In many of these cases, the political system which couldn’t withstand coups were democracies. Does this mean that democracy isn’t useful? Are you saying that democracies should forbid socialists from being elected since if they get elected then america will intervene and the democracy will cease to be useful? Sounds like you don’t care for democracy and self-determination of nations. Bonus points will be awarded for being able to make your point without a potion metaphor.
My entire point is that political systems like democracies are not isolated from economic systems. Democracies fail when combined with communism, because all power is concentrated in the political apparatus, leaving no leverage for the rest of the population. Then, seizing power and removing democracy is too easy.
The problem isn’t political systems, it’s superpowers intervening, e.g. america funding fascist coups of democratically elected socialists. It would be hard for any small nation, regardless of political system, to defend against a coup funded by a superpower. Please prove me wrong and tell me how e.g. the coup in Chile 1973 could have been prevented by decentralizing power.
The problem isn’t political systems, it’s superpowers intervening
There can be more than one problem.
Please prove me wrong and tell me how e.g. the coup in Chile 1973 could have been prevented by decentralizing power.
A coup still inherently relies on there being internal forces willing to execute said coup. I don’t dare say being capitalist could have stopped this particular one, quite likely it couldn’t. But it it is at least more resilient in general.
If it was impossible to resist superpower sponsored coups, I am sure the Baltics wouldn’t be able to remain democratic right next to Russia.
A coup still inherently relies on there being internal forces willing to execute said coup.
No shit, what are you trying to say? Are you saying there exists political systems which are immune to people wanting to stage a coup?
I don’t dare say being capitalist could have stopped this particular one, quite likely it couldn’t. But it it is at least more resilient in general.
How would it be more resilient?
If it was impossible to resist superpower sponsored coups, I am sure the Baltics wouldn’t be able to remain democratic right next to Russia.
What coup attempts are you talking about? Let’s try to focus on coups that were at least attempted or has any substantial evidence of being in the works.
What coup attempts are you talking about? Let’s try to focus on coups that were at least attempted or has any substantial evidence of being in the works.
I am not talking about coup attempts. I am exactly talking about lack of coup attempts in countries, where you would expect superpowers to start one if they could. But they can’t. I failed coup attempt already signals instability of your system. Or do you believe a good political system should have regular coup attempts that have to be suppressed by force?
In many of these cases, the political system which couldn’t withstand coups were democracies. Does this mean that democracy isn’t useful? Are you saying that democracies should forbid socialists from being elected since if they get elected then america will intervene and the democracy will cease to be useful? Sounds like you don’t care for democracy and self-determination of nations. Bonus points will be awarded for being able to make your point without a potion metaphor.
My entire point is that political systems like democracies are not isolated from economic systems. Democracies fail when combined with communism, because all power is concentrated in the political apparatus, leaving no leverage for the rest of the population. Then, seizing power and removing democracy is too easy.
The problem isn’t political systems, it’s superpowers intervening, e.g. america funding fascist coups of democratically elected socialists. It would be hard for any small nation, regardless of political system, to defend against a coup funded by a superpower. Please prove me wrong and tell me how e.g. the coup in Chile 1973 could have been prevented by decentralizing power.
There can be more than one problem.
A coup still inherently relies on there being internal forces willing to execute said coup. I don’t dare say being capitalist could have stopped this particular one, quite likely it couldn’t. But it it is at least more resilient in general.
If it was impossible to resist superpower sponsored coups, I am sure the Baltics wouldn’t be able to remain democratic right next to Russia.
That’s not what you’ve been saying until now.
No shit, what are you trying to say? Are you saying there exists political systems which are immune to people wanting to stage a coup?
How would it be more resilient?
What coup attempts are you talking about? Let’s try to focus on coups that were at least attempted or has any substantial evidence of being in the works.
I am not talking about coup attempts. I am exactly talking about lack of coup attempts in countries, where you would expect superpowers to start one if they could. But they can’t. I failed coup attempt already signals instability of your system. Or do you believe a good political system should have regular coup attempts that have to be suppressed by force?