COMMENTS:
Maybe it is propaganda...
Of course there can be MORE types of government when you bring in other factors of a socio-economic system. For example, taking the first as economics, and the second as Politics (democracy, autocracy), one can also take a third factor, such as Role of religion (with choices of theocratic, OR tolerant and open minded, OR atheistic anti-religion) When bringing the third factor of religion ( which I will now label as 'C)' ) into the equation- when combining A, B, and C there are even MORE combinations that could be made!
IMO a democratic fascism is more appropriate. Fascism managed to solve to problems posed by both communism and capitalism, setting economy on capitalist bases and in the same time organizing society on socialist basis and allowing the state to step in and eliminate the inequality generated by capitalism, but without screwing the social relations by leveling people. However democracy is more suited to replace the autocratic ruling that characterized fascism.
So I take it back, upon further reflection- I say there are more than four choices... so why the silly binary thinking on some people's part?
How about a collective democracy that respected religious difference OR a free-market autocratic theocracy OR a free-market autocracy that respected religion, OR a collective autocratic theocracy OR.... etc, etc.
You could even bring in a fourth factor D) race politics (racist OR tolerant) then make combinations of A B C and D... then see how many choices there are...!
IMO, binary choices help limit/frame perceptions to make manipulation of attitudes easier.
Of course my secret agenda behind all this... multi-party politics- there are clearly more choices than 'left' and 'right', so how does it make sense to only have two parties that can win an election?
I put in a new vote.
"There are more than 4..."
You can define governments as whether they are controlled by the military and whether the economy is controlled by the governmnet or not, but this leaves out hundreds of other considerations. Politics is a very empirical (lots of factors influencing how political systems work) matter, though I agree the perspective you have taken is good.
'People associate communistic societies with massacres... BUT how many people have been killed by autocratic capitalist governments (that is dictators that support free marketeering)?'
Pointing out the faults of other systems doesn't change the faults of communism.
Sure capitalism has it's problems, but it also has an upside. Communism also has it's problems, but with no upside.
Pointing out that capitalist economies have a higher unemployment rate (for example) doesn't change the fact that communism killed 100 million people, does it?
some people just can't get past the old yes/no, good/bad, black/white concept. The notion that there could be something in between, something that combines aspects of both sides is just too overwhelming. are our minds just a series of o's and 1's? - I like to think I'm more than that...
Brings to mind the Moody Blues - "In the Beginning":
I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.
Of course you are my bright little star,
I've miles
And miles
Of files
Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
and now to suit our
great computer,
You're magnetic ink.
I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.
There you go man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles
And piles
Of trials
With smiles.
It riles them to believe
that you perceive
the web they weave
And keep on thinking free.
Love those shades of grey, those colors in between - that's where we make our progress, that's where we excel, that's where it is possible to have a society that we can thrive in rather than a society that devours us.
I just think we are doomed to make a lot of mistakes before we get it right. If we get it right.
No one has been killed by a dictator that supports free markets; no dictator have ever supported free markets.
The only moral system allows the individual to guide their own life without the threat of violence from the government.
herzog- I wasn't changing the fact that dictators who coincidently had collectivist economies killed that many people. All I'm saying is that dictators that open their resources to the West also have been responsible for mass slaughters. Their economic policies were quite irrelevant in the end. My criticsim of autocratic free-marketing governments is not criticism of capitalism as a whole, because there are many different types of capitalism. Autocratic capitalism AND autocratic socialism - BOTH have been responsible for mass-slaughter ('Autocratic' being the operative word)- whether those dicatators happened to practice 'leftist' or 'rightist' economic policies was irrlevant, either way dictatorships carry out mass-slaughter. It isn't the economic policies of communism that caused all those slaughters- it was its authoritarian nature. Economic laissez-faire AND economic collectivism are both unimportant factors to the mass-slaughters, it is the authoritarian nature that was the root of it. Authoritarian collectivism AND authoritarian laissez-faire are both bad.
thc- "No one has been killed by a dictator that supports free markets; no dictator have ever supported free markets. "
has ANY country ever implemented your vision of capitalism? What do you call those pro-West dictators, you know, the ones that opened their assets to be owned by the West? The ones ALSO responsible for oppressing their citizens?
corporatists
You forgot a C: Social Systems. You can either have an oppression of the poor by the rich, or a classless society in which all people work for the good of the country.
Nevermind, you said it in your second comment.
This ballot is useless, how the hell do you use this Kharma system to get rid of it?
in fact i think youll find that true communisim is ALWAYS democratic it is one of the principles of communisim laid out by Marx in the Communist Manifesto
|
