Allanea wrote:There is any number of corporations that are famous for long-term planning (and that have existed longer than some states), and there's any number of stories of states destroying themselves through shitty short-term decisionmaking (indeed, arguably one of the reasons the USSR collapsed is the desire of its mid-tier leadership to 'cash out' and convert power into loot).
That's why all this is hypothetical stuff of political science. Once things hit reality all political systems tend to devolve into oligarchic dictatorships with various degrees of cosmetic make belief to make them look like they are hypothetically supposed to be.
After all, what is the functional difference between a state run by "elections" where you pick someone from a ruling economic elite and one run by "elections" where the ruling economic elite picks one of their own?
The problem is... if your citizen-shareholders can affect the course of the state (having 'voting' shares), what differentiates them from, uhm, voters? Is Citizen-Shareholder just a fancy title? And if they can't vote, why should the leadership listen to their opinion?
I don't really know the details of how such systems operated but it is my understanding that typically there were all sorts of methods for devolving power like workers councils or electable local authorities etc. I am no expert sadly.