Which is why I ultimately ended up agreeing with the others. Thank-you for all the information though; I am actually ordering quite a few books off of Amazon that are related to your examples.
Btw whe speaking of ancient times, please be aware that there was no such thing as "greece". Democracy was an invention of Athens and was practiced only there, while mist other poleis - the most notable being Sparta - still remained monarchies/oligarchies. Then, a tyrant is by definition a ruler that did not inherit the throne. The definition does not contain any moral aspects. Furthermore, you should be aware that based on the definition of demos (which is the "people") almost anything van be a democracy. Example: In Athens only free men from Athens were allowed to vote, which was about ten percent of the population. In the republic of rome, only men that have served in the military could start the cursus honorum, and in neither if those systems were you paid for servimg in the administration, which completely excluded poor people.
Although that would be pedantically so, when discussing "the Athenian" or Helvetian (it wasn't only Athens) way of livin' gummental-wise, we say "Greek." Just a thang Western Civ does.
I think ultimately you may be overthinking this - by which I mean from a readers point of view unless your book is actually supposed to be a study in varying systems of government its not likely that the reader cares that much about the semantic difference between different terms to describe how your characters world is governed. My inclination would be to just show the leadership of the country/world whatever to the extent that is necessary for the story being told , and let the reader form their own view (if they wish) about what model of government is being employed
I have to tell you I am so impressed to see you say this. You demonstrate an integrity and intellectual honesty which I respect a great deal. I'm sorry if my response seemed personal or a bit strident, however, I was just responding similarly to pasting a poster up. The concept of democracy has been continually challenged, and someone with my background is spring-loaded to respond. However, what you say here runs deeper than this. This response of yours shows character. Proud of yah.
We will probably be able to see how an autocratic-democracy plays out right here in America once Trump completes his "mad dog" (his own term) appointments. Then he will be surrounded by all those like-minded enforcers who will help carry out his agenda.
I'll bite this once, then we can get the thread locked. You miss the point. Trump has no agenda. Trump's agenda is Trump. He saw himself as president - now it'll say it in his bio. He's done. He never intended to preside. He lied about "I know people who're professionals who can fix all this stuff these politicians broke." He's now appointing the right-wing who's who. In the end it'll all be the "outsiders" - right wing Republican functionaries, taking things in a "new direction", the same way we've been going all along. If you think Don's going to actually do this job, you don't understand Don. He doesn't work. He pays others to work for him. He delegates. Don will spend his presidency looking in the mirror saying, "I'm president. I'm president." The country will be run by the _____________ (insert adjective) who took over the Republican Party thirty years ago.
Haha thank-you! And don't worry, you're good, I found your post to be informative and I didn't take offense. After all, that is the only way "being offended" can work as far as I'm concerned. Offenses and insults aren't one-and-the-same. As Hitchens once said at Grand Valley State University, "Civility is overrated." Although were it me, I might add a 'usually' into his quote. To go back to that discussion, the books I vaguely mentioned include Rights of Man by Paine, Politics by Aristotle, The Republic by Plato, On the Social Contract by Rousseau, and James Madison: A Life Reconsidered by Lynne Cheney, Mein Kampf [Unabridged] by Hitler, Marx's Communist Manifesto, among others. Not all of this is research specifically for my story. I just find the subject matter interesting. And as somebody above mentioned, I was perhaps focusing all too much on the literal government aspect, when in fact what matters is that the system is believable--which of course, is to say that the story ought to be so enthralling that readers aren't distracted by these sorts of quibbles. If it works for the story, then it works, no matter how unlikely in the "real" world.
@Foxxx : When reading these books, you should try to check out some references, analysis and interpretations, and be extremely careful with especially the last 2 you mentioned Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes is also a good choice since his ideal was close to Plato, and he paved the way for the concept of "enlightened absolutism"
Yeah, if you read Mein Kampf the wrong way strange things could happen. I hear that's true of other books, too, like that dreaded Communist Manifesto. Imagine coming out thinking Marx had a point! They'll burn you at the stake if you're not careful.
At risk of heading to the debate room, I've come to believe that Marx was good at describing the problem, but less so at coming to a solution. I'll find my own stake, thanks....
To be honest the problem with the solution wasn't Marx - although he was a hypocrite on a personal level when you look at how he lived his life - or even Lenin , things began to go off the rails with Stalin's reinterpretation (or with Mao's in china - and he was an even bigger hypocrite)
Communism is the most beautiful Utopia, so yes, Marx had a point. But Marx also wrote that proletarians should rise up and kill(!) the aristocracy.
Well the problem with Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto is that the unabridged versions are written by groups like the NSADP, and regular versions written by people who swing the other way. There never seems to be an honest in-between. Either the author is an advocate for the ideas in the book, or he's got a bone-to-pick / feels the need to go on an annoying patriotic rant against Hitler or Stalin. Currently looking at a Reynal & Hitchcock version on Amazon for $225. A lot of people are saying that these non-postwar copies are superior to the large majority of postwar translations. Originally printed in 1939 and in good condition it says. Sent an email to the seller with a few questions I had.
