Best form of government?

[northcity4]

Lenin almost got soviet socialism working, but WW1 and after stopped that. Do you think that if Lenin could have gotten soviet socialism working Russia would have prevailed to much higher than it is today?

Also, some friends of mine claim theocracy is the only really form of government that can satisfy all opposition to a working government. Agree/disagree? Want to argue a different system? Please respond.

[Fireleaf]

"Democracy is the worst form of government known to man, except for all the others that have been tried."

~ Winston Churchill

[whatifidogetcaught?]

Theocracy only works when everybody believes in the religion. When people don't, they either leave, or it causes religious persecution. Take the Spanish Inquisition. The inquisition ousted Jews and Muslims, both of which were a large religious group that held a lot of monetary power and knowledge. This would hurt Spain badly, and some say their economy was hurt so bad that when Christopher Columbus offered the opportunity to find a new route to India, they had to do it.

Also, what Fireleaf said. Look at other countries like Egypt. They try democracy, but it fails miserably, and repeatedly, with rigged elections. The United States is one of those rare occurrences where it works because the first President we had was willing to listen to others and had no intention to seize power for himself. If you don't have that, democracy can fall apart quickly.

[ARTHANASIOS]

I think this should be into the politics section instead of the philosophy one.

I support Communism in general, but I can also see its flaws. Communism is one of the best political systems, but only if you manage to make it work the way it is supposed to be. The Communist Party must remain pure and ethical for an almost infinite amount of time; pretty difficult if we consider man's own greed and the corruption caused by the power. But, unfortunately, this is true to almost any political system...

In general, I believe Russia has gained more from communism than it has lost because of it, but that's only my personal opinion. It bringed industrial progress, overthrew monarchy, brought more modern/progressive way of thinking, connected a vast country with railroads and electricity and drastically helped in WW2 by defeating the majority of Hitler's army. The quality of life has been improved greatly during the Soviet years in Russia. But, in the Cold War of infiltration, spying and sabotage Soviet Russia had proven to have more traitors and/or corrupted power figures than the Western Capitalism. Those power figures completely ruining the Soviet economy, causing uprisings and leading to the collapse of the political system and the current state of ex-Soviet countries.

[northcity4]

What about this: early on China embraced legalism: rule by fear. Then they had mohists: like the complete opposite. They believed you didn't need to rule by fear since human nature is good. Out of these 2 came the confucianists and later the doaists. China adopted the Confucian philosophy as government...1900's developed neo-confucianism. As of right now, China believes this is the best form of government. Your thoughts?

Theocracy only works when everybody believes in the religion. When people don't, they either leave, or it causes religious persecution. Take the Spanish Inquisition. The inquisition ousted Jews and Muslims, both of which were a large religious group that held a lot of monetary power and knowledge. This would hurt Spain badly, and some say their economy was hurt so bad that when Christopher Columbus offered the opportunity to find a new route to India, they had to do it.

Also, what Fireleaf said. Look at other countries like Egypt. They try democracy, but it fails miserably, and repeatedly, with rigged elections. The United States is one of those rare occurrences where it works because the first President we had was willing to listen to others and had no intention to seize power for himself. If you don't have that, democracy can fall apart quickly.

What if everyone did believe in the religion? Would this then work best?

I think this should be into the politics section instead of the philosophy one.

I support Communism in general, but I can also see its flaws. Communism is one of the best political systems, but only if you manage to make it work the way it is supposed to be. The Communist Party must remain pure and ethical for an almost infinite amount of time; pretty difficult if we consider man's own greed and the corruption caused by the power. But, unfortunately, this is true to almost any political system...

In general, I believe Russia has gained more from communism than it has lost because of it, but that's only my personal opinion. It bringed industrial progress, overthrew monarchy, brought more modern/progressive way of thinking, connected a vast country with railroads and electricity and drastically helped in WW2 by defeating the majority of Hitler's army. The quality of life has been improved greatly during the Soviet years in Russia. But, in the Cold War of infiltration, spying and sabotage Soviet Russia had proven to have more traitors and/or corrupted power figures than the Western Capitalism. Those power figures completely ruining the Soviet economy, causing uprisings and leading to the collapse of the political system and the current state of ex-Soviet countries.

Almost everyone attributes the war communism in Russia to the arms race with America. Let's say still though they attained soviet socialism (trotskey argues communism will not work and has too many flaws and that soviet socialism works better)...do you think the dictator would have stepped down or abused his power of position? I do know why dictators first come about, but when they feel the power, like in china, it's hard to let it go.

[russianspy1234]

Communism is like spandex.  A good idea in theory, but when real people start using it, the results are ugly.

This is fine in philosophy, because really, any result we come up with isn't going to be applicable to the real world.

The general consensus is that the best form of government is a benevolent monarchy, which isn't really feasible, and even if it were, it would be damn near impossible to convince people that it is one.

Communism is not a form of government, it is a financial system, and can easily coexist with democracy or any other way of selecting government leaders.

[Fireleaf]

The problem with communism is that people generally have little incentive to work hard, get a good job and see themselves and their families benefit because of it like they do in capitalist societies. While market capitalism certainly has its flaws, and is maybe not as "fair" as communism, it keeps society motivated. Also, communist governments have historically been either dictatorships or oligarchies, who manage the country's resources to their benefit and not those of the citizens. Maybe good, democratic communist governments are possible, but I doubt it.

Communism is like spandex.  A good idea in theory, but when real people start using it, the results are ugly.

This is fine in philosophy, because really, any result we come up with isn't going to be applicable to the real world.

The general consensus is that the best form of government is a benevolent monarchy, which isn't really feasible, and even if it were, it would be damn near impossible to convince people that it is one.

Communism is not a form of government, it is a financial system, and can easily coexist with democracy or any other way of selecting government leaders.

Exactly. Communism is great on paper but doesn't translate to the real world because of the abuse of power and inevitable corruption.

[northcity4]

Right...no incentive to work hard. In soviet socialism, trotsky took our all charities. If you need money, you work for it. The example is: there are 100 employees and 10 homeless people. Your boss comes in and gives you guys the option: either I have to fire 10% of you or you work 10% less so the last 10% can be worked by those homeless people.

[cometbah]

What about this: early on China embraced legalism: rule by fear. Then they had mohists: like the complete opposite. They believed you didn't need to rule by fear since human nature is good. Out of these 2 came the confucianists and later the doaists. China adopted the Confucian philosophy as government...1900's developed neo-confucianism. As of right now, China believes this is the best form of government. Your thoughts?

Taoism predates Confucianism and Mohism.

Confucianism is very similar to Platonism, and the ideal Confucianist government is very much like Plato's Republic.

Taoism is closest to Anarchism.

[northcity4]

That doesn't answer the question. Explaining time differences and descriptions means nothing.

Also, I am pretty sure Laozi lived after confucious.

[russianspy1234]

Since we are bringing economic systems into this, here's what I will put forth.  The government socializes and provides slightly above the bare necessities.  A very limited selection of clothing.  Basic nutritional needs.  A an apartment to live in (I forget the specific name for it, but its basically one room that combines everything except the bathroom which is separate).  Healthcare.  Public libraries are properly funded to allow access to knowledge and internet.  Phone service as well (it's impossible to get a job without a phone number).  All of this is funded by taxes, and before anyone says that that is unfeasible, it would be pretty easy to do with just a small portion of what we spend on defense in the US.  Everything else remains capitalistic.  The fact that the clothes are basically a uniform and food is bland will allow market pressure to encourage people to work toward the better things, while making sure people have the base necessities when times are rough.  In a system like this, one could probably do away with minimum wage since survival is already provided for.  Will some people abuse it and just not work?  Sure, but then, any system will be abused by some.

[northcity4]

Here is some more support: Back in the 1200s, as opposed to America today, we saw Women and Men as equal. Once we developed machines and people made money (wealth came into the economy), men started to separate themselves as superior. My professors argue that if we eliminate wealth, we can eliminate greed/selfishness which I believe is the abuse you are talking about and I tend to agree.

So, do we have to have a wealth less, or low wealth society for a society to manage as the best kind of society? Would we even need a government at that point? Did we get government as a way of dealing with wealth? Maybe we need a new way other than government to run society with wealth?
--->dictatorships/legalism/communism/soviet socialism/capitalism all seem to fail in this area of running a society that has wealth. Maybe government isn't the answer. Just an idea: your thoughts?