Nemeski@lemm.ee to News@lemmy.world · edit-22 days agoU.S. could lose democracy status, says global watchdogwww.cbc.caexternal-linkmessage-square144fedilinkarrow-up1935arrow-down113cross-posted to: world@lemmy.world
arrow-up1922arrow-down1external-linkU.S. could lose democracy status, says global watchdogwww.cbc.caNemeski@lemm.ee to News@lemmy.world · edit-22 days agomessage-square144fedilinkcross-posted to: world@lemmy.world
minus-squaretree_frog@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·15 hours agoAnd how are the material conditions for the average working-class person in those monarchies? How much autonomy did they have over their lives compared to the 200 or 300 years they would have lived under a democracy? How much suffering happened under monarchy compared to democracy? Because if all of you are measuring is how long the ruling class can subjugate the working class, then sure I’m monarchy is better. It doesn’t mean I want to live under one, but you go ahead.
minus-squareblade_barrier@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·14 hours ago And how are the material conditions for the average working-class person in those monarchies? Looking at today’s monarchies, the conditions are about the same as in today’s democracies. How much autonomy did they have over their lives compared to the 200 or 300 years they would have lived under a democracy? The same? How much suffering happened under monarchy compared to democracy? The same average amount of suffering. Because if all of you are measuring is how long the ruling class can subjugate the working class, then sure I’m monarchy is better. It’s obviously the most important parameter. If the govt system can’t even sustain itself for long enough, then it’s not even worth considering it. It doesn’t mean I want to live under one Thanks for sharing your opinion.
minus-squaretree_frog@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·13 hours agoOh so by monarchies you mean constitutional monarchies? Because the ones still in existence have only been around since the mid 1600s. And functionally they’re democracies anyway.
minus-squareblade_barrier@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 hours agoI mean like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, etc. By monarchies I mean all monarchies, but since you’re comparing the quality of life of today’s democracies it only makes sense to compare it to today’s monarchies.
And how are the material conditions for the average working-class person in those monarchies?
How much autonomy did they have over their lives compared to the 200 or 300 years they would have lived under a democracy?
How much suffering happened under monarchy compared to democracy?
Because if all of you are measuring is how long the ruling class can subjugate the working class, then sure I’m monarchy is better.
It doesn’t mean I want to live under one, but you go ahead.
Looking at today’s monarchies, the conditions are about the same as in today’s democracies.
The same?
The same average amount of suffering.
It’s obviously the most important parameter. If the govt system can’t even sustain itself for long enough, then it’s not even worth considering it.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Oh so by monarchies you mean constitutional monarchies? Because the ones still in existence have only been around since the mid 1600s.
And functionally they’re democracies anyway.
I mean like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, etc. By monarchies I mean all monarchies, but since you’re comparing the quality of life of today’s democracies it only makes sense to compare it to today’s monarchies.