Yes. You corrected a dyslexic. Well done.

That is more down to poor marketing. Here on Lemmy or reddit there are big open source communities where you can extol the values of it.

I never went with a software project from random scrolling. It has no value to me if it doesn’t meet a need I have right now.

No contributor is going to be good that doesn’t use it.

Why would it be? Software is good based on it’s use and recommendations from real folk, not *s. Many project not on github

In what sense are you using AES? Are you referring to the soviet republic and unironically?

My initial vibes here is this place is mostly soviet supporting communists pretending to be socialists. Anything other than glowing praise of communism is showered in down votes. That’s cool and all, but it feels a bit too echo chamber for my liking.

I always assumed the goal was to bring people with you, rather than go after any unpure view. Maybe arguing with libs online too long has clouded the goal of furthering class consciousness.

Based on my limited knowledge, I can agree with that. I don’t yet know of a system that has been implemented that is optimal.

I think the electorate want change but I don’t think those the current system allow offer that unfortunately. Reformists tend to get filtered out.

This is assuming you need a national political party. In the UK we have a population of 70m, and MPs represent seats of 60k. District councils could represent around 100k people, and county ones could cover 500k. If you localise power so that all decision making for an area sits with the councils running areas of 100k, then you don’t need a nationwide party, a local party could gain a foothold and run an area. If that party is setup, so representatives can easily be voted out or replaced. For example open selection and you have to campaign to represent your local party again every term then the power sits with the members of that local party rather than a national party.

Ultimately, a system can exist for this, but it doesn’t mean that a system does exist or runs effectively in the world at present. Getting that system set up and running is a whole separate problem.

You did cover this, and the thing you suggest about expertise and continuity and problems that can be solved. Term length (and how many seats change each term can solve the latter), while expertise would likely be a solution that can be taken up by think tanks, and there are good ones, and dreadful ones. Legislation on transparency of funding and ownership would be key with that. Secondly health groups, co-operatives can form, that can be paid by councils for their expertise, which can build credibility and hire specialists.

I’m not saying any of this is easy, or would be without contest, but it is very possible, and while if you centre power in the hands of the few, you create elites, if you distribute that power, you can solve the problem around wealth and corruption. A system can be set up that adapts to the demands of the skills that are needed, whether that is technical skills, or knowledge based skills etc.

It was a response to the point about an elite class. In communist systems, that is usually the political class, the ones that make the decisions. That needs to make the decisions and are essential to the system functioning. In a democratic system that is localised, those decision makers don’t have that much power as they have a small sphere of influence and are more administrators. Redistribution of wealth doesn’t mean there is no wealth. Wealth can still exist, be taxed significantly and redistributed.

The point being, you misrepresented my point. Saying there is no elite “political” class, doesn’t mean there is no class.

It does matter, and I don’t accept with a socialist system, you have an elite class. With communism, maybe, but with democratic socialism, the goal is democracy first, because if you give powers to local people, to decentralise, and remove the disenfranchisement that people feel, you get the change for people to push for changes that help their circumstances. This was a view advocated by the late, great Tony Benn.

First past the post puts too much power in the hands of a few “representatives” and the more you break it down, the more working people can campaign and win. It’s hard to campaign against centralisation as it requires a level of organisation, mobilisation, and cohesive view that is very hard to organise. Then you get corruption within that as pro-business interests influence and fund those that aim to divert the movement from the benefits of people. The Labour party in the UK could be an example of that. Currently, they’re pushing for deregulation, growth and tight controls on migration.