Politics

[Janus]

What form of government would you prefer? there are many idiosyncracies and specifics separating the many politcal ideologies, but there are a few major one, and I would like to hear your opinions on the matter, along with your own political alignment, and what party (democrat or republican) you most closely support

myself? I am a right-wing socialist (oh you heard me). i support the republican party over the democratic party, and given the choice, I would choose an Imperialist Republic, that is a worldwide republican empire

[ZimZaxZeo]

I plunked in my vote for “Democracy” because you didn’t have a slot for “Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune” ((see the “Bloody Peasant!” sketch, aka Scene 3 in <<monty python=“” &=“” the=“” holy=“” grail=“”>>)) and also because I am willing to give Thomas Jefferson the benefit of the doubt…!</monty>

[bossk]

I’m a leftist of some sort. I tend to hover between Democratic Socialist and Communist of the Trotskiest variety. What I’m wondering is why democracy on this poll is seperate from everything else, it’s not really mutually exclusive of very many of the other choices. Besides, what is a democracy? it seems more like a descriptor of a kind of government rather than a definition of a government. For instance, The US is a democratic republic; I, personally, would go for a democratic socialist government.

As for political parties in the US, I don’t really want to identify myself with either of them. Politics in the US has degenerated into pandering to the precieved public will and has very little to do with what the actual candidates and parties believe in.

[Janus]

bossk wrote: As for political parties in the US, I don’t really want to identify myself with either of them. Politics in the US has degenerated into pandering to the precieved public will and has very little to do with what the actual candidates and parties believe in.

well i will give you that, i suppose i didnt pose the question correctly. let me pose it another way, do you find yourself as more of a liberal or a conservative?

like i said, there are many idiosyncracies seperating the various political ideologies. I seperated democracy on the poll because a pure democracy is in fact seperate and distinct from say, a republic or a socialism, though bastardized forms of it exist combined with both.

[bossk]

In that case I would be very much a liberal.

If democracy is seperate and distinct, explain to me what a purely democractic system is, and how it is actually achievable.

[ZimZaxZeo]

Mr. bossk,

I would suggest that a “pure democracy” – by which we mean direct rule of the people – can only exist on Gilligan’s Island, or some other very-low-population enclave.

Representative democracy, where mass votes are funneled into some type of legislature, isn’t referred to as democracy, but as a republic – correct?

So, as you mentioned, we have a democratic republic as our form of government in the U.S.

[ZimZaxZeo]

By the way, Mr. Janus:

Would you please post a quick working definition of “socialism” and maybe give us an idea of how it would compare & contrast with your global republican empire?

[bossk]

@ZimZaxZeo:

Mr. bossk,

I would suggest that a “pure democracy” – by which we mean direct rule of the people – can only exist on Gilligan’s Island, or some other very-low-population enclave.

Representative democracy, where mass votes are funneled into some type of legislature, isn’t referred to as democracy, but as a republic – correct?

So, as you mentioned, we have a democratic republic as our form of government in the U.S.

Yes, I believe you would be correct. The way I see a pure democracy is every citizen being able to vote on every decision that faces the nation. Obviously a throughly impractical idea (possibly even dangerous under some circumstances). So, the way I see it, the only possible form of democracy would be a so called bastardized version.

[Guest]

Anarcho-syndicalism…. wow… i would never have epected that ;)…

Well, i would go for the socialism, in the sense of a “dictatorship of humanistically educated people”, with anarcho-syndicalist bottom on a local (municipal?) scale. So, it would be some kind of “council republic”, like the ones that appeared during the revolutions after WWI.

This being more democratic than our parlamentarism, i ticked “democracy”.

[Janus]

Like ZimZaxZeo said, pure democracy would be direct rule of the people, so every person would have to vote (or abstain) on every issue facing the country. As Bossk then said, it is a thoroughly impractical politcal concept except on a small scale.

ZimZaxZeo said:

By the way, Mr. Janus:

Would you please post a quick working definition of “socialism” and maybe give us an idea of how it would compare & contrast with your global republican empire?

thank you for the polite “Mr.” ZimZax. On to your question.
Socialism, as I have come to understand it (mind you this is my interpretation of it) is basically the middle ground between democracy and communism. Sort of a democratic state, except where the government has more control. If you go here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism you can see a dictionary definition of it.

“My” global Republican empire, is perhaps something of a misnomer. I haven’t yet been able to truly put a name on my ideal political entity, so that is my “working name” the republican part is perhaps a bit misleading. it means only to suggest a popularly elected senate. Basically, the world would be united as one nation, with a global senate (like a combination of Congress with the U.N.) that would have representatives from all prior nations which would assume roles similar to states in our government today. I recognize that it sounds like a larger-scale version of our current U.S. Government, but that is only because I am not very effective at conveying it as i envision it. This senate will be popularly elected, from their “states”, as representatives, and each “state” will have its own government. again, seems very similar. some key differences however (besides many changes in the actual laws of this new government) include the complete subordination of the “state” governments to the global, that is, the global senate will have absolute authority over any “state government”. There will be an executive power. This is perhaps the most confusing aspect to explain, but it makes perfect sense if you can get past my poor descriptions. The executive will function something like an elected dictator, if that makes any sense at all. If you would like me to explain further, please ask, but for now, let me say that he would basically have unlimited power, within a limit. confusing i know. ponder that for awhile, and if you like, ask me to explain in more detail.

[Yanny]

I’m a moderate in pretty much every sense of mind. I believe a Socialism (Meaning a balance between Communism and Capitalism) is by far the best political philosophy. However, this poll is flawed.

Communism and Socialism, and in some cases Imperialism are economic systems, not politcal systems. Two polls would be better suited, 1) What is your favored economic system and 2) What is your favored form of Government.

A Socialist Parlimentary Republic with several politcal parties is the best form of Government and Economic system, in my opinion.

[bossk]

Contrary to popular belief, Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. A communist state does not have to take the path of extreme authoritarianism like Mao and Stalin did (to some degree Lenin too). If you read Marx and look at the Mensheviks you’ll actually see a fairly democratic system despite phrases like dictatorship of the proletariat. Even the pre-Soviet Union Communist organizations within Russia were probably more democratic than most of the world’s democratic nations. The difference between Communism and Socialism lies not within the authority of the state over the people but with the actual means of achieving socialism. The Communist believes that a revolution is necissary to topple the Bourgeoisie oppression and society must go through a process of restructurization before Socialism can be achieved. The Socialist generally believes that current governments can be used to achieve socialism without any violence or massive restructuring of society. At least that’s the way I understand it.

Your global republican empire sounds pretty interesting, although I believe with an all powerful executor your government would be prone to the usual trend of democracy drifting towards despotism, al la Star Wars, even more quickly than most democracies.

[ZimZaxZeo]

Mr. Janus,
Due to my lack of a classical education, I have not read Plato’s “Republic” in any detail, however the idea of an enlightened dictator directing the affairs of a republic, through the filter of an elected seante, has been around at least since the fourth century B.C.

Oh, and for real fun, I recommend the fantastic flick “Things To Come” which dates to, oh, say 1930. First of all, it was the “Star Wars” of its day in terms of advancing the level of motion picture special effects (one of its predecessors in that department was of course “Metropolis” by Fritz Lang). But more apt for this discussion, Things To Come projects a post-apocalyptic, war-shattered world where order and justice finally come about by virtue of a dedicated, selfless federation of pilots (read: fledgling technological superpower) that is poised to forge a world government, transcending all past “states” and regional governments.

I would suggest that we are eons away (well, maybe not “eons” I mean eons are like beyond the end of it, man, like billions of years) – so let’s say we are rawthuh distant from a time when local governments would cede their sovereign powers to any world gummint. Sure, the European Union is doing something like this, and regional treaty orgs do exist around the planet, but we already have a world governmental meeting place – lacking the executive that you describe, and lacking the clarity of superior authority on matters of law, rights and enforcement… but a governmental meeting vehicle for all humanity, nevertheless – and it is called the United Nations.

Still, it seems worthy to ponder. And while you do so, give a listen to this catchy tune:::::

“The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”
— President Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826).

[Janus]

Unfortunately Bossk, you are relying on the popular misconception that Marx created communism. communism is actually a bastardized form of Marxism, which is what Marx actually wrote about. Communism does not have to be the authoratarian form i.e. Mao, Stalin) as you said, but it is different from Marx’s treatise.
Communism and Socialism actually refer to both economic systems and political systems, Yanny. I will cede imperialism, Im somewhat hazy as to the specifics of it, but communism and socialism are not out of place.
As i suspected, what i described about the executive was not conveyed how i wanted it to be. for that i apologize. for lack of a better example, think of the position something like the movie Bruce Almighty. ignore everything else about the movie, and just take the “god for a week” principle. Basically, the executive would have unlimited power while in office, except the ability to extend his term of service, or influence elections in his favor through any underhanded means (extortion, coercion, blackmail, threat of force, etc) the same would be true as the congress, except it would still be subordinate to the executive. while this is similar to what you described ZimZaxZeo, i think the differences lie primarily in the idea that these absolute rulers are elected. the voters choose their ruler, then he rules them how he sees fit. if he isnt popular in his policies/methods, then he will not be reelected. i agree the likelihood of anything like this arising anytime soon is highly unlikely. this is simply my ideal form of government.
oh, and please dont compare this to the UN, this government would have authority, not only backed by whatever constitution created it, but by a global army, the UN is the biggest waste of space and time on the planet, give it an army, or shutup

[bossk]

Janus, have you read any Marx? Are you familiar at all with the socialist movements of the mid-19th century? Marxism and Communism used to be the same thing, Communism now refers to Marxism and all the other splinter dogmas that have eminated from it. Now Marxism is simply a narrower descriptor for Communism. If you don’t believe me go look at who wrote the Communist Manifesto. There are currently so many forms of Communism that there are many democractic forms. Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive, like I said.

[Janus]

well bossk, try though i might, i have been unable to come up with any counterpoint to your post that doesnt sound like childish name calling. so, far be it from me to continue an argument when i know ive lost, i concede defeat.

[ZimZaxZeo]

Certainly gentlemen, this is no defeat – merely a clarification.

If I may add to the above outlines and points of interrelatedness of some of the forms of government, allow me to observe: much of the question has to do with PROPERTY. Should we prefer the government to own more property, or for individuals and non-government entities (corporations, associations, trade unions, cooperatives, etc.) to own more?

It seems to me that the type of government that is seen in the most favorable light around the world these days is some kind of “democratic republic with a human (socialist) face.” Interesting to note, while perusing the various definitions of socialism in the webzone listed above by Mr. Janus, that “socialism” was once read pretty much as equal to communism, with the emphasis on the government owning all – but that today socialism pretty much means that the government provides a certain safety net for the poor, a cushion to the workers against major economic shocks, etc.

None of this makes running an empire any more or less fun, I suppose. But it would be more evil fun to be Ming the Merciless under an absolute monarchy!!!

[Guest]

I say Private Ownership with heavy goverment restrictions.

exept for energy/communication those i feel should be goverment controlled in order so the goverment can have abnother source of income besides taxes and the goverment in theory is a bit more responsible then corperations, so in theory less energy would be wasted

[cystic crypt]

@Anonymous:

I say Private Ownership with heavy goverment restrictions.

exept for energy/communication those i feel should be goverment controlled in order so the goverment can have abnother source of income besides taxes and the goverment in theory is a bit more responsible then corperations, so in theory less energy would be wasted

This also deals with ownership questions and disputes a little more easily. Furthermore it insures access for everyone to essential services.
And then i read “government more responsible”. Then i pick myself up from the ground - red-faced from laughing so hard!
Mercy!

[Yanny]

A republic is never efficient. I think the spoils-system of modern politics makes a Republican or Democratic system where the Government owns business makes it impossible.