The Pros and Cons to Government Types

[Capitulo]

I've got a little experiment I'd like to try out. I'm going to assemble the major pros and cons to every type of basic government, and I'd like the REVLEFT community to build the ultimate government. I'd like our conflicting minds and ideals to collide HEAD ON with these facts that we may not like to hear, and come up with the perfect balance of solutions. Use charts, graphs, and Venn diagrams, whatever you need to demonstrate your personal ideas. I think our combined minds could create something better than plain 'ol Communism.

Autocracy-
Pros- Easily managed and quickly controlled, making social changes simpler.
Cons- The one leader usually follows his own morals and beliefs, not the people, making this system unstable.

Anarchy-
Pros- Develops into many different smaller economies, making trading, producing, and communication much easier.
Cons- Costs a lot of effort and time to re-build civilization, not to mention a few human lives. Sort of a big deal.

Socialism-
Pros- Welfare and social programs help the poor, disabled, and unfortunate.
Cons- People take advantage of the system, and the government eventually turns greedy and starts to take in more of the taxes for itself, leaving the people with less.

Democracy-
Pros- Everybody gets a fair say in everything, leading to a majority rule.
Cons- The masses aren't always entirely right, and that could lead to some really bad decisions without a leader to guide them.

Republic-
Pros- Rules set in stone can lead to a very stable society.
Cons- Rules set in stone are very hard to change with the times, but can't be altered for just any reason. A very tedious topic to discuss.

Of course, there are many subcategories, but these are the basic templates for a fresh government. Basically, I'm asking this community to collaborate in finding solutions to all of the cons, without creating another con. If the idea is stupid, then let the thread die out. I'm just trying to throw ideas out there.

[RedSonRising]

To a proper socialist, the only 'model' that suits them is one that empowers the working class, so that those who produce control what is produced, how it is produced, and where it is distributed, and individuals are free to engage production and use of resources as freely as they wish. Real democracy in all organs of society through the institutions of the community, without hierarchies of wealth or power obstructing one's freedom.

"Socialism" is not a welfare state providing things for the poor that evolves into some predatory bureaucracy, it's a classless organization of production and political decision-making. "Anarchy" is also not some barren wasteland model of primitive communities either. 4 of those models can theoretically be integrated into each other; political economies are complex and don't really fit into those dry categorizations. What you should ask yourself, first and foremost, is who controls the means of production? All other answers will follow if you know how to look. Not trying to be condescending, but that kind of breakdown of systems is too inaccurate for valuable and useful class-analysis to gel with.

[Capitulo]

Socialism, in it's closest form to purity, still has to be run by certain officials. It's biggest threat is demagoguery. And I'm being VERY vague with my types, I'm just throwing out ideas. Look at Wikipedia's government list, they're a good source for most all of the subsections. (My post count is too low to post links.)