Preferred Political Government Power?

What Government power do you prefer?
Which power would you likely use?
If you could run a country what government power would you pick?

Monarchy: A king or queen, who sometimes has absolute power. Power is passed along through the family

Capitalism: In a capitalist or free-market economy, people own their own businesses and property and must buy services for private use, such as healthcare.

Socialism: Socialist governments own many of the larger industries and provide education, health and welfare services while allowing citizens some economic choices

Communism: In a communist country, the government owns all businesses and farms and provides its people's healthcare, education and welfare.

Dictatorship: Rule by a single leader who has not been elected and may use force to keep control. In a military dictatorship, the army is in control. Usually, there is little or no attention to public opinion or individual rights.

Totalitarian: Rule by a single political party. People are forced to do what the government tells them and may also be prevented from leaving the country.

Theocracy: A form of government where the rulers claim to be ruling on behalf of a set of religious ideas, or as direct agents of a deity.

Parliamentary: A parliamentary system is led by representatives of the people. Each is chosen as a member of a political party and remains in power as long as his/her party does

Republic: A republic is led by representatives of the voters. Each is individually chosen for a set period of time.

Anarchy: Anarchy is a situation where there is no government.
This can happen after a civil war in a country, when a government has been destroyed and rival groups are fighting to take its place.

Revolutionary: The existing structure is overthrown by a completely new group. The new group can be very small - such as the military - or very large - as in a popular revolution. After a period of time, this 'becomes' one of the other type of government (unless there is another coup or uprising).

Oligarchy/Plutocracy: A form of government which consists of rule by an elite group who rule in their own interests, especially the accumulation of wealth and privilege. Only certain members of society have a valid voice in the government. This can reflect (but is not limited to) economic interests, a particular religious tradition (theocracy), or familial rule (monarchy).

Democracy: In a democracy, the government is elected by the people. Everyone who is eligible to vote - which is a majority of the population - has a chance to have their say over who runs the country.

Note: All post are opinionated! Do not ATTACK others on their opinion and or beliefs.

Really hard to say, all have their merits and flaws. I have a soft spot for the libertarian way of looking at things but that is also outflawing it's merits in the end if you are too serious about it. There is no good answer, concensus in society will have to do, there is no need to look at politics and ideoligy really

First of all, there needs to be a "Gah" option.

Second of all, even if we ignore the huge errors in definitions, the entire concept is so simplified that the results would be devoid of any meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Really hard to say, all have their merits and flaws. I have a soft spot for the libertarian way of looking at things but that is also outflawing it's merits in the end if you are too serious about it. There is no good answer, concensus in society will have to do, there is no need to look at politics and ideoligy really

---

I understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

First of all, there needs to be a "Gah" option.

Second of all, even if we ignore the huge errors in definitions, the entire concept is so simplified that the results would be devoid of any meaning.

---

1. What?
2. Alright understandable but this post is all opinionated.

I do not really understand where you see the differences between Republic, Democracy, Parliamentary.

A real alternative would have been anarchy, but with a complete different definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlad Dracula

but this post is all opinionated.

---

It's not.

A political system can be capitalist, dictatorial, totalitarian and republican at the same time.

Likewise a monarchy may be socialist, democratic and parliamentarian.

You have everything here, from ownership of the capital, to the way head os state is chosen, to the way power and control are handled, to election cycles...

It doesn't make any sense really. It's like picking who would win in a fight between Chicago Bulls, Barcelona, New York Yankees or New Zealand's rugby team. Even if we reach a conclusion, it is still irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It's not.

A political system can be capitalist, dictatorial, totalitarian and republican at the same time.

Likewise a monarchy may be socialist, democratic and parliamentarian.

You have everything here, from ownership of the capital, to the way head os state is chosen, to the way power and control are handled, to election cycles...

It doesn't make any sense really. It's like picking who would win in a fight between Chicago Bulls, Barcelona, New York Yankees or New Zealand's rugby team. Even if we reach a conclusion, it is still irrelevant.

---

The New Zealand rugby team. It will win any fight. Unless Gurkhas get involved.

I prefer a monarchy, my monarchy.

Bow plebs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I prefer a monarchy, my monarchy.

Bow plebs.

---

Imperium of a Man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It doesn't make any sense really. It's like picking who would win in a fight between Chicago Bulls, Barcelona, New York Yankees or New Zealand's rugby team. Even if we reach a conclusion, it is still irrelevant.

---

Clearly it is Manchester United.

Poll fail.

Your definition of communism is wrong. Your definition of communism is actually socialism. Your definition of socialism is actually centrist/liberalism. Your definition of anarchy is actually chaos. Capitalism is not the free market. Capitalism is the structuring of society to favour capital - big money.

I must say I am a bit surprised that 20 members have voted for Communism, especially since, until the morning, Communism had only gained my vote.

I doubt the Backroom currently even has 20 users. Have we been attacked by communism-sympathizing spambots?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

I must say I am a bit surprised that 20 members have voted for Communism, especially since, until the morning, Communism had only gained my vote.

I doubt the Backroom currently even has 20 users. Have we been attacked by communism-sympathizing spambots?

---

I agree it wasnt like that when I checked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

I must say I am a bit surprised that 20 members have voted for Communism, especially since, until the morning, Communism had only gained my vote.

I doubt the Backroom currently even has 20 users. Have we been attacked by communism-sympathizing spambots?

---

Clearly I am on the losing bandwagon for picking Socialism.

Communism, because I've always wanted to kill innocents in order to bring on equality.

something is off with this poll. Why are there so many votes?

The future of this thread:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Clearly I am on the losing bandwagon for picking Socialism.

---

Well, observing the current trend, I will soon join you. Between m first comment and the second one, Monarchy has suddenly gained 10 other fans, apart from Greyblades.

I thought that bots were handled by dubious Korean salesmen, not by political activists with absolutist tendencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The New Zealand rugby team. It will win any fight. Unless Gurkhas get involved.

---

I don't know. Have you seen the Yankees roster? There's like 50 of them.

So who were the 3 new (presumably legitimate) votes for Communism?

No idea but I voted for Monarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Poll fail.

Your definition of communism is wrong. Your definition of communism is actually socialism. Your definition of socialism is actually centrist/liberalism. Your definition of anarchy is actually chaos. Capitalism is not the free market. Capitalism is the structuring of society to favour capital - big money.

---

Good points here.

And I am, unlike Idaho, mostly in favor of capitalism as an economic system. As a system of governance, however, Idaho has the right of it and it would trend toward some form of syndicracy. Since I lack the hacker skills or innate magical ability to be a good shadowrunner, I will forgo that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Communism, because I've always wanted to kill innocents in order to bring on equality.

something is off with this poll. Why are there so many votes?

---

Communism is the management of skills, resources, support and laws by communities. It is meant to be localised and democratic.

The moderately disastrous and despotic experiments with state socialism that called themselves communism were much like the pious bringing of Christianity to Africa and America (which killed and enslaved millions).

Ah, another "that wasn't real communism" argument, I'm sure this is going to go well...

Only because the Soviet State existed, that meant that the society wasn't based on a communist basis. The whole point of the Soviet Union was supposed to be to make the society ready for communism. Supposedly.

Anyway, I don't understand why leftists should apologise for the Soviet Union. Did she have failures? Yes. Did she made horrible things? Yes. Was she responsible for an incredible advancement of an almost medieval society, which made it capable of being the first to explore the space or eliminate unalphabetism? Also, yes.

What I know is that most Russians seem to prefer the USSR over the good, capitalist Russia of nowadays.
https://www.rt.com/politics/340158-m...gret-ussr-has/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Only because the Soviet State existed, that meant that the society wasn't based on a communist basis. The whole point of the Soviet Union was supposed to be to make the society ready for communism. Supposedly.

Anyway, I don't understand why leftists should apologise for the Soviet Union. Did she have failures? Yes. Did she made horrible things? Yes. Was she responsible for an incredible advancement of an almost medieval society, which made it capable of being the first to explore the space or eliminate unalphabetism? Also, yes.

What I know is that most Russians seem to prefer the USSR over the good, capitalist Russia of nowadays.
https://www.rt.com/politics/340158-m...gret-ussr-has/

---

Right wingers are simplistic people. They prefer the anecdote, the generality, the known association.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Right wingers are simplistic people. They prefer the anecdote, the generality, the known association.

---

Anecdotes and generalities? What's left for the left-wing to prefer?

Feels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Communism is the management of skills, resources, support and laws by communities. It is meant to be localised and democratic.

The moderately disastrous and despotic experiments with state socialism that called themselves communism were much like the pious bringing of Christianity to Africa and America (which killed and enslaved millions).

---

Well, at least in the Americas is was the virgin field epidemics that accompanied the missionaries that did most of the killing (sadly, I have to note that the word is most as pogroms too accompanied the missionary efforts).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Ah, another "that wasn't real communism" argument, I'm sure this is going to go well...

---

Well it wasn't. Arguably communism cannot work at all beyond the level of a township as the communicative ties manageable by individuals cognitively cannot work well beyond such a communal level without some interposed organizing system -- which then undercuts anything of a true communist nature.

I think Marxism falls on its ear because of the givens used as a predicate to the general theme espoused by Marx (and officially Engels). The stability enacted by "village culture," which was in many ways a practical communism, was not without its merits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Right wingers are simplistic people. They prefer the anecdote, the generality, the known association.

---

Poppycock. Right wingers are no more or less simplistic --as in craving of cognitive simplicity -- as is the progressive. There are rafts of those persons who revel in me & mine good/you & yours bad or suspect thinking on both (all) ends of the political spectrum. If you sir, appreciate or at least tolerate the ambiguities of reality better than many (and I think you do), be happy in your ability to cope with that degree of uncertainty. Many of our peers -- on both sides -- prefer simpler answers (sometimes even when they know they should not).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Poppycock. Right wingers are no more or less simplistic --as in craving of cognitive simplicity -- as is the progressive. There are rafts of those persons who revel in me & mine good/you & yours bad or suspect thinking on both (all) ends of the political spectrum. If you sir, appreciate or at least tolerate the ambiguities of reality better than many (and I think you do), be happy in your ability to cope with that degree of uncertainty. Many of our peers -- on both sides -- prefer simpler answers (sometimes even when they know they should not).

---

Sorry seamus, you are more right wing than me, but in a more acceptable, thoughtful way. You aren't really what I targeting in my unsubtle digs at Greyblades. He's a tory. And an archetypal English tory. The kind that run in packs, and don't believe they need to think as they already know it all. Blind to how they got where they are and carrying around a familiar and unquestioned sense of entitlement, like a stray dog carries fleas.

For communism to work, human cognitive development needs to be on a much lower or much higher level than it is now.

That said, there's no reason why we shouldn't take some good aspects of communism and apply them in a more democratic political system.

The best thing about communism (besides pulling some countries out of a feudal society into an industrial one within a short time) is that it kept capitalism in check, and forced capitalist societies to acknowledge issues of workers and middle class. After the demise of communism, we've generally seen middle class dwindling and the wealthiest class of society becoming even wealthier in most countries, with indications that the trend is going to continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

For communism to work, human cognitive development needs to be on a much lower or much higher level than it is now.

That said, there's no reason why we shouldn't take some good aspects of communism and apply them in a more democratic political system.

The best thing about communism (besides pulling some countries out of a feudal society into an industrial one within a short time) is that it kept capitalism in check, and forced capitalist societies to acknowledge issues of workers and middle class. After the demise of communism, we've generally seen middle class dwindling and the wealthiest class of society becoming even wealthier in most countries, with indications that the trend is going to continue.

---

Here's a bit for a socio-political thriller series - just an intro scene for the pilot:

A spokesman from the US armed forces steps onto the podium to address a joint session of Congress. Reading dryly from the prepared statement, he announces that the armed forces have approved the official position that the top security threat facing the United States and its interests is "wealth disparity, stagnant standards of living, and corporate class warfare". Uproar ensues. While the functionary sweats at the podium waiting for a chance to continue reciting the document, we get a variety of wide and close shots of the pandemonium between the Reps and Senators.

Not even all that far-fetched, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Sorry seamus, you are more right wing than me, but in a more acceptable, thoughtful way. You aren't really what I targeting in my unsubtle digs at Greyblades. He's a tory. And an archetypal English tory. The kind that run in packs, and don't believe they need to think as they already know it all. Blind to how they got where they are and carrying around a familiar and unquestioned sense of entitlement, like a stray dog carries fleas.

---

You mean Thatcherite. There are also the old school One Nation Tories, whom I greatly respect, who balance their belief in conservative institutions with an equal belief in fulfilling duties and responsibilities. Thatcherites take the worst aspects of liberalism and conservatism and combine them into a sense of self entitlement without admitting any responsibilities.

Funny, I thought we were calling it blairism these days.

Quote:

---

Sorry seamus, you are more right wing than me, but in a more acceptable, thoughtful way. You aren't really what I targeting in my unsubtle digs at Greyblades. He's a tory. And an archetypal English tory. The kind that run in packs, and don't believe they need to think as they already know it all. Blind to how they got where they are and carrying around a familiar and unquestioned sense of entitlement, like a stray dog carries fleas.

---

Coming from the person who considers everyone right of stalin is a tory I find myself unable to take the disdane as anything but affirmation of sanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You mean Thatcherite. There are also the old school One Nation Tories, whom I greatly respect, who balance their belief in conservative institutions with an equal belief in fulfilling duties and responsibilities. Thatcherites take the worst aspects of liberalism and conservatism and combine them into a sense of self entitlement without admitting any responsibilities.

---

Definitely tory. What you describe as one nation tory, is the overlap between you and PVC. You are both natural whigs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You are both natural whigs.

---

Forgive me, but how do the 19th-century Whigs compare to modern Liberal Democrats?