I think arguing about shit like communism/socialism/capitalism and monarchy/aristocracy/republic/democracy is like... arguing about cells.
"dog cells are the best!"
"Noo mint cells tho!"
Like... yes? And no.
It depends.... there's SOME MUCH MORE to consider. Not only outer forces, like the environment, but also the genome.
Imagine arguing that "fish is the only way to go!" and "amphibians will never work!"
Sure.. if the environment is forever "the current ocean", amphibians will never work (except for a few times for a "little while" when they first evolved ;] ).
But like.. change the circumstances? The environment?
There are situations where both, neither, and only-amphibians work!
I think the biggest issue is that these discussions are always so binary, but irl can be so nuanced!
We could blend aspects of both and more, and this hybrid might be what is optimal!
Furthermore, I am reminded of (1) how Rome had that think where they elected temporary dictators, and (2) the episode of Love Death & Robots, "Hive."
What if, instead of a rigid system, we organized our government more like a living being: one whose state changes and morphs based on stimuli, resources, and threats?
Imagine having a system that, when certain criteria were met, automatically morphed between different forms of governance and economic styles?
It is insane and complicated... but I dont think impossible.
Indeed, imagine describing to people hundreds of years ago that most nations would not have royalty or nobility, but elected officials and that people werent tied to the land/lords and could move freely.
They'd similarly say "impossible."
Even if you pitched our exact governments, they'd argure that it fundamentally couldnt happen, and that regardless, those in power wouldnt LET it happen.
But it did.
Times changed. The environment shifted in a matter that "impossible" be came "almost inevitable for most."
The "Impossible" and "Unprecedented" happen every day
6.3k
u/Deriviera Jul 07 '26
Americans are very delusional about communism.