But if it was run by a benevolent robot intelligence rather than humans, it would probably work out really well.

Indeed I think it would be about as close to utopian as we're ever going to get.

Yeah, but who get's to decide what's "benevolent" in the first place?

One man's benevolent ruler is another's tyrannical despot.

That's a very interesting point. Perhaps, to ensure that a range of ethical frameworks have been taken into consideration (each with their varying ideas of what benevolence really means) a more equitable situation would be a plurality of utopias each with its own ruling AI? And free movement of individual humans to whichever aligns best to their own personal code of ethics.

Or, you could try a liberal democracy with a strong constitution and separation of powers, based on common law and strong rights of individuals.

If such a system was incorruptible, constructed such that it would be impossible for a small group of individuals to hoard the majority of the global wealth, and guaranteed a pleasant and equitable standard of living for all - then it might work.

Unfortunately, the current implementations of this ideal fall far short.

Communism == Execution for Thought Crime, apparently.

Yes, this point is not in dispute. A small sample : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gulags-reveal-awf...

It's most certainly in dispute. I'm disputing it right now.

You seem to think that communism is the same thing as "communism under Stalin", and that's incorrect.