&gt; &quot; All historical attempts to transition to Communism have resulted in terrifying numbers of dead people. This is so strikingly uniform that I am disinclined to think it an accident. Why would this time be any different at all, given that we&#x27;re still dealing with the same nearly-hairless primates?&quot;<p>The difference is that it won&#x27;t be a small group in power, taking away the rights of people. The power will be distributed throughout society, so there isn&#x27;t a single point of failure and&#x2F;or corruption.<p>&gt; &quot;You have also erred in other ways, such as assuming that an identical balance between the individual and the collective is desirable for all.&quot;<p>There&#x27;s no such thing as an identical balance here, the balance will always be imperfect, but it is up to the individuals in the society to understand this balance, and try to make it as good as it can be.<p>&gt; &quot;Further, you&#x27;ve assumed that breaking down current power structures will be followed by your preferred &quot;means of organizing society&quot; being adhered to instead of new power structures being established.&quot;<p>I didn&#x27;t state that direct democracy would definitely lead to communism, I stated that it would be a useful step to take before communism. In other words, should direct democracy take off, communism is not guaranteed, but it helps pave the way should people decide they want a communist society.<p>&gt; &quot;You&#x27;ve also ignored tribe-forming behaviors that can be reasonable expected to occur around active, inclusive, informative news media.&quot;<p>I don&#x27;t doubt that tribes will form, but respect can still exist between tribes. For example, I&#x27;m not on the right-wing of the political spectrum but I can still respect thoughtful individuals that are. Furthermore, healthy debate is invigorating, people aren&#x27;t only drawn to that which they agree with, debates between tribes can draw a crowd, especially if both groups feel well represented.<p>Also, I think you&#x27;re misunderstanding what I mean by an &#x27;inclusive, informative&#x27; news media, which isn&#x27;t surprising. Inclusivity is important to ensure all views can be heard, the only way this is going to happen is by removing the filters that control mass media. If it helps, consider the new model for inclusivity will be closer to YouTube than TV.<p>However, this is only part of the solution, increasing available information doesn&#x27;t help unless we can make sense of that information, which is why it is important for media to be informative. Extending the YouTube analogy further, every person is free to have their own channel, but efforts would be made to create cross channel content, either to refine the message of one &#x27;tribe&#x27;, or to engage with those they disagreed with. The easier these types of collaborative efforts are to organise and promote, the better chance we have of increasing our collective political consciousness.<p>&gt; &quot;I think that primates are instinctual hierarchical creatures, much given to hierarchies of power. I think we are also subject to a wide variety of cognitive flaws and easily misled by emotions. I think that any political philosophy based on blithely ignoring the traits of human psychology are is highly likely to fail. I further think that historical attempts to do so have displayed a disturbing tendency towards spectacular failure.&quot;<p>It&#x27;ll take time to move beyond our past programming, but that&#x27;s no reason not to try. The misguided attempts of the past show is that trying to force change through a totalitarian means is not desirable, it&#x27;s important to raise our collective consciousness first, get people exploring new ways of living together without hierarchical social structures. Once we&#x27;ve had chance to understand this on a personal level, it&#x27;ll be easier to get working on a larger scale.