Democratic Trotskyism is belief that there is a coming worldwide democratic revolution that is being suppressed by strongmen dictators, Gulf Co-operation Council Monarchs, and theocrats and that these actors must be overthrown by a Free World Alliance in a global war for democracy.

After a global war for democracy is won, democratic peace theory will allow all countries to demilitarize. While the death of war will mean less technological innovation in the long run, the entire world will have more civil rights and leaders in the current free world won't be able to use war as a means to grow the size and scope of government.

The first countries that we should spread the revolution to are the ones with the least democratic governments, North Korea, Syria, and Chad. After these are gone then popular revolutionary sentiment will grow in the countries still under an undemocratic system. Other regimes will begin to moderate to avoid invasion and they should be allowed to do so.

NATO alone has almost half of the world's firepower and a majority of the global military budget so this would be easy if all free nations united.

Edited 4/3/2018 17:11:03

Is Democratic Trotskyism diffrent from Trotskyism? Only Trotskyism shows up on the first page on google, and that wiki page don't seem to match your presentation.

The thesis implies three unsound points: 1) the root cause of conflict which leads to suffering is dictatorial government, so peace will ensue once this is abolished; 2) democratic governments have less conflict among themselves so a world of democratic governments would lead to less war which would lead to less suffering; 3) democratic governments cause their citizens to have more "civil rights".

1) Identity politics is a democratic activity; the general masses of one group tend to promote the genocide of the general masses of another group. Even though dictators may preside de jure over acts of genocide, were it not for a fissure between peoples or classes to begin with, genocidal dictators would be engaging in political suicide in murdering a group that had no opposition to them.

2) Democratic totalitarianism in the 20th century produced mass murder and the world wars. Monarchs are private leaders and must raise their own funds to wage war, so war is scaled down to elites and their personal armies. Wars among monarchical states are also fought over control of titles, not blood and soil domination of entire foreign nations. Democratic representatives are public leaders with the funds and the loyalty of the entire population at their disposal; wars between democratic states are total wars with massive armies where the enemy nation must be broken because all citizens are engaged in the war effort. As established democratic nations will fight each other because conflict arises from identity.

3) Because citizens elect representatives to represent their interests, there are more laws that "protect" certain "rights" that citizens have in democratic countries. But government infrastructure must expand to enforce the respect for these "rights". The "right" becomes an immunity from social backlash guaranteed by a totalitarian state to a certain class of citizens. In a monarchical state, the right to property is the basis of government and no citizen group or even the king has the legal route to strip other citizens of their property. The only real way to secure one's rights being through the ownership of private property, the means to defend private property, and sanctity through nationhood surrounded by friends, it follows that democracy is a poor choice of government for anyone concerned with actual rights as it undermines the first two where monarchy does not undermine the last with logical certainty.

The 21st century is the age of absolute politics. That means the rejection of hopeless ideals like world democracy in favor of realpolitik is imperative. Only the individual's property, the nation's imperium, and the means and the will to secure those things are politically significant.

^I believe the 21st century is a century of absolute politics but for a very different reason.

New technologies such as strong AI and nanobots are likely to ensure that nobody can successfully rebel against their rulers if the rulers are willing to be sufficiently nasty.

The future is neither democracy nor a restricted, European or Middle Eastern form of monarchism which due to feudalism, religion and merchants is not in fact that absolute. Instead the future will be more like a high tech version of North Korea if humans will not be completely eradicated by AI.

Edited 4/5/2018 01:40:02

@TBest "Democratic Trotskyism" is just a metaphor that uses globalism of Trotskyism. I can also use the term "Democratic Islamism" instead. Free nations are Dar al-Islam while authoritarian states are Dar al-Harb. Authoritarian states are nations that theoretically should not exist in Democratic Islamism and to fulfill the ideals of Democratic Islamism all of Dar al-Harb must be conquered and annexed to Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb must eventually cease to exist.

Edited 4/5/2018 01:57:13

This is just Neoconservativism

None of the political -isms matter because AI is going to completely disrupt the balance of power.

Edited 4/5/2018 03:27:08

democracy is a sham.

communism is a sham

(low intellect)

politics are a sham

Humanity is a sham
Checkmate

Edited 4/9/2018 20:02:18