"There has never been a war between two genuine democracies."

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If he claimed to be a Republican? Yes, I would.

You would ignore all of the other evidence and base it solely on what he claimed? What if we were talking about a murderer who all the evidence showed was guilty, who offered no alternative explanation of the death, who had no alibi but who pleaded not guilty. Would you say they considered themselves not to be a murderer?

I think this is why we have difficulty understanding each other - if you accept every statement made at face value and ignore all other evidence, then we are unlikely to see things the same way.

I did and it's not difficult. You just don't seem to have a capacity to read in context and understand that "considered itself" and "claimed" are the same thing in context.

Fundamentally disagree - many people claim to be things that they do not genuinely consider themselves to be. To try and suggest they are synonyms is simply wrong.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

More petty point scoring. Or are you going to claim that this was necessary to keep the thread on point?

Now, could you answer the second half of the question? How many such democracies have there been in history? And is this sample large enough to make any conclusions about the frequency at which they go to war?

Nope. You are the one who is making the argument that democracies are less likely to go to war, not me. You do the research.

 

[marksman]

You failed to come up with a list of "Indisputable Democracies" that I asked for.

It's not my term and I'm not making an argument that relies on such a term. I don't know what qualifies as an indisputable democarcy so I cannot come up with such a list. That's my point. Any such definition is either too malleable or too narrow to be useful.

If you can challange the civil war by useing slavery to invalidate democracy, why can't overly strong political parties also invalidate a democracy? So we need to find at least one of these indisputable democracies and start from there.

Right. It's too malleable to be useful.

There was also the use of force in Poland and Czeckoslovakia. There were border skirmishes with China. There was use of force in Lithuania in 1990, although that was technically inside the Soviet Union, for a few more months anyway.

Of course, all of Eastern Europe was occupied with puppet governments from1945 to 1989.

There was planting nuclear missiles in Cuba.

There were advisors, some in combat situations, in many African countries and in the Middle East.

I think if you searched, you could find a very busy military during that era.

Well, I think we already established from the criticism of the Wiki article someone posted about US military actions that not every military action is a war. "Border skirmishes" "military advisors" and "planting nuclear missiles" certainly wouldn't qualify any more than America's funding of proxy wars in Central America, "military advisors" and "planting nuclear missiles" would qualify as war.

This points out two things: 1) war isn't very common 2) definiing "war" is going to be as problematic as defining "democracy" (or "dictatorship").

You would ignore all of the other evidence and base it solely on what he claimed?

I would base a statement about what he "considered himself to be" based on what he claimed, yes. I would not base a statement of what I actually considered him to be based on what he claimed, however.

What if we were talking about a murderer who all the evidence showed was guilty, who offered no alternative explanation of the death, who had no alibi but who pleaded not guilty. Would you say they considered themselves not to be a murderer?

Yes. He'd be wrong. Probably delusional.

I think this is why we have difficulty understanding each other - if you accept every statement made at face value and ignore all other evidence, then we are unlikely to see things the same way.

I'm not accepting what is said as face value for reality. Only for the fact that they are making representations about themselves. For some reaosn you can't seem to distinguish a statement about what someone represents themselves to be and a statement about what I think that person actually to be.

Fundamentally disagree - many people claim to be things that they do not genuinely consider themselves to be. To try and suggest they are synonyms is simply wrong.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point then. I believe I used the word "consider" correctly in context.

More petty point scoring. Or are you going to claim that this was necessary to keep the thread on point?

Since you aren't responding, apparently, my efforts to keep the thread on point have been in vain.

Nope. You are the one who is making the argument that democracies are less likely to go to war, not me. You do the research.

Where did I ever claim that? I didn't. You're misrepresenting me. Show me one post in this thread where I claimed that democracies are less likely to go to war. I never wrote that.

My position has been that there is no evidence that democracies are less likely to go to war and such arguments fall victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy or result in a definition of democracy and/or war that is so narrow as to be unhelpful.

How you can conclude that this position is in support of its converse (the democracies ar eless likely to go to war) is impossible to discern.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, I think we already established from the criticism of the Wiki article someone posted about US military actions that not every military action is a war. "Border skirmishes" "military advisors" and "planting nuclear missiles" certainly wouldn't qualify any more than America's funding of proxy wars in Central America, "military advisors" and "planting nuclear missiles" would qualify as war.

I agree, but not everyone would readily admit that, I suspect. If we compare apples to apples, we would find the United States and Soviet Union both had very busy militaries from the end of WWII to the end of the Soviet Union.

If a person really wanted to nitpick about the claim that no two democracies ahve ever gone to war, it's not hard. We've seen all sorts of cases where countries that were kinda sorta democratic had something that was kinda sorta warlike. Or countries that were fairly democratic had something that was very definitely warlike. Or two things that were kind of like countries had something that was unmistakably warlike. (e.g. American civil war. The CSA was kinda sorta democratic, and kinda sorta like a country.)

Now, let's see if we can find example of dictatorships going to war during the same time period. I think we can. And we don't have to think hard about it.

Try my experiment for yourself. Pick a random year in the 20th century. Find all the military activity for that year. Compare the activity for that year against the original assertion, or one of its companion assertions about democracies and war. In 1903, there was one case where one country that was kinda sorta democratic (Colombia) had something a little bit like a war (no shots were fired, but there was the threat of military force, with another country that was pretty darned democratic (the US).

Meanwhile, there were several other wars between countries that were a whole lot less democratic than the US, or Colombia. I think you would find that pattern in darned near any year of the XXth century.

 

[marksman]

That might be true, but it could also be a function of the fact that for history there have been many more dictatorships than there have been democracies. That means that, even if democracies and dictatorships were equally belligerent, one would expect to see many more dictator v dictator wars simply because dictatorships have been more common throughout history.

I also note as a secondary argument that even if there were a correlation between democracy and peacefulness (which hasn't been established), that doesn't mean there is causation. It may be the same factors that make democracies more possible today than in the past (assuming the increase in democracies can be attribute to factors) also bring peacefulness. One suggestion I made was that prosperity made sustainable democracy more feasible and also encouraged peacefulness. That's just an idle thought, however, for which I have little evidence.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I would base a statement about what he "considered himself to be" based on what he claimed, yes. I would not base a statement of what I actually considered him to be based on what he claimed, however.


Yes. He'd be wrong. Probably delusional.

Why do you ignore the possibility that he is well aware that he is a murderer or that the junta were well aware they were not democratic and chose to lie in their public statements?

That is the difference between claiming to be something and considering themselves to be something.

I'm not accepting what is said as face value for reality. Only for the fact that they are making representations about themselves. For some reaosn you can't seem to distinguish a statement about what someone represents themselves to be and a statement about what I think that person actually to be.

No I understand that distinction perfectly well. What you ignore is the possibility that in public statements people may not be 100% truthful. The murderer need not be delusional to plead not guilty - he might think the evidence is insufficient to obtain a conviction. However he still knows he committed the act.

Since you aren't responding, apparently, my efforts to keep the thread on point have been in vain.

Exactly what contribution did you think your condescending BS post of "See, that wasn't so hard, was it?" was making to keeping the thread on point? I can see none whatsoever so stop playing the victim.

Where did I ever claim that? I didn't. You're misrepresenting me. Show me one post in this thread where I claimed that democracies are less likely to go to war. I never wrote that.

My position has been that there is no evidence that democracies are less likely to go to war and such arguments fall victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy or result in a definition of democracy and/or war that is so narrow as to be unhelpful.

How you can conclude that this position is in support of its converse (the democracies ar eless likely to go to war) is impossible to discern.

Apologies. I think I misread a Meadmaker post as being one of yours.

 

[Meadmaker]

That might be true, but it could also be a function of ....

I also note as a secondary argument...

If you are looking for proof, in the logical sense, of any historical argument, you'll have a difficult time.

However, during the 20th centrury, there were plenty of democracies, and plenty of dictatorships. The democracies didn't fight each other. The dictatorships fought each other, and everyone else.

That's not proof, but it's a good track record.

One suggestion I made was that prosperity made sustainable democracy more feasible and also encouraged peacefulness. That's just an idle thought, however, for which I have little evidence.

Another problem with historical arguments is that it is very difficult to separate cause and effect. Does prosperity enable democracy, or does democracy enable prosperity? I don't know how I would prove it one way or another, but they seem correlated.

 

[marksman]

If you are looking for proof, in the logical sense, of any historical argument, you'll have a difficult time.

I'm not looking for proof. I'm cirticizing the proof soffered by others because I agree. This is a statement that cannot be made with any certainty, and often requires fidgeting with definitions of democracy and war.

However, during the 20th centrury, there were plenty of democracies, and plenty of dictatorships. The democracies didn't fight each other. The dictatorships fought each other, and everyone else.

1) Define democracy and dictatorship. How many nation were democracies and how many were dictatorships? Than compare the number of wars each camp was involved in on a proportional basis.

2) Don't confuse causation and correlation. Even if democracies were more likely to be peaceful it may be that factors that encourage democracy also encourage peace. Forcing nations to be democratic without these other roots may not increase peace.

That's not proof, but it's a good track record.

Maybe, maybe not.

In 10,000 years of records human history, there have been wars on every continent but Antarctica. However, I doubt that if we moved all 6 billion+ humans onto Antarctica that war would end.

Another problem with historical arguments is that it is very difficult to separate cause and effect. Does prosperity enable democracy, or does democracy enable prosperity? I don't know how I would prove it one way or another, but they seem correlated.

They might be, which was exactly the point I made to which you were responding. They also might not be correlated. We've really only had less than a century of democracy in any amount to begin to make conclusions. Historically, that's not much of a sample.

 

[marksman]

Why do you ignore the possibility that he is well aware that he is a murderer or that the junta were well aware they were not democratic and chose to lie in their public statements?

I don't have evidence of it either way, so I take the words at face value. The idea that the junta was part of a process between Peronism (or other fascistic governments in Latin America) to full democracy was not an unusual expression of political theory among many in Latin American at the time (partilcularly in Honduras, El Salvador, Paraguay, and Chile, military dictatorships all). I thought it was a dumb theory, but I thought Marxism was a dumb theory too and a lot of people seem to earnestly belief in it.

So I'm not going to assume the junta thought they were not a part of the democratic process at the time, no matter how stupid an idea that seems to you and me, unless you can find some sort of writings from the junta in which they indicate they knew it was a front. I haven't seen such a statement, but it certainly may exist and I would not be surprised if you could dig such a statement up.

No I understand that distinction perfectly well. What you ignore is the possibility that in public statements people may not be 100% truthful.

I acknowledge the possibility, but have yet to see the evidence.

Exactly what contribution did you think your condescending BS post of "See, that wasn't so hard, was it?" was making to keeping the thread on point? I can see none whatsoever so stop playing the victim.

"Waaah, marksman responds to my condescending correction of his typo with his own condescending attitude with regard to my reluctance to actually engage in topical discussions. Now I'll falsely claim he calls himself a victim. Waah." Don't dish it out if you can't take it, Jaggy.

Apologies. I think I misread a Meadmaker post as being one of yours.

Thank you.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't have evidence of it either way, so I take the words at face value. The idea that the junta was part of a process between Peronism (or other fascistic governments in Latin America) to full democracy was not an unusual expression of political theory among many in Latin American at the time (partilcularly in Honduras, El Salvador, Paraguay, and Chile, military dictatorships all). I thought it was a dumb theory, but I thought Marxism was a dumb theory too and a lot of people seem to earnestly belief in it.

So I'm not going to assume the junta thought they were not a part of the democratic process at the time, no matter how stupid an idea that seems to you and me, unless you can find some sort of writings from the junta in which they indicate they knew it was a front. I haven't seen such a statement, but it certainly may exist and I would not be surprised if you could dig such a statement up.


I acknowledge the possibility, but have yet to see the evidence.

You don't consider the absence of elections, a free press and freedom of speech to be evidence? You don't consider random beatings, disappearances and torture evidence?

Exactly what evidence WOULD convince you that they were well aware they were not running a democracy, short of the signed confession you seem to demand in your post?

"Waaah, marksman responds to my condescending correction of his typo with his own condescending attitude with regard to my reluctance to actually engage in topical discussions. Now I'll falsely claim he calls himself a victim. Waah." Don't dish it out if you can't take it, Jaggy.

I can dish it out and take it no problem at all. You are the one who has continually whined and cried about off topic posts, yet seem to feel that this rule should only apply to others and that you should be free to post snide little shots that are nothing to do with the topic. If you are so keen on keeping the thread on topic, try acting like you demand everyone else does.

 

[marksman]

You don't consider the absence of elections, a free press and freedom of speech to be evidence? You don't consider random beatings, disappearances and torture evidence?

I consider it evidence that they are were not a democracy. I do not consider it evidence of what they considered themselves to be.

Exactly what evidence WOULD convince you that they were well aware they were not running a democracy, short of the signed confession you seem to demand in your post?

A signed confession is not needed. A statement, either from private correspondence or public contradicting their asserted beliefs that their junta was a transitionary government in between Peronism and "full democracy" would suffice.

I can dish it out and take it no problem at all. You are the one who has continually whined and cried about off topic posts

Where? I have asked you repeatedly to keep the posts on topic. You ignore or belittle such requests. That's neither crying nor whining.

In contrast, I pointed out that your initial post to me was condescending. You then pretended that I was purposefully spitting on the memories of non-Englishment that died in the Falklands conflict on the UK-side. Later, when I respond to one of your inanities with a bit of condescension you attack me for it (and then claim you can "dish it out and take it no problem at all"). Hypocrisy, thy JREF handle is "Jaggy Burnett".

If you are so keen on keeping the thread on topic, try acting like you demand everyone else does.

I do. You're the only one who seems to have a problem keeping the thread on topic.

And, so, yet again, I will attempt (probably in vain) to bring our conversation on topic. How many indisputable democracies (as defined by you) have there been in history, and what is their rate of bellicosity compared to the rate of bellicosity for all dictatorships of the same period?

 

[Roboramma]

1903 - Military events.

Hm. So the year is 1903. What countries would you say qaulified as democracies at that time?
If we're not including the british in our list of democractic nations, I don't imagine that many others will qualify either - democracy was pretty new at the time, after all.

Given that, would you expect that of all the countries in the world, the few ones involved in military conflict in that year would include one or more of the few democracies that you feel would qualify?

Similarly in the modern day, how many countries qualify as democracies?
Which of these have conflicting intersts that might lead to a war?

Because the argument seems to be that democratic government makes wars less likely because the people are less willing to go to war under the same circumstances that a different form of government would.
In order to actually look at that claim, the circumstances need to be the same.

The soviet union's war in afganistan is one that makes sense - an american war in canada doesn't make sense politically or economically.

So, can anyone name two democracies that might have gone to war, but for the fact that they were democracies?
Were there dangerously heated relations between the UK and Sweden during the later half of the 20th century?

On another note, before eliminating countries from the contention of democracies that went to war, let's first decide what is important about being a democracy that we feel tends to limit war.
Is it having a government that is held accountable by the people who would be fighitng in the war?
If so, the civil war US would certainly count, unless the south's armies were made up of slaves (hint, they weren't).
Point being, rather than philosophising about the nature of a true democracy, it makes more sense to talk about the aspects of democracy that are actually important to the discussion at hand, and then determine which countries do or do not have those aspects.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I consider it evidence that they are were not a democracy. I do not consider it evidence of what they considered themselves to be.

A signed confession is not needed. A statement, either from private correspondence or public contradicting their asserted beliefs that their junta was a transitionary government in between Peronism and "full democracy" would suffice.

If you are only willing to consider written evidence or public statements then you are effectively ignoring the possibility that they are lying. Why are their actions irrelevant?

Would you accept a murderer genuinely believed he was innocent (and therefore according to you delusional) because he entered a plea of not guilty? If he is delusional, does that mean he has diminshed responsibility on mental capacity grounds?

Where? I have asked you repeatedly to keep the posts on topic. You ignore or belittle such requests. That's neither crying nor whining.

Nice bit of selective editing in the bit you quoted to remove all references to YOUR off topic posts. Dishonest, of course, but why should that bother you?

In contrast, I pointed out that your initial post to me was condescending.

Pointing out that you had made an error is not condescending.

You then pretended that I was purposefully spitting on the memories of non-Englishment that died in the Falklands conflict on the UK-side.

BS - you appeared to be arguing that England and the UK could be used interchangably and that this was estabished practice. I was pointing out to you why, despite that fact that you are simply wrong in general, it was particularly important in the context of YOUR error to get it correct. You didn't like being called on your error and have been crying about it ever since.

Later, when I respond to one of your inanities with a bit of condescension you attack me for it (and then claim you can "dish it out and take it no problem at all"). Hypocrisy, thy JREF handle is "Jaggy Burnett".

You admit that you were condescending but apparently do not think that entitles me to "attack" you for it (or more accurately point out how hypocritical you are being). So you admit dishing it out, but when you get some back, the whining reaches ever louder levels.

I do. You're the only one who seems to have a problem keeping the thread on topic.

So how did the comment I asked you about contribute to keeping the thread on topic, specifically? We both know it didn't and that your above statement is simply a lie.

And, so, yet again, I will attempt (probably in vain) to bring our conversation on topic. How many indisputable democracies (as defined by you) have there been in history, and what is their rate of bellicosity compared to the rate of bellicosity for all dictatorships of the same period?

If you can show me where I have made any claim about the rate of bellicosity of indisputable democracies compared to that of dictatorships, I will answer your question. However as I have never done so I feel under no obligations to answer your question.

Maybe it would be more useful if you commented on my definition rather than then demand I support a claim that I have never made? Of course that assumes that you ARE actually interested in getting back on topic, which does not appear to be borne out by your posting record.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A signed confession is not needed. A statement, either from private correspondence or public contradicting their asserted beliefs that their junta was a transitionary government in between Peronism and "full democracy" would suffice.

To keep this one separate in the hope you will address the issue, your claim was not that they thought they were a transitionary government on the way to democracy, but that they considered themselves a democracy.

What about the fact that political parties were banned?
What about the fact that Congress was dissolved?
What about the fact that no elections took place?

Do you really think that ANYONE in such a situation believed that Argentina WAS CURRENTLY a democracy?

 

[marksman]

To keep this one separate in the hope you will address the issue, your claim was not that they thought they were a transitionary government on the way to democracy, but that they considered themselves a democracy.

Yes, because they didn't see democracy as black or white. They considered democracy to be a spectrum between Peronism and full democracy. So they considered anything in between to be partial democracy, which as you can see has the word "democracy" in it.

They did not consider themselves to be "full democracy", but as they did not consider themselves to be Peronism, they saw themselves as partly democratic.

I know that makes no sense to you, but that was the fashionable political theory in Latin America floating around at the time.

What about the fact that political parties were banned?
What about the fact that Congress was dissolved?
What about the fact that no elections took place?

Do you really think that ANYONE in such a situation believed that Argentina WAS CURRENTLY a democracy?

Yes, I do. I think lots of apologists for military juntas in Latin America ascribed to the spectrum of democratization, as it was used as justification throughout much of Latin America in the late 1970's and 1980's.

You and I may believe that one is either a democracy or not a democracy and there is no middle ground. But at the time, the idea was that there was a long road to democracy, particularly for Latin American countries who had known little but colonialism, neo-colonialism, socialism or a succession of dictatorships in which the democratic process was invariably swept away.

The current political theory was that a strong executive could shield the nation from Western influence and shepherd the nation towards full democracy through a gradual process of democratization.

Note that I don't agree with this process. But I do believe that many people in Latin America believed in this process and I do think that the Argentinian junta during the Falklands War could have believed in it as well.

The fact that they had many very very anti-democratic measures, such as restrictions on free speech, peacable assembly and other rights we associate with liberal democracy does not contradict their theory as they claimed to be on the beginning of a long road to "full democracy" and those rights would be introduced later.

Similarly, Leninism had many hallmarks of a society that was in many ways very anti-communistic. It had centralized control of capital. It restricted free speech. Workers had little say in how their factories were operated. How did they continue to claim to be communist? They contended that they were transforming feudal Russia into a communist utopia but to do so would require some temporary measures that would seem anti-communist. Yet I believe much of the Kremlin really believed in the ideals of Communism and that they were working onto a transition to "full communism."

The idea of a spectrum of democratization was derived from Leninst theories of communism and the idea that a strong executive could transform a society form one that was unready for political and economic freedom to one that was.

As I said, I think the theory was bunk (just as I think the theory of communism is bunk). But I also think that many who espoused it honestly believed (or hoped) it to be true.

 

[marksman]

If you are only willing to consider written evidence or public statements then you are effectively ignoring the possibility that they are lying. Why are their actions irrelevant?

Because their actions, as descibed in my immediately preceding post are not inconsistent with their professed belief in a long process of democratization.

Would you accept a murderer genuinely believed he was innocent (and therefore according to you delusional) because he entered a plea of not guilty? If he is delusional, does that mean he has diminshed responsibility on mental capacity grounds?

That's not analogous. There is no "process of murder".

Let me give you a better analogy. Dr. Kevorkian euthanized many patients, or appears to have assisted in their suicide. He was eventually convicted of second-degree murder. But he to this day claims not to be a murderer because he does not believe that assisting a suicide is murder. I believe that he does not consider himself a murderer even though he admits to causing the death of people. I also do not believe him to be delusional. I believe he simply has a different definition of murder than those who convicted him. I also believe the Argentinian junta had a different definition of democracy that you or I would use.

Nice bit of selective editing in the bit you quoted to remove all references to YOUR off topic posts. Dishonest, of course, but why should that bother you?

I never denied that my posts have been off-topic in that I continue to engage in this distraction about what the Argentinian junta believes. So there's no dishonesty at all. However, I appear to be the only one who, in the process of all this non sequitur mayhem, keeps trying to bring the post back on topic.

Pointing out that you had made an error is not condescending.

The manner in which you pointed it out, however, was.

BS - you appeared to be arguing that England and the UK could be used interchangably

Wow. Your powers of mind-reading are astounding. Astoundingly inaccurate.

I used the word England once in a place where UK was clearly intended. My post had nothing whatsoever to do with the organization of the United Kingdom, so your surmise that I was making a statement about such is remarkably boneheaded.

You admit that you were condescending but apparently do not think that entitles me to "attack" you for it (or more accurately point out how hypocritical you are being). So you admit dishing it out, but when you get some back, the whining reaches ever louder levels.

I didn't realize your monitor has a volume control. If it does, you need to have it repaired as I am not whining and have not increased the volume. That is a delusion of your own creation.

So how did the comment I asked you about contribute to keeping the thread on topic, specifically?

The original topic about the Falklands War? I was pointing out how difficult it is to define democracy, which is directly relevant. The fact that I wrote "England" instead of "UK", however, is not.

If you can show me where I have made any claim about the rate of bellicosity of indisputable democracies compared to that of dictatorships, I will answer your question. However as I have never done so I feel under no obligations to answer your question.

Maybe it would be more useful if you commented on my definition rather than then demand I support a claim that I have never made?

Your definition is useless (within the context of this thread) if it is not to be used to support or reject the point made in the title of the thread. So please explain how you intend to use that definition in context. To what purpose is your definition of "indisputable democracy" to be put? Then we can examine whether it accomplishes that goal or does not accomplish that goal. Otherwise, the definition is floating without any context.

From your early participation in this thread, it appears you, like me, reject the notion that one could say there has never been a war between two genuine democracies. How does your definition of "indisputable democracy" inform on that point, or are you making some other point for which the definition might be helpful?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Your definition is useless (within the context of this thread) if it is not to be used to support or reject the point made in the title of the thread. So please explain how you intend to use that definition in context. To what purpose is your definition of "indisputable democracy" to be put? Then we can examine whether it accomplishes that goal or does not accomplish that goal. Otherwise, the definition is floating without any context.

You were the one who asked for th definition. Why did you do so if it was pointless?

From your early participation in this thread, it appears you, like me, reject the notion that one could say there has never been a war between two genuine democracies. How does your definition of "indisputable democracy" inform on that point, or are you making some other point for which the definition might be helpful?

Well unless anyone disputes that Finland and the UK were democracies at the time one declared war on the other, then the notion is clearly false.

Again, you wanted the definition. I presume you did this for a reason - so what was it?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Yes, because they didn't see democracy as black or white. They considered democracy to be a spectrum between Peronism and full democracy. So they considered anything in between to be partial democracy, which as you can see has the word "democracy" in it.

They did not consider themselves to be "full democracy", but as they did not consider themselves to be Peronism, they saw themselves as partly democratic.

I know that makes no sense to you, but that was the fashionable political theory in Latin America floating around at the time.



Yes, I do. I think lots of apologists for military juntas in Latin America ascribed to the spectrum of democratization, as it was used as justification throughout much of Latin America in the late 1970's and 1980's.

You and I may believe that one is either a democracy or not a democracy and there is no middle ground. But at the time, the idea was that there was a long road to democracy, particularly for Latin American countries who had known little but colonialism, neo-colonialism, socialism or a succession of dictatorships in which the democratic process was invariably swept away.

The current political theory was that a strong executive could shield the nation from Western influence and shepherd the nation towards full democracy through a gradual process of democratization.

Note that I don't agree with this process. But I do believe that many people in Latin America believed in this process and I do think that the Argentinian junta during the Falklands War could have believed in it as well.

The fact that they had many very very anti-democratic measures, such as restrictions on free speech, peacable assembly and other rights we associate with liberal democracy does not contradict their theory as they claimed to be on the beginning of a long road to "full democracy" and those rights would be introduced later.

Similarly, Leninism had many hallmarks of a society that was in many ways very anti-communistic. It had centralized control of capital. It restricted free speech. Workers had little say in how their factories were operated. How did they continue to claim to be communist? They contended that they were transforming feudal Russia into a communist utopia but to do so would require some temporary measures that would seem anti-communist. Yet I believe much of the Kremlin really believed in the ideals of Communism and that they were working onto a transition to "full communism."

The idea of a spectrum of democratization was derived from Leninst theories of communism and the idea that a strong executive could transform a society form one that was unready for political and economic freedom to one that was.

As I said, I think the theory was bunk (just as I think the theory of communism is bunk). But I also think that many who espoused it honestly believed (or hoped) it to be true.

Thanks for this. It is a very different answer from the "if they claimed to be democratic, I believe they considered themselves democratic unless provided with documentary evidence to the contrary" which seemed to be your previous answer.

I still fundamentally disagree that the people running a system involving systematic torture and murder, abolition of political activity and suspension of all elected bodies and elections considered what they were doing democratic, but I can understand where you are coming from.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The term Democracy is a red herring

Try this on for size: a constitutional republic, or constitutional monarchy.

Now, let's imagine that some morons in Washington DC decide that it is in America's strategic interest to go to war with Iran. (It isn't.)

You would have a constitutional republic going to war with an Islamic republic.

Iran has elections, sometimes a conservative sort wins, sometimes a progressive wins. At all times, the clerics in the Revolutionary council act as a significant policy making body.

America has elections. Sometimes a conservative wins, sometimes a more liberal sort wins. At all times, the Congress and the Courts act as counterweights to executive power, and the plethora of moneyed interests remain influential in policy creation.

The differences are somewhat small in terms of form and structure, but of some significance in terms of the details.

So, the broad brush label is useless as an analytical tool, besides being at risk of True Scottich descent.

The devil is indeed in the details, as is the casus belli of any war.

DR

 

[marksman]

You were the one who asked for th definition. Why did you do so if it was pointless?

I said it was useless if it is not being used to support or deny the theory posited in the title of the thread. When I asked you for your definition, I assumed you were using that term to make a point about the topic being discussed.

So care to answer the question? To what purpose are you using the term "indisputable democracies"? Is it a point relevant to the topic? I had assumed it was, but perhaps I should not have given you the benefit of such doubts.

Well unless anyone disputes that Finland and the UK were democracies at the time one declared war on the other, then the notion is clearly false.

We agree that the initial post's theory is factually inaccurate. Perhaps further discussion will only dismantle the tenuous peace we have now established.

Hmmm... have two democracies ever had a flame war?

Again, you wanted the definition. I presume you did this for a reason - so what was it?

To discuss the topic, which was, I assumed, why you offered the term in the first place. It seems I was wrong in that assumption .

Thanks for this. It is a very different answer from the "if they claimed to be democratic, I believe they considered themselves democratic unless provided with documentary evidence to the contrary" which seemed to be your previous answer.

Actually, that was not my previous answer. My previous answer was that based on their statements, they appear to consider themselves a democracy. When I linked to those statements, they contain the very theory that you are now -- several posts later -- thanking me for. I didn't think I had to restate in excruciating detail the theory set forth generally in that link. Apparently I did. I'm glad the matter is now cleared up.

I still fundamentally disagree that the people running a system involving systematic torture and murder, abolition of political activity and suspension of all elected bodies and elections considered what they were doing democratic, but I can understand where you are coming from.

I certainly don't believe it. But people throughout history have believed all sorts of weird political theories (e.g., divine right of kings, trial by combat, absolute monarchy, communism, delphic oracular truth, empire of the sun, shariah). In context, the "spectrum of democracy" doesn't seem particularly out of place.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I said it was useless if it is not being used to support or deny the theory posited in the title of the thread. When I asked you for your definition, I assumed you were using that term to make a point about the topic being discussed.

So care to answer the question? To what purpose are you using the term "indisputable democracies"? Is it a point relevant to the topic? I had assumed it was, but perhaps I should not have given you the benefit of such doubts.

Do you never get tired of condescending little jabs?

It is relevant to the topic as I used the term in relation to the example I gave of Finland and the UK. They clearly went to war, so unless someone disputes that one or the other is a democracy, then the statement that no two democracies ever went to war is false.

You asked me to define the term and I did. You then asked me to list all of them that have ever existed and do statistical analysis, despite this being totally unrelated to the claim I had made.

To discuss the topic, which was, I assumed, why you offered the term in the first place. It seems I was wrong in that assumption .

Nope, you just wanted me to back up a claim I never made. If you want to list all the democracies that meet the definition I gave and make an argument about their relative level of warmongering compared to dictatorships, feel free. As I never claimed anything in that area, I feel under no obligation to do it for you. Oh, and good luck finding any country that considers itself a dictatorship - I'm assuming anyone who says they are not a dictatorship doesn't count?

Actually, that was not my previous answer. My previous answer was that based on their statements, they appear to consider themselves a democracy. When I linked to those statements, they contain the very theory that you are now -- several posts later -- thanking me for. I didn't think I had to restate in excruciating detail the theory set forth generally in that link. Apparently I did. I'm glad the matter is now cleared up.

Then it can't have been you who posted this:

"I would base a statement about what he "considered himself to be" based on what he claimed, yes."

You should report to the admin that someone has cracked your account and is posting things you don't belief under your name.