People in general only side with the ideology that benefits them and them alone. This makes sense for 100% of cases; no exceptions.

In actuality, all systems sound ideal for everyone. Of course, each person only sides with whichever one they garner the most profit from; emotionally, physically, and/or financially. The basis of each system sounds perfect, and even the Wikipedia articles for either Republican or Democrat looks as if it was written by the same principles.

The problem, of course, isn't any of the actual systems' fault, but rather the emotionally uncaring behavior, the physically demanding proclamation, and the financially crippling practices of the people themselves.

All of the systems have a sound reason to abide by, otherwise you would never see someone talking about how great socialism was, mainly because it benefited that person at the expense of others. It is one thing to have a dictator, but it is another thing in question as to whether or not that dictator has convinced people to fight for them instead of against them.

Would it be dishonorable to be called a "slave" if your "master" gave you legitimate reasons to fight for them?

All in all, the only reason people call any of the systems "bad" is because of the notion of the few people commanding it. Communism works if it's someone other than a jackass controlling it, as does capitalism, socialism, etc. The people who say it's "bad" only compare it to the overly demanding principles of the last group of morons overseeing everything. (This is of course given that mostly all of these systems see numerous rewrites by the same overly demanding peons.)

At the end of the day, I follow the very keen notion of, "If your system doesn't allow Position X under Circumstance Y, then any of your systems, to a lack of a system [anarchy], will not be protected."