I will point out that Fascism is simply a more complex form of monarchy.
And Both the tribe and republic have groups of leaders chosen by the general consensus. This is just a little pattern I spotted.
Rome for example, started out as a monarchy, then became a republic, and then became the empire, which is arguably a form of fascism (who am i kidding, the word Fascism is bast of a Latin word).
But any in any case, Governments tend to cycle between rulership by a group of
individuals selected by general consensus, and the rulership by a single individual with near total power. The differences beyond this are only in complexity.
Discuss, spot the oncoming fascist revolution coming to the governments of the world, give a name to what comes after fascism.
------------------------
the definition of fascism for this discussion is a totalitarian regime with a dictator, that uses a form of national mythology to control public opinion and worker armies.
As such, back in the middle ages, while the underpinnings of democracy existed, no one had really put them to the test. Athens was a democracy of sorts, but really more of an oligarchy which operated democratically among the oligarchy. Monarchy was a fairly stable form of government, so it tended to persist.
Then the United States came up with the whole democratic republic notion. The idea is that the people elect people who then rule the country for them. Not a true democracy, but a representative republic which made people feel invested in the government. This is a more stable form of government than the monarchy because individuals feel as though they have more say. This is why there are so many democratic republics today; once people saw that it worked, they gravitated towards it, and we see most of western europe forming democratic republics.
I suspect that the next more stable form of government will have to superscede the current one in terms of apparent investment by the populace in the function of the government, but not require more work on the part of the populace.
The point I'm trying to make is that while the democratic republic at first made people more invested in their government, we're now seeing the failings of the system, especially in the two party system we utilize in America. No matter who we vote into the White House or the Legislature, nothing is going to really change, because in 2, 4, 6, or 8 years, someone else will be there in order to do something completely ass opposite of what was just done. Even just the addition of a strong third party represented in government would help this out tremendously.
I don't know. I'm starting to ramble a little bit. It's getting late, but I want to hit on something the OP said before I sign off here. He talked about Rome. Rome lasted for a finite amount of time in all of it's forms. The sun has certainly set on the British Empire that ruled in the 18th and 19th centuries.
We're in a modern day form of colonialism. While it's more efficient than it would have been 200 years ago with the conveniences of modern technology, it's still just that: colonialism.
And if there's one thing that history has told us time and again about empires, it's this. They don't last.
The only problem with this is that no one was able to see the longterm of this, much like the Atkin's Diet craze of a few years back. Everyone was on it, with no idea how much harm they could be doing to their body with that sort of diet (for god's sake, the founder of the diet died of a heart attack).
The point I'm trying to make is that while the democratic republic at first made people more invested in their government, we're now seeing the failings of the system, especially in the two party system we utilize in America. No matter who we vote into the White House or the Legislature, nothing is going to really change, because in 2, 4, 6, or 8 years, someone else will be there in order to do something completely ass opposite of what was just done. Even just the addition of a strong third party represented in government would help this out tremendously.
I don't know. I'm starting to ramble a little bit. It's getting late, but I want to hit on something the OP said before I sign off here. He talked about Rome. Rome lasted for a finite amount of time in all of it's forms. The sun has certainly set on the British Empire that ruled in the 18th and 19th centuries.
We're in a modern day form of colonialism. While it's more efficient than it would have been 200 years ago with the conveniences of modern technology, it's still just that: colonialism.
And if there's one thing that history has told us time and again about empires, it's this. They don't last.
Yes, it is the nature of all governments to steadily decay until they collapse. The limited term of office was meant to control the collapse, but this was hopeful foolishness. The origin of this pattern is as time spent in a specific form of government increases, the flaws in that form of government become increasingly obvious and the benefits of the opposite become more romanticized.
A government may collapse back into the same category, but as time progresses there is a tenancy for the opposite type to form.
we had a world wide instance where there was an attempt to change over around the 1930s. In America we had progressive politics, in Europe there was the Nazi party, the Fascist party, and the Communist party. Really the only reason that most of the world isn't under dictatorships right now is because the Nazi party gave fascism a bad name and America the Cold War.
Although the changes in government are far too complex to understand completely, this pattern is present.
Rome for example, started out as a monarchy, then became a republic, and then became the empire, which is arguably a form of fascism.
the definition of fascism for this discussion is a totalitarian regime with a dictator, that uses a form of national mythology to control public opinion and worker armies.
I'd have to disagree with the stated definition of fascism and the comparison of imperialism to fascism.
While the definition of fascism provided includes elements of fascism, it is not comprehensive enough to provide a clear understanding of the political ideology it represents.
The two key elements of fascism that are missing in the above definiton are corporativism and a statist return return to a traditional values system. That is where the national mythology differs in degree and kind from the national mythology that is possessed by every nation.
These are the elements that show that imperial and fascist ideologies are greatly different. Imperialism relies on a very multicultural and cosmopolitan outlook to support it and corporativism is non-existent.
I'd also like to see discussions of fascism divorced from the negative associations and connotations surrounding them. Fascism is not in itself an evil or failed ideology simply because it was employed as a political system by the Axis powers. Many scholars see it as a sort of Third Way in response to the spectres of capitalist democracy and communism.
As for the next political system in the progression ----> hegemony.
Faelar
However, to me communism(small c) is simply another form of fascism just as much as Nazism, progressivism and Fascism.
I do find fascism fascinating although I don't like the overuse of crisis, and the way it controls religion.
Conceivably anything that isnt Commonwealth (doesnt have everyones approval) is Sedition (and thus the State abandoning Commonwealth for any other form of Government is Seditious Government).
Hegemony is the prevalence of one authority over others so it is simply Sedition Government.
A Representative Commonwealth though...
*Now has ideas for more ruling governements in his DND settings*
Commonwealth only stands as a viable form of government when the society in question is small enough and the society decides it wants to be involved. Nowadays, most societies are either too large or too apathetic for any sort of pure commonwealth to stand and stay strong.
A Representative Commonwealth though...
*Now has ideas for more ruling governements in his DND settings*
Commonwealth is only inconvenient to Hegmonists.
"Hegemonist Swine!" Fires Druid Steamrifle from clocktower...
Commonwealth is only inconvenient to Hegmonists.
"Hegemonist Swine!" Fires Druid Steamrifle from clocktower...
One citizen among a million wants stealing to be legal. How does that work in a commonwealth?
the Nazi party gave fascism a bad name and America the Cold War.
USA does not equal the whole world God damn it!
And that's all I have to say in this thread, as I am highly uneducated.
USA does not equal the whole world God damn it!
Might as well, considering their cultural imperialism.
Oh. Nevermind. :P
Might as well, considering their cultural imperialism.
not that there is anything wrong with that.
Imperialism has brought much good to the world. It spreads Ideas and eases communication and trade..
not that there is anything wrong with that.
Imperialism has brought much good to the world. It spreads Ideas and eases communication and trade..
It can also do a lot of bad, replacing native culture.
Spread of ideas = mostly good
Death of ideas = mostly bad
Spread of ideas = mostly good
Death of ideas = mostly bad
It get complicated tho:
spread of bad ideas = mostly bad
death of bad ideas = mostly good
It get complicated tho:
spread of bad ideas = mostly bad
death of bad ideas = mostly good
Which is why I said "mostly." The exceptions are the bad ideas. On principle I see the spread of information and ideas as a positive thing, but it can be misused.
It can also do a lot of bad, replacing native culture.
The culture becoming the same means that the people will understand each other. And with languages replaced there is a trust, because they cannot speak behind your back in tongues you know not. This lessens ill will and promotes peace.
Don't forget that in what are now single nations, there were once many nations, and they made much war on each other. but these lesser nations and their culture have been destroyed. And there is peace between their descendants.
Discuss, spot the oncoming fascist revolution coming to the governments of the world, give a name to what comes after fascism.
If you were to go back in history and take every president, you'll find that the numerical value of each letter in their name was equally divisible into the year in which they were elected. By my calculations, our next president has to be named Yellnick McWawa.
If you were to go back in history and take every president, you'll find that the numerical value of each letter in their name was equally divisible into the year in which they were elected. By my calculations, our next president has to be named Yellnick McWawa.
:heehee
It would be less likely to create virtual dictatorships and would allow for a greater diversity of ideas in the various legislative houses.
Electoral Systems like the American Electoral Colleges would probably have to be done away with though (not that that is necessarily a downside).
Electoral Systems like the American Electoral Colleges would probably have to be done away with though (not that that is necessarily a downside).
The Electoral College was an ingenious addition to the election process in the U.S. as it gave states with smaller populations a hedge against states with larger populations in elections. It helped ensure that small states would have their voices heard when it came to voting for the President.
Faelar
The Electoral College was an ingenious addition to the election process in the U.S. as it gave states with smaller populations a hedge against states with larger populations in elections. It helped ensure that small states would have their voices heard when it came to voting for the President.
Faelar
Why must states vote for the president? Why can't people vote for the president?
The Electoral College was an ingenious addition to the election process in the U.S. as it gave states with smaller populations a hedge against states with larger populations in elections. It helped ensure that small states would have their voices heard when it came to voting for the President.
Faelar
I'm saying it should be a straight vote (everyone's vote counts), with more candidates than 2(which let's face it only 2 candidates have a shot).
Why must states vote for the president? Why can't people vote for the president?
Because that is what our Constitution says.
And note, the states do not vote for the President, the electors do. The states just decide how they will choose their electors.
As for why in theory it is done that way, the best way to get the answer to that is to read the Federalist. Loosely summarized, it is because of a presumed refinement of public opinion through several layers of electors. The people vote for their state governments, the state governments decide how to select electors, the electors decide who to elect President. This is found throughout the Constitution for the various branches, with the term of office being related to the degrees of refinement originally.
The House of Representatives, with a term of 2 years, is elected by direct vote. The Senate, with a term of 6 years, was originally selected by the state governments, elected by direct votes. The President, with a term of 4 years but with executive power, is elected by the electors, chosen by the state governments, elected by direct vote. The Supreme Court, with a term of life, is selected by the President and approved by the Senate.
The method of electing Senators has been changed to direct election, and all states have currently chosen to select electors by semi-direct vote. (There is no guarantee an elector will vote for who he pledged to vote for, and states generally have you vote for President then translate the result into a list of electors rather than selecting an elector by name and pledge directly.)
Why not, in theory, just amend the Constitution and be done with it?
A combination of political maneuvering and the same realpolitik considerations that led to the compromise of the electoral college and bicameral legislature in the first place. The first being related to why there has not been a revision in the number of people per representative in so long, giving disproportionate power to the Congressman from some states, not to mention their Senators.
One citizen among a million wants stealing to be legal. How does that work in a commonwealth?
Quite well as long as you have no problem with non-secret votes.
Because that is what our Constitution says.
And note, the states do not vote for the President, the electors do. The states just decide how they will choose their electors.
As for why in theory it is done that way, the best way to get the answer to that is to read the Federalist. Loosely summarized, it is because of a presumed refinement of public opinion through several layers of electors. The people vote for their state governments, the state governments decide how to select electors, the electors decide who to elect President. This is found throughout the Constitution for the various branches, with the term of office being related to the degrees of refinement originally.
The House of Representatives, with a term of 2 years, is elected by direct vote. The Senate, with a term of 6 years, was originally selected by the state governments, elected by direct votes. The President, with a term of 4 years but with executive power, is elected by the electors, chosen by the state governments, elected by direct vote. The Supreme Court, with a term of life, is selected by the President and approved by the Senate.
The method of electing Senators has been changed to direct election, and all states have currently chosen to select electors by semi-direct vote. (There is no guarantee an elector will vote for who he pledged to vote for, and states generally have you vote for President then translate the result into a list of electors rather than selecting an elector by name and pledge directly.)
Why not, in theory, just amend the Constitution and be done with it?
A combination of political maneuvering and the same realpolitik considerations that led to the compromise of the electoral college and bicameral legislature in the first place. The first being related to why there has not been a revision in the number of people per representative in so long, giving disproportionate power to the Congressman from some states, not to mention their Senators.
No need to ammend the US constitution...every word in the constitution is the constitution including the bit that requires government at the approval of the people. Ammendments are just the acts of Hegemony that cut the fuzzies off the Commonwealth of North America. The court focuses on Ammendments but it is the whole constitution that has relevence and legal equality.
No need to ammend the US constitution...every word in the constitution is the constitution including the bit that requires government at the approval of the people. Ammendments are just the acts of Hegemony that cut the fuzzies off the Commonwealth of North America. The court focuses on Ammendments but it is the whole constitution that has relevence and legal equality.
The US Constitution says nothing about any acts of government requiring direct approval by the people. Indeed if you read the Federalist you will understand that the government created by the US Constitution is specifically constructed so as do the exact opposite, and keep the people from executing a spot plebiscite on every single act of government.
Your understanding and assessment of the Amendments is likewise incorrect. And while you may focus on Supreme Court decisions that cite various amendments, there is no shortage of decisions based on the enumerated powers in the basic document.
Quite well as long as you have no problem with non-secret votes.
Okay, so how does a non-secret vote solve the problem? Please, enlighten me.
The only problem with this is that no one was able to see the longterm of this, much like the Atkin's Diet craze of a few years back. Everyone was on it, with no idea how much harm they could be doing to their body with that sort of diet (for god's sake, the founder of the diet died of a heart attack).
I thought he died after falling down a flight of stairs.
Okay, so how does a non-secret vote solve the problem? Please, enlighten me.
Conceivably if you vote to legalize theft, you can be stolen from. Non secret votes just let the rest of us know who wants to be robbed from...
The US Constitution says nothing about any acts of government requiring direct approval by the people. Indeed if you read the Federalist you will understand that the government created by the US Constitution is specifically constructed so as do the exact opposite, and keep the people from executing a spot plebiscite on every single act of government.
Your understanding and assessment of the Amendments is likewise incorrect. And while you may focus on Supreme Court decisions that cite various amendments, there is no shortage of decisions based on the enumerated powers in the basic document.
"We the People of the United States...provide for common defence...secure the blessing of Liberty to ourselves...establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If you tell me that it only meant the guys who signed the Constitution back in 1778 were Americans then you are right...however, despite the articles that follow, the intent is an Act of Government, Law, and Constitution by all its citizens.
"We the People of the United States...provide for common defence...secure the blessing of Liberty to ourselves...establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If you tell me that it only meant the guys who signed the Constitution back in 1778 were Americans then you are right...however, despite the articles that follow, the intent is an Act of Government, Law, and Constitution by all its citizens.
A united action to create a government does not mandate or in any way suggest a subsequent requirement of united approval of all acts of that government.
There is a very clear, very simple difference between the two.
A united action to create a government does not mandate or in any way suggest a subsequent requirement of united approval of all acts of that government.
There is a very clear, very simple difference between the two.
And that would be when they who have gained power through consensus of every citizen feel inconvenienced by having to share the obligations of government with every citizen?
There is a Commonwealth that lasted ten seconds...
And that would be when they who have gained power through consensus of every citizen feel inconvenienced by having to share the obligations of government with every citizen?
There is a Commonwealth that lasted ten seconds...
Except they still have to share power. Elections occurred then, and continue to this day.
That every individual act carried out by Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are not subject to immediate mandatory popular votes in no way invalidates the elections.
You have a completely invalid definition of a commonwealth.
And that would be when they who have gained power through consensus of every citizen feel inconvenienced by having to share the obligations of government with every citizen?
Eh? Governments are only made of pragmatism. What you're suggesting is impractical for 300+ million people. Secret ballots protect voters from retaliation by governments, unions, ideologues on rooftops, etc.
You'd think the title of this thread would have made it obvious that it was political in nature.