Government Systems Comparisons
Posted: 02 July 2013 05:10 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I think that no government system is absolutely ideal for every given population because each of the major ideals have always had as many advantages as disadvantages. Imagine, for instance, if China had never selected communism and instead embraced the republican ideal of the U.S.. What would have been the likelihood for the status for America’s success to date? With China having nearly a third of the world’s population, I’m guessing that they would be much more powerful than the U.S..

I’d like to point out how Communism was formed and meant to be. Communism as a theory proposed by Marx was meant to provide a means for everyone to succeed without prejudice. In his day, however, the realities of the contemporary governments that any one were familiar with always had a person who represented its sovereignty. For the most part, they were Kings and Queens. These monarchs were virtual dictators even if they chose not to participate in the ever-growing aristocratic representatives of the Commoners. Canada, even to this day, officially recognizes the Queen as our sovereign leader. On all bills passed, they go through the Common House (same as the Representative House), the Senate (We follow the traditional European concept of this: those who are selected by the convening governments that appoint them for life. Why? Senators were considered the House of the old wise men [now women too] that came from our tribal days..) and, the final vote or rather, veto, goes to the Queen. Again, even thought the Queen doesn’t actually involve herself in politics, we keep this tradition even though it is possible for her to literally deny our laws. It is only custom that presumes that she or any other future Monarch will actually ever use their privilege. If they did, we’d find a reason to abandon the Monarch and become a republic, like the States.

It was in this light that Marx felt a leader was necessary for Communism. Communism was not, nor ever has been achieved except in religious groups like the Amish Communities. Communism was understood to be an ideal state or goal that the society should aim for. The problem was that it didn’t seem to be able to be possible to set the stage for a world where everyone was equally important and shared their wealth. This was because in order to do so, those who already hold ownership privileges would not naturally just give up what they already have. Marx suggested that the only way this could be possible would be to revolt.

Unfortunately, it was believed that since people cling to religious authority (the same context that provides trust in Monarchs and Popes), this loss would also impede the success of the Communist dream. So Marx proposed a leader who represents the Communist ideal should be required to initiate the first stages. They act, to them, as a Constitution protector to assure that no other form of government dissolves the intended goal. To us, we were always told that the present “Communist” governments were dictators. The actual Communists see this differently.

In fact, they consider themselves a type of democracy because all effective government who makes the actual laws outside the constitution itself is voted on. But they do not vote particular people in by our simple polling systems that appear to involve everyone. They do it through logical groups such as a type of industry or special interest. They do this because everyone as a whole is not sufficiently qualified to determine the virtues of any given government position. For example, if it was required to have a food health inspector, only people within that industry vote initially. If you worked as a cook in some given restaurant, because it is not owned by any individuals, the staff themselves would elect one of them (vote) to represent their interests. Then the collection of representatives from those industries in turn go to another group or convention to discuss the issues and they, in turn, vote one of them who seems to represent the consensus of the group best. This process continues all the way up to any necessary position in government.

As you can well see, this is certainly a closer and more involved government than our forms. They perceive us as Imperialists because, as the name implies, it says that we believe that real human individuals actually have innate rights to ownership and inheritance without regards to any disadvantages to the public. To them, even the republican form of government has not dissolved a belief that their leader is sovereign, like a King Queen, or God, even if when they are elected.

Republicanism was an alternate idea that was equally meant to provide similar goals as the Communist ones. The idea was actually the inspiration of Plato’s The Republic and the best of what Rome originally attempted, but failed. The only significant differences that occurred in practice was to create the American constitution as it was, the idea to select a Philosopher-King (from Plato’s Republic) by a popular election to replace the sovereignty of an inherited King and establish the Senate to only represent particular regional concerns, which ended up being turned over to landowners and companies because of their ‘regional’ affiliation. It was hoped that the masses would conform to the ideal of electing a wise person to lead them for a predetermined term. In Plato’s Republic, the major quality of such a leader would be one who actually does not want to lead but is nominated to do so by force of duty. This would qualify such a person because they would not be tempted to rule unfairly.
  Obviously, it was too dubious to the Americans to grant their leader this much power because it didn’t seem possible to find a the ideal leader by popular appeal. So they created the House of Representatives as a check to this and enabled the Senate to provide another one for each bill to be passed. It still remains true, however, that since the President can veto any proposed bill, he alone has a dictatorial power. But it is a better compromise than allowing an aristocrat to inherit the position.

It is not necessary for any government to have an actual official single person as a leader. But every country has them and are thus always capable of being portrayed as dictatorial. And every other country claims that their form of democratic elections are the only kind too. Propaganda keeps people in the dark about the others by inoculating them with only the bad stuff which every country has.
  When you think of it, every country’s political forms have as equal claim to advantages with the similar ideal of a future where everyone is community oriented, trusting, happy, and successful. The lesson with Communism shows that not only can it not work within its own society by initial revolt, it can only work if the whole world does the same because personal claimants to property and assets everywhere will always do everything in their power to keep it. For this reason alone, I think no society would phase into it until we come to a major population crisis and sufficiently enough people to suffer and have the power to take over.

In the meantime, I think that the best form of government will evolve by combining the socialist and capitalist ideals through mixed laws.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 06:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Scott Mayers - 02 July 2013 05:10 AM

The lesson with Communism shows that not only can it not work within its own society by initial revolt, it can only work if the whole world does the same because personal claimants to property and assets everywhere will always do everything in their power to keep it.

No, the lesson with communism shows that it doesn’t work because everybody benefits, even those who don’t deserve it. Besides Ceausescu, I am not really aware of any rich communist dictators. Certainly not in Czechoslovakia, the country where I experienced communism first hand.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 06:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
George - 02 July 2013 06:27 AM
Scott Mayers - 02 July 2013 05:10 AM

The lesson with Communism shows that not only can it not work within its own society by initial revolt, it can only work if the whole world does the same because personal claimants to property and assets everywhere will always do everything in their power to keep it.

No, the lesson with communism shows that it doesn’t work because everybody benefits, even those who don’t deserve it. Besides Ceausescu, I am not really aware of any rich communist dictators. Certainly not in Czechoslovakia, the country where I experienced communism first hand.

The Soviet Union was isolated by economic barriers from the external capitalistic nations. It cannot be presumed that the nature of their system’s fault lay soulfully in the dragging down of the lowest common denominator. China still exists as Communists and they are actually relatively successful. So is Cuba. If the whole society is poor as a whole, obviously it will be more apparent that masses of poverty will have more abusers. Also, wealth in such a country would not be relevant in terms of dollars and cents. The nature of actual benefits is what counts. Queen Elizabeth is not rich either. But she’s quite financially independent.

But what does the wealth of the leaders have to do with what I’d said?

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  623
Joined  2013-06-01

We have many communist ideas now embedded in our labor laws and tax system. Which I must say are good laws.

Freedom of movement and speech seems to be lacking in communist countries. But not sure that is part of the original communist thinking.

The communist system allowed people like Trofim Lysenko to control major food supplies that cost millions of lives. Items like that could not happen in our system.

If you like Big Government, go communist.

But I have to say that the fear of communism ideals changed the lives and political makeup of the non-communist countries of Europe for the better in the 1940’s.

[ Edited: 02 July 2013 08:11 AM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 09:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

Communism seems to only appeal to a disproportionate imbalance of middle-class wealth. Certainly, America’s population would have never appealed to it even given no biases or propaganda. This might give you an idea of how the American government actually felt threatened by Communism: Your country was being guarded from the North by a set of Canadian Forces Stations, called the Pinetree Line. I’ve lived on a few of these bases before they were finally aborted for newer radar and satellite technologies. We were your Early Warning System, courtesy of NORAD. I assure you, the fears were not sincere.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22
Scott Mayers - 02 July 2013 06:48 AM

The Soviet Union was isolated by economic barriers from the external capitalistic nations. It cannot be presumed that the nature of their system’s fault lay soulfully in the dragging down of the lowest common denominator. China still exists as Communists and they are actually relatively successful. So is Cuba. If the whole society is poor as a whole, obviously it will be more apparent that masses of poverty will have more abusers. Also, wealth in such a country would not be relevant in terms of dollars and cents. The nature of actual benefits is what counts. Queen Elizabeth is not rich either. But she’s quite financially independent.

But what does the wealth of the leaders have to do with what I’d said?

From what I understand, the Soviet Union failed because it never gave equal citizenship to ethnicities other than Russians. When the time came that the other ethnicities could break from the empire, they did so with great enthusiasm, which probably surprised the isolated politicians in Moscow at first who really didn’t understand the system or didn’t care.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 10:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I wasn’t meaning to be asserting one single purpose for the failures of Communism. The actual fall of the Soviet Union is more involved. The particular incidences that occurred at the end are just the few straws that broke the camel’s back. But assume that you have a very large family living in a big house. If you, as a respected authority in your household chose to punish some of your family who have discordant views by keeping them from eating at the dinner table, ignoring their needs, preventing them from having allowances like the other kids, and sabotaging their integrity, how do you think they would turn out?

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I agree with George.  The theory is that all contribute and all benefit.  Unfortunately, parasites and predators make the system unworkable.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Occam. - 02 July 2013 11:36 AM

I agree with George.  The theory is that all contribute and all benefit.  Unfortunately, parasites and predators make the system unworkable.

Occam

I’m not personally in favor of Communism but I find this view rather selectively ignorant about the realities. Parasites and predators are rampant in every system. How do you propose a distinction?

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22
Scott Mayers - 02 July 2013 12:32 PM

I’m not personally in favor of Communism but I find this view rather selectively ignorant about the realities. Parasites and predators are rampant in every system. How do you propose a distinction?

Some systems deal with psychopaths better than others.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile