Quote Originally Posted by 14Russian View Post
Спасибо.

I think you have to be wary when using wikipedia sources and it's insufficient as an isolated, single source, imho. Plus, two sources cited by the article should raise red flags - meaning, they weren't good at all.


I found it intriguing that people mostly discussed the definition of 'democracy' and compared it to its origins (i.e. Athenian democracy). I thought the mention of it by Antonio was good, though. Yes, it's described as the 'tyranny of the majority.' It's probably accurate. I would add, though, that it is domination by a select few over the dimwitted masses. Democracy doesn't work when there's so many foolish people. Also, one could argue that it works *perfectly* for the Elites or those who have power and control. Isn't it a matter of perspective? A totalitarian dictatorship might be simpler for those in power but a 'democracy' suggests legitimacy. Not to mention, these so-called democracies are being 'exported' to many countries.

But, many people don't get represented in a democracy and the rights/freedoms that are celebrated seem to be a sham. It is only allowed when the majority or State deem it acceptable but those aren't the principles which are its essence. Instead, it's a system to enable those with wealth, power and information. Those who are the best liars win elections and exercise political power. Billions of public (and sometimes private) money are spent in the attempts to secure political power. It's not about representing the people but serving which special interest groups invest in you.

Many people are uninformed in their own countries' politics and other countries' politics although you can obtain at least some insight with some time and effort. I noticed some replies here and I have the distinct impression they are not informed. I have emphasized previously that the political parties are ultimately the same, more or less. The mainstream parties are often so similar, that any differences are negligible. I posted videos showing this before the last American election. The feigned conflicts or divisions are merely for image and show. The media is owned, controlled or operated via powerful corporations either owned by Elites or those who own those shares. They have political pull so that it doesn't matter much which party is elected. This situation exists in most 'Western' countries.

In Sweden, it is interesting and can be contrasted with other countries such as the U.S. One powerful Jewish family owns half the media. The other half is owned by a collection of bankers. It is funny or ironic to see someone mention Goldman Sachs. They are part of the group that owns the other half. This company is called Schibsted. I'm not sure how it works in Russia exactly but we all know the State has a very vested interest in who owns or controls the mainstream media. They control how critical they are of the Kremlin. We know that the Putin regime is 'friendly' with the Oligarchs there. I would argue that democracy works in Russia if you take the p.o.v. that 'contemporary democracy' allows the enslavement of the people. If it allows theft of natural resources and privileges to a few. Then, sure, contemporary democracy works there as it 'works' in all the democratic countries. It is just a different picture but the same type of photographers.

It's mostly the left in power throughout most countries even when the banks have considerable influence in political and economic decisions. The terms some of the electorate and media use might deceive or mislead people but the policies these groups and parties use should reveal the realities.
"Who are you and what did you do to the real 14Russian?"
Suddenly you've made a u-turn. This post was the most sympathetic one I've ever seen from you.