-
Beloved son of beloved son of great national leader and hero. Libs: evil dictatorship.
Hated rotating corporate-puppets. Libs: good democracy.
-
Our democratically elected president: Can't and won't do a single thing he promised, there's always someone else to blame for his failures, only follows through what his bourgeois masters want
Their monarchical dictator: presumably controls literally everything in the country, not like we're going to find out the relevant laws and regulations or send someone to learn anything about their country
I think I fucked the format but you get the point
-
Hated rotating corporate-puppets. Libs: good democracy.
It really is weird thinking about how like in the US, for example, people act like it's normal to be at each other's throats every 4 years and to keep electing presidents that a good half of the country at least hates, as if this is somehow stabilizing and prevents power from becoming too centralized or something.
And then they look at a country with a longstanding, popular leader and the imperialist narrative is like, "Dictator!" And I guess it's easy for people to believe that because they quite literally have zero experience with having a leader who the majority of the country likes so much, they'd willingly elect them to stay in power for as long as possible. So it's hard for them to wrap their heads around a democratic willingness to keep the same person and party over time.
It's like people in those type of countries have been educated backwards on what democracy and popularity are, to believe that something is only democratic if it appears highly contested and it's inherently dangerous if it's too popular. Which I guess goes back to idealism (I think it is) and individualism, and the general idea that the problems of the world are due to supposed truisms like "power corrupting a good person" rather than a dialectical view. If somebody believes a person has a Corruption Meter that fills up the longer they're in power, then I can see how they'd think a popular, longstanding leader somehow correlates to badness; their premise is silly, but I can see the connection.
-
it’s inherently dangerous if it’s too popular
It’s just Gramscian common sense that the tyranny of the majority would be bad. Bourgeois ideology has been baked in since at least The Federalist Papers.
-
-
-
The typical pattern of Pax Americanan indoctrination: If a rebellion appeared in Pax Americana, then the blame is on the conspiracy of hard working innovative scary red Communist mastermind who gain the favor of the invisible hand to manage key positions of Pax Americana to babysit the lazy Capitalists who depends on stolen fertile land, good climate of stolen land, good stolen geographical locations, free Indigenous child slaves in death camps of fake schools, free stolen inheritance from abducted Indigenous children in the fake cultural assimilation projects, and favoritism from totalitarian Western European empires. However, a riot or some random funeral in Communist countries represents democractic activities against the Communist government regardless of the lack of domestic support, foreign dependency, violence attacks against innocent civilians, or the actual goal of the "rebels".
