I reRead animal farm recently, and I had some thoughts

Author: Moozer325
Orwellian

Posts

Total: 33
Topic's author
#1
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
I recently reread George Orwell’s animal farm for the first time in a while, and I found some interesting things that I don’t think I picked up on when I was being forced to read it.

One thing that struck me as being something that people on DART might find interesting, is the transformation of the Pigs from egalitarian to the oppressors. The Pigs were the major orchestrators of the revolution, but because they are far smarter than the other animals, they take control and become just the same as the humans before. 

Being on DART has made me reflect on the role of smart people in society, and I noticed how Orwell also uses this book to convey a message to the smart people of the world. Obviously the Pigs were immoral in becoming the rulers seeing how they horribly oppressed the other animals, but I don’t think the message was that an Geniocracy is impossible. I think he was trying to tell us that if the smart people of the world inherently have a right to rule, then it must also come with a duty to rule fairly and equally. 

I just thought that this was pretty interesting and I thought I would share it with you all.
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,548
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Moozer325
Why would someone even want to be ruled over? People dont understand that anarchy is the only morally perfect system.
Topic's author
#3
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Best.Korea
As always, I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.
#4
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
I think he was trying to tell us that if the smart people of the world inherently have a right to rule, then it must also come with a duty to rule fairly and equally. 
I don't think he was saying that.

If he was then the new plan was the old plan. There was a reason that the nobility was called "noble". They believed (or were made to believe) that moral virtue was an inheritable trait.

They had a duty to rule but they were thought to be most likely to do so fairly.

History had another lesson. There is no substitute for justice. Long before feudalism philosophers in the time of Socrates were forced to admit there is no substitute for truth (and what that means is no authority, no superstition, no religion is reliable).


All sapient creatures are moral actors and have a duty to be moral, that is the fundamental definition of duty. Without morality duty is meaningless. There is no place for "ruling", people can accept leaders and systems but it is their consent that creates the duty on both sides to do anything more than what is already required which is to refrain from violating rights.
Topic's author
#5
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well I never necessarily said that he (or I) supported rule by the smart. My take is just that he shows how rule by the smart often descends into unjust rule, but then again, I could be mistaken and he was saying that rule by the smart always descends into unjust rule.
#6
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Moozer325
I recently reread George Orwell’s animal farm for the first time in a while, and I found some interesting things that I don’t think I picked up on when I was being forced to read it.

One thing that struck me as being something that people on DART might find interesting, is the transformation of the Pigs from egalitarian to the oppressors. The Pigs were the major orchestrators of the revolution, but because they are far smarter than the other animals, they take control and become just the same as the humans before. 

Being on DART has made me reflect on the role of smart people in society, and I noticed how Orwell also uses this book to convey a message to the smart people of the world. Obviously the Pigs were immoral in becoming the rulers seeing how they horribly oppressed the other animals, but I don’t think the message was that an Geniocracy is impossible. I think he was trying to tell us that if the smart people of the world inherently have a right to rule, then it must also come with a duty to rule fairly and equally. 

I just thought that this was pretty interesting and I thought I would share it with you all.
Interesting take, it's been eons since I read it but I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a satirical attack on Stalin and the Russian leadership around the Russian revolution, Orwell hated Stalin and the Russian leadership.  As I recall. the pigs represented Russian leadership and Napoleon represented Stalin, and considering how Orwell felt about them, he probably didn't have any intention of making the Russian represent smart people.

That's not to say your take doesn't provide great insight, that's the thing about great art, it speaks to people in their way, it invites the reader to complete it in a way that provides personal meaning.  I suppose that's why the book is always so much better than the movie, the book more fully engages you creatively, we make it ours much more than we can with a movie.

I love to reread books and always see things the second time that I didn't see the first time, always get more out of it the second time than I did the first. Now that you've shared what you saw, I'd probably see that if I read it again.  Doubt I will though, I didn't appreciate it much the first time, it's unlikely I'd read again.




#7
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
My take is just that he shows how rule by the smart often descends into unjust rule
They weren't just smart though, they were revolutionary. Convinced of their own morality having had no opportunity under the rule of man to see if they were naturally purer than man.

This was somewhat the theme of planet of the apes as well.

Against the madness of man's war it would have been easy to hold yourself (as a non-human) apart from it and conclude that humanity was a poisoned evil thing; yet in your powerlessness as dumb beasts your nature is no more trustworthy. As soon as you got a gun and a net you started enslaving people. As soon as you could speak you started lying and plotting.

The point of both, or at least the point that makes it poignant to me is that when analyzing tyranny, madness, and evil there is a tendency to divorce yourself from it by claiming such behavior would not be natural to you.

I've seen this expressed by people criticizing religion as "you need a book to tell you to be good, but good people can be good without it".

That belief that there is something intrinsic "the good person" is the start of the slippery slope that the apes and the pigs both fell down.

The truth which stands in contrast to this error is: People are good when they know how to be good... and you never learn that if you don't think there is something to learn.

They say power corrupts, but I disagree. Power exposes the existing corruption. The powerless have no temptation to resist. It is when you have power that it matters that you know what you should resist and why.
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
@Moozer325
Individual freedom within a cohesive society is about as good as it gets.

Anarchy tends to suggest individualism within a chaotic society.

And a society inevitably evolves hierarchically.

So the chaos of anarchic struggle is likely to once again, evolve into the brutality of oppression...See Orwell

Out of the frying pan into the fire, as it were.


Morals are products of the imagination.

And so in my opinion, the reality of anarchy and the concept of morality are a tad contradictory.
#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,548
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
@Moozer325
As always, I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.
Uh well, think about it, isnt anarchy the representation of my "screw the rules" personality?
I have screwed every rule there ever was.

Anarchy tends to suggest individualism within a chaotic society.
And a society inevitably evolves hierarchically
Anarchy is a principle which is either followed either not followed. It doesnt evolve into anything. It can only be accepted or abandoned. Those who abandon anarchy accept misery.
Topic's author
#10
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Best.Korea
Well sure, but I also had a debate with you where you argued for a dictatorship.
Topic's author
#11
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@zedvictor4
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yeah, that’s also a pretty interesting take. I suppose what ends up following from both of your ideas is the question, “well then what does work?”, which I suppose is the whole point of the book.
Topic's author
#12
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Sidewalker
Well yeah, it’s famously an allegory for communism and the USSR, but I think you’re right that he put many different themes into it to convey lots of different messages.
#13
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,548
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Moozer325
Well sure, but I also had a debate with you where you argued for a dictatorship.
Lucifer has thousand forms. Maybe I am just really evil, sick and like to upset people. Whatever explanation fits.
#14
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Orwell's fiction was at all times scathing. He's calling the Russians pigs, not much more to it than that. They sullied noble ideas. 

1984 also is pure mockery of Brave New World. I can't remember it now, but I drew it all up once. The book is a caricature of Brave New World which he clearly thought was masturbatory bullshit.

I loved him as an author when I was feeling my first socialist fire tbh. 
#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Moozer325
Well then what does work?

I would suggest, that what we currently have in reasonably tolerant and ordered western societies is about as good as it will get.

Unless the human species is genetically re-engineered, and programmed not as individuals, but as a cohesive hive.

A drastically reduced population of worker people overseen by an A.I. elite.

Driving material and technological evolution forwards to an unknown conclusion.



#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
“well then what does work?”, which I suppose is the whole point of the book.
Liberty & Reason.

The path to those is philosophy.

If you arrived at the concept of "rulers" you took a wrong turn, go back.
Topic's author
#17
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well sure, in theory anarchy is perfect,  but we all know that human beings aren’t mature enough to handle it.
Topic's author
#18
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@zedvictor4
I’d make the argument that there is still room for improvement, but I think we roughly agree that there can’t be too much more to go. It seems paradoxical that sometimes a more authoritarian government (that is, as opposed to anarchy) can actually lead to a better life for its citizens.
#19
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
Well sure, in theory anarchy is perfect,  but we all know that human beings aren’t mature enough to handle it.
Anarchy or rulers, where did this dichotomy come from?

Topic's author
#20
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Oh, I think I get what you’re saying now. I suppose I meant to say anarchy or any form of government. In that case, are you advocating for some kind of true, complete democracy as opposed to a republic?
#21
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
Oh, I think I get what you’re saying now. I suppose I meant to say anarchy or any form of government. In that case, are you advocating for some kind of true, complete democracy as opposed to a republic?
No.

I am saying that a government's legitimate purpose is to secure the (objectively derived) rights of man. At the instant it does this flawlessly is has ceased to "rule" in any degree and only prevents men from "ruling" each other. It becomes "a government of laws, not men"

Free people have no ruler but reason and liberty.

"Non-government" is the opposite of "government"

"Non-government" (anarchy) is not the opposite of "rulers"

Or if you insist that anarchy is defined by the lack of rulers and ruling, then government can coexist with anarchy.

---------------

are you advocating for some kind of true, complete democracy as opposed to a republic?
There is a philosophical razor called "the is ought problem", there is a related fallacy.

An analogous problem and fallacy is the confusion of the difference between moral actions and moral actors.

John is a good man.
John does X.
Therefore X is good.

and

X is good.
John does X.
Therefore John is good.

(the above inferences are fallacious)

This fallacy is especially prevalent when Americans (who are taught in such as way as to encourage the confusion) try and think about the ethics of government. Bringing us back to what you just assumed.

Democracy? Where did I mention anything about democracy? Republic? No that still came from you.

Why would you assume those were being discussed? What do they have in common? They are both forms of government, types of government, government structures.

I said (in essence)
Liberty & Reason are good governance.

A correct inference from that statement in relation to government is:
A government which secures liberty using reason is doing good.

but you went to forms of government and specifically contrasting democracy and republics. The actor-action moral fallacy is baked into your mind, you don't understand how to talk about 'right action' without talking about 'right forms'. The (also fallacious) corollary would be that there exists a 'right form' that guarantees 'right action'.

As I said american children (and probably others) are taught this conflation.

Democracy is good, therefore democracy does good. Freedom means democracy. Inject democracy and what can come but freedom? If democracy is lacking, how can there be freedom?

They are taught the same thing about republics.

but republic doesn't mean exactly the same thing as democracy, so maybe if there is something wrong with the government it's that the  balance between democracy and republic is wrong? What else could it be?

It's not the balance between any form. One form is better than another only insofar as to promotes 'right action'. I would never say the solution to enslavement is democracy, the solution to enslavement is liberation. Democracies can liberate, republics can liberate, kings can liberate, and alien hive minds can liberate.

Pigs who don't understand the difference between slavery and liberation, pigs who are convinced that their pure intentions make all their actions just, they don't liberate. Those pigs would enslave if they were senators in a republic. They would enslave if they were the majority in a democracy. One pig would enslave if he was king, and a hive mind of those pigs would do the same.

---------------

I am saying there is a right answer, the answer is arrived at through reason, nothing that contradicts that answer is correct, and that there is no absolutely sure way of guaranteeing that answer is followed.

I am saying that people who do not understand this are the danger regardless of the form of government, their empathy, their anger, or anything else.

Charters and constitutions with bills and declarations of rights are the only form 'the answer' can take in a specific government. A declaration of rights is the part of the government in which the question is not "who decides" but "what you may decide".
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Moozer325
I think that more often we are limited by our own potential, or lack of.

Especially in relatively stable Western societies.

I don't think that it is reasonable to expect everything on a plate, in return for no effort.
Topic's author
#23
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that more often we are limited by our own potential, or lack of.
Yeah, in a theoretical world where humans are all utility maxing automatons, anarchy works. No one commits crimes because we all understand the individual benefit to society. However, you’re right that a government can only be as stable as it citizens allow it to be.
Topic's author
#24
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Still a bit confused, but I’m taking away that “the answer” may be close to some form of just self government. I think the confusion is that we have different definitions of anarchy and government. For me, I use anarchy to mean “no laws and no ruling body whatsoever” whereas government is anything else. If a ruling body were to be made up of every citizen, I would still call it a government, it’s just perfect democracy kind of government.

So I think what you mean by a lack of government just means power split equally between all citizens. Again, I’m probably wrong, but I’m stupid anyways, so I’ll keep reading what you wrote.
#25
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
For me, I use anarchy to mean “no laws and no ruling body whatsoever” whereas government is anything else.
Anarchy is "no laws", government is anything else.

"ruling body" implies an entity invested with authority to create laws at whim or make arbitrary decisions in general. That is what is conceptually unnecessary and in practice only necessary as a regulated component of a system designed to constrain government to justice (a bill of rights).


So I think what you mean by a lack of government just means power split equally between all citizens
No, and I never said the solution is a lack of government. You brought up the word 'anarchy'.

My point is deeper. My point is not about power, it's about truth.

Power ultimately belongs to those who can win the war. Sometimes those who win wars create governments where the distribution of power is structured. No matter where the power is, goes, or stays the truth doesn't change. Justice is a truth, not the product of power distribution.

11 days later

#26
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Moozer325
Personally I think societies tend towards leaders,
Often 'needing them.

But power admittedly 'can be corrupting,
If not the to the one who took power, then their successors.
Which is why Social Cycle Theory is talked about as far back as Plato.

Additionally if one leads by tyranny, how dare they ever relinquish control, lest their successor turn that power unto them?
. . .

Not that Dictators could never give up power,
"At the time, Cincinnatus was living in retirement on his four-acre farm outside of Rome and representatives from the Senate found him working in his field. When he learned of the emergency facing Rome, he left his plow standing in the field, bid farewell to his wife, and led the Romans to victory against the Aequians. Fifteen days after assuming the dictatorship, Cincinnatus resigned and returned to his plow."

But such requires a degree of civility perhaps, or stability, 'something that if one lead by Dictatorship, they could trust society to carry on, or their successor not to turn on them.
I don't know if Stalin feared for his own safety, thought so high of himself, hated Snowbal- er Trotsky, or what,
But it certainly progressed to a point he would have had to fear for himself and family, if it wasn't there already.

The pigs in Animal Farm though,
I think it was just a case of one of those times where power corrupts, and the replacements prove little better than their predecessors.
. . .

Side thought on ruling ideals,

Topic's author
#27
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Lemming
The reason I brought this up on the site is mostly because I would assume most of the people here would be the pigs. Most of us are smart people, so I see lots of people advocating for an IQ limit on voting and such. However, like you said, power corrupts people, and it's important to realize that even the smartest of us aren't perfect. It's a lesson I feel most of us should remember.
#28
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Moozer325
I'm sorry this rambles heavily.

I'm unsure whether Dictatorship or Democracy would be a better government,
But I 'think I lean towards Democracy,

It seems better to have safeguards on leaders,
Traditionally such might have been a fear of being assassinated or popular uprisings, (Lot of assassinated Tyrants in history)

But technology keeps going apace, only so much power in a mob of pitchfork wielding farmers.
Well, rifle wielding farmers maybe, unless we allowed people tanks, nukes, and jet fighters.
But point is about centralized government, having more a monopoly on power than ever maybe.
Course power takes many forms, social media might be two edged sword, and more powerful than army in a way.

“People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.”
 Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

Leaders can be poorly picked and horrible or crazy, though I don't know if that occurs less than horrible or crazy populaces,
Maybe Plato has a point about Philosopher Kings, but I haven't thought on it too much.
. . . Course the pigs might be more a 'council, than a king.
. . . I don't remember if the French Revolution Council of 12 and whatever other voting apparatus they had of electoral nature (I think) did well or bad.
Reign of Terror gets mentioned somewhere I think,
Not sarcasm, I just haven't read deeply or recently about French Revolution.
. . .
But Napoleon as Dictator seemed to bring peace and security to France, until he was unsuccessful in Russia,
Though I think people in Egypt and Spain could have done without his wars.
. . .
. . .

America had voting requirements even before the literacy tests of Jim Crowe,

Though I don't know much about them, and know 'nothing about other countries historical requirements for voting.
. . .

Knowledge tests at a 'glance don't seem the worst,
One wants a person who votes to have 'some type of understanding of what they are voting for and why,
Whether candidates can actually realize their promises or not,

Does one really want someone mentally retarded to the point they lack significant understanding, to vote?

But perhaps it is situational,
If I am on a ship of mental retards, I likely don't want them voting on our actions, unless I can control them,
Nor might it be in 'their interests to be the voting party,
But people want freedom, 

"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. Why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A? You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."
. . .

One additionally worries about government in 'power adjusting the rules to suit themselves, Jim Crowe.
Or why people worried about the number of Supreme Court judges,
Or Biden's Ministry of Truth.
. . .

Still, I don't 'hate voting requirements myself,
Just haven't thought about it to much.

DART for example has voting requirements that I find agreeable.

If I founded a new society in real life, perhaps I would want voting requirements in 'it as well.

Certainly I sometimes think it would be nice if those who ran for president had to pass or at least publicly 'take some test on general understanding and additionally on politics, history, current events.
The debates 'kind of do that I suppose, though some argue the debate holders can be biased in how they ask and what questions they ask.

China had the Imperial Exam for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination for officials.
Topic's author
#29
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Lemming
But Napoleon as Dictator seemed to bring peace and security to France, until he was unsuccessful in Russia,
Though I think people in Egypt and Spain could have done without his wars.
That is an interesting point. Both systems have their flaws I admit, I suppose the better system would be described as whichever one brings better rulers to power. I’d say democracy does this better. To be a dictator, you just need either to be the son of the last one, or to have the biggest army. Not to say that this system doesn’t sometimes result in good leaders, ie. Napoleon. I’d make the case however that Democracy means you get better leaders more often, and a more stable state. 

I hear a lot of advocates for dictatorship on this site saying that democracy sucks because it’s slow and it often does things they dislike. I think the important thing for them to remember is that if they were installed as a dictator, 1. No matter how smart you are, there’s no guarantee you could rule well (as evidenced by the pigs) and 2. What you think is in the best interests of the public can differ very greatly from what they think. Democracy can give results that you don’t like, but at least a majority did like it. It can be frustrating at times, but it’s important to look at history and how more often than not, Dictators lead to very unstable regimes, unless their family has been in power for a long time, (which still is pretty unstable).
#30
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Moozer325
'Does Democracy bring better rulers to power?

People can be influenced by promises, greed, and lies.
Like the largest army,
One can achieve by the most facile tongue, greatest reward offered to 'part of the whole, or misinformation.

Dictators don't 'have to choose their children to follow them,
. . .

Is popular consensus capable of choosing the 'best candidates?
Is science determined by popular consensus, or any craft such as when a dilapidated building is in need of replacement?
Does a mob choose a better successor for a craftsman, than the craftsman himself, who has worked with, and is trained to recognize ability?

They may choose those who 'promise to work in their interests, but do they know the candidates 'ability to follow through?

Though a population 'may be educated, base presuppositions can conflict groups of even learned men,
Can they then not often ignore better men, for party lines?
And what 'good are these divides among citizens, exacerbated by a political party system, is not rivalry in sports enough?
. . . . . . . . . . . .

'Does dictatorship lead to more unstable regimes?

One might argue that the best political course to take, depends on the 'situation,
Technology advancing throughout time, changing the conditions,
Power of countries changing conditions,
Cultural values changing conditions,
Societal development changing conditions.

Has Democracy been around long enough to 'intuitively think it better?
Does the West winning over the USSR or various Monarchies, mean Democracy better?
Suppose someone with red shoes was a basketball star, 'could mean red shoes make for a better player, but maybe they were just a better player, or more lucky.
Democracy can have an interest in propagating itself, if the USA had been a Dictatorship, perhaps Dictatorships would have swept the Earth.
. . . .

Sorry about all the questions without answers, I don't know the answers, 
And since in conversation, not formal judged debate,
Don't feel need to research and develop possible answers immediately.