The Political Compass

[mangaluva]

Communism and socialism aren't the same thing, svon. And yes, obviously "shut up" is rude. And I don't know whether you're trying to play for sympathy or look "gangsta" by saying your city deals drugs (really? Your entire city? If you mean that people in your city deal drugs, hahaha, it's cute how you think that's unique), but either way it's not relevant. Please read the rules of etiquette for this forum. They do actually exist.

[nomemory]

No socialism and communism isn't the same thing. They really aren't. I am a socialist but I am by no means a communist. They might share some values but it really isn't the same.

[svon1]

i never said they are the same
thats way i said communism is "extreme socialism"


p.s. if shut up is an insult what should i say next time be quiet please

i dont want to post an example here so i put it to the war thread
viewtopic.php?p=750395#p750395

[mangaluva]

They share some ideologies, but that's not the same thing as one being a more extreme version of the other.

And in context, telling someone to be quiet would still be kind of rude because you were telling them not to express their entirely inoffensive opinion. That' rude, no matter what the wording.

[blurfbreg]

First of all, I'm not applying how any political system is working in any country and not saying that people aren't suffering under communism/dictatorship/etc., so there's no need to tell me to shut up.

All I'm saying is that there are pros and cons to each way a country can be ruled. Not every system is perfect. Some of these systems are easier to abuse. I'm very sure that people aren't entirely satisfied even with democracy as it is today (the news media in Canada, where I come from, isn't exactly saying that Canada is all peachy).

As an example, long ago, there are kings. In many ways, kings are dictators. The tradition of having kings existed for a very long time, and it probably wasn't that bad of a method to rule a country. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't problems with it. Some kings give their citizens what the king promised them. Some kings abuse their citizens harshly.

In the end, the way people want to be ruled is expressed by the people, whether it can be done explicitly or not. It's better to say that each group within the system has their own responsibility. The ruler (the government or whatever it's called in that political system) to tend to the needs of the population appropriately and fairly, and the people to let them be known and fulfill their part in the population. This just doesn't happen a lot of the time, or happens to the point that we hope it would be.

[Stopwatch]

^I like what blurf said, but I'd just like to add that the ideal government would care about long term goals instead of always choosing the short term stuff in order to please people and act like they're actively doing stuff. Some things governments do absolutely baffle me (and I've now got that UKIP leader clip in my head again ) because if you take a step back you can see that while it looks good now, it's going to have negative impacts for a long time afterwards.

[mangaluva]

The problem with elected governments is that they will always be looking to the next election. A simple example is the way the old runrig farming system in Scotland used to work. When families had a strip of land that was handed down generation after generation, they put real work into it, removing rocks, turning over the soil, building good walls around it, etc. Later, when the farming system was getting dicked around by the institution of landlords, families would often end up with a different patch of land. This became a disincentive to care for the land properly; you only needed the land to be able to put out this year's crop, because if you spent all the extra time and energy really caring for your patch, you'd never benefit from it, but the next lazy bum to get that land would while you'd be stuck with the weed-and-rock-ridden piece of crap that they hadn't cared for.

I think this is a benefit of the two-term presidential limit in the US; in a President's second term, they don't personally have to give any f's about getting re-elected. Then it's up to you not to have elected an absolute asshole but a guy who will actually use that freedom to do something. (That's one of the inherent problems of elective democracies; the kind of people who tend to put themselves forward for election also tend to be the kind of people you wouldn't vote for. "Nobody who seeks power should ever have it" and all that jazz. I suppose it varies from country to country, but a big reason for voter apathy in the UK in recent years is that nobody likes any of the PM candidates and it tends to be a case of choosing the lesser asshole.)

[/vague political rambling brainthoughts]

[svon1]

First of all, I'm not applying how any political system is working in any country and not saying that people aren't suffering under communism/dictatorship/etc., so there's no need to tell me to shut up.

All I'm saying is that there are pros and cons to each way a country can be ruled. Not every system is perfect. Some of these systems are easier to abuse. I'm very sure that people aren't entirely satisfied even with democracy as it is today (the news media in Canada, where I come from, isn't exactly saying that Canada is all peachy).

As an example, long ago, there are kings. In many ways, kings are dictators. The tradition of having kings existed for a very long time, and it probably wasn't that bad of a method to rule a country. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't problems with it. Some kings give their citizens what the king promised them. Some kings abuse their citizens harshly.

In the end, the way people want to be ruled is expressed by the people, whether it can be done explicitly or not. It's better to say that each group within the system has their own responsibility. The ruler (the government or whatever it's called in that political system) to tend to the needs of the population appropriately and fairly, and the people to let them be known and fulfill their part in the population. This just doesn't happen a lot of the time, or happens to the point that we hope it would be.

to make it short the world need a praetorian guard again
who easily kill all politicians who are getting crasy
nero
caligula
elagabanus
galba
... list goes on and on

[ProfParanoia]

Caligula is an interesting example, given his inherited senate was possibly more horrid than he was and would often try to work around his early ventures (which were actually thought to be amazing by the people). Then again, Caligula's psychopathy was probably caused by an illness in which he would be one case where just putting him down makes the most sense. Hm...

[Callid]

for example the american right are the republicans with dudes like lincoln and bush
the german right are the nazi with guys like hitler and rommel
the british right want the royal family as only goverment
so there´s  a lot  difference in right

right is ever base on a country
so different countrys different rights

and
no to my knowlede there is not 1 communist country in the world that is not a dictatorship
if all people got the same then money has no power
so the next thing with power is the army and tada dictatorship 

Nearly everything you said in here is wrong in some way.
The American right is quite a wide field, but yes, the most important party in it are Republicans. However, don't assume Republicans of the past were also right. There is/was a lot of shifting between democratic and republican positions. It's only recently (as in, since ~1970), with the extreme hard-liners becoming more and more numerous, that the positions have become fixed as left and right. It should be noted, though, that this is hardly accurate, as the "left", the Democrats, are more center than actual left. The most important left party in the US seem to be the Greens.
The German right pretty much is notable for one thing: not existing. We have a right center (CDU/CSU), and that's pretty much it. There are parties to the right of it - REP somewhere in the middle of the right spectrum (around the American republicans), and the NPD at the right-extreme end of the spectrum. Compared to the left, where all the major parties are standing on each other toes, the right is pretty empty. (If you mean only the economic issue when saying "right", you do have one right party, the FDP. In this case, however, the NPD would actually be center as well, as their extremeness comes from the vertical axis, authority.)
This wasn't always the case - in the Weimar Republic, the German political spectrum was quite diverse, with KPD, SPD and DDP on the left, BVP and Center in the center (duh), and DVP, DNVP (and later NSDAP) on the right (once again, as described by the mixed axis, not economy only). In fact, in the early years of post-war Germany, there was an actual right, represented by the DP, but that didn't last, and pretty much everything else left didn't survive the 68-revolution.
As for the British right, I'll stick to what manga said (not really an expert on British politics)

Basically, the right is the same in every country; it's just that its importance varies greatly, and different "areas" in the right spectrum matter depending on the country. The right itself, however, is always the same.

Yes, communist countrys in our world have indeed all turned into dictatorships, for the very reason I mentioned - Stalin's influence. As also nearly all communist regimes allied themselves with the USSR (or China), it's quite obvious why they'd be dictatorships. However, as I said, communism is a wide field, it's just that one particular chunk of it became the most important one.
Also, communism and socialism are vastly different. Socialism means policies close to the lower left corner in the chart. Communism just means the left end, and in its more popular non-scientific definition, as Stalinism, it's in the upper left corner - quite far from Socialism.
There are more options than how a country can be ruled than money or military force. There is also religion, though that probably isn't much better, and authority. A very good example of the latter is Japan around 1870. The Emperor had taken back his former power (the Meiji restoration), and started reforms offending the entire army. He nonetheless remained ruler of Japan, neither through force nor through money, but because everyone recognized him as the rightful ruler.
It should also be noted that a military-supported government can well be a democracy. A good example of that is Turkey, where the army has repeatedly overthrown a governments that threatened to abandon the highly democratic principles of Kemalism (in fact, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk himself started his reign as a military dictatorship, and then transformed it into a democracy).

And yes, telling someone to stop expressing their opinion is rude. And "shut up" is rude on its own as well.

[svon1]

shut up was not meant as telling someone to stop expressing their opinion

it was meant stop talking shit


and i am not a specialist at nihon´s history

but wasn´t  there in the Meiji restoration some trouble with rebelling samurei families

like in the roman republic where the 3 most powerful houses fight each other for total power
(House of Julii ,Brutii and Scipii)

both hadded a few 100 families and the strongest wanted to be boss of the nation

[Stopwatch]

shut up was not meant as telling someone to stop expressing their opinion

it was meant stop talking shit

You know, you're really not helping your case right now.

[Akonyl]

I'm honestly surprised you all are still trying. 

[dilbertschalter]

The idea that Communist countries turned into dictatorships because of Stalin's influence is not a very true one. If you want to blame a specific person, you have to at least focus on Lenin, as Stalin played a far less important role in determining how the USSR was structured (and on how Communism came to be understood).

[mangaluva]

shut up was not meant as telling someone to stop expressing their opinion

it was meant stop talking shit

Well, I politely assumed the least offensive meaning and it turns out you were going for the most offensive.

This is the point where I actively dislike you and no longer attempt to logic with you since you're not very good at it anyway.

Capital letters: they denote the beginning of a sentence. Use them. It won't make the actual content of your posts any less dumb, but grammatically they shall be much improved.

Also, I assume you mean "it was meant as stop talking shit"? Because otherwise that sentence makes no sense along with being both dumb and offensive.

Also, *samurai, and "hadded" is not a word. The past tense of "have" is "had". In addition, you shouldn't use numeric characters in full sentences. It should be "a few hundred", not "a few 100".

(Let's start with the little things before we try moving on to actually getting you to understand the political history that you're trying and failing to talk about properly.)