From https://existentialcomics.com/comic/651

Mazdak was an ancient Iranian Philosopher, who believed the scriptures (Zoroastrianism scriptures, this was pre-Islam) dictated radical social equality. He thought all property should belong to everyone, and wealth shared equally. He was so convincing that he even convinced the king to go along with it, and was able to successfully implement many of his social reforms. He also believed in getting rid of clerics, because they held religious authority over the population, which he thought was illegitimate. Since they were the judges, he of course “lost”, and was executed, along with thousands of his followers. As with most ages and societies, those with huge amounts of power and property have never been too keen on philosophers that want to take it away.

Eventually other rich and powerful Zoroastrian and Christian kings got wind of it, and challenged Mazdak to “debate” their clerics. These other kings were the judges, so naturally their guys won, and they brutally executed Mazdak and thousands of his followers. If Mazdak was a prototype for socialism, or even communism, I suppose you could say their reaction to it was a prototype for how to defeated socialism in the good old “marketplace of ideas”.

(b.t.w., it may be out-of-topic, but it’s everyday)

  • sous-merde@lemmy.mlOP
    13·
    2 months ago

    Surgery would be done by vote.

    As i said above, « [Choosing t]he solution is often a moral choice, while its implementation is often a technical one »
    We ought to listen to experts obviously, who else would we be listening to apart from them, but we should be the ones deciding, not them, and we’ll agree with them whenever the experts of both sides agree with each other because it’s so obvious, but we’ll be the ones deciding between both sides in the case of disagreement, after all we’re the ones impacted from their our decisions.

    There’s also zero reason to believe that there would be no corruption in such a system.

    You can’t corrupt a whole population is what i’m saying, only individuals/decision-makers.
    (You can certainly still manipulate a whole population for your own personal benefits, in which case journalists ought to read the public contracts and verify stuff in order to reveal scandals)

    But ok, thanks for taking the time to exchange with me :) 👍

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml
      9·
      2 months ago

      But then you see how experts have to be involved at least at some point in the cycle here. For example, you could have a solution where you vote on the problems, experts come up with potential solutions explaining pros and cons for each, then you have a second vote on the approach to adopt. My key point is that understanding what practical solutions are requires experience and domain knowledge. And that’s the key reason why we end up needing abstractions. You have different groups of people who focus on understanding different types of problems, and they become the best equipped people to solve these problems. People outside the domain have to delegate to the people who are the experts.

      Meanwhile, when it comes to corruption, the real issue here is in economic inequality. If wealth is evenly distributed within the society, that problem largely goes away because nobody has a significant financial leverage over others that they’re able to exercise. It’s an issue that’s completely separate from hierarchies.

      And you’re welcome. :)