communism

redhousism

What exactly are we talking here? Practical goverment? Theoretical government?

Theoretically, I like the philosopher king, as long as he's the omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent, disinterested ruler he's outlined to be. Of course, that's impossible. And it sounds like religious utopia to a hilarious degree. Communism is similar, except it leaves out omniscient, omnipotent, and practical application fails at steps benevolent and disinterested, so no thanks.

Practically, Social Democracy. A Democracy with a regulated market and a social safety net.

Location also helps a bit. Are we talking about a country more the size of Luxembourg or the size of Russia?

or a phone booth?

Yeah, on a truly local level, communism can actually work, for example.

The only government for a phone booth is a theocratic monarchy. It is the only way to bring order to the great land of Phoneboothia.

Also, larger locations might need to establish some sort of federation.

Just as long as Frank Underwood is at the top of the food chain in this system, I think all these size/location questions are trivial.

the problem with phone booth size countries is the communication

I'm a radical democrat. I don't believe the US is a democracy

Is that because it's a republic?

It's much closer to something along the lines of a Republic on the Roman style.

"Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

http://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

Ah, yes, that's a good one.

@ Sandman: "Is Democracy your thing? Or are you more for Socialism?"

Why do you think that a socialist country cannot be a democratic one?

And the men who hold high places must be the ones to start...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY2iKzm62AM

None at all

OK, Sicarius.

No it's not because it's a representative republic; it's not that either. It's an oligarchy, factually speaking.

And facetiously calling it a republic or a democracy is an insult to the name of both those nobler forms of government.

I bunk everyone by now ought to know that having elections, even ones observers call "free and fair", has nothing to do with whether the place is actually a democracy.

For the OP (I've not read comments yet):
Democracy is not opposed to socialism.

You might argue that if the political power in a society is distributed equally (democracy), that it would become a de facto socialist society, with the economic power distributed equally, which I suppose is socialism. It's not automatic, I'm sure, but it strikes me as a natural tendency.

Didn't those 18th century oligarchs like Jefferson or someone say something like "democracy is great until the people realize they can vote themselves money."

That's right they can. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of Thomas Jefferson and his plantocracy frat bros lol

I bunk (is that a quaint American expression or a typo?) everyone by now ought to know that having free and fair elections is the only definition of democracy that anyone cares about.

It's a little strong to say it has nothing to do with being a democracy, but certainly it's a long, long way from being a sufficient condition for one.

"Is that because it's a republic?"

Ugh.....A democracy can be a republic. A democracy can be a kingdom. Ireland and the UK are both democracies. Germany and Denmark are both democracies.

I'm in favor of a socialist one-party state. It's the only proven government that can defend socialism from imperialist terror. Every experiment with socialism that has kept bourgeois "democracy" has resulted in assassinations or coups or civil wars instigated by capitalist encirclement.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

That's not socialism. That's welfare state capitalism.

I wish just one time people understood the difference.