Why I am not a Democrat. Manifest disillusioned intellectual

Back in the USSRВ 1991 for me, as for every Soviet intellectual, the world was divided into two parts: on the one hand, an open society, on the other — his enemies. In the West, the market and democracy in the Soviet Union — a planned economy and totalitarianism.

It seems self-evident and requires no justification that if you give people freedom and universal (and what else? Everything else is fascism) suffrage, the market and democracy, economic freedom and political freedom will reign themselves.

In 1991, Russia gave democracy. Now, in 2014, as I write these lines, Russia is ruled by a dictatorship from which the country is rotting on the eyes. After 15 years of boundless corruption, partition of the country between friends, total degradation of the power unit, medicine and education, after the Russian-Georgian war, the annexation of Crimea and the loss of seats in the Eight, 88% of voters approve of Putin's actions.

We live in a country where the mass of the electors voted for Putin. We live in a country where, thanks to universal suffrage in 1999, we were choosing between Putin and Luzhkov. We live in a country where, in 1996, if people "choose yourself", came to power to Zyuganov.

And still "useful idiots" repeating their mantra: "Democracy is good", "without democracy there can be no freedom", "who is against democracy — the fascist".

But maybe Russia is a special country? Putin came to power through democratic voting, its high ratings, the support of a majority of its struggle against the Pindos, "the Georgian fascists", "Estonian fascists", "Ukrainian fascists" — this is some random aberration, but in other countries this is not the case?






The former Screwy — but that the fate that befell Russia, suffered all the countries of the former USSR except the Baltic States. In Kazakhstan, ruled by Nazarbayev, Belarus — Lukashenko, Kyrgyzstan has been replaced by a third dictatorship.

All these dictatorships came to power through democratic elections, and it would be naive to say that the Belarusians are voting for the old Man, did not vote for the dictator — the old Man has become the ruler exactly as promised. Petty criminal, "Golden baton" Yanukovych came to power in Ukraine is the result of universal suffrage.

But the saddest thing happened in Georgia. There after a large-scale market reforms of Mikhail Saakashvili, breaking themselves the canons of paternalistic criminal Georgian society, the Georgian people voted for paternalistic criminal party of Bidzina Ivanishvili with the telling title "Georgian dream".

"We do not need your freedom, order and market, — said the Georgian voter. — We need a politician who each promise to give the washing machine". And what is a lie, the voters did not care. Again: Georgian voters were not fooled and not forced. The majority of the Georgian people consciously voted against the freedom of the market and autonomy, paternalism and crime.

But maybe the USSR — this is a tragic exception? The peoples of the former USSR are not suited for democracy and in the world the case?

The twentieth century: Africa and Adipometer to other third world countries. In Africa and in Latin America throughout the XX century we observe about the same as in the CIS countries.

Democratic elections in these countries do not lead to the market. The elections usually wins the demagogue who promises the poor to give as much as possible. After the election, the demagogue becomes a dictator. As a joke Ian Smith, head of Rhodesia, "African democracy formula is very simple — one man, one vote, one time".

Here are some of the most striking examples.

WORK the early 1990s, South Africa was the first country in the world — for whites, of course. It accounted for 40% of GDP of all African countries South of the Sahara. After 1994, the country had abolished apartheid and held General elections, South Africa has become a country not even the third and fourth world. The income of the average South African has fallen by 49%, the income of the poorest 50%.

Everything collapsed: the economy, agriculture, extraction of raw materials; unemployment reached 40%, enriched only close to the government of former revolutionaries and trade Union leaders overnight became billionaires. Whole areas of Cape town and Johannesburg have become literally in ruins, in which it is possible to remove the film on the planet, after the nuclear disaster. Imagine skyscrapers that are physically occupied by the herd of people who start fires in the bathroom and shit in the Elevator shafts until they are filled to the brim, after which the herd migrate to the next skyscraper.

The level of education, the country dropped to 143rd place out of 144, in terms of murders was one of the first in the world.

HIV accounted for 25% of the population, while South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki claimed that AIDS is an invention of white racists with the purpose of enslavement of the black population, and it is actually there. Following South Africa's President, Jacob Zuma, the polygamist, was raped in his office the woman that he knew she was HIV-positive, and when the court asked what precautions he took, he replied that then he was tempted.

In the eyes of the "world community" South Africa remains a shining example of the triumph of Democracy over saving the terrible Apartheid. The liberal attitude of the world public to the problems of Africa can best be illustrated by the history of American Amy Biel. 26-year-old Amy Biel in 1993 (the year of the abolition of apartheid) came to South Africa to help the black population on the subject of General elections. When she rode in the car with your black friends, she was attacked by a crowd shouting: "One white — one bullet!" It was pulled from the car and killed. The murderers were given 18 years, but they appealed to the Commission of truth and reconciliation, which was founded by Nelson Mandela.

The Commission acquitted the murderers on the grounds that they were very excited by the rally, which called for killing all whites, the murder of Amy Biel, in the opinion of the Commission of truth and reconciliation, was a serious political message, caused by oppression and injustice. In Africa came the parents of Amy Biel. They also asked for acquittal of the killers. They established a Fund in memory of Amy Biel. Two of her killers are now working at the Foundation.

Let me remind you that the Zulus, who now constitute the majority in South Africa, are not indigenous to South Africa. They appeared in South Africa in the nineteenth century, in many places, later, Europeans. Their arrival was accompanied by the so-called mfecane — total genocide, in which all adult males of the conquered tribe were exterminated, and women and children were treated as slaves. When possible, mfecane spread to Europeans.

The question arises: may be, the murder of Amy Biel, the slogan "One white — one bullet!", the murder of farmers (which are killed in South Africa in three and a half times more often than any other category of the population, and the murders are accompanied by many hours of torture) — this is not the legacy of apartheid? Maybe it's a continuation of the traditions of mfecane?

Zimbabwe contrast to South Africa, in neighbouring Rhodesia never had apartheid. It was only property and educational qualifications, and the white minority of the country contributed to the development and education of the black majority. However, under pressure from the West and supporters of universal suffrage in 1980, the country had held a General democratic elections, which came to power Robert Mugabe.

In 34 years of his rule, Robert Mugabe has turned the "breadbasket of Africa" into the realm of poverty and AIDS. The country, which was one of the world's largest grain exporters, have switched to humanitarian assistance, inflation of billions of percent, life expectancy fell from 59 to 49 years, and GDP from 1980 to 2007, declined in three and a half times, given that the population increased from 7 to 12 million people.

While 88-year-old Mugabe for the last time in 2013 — quite honestly won the General election. The Zimbabwean voter is well aware that all disasters in the country's economy does not come from Mugabe, and the fact that the damned West wants to put on his knees in Zimbabwe, which, when the father of the nation, Mugabe stood up, and that all opposition in the country is funded by the cursed West.

Venezuela 1999 to power in Venezuela as a result of universal democratic elections came Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez began to build in the country the "Bolivarian economy." He began with the nationalization of major oil companies and ended with the establishment of "fair prices" for goods. In the country immediately began the shortage of necessities, in which Chavez accused the "merchants, hiding the goods," and the imperialist enemies of the Bolivarian Republic. In the country was established the official exchange rate of the peso to the dollar, which had nothing to do with real. It led to the emergence of the black market and to what approximate power to people who have the ability to exchange the dollar at the official rate, suddenly become millionaires.

All this did not prevent chávez's designated successor — his former chauffeur, Nicholas Maduro to win the General election. Maduro announced his voters that Chavez was poisoned by those damned imperialists and that he appeared to him after death in the form of a bird, and continued the policy of Chavez. The collapsed infrastructure of the country (during the election campaign, constantly had power outages), Maduro explained sabotage by the opposition, financed by the imperialists of the USA who want to destroy the Bolivarian revolution.

In the shops of Venezuela was introduced by the army. The soldiers of the stalls were selling products at prices designated by the state. The lack of the new products was announced the result of the machinations of the "speculators" and "enemies of the people". When the middle class rose, Maduro hired thugs to kill protesters, while publicly stating that the protesters are killing themselves to discredit the Bolivarian revolution.

Thailand the end of the twentieth century, Thailand has been rapidly developing country. However, in 2001 there were a General election. Populist slogans and buying of votes has led to the rise of billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra. A billionaire former police officer, Mr. Shinawatra was due to corruption: he supplied the police and government phones, and at the same time push through a law requiring the purchase of a mobile phone in Thailand was accompanied by the purchase of service connection, his (very expensive) provider company.

In five years, the Prime Minister, Mr. Shinawatra increased his fortune until, in 2006, was ousted by the military. However, in 2011, again in Thailand held a General election in which the voter has chosen the sister of the exiled Shinawatra, and Thaksin Shinawatra began to govern the country via Skype.

The first result returns Chinavata to power was the so-called "rice scheme", started to attract the voices of the mass of voters — poor farmers of the North. In 2011, Thailand accounted for around 70% of the world rice market, and the government Chinatow decided to buy rice from farmers at double the price. Thus, the government was hoping to achieve their favor. It is hoped to recapture the money by staging a shortage of rice in the world market and raising the price.

Alas, these epic plans of conquering the world rice market experienced the same thing with epic plans of Putin-planting of Europe on the Russian gas pipe, — they are covered with a copper basin. After Thailand staged a global shortage of rice, India has increased its production and has taken the place of Thailand. Prices have not risen, but fell by half. The Thai government failed to sell rice nor double, nor even at the regular price, and it rotted in the bins. At least 8 million tons stolen, the rest impossible to sell because no one in the world market does not want to buy pozaproshlogodnie rice that has been stored in questionable conditions. The scheme brought Thai the Treasury several billion dollars in damages, and one of the main beneficiaries of the scheme were direct competitors of the Thailand — Cambodia and Vietnam, where farmers brought their rice across the border and sold it to the Thai government at double the price. In 2013, the government continued to purchase rice, but did not pay for it.

In the country, clashes between the bourgeoisie, demanding the resignation Ginglik Shinawatra and a majority supporting populist policies of the authorities. In the end, the Thai army again took power in their hands, fired the Prime Minister and banned any demonstrations.

As was the case with Venezuela, most Western commentators at best chose to ignore the phenomenon of the rebellion market of segments of society against democracy. In the worst case, the protesters were called "fascists". The protest of the bourgeois minority against the populist majority do not fit into the modern mantra about "democracy, which always leads to the market and prosperity."

If possible, I now — to save time — not even going to touch on the Middle East and Islamism. I shall not refer to Palestine, where as a result of democratic elections came to power, Hamas and where the vast majority of the population believes that: a) all Jews must be destroyed; b) the aggressors are not the Palestinians and the Jews. I will not touch Egypt, where, according to various surveys, from 62 to 90% of the population approved of the attack on the twin towers, with 39% at the same time was convinced that she made the damn Jews to discredit peaceful Islam.

I could go on and multiply examples, but it is clear that I want to say. South Africa, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Thailand — all these countries universal suffrage was a disaster, both political and economic. Democracy does not lead to freedom and market. As in Russia, it led to a massive obscurantism, corruption and dictatorship.

The phenomenon of poor transave surprising that modern leftist liberals have the politically correct explanation. "Democracy — explain to us, does not survive in poor countries".

"A democracy can be expected to last an average of about 8,5 years in a country with per-capita income under $1000 per annum... and 100 years between $4000 and $6000... Above $6000, democracies are... certain to survive, come hell or high water," writes a modern classic left science Adam Przeworski.

This explanation is the simple problem that it is not true (not even counting the problems of the rich petrocracy). In 1948 the income of a former Auschwitz prisoner who came to Palestine, could hardly have surpassed the income of the Arab fellah from the neighbouring village. However, the Israelis have built a democratic society, and the Palestinians totalitarian state, where the TV show cartoons, how to kill Jews. Apparently, it's not only GDP.

But most importantly. If democracy survives in poor countries — what are they, the poor, to do?

Take, for example, the same Rhodesia. As I said, it was not apartheid and white minority did everything to educate and uplift the black majority. However, the world of left-liberal elite, headed by the then US President Jimmy Carter has done everything to mix Rhodesians with dirt and give them a General election. All attempts of the white minority to appeal to common sense are strongly suppressed.

"Useful idiots" got what you wanted. Zimbabwe is not just chaotic: it has no future. The situation is incorrigible: the white elite, which back in the 70's taught, treated, taught future black elite, emigrated or were murdered, and a new elite to create a nowhere.

Note that the "useful idiots" broke the lives of not only the white oppressors: they ruined the life of the black majority. One of them apologized for it? You heard that Jimmy Carter confessed: "Sorry guys, we were wrong. We demanded a General election, but we forgot to read Adam Przeworski and to inform you that in a poor country, they lead to a dictatorship"?

Alas, no. Still, when it comes to what to do about a poor country to build a prosperous economy, the West, EU, UN and so on respond in unison: "to Hold General democratic elections."

Topadalyne all the same Adam Przeworski if in a poor country with democracy is it doesn't matter that much here in a rich country, democracy will survive, come hell or high water.

Until recently, it seemed self-evident, but the situation is changing before our eyes. The European debt crisis is neither financial nor economic. It is a crisis of the self-management of society, in which citizens consume more than it produces, and politicians promise more than they can give.

Europe is stagnating in the eyes under an avalanche increase in the number of all commissions, licenses, permits, regulations, subsidies that distort market incentives, and restrictions that are de facto imposed on the market, which democracy is supposed to support. While politicians know what to do — they just don't know how in this case to win the next election.

It turns out that in poor countries, democracy leads to the dictatorship of the rich — the financial crisis and the cancerous growth of bureaucracy.

How did they become rich?

It is natural to ask ourselves if even in rich countries, democracy leads to a crisis — then how those countries became rich?

This is a very important question, because we talk all the time about "democratic tradition of Europe." In George Orwell's novel "1984" the party, as we know, invented the steam engine. Contemporary left-liberal discourse unobtrusively makes it clear that the steam engine invented democracy.

Undoubtedly, the democratic traditions in the history of Europe, Dating back to Athens, there are (we will return to them later). However, the paradox is that the modern system of universal suffrage exist in Europe less than 100 (and in most countries and less than 50) years. In other words, Europe has become the way of the industrial revolution, not in a democracy.

In Europe XII—XIX centuries were a self — governing city such as Florence or Venice. Was the country in which the vote of the taxpayers, such as the UK and the USA. Was absolute monarchy. But democracy, that is, universal suffrage — was not. And not just was not — it was not essential.

In Venice, fear that people will participate in government, was absolutely a factor in creating the system of government. Florence's popolo minuto was expelled from the government by the municipality for reasons of principle. In the UK and the USA in the XVIII—XIX centuries the right to vote, with all the reservations that belonged only to taxpayers. When John Locke in 1669, wrote the Constitution of Carolina, he gave the right to vote only to those who had 50 acres of land. When in 1848 the London chartists gathered to demand universal suffrage, the power is in terror, armed with half the town, and command the battle put the aged Duke of Wellington.

What all of these people, so different from members of the Venetian Council of Ten to the American founding fathers, — were guided in their hostility to universal suffrage?

Well for starters — a good knowledge of history.

Antionette the "democratic tradition" was indeed greatly presented in the history of the ancient world — both Greek city, and Rome.

It should be borne in mind that this story was extremely diverse. The policies were small, but their number was extensive, and the history of Greece was not the history of Athens or of Sparta story — it was the story of dozens of States, which implies interesting and important regularities.

These laws consisted in the fact that ancient historians, one and all, not very respected democracy. The fact that the power of the crowd often leads to a redistribution of land, debt forgiveness and ends with tyranny, "as soon as the crowd finds their leader," was shared by all historians, from Herodotus to Diodorus. Half of the "Lives" of Plutarch focuses on the madness of the crowd. The other half — the madness of tyrants.

The founding fathers in the eighteenth century, the British liberals in the nineteenth century read from the same Plutarch, as before Salamis the Athenians, gathered in battle, demanded that their commander Themistocles the sacrifice of a noble of the Persians, accidentally captured them before in captivity. In vain Themistocles resisted a superstitious crowd: crowd insisted until he got his.

They read as Athenian citizens, received as a gift from the Egyptian king a certain amount of grains and decided to divide it among the citizens were sold into slavery by about one-third of those who were previously considered citizens of that grain for the soul of the citizen came out a little more. 14 thousand Athenian citizens were sold into slavery by his brothers and nephews — just to freebies was a little bigger.

They read the same Athenian mob pursued and tormented of Pericles, because Pericles was not a tyrant. If he became a tyrant, they'd have loved him as the crowd loves Maduro or Mugabe.

But he did not become a tyrant, and demagogues every day come up with a new excuse, as if to find fault with Pericles. The crowd drove his teacher Anaxagoras. The crowd filed caressed them fidio charged with stealing gold that was covering the statue of Zeus. On the advice of Pericles, Phidias statue overlaid with leaves, which was easy to remove. The leaves were removed and weighed, was not short, but feisty crowd banished Pheidias anyway. When the crowd began to get to Aspasia, and Pericles understood that he's next, he did the only thing he had to hold on to power: he started the Peloponnesian war.

Many might remember Shakespeare's tragedy "Coriolanus" is about the noble Roman who betrayed his city and departed to the then enemies of Rome — Wolski. Caius Marcius Coriolanus was a fanatical supporter of the war and honor, a man who since childhood had devoted herself to one — the heroic deeds in the name of his native city. He stretched his body and tempered his spirit, as now any Olympic athlete, and he was connecting leadership talent with the incredible, almost superhuman courage: he happened to take the city almost alone, bursting into the gates after a running enemy, and, in fact, the nickname Coriolanus he received just after the captured town of Corioli.

What made this fanatical patriot to the side of the enemies of Rome? The crowd. At first the crowd didn't like it when Coriolanus offered to sell, not give away the Romans sent out of Egypt bread. But the main accusation which the plebs pushed against Kai Marzia Coriolanus and which led to his ouster, it sounds truly fantastic. Coriolanus summoned the people to the war. The people did not go; Coriolanus went on a RAID together with a few friends and clients, and returned with rich booty. So: people on the forum accused Coriolanus that the production of this campaign Coriolanus shared with those who went with him in the campaign who died and were killed together with him — not the people who refused to go with him.

In response to this accusation, according to Plutarch, Coriolanus was confused and didn't know what to say, and do — what?

Undoubtedly, the "democratic tradition" in ancient Europe were represented in full. However, neither ancient historians nor their later readers did not perceive democracy as something flawless. Ancient democracy was associated with forgiveness of debts, redistribution of land and tyranny, and in this sense, for 2 thousand years, as the example of Nicolas Maduro, or Robert Mugabe, in human society, little has changed.

Average makarenkove European commune was arranged quite differently than ancient policies. However, what ends the rule of the majority, was well known and their leaders.

In the history of Venice absolutely all of the attempted coup and the establishment of a personal dictatorship — from Bajamonte Tiepolo to the Doge Marino Falieri — were associated with the appeal to the people, "who stole freedom." In the history of Florence all crooks — for example, Walter de Brienne, Duke of Athens, is seeking personal power, trying to rely on the "skinny people".

A perfect illustration of how the dominance of the people in one particular city could serve the rebellion in Naples in 1647, when the local population rebelled against the hated Spanish Governor the Duke of Arcos. The instigator of the riot was that young beggar Masaniello, who after the Duke of Arcos imposed a tax on fruit, the main food of the poor — flung in the market his basket of fruit at the feet of the tax collector.

For the next three days Masaniello was a master of the mob, who plundered the house of the rich. On the fourth day, in the middle of the main square stood the scaffold where were executed enemies of the newly made helper of the people, on the fifth day of Masaniello fraternized on the balcony with the Duke of Arcos, and he had finally blown: he was running at full speed through the streets, crushing the very people who were the backbone of his power. On the seventh day Masaniello was killed: on the eighth the crowd was wearing his corpse on his hands.

Another illustrative example of the follies and superstitions of the crowd might serve Rome.

It just so happens that Rome in the Middle ages was the most impoverished city in the world. Unearned wealth anyway flocked from all European countries in the form of tithing; prostitutes of both sexes, thieves and criminals which parasitized on the pilgrims, the pilgrims themselves (for the most part it was the people who committed the crime and not gosausee to repeat the crime on the road, for the arrival in Rome was worth it) — all this transformed Rome into a city dominated by noble families — and the crowd that they lure.

In X—XI centuries the Pope was elected is actually a crowd — that is, noble families who had given the crowd the bread. This is the period in the history of the eloquent title "pornocracy", and its best exponent is the story of 18-year-old Pope John XII. "This worthy grandson Marashi, wrote about him in Gibbon, lived in open adultery with the most illustrious women of Rome, the Lateran Palace was turned into a school for prostitutes, and violence, commit to them over still virgins and widows, forced female pilgrims to refrain from visiting the Shrine of St. Peter, in order not to be raped by his successor."

Rome at this time was threatened by the king Berengar. To reflect John XII called in the aid of the German king Otto, whom he himself crowned Emperor. Otto, gloomy Teuton, who had high notions of the duty of the ruler was astounded by his character coronaviruses youngster. With astonishment he had heard the stories about the numerous murders committed in front of witnesses, set on fire houses, drinking, about how Christians dad during the dice game, swears by Jupiter and Venus.

In the end, Otto deposed the Pope and the Roman people rose to the defense of the depraved and murderers of John against the stranger-German. The first revolt was crushed, however, when Otto left Rome, John made a triumphant return. People's favorite cut off noses, tongues and hands of all who dared to call him an adulterer and a murderer. The people rejoiced; in 964 27-year-old dad John died of a stroke caused by excesses in bed with a woman.

However, perhaps the most vivid picture of people's madness can serve a story that happened in 1527 — the story of the looting of Rome, the Protestant mercenaries of Charles V.

It just so happened that when Pope Clement (little beloved by the Romans and have shown during the war, a rare lack of talent) called the people and asked him to unite to protect the city, the crowd... stood on the side of the approaching marauders. She attacked the city's defenders and prevent them to blow up bridges over the Tiber. In utter madness, the mob somehow believed that if ragged, hungry, ceased to obey the commanders and hate "Papists" Protestant troops enter Rome, nothing terrible will happen, and the leaders even set out to send its own ambassadors to the mercenaries.

The reality was, of course, terrible: Rome was not just looted — it was actually destroyed. Only 6 may 1527 hungry and fanatical soldiery, killed 8 thousand people; the doors of the looted shops, broke off the hinges, rings, cut together with your fingers, the nuns passed each other on the shame, on one of the frescoes of Raphael lance wrote the name of Martin Luther.

I could argue that I selectively choose stories: the insane behavior of the crowd in Rome in 1527 by the insane behavior of the crowd in Naples in 1647 m.

The problem is that in the middle Ages the mob rule was very short-lived event. Monarchs and tyrants could be smart, could be dumb. Could rule for decades and could, due to their stupidity, to fly from the throne in a few months. Sole rulers were clever sometimes, the elected government is almost always, but the fact that the elected government won the judgment, they are commonly lost in military power. As for the people he rules ever. Few cases where people came to power — as in Florence during the uprising chompy in 1378 m or in Rome before the assault in 1527-m — was so disastrous that for a long time people not of rules.

New Primavera, what motivated all these people — from the Venetian grandees to Locke and John Stuart mill, was basic common sense. They are, simply put, believed that wealthy people protects their assets, and the poor thinks about how to get someone else's. They believed that poor and uneducated people do not have in average, so the planning horizon, which on average have those who have property, education and social status.

They also considered it important that the mass is not able to make discoveries and inventions, and that the opinion of the ignorant majority cannot serve as a guiding star. Kings and emperors suddenly stopped listening to preachers and began to correspond with scholars. For encyclopedists important was not the "majority opinion" and scientific truth.

By the mid-nineteenth century proponents of progress and opponents of democracy have formulated their claims crystal clear: pure democracy "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property" (James Madison), and it will destroy "the disease called socialism" (Lord Acton). To substantiate this point of view, they were vast and ancient and medieval records.

But maybe they were wrong? And with the development of technology and progress in Europe there was something that turned the mob rule of the disaster — in the good?

Let's take a closer look.

The first in the history of modern Europe universal suffrage introduced in France in 1789. The issue is ended with a guillotine.

Next time universal suffrage was introduced, again in France, in 1848. It ended by the Emperor Louis Bonaparte. To explain his success in the elections, Karl Marx even came up with a striking way, really a lot of explaining to democratic arrangements: "lumpen proletariat". "Louis Bonaparte — Marx wrote, — was an Emperor, who voted thirsty hands of the lumpen-proletarian".

Even more amazing the next country to introduce if not universal suffrage, a radically lowered the limit, it was Germany under Bismarck. Iron Chancellor reduced the requirement to replace a liberal minority of the Patriotic majority. To the Reichstag of the responsible taxpayer was the Reichstag brainless patriots.

In 1895, the property qualification was drastically reduced in the elections of the mayor of Vienna. As a result, in cosmopolitan, multinational Imperial Vienna was won by the anti-Semite-protonated Karl Luger. Emperor Franz Joseph was so shocked that for two years refused to approve his appointment.

One of the axioms of contemporary left-liberal discourse States that "the development of the market accompanied by the development of democracy." The more economically free had the population, the greater was his call for democracy.

Unfortunately, this axiom does not correspond to reality: the explosive growth of democracy has happened in Europe in connection with the growth of economic freedom, and after the First world war. In human history the right to vote in the end belonged to the person who is fighting. The massive army of world ran a mass democracy.

Throughout Europe — the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, Bulgaria, Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, a wave or revolutions, or radical reduce the electoral qualifications. In this regard, in 1918 American President Woodrow Wilson declared the beginning of the era of democracy in the world. "Democracy seems about universally to prevail". Or, in translation from Woodrow Wilson to the Ortega y Gasset: "All power in society has passed to the masses."

Let's see what happened with democracy after 10 years.

author Yulia Latynina

источник:psychologos.ru

Source: /users/1077

Tags

See also

New and interesting