7 ms·

One of the main problems has been with communism as it has been practiced. Not only does it take a lot of buy-in and not everyone feels communal, but the despot

One of the main problems has been with communism as it has been practiced. Not only does it take a lot of buy-in and not everyone feels communal, but the despotism that it has enabled has been really quite something. Just as "capitalism" is a set of experiments with failures and successes, "communism" might be. "Socialism" that shares the decision-making around is probably the better model.

rbanffy 3y ago
There is a very large continuum described as communism or socialism that includes things such as anarco-sindicalism, christian socialism, among others. It's worth making the distinction that the economic and political models are not necessarily tied together - you can have a dictatorship with any economic model, as well as a democracy (even though unregulated capitalism seems to favor concentration of economic and political power).
- quantified 3y ago
  Yes, in ideal capitalism I would be the sole shareholder in the company that owns and runs everything, including the military and judicial system which has been privatized completely into arbitration. Probably no one else shares that ideal, but probably thousands would agree it's ideal if they run and own everything. </s>
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    I believe there is a reasonable consensus about representative democracy, where we name people to have the (hard) job of making informed decisions on how an administrative unit should be run, being a really good option (as opposed to absolutist monarchies and theocracies). Minor differences on organization of the branches exist (in some, the judicial branch is in part elected, and in others, some people inherit lifetime seats at the legislative), but the 3-branch thing seems to be mostly settled in democratic states. There is no such consensus when it comes to how to best manage an economy.
    - throwaway81523 3y ago
      > the 3-branch thing seems to be mostly settled in democratic states. The 3 branch thing specific to the US and a few other countries. Canada, the UK, most European countries, etc. don't have it. The executive branch equivalent in those countries (i.e. the Prime Minister, the minister of this and that, etc.) are instead appointed by the Parliament, the equivalent of Congress. It's sort of like how the congressional leadership (Speaker of the House etc.) is chosen here.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

rbanffy 3y ago

There is a very large continuum described as communism or socialism that includes things such as anarco-sindicalism, christian socialism, among others. It's worth making the distinction that the economic and political models are not necessarily tied together - you can have a dictatorship with any economic model, as well as a democracy (even though unregulated capitalism seems to favor concentration of economic and political power).

quantified 3y ago
Yes, in ideal capitalism I would be the sole shareholder in the company that owns and runs everything, including the military and judicial system which has been privatized completely into arbitration. Probably no one else shares that ideal, but probably thousands would agree it's ideal if they run and own everything. </s>
- rbanffy 3y ago
  I believe there is a reasonable consensus about representative democracy, where we name people to have the (hard) job of making informed decisions on how an administrative unit should be run, being a really good option (as opposed to absolutist monarchies and theocracies). Minor differences on organization of the branches exist (in some, the judicial branch is in part elected, and in others, some people inherit lifetime seats at the legislative), but the 3-branch thing seems to be mostly settled in democratic states. There is no such consensus when it comes to how to best manage an economy.
  - throwaway81523 3y ago
    > the 3-branch thing seems to be mostly settled in democratic states. The 3 branch thing specific to the US and a few other countries. Canada, the UK, most European countries, etc. don't have it. The executive branch equivalent in those countries (i.e. the Prime Minister, the minister of this and that, etc.) are instead appointed by the Parliament, the equivalent of Congress. It's sort of like how the congressional leadership (Speaker of the House etc.) is chosen here.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]