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.
Masses do not have so much time.
to focus on it for 20 years?
where did this number come from?
It is my personal feeling how it is. Marxism is complex. You study it more than 10 years before writing.
"It is my personal feeling how it is"
isn't this literally feels before reals?
Someone with 15-25 years in philosophy can write Marxist language.
couldn't the population, if it was simply a matter of decisionmaking instead of writing, read some kind of reductionist summary?
You are negligent thinking too much of masses.
Masses have to invest large amount of studying before they understand Marxist.
They don't have time
For this
The best should be the leader.
couldn't you incorporate it into school education then
Yes.
that's 12 years
or however long you want
Not enough in this age.
