I want to make in such a way that people will be alert for that

or they'd be fired

not from the top to the bottom

What happens when the people are wrong?

They face it and learn next time

What if they do not learn?

Then they chose to act against their own interests for something, it'd mean that the majority and the minority is irrational

this is prevented from the platform anyways, it's not that we pull democracy out of thin air

the previous development pulled the theory, which could shape the constitution; example: putting that all exploitation is banned because it's a right and studying in the academia how it works

self-managed media, etc. this can't be done now

in bourgeois democracy the media is controlled by hierarchies and capitalists in their own interests, parties depend on funding (with an advantage to capitalists) and to change the whole system you need to face the external imperialism and opposition

so it's like a dictatorship

'Acting against their own interests' can be avoided with authority that is grounded in material reality, that is, when intellectual superiors have higher authority to the average

also, education serves capital with terms like totalitarianism and mainstream economics

that's assuming there are intellectual superiors

Are you saying that everyone has equal intellectual ability?

if educated, yes

a few books aren't so difficult

So if we both read the same book, we understand it with equal depth and insight?

Unless we are clones raised in mirror worlds, this is never true.

public education can make tests and there could be assemblies with consensus about it; but about interpretations, there could be factions

and I think that giving a minority the authority because other minority think that they're best is the wrong way

wouldn't it be easier to have an authority

it's an imposition

How many different interpretations of '2 + 2 = 4' are there?

what if

teachers had like democratic elections

so if they don't work they can't preach to their tenure

in the decimal system this is true

and it should be taught as science

although not in a binary one

Consensus is a logical fallacy, appeal to popularity.

It is only sigificant if based in science.

anarchists unions try to discuss in assemblies and get into a consensus, convince who doesn't agree with them

What a waste of time.

this could take more time yes

but after it we don't have to do again the law

change the government, etc.

because we already agreed and learned from it

in other cases, there could be supermajorities

Assuming you made the correct discussion, which you cannot know because you care more about consensus than authoritative truths.

and in irreconciliable cases factions

no

scientifical truths doesn't depend on democracy

this is built on the platform in a pre-revolutionary phase

but after it, what people don't know if it's truth or not; what we have to agree

What kind of truth is not scientific?

this is other thing

in politics?

it depends a lot on the environment and the circumstances

we don't have laboratory conditions

I should rephrase, what kind of decision making should not be guided by science?

there could be some zones in the territory that would prefer to pay for having this thing or another one

for example

I agree it should be guided by science when possible

So you are saying, if we are 100% ignorant, which is not the case, but if we were, we should use consensus, but then once we have science why not abandon consensus in favour of science?

I agree when it's 1+1=2

What if others do not agree?

What if they are the majority?

then people has done such a bad educational work

and maybe the judges, the minority, are judging in a bad way and are pseudoscientific thinking that they're scientists

they already were educated

and thinking that only a minority has scientifical reason in this is an imposition

I never said, only the minority have scientific reason, I said that the best minds should have authority.

You are assuming an unprecedented scenario, where every person is a genius of equal intellect.

Let's say that people can do basic math

if it's too advanced, the best minds could explain it to the people

in a way they can decide

politics has values

Assuming this were possible, why bother if the outcome will be the same because there is only 1 correct answer, objectively.

Sure, educate people to the best of our ability, but do not, yet, rely on them to make the correct decision.

because if for some reason the delegate isn't doing what we agreed, we can overthrow that person violently or legally

it avoids "revisionism"

otherwise the delegates have a spirit for themselves

Why not just point to the incorrect teaching?

yes, but who will point it out and who will listen?

The authority will point it out with intellectual reasoning. And if they are corrupt, then the contradictions can be easily pointed out.

the authority is the corruptible one

the contradictions aren't so easiliy pointed out

see Khruschev

there can be protestors but the people when they don't know the problems could ignore it

and let them pass

The majority is incorruptible?

the people has to decide the fate

they're not the ones who can be corrupted

If an authority works against the interests of the collective, objectively, then there may be grounds for new revolution, because they have become the new bourgeoisie.

It is inevitable.

people don't notice it when they don't know about it

this is happening in every country now

and I don't see how the USSR prevented this; a few people may realize it

What are you talking about? Don't you agree that socialism is inevitable?

yes but it needs class consciousness

and organization

even more, we need to be careful when we have a capitalist bloc that is our enemy

So how is it going to happen do you think? There are going to be revolutionary forces. Which is also why there should be a Vanguard.

the platform in combination with the anarchist unions have to improve the consciousness of the people and act

When a socialist authority gets corrupt, it becomes bourgeoisie. And a new dialectic begins.

we could add a party too, but as an extension

they don't have to become the bourgeoisie to be corrupt