An alternative to democracy?

[Stronk Serb]

As you may know, I dislike democracy (just look at my signature). I have an alternative for which I haven't exactly coined a name.

It's ruled by some type of a dictator with limited power but that's contradictory so I'll just call the person in charge lord protector. The lord protector has many powers, he pretty much runs the state but he is limited by the constitution and a body of tribunes elected by the people who can overrule any decision the lord protector makes, just 50%+1 need to be against the decision. That would, in my opinion ensure constant order. The ruling party will always be in power but limited by intellectuals elected by the people to protect their interests.

Do you have any alternatives to democracy or arguments for democracy?

[phuckphace]

there was a member whose name I don't recall who suggested something similar in a stratocratic context. I'm all for a highly ordered, authoritarian stratocracy provided the state's undivided attention is given to the greater good and doesn't stray into Nouvelle Droit weirdo territory (because what we really need is a Basilica-sized temple to Odin and Thor).

Sparta 2.0 when

[Vlerchan]

I call this sensible authoritarianism:

A constitution which sets out basic procedural law and the rights and responsibilities of the people will stand above all other law. It will be presided over by an independent judiciary. But can also be altered with respect to some public supermajority vote.
An executive split across a number of departments will have the sole right to propose legislation. The legislation that can be proposed will be limited to being relevant to the respective department. To the greatest possible extent advancement will be built on the basis of examinations.
A legislature constructed through a vote based on the single-transferable-vote form of proportional representation will exist. It will discuss and vote on the legislation proposed by the executive(s). It will not embody the government-opposition model but rather the conciliation model of the euro-parliament. Through a 66% supermajority vote it can choose to censure a member of the executive.
A number of councils existing on a local level will exist to deal with small law. These have the power to implement laws which deal with fines leading up to 15000euro. This will include most social legislation which will fall outside the permit of the executive(s); which is designed to deal with 'real' issues.

Criticisms?

---

I also never understood what makes military officials so equipped to rule.
If was a Fascist I would also be Nouvelle Droit without a doubt.

[tovaris]

Anarchy is the only alternative.

[Stronk Serb]

there was a member whose name I don't recall who suggested something similar in a stratocratic context. I'm all for a highly ordered, authoritarian stratocracy provided the state's undivided attention is given to the greater good and doesn't stray into Nouvelle Droit weirdo territory (because what we really need is a Basilica-sized temple to Odin and Thor).

Sparta 2.0 when

I've thought of Sparta 2.0 too but the primary caste either has to spit out Warhammer 40k Space Marine-esque superhuman super-soldiers or make at least (in my opinion) 30% of the population and the civilians have to be completely disarmed to prevent sizable rebellions, you know, the Spartan extreme training even for ancient greek standards was hard and almost impossible to complete. Also it's the only thing preventing them to be overrun by second-class citizens and slaves in an uprising. Still better than mob rule though.

[Stronk Serb]

I call this sensible authoritarianism:

A constitution which sets out basic procedural law and the rights and responsibilities of the people will stand above all other law. It will be presided over by an independent judiciary. But can also be altered with respect to some public supermajority vote.
An executive split across a number of departments will have the sole right to propose legislation. The legislation that can be proposed will be limited to being relevant to the respective department. To the greatest possible extent advancement will be built on the basis of examinations.
A legislature constructed through a vote based on the single-transferable-vote form of proportional representation will exist. It will discuss and vote on the legislation proposed by the executive(s). It will not embody the government-opposition model but rather the conciliation model of the euro-parliament. Through a 66% supermajority vote it can choose to censure a member of the executive.
A number of councils existing on a local level will exist to deal with small law. These have the power to implement laws which deal with fines leading up to 15000euro. This will include most social legislation which will fall outside the permit of the executive(s); which is designed to deal with 'real' issues.

Criticisms?

---

I also never understood what makes military officials so equipped to rule.
If was a Fascist I would also be Nouvelle Droit without a doubt.

I prefer a centralised state. It might work in Ireland but here in Serbia, mob rule caused more harm than good. Economy destroyed, industry destroyed, morals don't exist, corruption spreads... We need a damn authoritarian to rule over us while having a means to stop him when he oversteps his bounds. I'm not really into communism and socialism anymore but I would rather live in socialist Yugoslavia. Work, order, discipline.

Anarchy is the only alternative.

In Balkans at least it would bring this thing bearing some semblance of civilization down and chaos would ensue, the weak would turn to the strong in exchange for protection and we would get a set of dictatorships/kingdoms out of that mess. Maybe that's the best solution, tear it all down and make new countries.

[Vlerchan]

I prefer a centralised state.
That's quite centralised.

I just don't see the need to process local problems at a non-local level.

[Stronk Serb]

That's quite centralised.

I just don't see the need to process local problems at a non-local level.

Ah I misread it. Yeah, I agree somewhat. They implemented that here so a shoplifter in ass-end of nowhere answers for his crimes there at a municipal court, not in some court in Belgrade. Of course for crimes like murder you go on trial to one of the major cities. I like the idea.

[Miserabilia]

This is very close to the way a lot of countries were ruled and a lot of democrasies are still based on today. Forgive me if I don't use the correct english words but let me try to explain.

Basicly what you're describing is a government and a parlament (sorry if it's wrong in english), where a government rules, but a parlement represents the people and can over-rule the government.
But instead of an elected (or indirectly elected) government like in a democracy, there would be a dictator.

Right?

[Microcosm]

The U.S. form of democracy has worked out pretty well for us so far. So, contrary to popular belief evidently, I see no reason to change it. However, if I had to pick an alternative, it would probably be something like this:
- The people elect a "President" by majority rule.
- The president or basically dictator has full authoritative power(except under specified circumstances such as basic civil rights).
- The president has a cabinet that checks his work. If the cabinet deems that the president's actions are not good or whatnot, they can call a vote to impeach him. The vote is approved by the people, but the actual vote itself takes place in the cabinet. The cabinet would be something like 100 people and three fourths would be elected by the people while one fourth would be chosen personally by the president as the "Presidential Cabinet."
- Obviously, this would be based on a constitution. The constitution would ensure liberties and civil rights that are unchangeable by the president.
- The president proposes new laws and amendments. The only way that this law can pass is if at least half of the presidential cabinet approves and if the majority of the people's cabinet approves.
- New laws can be repealed if necessary based on a majority cabinet vote which can only be called by the people's cabinet.

Through this sort of system, orders and decisions would be instant. The president would decide on all foreign affairs and laws under his society and almost everything else. This system also ensures that the people do have a large say in their government though.

[Stronk Serb]

This is very close to the way a lot of countries were ruled and a lot of democrasies are still based on today. Forgive me if I don't use the correct english words but let me try to explain.

Basicly what you're describing is a government and a parlament (sorry if it's wrong in english), where a government rules, but a parlement represents the people and can over-rule the government.
But instead of an elected (or indirectly elected) government like in a democracy, there would be a dictator.

Right?

No parliament. It would be sort of like a body of Roman tribunes and there would be a dozen of them and they are there to withold the constitution and overrule decisions deemed unconstitutional and to make sure the populace is treated fairly. Also not any fool can be a tribune. There would be criteria of knowing the constitution and politics in general so only the few dozen best candidates can be chosen as tribunes.

[sunnieseason]

As you may know, I dislike democracy (just look at my signature). I have an alternative for which I haven't exactly coined a name.

It's ruled by some type of a dictator with limited power but that's contradictory so I'll just call the person in charge lord protector. The lord protector has many powers, he pretty much runs the state but he is limited by the constitution and a body of tribunes elected by the people who can overrule any decision the lord protector makes, just 50%+1 need to be against the decision. That would, in my opinion ensure constant order. The ruling party will always be in power but limited by intellectuals elected by the people to protect their interests.

Do you have any alternatives to democracy or arguments for democracy?


Dictatorships are horrific. 20 million people killed in the 20th century over ideas like that. People don't want to be ruled over by a dictator or by the collective, so they always have to use massive amounts of violence to achieve their goals.

Your ideology is founded on rivers of blood.

[Vlerchan]

The U.S. form of democracy has worked out pretty well for us so far.
It's dominated by private interests and spends it's time churning out pork-barrel legislation as opposed to discussing and implementing required reforms.

I think it's pretty awful.

---

There would be criteria of knowing the constitution and politics in general so only the few dozen best candidates can be chosen as tribunes.
How would these candidates be selected?

---

People don't want to be ruled over by a dictator or by the collective, so they always have to use massive amounts of violence to achieve their goals.
Most people are quite happy to live under the collective within democracies.

This can be verified through examining election results.

[Stronk Serb]

Dictatorships are horrific. 20 million people killed in the 20th century over ideas like that. People don't want to be ruled over by a dictator or by the collective, so they always have to use massive amounts of violence to achieve their goals.

Your ideology is founded on rivers of blood.

More blood has flown in Serbia in the last twenty five years than during the dictatorship regime (1945-1980)

It's dominated by private interests and spends it's time churning out pork-barrel legislation as opposed to discussing and implementing required reforms.

I think it's pretty awful.

---


How would these candidates be selected?

---


Most people are quite happy to live under the collective within democracies.

This can be verified through examining election results.

They would apply for a test made by leading politicologists and sociologists in the country. The candidates who pass the tests are candidates for tribune body elections

[Miserabilia]

No parliament. It would be sort of like a body of Roman tribunes and there would be a dozen of them and they are there to withold the constitution and overrule decisions deemed unconstitutional and to make sure the populace is treated fairly. Also not any fool can be a tribune. There would be criteria of knowing the constitution and politics in general so only the few dozen best candidates can be chosen as tribunes.

Okay so it's basicly a Senate (or atleast a senate as it exists in most democracies nowadays)

How would they be chosen tho? Would the dictator choose them? If so the dictator can just choose people who will aggree with them and the system kind of fails.
They'd have to be elected, but in order for them to not be "any fool" :P they would need to meet certain criteria.
So would they be indirectly chosen, for example by a democratic councel?

[Akatosh]

As you may know, I dislike democracy (just look at my signature). I have an alternative for which I haven't exactly coined a name.

It's ruled by some type of a dictator with limited power but that's contradictory so I'll just call the person in charge lord protector. The lord protector has many powers, he pretty much runs the state but he is limited by the constitution and a body of tribunes elected by the people who can overrule any decision the lord protector makes, just 50%+1 need to be against the decision. That would, in my opinion ensure constant order. The ruling party will always be in power but limited by intellectuals elected by the people to protect their interests.

Do you have any alternatives to democracy or arguments for democracy?

So glad this thread exists.

I think the early Romans (of the republic and the early empire, not the WRE) had it right. A combination of republican and empirical policies accepting of multiple cultures but unwavering in their law, even if it infringes upon those cultures. They were essentially national socialists.

I'm a strong believer in national socialism, but don't you tell anyone that or they think you're Hitler™ despite the fact that Nazi Germany was a poor example of national socialism and that the core tenants of the ideology are phenomenal. Internally dismantling classism, expansionism, self-sustainability, and a strong, socialist economy; what more could you want? If you listen to what America has to say, socialism's evil, but it isn't actually at all. Economic socialism has the best shot at solving homelessness and poverty, that's a fact.

Democracy's flawed because what is right isn't necessarily fair, and vice versa. Could talk for ages on this subject but I won't immediately; if anyone wants to chat about democracy and its pros/cons I'd be super up for it!

[Microcosm]

It's dominated by private interests and spends it's time churning out pork-barrel legislation as opposed to discussing and implementing required reforms.

I think it's pretty awful.

What I meant was that it's kept us pretty secure and stable. It isn't perfect, but it keeps us stabilized.

[Vlerchan]

I'm presuming adherence to the (neo-)Corporatist as opposed to Strasserist wing of National Socialism.

Please correct me if this assumption is incorrect.

Internally dismantling classism[1], expansionism[2], self-sustainability[3], and a strong, socialist economy[4].
[1]: I've seen no evidence that national socialism is capable of this. The interest of the proletariat and bourgeoise remain in direct opposition regardless of what institutions might exist to mediate.

[2]: Expansionism where?

[3]: This provides zero tangible benefits that I'm aware of.

[4]: Built on what basis?

[W]hat more could you want?
Free and competitive markets.
Worker's control of the means of production.
Communal-orientated living.
Local-derived cultural identification.
Woman's liberation.
Etc.

Economic socialism has the best shot at solving homelessness and poverty, that's a fact.
What source was this fact derived from?

Democracy's flawed because what is right isn't necessarily fair, and vice versa. Could talk for ages on this subject but I won't immediately; if anyone wants to chat about democracy and its pros/cons I'd be super up for it!
Sure. In outlined my preferred system of governance in the first post in this thread.

[Stronk Serb]

Okay so it's basicly a Senate (or atleast a senate as it exists in most democracies nowadays)

How would they be chosen tho? Would the dictator choose them? If so the dictator can just choose people who will aggree with them and the system kind of fails.
They'd have to be elected, but in order for them to not be "any fool" :P they would need to meet certain criteria.
So would they be indirectly chosen, for example by a democratic councel?

Look at my post above, I already answered that question.

So glad this thread exists.

I think the early Romans (of the republic and the early empire, not the WRE) had it right. A combination of republican and empirical policies accepting of multiple cultures but unwavering in their law, even if it infringes upon those cultures. They were essentially national socialists.

I'm a strong believer in national socialism, but don't you tell anyone that or they think you're Hitler™ despite the fact that Nazi Germany was a poor example of national socialism and that the core tenants of the ideology are phenomenal. Internally dismantling classism, expansionism, self-sustainability, and a strong, socialist economy; what more could you want? If you listen to what America has to say, socialism's evil, but it isn't actually at all. Economic socialism has the best shot at solving homelessness and poverty, that's a fact.

Democracy's flawed because what is right isn't necessarily fair, and vice versa. Could talk for ages on this subject but I won't immediately; if anyone wants to chat about democracy and its pros/cons I'd be super up for it!

I looked for a system which is old and new combined which would guarantee long-term order and prosperity. I'm not looking for an utopian society since it is impossible, I'm looking for a functional society.

[Vlerchan]

They would apply for a test made by leading politicologists and sociologists in the country.
Is there a reason that economics seems to be ignored?

How would these leading political scientists and sociologists be chosen? and would the leading members of these fields not be the ones that would want to be a member of these tribunes?

---

What I meant was that it's kept us pretty secure and stable. It isn't perfect, but it keeps us stabilized.
Well that's more or less the point of the US governments construction:

It's designed to be conservative and resistant to grand reforms.

[Microcosm]

Well that's more or less the point of the US governments construction:

It's designed to be conservative and resistant to grand reforms.

Do you consider that to be a bad thing?

[phuckphace]

Criticisms?

not bad actually.

I just don't see the need to process local problems at a non-local level.

I'm inclined to agree here.

in practice any autocrat ruling over a country of this size and complexity (assuming we're talking about the US) would need to defer a shitton of power to local governments out of pure necessity anyway.

It's dominated by private interests and spends it's time churning out pork-barrel legislation as opposed to discussing and implementing required reforms.

I think it's pretty awful.

I was going to say the same thing.

Most people are quite happy to live under the collective within democracies.

This can be verified through examining election results.

they'll even live under dictatorships provided food keeps coming and their taxes aren't too high (see: various monarchies throughout history). it doesn't take much to satisfy the average citizen.

even without democracy, the autocrat can't treat the people too poorly for too long or he'll find himself deposed and dragged through the streets by an angry mob. in theory anyway.

I'm a strong believer in national socialism, but don't you tell anyone that or they think you're Hitler™ despite the fact that Nazi Germany was a poor example of national socialism and that the core tenants of the ideology are phenomenal.

ikr?

I've heard a theory that if Nazi Germany were still around today, it would resemble China in a lot of ways: nominally this or that but in practice lots of state capitalism and wheel-spinning bureaucracy. ick.

Strasser was a BAWS though.

[Vlerchan]

Do you consider that to be a bad thing?
Yes.

It results in lots of broken programmes (eg: immigration; welfare) built on sometimes decades of minor concessions each direction. The one time it's possible to do something via the legislature-executive is when there's a crisis or a new-incumbent comes off the back of a strong campaign and Congress realises it's in their best interest to support a then-strong President.

The passing of the PATRIOT Act after 9/11 is a classic example of the former.

[DoodleSnap]

This has been nagging at my brain after hearing more about Socrates' values in school, but I have yet to properly form an opinion.

[tovaris]

In Balkans at least it would bring this thing bearing some semblance of civilization down and chaos would ensue, the weak would turn to the strong in exchange for protection and we would get a set of dictatorships/kingdoms out of that mess. Maybe that's the best solution, tear it all down and make new countries.



I see your point, but i still have to say only true narchy could be an alternative to democracy.

[CRH99]

you know that they kind of already have something like this, its called a Constitutional Monarchy... and electing the tribunes kind of makes it a democracy.... sooo..... and the definition of a dictator is someone with absolute power, so you might not want to open with that, and how is the lord protector chosen? election, seized by military might? no offense but this is one of the most flawed systems i have ever heard of....

[SethfromMI]

The U.S. form of democracy has worked out pretty well for us so far. So, contrary to popular belief evidently, I see no reason to change it. However, if I had to pick an alternative, it would probably be something like this:
- The people elect a "President" by majority rule.
- The president or basically dictator has full authoritative power(except under specified circumstances such as basic civil rights).
- The president has a cabinet that checks his work. If the cabinet deems that the president's actions are not good or whatnot, they can call a vote to impeach him. The vote is approved by the people, but the actual vote itself takes place in the cabinet. The cabinet would be something like 100 people and three fourths would be elected by the people while one fourth would be chosen personally by the president as the "Presidential Cabinet."
- Obviously, this would be based on a constitution. The constitution would ensure liberties and civil rights that are unchangeable by the president.
- The president proposes new laws and amendments. The only way that this law can pass is if at least half of the presidential cabinet approves and if the majority of the people's cabinet approves.
- New laws can be repealed if necessary based on a majority cabinet vote which can only be called by the people's cabinet.

Through this sort of system, orders and decisions would be instant. The president would decide on all foreign affairs and laws under his society and almost everything else. This system also ensures that the people do have a large say in their government though.

the government whats us to believe it has worked out nice. the fact is, all the politicians work together for a greater agenda for the people who are pulling the strings

[Hyper]

Enlightened King or other ruler with absolute power, maybe some checks and balance system but mostly absolute authority

Seems kind of paradoxal though since being hailed as a man above others and so on tends to lead to all sorts of narcissistic tendencies.

[Stronk Serb]

you know that they kind of already have something like this, its called a Constitutional Monarchy... and electing the tribunes kind of makes it a democracy.... sooo..... and the definition of a dictator is someone with absolute power, so you might not want to open with that, and how is the lord protector chosen? election, seized by military might? no offense but this is one of the most flawed systems i have ever heard of....

It wouldn't be a democracy, democracy means all representatives get elected by mob rule. I would try to limit mob rule as much as possible while not giving too much power to the government meaning those few tribunes would be highly educated and could see the merit or lack of it in a government decision.

Enlightened King or other ruler with absolute power, maybe some checks and balance system but mostly absolute authority

Seems kind of paradoxal though since being hailed as a man above others and so on tends to lead to all sorts of narcissistic tendencies.

An autocrat with some checks to power. I generally distrust absolute monarchies because the successor of a good king generally doesn't deserve to be called the shadow of his father.

[Arkansasguy]

Dictatorships are horrific. 20 million people killed in the 20th century over ideas like that. People don't want to be ruled over by a dictator or by the collective, so they always have to use massive amounts of violence to achieve their goals.

Your ideology is founded on rivers of blood.

You realize that all of the dictatorships that have perpetrated such atrocities have cognized themselves as being democratic, right?

And that over fifty million people have been killed by our democracy in the last forty years, right?

[sunnieseason]

You realize that all of the dictatorships that have perpetrated such atrocities have cognized themselves as being democratic, right?

And that over fifty million people have been killed by our democracy in the last forty years, right?

I agree, democracies are responsible for atrocities too....seems like it's the idea of "the state" in general that's dangerous.

[Snydergate]

I prefer an Imperial sort of state or a monarchy would be best, one man or woman in charge and there will be no congress to make things go much slower than they should until nothing even happens at all

[Scott10111]

Just remember we have both free and market democracy, sure they or types of economy's too but they do effect the way a the country is run... I.e. in free economy we have privately And state owned buisness , which believed me can be a full on platform for corruption, as it usually is.

[Stronk Serb]

Just remember we have both free and market democracy, sure they or types of economy's too but they do effect the way a the country is run... I.e. in free economy we have privately And state owned buisness , which believed me can be a full on platform for corruption, as it usually is.

I would nationalise the power company, water company and telecomunications company. For everything else, it can remain private. Also in case of large government project, government-corporate cooperation.

[Arkansasguy]

I agree, democracies are responsible for atrocities too....seems like it's the idea of "the state" in general that's dangerous.

Yet all of the major atrocities bar one have been carried out by regimes which identify as democratic.

[sunnieseason]

Yet all of the major atrocities bar one have been carried out by regimes which identify as democratic.

I'm confused, what do you mean? Totalitarian governments usually have names like "people's republic of" or use words like democracy and "for the people" as propaganda. They aren't really democratic or for the people, they just say that as a way of tricking people into going a long with it.

[Capto]

Yet all of the major atrocities bar one have been carried out by regimes which identify as democratic.

What on earth do you mean 'major atrocities?' I can think of a variety of war and other atrocities that were committed by nominally non-democratic nations, states, and entities.

I'm confused, what do you mean? Totalitarian governments usually have names like "people's republic of" or use words like democracy and "for the people" as propaganda. They aren't really democratic or for the people, they just say that as a way of tricking people into going a long with it.

While this is in and of itself a flawed statement, notice the usage of the word 'identify.' It is entirely possible to have the de jure maintenance of democratic and populist ideals whilst operating under a de facto dictatorship non-democratic government.

Take the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma and its military dictatorship for example. Even after the thaw in 2011, the military maintains a good chunk of power in Myanmar, though not quite the political monopoly it had before.

Nouvelle Droit weirdo territory

'Droit' is masculine, so it should either be Nouveau Droit or 'droit' should be made feminine so the term is 'Nouvelle Droite,' which appears to be correct given a quick Google search.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm confused, what do you mean? Totalitarian governments usually have names like "people's republic of" or use words like democracy and "for the people" as propaganda. They aren't really democratic or for the people, they just say that as a way of tricking people into going a long with it.

This is a form of the no true Scotsman fallacy. They had elections, which is the definition of democracy. Your only grounds for asserting that they weren't democracies was that they committed atrocities.

In any case, the point is that the notion of democracy is toxic, that (barring one case) only governments conceiving of themselves as democracies, have been willing to perpetrate such acts.

What on earth do you mean 'major atrocities?' I can think of a variety of war and other atrocities that were committed by nominally non-democratic nations, states, and entities.

I don't think "major atrocity" is really that hard to understand, but let's say, over a million murders, if you wish to be precise.

[Vlerchan]

They had elections, which is the definition of democracy.
In political science the most common definition of democracy refers to the elections being both 'free/open' and 'competitive'. It's not based on governments claiming to their citizens that the system is democratic - which is absurd.

[Capto]

I don't think "major atrocity" is really that hard to understand, but let's say, over a million murders, if you wish to be precise.

Even taking into account this inflated definition, the extended ethnic cleansing of Circassia committed by the Russian Empire including the Russo-Circassian War and Caucasian War as well as one of the most famous examples, the Armenian Genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire, are together counterexamples to your prior statement, representing two 'major atrocities' that were conducted respectively by states self-identifying as an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy respectively which had casualties topping one million.

Additionally, where is this completely arbitrary definition of a 'major atrocity' coming from? It seems odd, as this definition discounts the other major genocides conducted by the Ottoman Empire (against Assyrians, Kurds, and Greeks), and of course several atrocities committed by the Japanese Empire (Nanking and other mass killings).

Not even to mention atrocities committed that had to do with colonization and post-colonialism, both in Africa and the New World.

[Arkansasguy]

Even taking into account this inflated definition, the extended ethnic cleansing of Circassia committed by the Russian Empire including the Russo-Circassian War and Caucasian War as well as one of the most famous examples, the Armenian Genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire, are together counterexamples to your prior statement, representing two 'major atrocities' that were conducted respectively by states self-identifying as an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy respectively which had casualties topping one million.

Additionally, where is this completely arbitrary definition of a 'major atrocity' coming from? It seems odd, as this definition discounts the other major genocides conducted by the Ottoman Empire (against Assyrians, Kurds, and Greeks), and of course several atrocities committed by the Japanese Empire (Nanking and other mass killings).

Not even to mention atrocities committed that had to do with colonization and post-colonialism, both in Africa and the New World.

Fair enough. I'll withdraw the statement. Nevertheless, the biggest death tolls belong to self-identifying democracies.

[phuckphace]

I think comparing body counts is a pointless exercise. what I take away from the atrocities committed throughout history is that humankind is inherently corrupt and this corruption can and does pervert any system given the opportunity.

[Syrum]

Well, I think Americans don't get what socialism can do. Socialism ruined my country. It brought unemployment, death, and persecution. Even Marx states that socialism has to be installed with an authoritarian government, and over time you can take this out beause people get used to it.
In fact in USSR, opposite of this happened. Because, people found out, "Hey, if it's shit to be a doctor, and shit to be a street sweeper, I'm a lot better off just being a street sweeper." Socialism is a good idea until you apply it. It will always fail as long as humans are involved, and before you try and make an argument using the EU as socialist countries. They're free market. Unlike true socialist countries.

[Vlerchan]

Socialism ruined my country.
Socialism turned Russia from a backwards semi-feudal state into a world superpower inside a generation.

You can claim that it imposed large costs on its people but using the term 'ruined' is ridiculous.

Even Marx states that socialism has to be installed with an authoritarian government, and over time you can take this out beause people get used to it.
I've read Marx. He doesn't make this claim.

Feel free to quote the text if you feel I'm wrong.

In fact in USSR, opposite of this happened. Because, people found out, "Hey, if it's shit to be a doctor, and shit to be a street sweeper, I'm a lot better off just being a street sweeper."
I have no idea why someone would think being a street sweeper is better. You work in quite poorer conditions.

This didn't happen regardless. Since wage differentiation did exist. The USSR under Stalin had quite a large level of inequality.

It will always fail as long as humans are involved.
I hear this claim a lot and it never gets any less un-demonstrable.

[phuckphace]

thanks to the USSR the word "socialism" has been turned into an unutterably profane word which is hilarious. but thanks to the stupidity of Americans, we could still pull it off as long as we call it something else so it doesn't trigger the pseudocons

National Socialist Party - no good
American National Party - winrar

street sweepers and doctors alike will rejoice to find that their salaries are not equally huge or equally shit. this myth that socialism entails a flat universal wage is the oldest one out there along with de-incentivizing workers. come up with a new line already pls

[Syrum]

Well, excuse me. But, I grew up in these conditions. And it didn't turn Russia into that. It turned Russia into a country that killed millions of people. Please give me an example of a full socialist country working. Oh, wait there isn't one. Because they all end up like the USSR....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNwjAtthU4w

You see, you all argue none of them have been implemented correctly. This statement is true. It's also false. No matter how it's implented. It fails. And, under socialism it has killed more people in the world than democracy has. Hitler, Socialist, Mao, Socialist, Mussolini, Socialist, Stalin, socialist. Granted, Stalin did good things for my country. He still was a bad man. He killed off a lot of the ethnic Ukrainian population. And the social-National party is gaining traction in Ukraine now days sadly. These same guys beat old women on VE-Day because they were celebrating what the USSR. I mean, if you could show me where a full on socialist country worked... Then It would make sense. But the USSR fell because... Well, our political system was shit. Basically turned to a corruption Government. And you say, "Oh, you just need honest people." There are no honest people in government. You should know this... You will never. Ever. Ever. Have a socialist Government that is not heavily influenced by corruptions. This is because people are greedy. I mean, if you're so pro-socialist, then you should pack your bags and go the Venezuela for a week, and tell me how it is not having toilet paper. Oh, and I'm sure the living conditions are super.

[Vlerchan]

But, I grew up in these conditions.
You can't of grown up under Socialism in the USSR Unless it's the case that you're too old to be on this site.

Regardless this is not making what I claimed less correct.

And it didn't turn Russia into that. It turned Russia into a country that killed millions of people.
These two things are not mutually exclusive as I implied in my previous post.

Please give me an example of a full socialist country working.
You'll need to define "working".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNwjAtthU4w
I can't watch videos on the broadband I have.

I would appreciate if you selected another source.

No matter how it's implented. It fails.
You can repeat this statement but it doesn't make it less un-demonstrable.

And, under socialism it has killed more people in the world than democracy has.
I'm starting to wonder if you realise what socialism refers to with this statement.

Socialism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system. The two are incommensurable.

Hitler, Socialist, Mao, Socialist, Mussolini, Socialist, Stalin, socialist.
Hitler and Mussolini are both fascists and anticommunists.

I hope you realise that all this mudslinging still isn't countering the concerns I raised.

He still was a bad man. He killed off a lot of the ethnic Ukrainian population. And the social-National party is gaining traction in Ukraine now days sadly. These same guys beat old women on VE-Day because they were celebrating what the USSR. I mean, if you could show me where a full on socialist country worked... Then It would make sense.
From now on I'm just going to skip over the irrelevant material.

I'm not claiming that the USSR's gains were costless.

And you say, "Oh, you just need honest people." There are no honest people in government.
I rather think for socialism to work there needs to be decentralisation and separation of powers.

[BlueFoot]

As you may know, I dislike democracy (just look at my signature). I have an alternative for which I haven't exactly coined a name.

It's ruled by some type of a dictator with limited power but that's contradictory so I'll just call the person in charge lord protector. The lord protector has many powers, he pretty much runs the state but he is limited by the constitution and a body of tribunes elected by the people who can overrule any decision the lord protector makes, just 50%+1 need to be against the decision. That would, in my opinion ensure constant order. The ruling party will always be in power but limited by intellectuals elected by the people to protect their interests.

Do you have any alternatives to democracy or arguments for democracy?


That is Called Leninism its Communism but Lenin's idea of it and how he ran Mother Russia

thanks to the USSR the word "socialism" has been turned into an unutterably profane word which is hilarious. but thanks to the stupidity of Americans, we could still pull it off as long as we call it something else so it doesn't trigger the pseudocons

National Socialist Party - no good
American National Party - winrar

street sweepers and doctors alike will rejoice to find that their salaries are not equally huge or equally shit. this myth that socialism entails a flat universal wage is the oldest one out there along with de-incentivizing workers. come up with a new line already pls


It looks like we have the same ideals good sir.

You can't of grown up under Socialism in the USSR Unless it's the case that you're too old to be on this site.

Regardless this is not making what I claimed less correct.


These two things are not mutually exclusive as I implied in my previous post.


You'll need to define "working".


I can't watch videos on the broadband I have.

I would appreciate if you selected another source.


You can repeat this statement but it doesn't make it less un-demonstrable.


I'm starting to wonder if you realise what socialism refers to with this statement.

Socialism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system. The two are incommensurable.


Hitler and Mussolini are both fascists and anticommunists.

I hope you realise that all this mudslinging still isn't countering the concerns I raised.


From now on I'm just going to skip over the irrelevant material.

I'm not claiming that the USSR's gains were costless.


I rather think for socialism to work there needs to be decentralisation and separation of powers.

Don't forget to mention that Stalin and Mao weren't socialist too.

[Vlerchan]

Don't forget to mention that Stalin and Mao weren't socialist too.
But Stalin and Mao were both Marxist Socialists?

[Goatzbro]

I think that if we're looking at the cost efficiency of democracy vs other political systems, then we need to consider the trade off of freedom vs national economic standard. Take China for example. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) exerts complete and utter dominance over all areas of Chinese life, including Special Economic Zones, where business is ostensibly free market, but is instead heavily governed by CCP regulations. The CCP are in every crack and crevice of society, with over 76 million members. Because of this, the people are constantly under surveillance and the vast majority are in blissful ignorance of their tragic past and present oppression. However, we need to consider the trade off for this infringement on freedom: the largest and fastest growing economy in the world. Through comprehensive dominance, Deng Xiaoping and subsequent CCP leaders have been able to increase the standard of living for almost all Chinese people, but at the cost of their freedoms. As we can see from the pro-democracy movement of the late 1980s in China, attempts for liberty and representation are costly to economic growth. Deng was not wrong in his assessment of the 1989 Tianaimen Square protests as "counter-revolutionary" in that they hindered economic growth. Today very few people outside of those who lived through it and university students who have studied abroad actually know about the oppression of the CCP (Hundred Flowers Movement and the subsequent Anti-Rightist Campaign 1958, Great Leap Forward 1958-62, Cultural Revolution 1966-1976, Tianaimen Square massacre 1989 etc.). They live in a sheltered society defined by the pursuit of economic gain, with no ability to self determine outside of early education. However, they do so knowing that they live in one of the most successful nations on earth with a plethora of opportunities to succeed and improve their quality of life.

The question is essentially what is more important: Liberty or Economy?

However, this rests on the guarantee of economy at the cost of liberty. Many dictatorial nations in the past have not provided adequate economic reform. There is simply too much uncertainty in the idea of giving power to a central body because they can get more done than a democratically elected one.

I would prefer a democratic system with adequate social safety nets for which funding can not be cut, where all people have the ability to succeed, while at the same time maintaining human rights and freedoms.

[BlueFoot]

But Stalin and Mao were both Marxist Socialists?

They technically weren't, for example Stalin thought he was, but Marxism does not condone killing people to get communism, Stalin was more like Hitler than socialist.

[Vlerchan]

[F]or example Stalin thought he was, but Marxism does not condone killing people to get communism[.]
I have no idea where this was gathered from.

Marxism is built on the idea of an impending revolution where the Bourgeois would be washed out in a sea of blood. The use of violence as a legitimate tool in the class struggle has been built on across the texts if numerous authors - Sorel's 'Reflections on Violence' being the greatest I believe.

Stalin was more like Hitler than socialist.
Because Stalin killed people?

[Goatzbro]

But Stalin and Mao were both Marxist Socialists?
Mao was not. Marx believed that the proletarian revolution would take place in urban centers, while Mao believed that the peasantry were the heart of communist thought. While this seems like a minor difference, it actually caused quite a stir and even contributed to the Sino-Soviet split in 1959.

Stalin was more like Hitler than socialist.
You could argue that Stalin and Hitler were both dictators (which by any reasonable definition they both were), but simply because they killed people that doesn't make them the same. If that kind of logic were allowed, then you might say that President Truman was a dictator because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but he clearly wasn't.

[Vlerchan]

Marx believed that the proletarian revolution would take place in urban centers, while Mao believed that the peasantry were the heart of communist thought.
[I]n spite of certain unavoidable weaknesses, it's smallness [...], it's youth [...], its low educational level [...], the Chinese proletariat is nonetheless the basic motive force of the Chinese revolution. Unless it is led by the proletariat, the Chinese revolution cannot possibly succeed. [... However,] In order to win, it must unite, according to varying circumstances, with all classes and strata that can take part in the revolution, and must organize a revolutionary united front [...]

[...] The poor peasants in China, together with the farm labourers, form about 70 per cent of the rural population. They are the broad peasant masses with no land or insufficient land, the semi-proletariat of the countryside, the biggest motive force of the Chinese revolution, the natural and most reliable ally of the proletariat and the main contingent of China's revolutionary forces. Only under the leadership of the proletariat can the poor and middle peasants achieve their liberation, and only by forming a firm alliance with the poor and middle peasants can the proletariat lead the revolution to victory.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_23.htm

So, that's not quite correct. Mao considered the peasant class the working centre of the revolution in China and other 'semi-feudalist' states. It was a specific theory developed for a specific material conditions. It was Mao's belief that the Chinese proletariat were underdeveloped (and so where the national bourgeois!) and that the peasant class had the most revolutionary potential, so he relied on the peasant class to form the bulk of his revolutionary force.

He didn't believe that the results on his revolution constituted a socialist state (or near): That's the reason the Great Leap Forward was attempted - rapid industrialisation to proletarize the Chinese people.

[Goatzbro]

So, that's not quite correct. Mao considered the peasant class the working centre of the revolution in China and other 'semi-feudalist' states. It was a specific theory developed for a specific material conditions. It was Mao's belief that the Chinese proletariat were underdeveloped (and so where the national bourgeois!) and that the peasant class had the most revolutionary potential, so he relied on the peasant class to form the bulk of his revolutionary force.

He didn't believe that the results on his revolution constituted a socialist state (or near): That's the reason the Great Leap Forward was attempted - rapid industrialisation to proletarize the Chinese people.
Thanks for the clarification, but I think that regardless of the ideological leanings of one leader, communism was an utter failure as a way to industrialize China. It was only the radical economic reform and authoritarianism of Deng Xiaoping which made China into what it is today.

I'm not saying that communism can't work in a theoretical society or even a real society, but that it needs a very specific set of circumstances which are just not present in any industrialized nation today.

[Stronk Serb]

I think that if we're looking at the cost efficiency of democracy vs other political systems, then we need to consider the trade off of freedom vs national economic standard. Take China for example. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) exerts complete and utter dominance over all areas of Chinese life, including Special Economic Zones, where business is ostensibly free market, but is instead heavily governed by CCP regulations. The CCP are in every crack and crevice of society, with over 76 million members. Because of this, the people are constantly under surveillance and the vast majority are in blissful ignorance of their tragic past and present oppression. However, we need to consider the trade off for this infringement on freedom: the largest and fastest growing economy in the world. Through comprehensive dominance, Deng Xiaoping and subsequent CCP leaders have been able to increase the standard of living for almost all Chinese people, but at the cost of their freedoms. As we can see from the pro-democracy movement of the late 1980s in China, attempts for liberty and representation are costly to economic growth. Deng was not wrong in his assessment of the 1989 Tianaimen Square protests as "counter-revolutionary" in that they hindered economic growth. Today very few people outside of those who lived through it and university students who have studied abroad actually know about the oppression of the CCP (Hundred Flowers Movement and the subsequent Anti-Rightist Campaign 1958, Great Leap Forward 1958-62, Cultural Revolution 1966-1976, Tianaimen Square massacre 1989 etc.). They live in a sheltered society defined by the pursuit of economic gain, with no ability to self determine outside of early education. However, they do so knowing that they live in one of the most successful nations on earth with a plethora of opportunities to succeed and improve their quality of life.

The question is essentially what is more important: Liberty or Economy?

However, this rests on the guarantee of economy at the cost of liberty. Many dictatorial nations in the past have not provided adequate economic reform. There is simply too much uncertainty in the idea of giving power to a central body because they can get more done than a democratically elected one.

I would prefer a democratic system with adequate social safety nets for which funding can not be cut, where all people have the ability to succeed, while at the same time maintaining human rights and freedoms.

I would gladly get my daily bread fresh and in time and have big bro peeking at me when I leave my house than get my throat sliced by some crackhead in the street.

[Melkor]

Thanks for the clarification, but I think that regardless of the ideological leanings of one leader, communism was an utter failure as a way to industrialize China. It was only the radical economic reform and authoritarianism of Deng Xiaoping which made China into what it is today.

At the time of chairman Mao's Long March, most of the population of China was made out of farmers so of course communism would have been a failure; Communism and its fundamentals is for industrialised western nations which during late 19th century most of their population was made out of middle/lower class factory workers and miners. Deng Xiaoping turned China to more of a capitalist nation which is basically what USA is; yet difference being that it is a one party state with a meaningless communist party.
Back to the main topic; democracy is not a success, democracy is a system of government that majority would rule which can be a big failure for example, Bill C-51 in Canada. The majority of the parliament have voted for it, are they right? Hell no, taking away more freedoms in the name of counter terrorism. To replace Democracy, I cannot say any of these options either, the options being, Oligarchy, Anarchy, Monarchy and Republic which in their turn they can be failures themselves. In my opinion if there is a way to bring a better alternative for Democracy is to form a government that all it does is for the greater good of all citizens and not what is deemed right at the time being.