@lidsel @jaystephens Money is power coupons, and corporations and governments are both consensual fictions: abstract entities which exist only by way of shared belief. Religious organizations are another example. Wherever power and wealth, which are truly redundant to specific conjunctly, get centralized, consually fictional abstract entities are socially constructed to coordinate humans and machines to the furtherance of the power and wealth centralization.

All that varies, in material terms, is the label we apply: one power–wealth concentrating collective gets called “Congress” or “Parliament,” another gets called “Apple” or “Microsoft,” another gets call “Pentecostal Assemblies” or “Vatican.”

The objective of anyone but the ruling class ought to be to invert the operational direction of one or more of these collectives—towards decentralization—and to let the others either follow suit or dissolve consequently. The easiest one for a sufficiently organized decentralizing collective to redirect, anywhere with some degree of functioning democracy, is the one called “government.”

The hard part is acting as a well-organized collective, despite continuous efforts by all the centralizers to socially atomize us.

@landelare @jaystephens If you under wealth and power to be functionally interchangeable, then supposedly opposite political systems can be seen effectively equivalent: The real linear continuum is between centralization and decentralization of both, as centralizing either of wealth or power always centralizes the other.