Why do you all fetishize "democracy"?

They're not though. Doctors are a labor aristocracy, but they can't as a general principle be considered petite bourgeois because ownership of the means of production is only a contingent and not a constitutive quality of the condition of being a physician. Some physicians are incidentally petite bourgeois, but this is because they own a business, and not due to the nature of the labor they are trained to perform.

Your position is essentially that the masses are too stupid to govern themselves, despite the fact that their ignorance is by design in order to ensure that they remain useful to the ruling class. The problem is strictly one of education and the infrastructure to provide that education is already available due to the very system that withholds it from them.

The proletariat has all the tools and information necessary to govern themselves. To act as if they don't, and for that reason we need leaders to rule over the masses, is as bankrupt a position as the one which claims that the workers can't run their own businesses or that society can't survive without a king. Society went along just fine when the King's head was in a basket, just as it will go along just fine when capitalists and political leaders join the kings.

Technocracy assumes that the leaders would serve the interests of society and not themselves. That is just as much a fantasy as it is in capitalism.

Kindly stop being a bootlicker and using fascist rationale. It makes you look like an ignorant cuck.

It's true that medical professionals actually don't meet the qualification for being petty bourgeois, though. They do not own any means of production and sell their labor power to survive. By virtue of their position, however, they have no reason to believe that the struggle between the wider proletariat and the bourgeoisie has anything to do with them. They're as reactionary as the petty boojs in practice because they're so classcucked.

Screw your insurance, people need healthcare!

we don't

democracy is undialectical, its the dictatorship of the majority

This, without even getting into how prone "the experts" are to faddishness. Eugenics wasn't justified because "the people voted for it", eugenics was justified because "the scientists say it's correct".

And if there's one thing human history has taught us is that elites need to be more accountable, not less

In America at least most doctors strive to become petite bouj or are already there. Most will be gulag'd or walled come the revolution. Under Communism doctors will be as common as street sweepers under capitalism.

use the proper version ok

there is no method for ensuring power always goes to the most qualified.

Interesting. I wonder how you will manage to improve the quantity of medical students and doctors in society while killing all the experienced ones at the same time.

Bookchin was right: authoritarian Marxists are as deranged as they are juvenile.

Ignore him. Bourgies will only be killed if they resist collectivization.

This is true. Cuba, a shit dirt poor country has better healthcare than any non euro country and definitely better than burger healthcare. Not that Cuba is socialist, but it is an example of even if there isn't a lot of surplus to distribute you can still establish amazing social programs. Same with Kerala

It's another "Holla Forumsyps think they're a part of the elite" thread.

Protip: if you're not on the board of directors of any major corporation, don't hold or trade any significant amount of stocks and/or bonds and don't control significant amounts of property, you aren't one of the "elite", you're just another lowly prole like the rest of us

...

Open access to information is irrelevant when the agents are trained to have no knowledge or interest in said information. Capitalism as a system conditions proletarians to be docile servants to the system and its rulers through an education system that systematically destroys their curiosity, stifles their critical thinking, demonizes their skepticism, and limits their exposure to perspectives which are rejected by the mainstream intelligentsia, all for the purposes of training them to be good, complacent workers. Their culture further indoctrinates them to maintain and uphold the status quo while discouraging inquiry into radical ideas, and distracts them with media, entertainment, and other means of escape whose function is to occupy the time they have after performing their work.

To expect the proletariat to become an informed class trained in the skills necessary for self-governance without support from those who would provide them with such education while living in a society whose very structure and design serves to prevent that is to fundamentally misunderstand the plight of their plight. To then proceed to blame them and consider them incapable of said erudition and skills is the apotheosis of bourgeois victim blaming, an activity which does nothing but serves the interests of the very class that produced the aforementioned conditions.

You know nothing about the material conditions of the proletariat, yet you conclude that liberating them from those conditions is unwise precisely because they have thus far failed to transcend those conditions despite a system that actively prevents them and actively reproduces those very conditions. Even worse, you have the audacity to propose that, rather than change those material conditions, we ought to empower the very class which produced them and reorganize the system so that their power is absolute.

You are an ideologue of the very ideology which was constructed to produce the conditions you have observed and which likely oppress you on a daily basis. "Bootlicker" is not strong enough of a term to describe you. Kill yourself.

mpcdot.com/forums/topic/1939-a-guide-to-the-managerial-revolution/

MPC is pure Holla Forums tier but this is a really damn good thread. Even these guys fucking hate the middle manager class and how it fucks everyone. A good read for everyone here, if you spy some niggerdeath and excellent language, well, deal with it.

no STEM people should ever have power over philosophers or military leaders ever. only philosophers and generals should be allowed to rule society and even then its still a bad idea to have a hierarchical conception of power. democracy is fucking retarded, but STEM and Literati shouldn't be put in power, philosophical-spiritual leaders or just plain military rule is the only vaguely workable form of government. everything else is just gansterism or hellish bureacratic kafkaeque inefficiency

enjoy your justified military junta via philosophical arguments that no one can ever object to because of

A: you'll be shot
B: no one is educated to object once elites gain power in this system

*is to fundamentally understand the plight of the proletariat.
Sentence splicing + autocorrect does not make a good combo.

Read this paper from Carlos Sanz. Direct democracy reduces government size and is efficient at accomplishing what it sets out to do.

In america most proles strive to become petite pouj

There's a limit to the size of a government/settlement that can be managed by direct democracy.

Because you would still have politics in deciding who was the good doctor etc.

You're making an assumption that "experts" is an objective term.

This is the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Literally too stupid to be Holla Forums bait

This is from the MPC thread here:

...

Did you even read the abstract?
on policy. I provide evidence from a unique scenario. In Spain, national law determines
that municipalities follow either direct or representative democracy, depending on their
population. Regression discontinuity estimates indicate that direct democracy leads to smaller government, reducing public spending by around 8%. Public revenue decreases by a similar amount and, therefore, there is no effect on budget deficits. These findings can be explained by a model in which direct democracy allows voters to enforce lower special-interest spending.
The general idea of anarchism is that you reduce as much government as possible to direct democracy and move to council democracy where that is not feasible. These localities then confederate in negotiation with self-organized interest groups (such as syndicates) to plan both the economy and the rest of society.

You're making the kind of weak argument that I'd expect from a high school sophomore-year history teacher, without even reading what's being argued. What's next, direct democracy doesn't work because people kill each other? SAD!

benevolent philosopher priests ruling society
you guys are no fun, even when im entertaining the retardation of statism, someone thinks im unironically advocating philosopher kings and military rule and not just playing devil's advocate to refute OP's autism. so unfun

quote fixed

I don't want anyone deciding anything for anyone else. its a fundamental principle, not a theory or something you can meme away with statistics. Everyone should be in charge of their own destiny.

so when do you graduate from highschool?

Basic human biology. Humans are only capable of directly/intimately dealing with one another with groups of limited size.

8 people for close ties (family/hunting band)
30-50 for a group with immediate shared goals (extended family)
~50-100 (village)
~100-500 (tribe)

Beyond 120 is when you get into the 'stranger' territory and when no fucks can be acceptably given. Too many variables exist to where direct democracy can be feasible when multiple in groups are at play all vying for influence.

I believe it is because leftists hear intellectuals talk about and envisioning democracy, but without understand what sort of democracy they're talking about.

Especially those new to leftism often imagine a direct democracy that forms the government, while that is rarely what is actually thought of. A common leftist ideal is direct democracy for the workplace, necessarily, to ensure that the workers are in control of their work. For governance multiple system have popped up and while democratic features are essential here too, usually it is imagined to be much more meritocracy based, usually we're talking about some sort of councils here where representatives are appointed to based on merit and come to decisions democratically.

The logical consequence in today's society of that is anarcho-primitivism where you end up leading a nomadic life, or in the future possibly anarcho-transhumanism where it is not necessarily possible to live a nomadic life.

This is adorable.
I'd rather have competent experts than a stupid, emotionally charged mob rule.

At this point, I favour having a dictatorship.

be gone, foul statist

how about anarcho-transcendence, we use genetic engineering to become risen demi-gods and we travel the universe uplifting and seeding life everywhere we go. machines will devour us and then never look back.

Authoritarianism isn't the worst form of government imaginable. A lot of people are either stupid or apathetic and couldn't be fucked to have a say in how things are run.

IDEALLY everyone gets a vote/say but you have to be realistic here. Not every opinion is as valuable as another, and opinions more often than not equal a vote.

fucking owned, hivefags

It doesn't matter how competent the exerts are if they are trying to screw you over. All their expertise will do is ensure they are able to screw you over more effectively.

It doesn't matter if you have the world's best doctor running your health department if he is benefiting from peddling phony drugs.

It doesn't matter if Nobel winning economists are making your financial policies of they are enriching themselves at everybody's expense.

All the expertise in the world will ultimately fail to create a just and prosperous society if your technocrats behave the way every oligarch in history has and worked to benefit themselves to the detriment of the population.

there is nothing good with modern "medicine" it's a scam

an-prims reach levels of wokeness you have to consume whole cartons of brain pills to attain. we are as ants, no prions by comparison.