Message from @petit bourgeois
Discord ID: 315991921531158529
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
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