In capitalism, only the top management, say 1% of the "workforce" screw the workforce out of their labor-created value. Having 1% parasites is more viable than having 99% parasites.

That ain't true. Under Capitalism, everyone competes against each other over resources and jobs — and the same thing happens under Syndicalism. The only difference is that Capitalism gives control over businesses solely to owners and investors, while Syndicalism gives workers at least some power.

Capitalism redistributes wealth to those who already have wealth, while Syndicalism redistributes wealth based on how much labor, innovation, etc. you can put in. Investors, bankers, etc. are parasites who just manipulate money without contributing to society, while workers are the back-bone of our economy.

You are confused. Every capitalist country is also socialist. There is no such thing as a purely capitalist system.

When I say "Socialism" I'm referring to a mostly socialist system. In context, I'm referring to a command economy. I do realize most economies are mixed.

Trampling the "rights" of minorities IS A GOOD THING.

In retrospect, I should'a seen that coming. Obviously, I disagree (which is why I use SaidIt instead of Reddit). Ironically, you'd be the minority being oppressed by the neo-liberal majority (see: Reddit).

A society that functions does so because the people obey ONE set of rules to get at ONE set of goals. If you have minorities with different goals or who "play" the game of society using different rules, that is a dysfunctional society.

Having everyone obey the same set of rules is exactly what "minority rights" means; for example: everyone has the right to free speech, even Nazis — who are a tiny minority of the population.

That is my most absolute condemnation of people like you. You destroy society because you feel entitled.

Everyone's entitled to speech, press, assembly, religion, and guns. You only think that destroys society, because you get offended when people say things you disagree with and want to censor them (just like Communsits).

You seem to think that the only non-idiotic people work for governments?

No?... Just look at the US government, it's a mess of corruption and incompetence — because we're too weak, not too strong.

Completely false. Show your data.

There is no proof of direct democracy even existing at a large scale, let alone proof it doesn't work. Proof has to be positive, not negative; you can't say there's a flying spaghetti monster just because I can't prove it doesn't exist. If you provided evidence of direct democracy working: then I could try to criticize it.

In a direct democracy, power is divided to the smallest possible division. You have neighborhoods making neighborhood rules, instead of a centralized government who is taking a bribe from a party with an agenda.

You do realize that democratic-republics can be decentralized, right? Direct democracy can also be centralized, if everyone in the country voted for national policies.

No. You are again confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is a term that has been co-opted by a century-old psy op in order to make the uneducated equate the word socialism with what communism actually is.

Communism is a type of Socialism, in which all property is commonly owned, usually by the state. Socialism is just significant government intervention in the economy — which is why most economies are mixed.

In context, I'm referring to the Socialist faction, which wants more government intervention, and the Capitalist faction, which wants less intervention.

So, the rich would go to each neighborhood and try to influence each and every local information medium?

Under Capitalism, every information medium is centralized into the hands of a small elite, who use them to push agendas and disinformation.

In the end Fascism is the same as democracy without the bullshit, because a true fascist leader understands the heart and soul of his people and shapes the nation according to it. He is not a tyrant, he is an idol, a template, a pinnacle.

You do realize that the whole point of direct democracy is not having leaders, right? a "true fascist leader" would be a representative, elected or not.

Buying one official for each county (never mind neighborhoods) costs >300 million.

You do realize lobbyists spend millions of dollars, right? They spent $2.5B just in 2010. By the way, I have no clue where your numbers are coming from.

And then there is the whole, "Wait, when did you get so rich?" trigger when each official lives in his own small community.

People already know politicians are corrupt, they just can't do no'n about it (or so they think), since the first-past-the-post voting system protects establishment politicians. The solution is to switch to a different voting method and pass election finance laws.

Also, direct democracy wouldn't have these officials.

Legislation? BIG CORPS OWN THE GOVERNMENT.

It should be obvious that we'd have to elect anti-corruption candidates first.

since you now have to lobby at least 3,000 times as many officials.

Again, direct democracy doesn't have officials.

There are mayors in direct democracies.

...

I'm starting to wonder why I even bothered answering in the first place.

You can quit responding, if you want; I honestly don't mind.