Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

An Alternative Political System

POST REPLY
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 38
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jul 2012, 12:30
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2013, 13:20
There seems to be a paradox when it comes to managing people in form of a government. Up to this point in time there are two major side being Socialism/Communism and Democracy/Capitalism. I will be using two countries namely China and America to analyse this paradox.

China as we all know claims to tend towards Socialism/Communism while America claims to tend towards Democracy/Capitalism. In China the government controls funding and could fund wars independently. Meanwhile in America it's the major companies and banks that control funding. They determine what wars they fund and what they don't. This system is very resistant to coups. When compared to African democracies where the government controls funding, coups are common even though it's supposed to be a democratic system. Therefore it's safe to assume internal government instability is directly related to who controls the funding. UK is similar to America in a sense that it claims to be a democracy and that it has a fairly stable government resistant to coups. Now this may seem to go against the assumption but it doesn't because the UK unlike African democracies has a monarch that appoints the prime minister chosen by the people. This creates a stable condition that is resistant to coups because the monarch also controls the army so a prime minister cannot use the army without first getting permission from the monarch. The monarch controls the funding. The prime minister only acts as a buffer between the people and the monarch. The people have the power to change their prime minister. It's a system that combines one person/family rule with democracy to create a very stable and interesting system that is adaptive to change. It's like a structure with internal moving part.

On the other hand we have China which seems stable externally but all sorts of internal conflicts take place within its government. It's also susceptible to coups. All one has to do is obtain the loyalty of the army and they can conduct a coups without a hitch. The army is the real power structure, therefore its safe to assume whoever controls the army controls the government. This system is certain to fail. The people can also b*tch about the lack of "freedom" because of the one party rule. This leads to further instabilities. There seems to be a pattern. Wherever money is involved, instability follows. Without funding an army cannot survive. Therefore who ever controls the funding will inherently control the army.

I believe all the current political systems are redundant. They all lead to a dead end. There needs to be something new and different that uses both the failures and successes of past political systems to create a new and modern form of government. It's impossible to use one political system for every country on the planet, therefore this new system needs to be adaptive while at the same time resistant to coups. What do you guys think concerning current political systems.
Soviet cogitations: 216
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Jul 2013, 05:04
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2013, 15:43
This is a great topic. I would agree that business rule behind the mask of “democracy” is the most stable system right now. As long as liberal capitalism can give enough people enough prosperity I think it will be very resilient to change.

Workers are getting screwed over left and right but because enough of them can have a relatively comfortable life even if they have to work more hours, have both parents as breadwinners, take on a lot of debt, etc., they will accept the system.

Additionally, I believe that so long as workers cling to individualistic aspirational advancement, where the children of workers seek advancement through education and not collective action, the future of the working class looks dim. The best and the brightest now aspire to become doctors, lawyers, and business managers. The working class is rudderless without good leadership. See the late Michael Young on the negative impact of “meritocratic” advancement on the working class: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

Regarding authoritarian states like China, I would agree that they are more susceptible to change, either via “revolution from above,” for example, if a new, left-wing faction of the Chinese Communist Party gained power, or from unrest below. Contrary to the Western stereotype of Chinese workers as robotic drones, there is actually a lot of labor unrest in the PRC. See http://jacobinmag.com/2012/08/china-in-revolt/

As for an alternative political/economic system, I am currently leaning toward something akin to guild socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_socialism

The guild socialist S.G. Hobson said "economic power precedes and dominates political action." Until workers control the means of production, we will be stuck with liberal capitalist pseudo-democracy or various authoritarian systems. I think this idea fits with your focus on who funds the government.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.