Come to think of it...I can't quite help but dislike the concept of democracy, the freedom of giving the right to vote to people.
Firstly, a populist leader with no substance would be able to gain power, which isn't exactly good. Any run of the mill person with an aptitude for speaking and pulling of heartstrings is going to get in.
Secondly, are the people even able to vote correctly? Would they be educated enough, or sensible enough to vote for a good stable government? I know how the West keeps baying for voting rights, , political rights like a pack of insatiable hellhounds, yet are the people or The Great Unwash able to govern themselves? Would it be sensible to ask a farmer, who say only knows in detail his farm and the neighbouring areas to vote?
Thirdly, it causes fragmentation. Different diverse groups are bound to form. Groups who stand for ridiculous reasons like the Pirate Party are going to pop up, grab some seats, and deal a deathblow to the bigger parties trying to cobble a coalition. So far last year, I've seen so many hung parliaments, or minority governments. Australia, Britain, Sweden went into a deadlock, the US seems kind of balanced between the two big parties. And these tend to fail or fare badly, the party can't even agree amongst themselves, let alone get many bipartisan bills passed.
Is sacrificing the rights of people to vote in favour of a system that would tolerate less internal division unjust? I still can't comprehend why the West slams China for it's style of government for one. It works perfectly fine, some people are sidelined, yet there are always casualties in any battle. Most of the people from China whom I have known for years tell me they don't give a hoot about voting, they put their trust in the CCP as they have for decades.
And before some people shoot off about how the Chinese stamp out dissent such as the jailing of that recent Chinese Nobel Laureate, I would like to stress that that person has caused more disorder in China than actually bringing peace thank you very much.
So is democracy really worth it? People get their vote? And knowing people tend to have a nasty habit of conceiving different opinions about everything and anything under the sun, this would lead to political fragmentation and ultimately stagnation.
The term republic originated from the writers of the Renaissance as a descriptive term for states that were not monarchies. These writers, such as Machiavelli, also wrote important prescriptive works describing how such governments should function. These ideas of how a government and society should be structured is the basis for an ideology known as classical republicanism or civic humanism. This ideology is based on the Roman Republic and the city states of Ancient Greece and focuses on ideals such as civic virtue, rule of law, and mixed government.
I don't want to argue anymore, but I wanted to say that also the Greeks had a word for republic.
I don't want to argue anymore, but I wanted to say that also the Greeks had a word for republic.
Quote Wiki
The idea of a republic first appeared in the writings of Italian scholars of the Renaissance, most importantly Machiavelli.[9][11] Machiavelli divided governments into two types, principalities ruled by a monarch and republics ruled by the people.
Yes I know that the Greeks had what they call republics...But I think what I described is from the Latin word res publica....
All I really have to say on the subject is this: 1.Would you rather live in a country where you can make you're own desicions or 2. Live in a country where the leader can blow your head off, laugh at it,kill your family and steal your family's money and not get in any trouble at all.
All I really have to say on the subject is this: 1.Would you rather live in a country where you can make you're own desicions or 2. Live in a country where the leader can blow your head off, laugh at it,kill your family and steal your family's money and not get in any trouble at all.
Sometimes I accept my decision is not the wisest for my country.
Secondly, I think you're assuming on the second point. Many non-democratic nations today aren't exactly that partial to violence.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nichodemus: [B]Ð"Ð¾Ð±Ð°Ð²Ñ Ð¾ÑÑÑого пеÑÑикÑ. [/B][/QUOTE]
Certainly, the communism is the Utopia.
I do not deny that one of the reasons of disorder of Soviet Union is the wrong policy of the government.
Also let's consider not concrete actions of the government, type of reprisals, and all policy as a whole.
Look at a life in Soviet Union from the usual working person. You have a free habitation, food, work. Your children receive a good free education. In general, communism (the socialism in the USSR) was for usual people. If you know Russian you can read this article. http://megalomaniakk.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-hell-is.html It is well written, though I agree not with everything, that in it is written.
As I understand, the developed countries already go to socialism. And the socialism conducts to communism.
P.S. I do not assert, that democracy it is bad. Simply considering that now happens in my country, with its "democratic" system. There is a desire to return to the USSR.
P.P.S. Sorry for my bad English. German language and Latin is much easier
Plus, Stalin's policies were brutal, staling grain from peasants via punitive expeditions, seemingly random executions in the Purge, a focus on military industries. In 1928, Stalin introduced the First Five-Year Plan for building a socialist economy. While encompassing the internationalism expressed by Lenin throughout the course of the Revolution, it also aimed for building socialism in one country. In industry, the state assumed control over all existing enterprises and undertook an intensive program of industrialization; in agriculture collective farms were established all over the country. Famines occurred, causing millions of deaths and surviving kulaks were politically persecuted and many sent to Gulags to do forced labour.
And that bad what the state supervises the industry and agriculture? World crisis almost will not render influence on such country.
Stalin is guilty in famines? The country has been destroyed because of the Second World War. It was in the hardest condition. Plus, there was a drought.
I suggest to cease to discuss a policy of separate persons and to pass to discussion of advantages of political systems. For discussion of a policy of the USSR it is necessary to create a new theme.
And that bad what the state supervises the industry and agriculture? World crisis almost will not render influence on such country.
I really can't understand that statement sorry.
Stalin is guilty in famines? The country has been destroyed because of the Second World War. It was in the hardest condition. Plus, there was a drought.
Just to clarify his policies took place before WWII too.
Hmmm...I have nothing against Communism in theory, in fact it's quite an appealing idea. However, in practice I've sen nothing but eventual failure and collapse, and only through reform have certain Red States survive till today.
I wished to tell, that there are advantages when the government supervises the industry and agriculture. 3 years did not practise English. The beginnings it to forget
You spoke about famine 46-47 years or about famine 32-33 years? And you did not think, what is possible, if not policy Stalin, we would lose the Second World War?
By the way, if you read Harry Garrison "The Stainless Steel Rat Gets Drafted" in it the political system which reminds a communism and democracy mix is described. Iteresting system, but, unfortunately, it cannot exist even as the Utopia.
By the way, if you read Harry Garrison "The Stainless Steel Rat Gets Drafted" in it the political system which reminds a communism and democracy mix is described. Iteresting system, but, unfortunately, it cannot exist even as the Utopia.
