jethro wrote:Keep the people happy, keep them mindlessly-entertained and never deny them any form of material comfort, and you'll never hear a peep out of them on anything else.
This sounds exactly like the human nature I've learned to understand (I'm not arrogant, I
am a child, but still I have eyes and observe) but why do dictatorships fall? In 1967 a particular one was established by Papadopoulos in Greece, and failed in 1973. It was a centralized authority that told the people what to do, but still, it failed. And I honestly nobody will be able to establish a society where the people pathologically support their tyranny. Perhaps, and I think most certainly, you will tell me that a dictatorship is a direct action against what is already established, and given the fact that the vast majority of people don't like changes, especially with regards to the way they live, and therefore it's not a successful of a centralized authority, as you said. I can make the assumption that what comes next is a slow, indirect change, in turtle like movement, a path the US has already stepped on, with amazing results. Families sit in front of their pretty screens, watching comedians commenting how awful the current system is and laughing their hearts out. The western way of living, as you again said. But that somehow goes against the revolutionized change, that established the capitalist system and defeated feudalism. But then again, if the Russian revolution was instead a slow, ideological, propagated change, would history books write about the Soviet Union?
I understand the fact, from daily life, that getting used to something is far better than drastic, which will ultimately and most likely prove to be negative in the long run, changes which require leaving your comfortable sofa, but come on, the world was never like that. So is this a new trend?
Peisistratos was a generous tyrant, but still the Athenians fucked him up for ruining their democracy. Maybe their democracy meant that certain people had power and that Peisistratos removed that freedom? I don't know if I make sense here, but I am somewhat confused about the human nature, a subject that I personally find quite intriguing and love to discuss about it. On one hand, you have all these groups and ideals and great figures of recent and past history talking about liberty and individualism, on whose ideologies the western system built its foundations (a western, liberal world of individualism and everyone's equal right to rise - although at this point I lose the whole idea of keeping power amongst those who actual control the flow of assets and production and letting people live their lives freely, without oppression, although that's stupid when you take a peek at US life, which is empty and rather full of people continuously voting for two parties, no matter how they fuck their citizens up, they all forget it with some flashy capitalist rallies) and on the other hand you have the centralized authority, which means no life and a dictated life.
Sorry about my rumbling and I wonder if anybody made sense of that.