You misread the parent poster, who noted that power grabbers would also like to employ industrialized manipulation at scale, although obviously for purposes other than reaching equal outcomes.

Why is that an impediment? You cannot expect consistency from an inconsistent ideology.

No, it’s used as a lure by power hungry authoritarians because the only way such a system can actually exist, is if it is forced.

So whoever promises the wonderland has to get ultimate power, of course, to guide everyone to utopia.

It’s literally what keeps happening with communist countries.

>Not at all. By definition, power grabbing is the opposite of equality of outcome.

Within this totalitarian framework, the power would be given to the state, acting on behalf of all the people. c.f. Stalinist/Maoist mode

Under our current framework, power consolidates in sometimes-feuding, often colluding oligarchs and large corporations.

It is also, of course, all done in the name of the people.

Which prevents any wannabe Stalin or Mao from doing much, since everyone is busy feuding instead of pulling together to accomplish a disaster more effectively.

Everything is always done in the name of ‘the people’ if it helps sell the lie. Always has been that way.

Instead of one tinpot tyrant in your life, you have a dozen, each of which wants a pound of flesh from you.

Most of the feuding they do is not with each other, but with their subjects. Capital owners usually act in unison when it comes to their class interests, it's the rest of us that are busy being divided by culture wars and the gaffe of the week.

I take it you’ve never had this discussion with someone who has dealt with actual tyrants?

No one who was under their sphere of influence would classify Stalin or Mao as tinpot. They killed nearly 100 million of their own people between the two of them.

Khmer Rouge being a third example.

I’ll take squabbling (but still competing) landlords over ‘great leaps forward’ or holodomor any day of the week.

Capitalism concentrates power within oligarchs. Communism concentrates power within bureaucrats.

They don't even attempt to solve the problem. The decentralisation of power isn't even being considered.

That's correct if you replace "Communism" with "authoritarianism".

In reality they have proven to be the same.

As studied, and as the logic would follow the elite simply transfer from system to system as performance disparities persist through the generations because of genetics. Through revolutions under different systems tracked family lines out performed others regardless of system. A look at "communist" china. Persistence through Revolutions http://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_pap...

Huh? My point was that "Communism concentrates power within bureaucrats" should be "Authoritarianism concentrates power within bureaucrats".

That's pretty much by definition.