'Chinese Peasents Getting Uppity' Part II

In reality, there are only Republics and Oligarchies.

Thank you pedro...

Also, very interesting point, I was not expecting you to argue Chinese democracy. You're also right about Canada. While the Queen is still technically the executive, she has such little power that it would be a stretch to call her a decisive force in the Canadian political system.

Well yeah, because she's a figurehead. But even though Canada is a democracy doesn't make it even a de facto republic. It is a monarchy and until they give that up it will not be a republic.

Damn it Shaw! There are no democracies! We may be democratic, Canada my be democratic, but none of us live in a democracy.

/givingshawshitfornoparticularreason

I fully understand that, and so do most people. But in practice most people refer to democratic nations as 'democracies'.

Take that you texan prick!

True, democracy in its purest form is quite inefficient. The US is a representative democracy, with layers of elected and unelected officials representing the people. The UK monarchy is a relic, nice to look at, but with no real practical value.

Oh Yeah? Well fuck most people!

Yeah! Most people get fucked!

Yes.

I just call it a Republic but sure.

Hold it pal. There is big money being made off the the Royal Family's vary existence, not to mention their land.

My father always was fond of saying that: "China IS a Democracy!... within the party."
While I've been aware of what Pedro is saying [and have said it on the forums before], I've never tried to push the matter. People who don't like China usually don't admit any similarities or good things about China, so the most I can do is try to bring things to a neutral level.

In a sense, China has some of the ingredients of a Democratic society. It has representatives and local leaders who report to those in Beijing. If I am not mistaken, there is also a mandate [but parhaps not a on-paper mandate] for Chinese representatives to spend some of the time in the year actually in their respective provinces. The main sticker is that they usually are there talking to lower party members more than others. This kind of works in a way, given that the lower party members still interact with the common populous and thus would share some of their concerns [no, not all party members are rich].

Here are some interesting links with information. I can't say that I agree with everything in them, but they give a basic understanding of the world of politics in China.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13908155
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13904437
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13900296

You don't get elections, until every other peasant gets elections!

Equality?

Democracies are horribly inefficient, nothing gets done, and people argue when people are dying and Shit. Centralized monarchies and republican dictators like Mr cromwell had the right idea.

How come they don't last long then?

Well they kind of did. Just look at the age of some of those Medieval Kingdoms.
American Democracy is strangely old. Most democracies die almost instantly, or at the first sign of trouble.

The Roman Republic is a good example of any sort of Democracy becoming corrupted and then tossed aside for a far more effective dictatorship.

When can I turn you to the fascist side boy?

By blaming the jews.

Tell me, if centralized monarchies and republican dictatorships are the best, why havn't they stood the test of time, and why does it seem that any recent totalitarian state has always damaged the economy of the nation in the long run?
If democracies are so bad, why did they win WWI and II? If they are so bad, why do we have a dynamic state in Denmark? Or in Germany as an example of a bigger country?
The reason why democracies are the least bad, is because the will of the people guide their elected representatives, and those representatives will always have in mind the people they are supposed to represent. The fact is that no man is perfect, and any systems will have it flaws, but the rule of a bad monarch and the possible violent revolutions or revolts can have a devastating effect on a country.
Your argument in itself is flawed as democracies are more responsive to the will of the people and thus the world than a centralized monarchy ever could(after a generation or two the monarch usually loses touch with reality)

More responsive to the will of the people? I call BS on that, democracies are inefficient they become a administrative mess fast. World war 1 Britain was a monarchy everyone was a monarchy except for France and the USA, and in world war 2 mussolini and Hitler were effective leaders, albeit really insane.