>just I'm pretty sure it wouldn't create incentives to keep masses of people less effective than they'd otherwise be. Self-interested authoritarians always hav

>just I'm pretty sure it wouldn't create incentives to keep masses of people less effective than they'd otherwise be. Self-interested authoritarians always have incentive to keep the population controlled, ignorant, and subdued, to preserve their status. The trouble is that in order to establish something like communism, the populace must cede all powers to an extremely authoritatian government, in which case it becomes inevitable that bad actors will co-opt the system for personal gain, which the "proletariat" will be powerless to legally resist, because of the restriction of rights necessary for centrally planned collectivist society. See USSR, DPRK, China, Venuezuala, etc. In becoming absolute arbiters of resource distribution, communism, and extreme socialism, can only exist by removing most of the freedoms that allow citizens to keep governments from being overly tyrannical. This is a sort of emergent progression, and it is a consequence of collective human nature. Just a disclaimer, I'm not arguing that democratic capitalism is perfect either, especially because similar bad, selfish actors can take advantage of this system as well, especially with regulatory capture. However, at least under this system we theoretically have the ability to vote both by ballot and by wallet.