Pros and cons of different political systems.

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by Brett Nortje, Apr 17, 2018.

  1. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I was lying on my back thinking of how everyone wants change, when it dawned on me, that, in America, a place that seeks change, all the time, since the campaign of Obama, they see change happening and do not change when it is so easy to follow suite and iron out differences in the spectrum they do not agree with. Of course, this led to this thread where I would like to discuss political systems.

    One popular one would be socialism. This is where, as I am not completely sure, the government runs most of the policies of the businesses and the people may invest in the state run entities, of course. This leads to a lack of competitiveness though, some claim, but there is always the aspect of the state covering for sloppy work, or, that the competition slant on the business will diminish due to everything being so sure of itself.

    Of course, we could easily make it so that the competitiveness of the company remains by allowing the managers to state the prices, and, then that would be where the state would take a back seat. Of course, on the other hand, there would be less people striking, as, there would be constant wage satisfaction due to everyone being paid the same and the state controlling prices, if they so choose, so as to make sure everyone with a job can afford the goods they want, or, some of them, with, some luxuries, of course.

    This is a small bite at socialism, does anybody have anything to add?
     
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    5,340
    Likes Received:
    1,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Human nature, a lot of people are too ideologically stubborn to compromise, even though it would theoretically be in their own best interest. Or there's a complete lack of desire to think of creative compromises. As a result, nothing usually changes unless there's a majority in power that can get a law passed.
     
  3. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And enforce it. If it comes from the people it will stay in line with what the people want, and they will not protest.
     
  4. Chronocide Fiend

    Chronocide Fiend Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I dislike it when people rail against "socialism" or "capitalism" in general. That seems too black-and-white for me.

    People who think capitalism is the cause of all the world's problems are just as naive as people who think it's the solution to everything. Sometimes the free market does not work, and exploitation does happen. On the other hand, some criticisms of capitalism are really just pitfalls to any method of allocating resources. There are success stories where the state has invested wisely and improved society, but the state can also squander vast resources on something that doesn't pay off. Much like wall-street.

    There important differences as well though. The state tends to be more big picture, which can be good. An investor in the private sector doesn't necessarily care what's going to happen 50 years from now. Most of them want returns relatively fast. On the other hand, it can be argued that no group of state planners can ever truly know all the details that millions of participants in the market know when they make their decisions. Consequently, the "resolution" of their big picture is always a bit blurry.

    In any case, most real world economies are a bit of both.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2018
    kazenatsu likes this.
  5. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    On the other hand, communism seems to be very popular with the poor. That would mean that communism would be the best campaign promise of any party - that the poor will be more wealthy and looked after, yes? If it comes down to it, sharing less amongst the same, with the same becoming less for the wealthy, would lead to a smear campaign by every reporter and middle class person in the country, so, there would be a heck of a problem 'running for it.'

    But, let's say that there will be more 'with no corruption?' Would it be possible to stamp out corruption with communism, this is a novel idea after all, that seeing as how everything is declared and allocated, there will be less to steal, of course? This would mean that funds are set aside for the people to share, where the funds are mere stamps and actual foodstuffs - which are hard to steal if you ask me? - and the services rendered are not able to be stolen either, yes?

    Makes sense to me that there will be more to share with communism!
     
  6. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A whole lot can be said about the future of corporations meets politics, as, the way I figure it, the commerce buys the votes, through putting a label of the party on the goods, and, then the party allows the corporation 'more power,' you could say. But, it doesn't need to stop there, the goals of every corporation is profits, but, having a seat on he senate is also a goal, a goal where they could influence goings on of politics and then influence the way things work.

    You could say this will always be selfish, but, the way I look at it, the corporation will seek to give to charity, at some point the leaders will try to benefit society for their own personal beliefs or goals, and, that shows that there is more good in the world than evil, of course. With this in mind, it would stand to reason if there is a moral way forwards, there should be a legally approved of one too?
     
  7. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Back to communism, as we try to find an argument for techniques that it would allow for where the system could be abused in favour of everybody. With every political system, there is abuse, especially with capitalism, where the system works for the people, socialism it also works for the people but is younger so people do not know how to make it work for them as much as capitalism. The reason that communism was abandoned by so many was it was never explored and people waned money then and now, not to experiment with it. If we were to logically plot it out on paper, we could make it work before we institute it, if, in finding the riches or legal system, or, some other factor is worth more in sum total, yes?

    So, what else about involving the state in private affairs could help the people and leaders in socialism and communism? Of course, the state could stamp out corruption, as if there are no private monies to steal, there will be no theft, and, with a state audit, by a different department or 'party,' where the finding get a week in parliament and the people know about it, then so be it, yes?

    My latest point for communism and socialism would be that there would be the option of stamping out corruption, completely.
     
  8. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Comparing capitalism to socialism and communism is where we go from logical possession to collective agreements, where the society of an ant colony is compared to the lone wolf of a pride of lions. Of course, the lions are getting what they deserve, but when there are lots of lions, there needs to be law and order, yes? If we were to be honest, this capitalism without the large amount of laws is simple and will fall apart, so, with the streamlined and specialized laws of socialism, for example, there are far fewer losers.

    So, if we were to analyse the workings of the socially inclined systems rather than the lone wolf capitalism system, we could even apply this to banking loans. This is where the bank and the rest of the clients will lend the person money to start a new business - surely a social system of agreements, of course.

    Now, if we were to observe that society is all about sharing, with your family at least, then we could easily say that denying socialism and the more extreme communism is something that will come to pass eventually. The only reason capitalism survives and others fail is because the leaders are greedy and ill equipped to deal with the systems they control. If it was to be that they brought in a specialist to run the economy, they would require more control and trust of the people to see it work, because they would need to rearrange all forms of government for the sake of equality. But, there would need to be a team of people fighting over resources and rights, to represent their agenda, which is them getting votes for doing a good job, with a president or referee to make sure everything is balanced as best as possible.
     
  9. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A new political system might be at hand with the rise of the corporations, one that sees them having a deal of providing for receiving, yes? This would be where they could gain control of things they desire from the state, nothing illegal, and in turn pay for it, allowing the state to play a role in their affairs. This could be a step between capitalism and socialism, let's call it "Cooperation?"

    This could be where the state could gain the ability to employ the people they want, and the corporation the people they want in power, to be heard. Of course, this means that the company will basically merge with the party, where they would form 'an alliance' or 'bipartisan agreement?' If they were to do this, and there is no law saying they can't they could easily work together to reduce problems that affect them personally; in fact the more people play a role in state, the less work the state has to do, and the less work the companies have to do! Imagine managers having difficulties organizing legal affairs or taxes - with direct access to the tax revenue services, they could but away problems, yes? The same the other way around.
     
  10. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,057
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Greetings, I have never posted in this forum before, only in the 9/11 area.

    The issue is Political-Economy not just politics and I think traditional arguments are somewhat obsolete.

    What kind of car did Adam Smith drive? What brand of television did Karl Marx watch?

    Years ago I asked a PhD economist to explain how an automobile engine worked. He couldn't do it. Our economists do not talk about what consumers lose on the Depreciation of so called Durable Goods every year. Things like cars and televisions and computers that did not exist when Smith and Marx laid down the debating lines. Television had not really gotten started when Keynes joined the fray. WWII got in the way.

    And now we have to deal with side effects like global warming and e-waste.

    Communist economist should have been pointing out that Capitalist economists were ignoring Demand Side Depreciation back in the 1950s. An economist named Raymond Goldsmith was doing that in 1952, but he died in 1988.

    So why don't Capitalists, Communists and Socialists suggest that we have mandatory accounting in our schools? Double-entry accounting is only 700 years old.

    A Swedish Socialist who claimed to be a high school teacher said he objected because the math would make capitalism seem logical to the students. All followers must be kept ignorant. LOL

    http://www.toxicdrums.com/economic-wargames-by-dal-timgar.html
     

Share This Page