Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 315988032517832724
It doesn't mean that I reject collaborating with people that support the USSR or want to help us
@Blebleh Your concern towards corruption may be warranted or it may be paranoia. The way to tell the different is to observe authority which is grounded in material reality. Intellectually it will be easy to determine whether an authority is corrupt or not, depending on its adherence to scientific principals. When you can prove that an authority is not doing what is in the best interests of the collective, only then are your concerns merited. However, having resistance right from the beginning is not rational.
I put a special focus on emerging truly representative structures
Your assumption is that authoritarianism is always corrupt. An adage I have only heard from reactionaries who do not like a particular kind.
I don't say that it's always corrupt, but corruptible
I'd prevent it from the beginning as possible
By 'representative' structures, do you mean democracy?
yes, but not this one
not bourgeois democracy
Isn't democracy also corruptible?
no if the delegates are watched closely, recallable and totally delegated
a proliteriat one is much less corruptable too
but yeah there should be a state regulating it
and guns
because kulak
@Blebleh Let me clarify, you are saying, democracy is incorruptible?
democracy in your phrase is ambiguous
I think a consensus democracy with a culture of revision is good
combined with a delegative democracy (liquid democracy) for irreconciliable factions
Look how the USSR was disolved
against the will of the people
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