I see, so what you are looking for is an empire, you can't just have people living without being oppressed by an empire because you are looking for "historic marks"
The point that you're missing is that every time there was any resource contention, any conflict whatsoever, the larger, more organized group of people won out. Every. Single. Time. For fun times, check out what happened to the Indians in the US. And ultimately, that is why people band together: for safety. You might have your ideals living out by yourself in the boonies, but they don't serve you much when you're dead because a few people thought they could use your resources and didn't take no for an answer.
As with everything there are grey areas here, but at the least with local governments you know the people that are elected, they live in your town probably and they do their business in the town, they are responsible to people in the town.
What's a town? If I live in the Los Angeles area, I have about as much influence on local politics as if I'd live somewhere in North Dakota. I will know the mayor about as well as the Senator from California, and they will care approximately as much about me. If it's a town of 10000 somewhere out in the middle of Iowa, my vote might carry a higher percentage weight, but what about the guy who owns the local grain processor, and whose net worth is about 1 million times mine? If I and 9000 other people in the town decide on something, and the guy with the grain processor says no, what exactly do you think will happen? Certainly not what I want.
The point (and which you're missing again) is that there's always a power center. If government is weak - whether it is by design, or because it is too local - it is overtaken by private power, which in turn is defined by resource control. And those private people will rule just as much as any government entity would. The difference now is that their power cannot be checked by elections or any voting system.
AFAIC any system that destroys individual rights is unsuccessful by definition.
I know that's your definition. That's the only way that your argument holds the any problem. The problem with that ridiculous assertion is that the only people who think that way are those whose basic needs are fulfilled, aren't threatened by government overreach or warlord terror, and can spend time dreaming about how much life better could be it weren't for other people.
Stalin said something I agree with: when a person is killed people see it as a tragedy. When millions are killed, that's just statistics.
Holy crap. I had no idea that you could so completely misread Stalin. He specifically used that to point out that people are terrible at statistics, and care only about personal stories. On the other hand, it nicely illustrates your problem: the only result you care about is how a system affects you. That's it. If something has the slightest negative effect on you, it is terrible, regardless of how much it helps others. As a matter of fact, not only do you only care about how a system affects you, you are incapable of devising a system that does anything but help you specifically.
Did you know that in Mein Kampf, Hitler specifically argued that the State power must be diminished for the explicit purpose of increasing central federal power?
Considering how badly you mangled the Stalin quote, I'm waiting for the entire paragraph in Mein Kampf where you got that quote from. In German.
Your problem is two-fold: you think that at the core, liberty is a stronger need for humans than safety, and you think that power structures are not part of human nature. What you call the evil central government is nothing but the formalization of what used to be ad-hoc power structures. You're arguing that individuals can't compare to the killings of today's central governments - what you're missing is that until the emergence of nationalism and the nation-state, individuals WERE the central government. In other words, the vast majority of genocides, wars and misdeeds going on in the world until about 1800 were done at the command of individuals sitting atop a pyramid whose order was enforced through violence.
In other words, you're committing the oldest social science fallacy: that of the noble savage. At least you're in good company with the communists there.