You're so funny. You do realize that for 100 - 150 years after every Euro-liberal revolution the masses of people were destitute while the elite became insanely rich? You think the robber barons were an anomaly? Why do you think the labor movement happened? It wasn't because people were well taken care of.

Meanwhile in every communist revolution mass poverty alleviation was the primary driver of economic organization, ending centuries of famine cycles, lifting 100s of millions out of abject poverty, and it only took them between 10 and 30 years to establish the industrial and economic base to do it. In the USSR rent was less than 10% of person's income. In China, a child laborerer on a rice farm in 1949 is today sitting in a car that park itself.

Stalin came from poverty and ethnic minority, became the most powerful man in the USSR and died with almost nothing to his name except some clothes and few pieces of furniture.

Would I prefer a system that governs for the benefit of the masses? Absolutely.

What's funny is that you are so adamant that having a vote in a liberal democracy matters so much that it's evil to not have exactly the type of voting system from liberal democracy, and yet that self same voting system is exactly what allowed the oligarchs to maintain and grow their power for 250 years without anyone ever being able to stop them.

Yes, I would gladly abandon this farce of a democracy for something that actually helped the masses instead of the system that protects the opulent minority from the will of the majority (to use the words of American founding father and 5th president James Madison).