# The social structure question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000 "2012-11-24T18:28:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Muffins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5e9695/32.png) [@Muffins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffins)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/1 "2012-11-24T18:28:38Z")
Communism, neo-capitalism, anarchism, libertarianism there are countless options, but is there a winning formula? What do we have at the moment? Are there auxiliary motives to the growth and decline of a system? Is there a damn system at all? Some pretty vague notions, but I feel a valid knot of theory to raise. I haven’t thrown my own ideas in the question as I don’t want to start the thang on a footing, but if this thread gets rolling I will. Any thoughts Straight Dope? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/2 "2012-11-24T18:35:25Z")
What’s the measure of “winning”? By which criteria do you determine that a given system is better than another? But just off the top of my head, it would appear that some sort of system combining democracy and relatively free markets works best (that is, what we have in the West). It remains to be seen if the Chinese model can actually bring a country into fully developed status and sustain it there for an extended period of time. BTW, on the scale of the various alternatives you threw up there, plus whatever else there might be, I don’t see a huge difference between, say, the US and France or Sweden. ---
**Author:** ![Muffins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5e9695/32.png) [@Muffins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffins)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/3 "2012-11-24T18:45:49Z")
yeah poor wording, my bad. I guess that could be considered _the_ question. Just a thought, do you really think the west has democracy? Also it could be said that the differences between them are minimal but there are significant disparities in the types of state welfare employed, is more better? ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/4 "2012-11-24T22:13:59Z")
I thought the whistle had pretty much been stoppered on Communism and Anarchism. China and Viet Nam are Communist only in name, and no one thinks of North Korea or Zimbabwe as role models. That leaves Cuba as the most highly regarded remaining Communist state, but one not so highly regarded that anyone has copied it in any great detail. As for Anarchism, thankfully none of the miserable remnant has revived the bomb-throwing insanity of their forebearers of 100-150 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/5 "2012-11-24T22:46:01Z")
It may be too simple an answer, but _The Middle Way_ is best. 🆒 Both the “Markets Allocate Best; Greed is Good” theme of capitalism and the “From per abilities; To per needs” theme of Marxism do have merit, and most of the world’s successful countries seek a compromise between the two. Similarly, there should be some middle ground between the authoritarianism of countries like China and the democracy by the lowest-common-denominator lunatic practiced in U.S.A. An intelligent and conscientious media once played an important role in bridging that gap, but the rise of FoxNews and Lunatic\_Blogs.Com, along with poor schooling, makes the electorate dumber. Many of today’s problems are beyond ideology, e.g. Left vs Right, and are more a matter of Smart vs Stupid. For example, there are few, if any, ideologies that advocate long-term fiscal irresponsibility. Solving such problems doesn’t require _changing_ political beliefs, just fixing political systems so dysfunctional they no longer _have_ beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/6 "2012-11-26T05:12:07Z")
**septimus** for the win. Regulated capitalism – free, but limited in the harm it can do – coupled with representative democracy and a strong opposition party, under a banner of human rights – none of this is perfect, because perfection is not obtainable. But it’s as good as it’s ever gonna get. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/7 "2012-11-26T16:10:36Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > septimus for the win. Regulated capitalism – free, but limited in the harm it can do – coupled with representative democracy and a strong opposition party, under a banner of human rights – none of this is perfect, because perfection is not obtainable. But it’s as good as it’s ever gonna get. I think the essential ingredient for a “winning” society is regulated _government_. In the U.S. we have enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights, which is the bedrock upon which much of our success lies. Left to its own devices, government will grow to encompass every aspect of life that it can, and being largely removed from market forces, will do so in an incompetent manner. So, my take is that the formula for success would be a regulated government with ennumerated powers, free-market capitalism, and representative democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/8 "2012-11-26T16:35:17Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > China and Viet Nam are Communist only in name… The Chinese economic model still involves a great deal of central planning. It’s just not the same sort of central planning. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/9 "2012-11-26T17:11:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The Chinese economic model still involves a great deal of central planning. It’s just not the same sort of central planning. Is there a good term for the current Chinese economic system? It’s not communism, and it’s not capitalism…corporatism? ---
**Author:** ![Scholar\_Beardpig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Scholar\_Beardpig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scholar_Beardpig)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/10 "2012-11-26T18:06:03Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Is there a good term for the current Chinese economic system? It’s not communism, and it’s not capitalism…corporatism? A good name for it would be **Chinese-style market socialism,** or perhaps just _The Chinese system_ since there’s none other quite like it? The _proper_ name for it is **socialism with Chinese characteristics in adherence to the three represents theory as applied to scientific development in pursuit of a modestly prosperous society.** The ‘modestly prosperous’ bit is new, as of the latest congress. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/11 "2012-11-26T18:13:37Z")
China seems less tied to it’s ideology than the US does. They don’t seem to have as much trouble shrugging their shoulders and making the pragmatic decision. This could be the benefit they have over a US style democracy where dealing with short term popular sentiment is a big factor. We also have problems with central planning, something that may not burden smaller western democracies in Europe and elsewhere as much. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/12 "2012-11-26T19:47:55Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **septimus** for the win. Regulated capitalism – free, but limited in the harm it can do – coupled with representative democracy and a strong opposition party, under a banner of human rights – none of this is perfect, because perfection is not obtainable. But it’s as good as it’s ever gonna get. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I think the essential ingredient for a “winning” society is regulated _government_. Both of these. It’s regulated _power_ that’s the issue here. If you take the brakes off government _or_ private enterprise, you run the risk of crashing things into the ground. There need to be checks and balances between government and the market just as much as between the various branches of government. The unsustainability of most social structures that we’ve seen fail is due to one of two reasons: either the power is spread out among the people in such a way that everyone needs to consciously agree and abide by the rules set forth, as with communism, or too much power is concentrated in a very few persons’ hands, as with monarchies, dictatorships, and the like. The former generally doesn’t work because it depends on an entire population having a uniform personality, and that simply doesn’t happen. It only takes a few people willing to go against the system to break it and concentrate power into their hands, causing the latter system. The latter suffers from too much variability: if you get a good ruler, the society can be fantastically prosperous, but if you get a bad ruler then there’s no way to check their abuse of power, and there are a _lot_ more bad rulers than good. This is the major issue with deregulating either government or business, because you can end up with President for Life or some company like Google running the country. Regulations put brakes on society. Yes, they cut into the heights a society can reach, but they also soften the lows. Dividing power between several major entities and allowing each the ability to check the others if they get out of line helps keep things from getting too horrific. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/13 "2012-11-26T22:06:28Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I think the essential ingredient for a “winning” society is regulated _government_. In the U.S. we have enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights . . . Also, the very clever feature of divided government, where the portions have to spend so much time reining each other in, it prevents them from using that time to rein us in. The idea of an institution – Parliament or just the brotherhood of lesser nobles – that acts in opposition to the power of the monarch/sovereign is, perhaps, the single best idea humanity ever came up with. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/14 "2012-11-26T23:51:04Z")
> [@Scholar\_Beardpig](#): > > A good name for it would be **Chinese-style market socialism,** or perhaps just _The Chinese system_ since there’s none other quite like it? > > The _proper_ name for it is **socialism with Chinese characteristics in adherence to the three represents theory as applied to scientific development in pursuit of a modestly prosperous society.** The ‘modestly prosperous’ bit is new, as of the latest congress. It probably flows better in Mandarin. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/15 "2012-11-27T14:08:49Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Are there auxiliary motives to the growth and decline of a system? Can you clarify this? > [@Muffin](#): > > Just a thought, do you really think the west has democracy? Yes. Democracy does not guarantee a well-functioning, just society in and of itself. After all, with democracy you get the government you deserve. If a majority of people believe in, say, denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, then that will probably happen. If they want government benefits in excess of government revenues, then that will probably happen too. The better informed and more moral the electorate, the better a democracy will function. > [@Scholar Beardpig](#): > > A good name for it would be Chinese-style market socialism… Thank you. > [@Bosstone](#): > > The unsustainability of most social structures that we’ve seen fail is due to one of two reasons: either the power is spread out among the people in such a way that everyone needs to consciously agree and abide by the rules set forth, as with communism, or too much power is concentrated in a very few persons’ hands, as with monarchies, dictatorships, and the like. > > The former generally doesn’t work because it depends on an entire population having a uniform personality, and that simply doesn’t happen. It only takes a few people willing to go against the system to break it and concentrate power into their hands, causing the latter system. [The Road To Serfdom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_To_Serfdom) by F.A. Hayek is the finest articulation of this point that I’ve read. He argues that systems which ignore market forces, like communism, will always become tyrannical because that’s the only way they can function: through dictates, not free choices. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Also, the very clever feature of divided government, where the portions have to spend so much time reining each other in, it prevents them from using that time to rein us in. > > The idea of an institution – Parliament or just the brotherhood of lesser nobles – that acts in opposition to the power of the monarch/sovereign is, perhaps, the single best idea humanity ever came up with. Excellent point, because such sharing of power forces compromise, which, by weeding out the most radical or conservative ideas, creates a mappy middle ground. Compromise between competing ideas is at the heart of our governmental process. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-social-structure-question/642000/16 "2012-11-27T23:04:11Z")
As Dan O’Neill said, if you all agree, you cease to be a democracy. You become a phone company. In democracy, there will be losers. The guy who wanted a license to sell alcohol, and the zoning board said no. The guy who wants to open a dirty bookstore, but a school is too close. The guy who wants to forbid me from buying beer on Sunday. Or just Romney and McCain. Democracy means choices, and some significant number of us are not going to like that choice that eventually gets made. The trouble is that any “solution” to this “problem” usually leads to something much, much worse than what we have now!