Most students of history agree that as cultures evolve, they pass through political/economic systems that have within them the seeds for the next phase. The histories of both Europe and Asia are evidence for this model. The unspoken question is: Is democracy (parliamentarian republics) just another stage in the evolution or is it the final, glorious step in societal evolution?
In the early 1970s, famous behaviorist B.F. Skinner published "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" in which he theorized that as populations increase, democratic forms of government break down and will give way to some form of totalitarianism, however benign. When I read this as an idealistic university student, I was disgusted that someone so intelligent could propose a theory so grotesque. Thirty something years later, I think he was on to something.

I think communism is the best political ideaology,but thats just me,not faux communism,the real deal,but it will never happen....I dont think a democratic system has ever lasted more than 400 years.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by Solomons]

When populations get huge, people naturally divide into "identity groups", depending on their primary concerns. While conservatives point to liberals as "special interests", the right-wing are masters at special interest grouping as well. If pro-life and anti-tax groups aren't special interest groups, I don't know what is. It is nice to think of libertarian ideals and "rugged individualism", but those are nineteenth-century ideas fit for a nineteenth century America. Libertarianism makes about as much sense today as monarchism. Of course there are hard-core adherents (especially here on ATS), especially in the more rural parts of America where globalism, while felt, isn't obvious yet. It must be kept in mind that about 60% of the population doesn't know what globalism is, and most of the rest don't care.
American-style democracy, based on individual rights, is about two steps behind libertarianism on the way to the Museum of Past Econo-political Systems.

But totalitarian system was also tried. And it could be argued that civilization outgrew it too. Personally i see, for some unknown reason, that immigration in democratic countries (in general of course) is much larger then emigration. Not the case with all different systems we have now, or had before. Including Communism - which by the way cannot be different. It is rule of bureaucrats, not masses - since there are no (or few, since people will be not that willing to give all and become just ants in huge working armies) personal possessions. Someone has to be responsible for decisions. So bureaucracy is born and expends much more then in democracy - and in any country the result will be USS(X). Less bloody, more bloody. Always poor and oppressing.

Well In theory and on paper

Communism or rather Socialism is the way to go

But with anything Human, ego and greed gets in the way and now somebody is more equal than others and we come back to square one.

Democracies have been tried in the past and seem to work better in the real world.

For me the verdict is still out on this one.

We have seen working models in the real world on democracies and failed attempts at communism so you tell me.

Side note I don't think China is a very good example of a communist society they are now into free markets and some are more equal than others and just read the latest headlines

I feel that they are headed for a eye opening economic sucker punch

Rising economic star I believe I keep reading well their growth is very shaky in my opinion and the foundation they have set is very unstable they have not been at this very long.

My opinion

Good luck China

How can we outgrown something we have never had; we have never had true democracy, communism or socialism so civilization has not outgrown them we just cant reach them.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by kvaniu]

When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilization he replied that he thought it was a good idea.

Originally posted by grover
When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilization he replied that he thought it was a good idea.

I love gandhi

But I sometimes wonder if he was all there.

The main reason why you are right is just as the steam engine made it in civilisations interests for the peasants to have an education, and therefore become the middle classes (who are wealthy and powerful enough to overthrow the tyranny of lords and kings) the 20th century with radio and TV empires made it easy to collectively deceive the masses far more convincingly, whilst the 21st century with its computers, face-license plate recognising CCTV, and better lie detection will makes it easier to monitor the masses. Therefore the way is paved for the end of freedom, some would say it’s already here, it’s just that 20th century prevents you realising it, and 21st century technology “prevents” you noticing its symptons.

You’re right too because someone’s vote in a population of 20 million (e.g. Australia’s) is 15 times more potent than the same vote in America who’s population is 300 million.
However Australia and America haven’t gone in radically different directions. I think the reason is that even the views of 10,000 randomized people are almost the same as another 10,000. Therefore it doesn’t really matter how many sets of randomized 10,000 people you have providing the system is democratic in framework.

However it does lead to “local pockets” of peoples views being unrepresented in far more numerous (individual's) numbers. The only solution is greater powers for local democracies, as well as more of them.
Somehow I don’t see that coming anytime soon, but we can wish!!

Originally posted by Solomons
I think communism is the best political ideaology,but thats just me,not faux communism,the real deal,but it will never happen....I dont think a democratic system has ever lasted more than 400 years.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by Solomons]

you must forget all the horror of poverty and failure in the past from communism. you know when the rich eat the poor and keep them in the fridge. Oh but that wouldnt happen today with all the people with access to things like armies and stuff, but of course if we were communist that would solve everything right..? (rhetorical question). Im offended by anything that allows unfair advantages, or false mindsets, i think personal liberty will always trump a collective of dependants. Teach a person to fish..

It is my sincere opinion that there is no single method of governance and societal organisation which is inherently perfect.

I believe that systems can be utilized most effectively at different times in the evolution of states.

In the basest state, totalitarianism is best since it is better to have a single voice leading the pack.

In the interim, democracy works best since it allows greater say, while still bridling the system.

For the most final states, I believe that a constitutional system is best. In this stage, a population is intelligent and educated enough to pick their leaders properly; and the state does not have to infringe upon people's lives because they are capable of looking after themselves.

I don't think its linear though, and changes amongst the systems are inevitable. While around 1776, America was in a near perfect evolutionary stage (hence the constitution), it then regressed to a stage requiring democracy. It then fell further into requiring moderate totalitarianism during the civil war. Since then America has fluctuated amongst all three systems, predominantly using democracy.

Similarly in wartime, countries have a habit of tending towards totalitarianism as it is the most efficient method.

At the end of the day, it all depends on what sort of leadership is necessary. There are merits to all, and causes for all to be employed.

Originally posted by mastermind77

Originally posted by Solomons
I think communism is the best political ideaology,but thats just me,not faux communism,the real deal,but it will never happen....I dont think a democratic system has ever lasted more than 400 years.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by Solomons]

you must forget all the horror of poverty and failure in the past from communism. you know when the rich eat the poor and keep them in the fridge. Oh but that wouldnt happen today with all the people with access to things like armies and stuff, but of course if we were communist that would solve everything right..? (rhetorical question). Im offended by anything that allows unfair advantages, or false mindsets, i think personal liberty will always trump a collective of dependants. Teach a person to fish..

You missed the point. He said REAL communism, not the mixed bag we have seen before. REAL communism, as has been mentioned, is the way to go. Everybody being equal. It would never happen though, since, as was also mentioned, human greed gets in the way. You want a perfect example of this, read any thread that brings up socialized medicine in the US.

I do think that as we move closer to a true global community that we will be looking to new types of governing systems. I do think that the ultimate goal will be a socialist system, where everyone takes care of each other. I will never see it in my lifetime, unless there is a radical change in mindset over the entire world.

Reply to: mastermind77 and Solomons

I don't have a problem with Communism providing I am allowed to opt out of it.

Anything less than that and it’s a bee hive. Solomons should ask himself why it is that despite all of evolutions self evident brilliance only brainless bacteria and insects (ants, wasps and bees) are Communist?
Hay; even they get to opt out (not that their instincts are supposed to let them, but that’s not the point, they could go if they wanted (and were capable of the thought).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

I think that one of the most important things that the developed world needs to experience is a total intellectual and cultural revolution, where every person begins to realize the human cost of excess, and that we are all in this together.

I find it really strange these days that most people still focus their attention on personal gain, on often pointless objects whose benefits really don't outweigh overall cost (as in, what could the resources/cost have been put to, instead of this product).

In my opinion, an ideal world that would follow this revolution would revolve around a kind of democratic socialism, supported by technology, where every person gets a completely equal vote in what they think every single person should be allowed to have and entitled to. (Think: If I want a car, am I happy for every person on the planet to have one too?) I hope I make some sense.

One thought that always comes to mind is this: how ashamed would you be if, in 10,000 years, those that come after us looked back on our lives and saw what the individuals aims and aspirations consisted of?

All forms of governance can be and do get abused. Communism and democracy would work great if there was no corruption or influence from wealthy or religious interests.

The forms of government we see in our modern times are bastardized versions that have been manipulated to serve the interests of the few over the many. This leaves many people jaded and fearful of any type of governance.

In my opinion, we need a global system that is fair to all humankind including all animal and plant life. And fair to any life outside of our planet.

The galactic party?

How can we outgrow what we don't have?

If you really think that your country has government by the people and for the people, raise your hand. Keep that hand up, I'll be coming around passing out pointy hats to you.

I'm pretty sure we don't have majority rule, either, at least not by the numbers. Last time I checked, us poor hardworking taxpayers are the numerical majority, but nothing seems to be going the way WE want.

If anything, we have an oligarchy now (government by a minority), and I would suggest that we're headed for a new form of government, government by money, or by the people who have the money. We should go ahead and coin (pun intended) a new word for that. Bankocracy? Econocracy? Monetocracy? Richocracy?

Look around you. Who's pulling the strings? You and me? I think not. Follow the money.

I think the ideal form of government would be by committee, only the committee changes every so often. Every adult serves on the committee in rotation, and soon or late everyone learns the same lesson as the child who is allowed to cut the sandwich in half only to learn that he doesn't get to choose which half he gets. Fair is fair to everyone, and you better be fair when it's your turn because it'll be their turn soon enough. Everyone gets to be heard but no one has to spend an inordinate amount of time doing it. Initially it might be chaotic but it would settle down fairly quickly, and there would be written laws and rules for the committee to follow.

I can see you thinking "that may work fine for a small town, but how does one apply it to a large country?" Well, I don't know. But there oughta be a way. Maybe one person from each town committee serves on a regional committee, and one from each region serves on state, and one from each state becomes the federal government. But the point is, everybody rotates, and nobody gets paid, rewarded, or compensated (except maybe for travel expenses) when it's their turn.

And if it's all much to complicated for the average "Joe" to understand and make decisions about, then it needs to become a lot simpler in a big hurry!