Government 6

Comparison of Forms of Government

Here’s an odd tidbit.

Tyrannical forms of government call themselves republics. Yet the only republic, the USA, tries to hide it like a dirty secret.

“People’s Republic of China.”

“Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

“Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” (North Korea)

“Socialist Republic of Vietnam.”

The “socialist republic?” Hmm.

In the States, they keep using and overusing, “our democracy,” to describe the country. Odd, for a supposed republic. President Roosevelt started calling it a “democracy,” and everyone else, especially media, ran with it. It is a democracy, of course, as it stands, because it has been molded into yet another example of “communism light.”

To make some sense of all these “governments,” or terms associated with government, let’s review some bullet points.

Tribal or nomadic existence

• A basic form of government, limited to primitive societies and small groups.
• Its primitiveness spells a stagnant system with little or no science or progress.
• It doesn’t deal well with invaders with higher technologies.
• It tends to cruelty and primitive, savage beliefs.
• It tends to be “communistic” in nature, therefore, cruel and not conducive to progress.
• A “strong man” leading a small group of aggressors will tend to get control.

Dictatorship

• Supposedly, dictatorial rule by one man, or woman; that is, rule by decree or whim of one individual.
• However, rule by one man could never can be sustained, as any one man always needs helpers and assistance, therefore becomes rule by small councils, “advisers,” and the like.
• How does this differ from tribalism?
• Inevitably, “secret powers” with a lot of money and influence get control.

Monarchy

• Supposedly, rule by one man; that is, rule by decree or whim of one individual.
• How does this differ from dictatorship?
• Even a “good” king, emperor, etc. may mean well, but any time you have a ruler, his flaws can’t help but come out, to bad effect.
• In any case, rule by one man could never can be sustained, as any one man always needs helpers and assistance, therefore becomes rule by small councils, “advisers,” and the like.
• It’s a primitive system, prone to problems due to inevitable failings in the ruler and his or her cronies.
• This system is sort of an expansion of the concept of a “tribal chief” for larger populations.
• It is excused as being different from a tribal system or dictatorship since councils like senates or parliaments become part of the workings of the system.
• This system seems doomed to eventually fail, since special interests or, moneyed powers mob and gain influence over the ruler, who can be overwhelmed (for example: ancient Rome, with its “Caesars”).
• Secret powers with a lot of money and influence, behind the scenes, can readily get control.

Communism

• Nominally, it is a system of shared “communistic” ideals including the idea of “wealth and property sharing.” However, “from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his needs,” doesn’t account for the greedy and avaricious, who have “special needs.”
• Communism is a proven mass-murder mechanism.
• It is an artificial system that needs to be propped up by external sources, as was the Soviet system in the 20th century, when North America sent massive shipments of grain and other aid, including cash.
• It’s a form of oligarchic rule by small “councils” at the top, of the rich and powerful, under a different banner.

Democracy

• Nominally, democracy is, “rule of the people.”
• It is called “mob rule” by detractors.
• The word, “democracy,” is a “weasel term.”
• The idea is a romanticism and a trick, attempting to make the average individual feel “empowered.”
• It is interesting how they’ve primed us to worship “democracy,” a masochistic sort of mindset.
• It may be the worst form of government possible – a monarch might actually be decent, once in a blue moon, but the mob never will.
• The reality of “democracies,” is that people “vote” between a thin, well-vetted selection of candidates, all of who share similar goals, therefore leading to the same dilemma as with, for example, communism, where a small “council” sits at the top and rules, rather than “governing” or “expressing the will of the people.”
• You can’t have an actual sustainable “democracy,” and no one should want the passions of the misguided mob to rule, which is merely a weird and different type of authoritarian rule under a different banner, a cloak for “strong man” tactics behind the scenes.
• Powers behind the scenes, the rich and influential, readily get control.

Republicanism

• Where the power of government is retained by the people, with the expression of government in a written constitution or document.
• The United States of America expressly had this system, and still professes it, in certain cases.
• While this is, on its face, an ideal system, it is still subject to failings, where special interests with simply take over, or “hijack” the system, leading to rule by small councils from the top.
• Powers behind the scenes, the rich and influential, are able to get control, unless there is tremendous push-back from a well-informed and educated public, and very good political leaders.

Anarchy

• Hypothetical/abstract concept describing situation with no government or governmental influence.
• Conjures visions of warring groups fighting it out for domination and control.
• This situation (not “system”) can’t be sustained; the strongest force in any group will always get the upper hand.
• Revolutionary megalomaniacs desire it, hence the periodic calls for “revolution,” notably by Communist rabble-rousers, because it is a short hop from anarchy to totalitarianism.

Autocracy, Oligarchy

• Autocracy is a term for rule by one, oligarchy a term for rule by a small group.
• Realize that there is never “one man” at the top. It always must be a balance between competing powers.
• How does this differ from monarchy or dictatorship?

Central Government

• This is a general description of what we have today, globally, in every country of significance.
• There is no easy way of compensating for centralized control when it becomes overbearing or shows totalitarian ambitions.
• A malicious force can take over the country simply by taking over the government under this system.
• It may give the appearance of peace, progress and stability, for a while.

Fascism/Socialism

• Fascism is the merging of state and corporate power, the state indirectly controlling the means of production, via directives, and nominally-hidden control of business owners, as opposed to socialism, where the control is directly by the state, the state simply taking over all business. Tomayto, tomahto.

Weasel Terms

The terms, “right-wing” and “left-wing” are good weaselly examples. That sort of meaningless nonsense is the stuff of manipulation.

They also turned “fascism” and “socialism” into weasel words, which they refuse to even define properly.

The now-meaningless term, “democracy,” is utilized as shorthand for “any country we like.” And of course, any country we don't like is “undemocratic.”

A Few Notes

Just calling councils of special interests, “senates,” or “congress” or “parliament,” is playing the “Name Game.”

The main structural and conceptual flaw in most of these systems is that they’re manifestations of the same basic theme. The work and responsibility is handed off to some small group. Of course there’s going to be opportunity for mischief. Regardless of the system, those behind and supporting the system always have their own self-interests at heart, so, when government gets any power, it can’t resist using, and abusing it.

A predictable result, any time you don’t plan for the nasty issue of human nature.

So, when we pass the buck and outsource things we should do personally, we get the government we deserve.

←Prev Article Navigation