What kind of political system is Volconvo?

[fushigi]

So, we all study politics to some degree here. I thought it'd be interesting to hear what you have to say about the political system right here in Volconvoland. N.B. This thread only seeks a descriptive, and not a normative analysis.The topic is what kind of system do we have, and not - I repeat not - whether you're in favor of it or against it.

Below is a quick overview so we can clarify terms during the debate. I'll try to organize them best I can from extreme right to extreme left. I've assigned these to four categories: extreme right, plutocratic, popular, and extreme left.

(A) EXTREME RIGHT: DICTATORSHIP, FASCIST, IMPERIALIST, MONARCHIC

Dictatorship. Unlimited authority is vested in one individual, who has an absolute monopoly on the use of force. In a dictatorship, all property (by property, of course I mean our posts) is the sole possession of one absolute ruler.

Fascist. Strong government ruled by a central authority and hierarchic control of the masses through state-run organizations that penetrate society to the grassroots level, controlling the most minute of all human actions.

Imperialist. Many states and peoples are controlled by a central state, which exudes its authority through the proclamation of owning a monopoly on morality and civilization.

Monarchic. A king or queen rules by declaration of a "divine right" mandated by a spiritual authority, such as God. Power can be limited through the existence of a separate body called upon to enact the people's will, but in theory the monarch has absolute authority for unlimited rule.

(B) PLUTOCRATIC: OLIGARCHIC, THEOCRATIC

Oligarchic. Rule by an elite, vanguard class, normally designated according to wealth in property or historic precedent. Individual rights and freedoms exist only at the pleasure of these few elite.

Theocratic. Like an oligarchy, but the vanguard class is judged by its spiritual authority over a belief system in which spiritual values are shared by all.

(C) POPULAR: PLURALISTIC, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRATIC

Pluralistic. "Government carried out by a process of bargaining and compromise between a variety of competing leadership groups." These groups range from financial to social to religious, but all work in concert to represent their various constituencies.

Republican. Rule and authority is exercised by the people through their representatives, who enact all laws and declare all public agendas and policies.

Democratic. All rule and authority is exercised by the people, who make all decisions through popular plebiscite.

(D) EXTREME LEFT: SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST, ANARCHIST

Socialist. Like communism, all property exists for the benefit of the people, but is strictly controlled by the state in order to maximize the equal distribution of resources.

Communist. Property is equally shared by all, who enjoy absolute equal rights and power. Property is distributed by a central legislative authority, and freedom of expression is limited by this body for the purpose of establishing unity among the collective.

Anarchist. As all power is deemed corrupt and evil, organized authority of any kind is completely absent from the people's lives. A person's rights only exist so far as he is able to personally exert them, and all obligation for his survival and prosperity rest solely on him.

[Matt W]

I would have to say it's an Oligarchy - the 'elite' class being the moderators - although I must admit, I'm not sure where Jason - being the ruler of all he surveys - fits into this. It's some weird Dictatorship/Oligarchic crossbreed, perhaps. :eek:

[Chris the Chees]

I think that this place is something of a benevolent dictatorship.

But on that basis who controls the dictatorship? IE can we take a intentionalist stance and declare that Jason is "master in" volconvo (stolen from Norman Rich) or can we take the structuralist view and say that it is the enviroment which dictates Jason's actions, and thus take Mommsens view and consider Jason a "weak dictator"? Then again, we can take a middle ground position and look for synthesis between the two positions, in the manner that Ian Kershaw would.


Sorry, I am currently writing an essay on this question, but in regards to the Third Reich.

I would have to say it's an Oligarchy - the 'elite' class being the moderators - although I must admit, I'm not sure where Jason - being the ruler of all he surveys - fits into this. It's some weird Dictatorship/Oligarchic crossbreed, perhaps.

Hitler had his Goerings, Jason has his minions.

[fushigi]

Come on, people, I know you got more than this.

You spend hours a day on this site discussing politics everywhere in the world but can't get motivated to discuss the political system you are a direct part of?

Let's get some posts!

Personally, I'd say oligarchy, only because the Mods are appointed rather than voted in. However, it's complex because I'm not sure of the relationship between the Mods and the Admin. When the Mods disagree with the Admin, does a power struggle erupt? Or do they back down, knowing that ultimately their status as Mod is dependent on the whims of the Admin?

Even trickier, all users have a section for suggestions to modify the site. Those suggestions are reviewed and sometimes implemented. This is not symptomatic of a dictatorship or an oligarchy, although one could probably argue that there is a sub-elite, beneath the Mods, of powerful users whose influence also translates into political power. Certainly, their suggestions would be taken more seriously than a new arrival to the site.

As for this...

Quote by: Chris the Chees I think that this place is something of a benevolent dictatorship.

Is there really such a thing? A dictator exists and rules solely for his own pleasure; therefore, any actions by the dictator are strictly for his private benefit (even if those actions happen to, as a byproduct, produce a positive effect for his subjects.)

[Matt W]

Quote by: fushigi Personally, I'd say oligarchy, only because the Mods are appointed rather than voted in. However, it's complex because I'm not sure of the relationship between the Mods and the Admin. When the Mods disagree with the Admin, does a power struggle erupt? Or do they back down, knowing that ultimately their status as Mod is dependent on the whims of the Admin?

Generally, there aren't that many disagreements. Decisions are often made collectively, which a fair bit of discussion about the best way to proceed. Ultimately, yes, Jason has "the power" (), but we like to think our input is valued.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Matt W Generally, there aren't that many disagreements. Decisions are often made collectively, which a fair bit of discussion about the best way to proceed. Ultimately, yes, Jason has "the power" (), but we like to think our input is valued.

Hmm... sounds a bit like the Chinese political system. Although the Politbureau and various central committees can effectively set all policy independently, all policies are implemented through consensus during the assembly of the National People's Congress (NPC). This doesn't change the fact that the NPC is effectively just a rubber stamp; no member wants to argue with his superiors in the committees, as their prospects for advancement come solely through the recommendation of said superiors.

So Volconvo's closest political model is... CHINA?! Sounds like it to me.

(I'd really love to hear Jason's views on this thread.)

[bishop]

i chose plurarlistic..

us mods have different styles, and tend to debate our different points of view. and, i still like to think that the members actively police themselves, in the interests of the community. plus, all members have different perspectives.

all that seems to match the definition for pluralistic.

[tman_ndsu08]

Complete, unregulated capitalism.

Jason owns the site and does with it whatever he wants since it's his property.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Complete, unregulated capitalism. Jason owns the site and does with it whatever he wants since it's his property.

I think we have a winner. ( At least that is my view of the situation. )

[ZNFYRH]

I'd have to agree, as well. There is only one voice of authority, regardless of how fluffy someone tries to present the moderation here. Jason can take away mod status but no one can take away his. That sorta settles it right there. In the end, Jason has the final say.

[Slevin57]

I don't know. This is one of the few forums where the staff doesnt' really stand out.

Becaue there is a Staff and a head, I'm going with Monarchy

And a nice monarchy it is. Hail to the crown

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Matt W Generally, there aren't that many disagreements. Decisions are often made collectively, which a fair bit of discussion about the best way to proceed. Ultimately, yes, Jason has "the power" (), but we like to think our input is valued.

Agreed, and any disagreement has, in my experiance, been universally friendly and polite with both parties swift to compromise or even cave.

[bishop]

heh... at the end of the day, just ask yourself whether/not the antics here are REALLY worth getting stressed about..

[gallo]

Wow! A discussion among moderators. How unusual. It does give some insight. But I wouldn't trust for a minute how any moderator evaluates himself. For example, one mod who thinks that this board is pluralistic is the one who comes down the hardest for any excuse on anyone with whom he disagrees. He seems to perceive insult where there is none. That moderator is extreme right, while I would characterize others with whom I have had experience as plutocratic. There are several mods with whom I have never had experience. Can't say about them.

I wonder if this post is going to get me another '3 point' warning for insult where there was none.

[fushigi]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Complete, unregulated capitalism. Jason owns the site and does with it whatever he wants since it's his property.

Hmm... true. Except that the site would have no value without an active user base, which means that Jason can't just run roughshod over anyone he wants to. Sure, he could ban everyone, but then who would be left to rule over?

An interesting example of this came up recently. Last week a self-proclaimed (and later confirmed) Iranian came to post his views on the movie 300. His posts were fairly random diatribes about racism and ignorance about history. The moderators decided that he was trolling and banned him after 3 posts. However, due to discussion on a separate thread, in which several members questioned the ban, the mods reinstated him.

Would something like this really happen in a dictatorship?

I think the thing that sets this site apart from a dictatorship (and maybe even a plutocracy) is that the true value of the site is in the regular activity of the users, which they alone can either provide or withhold. In essence, one could argue that the users truly own the means of production and therefore have an equal share of wealth. Does this make Volconvo a communist system??

In any event, without the support of his subjects, the admin becomes the master of nothing, a ruler of nothing living alone on a deserted island.

Certainly not a dictatorship.

[ZNFYRH]

Indeed still a dictatorship.

Notice that it wasn't Jason who applied the ban. In fact, he initiate moderator discussion to reverse it.

[Matt W]

Quote by: gallo Wow! A discussion among moderators. How unusual. It does give some insight. But I wouldn't trust for a minute how any moderator evaluates himself. For example, one mod who thinks that this board is pluralistic is the one who comes down the hardest for any excuse on anyone with whom he disagrees. He seems to perceive insult where there is none. That moderator is extreme right, while I would characterize others with whom I have had experience as plutocratic. There are several mods with whom I have never had experience. Can't say about them. I wonder if this post is going to get me another '3 point' warning for insult where there was none.

*shrugs* Your perception, your tinted glasses.

[bishop]

disagreements happen, but there are some cases where they never happen...

[fushigi]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Indeed still a dictatorship. Notice that it wasn't Jason who applied the ban. In fact, he initiate moderator discussion to reverse it.

Still doesn't clarify the political system. Here's why.

A mod unilaterally banned Cyrus. That would make this an oligarchy.

Then it was GHook who pointed out he was banned, lamenting the loss. In a dictatorship, GHook would just be told to STFU, and would have out of fear of state reprisal.

However, Jason stepped in to prevent the situation from escalating, using executive influence to change the outcome.

This seems more like a consultative political system to me, in which those charged for offenses have a (wacky) court of appeals for their bans.

Republic? Still not, because we didn't vote. But it's sure not a dictatorship, nor is it a full oligarchy.

[Technosoul]

I voted for "other" because most people don't agree with me and belong to some other line of poltical thought.