Does democracy work? Or...

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. 

Edited by JJLehto - June 25 2016 at 13:28

I'm having a difficult time thinking of a better political system than a democracy. Communism inevitably has led to totalitarianism in nearly every government that propounded Marxism. Monarchism is flawed and is as only as good as the next inbred who takes the throne. Fascism worked out grandly (except for Mussolini strung up in front of a gas station in Milan). Religious states? I'm not sure being beheaded for drinking a beer is good politics. I dunno...any suggestions?

What interests me is the debate between different forms of democracy. Direct/participatory vs representative democracy for example.

Icarium wrote: this reminds me of a Toqueville question or argument

please expand on this...

Coz, I'm far from agreeing with all of the theories of this "philosopher" or his methods of achieving his conclusions

What do people think of this quote?

I agree with Rosa Luxemburg (particularly on a state level). It's truer all-around of a system with direct democracy than representative democracy.

Edited by Logan - June 30 2016 at 11:50

Any form of government will work, Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Socialism, Dictatorship, Cast System etc.

However, it must be of a moral populace, otherwise the entire system is in jeopardy.

Modrigue wrote: Vompatti wrote: it seems to imply that socialism is inherently flawed :( Before, we must define what socialism truly is. French socialism is quite different from Cuban socialism which is quite different from American socialism (if such a thing really exist...) for example. I think each country and period, or even maybe each person, has his own definition of Socialism. In France, the 1920 socialism imagined by Jaures (and even maybe by Rosa Luxembourg) is not really the same than François Hollande's 2012 socialism, whose own party is strongly divided and whose politics don't differ significantly from right-wing. I don't know if Tony Blair is considered as a socialist, but Frenchs consider him as an ultra-liberal.

The only person who I'm aware of who thinks Blair is a socialist is columnist Peter Hitchens, but he thinks the conservative party in the UK is far left. He is essentially to the right of Hitler, so his take on things is not really valid IMO.

Socialism and capitalism are whatever you want them to be. Democracy certainly is. China and North Korea prove that. Democratic in name crushingly dictatorial in nature. Political labels are essentially meaningless, especially nowadays. There is good government and there is bad government, and sometimes good government has to implement socialist leaning policies and sometimes conservative leaning policies. Sometimes you just have to do what needs to be done regardless of who gets upset about it. Any nation that is sworn unconditionally to any one ideology will eventually fail IMO.

A Person wrote: Logan wrote: I agree with Rosa Luxemburg (particularly on a state level). It's truer all-around of a system with direct democracy than representative democracy. I agree, I think starting from a primarily democratic system (beginning with places of work, which currently are completely undemocratic) would help build a basis for more authentic forms of democracy at larger levels.

Edited by Dean - July 02 2016 at 04:54