Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

Somehow this reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1217/

And communist ideas also had zero to do with those countries committing mass slaughter.

Communism, even in a very flawed form, has indeed succeeded. See Cuba. The main reason they would be wealthier with capitalism is because the U.S. would have proactive economic ties instead of working to isolate them. Given their isolation and inherent lack-of-wealth relatively speaking, communism there is at least in a state no reasonable person can describe as 0% successful, even if you have points of criticism.

In terms of kibbutzen, you do realize that the entire premise of self-suffiency, i.e. sustinance farming, is basically the definition of poverty, right? I mean, the whole premise that a small community can achieve for themselves in isolation a whole decent standard of living is nonsense. We acheive the greatest standards of living through widespread connection in larger groups on larger scales. Trade and all and specialization… No effort for tiny isolated communes could ever achieve the quality of life of large cosmopolitan economies, That issue isn't a strictly communist vs capitalist one.

Communism is indeed a simplistic model that is unworkable in a rigid dogmatic sense, just like anarchy or capitalism. There's no example of pure version of any of these ever existing.

Being closed to discussing the actual ideas of communism by just talking about Stalin's atrocities or tiny communes failing is a good way to just close yourself to actually engaging with the intellectual questions. Obviously, all philosophical / political principles are distinct from the complexity of real-world economic practice. We can still discuss the principles as a way to think about and explore the issues. Communist principles, as ideas, have nothing to do with mass slaughter.

..simply do not produce enough to sustain themselves. Capitalist farmers do, with a surplus they sell. All such voluntary collectives have collapsed (unless they get subsidies from the government).

> have nothing to do with mass slaughter

I strongly suggest reading "The Black Book of Communism". Every advocate of communism needs to read it, if only to prepare an answer.

You're right that nothing in the principles of communism suggest mass slaughter. But those who try to implement it time and again resort to it. The reason is fairly straightforward - people resist having all their property expropriated and being forced to work on collectives. The response is to kill them.

Again and again.

When I was in high school, our English class slogged through The Merchant of Venice without any references or plain English translations. We just took turns reading it aloud from front to back. I understood the general plotline, but so much of it just went straight over my head. I've seen a few Shakespeare productions, but I always struggle to understand what they're talking about. I think I wasn't alone in feeling a little bit stupid and uncivilized, but I just tried to fit in anyway and pretended to enjoy it.

Then a few days ago I discovered "No Fear Shakespeare" on SparkNotes. [1] I read through the modern English version, and I am just so sad that this wasn't available to me in high school.

The Oregon Shakespeare Festival has commissioned 36 playwrights to translate all of Shakespeare’s plays into modern English [2], and I presume they will be performing those versions on stage. If you read that article on the New York Times (and the comments), the pretension and snobbery is off the charts.

I think people assume that you have to be smart to understand Shakespearean English, and therefore people who don't enjoy slogging through Shakespeare are stupid and ignorant. That's completely false, Elizabethan English is a foreign language. You can't just "pick it up" by being smart.

I'm not saying that we should forget the original Shakespeare. I understand the purists and academics who love the original language and pore over all the idioms and witticisms. But if I'm going to the theater to see an entertaining performance, I would much rather hear some lines of dialogue that I can actually understand. So I hope I can see some of those Oregon Shakespeare productions.

[1] http://nfs.sparknotes.com/merchant/page_2.html

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/shakespeare-in-mod...

"Software people are in a great position to design a new system"

What makes you believe this? Many people, myself included (and I write software), think software people would be poor at this. People, society and culture aren't code. Social and emotional intelligence are critical.

"We are great at being objective and not being caught up in the zealotry that is coupled with the classical systems of capitalism, communism etc."

With all due respect, are you kidding? That is very naive to say the least. To say more, it smacks of Silicon Valley arrogance and smugness, against which, as you may be aware, there is a rising distrust and backlash.