4 ms·
I don't really understand your question. I'm saying that if you concentrate power into one person's hands, it's awesome and efficient if that person is compete
by ameister14 9y ago
I don't really understand your question.
I'm saying that if you concentrate power into one person's hands, it's awesome and efficient if that person is competent and benevolent. If he is not, it's really bad. Unfortunately, in the history of the world, there has been no government continuously run by benevolent and competent leaders.
The US arguably concentrates too much power into the hands of a single person, but not nearly to the same extent as a centralized and managed economy does. This has nothing to do with capitalism.
- AstralStorm 9y agoNor does it have to do with communism. Specifically communism does not require nationalisation nor centralization of power. In fact the Marxist roots expect the workers to own and run the factories collectively and resolve conflicts by vote and consensus. The ideology called "communism" in the US is actually national socialism. Not to be mistaken with fascism, but close. (Yes, it is Nazism. Soviet ideology was actually identical.) Alleged soviet collectivism was actually nationalisation.
- ameister14 9y agoI wasn't talking about that, though - I was talking about State Capitalism and the efficiency of a concentration of power, responding to a person that said that was the optimal system.