In the end, what's the most preferable political system, democracy/republicanism, monarchy or something else?

I posted it in /pol/, bumped it, and received no answers. The people there don't want to discuss anything else than twitter feminists and "happenings"
>whatever sociopath
Why would absolutism imply sociopathy?
inb4 Orwell quote

Its hard to guarante it . But these things take time to end and fuck the things up like 50 years, when democracy one government can fuck in 5-8 years.

>it probably only works on a smaller scale
Not only does it require the active involvement of citizens, it also requires a certain level of education as well as concern for one's country
Nowadays, neither of these things are guaranteed when you pick a random individual from the general population.

There are two answers to this question
1. What is the most preferable to the whole population of the present state: in the case of the state that lords over me then constitutional monarchy
2. What is most preferable to you personally: in my case then anarchism with a mutualist economy.
3. What is (as far as you are concerned (because lets face it, that's what being objective amounts to as far as politics goes)) is objective: anarchism with a mutualist economy (assuming utilitarian morality): anarchism with a mutualist economy.

Wait, I meant there are three answers to this question.

Athenian democracy was shit. Government filled with corrupt oligarchs, only the rich could vote, constant loopholes violating democratic values, senators going to war for economic benefit, etc..

Not really different from modern democracy.

Theocracy under Sharia law.

It's literally perfect system of government and Europe is about to be convinced it's true. Then US, then whole world.

No, it's been established state capitalism doesn't work.

Yugoslavia worked. UNTIL nationalist shitters ruined everything. Therefore the problem is not economics but culture.

> Why would absolutism imply sociopathy?
Why wouldn't it? It is in the genetic after all.

>I posted it in /pol/, bumped it, and received no answers.
The fact that your board sucks doesn't mean you get to shit up this one.

Best possible system is an enlightened autocracy under a benevolent dictator.

Are you seriously using the "communism has never been tried" argument? Please don't. It has been tried, it failed horribly, killed tens of millions of people in the span of half a century. Your particular, unique brand of totally utopian communism might never have been tried, but it would still fail if it even got to the point where people would want to implement it in the first place.

No, I'm using the "socialism has been tried and worked economically but failed for unrelated reasons" argument.

> Please don't. It has been tried, it failed horribly, killed tens of millions of people in the span of half a century.
Outside of Marxist-Leninist states? No it didn't.

I don't disagree with you but the transition from any form of government to another is challenging and set with preconditions too.

If you are moving from a dictatorship or kingship to a "democracy" in the Western sense for example, you need to find a way to make sure elections are free and fair, which has been a problem in a lot of countries that attempted Western forms of representative democracy. Widespread corruption, voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement can plague the system. Often the people who count the votes or arbitrate the system are hardly neutral. Not only that but sometimes the specific rules for a representative democracy can be chaotic. For example, in a system with numerous parties, the government may have immense difficulty functioning at all due to constant partisan disagreement. Oftentimes there is also difficulty in terms of the ruling party or ruling elite dominating the media as a propaganda channel. In other cases, the citizens may not be informed enough to make good collective decisions due to the deliberate withholding or obfuscation of information. These are just some examples.

The difficulty of transitioning from a representative democracy to a kingship or dictatorship (less common though you could probably make a case that France and some other countries have gone there historically) is just as challenging. Ensuring that the new strongman or ruling power does not abuse their office, dabble in widespread corruption ala Suharto or violate civil liberties is difficult at best, impossible at worst since the idea of an absolute potentate is antithetical to ideas of representative democracy.

What is best for the individual is incompatible with what is best for the collective, we know that. Yet a collective of individuals cannot concern itself with the will of the individual if it wishes to remain a stable, cohesive entity. So that automatically eliminates anarcho-individualist ideologies

> It has been tried, it failed horribly,
Absolutism was also tried and guess what people prefer fucking communism to this shit.

>socialism
According to you, Marxist-Leninism is not the right way to implement communism. What is, then?

>has been tried and worked
Where exactly has socialism not led to a complete disaster?

>economically
>failed for unrelated reasons
How convenient.

>What is best for the individual is incompatible with what is best for the collective, we know that.
That's true, but many people within the collective have different ideas on what's best with the perception that their vision is the most objective.

>Yet a collective of individuals cannot concern itself with the will of the individual if it wishes to remain a stable
Can you elaborate on that point?

Where did I mention absolutism?

Not that guy but Socialism=/=Communism.

Nowhere. I just don't understand why people use this argument only for communism. Like monarchy or capitalism or democracy was never tried or never failed.

> communism =/= communism

Yes, but those people, if they wish to survive and don't want their collective to collapse, have to concern themselves with the community before addressing the issue of the individual.
I'm not saying the community is objectively more important than the individual; I'm saying that it is in the individual's interest to concern himself with the needs of the community.

>Can you elaborate
Well, a community of people cannot address issues pertaining to the will of a single individual. The government doesn't ask each and every one of its citizens their specific opinion before implementing a law.

>According to you, Marxist-Leninism is not the right way to implement communism. What is, then?
Worker control of the means of production.
Otherwise known as "socialism".

>Where exactly has socialism not led to a complete disaster?
Catalonia, Yugoslavia, many worker controlled communities and workplaces. In other places there was no worker control (but claimed socialism) the state ran the country like a business. And as such got fucked by business cycles.

>moving goalposts
Again you're substituting something else to communism, we're not talking about other ideologies, just about the fact that communism has been tried and has failed, several times.
>monarchy
Arguably tried and succeeded, for many centuries before being overthrown
>capitalism
Tried and succeeded. If you think capitalism isn't a successful ideology, you're a real hypocrite.
>democracy
Democracy hasn't "failed" but in its current form, it is grossly inefficient

>I'm not saying the community is objectively more important than the individual; I'm saying that it is in the individual's interest to concern himself with the needs of the community.
This is why I added the qualifier "assuming utilitarian morality". As I see it mutualism is good for the collective, most people just don't realize it.

>Well, a community of people cannot address issues pertaining to the will of a single individual.
I understand that, which is why individuals should address their own will.

> The government doesn't ask each and every one of its citizens their specific opinion before implementing a law.
This is true, they do not. But fuck the government.

>Catalonia
Yeah right. It lasted for some time and their movement was completely obliterated as soon as issues came from the outside.
>Yugoslavia
Tito was a communist and sabotaged his own movement.
>many worker controlled communities and workplaces
That's not a country.
Small-scale implementations of anarcho-communism led by hippies in California don't qualify as successful.

>claimed socialism
That's always the issue with you people. You say it's not "true" socialism because the movement was destroyed from the inside. Well, guess what, if the movement can't sustain itself, that means it's a failure.

>Yeah right. It lasted for some time and their movement was completely obliterated as soon as issues came from the outside.
Namely nationalist shitters ruining everything
>Tito was a communist and sabotaged his own movement.
Yes Tito was a communist, and?
No he did not ruin his own movement, he preserved Yugoslavia from natonalist shitters ruining everything. But of course they did eventually.
>That's not a country.
Countries are spooks. The reality of life is nothing but small scale communities and individuals.

>That's always the issue with you people. You say it's not "true" socialism because the movement was destroyed from the inside. Well, guess what, if the movement can't sustain itself, that means it's a failure.
No I say it's not actual socialism because the workers didn't control the means of production.

>Le one government fits all meme.

>assuming utilitarian morality
I'd say that goes against basic human nature. The assumption that human beings are rational is nonsensical. People need hierarchy and have a subconscious desire for it. Mutualism can only function in small communities of educated individuals, and even then, it's a very fragile system.

>individuals should address their own will
Sure, but that doesn't really go against any form of established government (in the broadest sense). The individual can address their own will yet not disturb the community's well-being, and even work towards the community's improvement.
Egoist anarchism is not inherently incompatible with the authority of the state unless you turn it into illegalism.

>fuck the government
Is there a better alternative? I don't think so.

Communism = socialism
socialism =/= communism.

It's kind of like saying you're a retard, but not all retards are you, anonymous.

>nationalist shitters
No true scostman, etc. It's never the communists' fault, is it? Face it, if a movement is weak enough to crumble under its own weight or the weight of outsiders, then it cannot be considered a legitimate, stable political system.

Stop using nationalists as your boogeyman, it's preposterous. At least give me actual arguments.

>Countries are spooks
Wew, now I'm starting to wonder if this is bait. The issue isn't whether or not countries are spooks, since countries have been proven to be the most stable way to ensure that the community thrives.

Small scale communities and individuals aren't the "reality of life" because your idealistic revolutionary movements don't fucking work. It's all pissing in the wind, as much as you'd like to claim otherwise, large-scale associations of individuals to form powerful entities works better than tribes, and always will.

>the workers didn't control the means of production
Why didn't they?

>The assumption that human beings are rational is nonsensical.
I'm not assuming they're rational. Were they rational there'd be no nations or states and we'd all be egoists.
>People need hierarchy and have a subconscious desire for it.
Now that's straight bull. The only time people follow hierarchy without resenting it is when that hierarchy can be justified. I.e you listen to your doctor because you don't want to die, you listen to your mother because you love her and would rather neither of you be upset.
>Mutualism can only function in small communities of educated individuals, and even then, it's a very fragile system.
The reason I advocate mutualism over say anarcho-communism is because it's very intuitive. Markets are intuitive and people like to be respected as equals rather than spoken down to in life, so it follows as the most natural means of organization as I see it.

>The individual can address their own will yet not disturb the community's well-being, and even work towards the community's improvement.
This is true. Even in anarchism. However a state infringes on this
For instance I own a decent patch of land for one person, however this land is useless for grazing or crops because the soil is so rocky and barren. Were it not for the state I would build green houses and grow marijuana in potted plants within a worker controlled system of friends to aid my communities desire for weed whilst supporting our own needs of survival.

>Egoist anarchism is not inherently incompatible with the authority of the state unless you turn it into illegalism.
It isn't provided the state is aligned with everyone's interests. Once it is not (which it always will be) then the state is a hindrance to the freedom of the individual, as even cops and the taxes to fund them are undesirable.

>Is there a better alternative? I don't think so.
Yes, no government.

>No true scostman, etc. It's never the communists' fault, is it?
In this case no as the economy worked just fine.
> Face it, if a movement is weak enough to crumble under its own weight or the weight of outsiders, then it cannot be considered a legitimate, stable political system.
States are not a legitimate, stable political system. I agree, they're always vulnerable to the collective power of nationalists. Which is partly the reason as to why states must be done away with so that every man and community can be free in their own right.

>The issue isn't whether or not countries are spooks, since countries have been proven to be the most stable way to ensure that the community thrives.
That might have something to do with the fact that countries are hell bent on conquering and subjugating anyone who can't defend themselves and conform with their ideals. Countries, like private property, assert themselves through violence and strangle any dissent.

>Small scale communities and individuals aren't the "reality of life" because your idealistic revolutionary movements don't fucking work.
They are.
In my community we're essentially a group of intermingling villages that co-operate in a small city that acts as a trading hub. Every community is like this to some level, but outside communities are only relevant beyond trade because the state makes them so.

>Why didn't they?
Because of the state, the tied greatest enemy to mankind.

>Worker control of the means of production.

So capitalism then. Where any worker can own the means of production if they want, and nobody can stop them.

>So capitalism then. Where any worker can own the means of production if they want, and nobody can stop them.
>Capitalism
>Worker control of the means of production.
In capitalism the means of production are controlled by the bourgeoisie. Once you gain that power you cease to be a worker.

Well, utilitarian morality implies some sort of rationality.

>Now that's straight bull
Why? Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. Most people (perhaps not you, but it doesn't matter) need structure in their lives, and wish for it to be provided by an authority. Some people go further and want that authority to not only provide structure, but purpose. Either way, whenever a population destroys what it considers to be an illegitimate authority, it immediately replaces it with a new father figure, see the French revolution.

People might not consciously accept the idea of hierarchy, they might even resent it, but they remain subservient to it.

>it's very intuitive
Sure, but that doesn't make it more realistic. I'm not arguing against mutualism or ancom as ideologies, I'm simply stating that they're not fit to be implemented on a large scale.

>a state infringes on this
How? The NAP is irrelevant.
>Were it not for the state
You're taking as an example a very specific scenario that doesn't adequately illustrate your point. Marijuana's illegal, so deal with it. You can still promote its production and trade through agorist means, but it's a really unimportant issue.

>It isn't provided the state is aligned with everyone's interests.
Of course not, because "everyone's interests" isn't a thing. There's always going to be a guy who'll end up dissatisfied, but that's how it is. There's no countermeasure or alternative to that that can reliably replace the current system.

>the state is a hindrance
Not necessarily.

>cops and the taxes to fund them are undesirable
Most taxes are theft, yes, but some of them are legitimate. I say this as a citizen of the most heavy-handed country in the world when it comes to taxes.
Of course voluntary taxation would be preferable, but it's not sustainable.

>no government
That's not an alternative, it's a pipedream.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

OKAY BRO WHATEVER YOU SAY BRO

Bonapartism

>the economy worked just fine
Did it? I was under the impression that the country collapsed because of outside influences. "Economy" doesn't just mean staple crops, user.

>States are not a legitimate
Yes they are. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist. Your insignificant ass proclaiming that the state is evil doesn't change anything to the fact that it's been proven as the most efficient way to make a large community last and grow.

>the collective power of nationalists
Stop it. Communists blame everything on nationalists and their purported "bourgeoisie", just like modernist progressives blame everything on white men, and Neo-Nazis blame everything on the jews. It doesn't make any sense.

>every man and community can be free
They already are. You talked about spooks earlier, but you obviously haven't read Stirner if you claim that individuals aren't free.
Communities can't be "free" in the same sense as individuals.

>countries are hell bent on conquering and subjugating
Stop it right there.
Countries aren't hell bent on anything, they're a spook, as you said.
People are hell bent on things. Individuals. Individuals want to conquer, individuals want to subjugate, and individuals want to lay claim to land and property by force (which, again according to Stirner, is not an illegitimate act).

>private property
Similarly, private property doesn't assert anything, it doesn't exist. Individuals assert their "right" to private property, and extend such assertions to their community. The fact that you don't agree with private property doesn't matter.

>In my community
Anecdotal evidence + micro-scale isn't going to convince me of anything. I don't doubt that your particular community, with your particular implementation of what you deem to be the correct ideology to follow functions well. That doesn't imply that such a model can be applied on a larger scale.

>Because of the state
So again, they tried to implement it but failed.

>need structure in their lives, and wish for it to be provided by an authority.
People do need structure in their lives. But they need that structure to both come from within and acceptable sources of authority.
The state, and subsequently the people the state bestows authority are not such sources of authority. They only breed resentment and alienation in trying to create structure. As opposed to a parent, a doctor or a teacher.

>, but they remain subservient to it.
Because they will be homeless, go the jail or worse get shot if they refuse.

>Sure, but that doesn't make it more realistic. I'm not arguing against mutualism or ancom as ideologies, I'm simply stating that they're not fit to be implemented on a large scale.
It does though. What is realistic is what's intuitive. If something requires a large education and understanding of philosophy to be acceptable it's not intuitive. If something requires force to be maintained it's not intuitive. The most natural system is the most intuitive system, one that can be maintained with the minimum education and application of force.

And ultimately there's no such thing as the large scale. Even if global maximum anarchy is implemented you would likely never see the outside of your own community. A better way of looking at it is that it would be implemented on a small scale, just worldwide through a serious of intertwining communities.

>How?
I want to do stuff that's illegal yet is of no interest to anyone within the community. Arbitrary laws just happen to exist that infringe upon my freedom to say, walk a country road with no shoes on. Wherever the state is, it must also hassle individuals for arbitrary reasons.

>. Marijuana's illegal, so deal with it.
Obviously. I deal with it by well, not dealing it. No less this is the state imposing on my freedom. Marijuana isn't the only instance, I was just using it as an example because well, it's probably the most profitable in my circumstances.

1/2

There is no single best system of government. It depends on the time and the place.

>There's always going to be a guy who'll end up dissatisfied, but that's how it is.
Yes, so the best that can be offered to him is (to quote the most unlikely of sources) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so that he may satisfy himself.

This is what can replace the current system. Anarchism.

>Not necessarily.
Yes, always. To quote another unlikely source "Where there is a state there is no freedom, when there is freedom there will be no state".

>Most taxes are theft, yes, but some of them are legitimate. I say this as a citizen of the most heavy-handed country in the world when it comes to taxes.
Within a statist system I agree. As long as a state exists as far as I'm concerned there should be no tax but a progressive income tax to alleviate the other burdens caused by the state.

Without a state however? There is simply no need for tax.

>That's not an alternative, it's a pipedream.
It is not, it happened, it was good. And then of course statist capitalists had to ruin everything.

direct democracy

Obviously I wasn't speaking of co-operatives, I was speaking of private property.

The point is that workers can own the means of production in a capitalist society.

Now that might not have been true, in the year 1850, but it's certainly true today.

>they need that structure to both come from within and acceptable sources of authority
A few things here.
They don't necessarily need that structure to be internalized. Most people aren't very intelligent or educated, and to seek internal structure is something that few people do. Most are satisfied with being guided by an outside force.
Secondly, whether or not the source of authority is acceptable to you is irrelevant, because its existence is sufficient to validate its legitimacy. Most people don't care about establishing a network of ancom communes in order to take down oppressive statist scum, they just care about living their life, maximizing their happiness (sometimes personal growth) and the happiness of their peers.

>be homeless,
That's not really an argument. If you wish to go against the authority that provides most services in our society, of course you can't benefit from those services anymore. I'd say that's fair.
If an individual is so dissatisfied with the state that he doesn't want to obey it anymore, he can fuck off in the woods and become an illegalist survivalist, primitivist or whatever the fuck he wants. The current models we have for our states are specific, and so I'm talking in general here.

>go the jail or worse get shot
When does that happen, specifically?
Why is it illegitimate?

>What is realistic is what's intuitive
No. What's realistic is much more complicated than that and depends on a whole bunch of factors other than intuition.
>If something requires a large education and understanding of philosophy
You mean anarchism?
Your average Joe Sixpack doesn't give a shit about the benefits of anarchism, universally preferable behavior and the NAP. He wants to feed his kids, keep a roof over his head and enjoy himself every once in a while.

>minimum education
Sounds like absolutism to me.

>application of force
A "minimum application of force" scenario doesn't exist.

Cont.

>"socialism has been tried and worked economically but failed for unrelated reasons"
Holy shit, there are people this uneducated posting on Veeky Forums. Basically the first thing you learn in macroeconomics 101 is the difference between command economies and market economies and why command economies inevitably fail. Read a goddamn book.

>Did it? I was under the impression that the country collapsed because of outside influences. "Economy" doesn't just mean staple crops, user.
No, Yugoslavia's economy was actually pretty good. The politics however were not.

>Yes they are. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist. Your insignificant ass proclaiming that the state is evil doesn't change anything to the fact that it's been proven as the most efficient way to make a large community last and grow.
Most efficient because it strangles any alternative.

>Stop it. Communists blame everything on nationalists and their purported "bourgeoisie", just like modernist progressives blame everything on white men, and Neo-Nazis blame everything on the jews. It doesn't make any sense.
Except four things
1. Lots of things can be blamed on nationalists
2. Lots (scratch that, everything) of things can be blamed on the bourgeoisie
3. Lots of things can be blamed on the white man.
4. Lots of things can be blamed on Jews.

White men and Jews are only a problem insofar as they're bourgeoisie or their enablers. However they very often are.

>Countries aren't hell bent on anything, they're a spook, as you said.
This is true, they are a spook.
But they're a spook that we're all bound to. And as long as that's the case there will always be a lot of people (especially within the government) who buy into the ideology and wish to conquer and subjugate for abstract reasons.

>That doesn't imply that such a model can be applied on a larger scale.
As I've said before, there's no such thing as a larger scale. Just interlocking small scale implementations.

>So again, they tried to implement it but failed.
Yes, it did fail
So next time make sure there's no state left to ruin it.

They can, in select instances. But I'm saying they should own ALL the means of production.

>leaving any sort of policy up to the average retard

Even if society was full of intelligent, well educated people, they still wouldn't be experts on even a sliver of the things they'd be voting on, and that means they'd be easily swayed by whatever demagogue is most convincing.

Cuckoldry being inevitable in an imperfect world, it is preferable to get cuckolded by an obese welfare queen rather than a glorified warlord with an army.

A republic with an American like constitution.

Cont.

>there's no such thing as the large scale
Yes, there is. Tribes have been defeated and assimilated by larger tribes; empires by larger empires. Size matters.

The fact that you don't often see the outside of your own community doesn't mean it's independent. Everything is intertwined to form a large entity known as the state. To deconstruct it is to make it lose its power, and therefore, makes the community vulnerable to outside threats (see Catalonia).

>I want to do stuff that's illegal
Then do it
>yet is of no interest to anyone
Victimless crimes?
As I said before, I'm talking about the state in general, and not about specific political systems. It's true that in any state, laws will be implemented that limit the freedom of the individual even though there is no "reason" to do so according to the individual himself. In that case, I'd understand if you were arguing for a night-watchman state, since minarchism, although it's still unrealistic, is at least not as much of an utopia as anarchism.

>life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
And those things are unavailable right now because the state exists? No.

>Anarchism
It cannot and will not replace the current system, ever. Even if a world-ending apocalyptic event took place, humans would regroup into tribes, then larger tribes, then communities, then nations. It's literally impossible for anarchism to become a widely accepted political system. Any state which would proclaim itself as "anarchist" right now would be assimilated by another, more powerful and cohesive entity.

>Where there is a state there is no freedom, when there is freedom there will be no state
Nice quote, but that's not an argument.

>progressive income tax
Now you've done it. At least say something like a flat tax on consumable goods or whatever. Income tax is shit.

Cont.

Cont.

Yes, without a state there is no need for tax, if you believe that your utopia will never be annexed by outside forces. How do you fund an army? No, "militias" will never be as competent as an organized armed force, not to mention nobody would sell you any guns. How do you fund your police? Your courts? Regardless of the mental gymnastics you go through to justify such a system, it wouldn't work. I'm sure you'll come up with an explanation as to how it could work, but you said that only intuitive things could be implemented, and anarchy certainly isn't intuitive in that sense.

>it happened
And its proponents got obliterated, so then it didn't happen anymore
>it was good
For some, I suppose. I wouldn't want to live in your mutualist utopia, though. Most intelligent people (which I don't claim to be a part of) wouldn't either.

>statist capitalists
Are you going to do like the other guy and blame everything on a vague concept?
How is capitalism bad?

Monarchy, time preferences are too high in every other system.

If "pretty good" lets the country collapse under the weight of its own policies, I sure wouldn't like to live in a country with a "bad" economy according to your standards

>it strangles any alternative
Then what is there to discuss further?
Humanity chose the state, the overwhelming majority wish for the state to exist. The state existing prevents other systems from existing. From that point on, what is there to argue? You're confirming that your alternatives are utopian and can never come to fruition.

>Lots of things can be blamed on nationalists
You're going to have to be a tad more specific here, user
>everything can be blamed on the bourgeoisie
Just curious, what's your annual income?
When the French revolutionaries decapitated the bourgeois, they immediately seized their goods and claimed their castles for themselves. You're being a hypocrite; if you were handed a lot of money tomorrow, you sure as hell wouldn't turn it down in the name of communism.
>Lots of things can be blamed on the white man
Like what? Are you going to argue about we wuz kangz now?
>Lots of things can be blamed on Jews
I suppose I can partly agree with this one, but I'm still going to need you to elaborate.

>they're a spook that we're all bound to
Then do as Saint Max would do and destroy the spook. If you weren't intellectually dishonest, you'd be living in the wilderness right now.

People didn't start out as heads of state. They didn't buy into the statist ideology. They chose to conquer, they chose to kill, and they chose to build large, powerful communities after that.

>there's no such thing as a larger scale
Prove it. You don't interlock small scale communities and be done with it, because doing that inevitably creates a large scale entity.

>make sure there's no state left to ruin it
Yeah you do that buddy.
It's not like countless people before you have said the exact same thing and choked on the fat cock of the anarchist delusion once their dream came true.

Democracy is the best.

Yes, it was disappointing to find out it is not the sort of utopia we hoped for, but it is the least likely to produce oppression, abuse, or extreme idiocy.

>how is capitalism bad

They would actually have to work. Or they would actually have to provide a service that worth more than minimal wage

Pretty much.

Those who dislike capitalism are those who cannot thrive under it, or (that's becoming more frequent), those who are searching for a cool thing to hate.

This was originally supposed to be a thread about democracy vs. monarchism.

you need to educate yourself a bit more on the yugoslavia issue. the other user is right- economics in yugoslavia worked quite well.

All debates can be reduced to socialism vs capitalism or theism vs atheism.

Communism is not a form of government, it is a form of economic systemia.

It is a social, political, and economic system. By definition, a communist society does not have a state.

what about a debate between a socialist theist, a socialist atheist, a capitalist theist and a capitalist atheist

>Yugoslavia
>Worked

>Socialism worked economically

People are THIS delusional

People forget that it was led by a strongman that had ties to both the west and the Soviets

Naw, trust me, it will happen. You just have to wait.

apples and oranges

but to be fair democracy is more compatible with modern society (that's why you don't see too many monarchy-monarchies, at least not in first-world countries).

this is basically right The fedoras imagine themselves becoming the nobility or at least favored shills under the monarchy, in reality the nobility would be composed of Chads and only a minority of the most successful alpha males at that, the typical fedora wouldn't be able to compete. Chad would begin pressing the local economy, his mother would struggle to pay the bills and he would be rooted out of his basement to become a laborer. Then a few years later his mother would get ill and he'd have to experience real poverty and suffering for the first time in his life, at that point he would be singing a very different tune.

I say this as a bit of a fedora tipper myself, I believe capitalism should have a central role in the economy, but to make any kind of ideal a reality you have to embrace reality, you need institutions to minimise tyranny and "tyranny of the majority" is objectively less oppressive than regular tyranny.

What about feudalism?

>"tyranny of the majority" is objectively less oppressive than regular tyranny.
How so?
I prefer being ruled by a handful of technocrats rather than by a mob.

republicanism/direct-democracy.

Which will eventually die. Unless He is Jesus.

If he's an enlightened dictator he can make sure his descendants are educated properly. Maybe

What exists in the UK, Canada, and to a lesser extent all across the former Commonwealth is a pretty ideal form of government. It's just filled with less-than-ideal people.

I'll explain my opinion through a metaphor.
Absolute monarchy is a subway train where all the handles are designed to fit the king.
Democracy is a train where all the handles are designed to fit the average height.
Socialism is a train where there are different handles for different heights.

>Socialism is a steam locomotive with no handles and no seats that reeks of piss
ftfy

The way I see it is democracy isn't about putting people in power. It's about getting them out as quickly and painlessly as possible when they fuck up

>Socialism is a train where there are different handles for different heights.
Real joke from communism: all the power for the train goes to the whistle.

Social democracy is already here whether you want it or not. Why does your government teaches you to respect LGBT or Muslims? Or blacks? White Christian people are the absolute majority. You can kick them off and live as you want.

Well done, chaps. Keks were had.

So far we've only seen the appearance of ideologically socialist political parties.
It'd be interesting to see what a political party with anarchic ideals could bring.

The ancient Egyptians lasted the longest using a theocratic monarchy along with a pseudo communist economic system where everything was brought to the priests and redistributed to the masses

On paper yes.
Free Association is a meme.

Absolute despotism obviously

Fucking dirt farmers and retail workers decideing international policy is autistic democracy be damned

Traditionalism.

That's called a palace economy. its a natural evolution of early trible economies were things were held in common and sorted out by the leaders.

Naturally it was not quite as fair on a larger scale