The smartest man should be the leader, yes?
how do you determine the smartest man? might?
why not have discourse between several people and reach the truth democratically?
By his scientific input in Marxism.
Like Lenin just started to make analitics and nobody had any way around him.
i'm not that well versed in theory but i'm sure there are a few criticisms of lenin's work out there
@post-ironic username they all failed and gave up.
ofc i'd have no way to tell if they're valid or not without reading them
In his lifetime.
@post-ironic username I've read them.
There always been talks in the party. The saved archives you can read.
link?
I have no idea how to call it in English. I'll look it up for you right now.
and maybe some relevant excerpts of some of the criticisms?
Something like that. Best is to find translations of the party meetings, they are all recorded.
okay
so in a hypothetical, say some guy named Steven wrote some really good theory and had the best ideas
Yep
wouldn't the population be convinced of it, and would elect him?
@post-ironic username election is a lie.
You overestimate it.
It is nice to have elections, but I'm more about direct computerized democracy.
Elections are delegative.
okay, i actually agree with you there
People should think by themselves
wouldn't his ideas become policy with democratic decision-making, then?
you wouldn't need to put him in absolute leadership
Why not?
He understands what to do and how.
Better than you.
Masses' level of decision-making is poor.
if i read and understand what he writes, don't i understand how to do things as well as he does?
the randian "most people are stupid" argument doesn't ring with me here
if i am educated on what Steven writes, and Steven is correct, wouldn't the masses be convinced?
@post-ironic username Most people will not understand. Not sure about you.
It is too complex for masses.
i mean if a human can write something a human can understand it
it's not like the "masses" are animals that need to be lead by a shepherd.
@post-ironic username Not true. Human needs 20 years to better understand a thing.
