Why the U.S. is very unlikely to become Russia-style authoritarian any time soon

[Hardkill]

I asked ChatGPT many questions on whether or not it thinks that the US will fall into a dictatorship like in Russia because of Trumpism. 

It said that that is very unlikely to happen for the following reasons:

 

Structural guardrails

Federalism & fragmentation: 50 states + thousands of counties/towns run elections, police, courts, and schools. There’s no single switch to flip.

Independent judiciary by design: Life-tenured federal judges with protected pay; removal only by impeachment. State courts use mixed selection systems—no one pipeline to capture.

Two-key appointment system: Presidents nominate, but the Senate confirms; turnover is staggered over decades, preventing personalist control.

Decentralized elections with paper trails: Nearly universal paper ballots / verifiable records, routine audits, and bipartisan local administration.

Reformed electoral certification: Post-2020 reforms (e.g., clarifying the VP’s ceremonial role, raising objection thresholds) closed a major loophole for national subversion.

 

Legal and constitutional brakes

First Amendment: Robust protections for press, speech, assembly—any blanket crackdown on critics/journalists gets enjoined fast.

Due process & jury trials: Independent courts and juries, plus state/federal dual sovereignty, make retaliatory prosecutions hard to sustain.

Military limits at home: Posse Comitatus and a narrow Insurrection Act; the armed forces are trained to refuse unlawful domestic orders.

 

Plural power centers

Free press & civil society: Investigative media, NGOs, universities, bar associations, watchdogs, and opposition parties operate freely and sue effectively.

Elected and independent officials: Governors, state AGs, secretaries of state, DAs, and local clerks can—and do—resist federal overreach.

Markets and investors: Heavy-handed illiberal moves trigger immediate political, legal, and economic blowback.

 

Culture, norms, and incentives

Public opinion: Americans are frustrated with performance, but majorities still prefer democratic rules; “strongman” support remains a minority view.

Professional ethics: Judges, prosecutors, military, and career civil servants have strong norms and legal duties that resist politicization.

Transparency & detection: FOIA/public-records laws, disclosures, audits, inspectors general, whistleblower protections, and an adversarial press raise the cost of corruption or covert schemes.

 

What makes the U.S. different from Russia’s path

No captured national media system: Government cannot lawfully nationalize or centrally script news; independent outlets proliferate.

No centralized judicial discipline machine: The executive cannot hire/fire/discipline judges for outcomes; career leverage is limited.

Competition remains real: Opposition candidates, parties, and courts operate nationwide; alternation of power happens regularly.

 

Realistic risks to watch (not Russia-level, but worth vigilance)

Soft illiberalism: extreme gerrymanders, partisan election-law “hardball,” chilling effects on protest/activism, or selective investigations.

Concentrated influence that’s legal: big money in politics, media concentration, targeted funding of state/local offices.

Disinformation & intimidation: threats to election workers, deepfakes, and harassment that strain administration capacity.

 

Early-warning lights

Proposals to let the executive discipline or remove judges.

Laws that criminalize routine journalism or ban opposition on vague grounds.

Moves to bar independent election observers, centralize election control, or curtail paper audits.

Attempts to nationalize/censor major media or systematically block civil society.

 

U.S. institutions are messy by design, with many veto points, strong constitutional rights, and a vibrant ecosystem of watchdogs. That architecture—plus public culture that still leans pro-democracy—makes a Russia-style authoritarian turn extraordinarily hard to execute or sustain. Continuous attention to the “soft” risks keeps it that way.

[Infinity16]

Outside of Chat GPT, the Democracy Index by The Economist ranks countries by electoral process, government health, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties, scoring countries from 0 to 10. The index dates back to 2006 and goes up to 2024. The US started with a score of 8.22 in 2006 and got a score of 7.85 in 2024. While the US has experienced a decline in democracy, it's not a sharp one.

[Daniel Balan]

I will never ask any AI anything ever. AI is the most filthy thing mankind invented. I asked it if communism was bad from my phone and it gave me a lot of arguments for why it was bad. Then I asked the same thing from the phone of one of my far right acquaintances, and it said that communism was great and a strong man dictator is the only thing ensuring that the globalist foreigners don't steal our country. 

TL:DR AI is very bad for one's epistemology. All it does is to further deepen yourself in your pre existing worldview and it does so without shame. If it senses that you are a liberal, it feeds you liberal confirmation bias. 

From now on I will never ever use AI to make sense of the world.

Edited October 22 by Daniel Balan

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Can't you think for yourselves, or read a book? LOL

[BlueOak]

On 22/10/2025 at 6:58 AM, Daniel Balan said:

I will never ask any AI anything ever. AI is the most filthy thing mankind invented. I asked it if communism was bad from my phone and it gave me a lot of arguments for why it was bad. Then I asked the same thing from the phone of one of my far right acquaintances, and it said that communism was great and a strong man dictator is the only thing ensuring that the globalist foreigners don't steal our country. 

TL:DR AI is very bad for one's epistemology. All it does is to further deepen yourself in your pre existing worldview and it does so without shame. If it senses that you are a liberal, it feeds you liberal confirmation bias. 

From now on I will never ever use AI to make sense of the world.

Anything is 'good' or 'bad' from different perspectives.

It's the limitations of a stage green approach. One day someone will tell me the limitations of yellow more often :), but I think AI sits in the yellow space, at least when I interact with it. When I interact with it, I get long modeled and objective information or data sets. Because i've asked for that.
 

On 22/10/2025 at 7:01 AM, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Can't you think for yourselves, or read a book? LOL

I can formulate questions from the AI with guardrails that increase my capacity to understand something; why would I not use it?
It takes my initial thought and/or modelling or framing; it then takes me checking it for consistency, which by the way, its relatively bad at. Maybe 90%-95% of the time it's consistent if you ask for multiple outputs of specific data sets, which is actually relatively poor and way below what most would achieve on the same task. Though this will improve, I feel.

I would say the limiting thing for me is, I will never be shown a stage turquoise approach and thus never elevate anything I post unless I directly ask for it. BTW you can too, ask for a stage yellow, turquoise or green spiral dynamics approach and framing to your question. You could ask for something beyond this too, but that would be more ill defined.
 

Edited October 23 by BlueOak

[Hardkill]

 

@Daniel Balan @NewKidOnTheBlock I get what you're saying and there is some truth to what you're saying about how using ChatGPT in the wrong way can lead to too much groupthink and atrophy of critical thinking skills and original thought. 

However, I constantly push back against AI whenever I find something it says that I don't agree with or doesn't add up. I also, try the best that I can to have it respond to me with little to no bias towards my views.

Edited October 22 by Hardkill

[Daniel Balan]

11 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

 

@Daniel Balan @NewKidOnTheBlock I get what you're saying and there is some truth to what you're saying about how using ChatGPT in the wrong way can lead to too much group think and atrophy of critical thinking skills and original thought. 

However, I constantly push back against AI whenever I find something it says that I don't agree with or doesn't add up.

I do that too when I use AI, but for some reasons it always echoes back to me my pre existing worldview. I can't be already right on everything I already believe so it must be the case that AI is the same as Facebook, it only presents you in the feed your favorite conspiracy theories and your pre existing political agenda. Also when I push back against AI in the end it always reconfirms my pre existing bias. 

Also I asked a far right nationalist acquaintance for his phone, I know that he also uses chatgpt to get information and I was shocked that it basically gave him the exact opposite information with the same conviction on the same questions or promts that I ask chatgpt on my account and device.

This far right friend is nostalgic for the communist dictatorship from the cold war era and chatgpt confirmed, validated and further strengthened his self bias for dictatorship and totalitarianism saying that people in deed lived a more prosperous life under communism and now people have it worse and they don't have a stable job etc. Basically chatgpt was spewing communist propaganda that was displayed on tv during that era.

That was the moment I decided I will never ask AI to give me information that could potentially shape my political worldview. 

As of now I only ask it stuff about geography or facts from society such as who was Michael Jackson or other petty stuff like this.

Edited October 22 by Daniel Balan

[Hardkill]

4 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

I do that too when I use AI, but for some reasons it always echoes back to me my pre existing worldview. I can't be already right on everything I already believe so it must be the case that AI is the same as Facebook, it only presents you in the feed your favorite conspiracy theories and your pre existing political agenda. Also when I push back against AI in the end it always reconfirms my pre existing bias. 

Also I asked a far right nationalist acquaintance for his phone, I know that he also uses chatgpt to get information and I was shocked that it basically gave him the exact opposite information with the same conviction on the same questions or promts that I ask chatgpt on my account and device.

This far right friend is nostalgic for the communist dictatorship from the cold war era and chatgpt confirmed, validated and further strengthened his self bias for dictatorship and totalitarianism saying that people in deed lived a more prosperous life under communism and now people have it worse and they don't have a stable job etc. Basically chatgpt was spewing communist propaganda that was displayed on tv during that era.

That was the moment I decided I will never ask AI to give me information that could potentially shape my political worldview. 

As of now I only ask it stuff about geography or facts from society such as who was Michael Jackson or other petty stuff like this.

What AI chat do you use and did you buy any paid versions?

[Daniel Balan]

7 hours ago, Hardkill said:

What AI chat do you use and did you buy any paid versions?

Chatgpt, grok, deepseek. Those I used the most. I haven't paid any subscription to them thus far.

[BlueOak]

I am not so sure as the OP.

Its a pretty good strategy. Disrupt the urban vote, flip the democratic areas come election time.

[RareGodzilla]

On 22. 10. 2025 at 10:02 PM, Daniel Balan said:

This far right friend is nostalgic for the communist dictatorship from the cold war era and chatgpt confirmed, validated and further strengthened his self bias for dictatorship and totalitarianism saying that people in deed lived a more prosperous life under communism and now people have it worse and they don't have a stable job etc. Basically chatgpt was spewing communist propaganda that was displayed on tv during that era.

 

That's because it's true lol. You had basic needs meet, while lacked luxury western goods.

But it really does depends which countries you compare. An important factor to keep in mind is that alot of western USSR states would basically subsidize the southeastern ones. So countries that are today part of the EU are better off becase they are the ones getting subsudized by the EU. While the poor ones only got poverty and no democratic liberal rights that we take for granted. Context is key. 

Edited Friday at 12:47 PM by RareGodzilla

[zazen]

If the core flaw in the system is that capital controls the state rather than the state disciplining and checking the excess parasitic nature of capital - then what it will take to invert that dynamic is a state that has the capacity to act with authority to do so. But the West are culturally opposed to such a thing due to various cultural reflexes of distrust of the state and notions of liberty and slipper slope of authoritarianism. Yet, the citizens liberties are being trampled upon by a capital class that has soft-couped the state and colonized its own.

How is the West going to wrestle the control capital has over the state, out of their hands? All these economic problems that get papered over with patch work solutions by right or left politics will never resolve the underlying issue which is structural. The economic problems have to be fixed at the political level, and that needs be fixed first at a cultural level. Because the political solution is something the culture is opposed to. And even if it weren't - the West is culturally divided and distrustful of the ''other'' side that they would never work together to create that structural change in the first place - because they would also never trust the ''other'' side to control that level of state power which could be exercised upon them, imposing a vision of America they culturally disagree on.

Ya'll cooked basically. The system has to up end it self and be built from the bottom. The three pivot points that structurally allowed capital to dick-tate things to the state were the un-pegging from the gold standard (that fictionalized the economy), re-defining law so that companies had a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value (short term profits for the few over anything else), and the citizens united act basically let money speak louder than the people only distorting and capturing politics even more.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

@zazen The core flaw is a human propensity for corruption which literaly all systems share, no matter how authoritarian or libertarian they are, how is it the fault of capitalism that some people are corrupted? Or that nearly everyone is corrupted to some degree? You think religious theocracies like Afghanistan, or religious authoritarian muslim states in general aren't corrupt? Oh, would you take a look at all those cultural religious guardrails, surely that'll ensure people in power having a conscience and not do whatever they want? LOL

[Daniel Balan]

5 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

@zazen The core flaw is a human propensity for corruption which literaly all systems share, no matter how authoritarian or libertarian they are, how is it the fault of capitalism that some people are corrupted? Or that nearly everyone is corrupted to some degree? You think religious theocracies like Afghanistan, or religious authoritarian muslim states in general aren't corrupt? Oh, would you take a look at all those cultural religious guardrails, surely that'll ensure people in power having a conscience and not do whatever they want? LOL

The most wise thing I saw on this forum. 

Regardless of the system, bigger people will exploit smaller people. During the soviet era the big people exploited and milked the plebs out of their work in even worse ways than the capitalist system milks the plebs in capitalist societies. During the soviet times you had basic necesities for free, but you worked all your life for them, you paid for them with your lifetime being a slave to the ones that gave you that free cubical while eating chicken feet all your life. Now in capitalist systems you buy your own flat but you also have to pay all your life for it. The level of exploitation is basically the same, but in capitalist systems we have it better because we have more access to diversity of food, clothes, freedom to think and behave however you want, to watch whatever you want etc. Also in capitalist systems you can develop a business if you are ambitious and smart without being in bed with the communist party and paying bribes constantly. That's why the west although flawed, is light years ahead of the BRICS/Chinese governance model that @zazen is promoting day in and day out.

Edited Friday at 09:09 PM by Daniel Balan

[zazen]

19 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

@zazen The core flaw is a human propensity for corruption which literaly all systems share, no matter how authoritarian or libertarian they are, how is it the fault of capitalism that some people are corrupted? Or that nearly everyone is corrupted to some degree? You think religious theocracies like Afghanistan, or religious authoritarian muslim states in general aren't corrupt? Oh, would you take a look at all those cultural religious guardrails, surely that'll ensure people in power having a conscience and not do whatever they want? LOL

Correct (humans are flawed) - but I said the core flaw in this system is such and such.  Feudalism was corrupt too but we don't say "what to do, all systems are corrupt anyway" or ''humans are corrupt bro'' like its a discovery LOL. That's exactly why system design matters. If humans are corruptible (they obviously are) - then the entire point of building political and economic systems is to structure incentives so that corruption is costly and punishable rather than profitable or in the US's case legally mandated.

Your asking why blame capitalism for human nature? I'm saying that this specific arrangement of capitalism weaponizes and mandates the worst of human nature. The system is deliberately restructured to make capital accumulation the supreme logic, overriding all other values - and it will legally punish anyone who resists.  You can have the most ethical, principled person in the world - like a Buddha. Put them in a C-suite with fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, and they either extract wealth or get fired and replaced by someone who will. This is a legal, structural requirement - corruption is literally the operating system.

In a better system, labor checks capital, the state checks both. Media checks the state - citizens check the media. Different power centers check each other. This is also why in multi-polarity we have powers checking one another - and today we have China checking the US telling it to pipe down or it'll nuke its military industrial complex with rare earth controls. This is why the US is trying to secure the realm by preying on weaker players now (Venezuela, talks of Nigeria now lol).

What we have now is: capital checks capital (it doesn't), the state is captured by capital (so it can't check anything), media is owned by capital (so it justifies the status quo), and citizens are too divided and propagandized to check any of it. Check ya self before ya wreck yourself.

[zazen]

On 07/11/2025 at 9:09 PM, Daniel Balan said:

That's why the west although flawed, is light years ahead of the BRICS/Chinese governance model that @zazen is promoting day in and day out.

Remember when you and BlueOak thought BRICS is trying to end global democracy and turn the world authoritarian lol as if there aren’t larger and internal forces causing that. Brazil, India and South Africa are democracies - that’s 3/5 of the BRICS nations. You guys don’t even know what BRICS is or what brings them together. You guys think they’re exporting an ideology rather than pragmatically coming together to equalise the global order in such a way as to not have 15% of the world population dictate to 85% of the world through the institutional leverage these colonial legacy powers have.

This 40min video is a great watch:

Ignore the few biased takes and comments - the video has much to learn from. Adults don’t get triggered at trigger words or comments and can extract value when value is there. Just like we could learn from Hitler when he spoke of the parasitic rentier elites back in the day.

Trumps now floating a 50 year mortgage at 2% - I hope everyone understands the implications of that ie a trillion dollar bailout for the banksters while the ordinary person pays to keep a dying system afloat. Socialised losses, privatised gains.

Edited 12 hours ago by zazen

[Daniel Balan]

4 minutes ago, zazen said:

Remember when you and BlueOak thought BRICS is trying to end global democracy and turn the world authoritarian lol as if there aren’t larger and internal forces causing that. Brazil, India and South Africa are democracies - that’s 3/5 of the BRICS nations. You guys don’t even know what BRICS is or what brings them together. You guys think they’re exporting an ideology rather than pragmatically coming together to equalise the global order in such a way as to not have 15% of the world population dictate to 85% of the world through the institutional leverage these colonial legacy powers have.

This 40min video is a great watch:

Ignore the few biased takes and comments - the video has much to learn from. Adults don’t get triggered at trigger words or comments and can extract value when value is there. Just like we could learn from Hitler when he spoke of the parasitic rentier elites back in the day.

Trumps now floating a 50 year mortgage at 2% - I hope everyone understands the implications of that ie a trillion dollar bailout for the banksters while the ordinary person pays to keep a dying system afloat. Socialised losses, privatised gains.

This has to be a joke.🤣 BRICS is not trying to impose on the world its illiberal ideology yet you share a 40 minute piece of propaganda that is aimed to sway westerners against liberal democracy and to embrace the authoritarian illiberal model of governance that is exported in the west by these nationalist far right puppet parties and political actors. When the entire western information ecosystem is neck deep filled with propaganda that is aimed to do away with liberal democracy then you know that this is sponsored directly from the pockets of those who oppose the west. The west in comparison doesn't meddle in the information ecosystem in BRICS member states because there especially in total dictatorships like China and Russia, they don't even have access to world wide web. Recently I asked deepseek some questions about the chinese governance and he said that it is not allowed to discuss such things. 🤣🤣 The democratic people's republic🤣🤣🤣

[Daniel Balan]

19 minutes ago, zazen said:

Remember when you and BlueOak thought BRICS is trying to end global democracy and turn the world authoritarian lol as if there aren’t larger and internal forces causing that. Brazil, India and South Africa are democracies - that’s 3/5 of the BRICS nations. You guys don’t even know what BRICS is or what brings them together. You guys think they’re exporting an ideology rather than pragmatically coming together to equalise the global order in such a way as to not have 15% of the world population dictate to 85% of the world through the institutional leverage these colonial legacy powers have.

This 40min video is a great watch:

Ignore the few biased takes and comments - the video has much to learn from. Adults don’t get triggered at trigger words or comments and can extract value when value is there. Just like we could learn from Hitler when he spoke of the parasitic rentier elites back in the day.

Trumps now floating a 50 year mortgage at 2% - I hope everyone understands the implications of that ie a trillion dollar bailout for the banksters while the ordinary person pays to keep a dying system afloat. Socialised losses, privatised gains.

Also I have no problem that these countries have come together under the BRICS banner. BRICS is a blend of cultures and nations that are unique and have great culture which is kinda similar among each nation that is part of BRICS, by all means that is a good thing that they have their own ways of doing business and creating their own pathways for their own economic success. As I said, I have nothing against BRICS, let them be successful and economically whealthy. All I have to say is that my personal survival will be much worse if I'd live in BRICS. Brics is basically the losing side of the cold war and I grew up in the mess that was left behind after being on the lossing side of the cold war. Particular individuals are just cannon fodder and expendable lifes that must be milked to death for the "enrichment of the nation" while you are treated like a slave. Since integration with the west I feel so protected and I feel like I'm not just a cog that must slave its life away for the enrichment of the country that then the dictator can brag about. I feel like I can work for the benefit of myself, not for the benefit of the corrupt elites that slave me away so that they can latter brag that they have enriched the nation. 

That's why I hate BRICS, they want the old ways of exploitation and abuse to be mainstream again in the countries of the former warsaw pact block that they used to colonize and now want once again to colonize by first colonizing the information ecosystem with filthy propaganda like the video you shared.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

@zazen 

On 8. 11. 2025 at 0:13 PM, zazen said:

Correct (humans are flawed) - but I said the core flaw in this system is such and such.  Feudalism was corrupt too but we don't say "what to do, all systems are corrupt anyway" or ''humans are corrupt bro'' like its a discovery LOL. That's exactly why system design matters. If humans are corruptible (they obviously are) - then the entire point of building political and economic systems is to structure incentives so that corruption is costly and punishable rather than profitable or in the US's case legally mandated.

Your asking why blame capitalism for human nature? I'm saying that this specific arrangement of capitalism weaponizes and mandates the worst of human nature. The system is deliberately restructured to make capital accumulation the supreme logic, overriding all other values - and it will legally punish anyone who resists.  You can have the most ethical, principled person in the world - like a Buddha. Put them in a C-suite with fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, and they either extract wealth or get fired and replaced by someone who will. This is a legal, structural requirement - corruption is literally the operating system.

In a better system, labor checks capital, the state checks both. Media checks the state - citizens check the media. Different power centers check each other. This is also why in multi-polarity we have powers checking one another - and today we have China checking the US telling it to pipe down or it'll nuke its military industrial complex with rare earth controls. This is why the US is trying to secure the realm by preying on weaker players now (Venezuela, talks of Nigeria now lol).

What we have now is: capital checks capital (it doesn't), the state is captured by capital (so it can't check anything), media is owned by capital (so it justifies the status quo), and citizens are too divided and propagandized to check any of it. Check ya self before ya wreck yourself.

I get your point about different power centers checking each other, and I agree with that in principle. Same with the idea of a multipolar world, being that balance is better than domination. But from where I stand, there’s no question which bloc I’d rather live under. I’ll take the system that gives me choices: what to buy, what to believe, how to live. Freedom isn’t perfect, but I’d rather deal with its flaws than live under a system that doesn’t allow it at all. The problem with your version of multipolarity is that it seems to rely on states like China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea as the ones checking the West. But those are authoritarian regimes that crush dissent and strip people of basic freedoms. If we’re talking about real alternatives, I’d rather see countries like India play that role, since at least there’s pluralism and democracy in the mix. And yes, money and resources have always shaped geopolitics. That’s not unique to the West, and it’s not new. Russia and China are more imperialistic than the west is nowadays, and pretending otherwise is just bias. The difference is that in the West, corruption and abuse can still be challenged, for example by citizens, media, courts, civil society at large. Not perfectly, but the mechanisms exist. In authoritarian systems, they don’t.  So sure, multipolarity sounds good. But the real question is: which poles do you actually want shaping the world? For me, I’ll take the imperfect freedoms of the West over the "stability" of authoritarianism any day.

There was once a multipolar world made up purely of feudalistic and later absolutist monarchies. That world existed for a long time, sure. But using it as a counterexample to my point that corruption is prevalent in all human-made systems is pretty ironic, since it’s not mutually exclusive with anything I’ve said. Feudalism was a system built on fixed hierarchies and rigid beliefs. Capitalism, at its infancy, stood in direct opposition to feudalism and offered a far freer alternative, with no theoretical limits to upward mobility for the individual. There were literal violent clashes between classes before capitalism eventually prevailed. Yet you seem biased against systems that allow more freedom, claiming they simply make corruption more available. Meanwhile, feudalism was extremely strict, while capitalism opened the door to greater liberty. So which way is it? Is authoritarianism or libertarianism more fertile ground for corruption, and which one represents progress in your view? Because from where I’m standing, you’ve clearly contradicted yourself on this LOL

Edited 8 hours ago by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Daniel Balan]

8 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

@zazen 

I get your point about different power centers checking each other, and I agree with that in principle. Same with the idea of a multipolar world, being that balance is better than domination. But from where I stand, there’s no question which bloc I’d rather live under. I’ll take the system that gives me choices: what to buy, what to believe, how to live. Freedom isn’t perfect, but I’d rather deal with its flaws than live under a system that doesn’t allow it at all. The problem with your version of multipolarity is that it seems to rely on states like China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea as the ones checking the West. But those are authoritarian regimes that crush dissent and strip people of basic freedoms. If we’re talking about real alternatives, I’d rather see countries like India play that role, since at least there’s pluralism and democracy in the mix. And yes, money and resources have always shaped geopolitics. That’s not unique to the West, and it’s not new. Russia and China are more imperialistic than the west is nowadays, and pretending otherwise is just bias. The difference is that in the West, corruption and abuse can still be challenged, for example by citizens, media, courts, civil society at large. Not perfectly, but the mechanisms exist. In authoritarian systems, they don’t.  So sure, multipolarity sounds good. But the real question is: which poles do you actually want shaping the world? For me, I’ll take the imperfect freedoms of the West over the "stability" of authoritarianism any day.

There was once a multipolar world made up purely of feudalistic and later absolutist monarchies. That world existed for a long time, sure. But using it as a counterexample to my point that corruption is prevalent in all human-made systems is pretty ironic, since it’s not mutually exclusive with anything I’ve said. Feudalism was a system built on fixed hierarchies and rigid beliefs. Capitalism, at its infancy, stood in direct opposition to feudalism and offered a far freer alternative, with no theoretical limits to upward mobility for the individual. There were literal violent clashes between classes before capitalism eventually prevailed. Yet you seem biased against systems that allow more freedom, claiming they simply make corruption more available. Meanwhile, feudalism was extremely strict, while capitalism opened the door to greater liberty. So which way is it? Is authoritarianism or libertarianism more fertile ground for corruption, and which one represents progress in your view? Because from where I’m standing, you’ve clearly contradicted yourself on this LOL

Finally someone sane and wise on this sub forum and not just anti west propagandists. 

I've yet to enounter on this subforum someone who I can criticize the west with, that hasn't a BRICS agenda and rhetoric. Because of these propagandists that so nonchalantly spew their iliberal agenda 24/7, I can't genuinely criticise the west because I have to defend it from the bullshit that comes from the ones that parrot the propaganda of the BRICS world. These people didn't exist like 6 years ago. 6 years ago the propaganda wasn't yet been instilled in their mind with all this garbage that these guys are now reciting day after day. Since the pandemic the western informational ecosystem has been hijacked by propaganda funded from the pockets of those who are very irritated by liberal democracies. I wouldn't mind if this was just propaganda, but this is actually electoral campaign because across the west in every western country there are illiberal puppets of the authoritarian world that will be voted precisely by those whose minds have been hijacked by this vile propaganda. 

I want to criticize the west so badly because it has so many flaws, so much corruption, i want to settle our disputes in the liberal democratic family, not with the enemies of liberal democracy. The zone has been flooded with so much shit and the worst part is that quite intelligent people on this forum have fallen for the foreign authoritarian propaganda. Such intelligent people are thinking and reasoning and speaking in the exact way the Kremlin and Beijing want. I'm 100% sure that if Putin or Xi would read this subforum they would smile to see how effective their propaganda apparatus works. 

Edited 4 minutes ago by Daniel Balan