<p>Democracy, Oligarchy, Monarchy, one-party system, you name it. And how efficient do you think each of them are?</p>
<p>^Soviet Russia was a one-party system. Look how that turned out.</p>
<p>History has shown that many political ideas on paper turn out ugly in practice. Democracy, with its many flaws, is the best out there and always will be. Democracy is horribly inefficient, however. A dictator would be much quicker, but not better. But I truly feel bad for Bush. He has had to play the two-step with Congress for months now. And the actions Congress is finally taking include shipping over $50 million to Africa so their government can waste it. Stupid, stupid, stuuuuppppiiiiddd!!</p>
<p>On paper: Communism. Of course, that doesn't work :(</p>
<p>Being realistic: A constitutional republic like the one we have now, except with more intervention on the government's part to stop huge companies from gouging prices, and far stricter environmental policies. Basically, one that shifts the capitalist, laissez-faire quotient down 30% or so.</p>
<p>It took Russia less time to industrialize because they didn't have to invent everything as they went along... -_-</p>
<p>When I'm the supreme ruler, of course.</p>
<p>democratic socialism 'nuff said</p>
<p>^ Hey, moderators, we have a communist spy that has infiltrated CC. Whip out the nuclear weapons!</p>
<p>The United States played a nice role in the Soviet Union collapsing so you can't just be like OOOOO USSR failed therefore communism will never work. If more countries are communist that is bad for capitalist places like the US because they lose trading partners, and money.</p>
<p>The USSR could not afford to keep increasing military spending like our good old buddy Reagan :( </p>
<p>My answer is gonna probably be with democratic socialism.</p>
<p>^ It is the idea that is so great. Democracy is not doubt the best political system. There is less corrupution than most other political systems, but that does not mean there is a dearth of it. However, in Democracy, man has the power to remove corruption to a certain degree, but in Communism, Fascism, and Socialism, the government has all the power. Are we really going to let some small group of corrupt rulers lead us while we sit around actign like slaves. In my book, that is a major step back.</p>
<p>@ Sigurros, when it come to U.S spending all that money, I find it more statigic than wasteful, or at leats at that time. If the USSR kept spending, they would go backrupt and would be forced to trade with democratic nations. If they did not, they would be at risk of being allialated. It think it was pretty smart of us, which in not generally something I say about the U.S.</p>
<p>My vote is for monarchy.</p>
<p>^ You can't beat the classics. Besides, retro is "in" right now, along with the IB program.</p>
<p>i hate to say this, but democracy can only work with a populace that is "intelligent". A populace that can make decisions and understand their consequences, and with the education system down the drain in america, i am a little frightened in a few years that people won't be able to read newspapers, social structure will polarize, and you will have "stupid" people making stupid decisions.</p>
<p>I prefer a no-party system. I haven't really heard of anyone else that has proposed the idea, but I'm sure someone has. In this system, there are no political parties or alignments. Everyone just votes for what he/she thinks is the right decision, regardless of what everyone else thinks. That would eliminate so many political problems.</p>
<p>
[quote]
@ Sigurros, when it come to U.S spending all that money, I find it more statigic than wasteful, or at leats at that time. If the USSR kept spending, they would go backrupt and would be forced to trade with democratic nations. If they did not, they would be at risk of being allialated. It think it was pretty smart of us, which in not generally something I say about the U.S.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh no, I think it was a smart move as well (from the perspective of eliminating communism), but I still don't approve of it. The United States wanted to eliminated communism for purely economic reasons, and that does not sit well with me. Many agrarian nations would have been better off under a communist government but the US funded groups to overthrow the communists </p>
<p>Vietnam war was pretty shady too lololoolol</p>
<p>My point about Soviet Russia:
A one-party system eventually degenerates until it doesn't really matter who people vote for. The government is run by the party, not the people. This results in a political elite (think Animal Farm or 1984) and leaves the people with no real power.</p>
<p>social democracy...maybe....</p>
<p>I personally prefer Anarchy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally prefer Anarchy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Emma Goldman is awesome :) You should read some of her stuff if you have not already.</p>