Posts from The best form of government.

[utter shame, political bullshit]

Socialism... because socialism.
Monarchy is impossible without strict control over the upbringing and training of heirs to the throne (which can only be achieved with the latest technologies in genetic engineering and psychology) and inevitably leads to periods of stagnation and conservation, which provoke reformism and arbitrary absolutism that sacrifice the citizens of the state.
Theocracy is a wonderful regime, but it is impossible in a world of triumphant atheism. Not a single country on earth is inhabited by sincerely believing people... therefore, theocracy is doomed to become a dictatorship of lies and hypocrisy. More often than not, the clergy are the most convinced godless people, and this undermines the entire moral structure of such a society. This isn't the 7th-11th century; that won't work. Moreover, the primary role and significance of theocracy is to prevent wars and conflicts within its own religious space.
Communism has never once been embodied on planet Earth, so in my view, it should be excluded from the poll options. There is nothing to compare it to. Aside from that, naturally, triumphant communism across the entire Earth would be a true paradise. It's just that it will never happen. Marxists are prone to dubious social experiments, improvisation, and cannibalism. I would only support communist-necromancers, collectively resurrecting Marx, Engels, and that whole crowd of 19th-century theoretical economists, for the purpose of faithfully heeding their instructions :D
Anarchy is absolute evil. Man is not, by nature, a perfect creation, the pinnacle of creation, as the humanists and figures of the Enlightenment era claimed, but a filthy animal drowning in self-deception, stupidity, and egoism. There will be no society without a state, because people will devour one another without the punishing sword of justice hanging over their heads. People are not sheep, who need a shepherd only for protection from wolves and wandering off, but rather a pack of wounded sharks. Here, the "shepherd" can be either the Fish-Bringer or the Harpoon-Thrower. The first attempts to keep the sharks from eating each other by sacrificing more "natural" food to them (though he knows that once the fish is eaten, the wounded sharks will still attack each other, because blood is blood), and the second simply kills a few of the quickest ones, sending the rest fleeing—which has a slightly better chance of preventing the devouring, albeit at the cost of casualties...
Democracy is a utopia, unless we are talking about a Greek polis. It is possible only when citizens directly participate in the activities of the state, when every adult person is a "deputy" or "senator." And of course, every citizen must be personally acquainted with the supreme leaders of the state. Everything else is not democracy, but various versions of ochlocracy and oligarchy. The modern glorification of the idol of "democracy," the thousands of legal bows paid to it, and the offering of bloody sacrifices repel me even further from this political idea. A state where there are poor and rich, lazy people and workaholics, freeloaders and dependents is a wrong state.
Socialism is closest to the ideal in terms of eliminating property differentiation... since it does not throw itself into extremes like communism. Social protection for at-risk classes—pensioners, public sector workers, the disabled—is quite sufficient for minimal justice. Stripping people of the right to private property and family and abandoning money are far too drastic steps that cannot lead to anything good. The external market, in my view, should be entirely controlled by the state, and big business should be subject to monstrous, predatory taxes (frankly speaking, this is a norm of justice). At the same time, the state should not excessively interfere in the lives of people. Demanding lives for a war started for material or ideological gain, interfering in the personal lives of citizens with bloated legal acts concerning everything in existence, seizing what has been earned through honest labor, and stuffing brains with propaganda. The state was created to protect people from one another. And it is sad to see a situation where people need protection from the encroachments of the state :smile27:

dictatorship, totalitarianism, and a police force that looks into people's windows. This is the only way to achieve some kind of progress for civilization; I have always said so.

It's much easier to set up concentration camps; it's cheaper, simpler, and everyone is happy.

if you use low-quality canvas for tents, then yes, the savings are significant. But if you build small houses out of concrete, or at least wooden cabins, there is a considerable expenditure of labor and material resources.

But it's incomparable to the expenses that need to be allocated for salaries, food, housing, and so on.
And here, they build something themselves out of wood; you can, of course, also use a brick foundation for durability. But overall, it's much more profitable.
All dissatisfaction is dismissed in the manner of past times. What's not to like about an ideal state?

Perhaps this is more relevant here.

Amaranth. Well, there are abuses everywhere. Take America, for example, the best capitalist country – it operates on a simple scheme: McDonald's has an agreement with healthcare (or with private companies, I don't know): people (most of whom, by the way, would probably do the same if they had the opportunity) are fed hamburgers, and they spend large sums on treatment. Profit, capitalism. And this is in the most developed country...

Do you have any innovative suggestions? I want a holy war.

Giving us democracy right now is premature, IMHO... And capitalism, even more so; and if we mix it, as is happening now... The comparison between the USSR and modern Russia confirms this.
P.S. I apologize for starting this in "Associations," I didn't realize at the time that there was also a topic on the forum, I would have taken the initiative myself... :o

In the USSR, things weren't always great either. Democracy and capitalism exist on different planes; the latter can exist under a monarchy, under a democracy, and even under socialism. And what, is everything really that bad in Europe now?))

People are garbage!

Maggot, is that you?

Life wasn't always good in the USSR either.

But, IMHO, it was much better.

Democracy and capitalism exist on different planes; the latter can exist under a monarchy, under a democracy, and even under socialism.

And I thought that democracy gives capitalism new opportunities... I might be wrong here.:o

But isn't everything really bad in Europe now?))

I don't know, I haven't really considered it.:o But I suppose that something similar can be found there too.

Maggot, is that you?

Wow, so in some ways, I'm similar to Maggot! :)

But, IMHO, it's much better.

O RLY? Was it better after the revolution in the 1920s?

And I thought that democracy gives capitalism new opportunities... I might be wrong.:o

In general, it does, but it already existed in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, and it also exists in modern China. Although it seems to be socialism there.

But you're right, many people need to be kept away from power.

O RLY? Was it better after the revolution in the 1920s?

I'm talking about people; there wasn't American ideology before, there weren't addicts, thugs, and other scoundrels; the country developed on the heroism of citizens who fulfilled 10 work quotas... But now...

Overall, it does, but it already existed in Europe in the 17th-18th centuries, and it still exists in modern China. Although, it seems like they have socialism there.

Well, back then, fewer people knew the "dark side" of capitalism, and they didn't use such terrible methods, as I mentioned in "Associations." And the monarchy didn't let them run wild, IMHO. :)
And the Chinese are a friendly bunch, building communism :), it's roughly like in the USSR.

But you're right, many people need to be kept away from power.

Thank you. :)

the country developed thanks to the heroism of its citizens, who fulfilled 10 work quotas...

I don't know, I don't know, some people worked day and night, while others (and there were quite a few of them) came to work just to put in an appearance. Nevertheless, everyone received the same salary.

in the past, there was no American ideology, no drug addicts, no riffraff, and other scoundrels.

Well, drug addicts aren't particularly associated with the United States; in fact, they've been fighting this problem much more intensely there over the past 15 years than here. I think we should blame ourselves for our own problems, not America :smile33:

The Chinese are a friendly bunch.

Who knows what will happen in 20 years... :rolleyes:

they are building communism; it's roughly the same as in the USSR.

I disagree :p

And what was better about it in the USSR?

One of the problems of the USSR lies in the fact that a country cannot exist forever on the enthusiasm and heroism of its people. Thanks to this, the Soviet Union won the Great Patriotic War and quickly recovered afterward, but people cannot endlessly invest everything in the state and receive nothing in return. And the naive Soviet citizens were constantly being deceived.

However, there is also a positive aspect to Soviet policy. The absence of social stratification has a positive effect on people's relationships, fostering camaraderie and mutual assistance. But the attitude of our government at the time towards the people is sometimes simply shocking. In the 1980s, the second-largest source of income for the USSR, after the sale of oil abroad, was the sale of alcoholic beverages to the country's population. And now we are seeing terrible consequences, especially adolescent alcoholism. The nation is slowly becoming an alcoholic nation, and an alcoholic nation cannot be a fully functional one. As a result, without any McDonald's or American ideology, we can destroy ourselves. But we can be proud that no one drinks as much as Russians do. Excellent.