As far as I can see, the Western democracy is mostly an illusion; the Western countries are ruled by the financial aristocracy. This works as follows: if a problem arises in society, the financial elite, represented by parliamentarians, passes laws to solve it; but these laws simultaneously serve one more purpose—increasing the wealth and power of the elite. In particular, these laws are always aimed at suppressing the small businesses, because small businessmen are less dependent on the power and can overthrow it.

Currently I have two examples, but I apologize for not fact-checking everything thoroughly; I hope somebody here can help me with this:

1) I have seen an interview on Euronews, where it was said that agricultural subsidies in the European Union always help large agricultural holdings more than small farmers;

2) One blogger wrote about how laws aimed to combat global warming (greenhouse gas emission quotas) in New Zealand similarly benefit large agricultural holdings, and lead to ruining of small farmers.

Please comment my examples above and suggest any others.

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

In particular, these laws are always aimed at suppressing the small businesses, because small businessmen are less dependent on the power and can overthrow it.

This is untrue. Parliamentary representatives are unlikely to be elected in the first place unless their manifesto policies can convince a majority of the electorate that they will benefit financially - ie that there will be an acceptable degree of wealth distribution in their favour.

All things being equal, large producers have an intrinsic economic advantage over smaller producers due to economies of scale. Costs are not a linear function of output. The actual degree of proportionality varies a little with with context, but a common rule of thumb is that capital costs scale with output^0.6 for example. Conspiracy is not a prerequisite for this to happen.

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

As far as I can see, the Western democracy is mostly an illusion; the Western countries are ruled by the financial aristocracy. This works as follows: if a problem arises in society, the financial elite, represented by parliamentarians, passes laws to solve it; but these laws simultaneously serve one more purpose—increasing the wealth and power of the elite. In particular, these laws are always aimed at suppressing the small businesses, because small businessmen are less dependent on the power and can overthrow it.

Currently I have two examples, but I apologize for not fact-checking everything thoroughly; I hope somebody here can help me with this:

1) I have seen an interview on Euronews, where it was said that agricultural subsidies in the European Union always help large agricultural holdings more than small farmers;

2) One blogger wrote about how laws aimed to combat global warming (greenhouse gas emission quotas) in New Zealand similarly benefit large agricultural holdings, and lead to ruining of small farmers.

Please comment my examples above and suggest any others.

Those examples, if true, do not indicate democracy is an illusion. Government is always imperfect, like anything else. But in a democracy the people can throw out and replace those that make decisions that are sufficiently bad for a sufficiently large portion of society. Most government policies will make at least some people unhappy, but that's just the reality of life. Under any system of government.

If you claim Western government are ruled by a financial aristocracy you need to say what you mean by that. After all, government finances have to managed if the country is not to go bankrupt. So yeah, governments have pay attention to central bankers, the bond markets and so on. That, again, is just reality in the adult world.

Edited January 22Jan 22 by exchemist

What OP describes is more regarding outsized power of capital. This, however, was always a limitation in any democracies. There are always folks who are able to influence people more than others and the concept that better ideas will rise to the top is more an ideal rather than a realistic outcome.

That, however, does not as such invalidate the mechanisms of democracies, as in contrast to a feudal system, there are at least theoretical ways to address these issues. I.e. fundamentally the power still flows from the population, even if they can be convinced to do things against their interests.

In illiberal democracies that is not true anymore. The mechanisms of democracy, such as election, are mechanistically performative there.

Edit: didn't refresh page before posting, ended up effectively echoed similar arguments as exchemist.

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

But in a democracy the people can throw out and replace those that make decisions that are sufficiently bad for a sufficiently large portion of society.

The problem is that the choice of candidates is only among people approved by the elite. And often, if some candidate declares something good, at the same time he declares some ... on other subject, so the voters don't have a possibility for vote for a candidate which is really good for them. I hope you understand my logic for the case of e.g. AfD in Germany.

6 minutes ago, Linkey said:

I hope you understand my logic for the case of e.g. AfD in Germany.

Can you explain that a bit more?

40 minutes ago, Linkey said:

The problem is that the choice of candidates is only among people approved by the elite. And often, if some candidate declares something good, at the same time he declares some ... on other subject, so the voters don't have a possibility for vote for a candidate which is really good for them. I hope you understand my logic for the case of e.g. AfD in Germany.

In that case your definition of "elite" has to encompass the political parties themselves, as it is they - usually at local level - who decide who the candidate for their party should be in their constituency. This is not - at all - the same "elite" as the financial "elite" you were talking about earlier. I think you need to clarify who is in your "elite" and who is not, because at the moment it looks like a woolly concept you can use flexibly to object to any system for selecting representatives.

9 hours ago, Linkey said:

As far as I can see, the Western democracy is mostly an illusion; the Western countries are ruled by the financial aristocracy. This works as follows: if a problem arises in society, the financial elite, represented by parliamentarians, passes laws to solve it; but these laws simultaneously serve one more purpose—increasing the wealth and power of the elite. In particular, these laws are always aimed at suppressing the small businesses, because small businessmen are less dependent on the power and can overthrow it.

The thread title mentions authoritarianism and yet there’s no subsequent mention of it. You shift gears to financial aristocracy.

“In particular, these laws are always aimed at suppressing the small businesses”

Always? How is it that there are still small businesses?

56 minutes ago, Linkey said:

The problem is that the choice of candidates is only among people approved by the elite.

So why do the elite sometimes complain about candidates?

56 minutes ago, Linkey said:

And often, if some candidate declares something good, at the same time he declares some ... on other subject, so the voters don't have a possibility for vote for a candidate which is really good for them.

Wow, there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate? It’s almost like people have varied interests and motivations or something.

One thing I find tiresome about your posts is the tendency to paint things in absolutes, when that doesn’t exist. There are no political positions that get 100% approval. You can’t have a reasoned discussion about real systems when the ones presented are impossible ones that don’t exist, and can’t possibly exist.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

There are no political positions that get 100% approval.

My political positions all get 100% approval.........from me. Seriously tho, imo, the political elite are those who can afford the time and money to be involved in politics, especially when talking about positions beyond local governance.

On 1/22/2026 at 8:47 PM, CharonY said:

Can you explain that a bit more?

I suppose, the members of this forum hate such politicians as AfD, Le Pen, DiSantis? I understand their reasoning.

4 hours ago, Linkey said:

I suppose, the members of this forum hate such politicians as AfD, Le Pen, DiSantis? I understand their reasoning.

The groups are somewhat different, and I suspect that most members here do have a distaste for Nazi admirers. Not sure whether DeSantis fits that category, though. But I am still don't understand what you mean with that line:

On 1/22/2026 at 11:40 AM, Linkey said:

on other subject, so the voters don't have a possibility for vote for a candidate which is really good for them. I hope you understand my logic for the case of e.g. AfD in Germany.

Are you suggesting that folks are not able to vote for them (which of course does not make sense as they are the second strongest party right now) or that they are unable to vote for anyone besides AfD (which also sounds unreasonable).

On 1/25/2026 at 1:56 AM, CharonY said:

Are you suggesting that folks are not able to vote for them (which of course does not make sense as they are the second strongest party right now) or that they are unable to vote for anyone besides AfD (which also sounds unreasonable).

Again: a common situation is when candidate A promises something ugly regarding question 1, but something good regarding question 2. Candidate B promises something good regarding question 1, but something ugly regarding question 2. So the voters do not have choice.

For example, some candidates promise to supress gays, while others promise to supress homophobes; and when these candidates change each other, nothing changes, because both parties are rather spoilers serving the financial elite. This is clealy seen in case of USA and Poland.

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

Again: a common situation is when candidate A promises something ugly regarding question 1, but something good regarding question 2. Candidate B promises something good regarding question 1, but something ugly regarding question 2. So the voters do not have choice.

Sure they do. Voters don’t hold equally strong opinions about each topic, and politicians can be swayed by public opinion. They often take positions based on that. And they want get reelected; the next candidate can take a more popular stance, so they are faced with switching or losing.

And there are often more than two candidates, owing to multiple parties, or even if we only consider the two main parties (In the US) because there are primaries so your artificially-constructed scenario is even less relevant.

Still nothing to do with authoritarianism.

6 hours ago, Linkey said:

Again: a common situation is when candidate A promises something ugly regarding question 1, but something good regarding question 2. Candidate B promises something good regarding question 1, but something ugly regarding question 2. So the voters do not have choice.

For example, some candidates promise to supress gays, while others promise to supress homophobes; and when these candidates change each other, nothing changes, because both parties are rather spoilers serving the financial elite. This is clealy seen in case of USA and Poland.

You're missing a whole section of government in western societies that seek to reduce the potential of a king to own everything; that being the separation of powers between different levels of homophobia.

Mechanism of hidden authoritarianism, tends to eliminate the option to vote, rather than present a cognitively disonent argument, as a potential choice.

You're falling into the trap, that dictators tend to place before the 'Dunning and Krueger' devotee's... 😉

8 hours ago, Linkey said:

Again: a common situation is when candidate A promises something ugly regarding question 1, but something good regarding question 2. Candidate B promises something good regarding question 1, but something ugly regarding question 2. So the voters do not have choice.

For example, some candidates promise to supress gays, while others promise to supress homophobes; and when these candidates change each other, nothing changes, because both parties are rather spoilers serving the financial elite. This is clealy seen in case of USA and Poland.

Even if one is critical of the influence in money in politics, one should at least put enough effort to get some basics right. In Europe parliamentary systems are dominating and specifically Poland has something like close to a dozen parties represented in the Sejm. The US is the outlier here, not the norm. And to your first point. In any group where more than one person is present, some level is compromise needed for co-existing (just ask any married couple). Framing that as having no choice is silly and assumes an entirely selfish stance towards governing.

And in this context, the AfD has literally nothing good to offer, except appeasement to base instincts. We can see in back in the 30s what these policies did and we are starting to see in the US how what it is doing. If one wants to frame it as a mix of something good with something bad, I am not sure what to tell you.

When it comes to the "mechanism of hidden authoritarianism in Western countries", there seems to me to be a pushing of society towards a dependence on technology, and away from traditional things such as cash. It bothers me immensely that I am often being forced to have a smartphone and use it online to verify my identity instead of using a password (that should be my choice, not the online platform's imposition which is non-negotiable). It also bothers me that it is society itself that is complicit in the push towards dependence on technology, especially the push towards a cashless society.

I recently read an article about the push towards digital licenses and digital IDs in general, with the scary possibility that these can be revoked remotely, thus putting a person at risk of becoming an "unperson".

In the US money took the form of gold and silver pieces until private Banks started issuing paper currency, essentially IOUs, to 'represent' the real moneys, during the 1700s.
The Federal Reserve itself only started issuing paper 'greenbacks' in 1861, essentially IOUs again, to enable the Government to finance the Civil War.
They are now giving us digital IOUs, as money is not based on gold reserves anymore, so they can more easily use our actual money.

22 hours ago, swansont said:

And there are often more than two candidates, owing to multiple parties, or even if we only consider the two main parties (In the US) because there are primaries so your artificially-constructed scenario is even less relevant.

So you believe that the Americans had good choices - previously Biden, then Harris - and they showed themselves stupid since they voted not for Harris but for Trump?

53 minutes ago, Linkey said:

So you believe that the Americans had good choices - previously Biden, then Harris - and they showed themselves stupid since they voted not for Harris but for Trump?

What has your question, about the choices made in a single US presidential election, got to do with your general assertion about "hidden authoritarianism" in Western democracies?

14 hours ago, KJW said:

I recently read an article about the push towards digital licenses and digital IDs in general, with the scary possibility that these can be revoked remotely, thus putting a person at risk of becoming an "unperson".

Offline papers are just as easily revoked as the respective administrations typically have broad powers about them.

In that particular area I am more worried about the ability of powerful entities with access to sufficient computing power (and help of AI) to wholesale alter digital records, especially if more data is either being centralized or made online accessible. There is a more conspiratorial but increasingly possible extension of this thought to a general vulnerability to all digital records including video, photo, GPS and other information. The possibilities for creating unfalsifiable alternative realities are problematic, to say the least. The fact that this is happening with little to no oversight over companies as well as governmental institutions doesn't make it better.

13 hours ago, Linkey said:

So you believe that the Americans had good choices

Good choices? No. But that wasn’t your claim. You said there was no choice.

In the 2016 Republican primary there were 17 candidates. That’s a lot of choice. The system is not at fault that they couldn’t beat Trump, nor is the system at fault for Republicans caving to him and being complicit in his wrongdoings. The system doesn’t enforce itself

The flaws are not in democracy as a concept, but there are flaws in some specific ways it’s been implemented (e.g. the electoral college, not expanding the number of representatives in the house to keep pace with the population)

13 hours ago, Linkey said:

- previously Biden, then Harris - and they showed themselves stupid since they voted not for Harris but for Trump?

Stupid, lazy, indifferent, sexist, actively rooting for Trump’s bigotry, and more. Lots of factors in play.

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

  22 hours ago, KJW said:

I recently read an article about the push towards digital licenses and digital IDs in general, with the scary possibility that these can be revoked remotely, thus putting a person at risk of becoming an "unperson".

Offline papers are just as easily revoked as the respective administrations typically have broad powers about them.

At least with a physical ID, even if it is somehow revoked, the person is still in possession of that physical ID and can show it to someone who requests that ID be shown. That the physical ID has been revoked would require the person requesting the ID to check a database, something that isn't done in my experience. And if the rules change to require that a database be checked, then that is effectively a digital ID.

On 1/27/2026 at 1:56 AM, KJW said:

When it comes to the "mechanism of hidden authoritarianism in Western countries", there seems to me to be a pushing of society towards a dependence on technology, and away from traditional things such as cash. It bothers me immensely that I am often being forced to have a smartphone and use it online to verify my identity instead of using a password (that should be my choice, not the online platform's imposition which is non-negotiable). It also bothers me that it is society itself that is complicit in the push towards dependence on technology, especially the push towards a cashless society.

I recently read an article about the push towards digital licenses and digital IDs in general, with the scary possibility that these can be revoked remotely, thus putting a person at risk of becoming an "unperson".

This is the brave new world mr Huxley foretold (if we replace genetics with technology), I find it a strange dystopia in which everyone's happy, though...

On 1/27/2026 at 9:34 AM, Linkey said:

So you believe that the Americans had good choices - previously Biden, then Harris - and they showed themselves stupid since they voted not for Harris but for Trump?

Do you believe that you're stupid?

What if you are?

Would that mean you make stupid decisions?

16 hours ago, KJW said:

At least with a physical ID, even if it is somehow revoked, the person is still in possession of that physical ID and can show it to someone who requests that ID be shown.

I mean, you could, but if there is malice involved, what they will say (and have been saying) is that they suspect it is fake and take you in anyway. I think my broader point is that the mechanism of compliance is largely irrelevant if there is malicious intent involved. I.e. if the system is inherently untrustworthy, any part of it becomes a liability and protections are merely illusion. It might help folks to sleep at night, but it won't offer objective protection.

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

  On 1/28/2026 at 10:35 AM, KJW said:

At least with a physical ID, even if it is somehow revoked, the person is still in possession of that physical ID and can show it to someone who requests that ID be shown.

I mean, you could, but if there is malice involved, what they will say (and have been saying) is that they suspect it is fake and take you in anyway. I think my broader point is that the mechanism of compliance is largely irrelevant if there is malicious intent involved. I.e. if the system is inherently untrustworthy, any part of it becomes a liability and protections are merely illusion. It might help folks to sleep at night, but it won't offer objective protection.

I should point out that I'm not living under a Nazi regime where one has to carry "papers" with them just in case one is stopped in the street by the Gestapo. When I mentioned showing ID, it was for things like opening a bank account rather than proving my entitlement to exist. Having a physical ID is a rigorous proof of identity from my perspective, whereas a digital ID may become unavailable due to some form of technological glitch that I have no control over.

In the scenario you mentioned, if the Gestapo consider your physical ID to be fake in the absence of any evidence, then they were always going to take you into custody, and the ID becomes irrelevant.

The point of what I said in my original post is that the holder of a physical ID has control over the ID, whereas the holder of a digital ID no longer has control over the ID, that control having been transferred to the administrating body of the digital IDs. While there are scenarios in which a physical ID might not be sufficient, there are more scenarios in which a digital ID might not be sufficient, including every scenario in which a physical ID has been revoked.

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism. The scenario you mentioned seems to me to be about a full-blown dictatorship. But whereas the opening poster seems to be discussing the intrinsic limitations of a democratic system, I am focusing on the way technology is gradually encroaching on freedom and privacy.