No Stupid Questions

Quite the opposite. Due to systemic corruption autocracies are economically highly inefficient with low productivity across the board with all kinds of long term effects this brings. And while it might look bad for democracies at the moment, I think many of the current crop of autocracies will be short lived. In the end, economy is where it's at, and autocracies are horrible at it.

Autocracies are short-lived power grabs by certain people or groups of people. They pillage what they can, oppress who they want, and then run or fall when the walls start closing in.

Many have come and gone during our history on this planet. Many more will rise and fall.

No they're not.

Look around history over the global and democracies consistently are he most powerful because of the transparency that roots out corruption and the freedoms that allow scientific progress and capitalism that allows for strong economy.

Now before lemmies start down voting: yes, capitalism has its issues and it needs to be tempered by strong laws or you get whatever the hell the US is, but in principle allowing free trade is a huge boon to a country and it's citizens

"countries" are invisible lines draw on a map by someone. Propaganda and lies are a tool used by people to persuade others, free speech and freedom are a natural condition upon which humanity can evolve and prosper.

The US is a democracy (for now), and has backed multiple coups in other countries. Nicaragua is probably the classic example, but there are many, many more. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

I don't know if there are any good examples of autocracies working better than democracies.

China looks good right now but it's real estate market is about to collapse in a way that has probably not been seen before in American markets in a long time.

The corruption in these countries is almost universal as the ruling bodies have nothing checking against them and are often staffed with shoe-ins who are there to make money. much of the bureaucracy doesn't even function without the corruption. theft and extortion are toothpicks holding the system together.

The US government is corrupt as fuck, but I don't think Americans comprehend the nature of corruption outside of the western world. it really is another type of beast.

Autocratic countries have a small number of leaders, often one.

The goal of said leader isn’t really to grow and bring wealth and prosperity, but to never lose power.

So overall, the economics of the country would plateau, cause why risk allowing wealth to grow and fall into your opponents’ hands?

Hence why countries like Russia and North Korea rarely innovate, but just take what’s available to further entrench their country’s position.

So the only way autocracy can prevail is by brining down anything superior to it, much like what Russia is doing to the US.

"More powerful" in which sense? Military? Propagandistic?

An autocratic country can buy an election in the democratic country, but the democratic country cannot easily coup an autocratic country.

A "democratic" country may also install puppet governments, sometimes autocratic, as the USA did with Iran (1953), Chile (1970), Guatemala (1954), Bolivia (1971), Nicaragua (1912), Afghanistan (2003), etc.

Are all democracies are doomed to fail?

As long as it has enemies or bigger fish that want to eat it, maybe. Playing their cards right, one could manage to get the big fish fighting against one another.

No.

Autocracy moves faster at marshaling the resources it has, but is significantly worse at accumulating resources than what economists Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson, and Simon Johnson describes as inclusive political and economic institutions, which broadly allow members of the public to engage in political and economic activity. (Note that their work on these things won them the Economics Nobel last year.)

Distributed, decentralized power is important for maximizing the potential of a population.

Autocratic political systems are brittle. They're also poor. They tend not to survive more than a decade or two before the strongman is deposed, one way or another, whether from internal coup or revolution, or simply external invasion of a weakened state. And a successor strongman might be weaker. All the while, the inclusive states continue to grow in their own power and influence.

So any short term gain in consolidating power into smaller groups is going to be up against time, and the fragility of the whole arrangement as the autocratic country falls behind its competition.

but the democratic country cannot easily coup an autocratic COuntry.

CIA: am I a joke to you? Look at my portfolio

I think your questions are more complicated than you realize.

Are Autocracies more powerful than Democracies?

If you separate the form of government from the governing, yes autocracy is a superior form of government. A dictator can instantly marshal resources to face any threat, or completely shift an entire nation, if a direction becomes clearly wrong. The reason they don't work, is because the leader is always human. Humans make shit leaders, almost always. So distribution of power across a large number of people mitigates the risks of putting it all in one.

Are all democracies are doomed to fail?

Yes. Obviously. Everything eventually fails. The Sun will fail and take the earth with it.

Is the future of humanity, autocracy? For the rest of humanity's existence?

No. Obviously. Everything eventually fails. The Sun will fail and take the earth with it. I would hope humanity (or whatever species humanity evolves to) lives past that.

The problem isn't that autocracies are better or that they win. The problem is specifically the democracy in the U.S, which is fucked because of ignorant/lazy population and greedy corrupt politicians.

The United States has been until it decided to become an autocracy the most powerful nation in all of human history so take that how you will.

Personally i am of the belief that democracy is inherently flawed though due to its reliance on people and therefore always doomed to either fail or go through a period of unrest and reform every hundred years or so

Autocracies seem like flame. Some burn hotter and some colder but its not really sustainable because eventually they will run out of "fuel". They also will cause harm to everyone around them if big enough and at least concern for neighbours or if they have access to things that can easily cause harm, even if they are small.

This is an extremely nuanced topic with thousands of mitigating factors affecting it in the real world and subjective definitions about what "power" means. "Doomed to fail?" What sort of a loaded question is this? Isn't every civilization "doomed" to fail given the ultimately finite nature of life? If a democracy does fall to an autocratic uprising or another autocratic civilization, was it "doomed" to be so?

This question is just way way way way way too broad and to expect any sort of narrow or succinct answer. I don't believe we can really say any form of government is more "powerful" than others or that any are "doomed" to fail (or we can be reductive and say they all are).

Not stronger. Just faster.