Socialism/Communism/Islamic theocracy are demonstrably the most oppressive, deadly, destructive, soul crushing ideologies ever devised. They are by definition and out of pure necessity despotic and authoritarian in practice. Necessarily so because no sane person would ever agree to be oppressed and subjected to authoritarian rule which, again is exactly what socialism/communism/islam are. The nature of man is to live autonomously - free - with liberty to prosper and we try to find a workable balance between individual liberty/autonomy and a way to live in cooperative participation with society at large. Democracy itself in a purist application is also oppressive because it really boils down to a condition of majority rule - 51% of a purely democratic society can and will foist its whishes and whims upon the remaining 49%. Hence the wisdom in devising a representative republic with open elections and an electoral college. Leftists in USA today are crying loudly for an end to the electoral college. Believe this. They would NOT like the resulting look of things once USA became a true and pure "democracy" ie; Majority Rule- USA founding fathers spoke of this as a "tyranny of the majority". But I digress. I don't know you and I don't really know where you live but I can be almost certain that you never lived under a Socialist/Communist Regime. In theory those things sound all benevolent and kind. In practice they are evil and there are at least a billion dead humans piled high upon the altar of Marxist ideology over the last 90 years - give or take.

Coincidentally, I was just talking about dictatorships, monarchies, various systems in their pure forms. Dictatorship is quite possible the best system ONLY in the case your dictator is pure (imagine Jesus, haha). Here's why: You have no other power-centers to complicate things with self-interest. Of course, history shows us that all economic or organization structures are flawed because of bad actors. The best we can do is have a system with many checks and redundancies--no single point of failure. Dictatorships have a single point of failure. No matter how benevolent your dictator is, you don't know what happens in succession, and all of the rules are set into place. You're left with the bad, as well as the good. What do you think? Does that sound plausible?

I've never seen socialism/communism work as well as even capitalism in practice. Socialists like to cite countries in Europe that are HIGHLY homogeneous across multiple factors, so I don't know how that system even works in the USA with our diversity across just about every factor.

I think this is mainly a Ghandi post, and I just don't know enough about Ghandi to comment. But, I do tend to look for extraordinary sacrifice as being worth looking at. A lot of people say they're different while doing the same ol' thing. FEW people actually ARE different.

American Founding fathers tried to create perfect Constitution by looking at Anciet Athenian direct democracy model and the Ancient Roman Republican model sadly it seems they have failed. Direct democracy is just the Cities telling country folk how to live lives. We need to find a better way

I believe his take is associated moreso with the idea of personally not being attached to material or property. Relative to the idea of communism being a state of non-private property.

But, rather, all property and means of production being owned and controlled by the oligarchy is an issue I highly doubt Ghandi would represent.

Did I miss the point here or was this an acceptable response?