The political poll

[danielsh]

slightly worried than 10% and 12% have voted for socialism and yet have never lived under that regime. ;)

Who has? The world has seen a great many false communist/socialist regimes, the best-known of which have been more fascist than anything else. On the other hand, the world has seen enough dictators to last it a long time. It's not difficult to tell what the effects of dictatorship are, in practice. But when have we seen socialism or communism practiced according to the dictates of the theories and desires of the masses?

[alchemi2]

All i'm saying is that you can admire/desire a system without living in it. Many people actual supported/enjoyed those regimes, despite there obvious problems. Hence the support in the vote.

As i said in earlier post each of us will interpret the results to fit to our own opinion.

Eric will no doubt claim that many have gone for capitalism with a strong socialist element because this is the system they know but they realy what to move towards socialism. whilst emperor will claim the opposite. ::)

[Caid Ivik]

Who has? The world has seen a great many false communist/socialist regimes, the best-known of which have been more fascist than anything else. On the other hand, the world has seen enough dictators to last it a long time. It's not difficult to tell what the effects of dictatorship are, in practice. But when have we seen socialism or communism practiced according to the dictates of the theories and desires of the masses?

I lived in a system, which unsuccesfully tried for it for 40 years and since we finally said NO to it we harvest what it spilled...

[nemafakei]

Edric, I'd like to point out that autocracy is not necessarily bad, it's just highly likely to end up bad. With autocracy you need a moral and capable leader, but it can be efficient. It's just that the chances of ending up with a decent autocrat are slim indeed.

[Wolf]

I think people would, generally, rather live in Edric's communist paradise than Dust Scout's Salusa Secundus. To be honest, I cannot see how autocracy is either sensible or efficient -- especially in the modern world. Autocracy breeds armed conflict, and, now, with modern weapons, armed conflict will result in mutual destruction, something that is clearly not sensible, nor is it even advisable for self-preservation; your empire will surely not last a thousand years if you believe in autocracy in the modern-world. Furthermore, autocracy is something that simply cannot be sustained. It requires the hard work and resources of other nations and other people to consume, since it destroys so much of what it possesses. Autocracy only exists in the short-term.

Perhaps autocracy is efficient, but only in terms of destruction. Perhaps it can act faster than a democracy since it has no bureaucracy, but what actions is it forced to take? Actions which are hostile and deceptive.

In the 1950s(?), a study done by Lewin determined the impact leadership had on individual behavior. Three groups of boys each had a "leader". One was autocratic, one was democratic, and the last was laissez-faire. After three weeks, they switched groups until each group of boys lived under each system of rule. Under autocracy, the boys did the most work, but only when the leader was watching, furthermore, they were extremely aggressive, and sometimes destroyed that which they had built. Under democracy, the boys accomplished the highest quality work, and were almost devoid of aggression. They were creative, attentive, and genuinely happy to be working. Under the laissez-faire system, little work was accomplished, and the group degenerated into chaos with sporadic and uncontrolled aggression. Autocracy only works when the leader is watching, and, in the modern world, this is something that costs far too much to accomplish than the benefit it provides. Imagine all the counterinsurgency departments, the spies, the assassins, the terror squads. The cost is simply to great to monitor everyone to make sure that they are doing their part. And, for what gain? In the end, the highest-quality work is acheived when people want to work, and, in autocracy, no one really wants to work. Thus, while they may have more net output, the efficiency of their labor is markedly decreased.

[Dante]

Not every autocracy needs to constantly watch. Just make it impossible for the masses to do anything at all. Like a mostly rural enviroment...

And as Nema says, autoracy isn't necessarily evil. Under the right person it's great.

I wouldn't call it a Salusa Secundus... More a Tsarist Russia. With a Tsar who was slightly brighter than Nicolas II...

[Wolf]

A Duke Atreides instead of a Baron Harkonnen?

[Dante]

Well if it was Me it would be a Baron Harkonnen because I go through periods of general vindictiveness if things don't go my way, which is a lot. :)  Of course if things just rattled along nicely then I'd be, for the most part, benevolent, and that's a good thing.

[Wolf]

Well, I suppose an absolutely benevolent and caring dictator wouldn't be a bad thing. Not necessarily.

But, I'd bet you people would still rebel, no matter how caring and good-natured he was.

[Caid Ivik]

That's sure. But it has to be me  ;D

[Edric O]

I thought it wouldn't be a bad idea to revive this poll, at least for a little bit longer. Has everyone voted? If you haven't voted, then please read this topic before you do. ;)

And now I wish to reply to some of the posts that were made while I was away:

What about polls? Free speach? I'm talking about a form of Constitutional Dictatorship, a likeness we can see in the movie Starship Troopers.

I never saw that movie... but I can tell you that a "Constitutional Dictatorship" doesn't seem to make any logical sense. If it's a dictatorship, then why should the dictator abide by the constitution? If he suddenly decides to throw away the constitution and rule however he pleases, who's gonna stop him?

In which selfishness comes in. This is also a reason why people build capitalistic societies and oppressive corporations, so that in the end, they can gain the majority of the income, so that they can ensure the survival of themselves.

Yes, people can oppress and exploit others if it benefits them, but those same people can also co-operate and share with others if it benefits them. A communist society is built so that it's in your own interest to be a "nice guy" (unlike capitalism, in which "nice guys" get screwed). This way, even the most selfish people will decide to be "nice guys", since they gain from it.

I assume that this is something like "if people don't work, civilization will collapse"? Doesn't this need to be backed up by a government, to ensure that if a communist system fails, there will always be other ways?

People will get back to work long before civilization can collapse. If, for some reason, everyone decides to be lazy and stop working, then living conditions will start dropping. The people will grow increasingly dissatisfied with this, until they decide enough is enough and it's time to get back to work.

Oh, and you don't need a government to ensure that there are other ways... In communism, any group of people can set up their own society according to their own ideas, so long as every member of that society is free to leave any time he wishes.

I lived in a system, which unsuccesfully tried for it for 40 years and since we finally said NO to it we harvest what it spilled...

LOL, Caid, we both lived under stalinist regimes, and you know as well as I do that they never even tried to reach socialism, much less communism. They were dictators, corrupt to the very core. Establishing socialism would have meant establishing a democracy... so no wonder the stalinists didn't want it. (and establishing communism was completely out of the question, since it would have meant that the stalinist ruling clique would have had to accept being equal in power and wealth to all other citizens... *shock* *horror* )

Well, I suppose an absolutely benevolent and caring dictator wouldn't be a bad thing. Not necessarily.

You forget one thing: an absolutely benevolent and caring dictator is impossible. No human being could ever be such a dictator.

[Wolf]

Well, according to Chariots of Fire, that would be God.

[Leto le Juste]

Have you ever heard about the "despotisme

[Wolf]

Yes, I agree with you, Leto; in the end, that sort of government might actually be best. But, can we ever really achieve it? Can a good king really be educated to serve with altruism?

[Leto le Juste]

Why not? a stupid texan became president of the USA. Everything is possible... The truth is outthere...

[otheymzefedaykin]

Why not? a stupid texan became president of the USA. Everything is possible... The truth is outthere...

Euh, Leto ! Chirac was elected with 82% of votes ! Everything is possible too :D ;D !

[Wolf]

Wow. 82%? That's incredible! I think its been like... 50 years since the United States has even come close to that number in a presidential election. I think its because the US media makes more money when its a close-race, and thus tries to create the image in any campaign it covers.

But, a Texan becoming president of the United States and finding a genuinely honest and altrustic human being are two different things. I think human nature precludes human beings from being honest & having power. Does not absolute power corrupt absolutely? Or, if not absolutely, does it attract the corruptable? In which case, how would we find the truly altruistic man?

[Edric O]

Have you ever heard about the "despotisme

[Edric O]

Yes, I agree with you, Leto; in the end, that sort of government might actually be best. But, can we ever really achieve it? Can a good king really be educated to serve with altruism?

Yes, he can. The trouble is, who's going to educate him? The people who educate this leader have enourmous power in their hands. The only way they can use it responsibly is if they, in turn, are educated in a similar fashion. So who's going to educate them? You can see the problem...

Wow. 82%? That's incredible! I think its been like... 50 years since the United States has even come close to that number in a presidential election. I think its because the US media makes more money when its a close-race, and thus tries to create the image in any campaign it covers.

It appears you don't know the full story. Since French politics has several major parties (and therefore you will often find 3 or more candidates scoring quite similar results), they use a run-off system: The first two candidates in the first round go off to compete 1-on-1 in the second run. It's a very good system: If one candidate wins the first round with 40%, but the other 60% of the population would rather vote for anyone else except him... you see the point.

Now, at the previous elections, the second round was between Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen. Le Pen is a semi-fascist extreme-right lunatic. The only reason he got into the second round was because the supporters of all other candidates were rather apathetic and chose not to vote, while Le Pen's supporters all went to the polls. When he squeezed into the second round, France was shocked. Since they had a choice between Le Pen and Chirac, just about everyone supported Chirac - the left, the center, and the moderate right all voted for him. That's how he got 82%.

[Wolf]

That seems like a sensible system. Has there ever been a case where this system has ever really failed to represent the interests of the French people?