The whole picture · about 15 minutes
The same questions, three systems
Comparisons often describe one’s own system through its ideals and others through their consequences. Here, all three receive the same question, and each answer has the same three fields: who decides, who earns from it and what happens when it fails. The last matters most: systems are not distinguished only by how they work when things go well.
For each question, you can select the answer you find convincing. At the end you receive a summary—even, or especially when your choices count against Infocracy.
An honest caveat. This page was written by the author of one of the three systems. I have tried to describe capitalism and communism as their supporters would, but I cannot validate that alone. If an answer in the left or middle column is unfair, write to me —I will correct it.
What we are comparing
Three answers to one question: who should decide
Each system can be reduced to a statement about who has the right to decide, and why. The rest implements that statement.
Capitalism
Those who own decide. Owners decide about their property; elected representatives decide shared matters, with equal votes in elections. Freedom is the central value, with inequality among its costs.
Communism
Those representing everyone decide. Property is held collectively and managed by a structure acting for society. Equality is the central value; the costs include reduced freedom and the risk that representatives serve themselves.
Infocracy
Those who know decide. Influence is calculated separately for each issue, from verified relevant knowledge multiplied by integrity. Sound decisions are the central value. The cost is twofold: accepting assessment and accepting little influence in most fields.
All three descriptions simplify systems with many variants. Scandinavian and US capitalism can differ more than two nominally distinct systems. This comparison uses textbook models to avoid dissolving into hundreds of cases.
Twelve questions
The same questions, one at a time
Choose a question. Three answers appear side by side, with comparable lengths and identical fields. Select the one you find convincing—or leave it unanswered. Participation is optional.
Available after three answers.
Honest to the end
Four areas where Infocracy does worse than an alternative
These are not euphemistically labelled “challenges”. They are areas in which another system does something better.
Speed of an individual decision — capitalism wins
A business owner may decide within an hour, which can be exactly what is needed. Staged voting with a decisive-lead threshold takes weeks or months. Infocracy is designed to decide more slowly, then implement faster because fewer terms remain to be negotiated. Urgency gives the alternative a genuine advantage.
Simplicity — both alternatives win
“Owners decide” and “everything is shared” can be explained to a child in a minute. This system requires understanding a knowledge map, assessment, weighted voting and income flowing through dependencies. That complexity is a major obstacle to adoption, not merely a writing problem. A system requiring thirty seconds to explain struggles against one requiring five.
The shortest introduction: three minutes →Existing in practice — both alternatives win
Capitalism and communism have operated at national scale for decades, with consequences that can be measured and compared. Infocracy has never operated anywhere. Its answers are predictions; the alternatives have observational evidence. These are not equal bodies of evidence, and should not be presented as such.
The right not to participate — capitalism wins
Today, you may decline assessment and take no interest in politics yet retain an equal vote. Infocracy also makes participation voluntary, but without verification your influence approaches zero. Anyone who values equal political votes in themselves should recognise that this proposal deliberately rejects that principle.
Why this section is here. A comparison in which the author’s system wins everything is advertising. These four points are real costs of this proposal. The honest approach is to state them beside the comparison, not hide them beneath it.
One concrete example
Take something of your own through all three
The questions above are general. Here are five concrete examples, each following three paths. Choose the one most relevant to you.
An often-forgotten point
All three answer the same question
Capitalism, communism and Infocracy are treated here not as three worldviews, but as answers to an engineering question: how can we reach a sound decision when no one knows everything? Capitalism distributes decisions among owners, who know their own circumstances. Communism centralises them to see the whole picture. Infocracy distributes each decision separately among people with relevant knowledge.
Each answer’s weakness follows from its strength. The first can decide quickly and well locally, but struggle with shared consequences. The second sees the whole but lacks detailed local knowledge. The third derives influence from knowledge, but requires something not yet built: a trustworthy way to assess it.
Do not ask which system is best. Ask which kind of failure you can most afford.
What is deliberately left out
Three systems are not enough
Social democracy, mixed economies, cooperatives, anarchism and the Chinese model are absent, although each would answer differently and some answers might outperform all three shown here. Three columns are a readability choice, not a claim that no alternatives exist.
There are no inequality, growth or life-satisfaction indicators. No such figures exist for the third column, so a numerical comparison would be misleading. This comparison concerns mechanisms only; that is its limit.
Finally, the first two columns describe systems with real histories and variants. The third describes one person’s untested proposal. These are not three equivalent bodies of evidence, and there is no reason to pretend otherwise.
This page connects to
Where to go next
the third column through one person’s day
The whole picture 02Sandboxwhat breaks when one link is removed from the third column
12Difficult questionsobjections to Infocracy, one by one
07Informatiumthe economy behind the third column
IntroductionThree minutesa short story in six connected scenes
GlossaryAll conceptsone-sentence definitions, a dependency map and a quiz
Sources: descriptions of Infocracy in Wiedza/ and clarifications elsewhere on this website. The capitalism and communism descriptions summarise textbook concepts in the words of Infocracy’s author—which is precisely why corrections are invited.