There's No Party Like...

[Chris (Ningmaster)]

a Communist's party.

What is your favorite politcal party/method of governance? It doesnt have to be one that works or exists or has been morally responsible in practice or even in theory. You don't even have to have lived there or even heard tons about it. As much as I hate to say it, Anarchy is an option. Although i will argue to the death that it would never last five minuets.

If you are unsure, why not head over to www.nationstates.net and create a new nation, then it'll give you a very simplified political ideology to you. I just took the beginning test again, and got democratic socialism. (no personal information is required to sign up, takes <5 mins)

Be specific!

[Decepticon]

Anarchy--that I run.

Alternatively, benevolent dictatorship--that I run.

[BC]

The idea of running Anarchy completly destroys the point of anarchy, which is to have no government at all.

My personal favorite. BC-ism, commonly known as perfection.

[Decepticon]

Way to miss the reference.

[Squaltch]

....it's doctor horrible's turn!

[Decepticon]

You people all have to learn, this world is going to burn! Burn! Yeah, it's two 'r's, h-o-r-r-i, BURN!

[Grey Area]

Anarchy, only after science brings an end to scarcity.

Until then, Capitalism , I think the free market is the best way to get post scarcity technology

[sarawr]

my personal favorite is benevolent anarchist dictatorship (it kinda contradicts itself but i like it anyways)

[Jasmine]

either Communism (because I'm a Russian history geek) or the kind of monarchy depicted by Machiavelli in "The Prince"

neither would ever work well, but I find them the most interesting

[alytron]

While I am all about the Marxism, I recognize that a socialist mix is probably the best, at least now. Capitalism is a horrible system in and of itself, but generally mixed socialist countries seem to have the best standards of living, education, health, etc etc. It does, of course, depend on the mix. I guess technically the USA is a mix, but imo not a very effective one.

However most people have very, very distorted views of communism, socialism, capitalism, feudalism, etc. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

[Decepticon]

To see how distorted you need only look up at the post(s) above yours, which compares communism to a monarchy.

Capitalism, communism, and socialism (which is more or less communism lite) are not modes of governance but rather ways to control money. Obviously the governance must change in some ways to accommodate new economic models, but it's entirely possible to have democratic communism, anarchic communism, anarchic capitalism (this would actually be the most 'true' form of anarchy that still includes money, as socialism and communism would require someone to redistribute the wealth), democratic capitalism, monarchic communism, monarchic socialism, etc. etc. on into the end of time.

I'm not entirely certain whether Machiavellian monarchy would mesh perfectly with communism (lacking The Prince for reference), but I can't remember much of it that would directly conflict.

[alytron]

"Capitalism, communism, and socialism (which is more or less communism lite) are not modes of governance but rather ways to control money."

Yeah, they're economic systems, but when you look at communism (esp Marxism) it is also a political ideology, and inherently democratic. If you break it down, Marxism in progress is socialism, which he theorized would end essentially in a form of anarchy: A classless, stateless, borderless world. part of the problem is that anyone can call their system anything they want to. Stalin could call what he did 'communism', but it was proletarian bonapartism.

Unless people bother to read the actual theories and gather information about any of these systems (be they economic, social or both) including, maybe even most of all, capitalism, it's very difficult to properly discuss them. As long as a persons ideas of communism come from McCarthy, where is real discussion and debate to grow from?

[Decepticon]

But then on the other hand you have a lot of people who say that the only way to create 'communism' is to have a ruling body which can redistribute the wealth evenly, otherwise human nature gets in the way and everyone keeps what they produce except what they must trade to acquire goods they can not produce.

This is actually the argument used to create the fascist 'communist' states we've seen in the past.

That is, unless of course, you have a solution to the human need to protect one's 'clan' or 'family' by hoarding goods as it extends into collecting and hoarding more than could ever possibly be needed.