• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Favorite/best form of government?

Favorite/best form of government?

  • Democracy/republic

    Votes: 26 76.5%

  • Monarchy (constitutional/absolute)

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Theocracy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Anarchy

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • Other (explain in post)

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • Total voters
    34
(R)IGHTeous 1 said:
Call me old fashioned, whatever, but I gotta serious soft spot for monarchy/royalty, constitutional of course.

I enjoy the ceremonial glamor, honor, tradition, etc. A monarch exudes more strength, and inspires more pride from me, then an elected head of state does. Serving one seems cooler than serving say....Obama.

The British government model seems pretty perfect to me.

Yall?
Click to expand...

Glamour, honor, tradition... maybe you'd like being a Catholic.

Check out Benedict rocking his prada hush puppies.

pope%20benedict%20prada.jpg
 
NGNM85 said:
I really don't think we have to wait for some kind of 'Singularity'-type event. I think virtually all the prequisites already exist. At the very least, we are clearly capable of something more humane and equitable than the status quo.
Click to expand...

Most people think they have to have a federal government functioning like babysitter to keep them from going savage on each other. Try telling a Conservative that they are socially and psychologically dependent on unnecessary big government, it's a funny conversation.
 
SheWolf said:
Most people think they have to have a federal government functioning like babysitter to keep them from going savage on each other. Try telling a Conservative that they are socially and psychologically dependent on unnecessary big government, it's a funny conversation.
Click to expand...

It very much like discussing morality with devout Christians. They simply cannot accept the idea of moral behavior that is not guided by scripture. They'll ask me, in complete seriousness; 'Well, why don't you just go around killing people?' They're being completely genuine. It's just incomprehensible to them.
 
(R)IGHTeous 1 said:
Call me old fashioned, whatever, but I gotta serious soft spot for monarchy/royalty, constitutional of course.

I enjoy the ceremonial glamor, honor, tradition, etc. A monarch exudes more strength, and inspires more pride from me, then an elected head of state does. Serving one seems cooler than serving say....Obama.

The British government model seems pretty perfect to me.

Yall?
Click to expand...

I hate the idea of spending money on a useless figurehead just so there can be tradition.
 
(R)IGHTeous 1 said:
Call me old fashioned, whatever, but I gotta serious soft spot for monarchy/royalty, constitutional of course.

I enjoy the ceremonial glamor, honor, tradition, etc. A monarch exudes more strength, and inspires more pride from me, then an elected head of state does. Serving one seems cooler than serving say....Obama.

The British government model seems pretty perfect to me.

Yall?
Click to expand...

I prefer our form of Government - Republic. But our current version has been bastardized and mishapen.

I don't think that pomp and pagentry should be an intricate part of governance - that can be obtained via non political means quite easily.
 
Jeezy said:
I can't really see this being a lasting form of government on a global scale. It would require an almost inhuman amount of tacit consent to something really intangible...and ultimately some brute enforcement.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I just really don't find this very pursuasive.

Jeezy said:
Not at all surprised that the historical examples are on a very small scale, short term, in a backdrop of general social disorganization and unrest.
Click to expand...

The Anarchist federation in revolutionary Spain encompassed hundreds of thousands of individuals, over a period of years, in a fairly modern, sophisticated society. It ultimately collapsed, however, I don't see that this can rightfully described as a failure, as it occurred not because of some lack of planning or organization, but, rather, internal strife on the part of Communist groups in thrall to Moscow, and, more importantly, a takeover by Franco's fascists, backed by Hitler's Wehrmacht. Also, when criticisizing the lack of alternative models, or stable alternative models, one must acknowledge that both of the superpowers spent about half a century, and considerable resources, to destroy alternative models, by any means necessary. On the Soviet side, this included brutal internal repression, the dismantling of the Soviets, Krondstadt, etc. In the case of the United States; Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc. This continues today, with regards to Cuba, or Venezuela, for example. 'Successful defiance' must be undermined at all costs.
 
Democratic republic where freedom is legal. I wish we had such a government.
 
I hate royalty and religion so theocracy and monarchy are out. I would like to leave my apartment without a group of punks robbing my apartment so I will vote for Republic.
 
Cold Highway said:
I would like to leave my apartment without a group of punks robbing my apartment so I will vote for Republic.
Click to expand...

You do live in a nation-state, which is a republic; and there is no guaruntee your apartment won't be robbed. Theft can occur within or without a nation-state. There's no fundamental connection.
 
NGNM85 said:
I don't see how anyone could definitively say this. Where is the historical evidence to verify this contention? That's possible; but I think people display a confidence in such assertions that isn't necessarily warranted.
Click to expand...

The evidence is in the Soviet Union and all the other places that tried and failed to institute pure Communism. It's just too unstable, and too vulnerable to someone seizing power.

Also, just wondering, how come you identify as a Libertarian if you favor anarcho-syndicalism? Libertarianism is on the opposite side of the economic spectrum.
 
atrasicarius said:
The evidence is in the Soviet Union and all the other places that tried and failed to institute pure Communism. It's just too unstable, and too vulnerable to someone seizing power.
Click to expand...

Negative. Bolshevism, and it's hard-line, authoritarian antecedents, were a significant philosophical departure from the dominent Socialist intellectual currents of the day. It was widely criticized, on these grounds, by many, if not most, of the leading Marxists of the day, including Anton Pannekoek, Karl Korsch, Rosa Luxemburg, etc., as well as the Anarchists; Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, etc.

atrasicarius said:
Also, just wondering, how come you identify as a Libertarian if you favor anarcho-syndicalism? Libertarianism is on the opposite side of the economic spectrum.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Libertarian literally means a range of Socialist thought, real Socialism, including Anarchism, and some schools of Marxism.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
NGNM85 said:
No, it isn't. Libertarian literally means a range of Socialist thought, real Socialism, including Anarchism, and some schools of Marxism.
Click to expand...

You might have a historical claim to the name, but it definitely isn't apt to describe your beliefs. Libertarian-socialists can hardly be said to support liberty if you don't support the human right to the ownership of private property. You prefer authority to liberty, so it makes far more sense to call your school of thought "Authoritarian."
 
Guy Incognito said:
You might have a historical claim to the name, but it definitely isn't apt to describe your beliefs. Libertarian-socialists can hardly be said to support liberty if you don't support the human right to the ownership of private property. You prefer authority to liberty, so it makes far more sense to call your school of thought "Authoritarian."
Click to expand...

file.php
 
NGNM85 said:
Negative. Bolshevism, and it's hard-line, authoritarian antecedents, were a significant philosophical departure from the dominent Socialist intellectual currents of the day. It was widely criticized, on these grounds, by many, if not most, of the leading Marxists of the day, including Anton Pannekoek, Karl Korsch, Rosa Luxemburg, etc., as well as the Anarchists; Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, etc.
Click to expand...

That's what it became, but it started as a legitimate socialist revolution. It got hijacked by the Bolsheviks partway through, which in my view was inevitable given the technological level of the time period. They just weren't ready for pure communism, and we still aren't ready, imo. Hopefully someday we will be.

NGNM85 said:
No, it isn't. Libertarian literally means a range of Socialist thought, real Socialism, including Anarchism, and some schools of Marxism.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

That's its original meaning, but today it's pretty much understood to mean socially liberal and economically conservative. Anarcho-syndicalism is both socially and economically liberal. If you insist on using the historical meaning of the word, you're going to confuse people.
 
Libertarianism = some schools of Marxism and socialism...

Is retarded.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You might have a historical claim to the name, but it definitely isn't apt to describe your beliefs. Libertarian-socialists can hardly be said to support liberty if you don't support the human right to the ownership of private property. You prefer authority to liberty, so it makes far more sense to call your school of thought "Authoritarian."
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

I think you're misunderstanding the context of the word 'property.' Anarchism makes a distinction between 'property' and 'posessions.' Your things; clothes, food, coffee-maker, remastered edition of the Star Wars trilogy, old issues of National Geographic, and your collection of Matryoshka dolls are all yours, and no-one has any right to them. However, you do not have the right to claim the means of production; a field, a factory, etc., and, by doing so, extort others for the proceeds of their labor. No-one has the 'right' to do that, any more than one has the 'right' to commit rape, or vandalism, etc. Also, under this school of Socialist thought, the capital is controlled not by a monolithic regime of bureaucrats, but, directly, by the laborers and the members of the community, themselves. This is the least authoritarian model of a society than one could envision.
 
atrasicarius said:
That's what it became, but it started as a legitimate socialist revolution. It got hijacked by the Bolsheviks partway through, which in my view was inevitable given the technological level of the time period.
Click to expand...

Bolshevism being a significant philosophical deviation from Libertarian Socialism; real Socialism.


atrasicarius said:
They just weren't ready for pure communism, and we still aren't ready, imo. Hopefully someday we will be.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that they weren't ready. We'll never know if they were ready or not, because Socialism was ground into the dust by the Bolsheviks.

You say that as if you were stating the atomic weight of cobalt. I don't see any evidence that definitively proves this conclusion, not even close. In either case, it should not prevent us from identifying and dismantling existing institutions of oppression, to the extent we are able.

atrasicarius said:
That's its original meaning, but today it's pretty much understood to mean socially liberal and economically conservative. Anarcho-syndicalism is both socially and economically liberal. If you insist on using the historical meaning of the word, you're going to confuse people.
Click to expand...

No, that definition has only existed for almost fifty years, and is virtually exclusively confined to North America. I use the literal definition, which has existed for well over a century, and is still used, in it's original context, around the world. It's not my fault other people are deficient. I didn't make them deficient.
 
ecofarm said:
Libertarianism = some schools of Marxism and socialism...

Is retarded.
Click to expand...

It's a legitimate ideology and has been for over 150 years. Infact, the word was invented to describe French anarchists/communists in the 19th century and has been used in this way ever since. The Libertarian Party in the US has been around for about 40 years, and is what comes to mind when Americans hear the word "libertarian" these days.

I'm a libertarian socialist so I chose "anarchy" from the poll. It doesn't make sense to exclude "democracy", I would have chosen both.
 
NGNM85 said:
Like I said, I just really don't find this very pursuasive.
Click to expand...

Fine, but the evidence is there for you to interpret.

NGNM85 said:
The Anarchist federation in revolutionary Spain encompassed hundreds of thousands of individuals, over a period of years, in a fairly modern, sophisticated society.
Click to expand...

3 years, during a civil war, on the community level.

My point stands; short term, backdrop of unrest, small scale.

NGNM85 said:
It ultimately collapsed, however, I don't see that this can rightfully described as a failure, as it occurred not because of some lack of planning or organization, but, rather, internal strife on the part of Communist groups in thrall to Moscow, and, more importantly, a takeover by Franco's fascists, backed by Hitler's Wehrmacht. Also, when criticisizing the lack of alternative models, or stable alternative models, one must acknowledge that both of the superpowers spent about half a century, and considerable resources, to destroy alternative models, by any means necessary. On the Soviet side, this included brutal internal repression, the dismantling of the Soviets, Krondstadt, etc. In the case of the United States; Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc. This continues today, with regards to Cuba, or Venezuela, for example. 'Successful defiance' must be undermined at all costs.
Click to expand...

Vietnam, Chile, and Nicaragua were not going to be Anarchist-Syndicalist states, so it doesn't really affect my point. The systems at Nargen and Kronstadt were on a small scale and enforced by soldiers, which also falls under my original post. It's not really about beating down alternative government -- the US interventions are really more about callous realpolitik than anything else. It's about anarcho-syndicalism being far too intangible to last. If you don't happen to think so that's certainly acceptable, but it's my opinion that the "lab results" will (and to some extent, already have) proven you wrong.
 
Democracy/republic. The British monarchy system disgusts me a little. A state should have no business using tax money to prop up and give status to a small group of people just because they were born into a particular family. In an equal society there is no nobility, you should have to earn a status like that.

And anarchy doesn't work either because it fails to get around the ultimate reality that force is sometimes necessary in society, and that's why government has to be there. But I'm opening a can of worms on that one..
 
Jeezy said:
Fine, but the evidence is there for you to interpret.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Jeezy said:
3 years, during a civil war,..
Click to expand...


Technically, yes, but these were stable communities. People worked, kids went to school, etc.


Jeezy said:
on the community level.
Click to expand...


Some of those communities were very large, urban areas.


Jeezy said:
My point stands; short term, backdrop of unrest, small scale.
Click to expand...

However, again, I think it's important to note that the Spanish Anarchist federation was, internally, quite stable. It collapsed, in a smaller part, to subversion from Communist groups allied with the Soviet Union, and, much more importantly, because it was invaded by an armed force, backed by, what was then, the most formidible, and technologically sophisticated army on Earth. It's not their fault for being bombed to **** by the Luftwaffe.

Jeezy said:
Vietnam, Chile, and Nicaragua were not going to be Anarchist-Syndicalist states, so it doesn't really affect my point.
Click to expand...


They were alternative social and economic models.


Jeezy said:
The systems at Nargen and Kronstadt were on a small scale and enforced by soldiers, which also falls under my original post. It's not really about beating down alternative government -- the US interventions are really more about callous realpolitik than anything else.
Click to expand...


Very little happens for just one reason, alone. One of the primary reasons, again, for crushing alternative models, especially in the case of South America, was to prevent what was called 'successful defiance.' It's the same reason why the auto companies recalled and destroyed all the electric cars they made once they got the legislation in California overturned. The idea is dangerous. If people see a better alternative, they'll start asking why they can't have it, as well.


Jeezy said:
It's about anarcho-syndicalism being far too intangible to last. If you don't happen to think so that's certainly acceptable, but it's my opinion that the "lab results" will (and to some extent, already have) proven you wrong.
Click to expand...


That's a question of interpretation. Again, I just don't find the evidence to be definitive. In either case, again; this should not prevent us from dismantling the existing institutions of oppression, to create the most free, just, and equitable society that we can.
 
Last edited:
CarlF said:
And anarchy doesn't work either because it fails to get around the ultimate reality that force is sometimes necessary in society, and that's why government has to be there.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you feel you require a massive, monolithic institution to force you to do?

Is it possible this could be achieved by other means?

CarlF said:
But I'm opening a can of worms on that one..
Click to expand...

That's a fair assessment.
 
NGNM85 said:
Technically, yes, but these were stable communities. People worked, kids went to school, etc.
Click to expand...

Their stability is debatable, particularly with the backdrop of war and Anarchist militias keeping the peace.

NGNM85 said:
Some of those communities were very large, urban areas.
Click to expand...

Where, besides the Catalonia/Barcelona area, was anarcho-syndicalism specifically implemented during the Spanish civil war? Fraga, Alcorisa....it's all on the town level. They could not have possibly formed an anarcho-syndicalist state in the total absence of bureaucracy.

You can say that outside forces played a role, but that structure would never have sustained itself. Yes, industrial production improved but that was mostly because an armed group of anarchists brought order to a previously revolting region, dominated by aloof aristocrats who literally didn't care at all. There's no evidence to suggest that Anarcho-Syndicalism could truly be implemented on a scale bigger than a town, sans bureaucracy, sans the trappings of a modern state...and common sense would lead us to believe that the evidence would rule against Anarcho-Syndicalism anyway. I reject the premise that the only, or even the main reason for Anarcho-Syndicalism's obscurity is that that superpowers are keeping it down. They certainly failed to do that with mainstream Communism and socialism. People look at this idea and say, "it's ridiculous." I can't blame them. :shrug:
 
NGNM85 said:
Bolshevism being a significant philosophical deviation from Libertarian Socialism; real Socialism.

It wasn't that they weren't ready. We'll never know if they were ready or not, because Socialism was ground into the dust by the Bolsheviks.
Click to expand...

At the time of the Russian Revolution, Russia was not in any way industrialized. Despite its enormous flaws, the Bolsheviks rapidly industrialized the country. An anarchistic society wouldn't have been able to do that.

NGNM85 said:
You say that as if you were stating the atomic weight of cobalt. I don't see any evidence that definitively proves this conclusion, not even close. In either case, it should not prevent us from identifying and dismantling existing institutions of oppression, to the extent we are able.
Click to expand...

On that we agree.

NGNM85 said:
No, that definition has only existed for almost fifty years, and is virtually exclusively confined to North America. I use the literal definition, which has existed for well over a century, and is still used, in it's original context, around the world. It's not my fault other people are deficient. I didn't make them deficient.
Click to expand...

Liberals were originally people who supported free market capitalism. Now liberal has become a left wing term, and libertarian has become right wing. Changing terms really aren't that big of a deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom