What is the best political system, and why is it communism?

What is the best political system, and why is it communism?

1) Fascism
2) It isn't

>the best political system
Capitalism with a little bit of regulation to prevent corporatism
>communism
Just kill yourself, DaQuan

Is correct fascim

WRONG

That Snapchat hack shit doesn't work

...

*autistic*

Monarchy/aristocracy

> No partisan politics, so decisions can be made on the basis of efficacy and pragmatism rather than adhering to the dogmatic dictates of a political party

> Most people are stupid and vote with a narrow view of history, or vote to benefit themselves personally - which is not conducive to planning for the entire nation, however elected leaders must pander to this and it fundamentally limits the ability of the state to care for itself in the long-run

> Instead of spending most of one's time in government preparing to run for re-election, it is spent actually governing

> No "virtue signaling" by voting for shitty laws (see first point regarding partisan politics)

> Leaders/rulers can be trained in governing, philosophy, history, politics, etc, from a very early age, and therefor be vastly better equipped at the task than a lawyer or businessman who spends truckloads of money on marketing to maintain their position

> A monarch's pride is in their kingdom; it is in their self-interest to ensure the long-term stability, wealth, and power of their nation

> A republic, lacking in a solid grounding (i.e., a royal family) has no center; it is amorphous and changes too rapidly. There is no intrinsic reason that a republic should maintain its current inhabitants and work for their well-being as opposed to letting them die off and bringing in voters from other countries, for example.

Aristocracy

Found the virgin

You make very convincing points mate

Right

Fascism is the perfect system IN THEORY, granted that the leader is the ideal human. That being said, the ideal human doesn't exist. So ultimately, this will only be a theoretical debate till the end of time.

But communism and anarchy should never have existed, and anyone who believes otherwise probably owns a guy fawkes mask.

Also I'm 5 xans deep so this probably doesn't make sense

its communism (and NOT socialism)

communism is made impossible by human greed. just like the concept of a perfect god modeled after us. we fuck shit up. therefore communism cannot truly exist.

This

One where all economics are controlled by a vast network of artificial intelligence that controls all logistics to create a post scarcity world,

and humans have no ability to govern other humans. - basically why communism always fails yaknow

>commiecuck
>calling anyone else a virgin

I lean very heavily towards Strasserism.

Because communists do not weigh much for they don't have any food, therefore you can lift more of them in a single helicopter.

ok why dont you just stop fucking shit up and actually decide what should be done rationally? We can do this, you know... and not be a fucking unconscious puppet driven by random impulses

yes, this is also very interesting. nevertheless, who is going to decide which error function the AI minimizes? or if it picks it itself: who's going to decide how they pick it? AI decisions can be massively biased and hence benefit those who write the algorithms.

National antijew communism

>on the basis of efficacy and pragmatism
Monarchy and aristocracy implies royal families, heredity, etc., which already was a harmful unnecessary political concept in the late 19th century. Any pretence at "aristocracy" is a mere reactionary ressentiment of people who are unaware of their economical conditions and make up explanations for their predicament.
>Most people are stupid and vote with a narrow view of history
The point of self-government is formulating the right necessary questions in the first place and only then voting for and against, not choosing between false alternatives fabricated by those in power.
>Instead of spending most of one's time in government preparing to run for re-election, it is spent actually governing
"Actually governing" means keeping the workforce uneducated and frightened en masse.
>Leaders/rulers can be trained in governing, philosophy, history, politics, etc, from a very early age
It has been tried thousands of times with the same result: you can't train an idiot to be a genius. Why all of a sudden the ruling capitalist class would choose someone smart to be a monarch?
>A republic, lacking in a solid grounding (i.e., a royal family) has no center
These are pre-18th century notions, which is quite ridiculous. There's always a center in the modern society, which is the capital: it made old forms of power like the European monarchy obsolete by the 20th century. All your sentimental mumblings are only good for castles-and-knights Hollywood movies.

You should watch person of interest season 3 onwards. really good shit

Communism, and in long-term, Anarcho-communism, cause anything else supports inequalities and/or denies democracy.

Fascism :
makes one mistake in writing the rules permanent
pisses off people and crowds, ultimately leading in revolution

Anarcho-capitalism :
permanent deregulation of every single rule
increases inequalities in (amongst others) money, therefore unstable system
capitalism is only viable when permanently conquering new markets, therefore leading only to revolution or to war and human extinction.

and I forgot :
Social-democracy on Capitalism :
leading to politics and State powers loss and rising of private corporate powers and money-based power, a.k.a Anarcho-capitalism

>which already was a harmful unnecessary political concept in the late 19th century.

Really? Because when I think of the horrors of the 20th century - Nazism and Fascism, Stalinism, Pol-Pot, Pinochet, etc, they all took power in, as as a result of the conditions in, republics.

> not choosing between false alternatives fabricated by those in power.

Yet, this is exactly what we have now, except those in power are now in power because their sociopathic tendencies allow them to easily navigate the halls of (democratic) power.

>means keeping the workforce uneducated and frightened en masse.

The conditions of earlier centuries are not the conditions of today; we have the material means by which to allow universal education, and there is great incentive to that end in terms of national prestige.

>Why all of a sudden the ruling capitalist class would choose someone smart to be a monarch?
>There's always a center in the modern society, which is the capital

Exactly - this is a major problem. Capital being the center is even worse than a royal family, because at least the royal family is dependent on the nation whereas capital can easily flee. I would much rather prefer a distributivist system with land-ownership-based parliament (for handling technical decisions) under the direction of a strong monarch.