The only ULTIMATE difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.

Whether a country is a democracy or a dictatorship, the only difference is who gets to decide the enslavement of others: either one man, or the majority of people within a certain geographical area determined by a (comparatively) small group of get people who get paid to tell other people to go fight and defend those who they themselves have mastery of.



Voluntarism and Capitalism.




3 thoughts on “The only ULTIMATE difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.

  1. Rugl

    Democracy (or ochlocracy) is omnipresent in society. This is true if democracy is seen as: the rule of the majority. If we agree on this definition, then I’ll continue.

    Democracy is found in every repressive regime, every utopia, every single societal situation out there. How can I say that in communist China during the genocide of 40-70 million people by Chairman Mao there was democracy? How can I say that during the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia there was a democracy? How can I say that there is presently a democracy in Saudi Arabia where a king rules? All of these regimes continued or continue today because the majority of people passively allow them to.

    If a majority of people fight those in power they could make whatever type of government or rule or non-government they wanted. Sometimes even less than an actual majority of the citizenry need be ACTIVELY fighting against the government to change it. As an example, during the (second) French revolution of 1830 (aka the July Revolution) there was a a small percentage of the population that became revolutionaries, and yet the entire country had a major change come upon it. This happened the same way everyone understands a voting democratic election to take place. If there are more in the ACTIVE citizenry that dislike the position of the ACTIVE members of government in place, change can easily take place. The PASSIVE citizenry and the PASSIVE members of government are not worth counting in a democracy. These PASSIVE members of society are allowing themselves to be ruled by the ACTIVE. This is why I believe we should always be active in societal change for the better (e.g. writing, discussions, etc.).

    The reason I wanted to share this with you is because I believe there is little difference between dictatorship and democracy, even in who chooses who is free[r] or not [as free].

    There are a couple situations where the above democratic rule doesn’t seem to make as much sense. The most obvious is when the military consists of 10% of the population and the remaining 90% are ruled by the gun. But even this situation allows the 90% a choice of either freedom in death (via revolution with sticks, knives, etc.) or life enslaved as they remain passively under the totalitarian thumb.

    What do you think?

    1. codyalanreel Post author

      The only thing I disagree with you a little bit is what you said about a “passive” citizenry and an “active” citizenry.

      Voting doesn’t change anything because it is the state itself that is the problem: not the people in CHARGE of the inherent problem.

      1. Rugl

        You are right. I was referring to the ideal that so many claim exists, although it very obviously does not. Our vote (or lack of a vote) means so very little to anyone outside of our own consciences. You and I and the powers-that-be know as Stalin said,

        “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

Don't make an ass of yourself for the whole internet to see. No pressure ;)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s