As opposed to what? Having the government control all the businesses creates horrible incentives. Politicians aren’t exactly known for their honesty and often skew metrics in their favor. Plus we need redundant organizations practicing and exposing the the populace to democracy – that’s how you successfully create change: You build and empower parallel institutions. We need private organizations like cooperatives, unions, NGOs, and non-profits participating in society and showing people the actual mechanisms that will build a better world.

Pluralism is the only realistic way forward. Even if I’d like to bias the system against traditional corporations in favor of more democratic institutions, they’re already here. We have to provide a transition path with lots of little gradual steps away from centralized authoritarian corporate power towards democratic mechanisms and shared power. At the very least we have to make the transition gradual enough not to create mass chaos that will hurt innocent people.

I’ll stop mincing words: Lemmy has a communist problem. There are a bunch of people who advocate for violent revolution with no regard for who’ll do the fighting and dying. Worse, they’re intolerant of any society that isn’t the exact utopia they pretend is possible – that totally won’t just replace one batch of elites with another. I hope that’s not what you’re advocating, but you’re using the language.

I also want to be clear that I’m not aiming to put down my radical flank. People willing to do violence empower people preferring peace, they tell the people in power that they can transition the peaceful way or the any means necessary way. I prefer peace myself, but if people want to install a democracy by any means necessary, I can’t really blame them. But if that’s your stance, be clear about what’s realistic and reasonable – and what will just end up hurting the people you think you defend.