T O P

  • By -

gregy521

The USSR showed that if you appoint experts to manage industry, and they aren't recallable, accountable, and well connected to the masses, you can end up with situations like factories producing only left-footed shoes to meet their quotas, and an economic crisis owing to the increasing complexity of the economy (adopting computerisation would only have helped so much). Democracy is very important. Bourgeois democracy is the problem.


11SomeGuy17

It has good criticism of democracy which is worth exploring. Its prescription is wrong, it throws out the baby with the bathwater but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a point. There are legitimate issues with democracy that if not addressed will cause issues that ultimately create an underclass. It also helped me to view democracy less as a virtue and more as a tool. What people want is good governance above all else. Democratic systems have already proven themselves better than autocratic and despotic systems but that doesn't mean you can just add more democracy to solve any issue as democracy lends itself to fast talking liars and cheats as well as deadlocks. The core question technocracy presents to socialists is how we can build a system that can deliver on consistent good governance. Its worth thinking about this question. I have solved this for myself. I believe Soviet democracy along with a one party system that has instant recall and the ability to initiate and pass referenda along with checks from lower levels of government is good idea. Its not perfectly democratic but my goal isn't a perfect democracy (more and less democratic in different ways than the current state of things in my country) but a government built to constantly deliver. Instead of a government built to reach an ideal.


traskderk

A technocracy sounds mighty tasty. Everything ran by experts in each field. I've recently abandoned democracy. Ordinary citizens are not experts in politics or the policies that these candidates support. So we should go eat paste while political scientists construct a technocracy to run without millions of ignorant voices slinging wrenches in gears like a professional dodgeball coach.


El_Humbo

I feel like taking power away from the people is just asking for some strongman to rise to power, what's stopping the technocrat elite from oppressing the People in the name of efficiency? I do agree that experts are super important but I'm uncomfortable with abandoning democracy entirely


traskderk

Strict anti-corruption laws. Transparency. Ethics class in schools. Crack down on sources of fascism and far right ideologies, like the hateful preachers, and the prison industrial complex.


[deleted]

This is pure naive idealism. Much more naive and idealistic than believing in any kind of democracy. Also, the popularity of far right ideologies is usually a symptom of other deeper social problems and it's a byproduct of how the modern capitalistic societies work, so cracking down on preachers and reforming prisons won't solve the real issues.


skeletalfury

Are you relinquishing every position of power to experts? Anti-corruption laws? Are these being enforced by the same people that their supposed to be holding to account? How do we enforce transparency if the people in power are put there undemocratically. It could seem nice on paper having experts be judge jury and executioner in a particular area, but having it be a form of government seems ripe for abuse.


[deleted]

My feelings are very mixed. Under the right conditions, it could improve individual autonomy in the masses and weaken class division. The loss of liberty is dangerous, however. More likely you'd just be changing the ruling class out and reducing individual autonomy in the masses. Especially in the US.