A good system of government is resilient to bad leadership.

Edit: do any of the down-voters care to explain why this is not the case? Stable is generally considered a prerequisite of good and history indicates that not going totally down the tubes when you have a bad leader is a perquisite of stable.

So there are no good systems of government then.

The Roman empire lasted a pretty darn long time even with a lot of mediocre leadership. Various flavors of representative democracy seem to weather crappy leaders pretty well.

"Lasted" is a pretty weak standard. The Roman empire changed quite dramatically over time, probably more than Bulgaria or Albania.

Those are synonyms by definition.

Care to share your definitions?

Communism and authoritarianism definitely aren't synonyms by definition. Not all authoritarian countries are communist. And yes, in practice, communist countries often are authoritarian.

Depends on the definition.

I would define it with marxist communism = authorian, yes.

Fuck off commie

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

Level 1 communism requires this

Nobody has ever gotten to Level 2 and there are no convincing proposals on how to get there still remaining on this planet