NationStates Jolt Archive

Simply Tell Me What Your Perferred Form Of Government Is. I Will Be Posting A Poll With All The Major Ones In It.

Assuming "Communism" is that of the Stalinist variety (an inference from it being called a "form of government" and listed seperately from democracy and anarchism), my preference is somewhere between anarchism and the present forms of representative democracy, keeping the issue non-economic.

Well, Most Communism Everyone Knows Is Either Of The Mao Variety Or Of The Stalin Variety. And To Remind Everyone, Lenin Was Marchist, Russia Only Became A Communist State When Lenin Died A Few Years After And Stalin Took Over.

I Perfer Anarchy, Since Opportunity Is Ripe To Start A Governmental Party And Take Over

Dictatorship is the best form of government with the right dictator. Too bad we haven't found him or her yet.

Dictatorship is the best form of government with the right dictator. Too bad we haven't found him or her yet.

True Dat, True Dat. Maybe I Would Be A Good Dictator.....

And what the hell is a technocracy? A country ruled by robots?

Well, Most Communism Everyone Knows Is Either Of The Mao Variety Or Of The Stalin Variety. And To Remind Everyone, Lenin Was Marchist, Russia Only Became A Communist State When Lenin Died A Few Years After And Stalin Took Over.

WTF?

Get your head out of your ass. Russia was never truly Communist. It may have been called "Communist", but it was a totalitarian dictatorship.

Think It's Something Like A Country Ruled By Incredibly Smart People Or Something Like That. Not Sure. Let Me Google A Dictionary And Look It Up.

True Dat, True Dat. Maybe I Would Be A Good Dictator.....
Surely not as good as, Fass or H N Fiddlebottoms VIII. Imagine them leading a country as dual emporers...

Hmm.... You Sure? I Suppose.... Stalin Definetly Would've Been Alot Less Evil If He Was Communist, Since Communism Is A Government Where The Workers Have Power, If I'm Right.

Well, Most Communism Everyone Knows Is Either Of The Mao Variety Or Of The Stalin Variety. And To Remind Everyone, Lenin Was Marchist, Russia Only Became A Communist State When Lenin Died A Few Years After And Stalin Took Over.

Not Trotskyism or Eurocommunism. And even the pro-Soviet non-ruling Communist Parties today do not advocate policy imitating Stalin, Mao, or their successors, nor, in most cases, did they ever.

What does it mean to be "Marchist"? Do you mean "Marxist"? If you do, I do not see the relevance of your point.

Oh Crap, Yes, Meant Marxist. Here Is The Definition Of Technocracy By The Way: A Government Or Social System Controlled By Technicians, Especially Scientists And Techincal Experts.

Surely not as good as, Fass or H N Fiddllebottoms VIII. Imagine them leading a country as dual emporers...
I would definately be a better ruler than that "Fiddllebottoms" guy, he sounds shifty.

Insanocracy. A country ruled by wackos. :)

Kind of like now except they are honest with themselves. *nod*

And what the hell is a technocracy? A country ruled by robots?

Here's a list of most goverment types (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government)

Yep. Everything controlled by a central AI. I'd like that if it was akin to the "I, Robot" voluntary technocracy. An totalitarian technocracy would be less fun, methinks.

I would like a bizarre mix of liberalism and socialism. Yes, I know that's an oxymoron, that's something I have to struggle with.

You left out minarchy!
(Not the same as republic/monarchy/democracy, and NOT anarchy)

Hmm.... You Sure? I Suppose.... Stalin Definetly Would've Been Alot Less Evil If He Was Communist, Since Communism Is A Government Where The Workers Have Power, If I'm Right.

...

WTF?

Get your head out of your ass. Russia was never truly Communist. It may have been called "Communist", but it was a totalitarian dictatorship.

Commie apologists of all countries, unite! :rolleyes:

Don't ya just love seeing the same already-refuted garbage over and over?



A republic is not the same as a democracy. A democracy is simply majority rule, a republic places substantial limits on what the majority can get through government.

I would definately be a better ruler than that "Fiddllebottoms" guy, he sounds shifty.
I mispelled your name on purpose just to annoy you again! *evil laugh* Shit. I can't beleive I screwed his name up again.

Dictatorship is the best form of government with the right dictator. Too bad we haven't found him or her yet.

search no longer!!!
for i am here!

Here's a list of most goverment types (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government)

Yep. Everything controlled by a central AI. I'd like that if it was akin to the "I, Robot" voluntary technocracy. An totalitarian technocracy would be less fun, methinks.

I would like a bizarre mix of liberalism and socialism. Yes, I know that's an oxymoron, that's something I have to struggle with.


Egh, Gonna Give Me Alot To Go Through. Well, Least I Won't Sound Like An Idiot From Now On, Since I Can't Make Any Mistakes About What Government Is What!

Monarchy. But that's only because I am descended from the Stewarts. We are no longer in power anymore, far as I know. Too bad. I'd have liked being like 10,000 in line for the throne.

Hmm, Don't Know Why I Didn't Put Police State On The Poll, It Seems Fun To Me! (As Long As I'm The Ruler That Is, Although I Might Get A Thrill Trying To Run From The Secret Police!)

Hmm.... You Sure? I Suppose.... Stalin Definetly Would've Been Alot Less Evil If He Was Communist, Since Communism Is A Government Where The Workers Have Power, If I'm Right.

Strictly speaking, that's socialism, but close enough.

Aside from the distortion the term acquires when used to describe Stalinist and Maoist regimes, Communism in practical usage essentially means politics to the left of the mainstream socialist or social democratic movements of the day.

Thus the revolutionary Marxists opposed to the evolutionary path advocated by the socialist parties in the early twentieth century formed Communist parties, and to the left of the French Socialist Party there is today the Eurocommunist French Communist Party - which, interestingly, has a platform to the right of the parties which it originally broke off from many decades ago.

In the Marxist sense, Communism refers to an anarchist society that has abolished capitalism.

In the Marxist sense, Communism refers to an anarchist society that has abolished capitalism.

Yeah, by way of a violent revolution, which is totally idiotic.

Monarchy. But that's only because I am descended from the Stewarts. We are no longer in power anymore, far as I know. Too bad. I'd have liked being like 10,000 in line for the throne.

I'm A Distant Relative Of A Finish(Finland) Royal Family Which Was Once In Power. Don't Know If It Still Has The Whole "Ceremonial" Standing Like Japan's Emperor's After WWII, Since I Don't Know Alot About Finland Right Now.

Here's a list of most goverment types (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government)

Yep. Everything controlled by a central AI. I'd like that if it was akin to the "I, Robot" voluntary technocracy. An totalitarian technocracy would be less fun, methinks.

I would like a bizarre mix of liberalism and socialism. Yes, I know that's an oxymoron, that's something I have to struggle with.
Yeah, I looked there before I posted my question and couldn't find it, but now I see it under Oligarchy. :)

Geez, That List Is Teaching Me Alot, I Now Know Which Governmental Types I Should've Put In, And Which Ones Are Simply Variations Of The Ones I've Already Put In! God Damnit All! And, Oh My God, Technocracy, I DONT WANT ROBOTS CONTROLLING MY HEAD!

i'm really surprised by the fact that no fascists or nazis have voted yet.

Yeah, by way of a violent revolution, which is totally idiotic.

The reformist path supported World War I and European imperialism, and today brings us Schroeder and Blair.

The revolutionary path proved repeatedly that "means create ends" and resulted in violent catastrophe, whoever won.

There must be a middle ground, in my view; non-violent bottom-up socialist revolution, coupled with massive popular support and efforts at the polls, is perhaps the best option.

Commie apologists of all countries, unite! :rolleyes:

Don't ya just love seeing the same already-refuted garbage over and over?



A republic is not the same as a democracy. A democracy is simply majority rule, a republic places substantial limits on what the majority can get through government.
True democracy would be the worst possible form of government in terms of persecution, and would end up as a dictatorship as soon as someone with enough charisma and ambition came around.

i'm really surprised by the fact that no fascists or nazis have voted yet.

That's because most of them have been IP axed.

i'm really surprised by the fact that no fascists or nazis have voted yet.

They're all at their weekend bridge clubs. :D

Constitutional monarchy with a little representative democracy.

True democracy would be the worst possible form of government in terms of persecution, and would end up as a dictatorship as soon as someone with enough charisma and ambition came around.

Why? Because humans are fallible? Why do you think the humans you put into power will be any less fallible?

Yep. Everything controlled by a central AI. I'd like that if it was akin to the "I, Robot" voluntary technocracy. An totalitarian technocracy would be less fun, methinks.

What about a democratic technocracy, where all the computers get to vote on how to run things? :p

Well, I Was Thinking Of Having A Revolution In My Nation (My Nationstates One, Not My Real Life) So, While We're Here, What Should Be The Parties Which Are Revolutionizing (Know Not A Word, But It Sounds Cool!) Note That My Current Government Style Is A Military Dictatorship, Which I Suppose Is Essetianly A Police State, But The Police Aren't So Secret.

...I am descended from the Stewarts...

Then you really ought to know that it is spelled "Stuarts"...

Monarchy. Absolutist or Constituional, either way is good. Though I prefer absolutist ones.

Why? Because humans are fallible? Why do you think the humans you put into power will be any less fallible?
Because true democracy is pure majority rule with no constraints like, say, a Bill of Rights. This essentially ensures that every minority group would be persecuted because they would have no legal protection from the majority.

Why? Because humans are fallible? Why do you think the humans you put into power will be any less fallible?

Because there are more dumb people than smart people.

Well, I Was Thinking Of Having A Revolution In My Nation (My Nationstates One, Not My Real Life) So, While We're Here, What Should Be The Parties Which Are Revolutionizing (Know Not A Word, But It Sounds Cool!) Note That My Current Government Style Is A Military Dictatorship, Which I Suppose Is Essetianly A Police State, But The Police Aren't So Secret.
You should have a Centralist Revolution.

PS- please stop starting each word with a capital letter.

Dictatorship is the best form of government with the right dictator.

The best human in the world would still not be a good dictator except in relative terms. Human beings simply cannot handle that sort of power, nor should they.

You should have a Centralist Revolution.

PS- please stop starting each word with a capital letter.

But I Like Capitalizing All My Words!

I'm A Distant Relative Of A Finish(Finland) Royal Family Which Was Once In Power. Don't Know If It Still Has The Whole "Ceremonial" Standing Like Japan's Emperor's After WWII, Since I Don't Know Alot About Finland Right Now.

Dunno anything about Finland, but it appears that we Stewarts are still in power. In a way. Through some wierd marriages, the family goes into various German states around 400-300 years ago. Then we reemerge and marry into the British royal family. Which means I'm probably like 100,000 in line for the throne or some large number. Now, does anyone know where I can find a Nukes 'R' Us?

Monarchy. But that's only because I am descended from the Stewarts. We are no longer in power anymore, far as I know. Too bad. I'd have liked being like 10,000 in line for the throne.
You're descended from Jon Stewart? He is the one true king in exile! :D

The best human in the world would still not be a good dictator except in relative terms. Human beings simply cannot handle that sort of power, nor should they.
Which is why I added the second sentence in that post.

Because there are more dumb people than smart people.

Lots of smart people do stupid things. Every evil regime in the history of the world has attracted the support of intellectuals.

One thing smart people can do is effectively justify and argue for pretty much anything, and that is dangerous.

Technocracy, I DONT WANT ROBOTS CONTROLLING MY HEAD!

In "I, Robot" the machines would only suggest the optimal course of action. You could feel free to ignore them if you wanted. Of course no-one did, because the optimal course of action (by definition) was what was best for you .

Oh, And By The Way, What Is Centralizim? I Can't Find It On The List.

My favorite form of government to RP is a Technocracy.

Lots of smart people do stupid things. Every evil regime in the history of the world has attracted the support of intellectuals.

Indeed, but if every single law has to be voted for, then the lowest common denominator will always win.

Because true democracy is pure majority rule with no constraints like, say, a Bill of Rights. This essentially ensures that every minority group would be persecuted because they would have no legal protection from the majority.

Definitely, democracy with constitutional protections is preferable to democracy without.

But it would not be the "worst possible government in terms of persecutions." Oligarchic regimes tend to involve far worse persecutions, more or less based upon the unjust distribution of power.

@Fluffwuffy: Please, if you are referring to the Scottish Stuarts who ruled England (James I, Charles I, Charles II and James II), that family, spell it correctly! Its Stuarts not "Stewarts".

Looks Like A Nazi Voted, Too Bad This Isn't A Public Poll, Then I Could See Who's The Nazi!

Looks Like A Nazi Voted, Too Bad This Isn't A Public Poll, Then I Could See Who's The Nazi!

National Socalism isn't about killing jews or invading countries. It doesn't mean you're a Nazi if you voted for it (although it seems to attract them)

Also, whats with all the capitals?

@Fluffwuffy: Please, if you are referring to the Scottish Stuarts who ruled England (James I, Charles I, Charles II and James II), that family, spell it correctly! Its Stuarts not "Stewarts".

It's Stewarts, and was that originally. It changed to Stuarts because Mary, Queen of Scots, married a Frenchman, IIRC. And I don't like France, so why spell things the French way?

Definitely, democracy with constitutional protections is preferable to democracy without.

But it would not be the "worst possible government in terms of persecutions." Oligarchic regimes tend to involve far worse persecutions, more or less based upon the unjust distribution of power.
Historically, it is true that oligarchic regimes persecute more, but that's only because true democracy has never really existed outside a few Greek city states. On a larger scale, I cannot imagine the destruction it would cause. An oligarchy need only suppress people it is already on top of. In majority rule, however, everyone has an equal share of power, and thus they are equally afraid of losing it. It would be like a worldwide edition of Survivor, only getting voted off the island is a bit more serious. Imagine Nazi Germany voting off all the Jews.

But it would probably just evolve into dictatorship before anything truly terrible happened. People don't really want to rule themselves.

National Socalism isn't about killing jews or invading countries. It doesn't mean you're a Nazi if you voted for it (although it seems to attract them)

Also, whats with all the capitals?

Techincally, Nazi Is Short Of National Socalism, At Least In The German Language

People don't really want to rule themselves.

Very True, We Really Don't Want To Be The One's Making Decisions. It Comes From A Wide Array Of Things, From Being Overly Nervous Due To Some Mental Problem And Fearing You Will Screw Up, To Being To Lazy To Get Off The Couch And Vote. We Want To Give Power To Someone, No Matter How Bad He Will Rule Us, So We Don't Have To Rule Ourselves. We Probably Do Rule Ourselves Worse Than If Someone Ruled Us Entirely
.

Communists are so funny. Yes, long live the Revolution! Never mind that about...every...Communist revolutionary government turns into a Stalinist dictatorship. They just shrug and say "Oh, those weren't REAL Communists." I really do admire their persistance.

Techincally, Nazi Is Short Of National Socalism, At Least In The German Language

Correct, but he word has other connotations now. Mainly connected with the death of millions of people.

However, this doesn't mean that National Socialism itself calls for the death of all Jews or the capture of Stalingrad.

Historically, it is true that oligarchic regimes persecute more, but that's only because true democracy has never really existed outside a few Greek city states. On a larger scale, I cannot imagine the destruction it would cause. An oligarchy need only suppress people it is already on top of. In majority rule, however, everyone has an equal share of power, and thus they are equally afraid of losing it. It would be like a worldwide edition of Survivor, only getting voted off the island is a bit more serious. Imagine Nazi Germany voting off all the Jews.

But it would probably just evolve into dictatorship before anything truly terrible happened. People don't really want to rule themselves.

People do indeed want to rule themselves. The oppressed never want their oppression, that is a convenient myth invented by the oppressors.

Oligarchies are extremely afraid of losing power, that's why they tend to be so repressive. This is built into the system. In a true democracy the people in power always have majority support, and will tend to pursue policies beneficial to the majority. In an oligarchy it is the opposite, and thus the oligarchy always fears that the people will change the system into one more beneficial to them.

I prefer the lifestyle that you all live currently under. The matrix.

-Smith.

Communists are so funny. Yes, long live the Revolution! Never mind that about...every...Communist revolutionary government turns into a Stalinist dictatorship. They just shrug and say "Oh, those weren't REAL Communists." I really do admire their persistance.

Well, they weren't.

I prefer the lifestyle that you all live currently under. The matrix.

-Smith.

Hey, I know you. Brendan Smith, the Shoemaker?

Well, they weren't.

It's just that, you know, if any other idea failed every single time it was put into practice over the last century, one might stop and consider whether there is an inherrant flaw somewhere in it.

Hey, I know you. Brendan Smith, the Shoemaker?

Yeah! How you doing? I hope your fungus has cleared up. I don't think I could bear fitting your foot agian.

People do indeed want to rule themselves. The oppressed never want their oppression, that is a convenient myth invented by the oppressors.

Oligarchies are extremely afraid of losing power, that's why they tend to be so repressive. This is built into the system. In a true democracy the people in power always have majority support, and will tend to pursue policies beneficial to the majority. In an oligarchy it is the opposite, and thus the oligarchy always fears that the people will change the system into one more beneficial to them.
What evidence do we have that people want to rule themselves? As long as they are ruled benevolently, they don't care who's doing the ruling (as is evidenced by low voter turnout in advanced democracies that don't compel their citizens to vote). The only systems that have proven to be reliably benevolent most of the time are democracies, which is why they're so in vogue. Voting is not a goal in and of itself--it is a means to an end.

Oligarchies are afraid of losing power, yes, but not nearly so much as those on equal footing with everyone else would be when they know they could be voted off to a gulag at any moment. The average Joe has no army to suppress those who don't agree with him, so in majority rule, he would fearfully cling to the majority in the hope that he would not be persecuted along with the minority; of course, as minorities continue to be "voted off the island", eventually his number would come up. Pure democracy is little more than anarchy.

Egh, Got To Go Guys, Keep The Thread Alive For Me, Ok?

Communists are so funny. Yes, long live the Revolution! Never mind that about...every...Communist revolutionary government turns into a Stalinist dictatorship. They just shrug and say "Oh, those weren't REAL Communists." I really do admire their persistance.

Massive violence is not an effective means of creating truly just societies. Thus the Reign of Terror after the French democratic revolution, and thus the repression of Lenin and Stalin after the Bolshevik Communist revolution and the resulting bloody civil war.

This factor is compounded when revolutionary governments are furiously opposed not only by domestic power centers but also by foreign power.

It's just that, you know, if any other idea failed every single time it was put into practice over the last century, one might stop and consider whether there is an inherrant flaw somewhere in it.

Well, failure is a relative term when a super-power is hell-bent on destroying any country that tries the idea.

Yeah! How you doing? I hope your fungus has cleared up. I don't think I could bear fitting your foot agian.

Not really, but it has grown into a shoe-like growth, so that really killed two birds with one stone.

Oligarchies are afraid of losing power, yes, but not nearly so much as those on equal footing with everyone else would be when they know they could be voted off to a gulag at any moment. The average Joe has no army to suppress those who don't agree with him, so in majority rule, he would fearfully cling to the majority in the hope that he would not be persecuted along with the minority; of course, as minorities continue to be "voted off the island", eventually his number would come up. Pure democracy is little more than anarchy.

A highly divided society along lines of race, class, etc. might encounter some of those problems.

My opinion is that a "true democracy" would involve the elimination of such divisions as far as reasonably possible, because typically they involve inequities in power.

Nevertheless the "majority faction" would likely rule better than the "minority faction," simply because more people would be benefitted by its policies.

Anarcho-communism.

Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-communism.
Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-mattism

?

Compulsory Republic, Democracy, or Elected Constitutional Dictatorship(non-partisan).

A highly divided society along lines of race, class, etc. might encounter some of those problems.

My opinion is that a "true democracy" would involve the elimination of such divisions as far as reasonably possible, because typically they involve inequities in power.

Nevertheless the "majority faction" would likely rule better than the "minority faction," simply because more people would be benefitted by its policies.
But if the politics get too terrible, the majority can always revolt. They have the numbers. What is the minority to do when it is persecuted?

True democracy is simply majority/mob rule. That's it. True democracy doesn't necessitate the breakdown of any social inequalities. It only enhances them. This is why I think it is such a terrible system.

Hmm, I have a question about what the following system would be classified as:

This system consists of two branches: the first branch has three tiers. The first is a ruler, selected by birth, who is responsible for dealing with, say, world affairs. He/she has a small group of appointed officials at the second tier who deal with world affairs of less importance, such as bickering between regions on some minor trade affair. The third tier of this structure is another layer of aristocracy trained since birth to handle matters related to his/her appointed region. Each tier is directly answerable to the one above.

The second branch is a two-tiered senate: the lowest tier handles all local affairs and is answerable to the third tier of the first branch (so basically, local affairs are handled by elected officials from the community). The upper tier may rebuke any of the three tiers of the first branch and is responsible for ensuring proper behavior (e.g. perhaps no one in the first branch is permitted to subscribe to any religion to prevent religious conflicts, they all must procreate or clone themselves before the age of 35 to ensure the continuation of the line, they must submit their children to particular educational units to train them for their work from an early age). The upper tier does not itself handle any affairs of state. It is solely concerned with controlling the ruling class.

In short, absolute rulers with huge restrictions placed on them by democratically elected officials that essentially strip them of many human rights in order to squeeze a fair rule out of them. My only concern is that whoever controls the military usually wins, so I'm trying to work out how that would be balanced. Of course, this is a system I pulled out of my ass in the last half hour, so I hardly expect it to be anything new or viable.

Anarcho-capitalism

No such thing, property rights are inherently coercive.

To say something is mine is to say that I won't let anyone else have it without my consent.

Anarchism is only possible on the basis of communal ownership.

But if the politics get too terrible, the majority can always revolt. They have the numbers. What is the minority to do when it is persecuted?

True democracy is simply majority/mob rule. That's it. True democracy doesn't necessitate the breakdown of any social inequalities. It only enhances them. This is why I think it is such a terrible system.

No, the point I was making is that true democracy is dependent on the elimination of social inequities beforehand.

Hmm, I have a question about what the following system would be classified as:

This system consists of two branches: the first branch has three tiers. The first is a ruler, selected by birth, who is responsible for dealing with, say, world affairs. He/she has a small group of appointed officials at the second tier who deal with world affairs of less importance, such as bickering between regions on some minor trade affair. The third tier of this structure is another layer of aristocracy trained since birth to handle matters related to his/her appointed region. Each tier is directly answerable to the one above.

The second branch is a two-tiered senate: the lowest tier handles all local affairs and is answerable to the third tier of the first branch (so basically, local affairs are handled by elected officials from the community). The upper tier may rebuke any of the three tiers of the first branch and is responsible for ensuring proper behavior (e.g. perhaps no one in the first branch is permitted to subscribe to any religion to prevent religious conflicts, they all must procreate or clone themselves before the age of 35 to ensure the continuation of the line, they must submit their children to particular educational units to train them for their work from an early age). The upper tier does not itself handle any affairs of state. It is solely concerned with controlling the ruling class.

In short, absolute rulers with huge restrictions placed on them by democratically elected officials that essentially strip them of many human rights in order to squeeze a fair rule out of them. My only concern is that whoever controls the military usually wins, so I'm trying to work out how that would be balanced. Of course, this is a system I pulled out of my ass in the last half hour, so I hardly expect it to be anything new or viable.

Constitutional monarchy.

How would you stop abuses from the people in power? What if, say, the king is utterly convinced of a radical theory, and when he implements it he blames its catastrophic failure on other factors? How would you stop him?

How would you prevent the ruling class from becoming completely out of sync with the common people, and thus misruling? Won't the sort of indoctrination instituted to make them "rule-worthy" result in exactly this sort of problem?

No such thing, property rights are inherently coercive.

To say something is mine is to say that I won't let anyone else have it without my consent.

Eh... run that by me again please.

How is it that property rights are coercive?

Can it not be argued that the practice of "combinations" of these forms of governance (i.e. drawing influence from two, more or all of these) would be preferable?

Is it not important to note that communism - as defined by the "Communist Manifesto" penned by Marx and Engels (the text upon which contemporary communist and socialist doctrines and practices are "based" however loosely) was not only brilliant in theory, but incredibly paranoid and flawed in practice.

It would seem that the intrinsic nature of humanity to be selfish and ultimately the instinct to preserve power (this is in most cases) IS the flaw with this system of goverance and economic distribution of income and wealth. The operation of this system is such that those who are in power often "commence" their "leadership journey" with good nay honourable intentions, however, as time progresses said leaders are often swayed to more corruupt and even violent means by which to maintain their status within the supposedly "equal society".

Moreover, has it not been observed that Socialism and Communism in isolation (that is the practice of "pure socialism" and "pure communism" as defined by said Manifesto) fail. It can be seen, from both a political and economic viewpoint, that a combination of socialist values and democratic principles is preferable. This sits in congruence with contemporary macroeconomic and microeconomic theory (notable among which theories is Keynesian theory - the "father" or "origins" of macro theory). Testament to this are nations such as Sweden. By contrastring the current economic and political climates in Sweden with that of Communist China under Mao (though it should be noted that historically and indeed even in today's economic climate the main reason for the illusion of success of the chinese economy is due to the large and inexpensive workforce - see note1) it can be seen quite clearly that the combination of socialist and capitalist (not to mention democratic) principles is the more successful.

In the advent of the market capitalist system and the benefits that such a system affords "the upper echelons" of society - not to mention the relative ease with which this "upper class" maintains this power or status - are far too much in the way of temptation and motivation to further steer society away from communism or socialism as an underlying principle of governance and economic distribution.

It is in this way that it can be argued that though the theoretical politician and economist may argue in favour of communism or socialism, However the practical politician and economist would be swayed against "pure" ideology, philosophy and theory. Call it a contingency approach ( a la contingency management theory) to governance and economic management.

--------------------------------
CHI_RISH

Please excuse the hurried and somewhat disorganised nature of my approach. Just a quick post that turned into a rant. my sincerest apologies I extend to you, the reader, for inflicting this upon the unsuspecting. Also. many apologies for being somewhat off topic.
--------------------------------
note 1 - It is important to highlight that the large populus of China, which in turn yields a large and inexpensive labour force, is the main contributor to China's economic success. Even still this "success" is observed when one turns a bline eye to the conditions of the workers, nay the society not to mention the extremely high CAD:GDP ratio and the similarly high rate of unemployment.

Constitutional monarchy.

How would you stop abuses from the people in power? What if, say, the king is utterly convinced of a radical theory, and when he implements it he blames its catastrophic failure on other factors? How would you stop him?

How would you prevent the ruling class from becoming completely out of sync with the common people, and thus misruling? Won't the sort of indoctrination instituted to make them "rule-worthy" result in exactly this sort of problem?

The abuses are stopped by the elected officials in the upper tier; that's their sole job. If he/she honestly did what he/she believed to be right and it went sour, yeah, he/she would probably would be let off the hook aside from a slap on the wrist, but blatantly oppressive rulers could be either disenfranchised from the system or flat out executed (of course, there would have to be consequences to doing this for the officials, too, to ensure they only take such drastic steps when absolutely necessary). Maybe there would be some kind of points system (hey, I did say this wasn't entirely thought through yet).

As for becoming out of sync with the commoners, since elected officials are responsible for setting the topics of their education, I don't see how that would be a problem.

Haha. Should have read over the final couple of pages before posting that one.

Is it not important to note that communism - as defined by the "Communist Manifesto" penned by Marx and Engels (the text upon which contemporary communist and socialist doctrines and practices are "based" however loosely) was not only brilliant in theory, but incredibly paranoid and flawed in practice.

Things do not "only work in theory." Either they work in practice or the theory is wrong. If I theorise that a ball will fly upward when I drop it, and when I make the attempt it does not, then my theory is wrong. If I theorise that violent revolution of the peasantry will produce a just and humane society, as the Maoists did, then the examples of Vietnam and China prove me wrong, and my theory is therefore similarly wrong.

Marx's theory about the progress of capitalist societies has been essentially proven wrong, and thus the theory behind it is at least partially wrong, even if the advocated solution is not.

It would seem that the intrinsic nature of humanity to be selfish and ultimately the instinct to preserve power (this is in most cases) IS the flaw with this system of goverance and economic distribution of income and wealth. The operation of this system is such that those who are in power often "commence" their "leadership journey" with good nay honourable intentions, however, as time progresses said leaders are often swayed to more corruupt and even violent means by which to maintain their status within the supposedly "equal society".

This argument is theoretical, thus if you believe what you say here you are contradicting your earlier statement that the ideas of Marx and Engels were "brilliant in theory".

As for your argument, under a true dictatorship of the proletariat (think the Paris Commune more than the Soviet Union) the means of governance are radically democratic and based on essential equality. The people who want to "preserve power," that is, the capitalists, are overthrown by the proletariat, which takes power for itself as a collective whole, redistributes wealth, and seizes the means of production. Without that which makes them capitalists, that is, ownership of the means of production, the capitalist class ceases to be a seperate class, and with the abolition of class divisions the proletariat no longer needs the state and thus dissolves it.

It's the very beginning - violent revolution - and the very end - the withering of the state - with which I have problems. I have already discussed my problem with violent revolution, and as for the withering of the state, I think some sort of democratic worker-based government is necessary to prevent a person or group from seizing power and oppressing everyone else. Thus technically, in Marxist terms, I am a socialist and not a Communist, but despite that ideologically I tend to align far closer with Communist parties than so-called "socialist" ones (the Eurocommunist or Trotskyist ones, not the ones in China, Vietnam, or Cuba).

Moreover, has it not been observed that Socialism and Communism in isolation (that is the practice of "pure socialism" and "pure communism" as defined by said Manifesto) fail. It can be seen, from both a political and economic viewpoint, that a combination of socialist values and democratic principles is preferable.

Socialist values are democratic, egalitarian principles, that's what socialism is about.

This sits in congruence with contemporary macroeconomic and microeconomic theory (notable among which theories is Keynesian theory - the "father" or "origins" of macro theory). Testament to this are nations such as Sweden. By contrastring the current economic and political climates in Sweden with that of Communist China under Mao (though it should be noted that historically and indeed even in today's economic climate the main reason for the illusion of success of the chinese economy is due to the large and inexpensive workforce - see note1) it can be seen quite clearly that the combination of socialist and capitalist (not to mention democratic) principles is the more successful.

When comparing totalitarian regimes to social democratic ones, what you observe is quite accurate. Democratiic socialist tendencies have repeatedly been squelched by power centers, both domestic and foreign, and thus there are no good empirical comparisons between democratic socialism ("dictatorship of the proletariat") and social democracy.

In the advent of the market capitalist system and the benefits that such a system affords "the upper echelons" of society - not to mention the relative ease with which this "upper class" maintains this power or status - are far too much in the way of temptation and motivation to further steer society away from communism or socialism as an underlying principle of governance and economic distribution.

I would agree that the power the "upper echelons" hold is a serious obstacle because they will oppose any program aiming at taking away that power. Is that the point you are making?

Basically, case in point. Thanks for the analysis. Perhaps thinking it thorugh may have helped. hah. but yes. The final point that I make is the main one. Said "echelons" are not likely to "give up" power and are likely to take measures to ensure that it is not undermined.

No such thing, property rights are inherently coercive.

To say something is mine is to say that I won't let anyone else have it without my consent.

Anarchism is only possible on the basis of communal ownership.

I call bullshit.

If that is true than any rights are inherently coercive. Right to your body would be coercive because I wouldn't be able to fuck you without your consent. Right to liberty would be coercive because I wouldn't be able to enslave you without your consent.

Anarchism is only possible on the basis of collective action. The action does not matter. You think people should act collectively to create an egalitarian society, I think people should act collectively to create a completely free society.

Well, Most Communism Everyone Knows Is Either Of The Mao Variety Or Of The Stalin Variety. And To Remind Everyone, Lenin Was Marchist, Russia Only Became A Communist State When Lenin Died A Few Years After And Stalin Took Over.

Someones probably said this, but thats a blatant untruth, all the foundations for the Stalinist state were laid during Lenin's time. Stalin took things to the extreme but it was still based on what Lenin had set out. There seems to be this revisionism going that pretends until Lenin died and Stalin took over things were all nice and rosey. Lenin was a brutal callous leader and millions died unnecesarily because of him, the only thing that seperates him from Stalin are the statistics.

I call bullshit.

If that is true than any rights are inherently coercive. Right to your body would be coercive because I wouldn't be able to fuck you without your consent. Right to liberty would be coercive because I wouldn't be able to enslave you without your consent.

Anarchism is only possible on the basis of collective action. The action does not matter. You think people should act collectively to create an egalitarian society, I think people should act collectively to create a completely free society.
???
I'm not really sure what you're saying. Historically, Anarchism is anti-capitalist inregards to property rights. After all it was Proudhon who said "Property is theft". Just being able to own land gives you authority that is contrary to anarchism.

My favourite form of government is that which I made for an essay. Based on technocracy, but with a wider ground of expertise (not only technology), i.e. lawyers, doctors, teachers etc. have a part in the government as well. Businessmen would have a part to stop new laws too hazardous to their companies, political parties can be voted on to give a wider view etc.

RL it would cause the most extensive bureaucracy in history, and there would be massive corruption, but still...

I am definitely an anarchist. If you ask me, Marx's problem is that he didn't take his critique far enough. He took on capitalism, but he should have recognized the dangers of government as well.

Where's socialism?

And no, communism isn't the same. Go away.

???
I'm not really sure what you're saying.

I am saying that in all human interaction, one individuals rights is automatically a limitation on the rights of another. So all rights are a coersion against the other interacting party.

Historically, Anarchism is anti-capitalist inregards to property rights.

Historic beliefs concerning an ideology only guide current beliefs, they do not limit them. There are a great many thinkers who believe that capitalism is not counter to anarchism.

After all it was Proudhon who said "Property is theft".

Being denied property is theft.

It is only through property that we can realize the gains of our own labor.

Labor is all actions performed by our body.

We own our body.

Therefore, by being denied property, we are denied our body, which we own. Theft.

Just being able to own land gives you authority that is contrary to anarchism.

Back up your statement, or I could just say "No it doesn't" if you want.

I am definitely an anarchist. If you ask me, Marx's problem is that he didn't take his critique far enough. He took on capitalism, but he should have recognized the dangers of government as well.

Democracy cannot be trusted either. The proletariate is just as selfish as the bourgiousie, and they will act in the same way when given the power.

I am saying that in all human interaction, one individuals rights is automatically a limitation on the rights of another. So all rights are a coersion against the other interacting party.



Historic beliefs concerning an ideology only guide current beliefs, they do not limit them. There are a great many thinkers who believe that capitalism is not counter to anarchism.



Being denied property is theft.

It is only through property that we can realize the gains of our own labor.

Labor is all actions performed by our body.

We own our body.

Therefore, by being denied property, we are denied our body, which we own. Theft.



Back up your statement, or I could just say "No it doesn't" if you want.
By property I mean land used for the purpose of labour. Houses and suchlike are possesions. What you're saying doesn't make sense. If someone owns property they are not only denying property to someone else and as you say their body, theft and all, they are denying their right to labour.

This topic has become too philosophical. Let's all just agree that there is no decent form of government :D

Republic of States

hehe

Oh My God, It's Still Alive! Amazing! :)

I Love You All! :fluffle:

A federal democratic republic like the United States, but hopefully with less corruption.

Where's socialism?

And no, communism isn't the same. Go away.
Anyone with "Soviet" in their name has no place arguing the distinction between socialism and communism.

My preferred form of government would be a "libertarian dictatorship." There would be virtually unlimited social freedoms and economic freedoms, but no elections. People would generally be allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted, so long as they weren't hurting anyone else. All drugs would be legal, prostitution would be legal, public nudity would be legal, gay marriage would be legal, all weapons (except nukes and a few others) would be legal, property rights and the right to privacy would be vehemently protected, and the government would not intervene in the economy in any way. There would be no tariffs, no corporate welfare, no business regulations, no minimum wage laws, no protectionism, no antitrust laws, and there would be a strict separation of economy and state. Companies that tried to buy off politicians or use their money to influence politics, or politicians who with shady dealings with companies, would be punished severely. There would be no income tax. Religious freedom would be respected, and the government would be 100% secular. Political parties would be allowed, but no elections. However, extreme right-wing or extreme left-wing parties would be banned. All Nazis, fascists, communists, anarchists (except anarcho-capitalists), socialists, etc. would be deported (though they would be compensated for the loss of their property). And with no elections, people wouldn't have to worry about idiots electing inept politicians, or tyranny by majority, or whatever. Corruption would be non-existent. Any member of the government convicted of corruption would be publicly hanged. The writ of habeus corpus, trial by jury, the right to an attorney, and innocent until proven guilty would be respected.

Like the title says.............

By property I mean land used for the purpose of labour. Houses and suchlike are possesions.

There is no way you can make a reasonable distinction between the property and what you call "possessions".

What you're saying doesn't make sense. If someone owns property they are not only denying property to someone else and as you say their body, theft and all, they are denying their right to labour.

So by owning land, I am denying someone the right to their body? I just don't understand how the ownership of property strips someone of the product of their labor.

And once again, all protected rights, by their very nature, strip the other individuals of some of their rights and abilities.

My country is my ideal government, but it wouldn't work since volunteerism is always corrupted. (http://www.nationstates.net/saudbany)

However, extreme right-wing or extreme left-wing parties would be banned. All Nazis, fascists, communists, anarchists (except anarcho-capitalists), socialists, etc.

So people have freedom to do anything they want, except believe in ideas?

So people have freedom to do anything they want, except believe in ideas?

If they keep their ideas to themselves, that's fine.

Is National Socialism Henry Hyndman's, Václav Klofáč's, Pierre Biétry's, Stalin's (Socialism in one country), or some other national socialism?

Is National Socialism Henry Hyndman's, Václav Klofáč's, Pierre Biétry's, Stalin's (Socialism in one country), or some other national socialism?

National Socialism=Nazism

If they keep their ideas to themselves, that's fine.

Totalitarian liberalism. Well, I never.

Pornocracy - Rule by prostitutes.

Mmmmm......... hoes! :D

This is an absolutely horrible selection of choices, with the ONLY sensible choice being a republic.

I thought the Nazis were Fascist and just called thier party the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Totalitarian liberalism. Well, I never.

That is because it is impossible.

I thought the Nazis were Fascist and just called thier party the National Socialist German Workers Party.

You thought right.

This is an absolutely horrible selection of choices, with the ONLY sensible choice being a republic.

Technocracy isn't so bad.

Revolutionary Libertarian Communism.

And what the hell is a technocracy? A country ruled by robots?

ROFL!!!!!!! I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING!!! LMAO!

I voted Communism. A century of failure proves nothing!

Capitalist Democracy.

I call bullshit.

If that is true than any rights are inherently coercive. Right to your body would be coercive because I wouldn't be able to fuck you without your consent. Right to liberty would be coercive because I wouldn't be able to enslave you without your consent.

Anarchism is only possible on the basis of collective action. The action does not matter. You think people should act collectively to create an egalitarian society, I think people should act collectively to create a completely free society.

My right to my body doesn't take away anybody else's right to theirs. My right to personal autonomy doesn't take away anybody else's right to theirs, either. My ownership of property takes away someone else's right to own that property, though.

I'm A Distant Relative Of A Finish(Finland) Royal Family Which Was Once In Power. Don't Know If It Still Has The Whole "Ceremonial" Standing Like Japan's Emperor's After WWII, Since I Don't Know Alot About Finland Right Now.

Obviously not, as Finland has never had any sort of a monarchy. The prince of Hessen was considered in 1918 when we declared our independance, but no, he was not chosen so you cannot be a "Distant Relative Of A Finish(Finland) Royal Family" as we have never had that.

I voted Communism. A century of failure proves nothing!

Communism has not failed as it has never been tested in places like it was designed for, =industrialized Middle European country, =Germany, or perhaps GBR and France.
Only in Russia and third world (actually, Russia in 1917 was pretty much that), and in Russia and third world NOTHING seems to work, so that aint so bad. besides, Vietnam and Cuba both did pretty well I think.

EDIT: And all this assuming that it actually WAS communism that they had, which isn't exactly the case with most of the nations caklling themselves communist.

Dictatorship is the best form of government with the right dictator. Too bad we haven't found him or her yet.

Damn straight.

Though I'm also a big fan of a constitutional monarchy.

My right to my body doesn't take away anybody else's right to theirs. My right to personal autonomy doesn't take away anybody else's right to theirs, either. My ownership of property takes away someone else's right to own that property, though.

You are getting there, you just are being obtuse.

My right to my body takes away anybody else's right to use my body.

My right to my autonomy takes away anybody else's right to enslave me.

My right to my property takes away anybody else's right to use my property.

Society is an agreement among individuals to give up some of their natural rights in order to protect their basic rights.

Aye, the Thinking Dictator as opposed to the vicious bully kind.

Of all the quiz options, "republic" is the least objectionable.

Something resembling this particular implementation would be preferable:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sz.html

I think my preferred form of government would be a dictatorship with me at the helm. Anything else is second rate; but since I'm likely to shun public service for the rest of my adult life, a Republic will have to do. I will admit I do have something of a plan for seizing control of the mainland US, and I'm still on the fence as to whether or not to impliment said plan. I guess a lot of it will have to do with who wins in '08 ;)

Revolutionary Libertarian Communism.

There's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

I will admit I do have something of a plan for seizing control of the mainland US . . .

Could you also please take over Canada while you're at it? Please?

Well im all for Dictatorship...online...but democracy in real life...but i voted for DICTATORSHIP! lol

I think I would prefer a Mullarky.

I elect Jesussaves as supreme ruler. ;)

My preferred form of government depends on whether I'm the one running it!

Me running it: Dictatorship
Not me running it: Democracy or Republic

Communism has not failed as it has never been tested in places like it was designed for, =industrialized Middle European country, =Germany, or perhaps GBR and France.
Only in Russia and third world (actually, Russia in 1917 was pretty much that), and in Russia and third world NOTHING seems to work, so that aint so bad. besides, Vietnam and Cuba both did pretty well I think.

EDIT: And all this assuming that it actually WAS communism that they had, which isn't exactly the case with most of the nations caklling themselves communist.

They did try Communism in Germany. We did a controlled experiment. It failed.

Direct Democracy / Anarchy.

Yeah, Go Autocracy, With me as the Emperor. Hail Caesar, We who are about to die salute you. I would bring back the gladiatorial games. Only with criminals like in Running Man.

Could you also please take over Canada while you're at it? Please?
Probably not; I'd feel dirty enough initiating a power grab in my own country, much less another one. Basically what would have to happen is a bunch of Canadian secessionists would have to come to me and ask for aid, in which case I may consider supporting it.

Direct Democracy / Anarchy.

Anarchy is the best, direct democracy is the worst, it is limitless in power and provides no incentive to protect minority rights.

Monarchy. But that's only because I am descended from the Stewarts. We are no longer in power anymore, far as I know.
Not only is the House of Stuart no longer in power, but it no longer exists! The last male-line royal Stuart was Henry "Cardinal York", who died in 1807. Today, the senior hereditary representative of the Stuarts is Franz Herzog von Bayern, a German who is descended from a daughter of Charles I.

The House of Windsor is also descended from the Stuarts, though, through a daughter of James I & VI.

Republic (Think Is Same As Democracy, Not Sure)
No, it's not the same. Many republics are dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Germany, the USSR, Pinochet's Chile ...) and many modern monarchies are democracies (e.g. the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Canada ...).

direct democracy is the worst, it is limitless in power and provides no incentive to protect minority rights.

why would direct democracy necessarily be implemented as explicitly not having any limits on its scope of power? direct democracy doesn't mean naive majoritarianism.

and, of course, nothing automatically provides incentives to protect any rights at all. such protections are always contingent; they require either majortarian/consensus support, ruling elite support, and/or the support of the guys with the guns.

Anarchy is the best, direct democracy is the worst, it is limitless in power and provides no incentive to protect minority rights.
Hadn't considered that; I'd just got carried away with romantic images of ancient Athens. Anarchy it is.:p

Totalitarian liberalism. Well, I never.

You obviously have no idea what totalitarianism is. In a totalitarian regime, there is no freedom. Absolutely every aspect of life is under the complete control of the government. On the contrary, my dictatorship would have unlimited social and economic freedoms, but limited political freedoms.

why would direct democracy necessarily be implemented as explicitly not having any limits on its scope of power? direct democracy doesn't mean naive majoritarianism.

and, of course, nothing automatically provides incentives to protect any rights at all. such protections are always contingent; they require either majortarian/consensus support, ruling elite support, and/or the support of the guys with the guns.

The alignment of consensus, ruling elite, and military support within a democracy is the very reason it is nearly limitless in its scope of power. Any majority is obviously going to hold legislative power in a democracy. Ruling elite powers in a democracy would have to have majority support or would support the majority to be in their position. The military would obviously share simlar views with the majority, as they are pulled from the ranks of the citizenry. So all three of these are much more likely to be on the same side, politically speaking, in a direct democracy than any other government. This means that a democratic government nearly limitless.

Also, the only incentive for the protection of rights is mutual gain. Now democracy promotes a sort of mutual gain, however it promotes a fake and dangerous mutual gain. Under democracy the mutual gain is a collective gain, it assumes that what is best for the individuals collectively is best for the individuals individually, causing a belief that rights are forfeit due to an obligation to the whims of democracy.

I believe anarchy is the only form of society that can truly work since "power corrupts" and "absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Alos, following the "iron law of oligarchy" by Robert Michels there is only one conclusion: governments stink and need to be abolished since they only create violence trough repression.

WTF?

Get your head out of your ass. Russia was never truly Communist. It may have been called "Communist", but it was a totalitarian dictatorship.
Even more so for China, which is even much less "communist", it's a totalitarian single-party dictatorship. Russia's fall has already shown that such *non-communist* systems are highly unstable and will collapse in the end, and it probaly won't take long anymore until China collapses as well, probably also splitting into smaller states just like Russia.

Actually, the best government would be a:
-> Pornocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornocracy) <- :D