Government in Large Scale Societies

There are only a few kinds of government that have been proven successful, a term that will be defined presently, in large scale societies. The measure of success in society, as I define it, is quite simple: the basic needs of the citizens must be met. Because each government has pros and cons, I will list them in alphabetical rather than popular, chronological, or superior.

1-Communism:

The most idealistically liberating form of government quickly turned into the most oppressive, and, in Western thought, hated. The problems that the Communist nations faced were linked to the fact that no one wanted to do the dishes - metaphorically speaking, of course. No one dreams of becoming a garbage man. Capitalism, obviously, has solved this issue by paying more for jobs that are considered undesirable - but in a Communist nation, jobs are based upon desire and ability, and not only does no one want to be a trash man for being a trash man, no one is more suited for trash manning than another. So the menial tasks are a problem. But Marx had the solution to that one - we'll discuss it later.

There is another glaring issue, that of bureaucracy. The Communist system which the Russians and Chinese implemented required a few powerful men at the top - who profited enormously and have unmitigated power. It's like that Rush song - the one about the trees who complain that one species is taller than the other, and so the solution is that "The trees were all kept equal by hatchet, ax, and saw"- but someone had to carry the hatchet. And that someone whose responsibility it was to cut off any trees that got too tall is so easily corrupted.

But that's not all. The cultures which adopted this form of government were not conducive to Communist ideals - with the notable exception that Russia actually thrives with totalitarian bureaucracy; thus, the issues of a Soviet state were actually culturally familiar if not acceptable and the things that went right - the sharing of property and so on - were difficult to accept. Other countries reacted differently based upon cultural understanding, and were, for the most part, unable to assimilate. They just lost themselves.

2-Democracy:

Although Democracy is seen as the most 'ideal' or 'correct' form of government in Western Society, it is, in fact, a relatively unproven concept. No Democratic society - at least, nocivilized (and I say that with more than a little sarcastic disdain) Democratic society - has survived past a century or two (America is up for a revolution any day now). The framers of the American government were working off of very shady empirical data, considering that what we would modernly consider a true Democracy - one in which all the citizens share equal rights i.e. without the possibility of discrimination based upon gender, race, religion, or social status - was not in place for the better part of America's history. I'm talking, of course, about the fact that all the framers were white, wealthy, and male - the shining capstone of modern democracy (everyone gets to vote and minorities are represented and protected) was utterly unportrayed until...let's face it: they're still largely unportrayed.

Ok, so Democracy is not as ideal as we make it out to be - it still works...sort of. And yet - yet, after all that, America makes a pretense of perfection and of idealism - "Come to America, where the streets are paved with gold", right? Wrong. Because even though our country is seen as the most powerful one on the planet, anyone would be crazy to make such audatious claims as Americans do. Because America is Capitalist and because America is increasingly immoral, because Democracy demands morality, an aspect of society which is melting quickly.

SO Here's the whole point - that's the problem with Democracy - it requires not only moralitybut commonality. The minorities can neither be pleased nor appeased in a large scale democracy: the great irony of our system.

3-Monarchy and Dictatorship

The difference between Monarchy and Dictatorship is, of course, that the Dictator appoints his successor and the Monarch bears him. Or her. Although I absolutely recognize the significance of this difference (the hereditary lineages are more significant than one might think, in fact), for our purposes, we will group the two together. So - what is wrong with a dictatorship? Well, we all have heard stories about the Evil Dictator who runs a country into the ground, but we have also heard stories of kind, generous, and good dictators. If you're thinking I'm crazy, think again. Here are some examples: King Solomon, King Arthur, King Mosiah, etc. Now, we all know, of course, that for every one good King there are a hundred bad ones - Saddam Hussein, King Henry VIII, King Noah, etc. The problem with this form of government is not in it's lack of potential for good, but rather, the difficulty with which a bad dictator can be ousted.

There are others, of course: Theocracy, Judocracy, Republic, etc, but I think I have belabored my point: any government can and will be corrupted and evil. We see literally hundreds of examples of this. It is the legacy of man: the rise and fall of civilizations. But we are in an unprecidented time. Never before has a society been more global than ours. We have knew weapons, technologies, ideas - and we have one more thing: amorality. Amorality is not "immorality" - it is not going against one's morals - it is a complete lack of morals. A lack of knowing what is fundamentally right and wrong.

Now, you say, "There is no absolute right or wrong for everyone - it all depends on perspective". Bravo, you. I could not agree more. We have made too many compromises with uncompromisable material. We have allowed ourselves to grow so large and so diverse that we are imploding. "If the eye offend thee, pluck it out". There are people in our huge, global society who are acting in ways that are anti-social to say the least, but instead of plucking them, we enable them.

So what is the answer? Are we to be take away agency? No. We just need to realize that we are given agency so we can choose the right way, not so that we can choose whatever way makes us feel good at the time.

The point is that large scale societies don't work. What we need is a series of small scale, self-sufficient, moral (or not, depending again on the individual's choice) societies.