What is your favorite form of government

Im good with a Constitutional Republic.

Communism hasn't actually been put into practice at any point in history. It's all been state capitalism. Marxist thought proposes the power of production is owned by the people, not the government. The only thing we've seen that even approaches true Marxist style government is small, insular communities like the Amish or Hutterites where all the resources and products of labour are owned by the entire community, not any one individual.

Personally, I'd like to see a world where the goal in life is to live life to it's fullest, be completely provided for and not run the rat race chasing spending power that's being increasingly hoarded by the mega-wealthy.

Be completely provided for? So, you think it's someone elses responsibility to provide you with food, shelter, healthcare? Do you think someone else should pay for your internet and buy you a car too? And if someone does all of that for you, what are you going to provide for someone else in return? Because if everyone is provided for, and nobody is doing the providing, then nobody is going to get anything. So whose responsibility is it to provide for you? and who provides for them?

Yes. It's called being a decent human being.

And what will you provide for the people who provide for you? Why should they provide for you and not themselves if you aren't going to provide for them?

It's been attempted numerous times, though. can't be too good of a system if it always leads to a despotic government.

Labour. Or more ideally, everyone provides for everyone else, and nobody controls large sums of wealth.

By whom?

If everyone is being completely provided for, who is doing the providing?

I used to be against communism, but I think i'm actually for it now. People like yourself deserve to experience it first hand. There's no better punishment than giving you what you want.

And what if somebody doesn't want to work and provide for someone else, are they still provided for?

If we have to have a system, a republic.

I personally would like 0 government, so I voted for anarchy. But I am a realist, its never going to happen.

So then, you are fine with absolutely no regulations on things like environment, guns, labor, etc? A company should be allowed to hire children, pay them nothing, and pollute everything around them?

@burntbyhellfire: yeah

Preferably I just want anarchy and peace.

Like I said im a realist, i know its not going to happen.

Man is corrupt by default, so nothing is perfect.

Corporations would probably all fall apart under anarchy tbh.

They probably wouldn't. There would be no regulations stopping them from doing whatever they wanted, Would you be fine with them dumping the waste byproducts of aluminum production into your local river? Without government to enforce regulations, what's going to stop them?

@burntbyhellfire: without government to stop the people we can just burn it down if we dont think its good

And they can just hire people with guns to shoot you in the face when you try.

@burntbyhellfire: then I'll just have to get more people and more guns than them

At first I thought everyone that voted was trolling. Then, I realized it is for real... So, therefore, I decided I will vote communism.

With what money? You're working for slave wages, remember? I know you think you're cool for pretending to support anarchy, but the reality is you have no idea what you're talking about and haven't actually thought anything through.

Republic and democracy aren't exclusives. Republic and monarchy are.

@jeezers: so you've just outed yourself to being what, 12-14 years old?

As if you've made any better points.

You can even have a constitutional monarchy where the monarchy is only ceremonial but acts as the ceremonial sovereign of a state, rather than say, the president like in the US who also happens to be the head of government. But that monarchy then holds no actual ability to wield power and the power of the government is instead held by the head of government, such as the prime minister.

The poll choices are very bizarre. Good thread but I could have done without them.

In terms of my “favourite”, I suppose on a national level a liberal democracy framework like most first world nations have is probably the best way to go. A constitution, rule of law, free press, independent judiciary, etc. With elections going towards electing representatives rather than direct plebiscites or referendums.

Interesting that you view your fellow man as inherently corrupt and that you simultaneously would want an anarchy, when anarchy sounds like the worst possible way to go in that line of reasoning lol. Political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes whom believed that man is inherently a corrupt and dangerous creature decided that the best course of action is essentially an authoritarian dictatorship where the sovereign wielded infinite power and going against the sovereign was tantamount to treason. To protect people and the state from themselves.

Yes, because not everyone is capable of working.

No, it hasn't been attempted. Is North Korea a "democratic" nation because they call themselves one? People just assume "communism" is a bad word because of how the US government spent decades souring the taste towards Marxism/socialism for decades. Heck, even Shillary in her interview with Howard Stern is still on "red scare" mode.

Communism as originally detailed by Marx and Engels, and by extension many forms of socialism (many of which are currently in practice in Europe), is the empowerment of the people. It's a lessening of government and corporate strangleholds on society.

Communism as it has been practiced would have offended Marx. They viewed their system of values as a means of lifting the world out of the feudal age of lord and serf, government and citizen, corporation and consumer. As a means of achieving actual equality in society, not creating despotic authoritarian regimes that murdered millions of people, or in terms of western civilization, created a super-elite class of billionaires that exist solely to exploit workers to hoard wealth.

Heck, I don't even remember where I read it recently, but apparently Lenin warned the Russian government about Stalin, and said they shouldn't put him in power, but hey, we know what happened there.

Because capitalism has got us so far as a society... income inequality at an all-time high, poverty driving people to abuse corporate-backed prescription medication to escape from a depressing reality and a mega-elite class hoarding half the world's spending power among 8 people. Sounds like so much fun!

Yeah, I'd rather "suffer" under a socialist "regime" that taxes everyone fairly, doesn't get involved in resource-based wars for profit of private enterprise and gives the public access to services that are considered by the UN as inalienable human rights. It sounds completely awful to actually be able to live one's life comfortably in financial security knowing that all one's "needs" are actually met.

The US is lucky, they might actually end up with a socialist president this next election (assuming Hillary doesn't have Bernie disappeared) and get some stuff done. Here in Canada, we're stuck with the status quo of the do-nothing Liberals and the Conservatives moving substantially further right and letting the religious nutjobs and racists control their platform. And no one actually addressing the issues of money just disappearing into thin air on social services that are going anywhere but up.

Calm down little man, You're embarrassing yourself

Most western monarchies are like that I believe. Or in theory they are the head of the government, but in practical terms they are merely ceremonial.

@horgen: The head of state and head of government are two different roles/positions. The Queen or monarch acts as the head of state which is a personification of the actual state itself. The head of government however, is the prime minister.

@leicam6: Ah. I mixed up the terms. Thanks for the clarification.

If everyone's needs are being provided for, who is doing the providing?

The government. And they'll start by taking a large portion of the wealth of the extremely wealthy.

There won't be any extremely wealthy people to take anything from. For one, anyone with any wealth will have already left the country before you managed to implement your utopia. For those that stay, any wealth will quickly evaporate. Then when everyone is equally poor, where will you turn to for the provision of your needs? The government only has what it takes from other people - so when there's nothing left to take, then what?

Socialism is not communism. There are many highly socialistic countries that still utilize a capitalistic economy.

@sn0man: The concept of “wealth” is a man made idea just like capitalism is, and capitalism itself is barely 400 years old. A theoretical communist USA would just seize the ill-gotten gains of the ultra wealthy and absorb it into the public. Also, do you really think such a government would allow a large amount of money to freely exit the country? No one would care if the rich fled, only their money is important.

I strongly doubt you’ve actually studied Marxian thought and economics and your questions to that other poster don’t seem to be in good faith.

And what happens when those so called "ill gotten gains" are all gone? They'll evaporate pretty quickly, and with no incentive for the wealthy (or anybody, for that matter) to create additional wealth you'll soon run out of money - along with everything else. What will you do then?

And like I said - people with money would be gone from the country long before your utopia became a reality.

Like the USSR? What happened to them?

Venezuela? The socialist left was holding them up as a shining example of how to do socialism right, right up until they started eating their own pets for food.

I'd love to hear some examples of a functioning highly socialistic society that you'd consider the ideal model.

Anytime Marxism or Communism fails is same excuse: that wasn't proper Marxism or Communism.

High time those that advocate Marxism or Communism accept that that system only exist in a theoretical framework and not in reality.

How will the wealthy leave when they rely on the North American consumer to feed their wealth generation by buying their products and services? The consumer/capitalist relationship is symbiotic, one cannot exist without the other.

And news flash, all the wealth has already left the continent. It's being hoarded in tax havens off-shore, which is why wealth inequality is such a huge issue and poverty at an all-time high. Everyone's already poor genius, the big-time billionaires have already done their damage to the economy. Over 50% of the world's spending power is being held by EIGHT FUCKING PEOPLE.

I always laugh when this excuse comes up from bootlickers/class traitors. Defending these horrible people on a forum isn't going to magically bless you with some of their wealth.

Socialism is the only way to achieve equality in society. Capitalism is a dead-end, and only cares about bringing record-breaking profits to shareholders for the next fiscal quarter. There is no value placed on people in a capitalist society, besides being a means to generate more wealth.

You are right, but communism is a form of socialism, where the power of production is owned by the people, rather than an elite few who hold the rest under an oppressive boot of corporate dominance. In practice, it would be a nation-wide co-operative. Where every "employee" (i.e. citizen) would own a share in the "company" (i.e. country). So whatever benefits the country, would benefit everyone, since everyone would gain an equal share (assuming their contribute labour, those who can not or will not, don't garner as large a share).

I used to be pretty centrist, and thought of myself as a "fiscal conservative" but the more I endure in the capitalist rat race, chasing bills and paycheques, the more I'd rather live in a society where I contribute just as much as everyone else, and have all my needs met, allowing me more time for leisure and growth outside of work.

@sn0man: I’m not advocating either way for or against a communist system but I am aware of Marx’s ideas and theories (of which communism is only a sliver of what he wrote and Capital, his biting critique of capitalism, is a way more fascinating read).

Your issue here is that you’re looking and asking these questions at a communist society, which would essentially be post-capitalist, likely post-scarcity, society through the lens of our current capitalist society where resources are finite. Which misses the point entirely of the kind of system Marx envisioned and which he deemed inevitable because something will inevitably replace capitalism in the future, like how mercantilism was replaced by capitalism.

To answer your question, a communist USA would do just fine printing their own currency and creating “wealth” out of thin air, because our entire monetary and global capital system and way of doing business are entirely manmade and not something that exist inherently in nature. Even the “free market” is something made up. There would just be new rules and systems put in place.

The problems with Venezuela and the Soviet Union is that such states were wholly the wrong places for communism to even spring up. Marx specifically looked at industrial states like the UK and Germany as areas ripe for a proletariat uprising, countries that are rich unlike Venezuela, the USSR, and Mao’s China. These places are fringe states that don’t reflect what Marx thought and are bastardizations of communism.

I don't think you understand what "incentive" means. What's the point of generating any wealth when it will just be taken and redistributed? There is none. Which is why it will quickly evaporate, and everyone will be poorer, not better off.

Also, you might be surprised to realize that even conservative types like myself know our current system stinks. But it's not capitalism that's the problem - it's cronyism.

And what's a "class traitor"?

"Socialism is the only way to achieve equality in society."

Sure, if everyone being equally destitute is your idea of utopian equality.

This is what happens when countries try to do that. In fact, this is a pretty common result of socialist experiments in countries worldwide:

Zimbabwe is in humanitarian meltdown. Food is in such short supply that some people have stopped taking their HIV medicine because they cannot afford to pay for the meals that must accompany tablets. In what was once the breadbasket of southern Africa, many people are down to one meal a day — or less. The World Food Programme says one-third of the country’s 14m people are “marching towards starvation”.

Zimbabwe is in the midst of its worst drought in 40 years. Low dam levels have deprived the country of electricity, adding to misery by plunging hungry people into the dark. But make no mistake. The main cause of Zimbabwe’s suffering is economic mismanagement. Mr Mnangagwa’s government has brought in tough measures, backed by the IMF, to stabilise a wrecked economy. They have made things worse.

After years of massive deficit spending, the government is now living within its means in an effort to get finances back on track and, eventually, re-engage with an international community that treats it as a pariah state. The problem is Zimbabwe has no means by which to live. Zimbabwe’s currency was scrapped in 2009 after a dose of hyperinflation that saw wallets replaced with wheelbarrows. A few years ago, the government introduced bond notes and electronic money, which goes by the catchy name of real-time gross settlement dollars. These were pegged at a fictional one to one to the US dollar, though there were almost no reserves to back them up.

The fiction is now over. In June, in an effort to normalise the whole crazy system, the government abolished the use of US dollars, restoring the fantastical RTGS currency as the sole store of value. Printing stopped. The imaginary peg was abandoned. An RTGS dollar is now worth 10 US cents. Savings have been laid to waste. The price of almost everything has ballooned. A loaf of bread can gobble up a few weeks’ pension. Even civil servants, the nominal middle class in what was once a relatively prosperous country, are paid the equivalent of $1.80 a day, below the international poverty line. Inflation doubled to 175 per cent in July.

The government has suspended the publication of inflation figures. Once again, hyperinflation looms. People have reached breaking point. The opposition is calling for a nationwide strike on Friday. The last time it took similar action in January, security forces reacted with jackbooted ferocity. At least 13 people were killed, dozens of women raped and hundreds beaten up as armed men went house to house. In the aftermath, the opposition went quiet.

This week, Nelson Chamisa, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change leader, is talking the language of revolution. “We now need to do the work, roll up our sleeves and we, as a people, be our own liberators,” he said. The government, mindful of popular uprisings in Algeria and Sudan, is treating the challenge as an existential threat. It will shoot to kill if necessary.

@sn0man: That is a very dishonest example. Zimbabwe is a failed state that also happens to be a wholly capitalist country with a market economy. Nothing about it is communist or even socialist. Nor is it a country where communism would make sense for.

If you consider that example to be valid, then may as well list the current Chinese regime that is the second, soon to be first, richest on nation on earth as a successful example of communism.

Why do you lie?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/zimbabwes-coup-venezuelas-default-and-the-ongoing-failure-of-socialism/

Failed Economies: As Zimbabwe locked down following a military coup this week, Venezuela defaulted on its debt. On the surface, these events in these two countries — one African, the other South American — seem to have little in common. But, in fact, they share two very big things: Both are socialist, and both are failed states.

Indeed, both nations are near collapse, suffering from hyperinflation, economic contraction and widespread hunger. What's most alarming about this is that both countries have been, in the recent past, highly successful as capitalist economies. Today they are basket cases, Marxist-inspired dictatorships that were systematically run into the ground by their socialist leader

In Zimbabwe's case, just 40 years ago it was the richest and most productive country in Africa. Today, it is an utter disaster. This week, after 93-year-old Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe who has led the country since its independence in 1980 tried to position his wife to be his eventual successor, the military stepped in, removing Mugabe from power and putting him under house arrest. Mugabe's wife has fled the country.

"What is clear is that Zimbabwe's economy has collapsed under Robert Mugabe," noted the Sky News website.

Yes, the case against Mugabe's special brand of African socialism is convincing.

Food output fell by half during the 1990s as Mugabe drove European farmers from their lands and gave the farms to his supporters who largely lacked any farming experience. Alarmed by the collapse of the economy and soaring inflation, Mugabe simply declared inflation illegal. And he cracked down on anyone who spoke up in opposition to his insane Marxist policies.

Meanwhile, a needless war in the Congo led to massive indebtedness and soaring interest rates and hyperinflation. Inflation rose from roughly 59% in 2000 to a peak of 80 billion percent at the end of 2008. No that's not a misprint: 80,000,000,000%. In addition to freezing prices, the government froze wages. To enforce its edict, it arrested business owners who were caught charging more than the law allowed.

The result: GDP fell from $6.78 billion in 2001 to $4.4 billion in 2008, World Bank data show.

Following the global financial crisis, Mugabe was forced to back off some of his worst policies, leading to a rebound in the economy in recent years. But Zimbabwe remains one of the poorest and worst run nations on the planet.

Venezuela's socialist path has been slightly different, but the results have been the same.

Just like Zimbabwe, Venezuela once thrived with a large middle class and a strong, oil-based economy. But starting in 1999 under socialist military dictator Hugo Chavez, major swathes of the economy were seized and put under government control and ownership. Venezuela's massive oil reserves were likewise taken over by the government. Today, its state-run oil monopoly barely pumps any crude at all.

@sn0man: None of that disproves what I said. Direct state control in the economy and an authoritarian dictatorship in government doesn’t mean Zimbabwe is communist lol. You’re running into the same problem as earlier when you claimed the USSR is communist, when in practise they aren’t at all.

Mugabe was a authoritarian dictator who ruled with an iron fist and did countless evil deeds. A communist system is inherently against such strong, one-man rule and even more importantly there isn’t common ownership of the means of the production. It’s all under one man using it to enrich themselves.

The word you're looking for is "socialist". And yes, it disproves what you said, just like it - and so many other examples - disprove the preposterous assertion that "real socialism/communism hasn't been tried yet".

I always forget that the Scandinavian countries aren't socialist. They are capitalistic countries with strong welfare programs.

Not sure what happened here, but had to post this as two different posts.

Wow. Are you allowed to say that? That's dangerous speak. More time for leisure sounds like non productive time to produce wealth for our poor suffering wealthy overlords. How can you deny them their n'th yacht?

Why should there be incentive to generate wealth exactly? Why should others be exploited for the benefit of oneself?

A class traitor is someone who is a working class citizen who defends the wealthy elite, who they'll never be friends with or share in their opulence.

You really don't grasp how socialism could actually benefit humanity. That's fine. I was the same way for quite a long time. People with wealth (net worth) greater than $1-2 million shouldn't exist. Once you get past that point, someone else had to be exploited, or taken advantage of to achieve that state.

Billions in wealth is offensive. Hundreds of thousands of people had to be exploited to achieve it. At $15/hour, 40 hours a week, a person would have to work 22,831 YEARS, straight, to acquire $1,000,000,000.00.

At $7.25/hour, which is the US national average minimum wage, someone would have to work 47,263 years to make a billion.

Americans are already living in an "equally destitute utopia", but the ultra-rich and the politicians they own try everything in their power to keep the working class from realizing it. That's why everyone is so content to throw away perfectly good commodities to replace it with the next over-priced piece of technology that was manufactured for a fraction of the price they sell it for by children in a third-world country.