The Instigator
AaronDIJ
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
5thInternationalist
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Is it accurate to coorelate the success of a nation to a monarchy/ dictatorship insted of democracy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
5thInternationalist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 729 times Debate No: 37221
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

AaronDIJ

Pro

I believe it is accurate to correlate the success of a nation with a monarchy/dictarship controlling the actions of that country. Not only does the actions and policy of that dictatorship help create economic stability but also reduce crime rate and create an emphasis on higher education.

*Looking for someone to rebut and argue that a democratic nation is better than living under a dictatorship for multiple reasons other than personal benefits *
5thInternationalist

Con

"I believe it is accurate to correlate the success of a nation with a monarchy/dictarship controlling the actions of that country. Not only does the actions and policy of that dictatorship help create economic stability but also reduce crime rate and create an emphasis on higher education."

First off, I have no idea what you mean here. In the first sentence, you make no sense whatsoever. But in the second, what do you mean by "economic stability". If you"re making a case for political dictatorship, you have to more reasons than that.

"*Looking for someone to rebut and argue that a democratic nation is better than living under a dictatorship for multiple reasons other than personal benefits *"

Sorry to disappoint, but I wouldn"t argue for either dictatorship or democracy. I think it"s a false dichotomy, especially in a world where the vast majority of people are going to be ruled by capital either way.
Debate Round No. 1
AaronDIJ

Pro

In my first sentence I was trying to explain the correlation between a nation controlled by a monarchy and the future success of that nation. When controlled by a monarchy, jobs / dilemmas are quick to get answered to there is no waiting for congress or waiting for a vote as such that may be time sensitive. Such as the vote in congress February of 2013 in which a bill had to be passed by the financial committee on budget of the government for the year. In what took a month to pass from the miscommunications in congress and the values of each party on the jeopardy the stock market plummeted to an all time low. Investors lost thousands of dollars to the lack of efficiency in a democratic congress. I also strongly believe that a country raised in a dictatorship helps to bring discipline and lower crime rates. For instance in the UAE or Qatar ( countries in the middle east controlled by the princes ), has one of the lowest nation wide crime rate and almost every citizen is educated and have a low nation wide unemployment rate. When an individual is given to many rights , to many choices nothing productive can come out of it
5thInternationalist

Con

Choosing between dictatorship and democracy is pretty absurd, especially if you don't take into account the functional purpose of any political regime. Your reasoning seems to be based on how effective each type of political regime is in terms of passing legislation, but not the type of legislation and for whom are they passed. But I can tell you, states (no matter what form such entities take) do not often pass legislation that's beneficial to the vast majority of the population. And they do not intend to do so, because they do not represent (nor are they meant to) the fictional 'general' or 'popular' interest politicos like to believe exist. I say fictional because there is no such thing as a common people bound together by some common characteristic like skin color, religion or any other cultural distinction you can come up with.

What do we have? We have a global population divided into classes within and across 'national' boundaries. And taking place within and across these national boundaries is a class struggle. As a result of this division into classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat), we have states which comes into existence for the sole purpose of securing this order. It holds this society together. Without it, the bourgeoisie would be left defenseless.

The state protects and advances the 'business' of the bourgeoisie, not because it is directly controlled by them, but because its existence depends on the existence of class relations, and its power (i.e. its ability to fund and expand it's activities) depends on the profits of the bourgeoisie. In other words, it is inextricably linked to the exploitation of the proletariat, and on the success of the economy, which that aforementioned exploitation entails. That is why the state always advances the collective interest of the bourgeoisie, at home and abroad. What is usually called 'national security', for example, is really the security of its national capital.

So why do states embrace different political forms? One thing that should be noted is that the proletariat shouldn't accept any of this. And they have no natural predisposition to accept this unjust social order. So to keep them in line and obedient is one important function of the state. And how states do this isn't the same across the world. Depending on the material and economic circumstances, states adjust and structures its internal political life accordingly to what fits the situation. If you look at where 'representative democracies' often prosper, and where 'dictatorships' often do as well, you'll see that 'representative democracies' are more fit for capitalist societies where a substantial proportion of the population often have needs that go beyond basic physiological ones. Whereas in 'Third World' countries where meeting basic needs is a damn struggle, brute force is reasonable. In the 'First World', consent has to be manufactured through a massive propaganda apparatus and the working class there has to be given the illusion of 'political freedom' through electoral politics.

If you look closer at the trends in 'First World' countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, you'll see widening inequalities and deepening poverty affecting large swathes of the working class. Which means it's going to take a lot more than manufactured consent to keep them in line, and that is why we see the increasing abandonment of civil liberties and expansion of surveillance methods of respective states. In sum, speaking in the American context, the US state is changing it's political form from that of 'representative democracy' to that of a more authoritarian regime to better cope with the anticipated class outburst.

Conclusion: Whatever political forms states adopt depends on which one of them better suits their purpose of securing the class system, which wholly includes advancing the collective interest of it's national bourgeoisie. And it very much depends on the material circumstances upon which it has to operate. But I don't see why we should have to choose which form a state should adopt. I think its just absurd. And I hope I explained why it is.
Debate Round No. 2
AaronDIJ

Pro

After contemplating upon your reasons I seem to understand what your reasons are and can't think of anything that would have been as accurate as you have put it.
5thInternationalist

Con

I guess we are in a complete agreement, and this no longer constitutes a debate.

So that's it. C' ya!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
The disadvantage of dictatorships is a lack of freedom, and that's a big disadvantage.

Countries can prosper under authoritarian rule. One way is to have a zillion dollars worth of oil, in which the government does matter. The interesting examples are post-WWII South Korea and Taiwan. Both allowed free markets despite authoritarian social policies. China had famine under socialist dictatorships, but has prospered in proportion to allowing increased capitalism. India had famine under democratic socialism, and has prospered under free markets. Prosperity comes from free markets.
Posted by 5thInternationalist 3 years ago
5thInternationalist
It is capitalism, with its built-in competitive struggle for sources of raw material, markets, trade routes and investment outlets, that is the breeding ground for war, but so-called "nation"-states are part of this. They are instruments of force, acting in capitalist interests, through which this struggle is waged, sometimes by threats explicit or understood ("might is right"), sometimes by military action." - http://www.worldsocialism.org...

I feel like that quote should have been included in my second post, but I forgot to put it, so I am putting it here in the comment section.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
AaronDIJ5thInternationalistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. The debate suffered from a lack of clear definitions in the challenge.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
AaronDIJ5thInternationalistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides cooperated and had great Conduct. S&G were even. No sources. Con had better arguments, and in the last round, Pro argued with him.