Republics aren’t necessarily democratic.

A country is considered a republic when it’s government in comprised of representatives of the citizen body. But how should those representatives be selected? The concept of “republic” does not specify how. You could choose them through democratic means; You could elect a president who in turn selects the representatives; or you could have them be chosen based on who is the richest. That would still be a republic.

Democracy comes from the Greek demos, which means people or district, and kratos, which means power. Democracy is when the power is on the people.

Republic simply says the government should be ruled by representatives of the citizen body, Democracy states how those representatives should be selected.

(Please correct me if I’m wrong)

Democracy bad? OK, then I guess you won’t mind if Great Britain comes back to their former colonies and enslave everyone.

Have we all developed selective amnesia to the dictatorships that happen in Europe around the time of the second world war? Do you really want to live in those places? Or go back to monarchy?

I’m assuming you are an American… America as pretty much always been a democracy since it’s independence. You don’t know how life is like outside a democracy. You’ve never heard of horror stories of those who lived under fascist dictatorships during WWII. My country was one of those… for 41 long, long years… The International and State Defence Police (Policia Internacional de Defesa do Estado, or PIDE for short) had eyes everywhere… Even the most banal things, like owning a lighter, was outlawed - unless you had a license (if you read the article about that lighter license, you will notice that it doesn’t just say “lighter”, it is worded in such a matter that outlaws anything that could possibly be used to start a fire… You can start a fire with two sticks…). No one was safe. Gatherings where outlawed. Saying anything even remotely against the state would lead to to be captured and tortured for months on end, making death look like an unreachable dream. Worst of all… the PIPE’s torture methods were notorious for not leaving any markings on the victims bodies.

This GOP stuff reminds me a LOT of The New State, as it was called. Salazar, the Dictator, was also a conservative determined to bring Portugal back into it’s former glory. He hated democracy and felt like the new more progressive ideas were destroying our country, and, of course, he demonized the immigrants…

“Portugal is not a small country”

He had strong (and fake) Christian values, which where present in State propaganda.

“Salazar’s Lesson”

“God, Homeland, Family: The Trilogy of National Education”

In the picture above, you can see Salazar’s ideal family: The husband comes home from work, the wife an kids all stop what they are doing to greet him back home. The wife was to be an overzealous mother, a devoted wife, a true fairy of the home. A life of endless submission. They were trained to be like that from birth. First submit to their father and brothers, then their husband. The only future she could hope to have was a stable marriage.

I could go on and on on the horrors the the New State. I don’t know what kind of world you what to live in but I can assure you that, if you advocate for an end to democracy, you will not be the one in power.

This is capitalism. A system made to benefit those who have more capital by giving them even more capital.

No… Capitalism is when a handful of individuals own the means of production and have full authority on how they are used.

Communism is more akin to when the workers decide what to do with the means of production they operate.

You got this literally backwards.

Yeah… The label of “tankie” seems to be used to describe “anyone to the left of me”.

It’s so widely applied to the point of reaching meaninglessness.

I’ve seen the label “tankie” be thrown around to describe so many different things to the point that it has lost all meaning to me. I’ve seen it used to describe fascists, I’ve seen it used as a way to discredit someone’s argument without engaging with it, I’ve seen it used used to invalidate arguments because they were to the left of the person throwing the label.

The definition presented uses the word “authoritarian” which, in my eyes, falls on a similar category of “used on so many things it lost all meaning”. (Example)

Using the words authoritarian and communist simultaneously doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense to me: As far as I am aware, a communist society is a stateless society. However, Wikipedia defines “authoritarian” as

“Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of democracy and political plurality. It involves the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.”

Notice the words “strong central power”. Isn’t that a contradiction of what communism is? Please do correct me if I’m wrong.

I’ve seen in the comments people saying that de-federation is not an option because of .ml’s large communities, but, in my eyes, that doesn’t make much sense. .world is a big instance, just recreate the communities from .ml that you don’t want to miss out on. Everyone on .world will be forced to use them, since they can’t post on the .ml version any more. If .ml is as awful as people make it out to be, everyone will de-federate and move to the .world alternatives.

deleted by creator

Define tankie. I’ve seen that work be used in so many different contexts that it seems to have lost all meaning. This are word has been used to describe so many different things by people that don’t know what it means that now it has lost all meaning.

So you are trying to argue that slavery is a RIGHT? This looks like and argument of guilt by association. Authoritarian is seen as bad, by giving the abolishment of slavery the label of “authoritarian” gives of the idea that you want to associate it with being bad.

If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society. On that note, morality determines legality, not the other way around.

Slavery means that, if you’re rich enough, you should be allowed to revoke the rights of others. This is refutable at so many levels. If someone were to “willingly” agree to give up their rights, then just you’re just taking advantage of someone who was born in an unfavourable position and have no other choice other than to accept (and maybe not starve) or starve.

I was about the comment a similar thing.

If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society.