There are many types of government:
Democratic Republic, Monarchy, Communism, Fascism, Dictatorship, Totalitarian State and Dynasties these are your choices. Effectiveness is not determined merely by the length of the system but by the progress made by those who use it.

You could say Communist Russia was an effective government because it enabled them to become a world superpower. You can include fictional governments so long as you explain their progress. You can even pick Enron, they made tons of money simply by wasting customer money claiming it was developing and this sent their stocks through the roof, of course they got found out and assraped by the monkey of vengeful justice.

I don't really care, it can be a short lived society that employed said form, so long as it made a mark on its consequent world.

I think an egalitarianistic autocratic totalitarian socio-republican society would be the best way to go.

I say Constituinal Monarchy, we have all the advantages and freedom of a democracy but also a garuntee that if our Prime Minister stuffs up to bad he gets sacked and we get a lot of help from another country to fix us up, like being a baby.

IE. rely on another country.

IE. rely on another country.no, kick the existing monarch out in place of a better one.

Because it's that easy.

Depending on the leader any form could work but the best is probably a dynasty run with officials both from outside the country and within it, the Mongols ran China that way for a long time and were more successful than many of the previous regimes.

IE. rely on another country.
Yep :)

socialism, hands down

no, kick the existing monarch out in place of a better one.
I was referring to GWIA's post, where he'd rather have Australia as a constitutional monarchy than a republic. IE. be lazy and rely on another country to save your sorry ass.

socialism, hands downsocialism doesnt work in practicality, nor on a large scale.

Hey I need someone to confirm this for me. Did Karl Marx invent Socialism or Communism?

I was referring to GWIA's post, where he'd rather have Australia as a constitutional monarchy than a republic. IE. be lazy and rely on another country to save your sorry ass.
We only rely on them when we're in the shitter, otherwise we don't use them for anything, when things go bad we call them.

Hey I need someone to confirm this for me. Did Karl Marx invent Socialism or Communism?He invented communism. Communism is a form of government, while socialism is an economic system.

I think that, in small communities, or when used as a temporary solution to try and get an impoverished empire back on track, Communism works the best. On a large scale in a country where there are more educated people than there are idiots, like Ancient Greece, full out Democracy is the way to go. A Monarchy is just asking to be overthrown by someone else, as any idiot can just attack one place and take all the power. If you run a facist government, your people will inevitably start to hate your guts. Dictatorships and totalitarian governments just don't work, because the people will always revolt and kill everyone running the government. This may contradict some of what I have just said, but basically any form of oligarchy works, as long as one politician doesn't get more than a few years of power.

I think that, in small communities, or when used as a temporary solution to try and get an impoverished empire back on track, Communism works the best. On a large scale in a country where there are more educated people than there are idiots, like Ancient Greece, full out Democracy is the way to go. A Monarchy is just asking to be overthrown by someone else, as any idiot can just attack one place and take all the power. If you run a facist government, your people will inevitably start to hate your guts. Dictatorships and totalitarian governments just don't work, because the people will always revolt and kill everyone running the government. This may contradict some of what I have just said, but basically any form of oligarchy works, as long as one politician doesn't get more than a few years of power.fascism and communism are almost the same, its like jews and muslims, their premise of beleifs are almost the same, but they hate eachother.

I feel good I started this thread. Napalm, I thought Lenin formed communism, or did he just canonize it?

He was the first one to put it to use. Then Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin came along.

Ahh. Also it came to me that the style of government may not make anywhere near as big a difference as the laws the country has. Certain laws can be use to enforce a different type of goverment that which the country boasts, a totalitarian system could even be formed without said ruled people knowing it as such and placing it upon themselves by a choice, just like in Philip K. Dick( the guy who wrote Minority Report which was way better in the written form)'s "The Mold of Yancy".

He was the first one to put it to use. Then Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin came along.not really.

I feel good I started this thread. Napalm, I thought Lenin formed communism, or did he just canonize it?Karl Marx created the platform for a communistic society. Lenin, well, he sorta promoted its use in Russia, until he was exiled by Stalin, who had a different view of communistic society.

my grandma told me something interesting today, some well-to-do buggers were debating how to make a totalitarian system work, a leader who is more interested in his subjects than himself, power corrupts quickly though

Totalitarianism, does work. It doesn't necessarily keep the people happy, but it does maintain order, and allows for the country to function as a whole.

Look at Iraq right now, Under Mr. Hussein's totalitarian regime, there were no outbreaks between the different muslim sects of the country, like Sunis' Shiites' etc. Now when we put in a democratic government, the shit hits the fan.

That's a good way to look at it, but I think that I would disagree with you if I were the one being persecuted by my government.
=====
I still think that a full-out democracy would be the most effective if combined usefully with a supreme education system.

Karl Marx created the platform for a communistic society. Lenin, well, he sorta promoted its use in Russia, until he was exiled by Stalin, who had a different view of communistic society.
I don't think Lenin was exiled. I thought he died and then Trotsky and Stalin had a power struggle, then eventually Stalin won and exiled Trotsky.

I don't think Lenin was exiled. I thought he died and then Trotsky and Stalin had a power struggle, then eventually Stalin won and exiled Trotsky.I don't even remember anymore.

Totalitarianism, does work. It doesn't necessarily keep the people happy, but it does maintain order, and allows for the country to function as a whole.

Look at Iraq right now, Under Mr. Hussein's totalitarian regime, there were no outbreaks between the different muslim sects of the country, like Sunis' Shiites' etc. Now when we put in a democratic government, the shit hits the fan.
The shitus has hittus the fanus.

I don't think Lenin was exiled. I thought he died and then Trotsky and Stalin had a power struggle, then eventually Stalin won and exiled Trotsky.
Yea, Lenin was never exiled, he died dude.

Yes, it was Trotsky I was thinking of.

Set it and forget it!

Yea, Lenin was never exiled, he died dude.
Yeah, then Stalin had Trotsky killed later because Stalin saw Trotsky as a threat, even though he was exiled. Yep...Stalin was that paranoid.

Neverender, democracy is really only effective when the country is in its adult stage. The heirarchy of popultation goes as thus: village tribe; small town; large town with specialized workers; small city with trade, at least a barter system; large city which has specialized workers and detailed architecture. In each of these scenarios the form of government takes a long time to decide which is best for the people living there, eventually they pick a main-stream form and when those people can agree to disagree and still work together, a democracy is usually the choice.
=====
forgive the double post
Perhaps the course of action needed to create a successful country is a more relative and easy to answer question.

Well... to tell you the truth communism is actually the perfect form of government. Kepp reading, but the fault is that the human race is greedy and they always want to excel and be ahead from the 'rest' so basically, comunnism is a fantsy while pertaining to fairness but democracy is the best chice to keep in mind the well-being and creativity of the society.

Well... to tell you the truth communism is actually the perfect form of government.As much as you want your own opinion to be the truth, I'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way.


Communism has many fundamental problems, which includes basic economics.

Well... to tell you the truth communism is actually the perfect form of government. Kepp reading, but the fault is that the human race is greedy and they always want to excel and be ahead from the 'rest' so basically, comunnism is a fantsy while pertaining to fairness but democracy is the best chice to keep in mind the well-being and creativity of the society.
Communism would be perfect if it worked, but it doesn't because of the corrupt people in the Communist governments.

Communism would be perfect if it worked, but it doesn't because of the corrupt people in the Communist governments.nor does it work on a large scale.

isn't the problem with communism that the trade system is entirely run by the government so any money made within the country goes straight to those in charge, impoverishing the rest?

Well, it depends on how much money the government takes then. If some corrupt person who is greedy took over, then maybe the country would end up impoverished.

Well, it depends on how much money the government takes then. If some corrupt person who is greedy took over, then maybe the country would end up impoverished.Even If the Government was true to its word, there are problems with the way a socialist monetary system works.

isn't the problem with communism that the trade system is entirely run by the government so any money made within the country goes straight to those in charge, impoverishing the rest?eh, thats the way it was made to be anyway. The real thing is, in every major government, the primary source of income is taxes. In a communist government, you cannot tax the people, therefore you must rely on exports to provide the capital for your government, and that isn't always a great source of income.

Even If the Government was true to its word, there are problems with the way a socialist monetary system works.
eh, thats the way it was made to be anyway.
Yeah, like how a brain surgeon can make just as much money as a carpenter.

interesting, also, can we please stay away from words like corrupt or greed? They are becoming cliches for this thread

Then I'll say, "Communism fails when the leaders are very depraved."

okay fine, since that makes no sense, use corrupt etc. Depraved would mean they have little themselves, me confused now

Just drop it....

lol, sorry, what about evolution of states of government? In Africa there were several great empires long ago such as the Mali but now the only remnants of these giants are abandoned cities and stories of long lost places like Timbuktu; why is it that some of the most successful governments were so evanescent? Will countries like the United States just burn out too if it is a true pattern?

Also, why is it that countries like China, Japan, Russia and England have endured many regime changes but still maintain the good points of their ancestors yet empires as great as Rome, the Mongols and Mali disintegrated?

Africa has one really big problem, its its coastal plane. Its all cliffs, and there are practically no harbors.

As for the united states, yes, we will fall, eventually, probably not in this lifetime, but who knows.

China's regime changes are totalitarianism at work, only now china is beginning to modernize. China was one of the most technologically in-advanced nations until only several years ago.

Japan isolated itself for most of history, and still does, though not to the extent as they did 200 years ago. Not to mention all the luck they had in stopping the Mongols from invading.

Russia is just a superpower as a result of the communist revolution there, which put Stalin in power. Before then Russia was just sort of throwing bodies into the battle.

England gained its power due to its naval power first established by Queen Elizabeth in the mid-1800's. This allowed them to create an overseas empire.

I don't know about the Mongols and Mali, but the romans collapsed due to overexpansion.

I liked how Argentina gained independance from Spain. England and Spain were fighting over all the land and the growing city of Buenos Aires, although Spain only wanted it so England couldn't have it. They let England and Spain think that they were in charge of the government and fight over it while the Argentinians built a population of their own, and then they allied themselves with England and destroyed the Spanish, and then launched an attack on the English.

They could easily have established themselves as a world power right then, but they didn't know what to without someone else running their government.

Interesting Neverender, never knew that. Kind of like what India eventually did but instead of falling apart they used the infrastructure laid out by England.

Africa has one really big problem, its its coastal plane. Its all cliffs, and there are practically no harbors.
As for the united states, yes, we will fall, eventually, probably not in this lifetime, but who knows.
China's regime changes are totalitarianism at work, only now china is beginning to modernize. China was one of the most technologically in-advanced nations until only several years ago.
Japan isolated itself for most of history, and still does, though not to the extent as they did 200 years ago. Not to mention all the luck they had in stopping the Mongols from invading.
Russia is just a superpower as a result of the communist revolution there, which put Stalin in power. Before then Russia was just sort of throwing bodies into the battle.
England gained its power due to its naval power first established by Queen Elizabeth in the mid-1800's. This allowed them to create an overseas empire.

China only became isolated for a short time, 600 years I think, but when they were invaded and subsequently conquered by the Mongols they entered a new golden age. England always was a major player in European history but yes, they expanded the most in the 18th century due to their navy.

okay fine, since that makes no sense, use corrupt etc. Depraved would mean they have little themselves, me confused now
That's "deprived", depraved is another word for "corrupt".

You know, it's possible that China could take over the world within this lifetime. All they need to do is secretly build up an army, launch an all-out surprise attack on us. Once we, their main threat, are out of the way, nothing can stop them. I say China because they're the only country in the world that could take us down. Despite the massive population, the philosophy and discipline of thier government and people is phenomenal.

The only thing holding them back from attacking us is the ideas of general peace that they keep, and they have no reason to take over the world. Not to mention that there's no way to control the entire world once you do take it over.

I understand now about the depraved thing, thank you Shinobi. Neverender, China would need to be able to make that decision and carry it out within less than twelve hours otherwise we could easily release a response team. Also they wouldn't do that because no one wants to bring fire anywhere near the powderkeg known as North Korea; it would be bad, really bad, no known scenarios can really predict the outcome. Again though, twelve hours max otherwise the whole world would know about it and the web would be filled with the news and China and the U.S. would enter another cold war

I understand now about the depraved thing, thank you Shinobi. Neverender, China would need to be able to make that decision and carry it out within less than twelve hours otherwise we could easily release a response team.A response team? we have 450 green berets, and 600 Navy seals. How do you hope to stop 11 million Chinese soldiers. Also they wouldn't do that because no one wants to bring fire anywhere near the powderkeg known as North Korea; it would be bad, really bad, no known scenarios can really predict the outcome.What are you talking about? North Korea has like 3 Nuclear missiles, they probably don't even work. we have 50,000 just sitting around, not in the silos. Again though, twelve hours max otherwise the whole world would know about it and the web would be filled with the news and China and the U.S. would enter another cold warIf you wanted to take over the world, you couldnt do it in 12 hours, nor does 12 hours hold ANY significance here. It took Germany a month to capture Poland. Germany had an army of only a 1.4 million. China has a standing army of 2.4 million, and 8 million in reserve.. Some up north, some down south. Bellieve me, China is in relatively good position to conquer pan-Asia at the moment.

Probably the only problem is the supply lines, as china is still modernizing, supplies would be rather slow to the main fronts.

That's true...China has a very large army by the way.

All we know is that CHINA WILL PWN1!!!!!1

I mean twelve hours to make a huge move, time is actually quite important. When I say response team I mean black ops taking out whatever neccessary head positions within a short amount of time. You said 600 Navy Seals? Those guys are frikkin crazy, they could easily do the job and if not them some of the other black ops groups are fit for it. The reason I say North Korea is a powderkeg is that they may not get that nuclear weapons are nothing more than deterents and not for use. besides, as small as the country is, three missiles can do enough damage to seriously damage a country. The UN would get in the way diplomatically and the whole thing would enter a rough period of time.