/edu/ - Education

Democracy seems to belong to a paradigm of decision making that's irrelevant for people trying to come to correct decisions, correct analysis, etc. Democracy is perfect if the problem for you is determining the most popular opinion. To apply this model to politics means assuming either: there is no truth; objective truth doesnt matter for what's being decided; there is no way to arrive at truths beyond polling the beliefs of a group of people. All of these are anti-scientific nonsense (that's not a knock against second one depending on the situation - sometimes u just want to pick the most popular opinion/feeling, like deciding where to eat with a group of friends).

I wish i had a complete critique of democracy, i don't. But instead of democracy, why not rational decision making. It would need to start with a shared and non-arbitrary philosophical groundwork, as well as a method of determining for or against contested facts, but it makes more sense than democracy. Let everyone with the ability participate. Let everyone impacted see the chain of reasoning, so anyone can contest it if they find it flawed. But there's no reason to give any value to individual opinion (other than individualism). Tho just to be clear, democracy (and top-down decision making) has its place, since it can place a limit on discussion and say "good enough - now lets just see what everyone thinks". Makes more sense for time-sensitive situations and groups of people with equal political education and time+ability to appraise the situation. So i don't think democracy is necessarily useless. But why does no one talk about autismocracy?

>>11715
Sounds like Democratic Centralism is just about right for you

>>11715
>It would need to start with a shared and non-arbitrary philosophical groundwork
I wonder how we could decide on that.

>>11715
>But why does no one talk about autismocracy?
The term you're looking for is technocracy.

>>11719
Or possibly they're looking for autonomism

>>11715
i are many smarts

>>11722
thats ok, anon, you don't need to contribute to be worthy of love
/b/ is where you'll find the discourse you want
>>11717
idk if this is sarcastic or not, but it's not at all an easy answer. One thing that's really annoying with socialist revolutionaries (like lenin e.g.) is how much they talked as if revolution was itself the goal and highest value to be achieved. It's one thing to laugh off philosophical charlatans pretending to be all objective, and assert your goals which align with your class, but when you need to rest on absolutely solid ground it's not good enough to leave open room for nihilist and pragmatist critiques, and force skepticism out of its safe spot before the crossroads of idealism or materialism.
>>11716
Why?
>>11719
it's not about technical professionals having final political say (out of the scope of their work - though obviously i'm not discounting the socialist tradition of critiquing professional cretinism and the need for people under socialism to be more broadly educated and all disciplines of science to be brought into communication and agreement) or AI rule or anything. Idk maybe ur right tho i don't know much about technocracy
>>11721
i think that's smth totally unrelated

>>11724 (me)
*and you gotta force skepticism out of its safe spot

>>11715
Read "The Democratic Principle"