100% agree on all points.

Communism is as much of a utopia as capitalism ("trickle-down" just does not exist, unless humans stop being humans), but since most large countries are already running a version of capitalism, there's just too much risk involved in a revolution.

I think a socialist-capitalist entity would have the most success. Capitalist market (heavily regulated) + Universal Basic Income, housing & healthcare, all taken care of by the government. That takes care of those on the "lower rungs" while giving incentive to educate/work/get rich for those who are into these kinds of things.

I should clarify, we haven't seen public-participatory communism in state governments, but we have seen it in NGOs, such as the Black Panthers and Zapitista Army, the former of which was massacred by FBI hits, and the latter which is still active in the Chiapas territory of Mexico. And they've been around since 1994. < does a websearch, > It appears the ZA controls a not-insignificant amount of territory.

But then we've so far seen all forms of government are unstable, with the current standard being a 1000 year peace. (Maybe the ancient Egyptian empire, but I don't know its history). Many regimes have risen and shown hubris that their rule should last so long, and have fallen to corruption or annexation by other states. Capitalism and authoritarianism facilitate the return of autocracy which, when it exists for long enough, becomes monarchy. The Kim family ruling DPRK (North Korea) serves as a modern example, and Kim Il Sung, the grandfather of Jong Un, has been deified to continue the culture of personality.

The US began destabilizing almost immediately. Remember the Constitution of the United States was the second draft, after the Articles of Confederation led to violent disagreement between the colonies. And still, after that the plantation barons introduced backdoors into the Constitution that figure specifically into the current crisis of tyranny, today.

Capitalism gets introduced because the rest of the world uses capitalism. We've seen plenty of communal efforts who provide socialized services within the commune, but will export product to trade with the outside. Middle Ages historians believe villages and hamlets shared openly without concern for parity, and would take their surplus (and cash crops) to towns to be traded or sold at market. But we didn't call this communism we called it subsistence agriculture They'd also reserve a portion for tribute to their liege lord, who kept order, protected against foreign enemies and maintained stores of goods for crisis (specifically, runs of bad winters and short crops).

It'd be nice if Kings governed fairly and compassionately, and corporation upper management could run their companies truly to facilitate long term company growth, but eventually you get a Joffrey Baratheon or IRL, a John of England, a Nero Caesar, or a Vlad Țepeș that brings ruin to the legacy their ancestors have built.

If you're going to denounce government models because they've never worked before, you have to apply the same standard to all other models you contrast it to.

We don't know what works, on account that none of them we've tried so far have succeeded for very long. This is why we need to see them as skeletal models and not as immutable ideologies nor as devices by which to manipulate the public into tolerating autocracy.