Technocracy is stupid, and just serves tech elites. Thankfully, there is a scientific political system out there called Scientific Socialism. It ruthlessly criticizes the world to find the best way to advance the interests of the great masses of people. It analyses the movement of history and society to make it develope smoothly. It studies its own struggle to make it be more effectively. However, it is not against democracy, but rather in favor of a truer democracy of the working class. Liberal democracy is simply the ruling class making up differences and fighting each other for show. In China they have a far better democracy without such fighting, and instead have tons of dialogue and study.
Scientific socialism sounds like the way to go, but don’t act like China is a democracy.
China is by no means perfect, but far more democratic than the US “beacon of democracy” ever was. There’s a reason over 90% are happy with their government. https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#is-china-a-democracy
They are also a good example of the practice of scientific socialism. They’ve extensively studied the Soviet Union as to avoid their mistakes. They also study the contradictions of their society to develop harmonically. I recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: a Foreigner’s Guide.
Both Russia and China are authoritarian. 90% are happy with the government in the same way that 86% voted for Putin.
It’s fake numbers.
Fake numbers about a US enemy from harvard? Shouldn’t we be hearing about the 10% who didn’t like the government being punished if there actually is coercion?
Authoritarian is a nonsense term. You said you support socialism right? It cannot exist without capitalists feeling and being vocal about their oppression. All the media portrays China as evil because they are the antithesis of our sick society.
“Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part…” - Fredrick Engels
Alright, let me say it differently.
China is a one party system. The party elects its leader themselves. There’s no choice. There’s no other direction. And when they censor things heavily, they also control the narrative.
China doesn’t perform well on living standard. Too many homeless and a great part of the population lives in poverty.
Work week is 6 days a week and 12 hours a day.
There’s not one thing China is the best at when it comes to welfare and living standards.
So no, it’s by no means a great example.
You did not look at the resources I sent lmao. Do you have any sources for your claims?
China is a one party system.
False. Even Wikipedia can debunk your claims. There are nine parties in China, which work together in consultation on policy. Boer has a whole chapter on this. There is no requirement of party membership for running in elections and they have tons of elections. The reason they don’t have a bunch of spectacle where people pretend they hate each other and the president is whomever can procure the most money and be the most charismatic like the US is because they manage their contradictions non-antagonistically (another thing Boer talks about).
China doesn’t perform well on living standard.
A laughable statement. China is doing better than the US. But, the US has centuries of imperialism it benefits from, so why compare it to China, when India is more comparable and has 7 years lower life expectancy.
Too many homeless and a great part of the population lives in poverty.
Of all the things to accuse China of, that is not it.
Work week is 6 days a week and 12 hours a day.
You really need to source these claims. Anyway, labor rights are increasing year by year. They a whole lot better than other countries with large manufacturing industry.
There’s not one thing China is the best at when it comes to welfare and living standards.
My shock when a country that’s less than a 100 years out of its century of humiliation isn’t the absolute best at everything.
So no, it’s by no means a great example.
Eliminating poverty, , leading the world by far in technological innovation, and being the largest economy not too long after being a feudal backwater without colonies isn’t exemplary?
It is fun how you just know that every downvote or negative comment just bolsters op’s ego because to them it shows how the masses are stupid and they are one of the few who know how things should be. Replacing “democracy” with “science” makes no god damn sense because science is not a form o government. How hard would it have been to elaborate how you imagine your “scientific” goverment to work? I guess you would atleast have basic knowledge about politics. So what we got was the question of a 6 year old. How do you expect insightful comments?
c/iamverysmart c/iamaclosetfascist
He’s barely in the closet:
https://lemm.ee/comment/11377393
I read a short story where they took a humane approach to population reduction.
An engineered disease. A short fever and then your uterus stops working. 95% effective.
Rioting. All scientists hung. But the world was better.
You remind me of a religious fundamentalist encountering his first plate of spaghetti.
Cause advocating genocide through forced sterilization is somehow laudable?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What democracy has to do with science?
No. The problem with science is that in part it relies on trial and error. That could get messy on a societal level. We should utilize observation with scientific methods to inform our decisions. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t do that currently and scientific data results can also be manipulated to fulfill an agenda.
We have good models that offer up good decisions, so why put it to the vote?
Base our policy on tested models. Audit our reasoning thoroughly. Be rational.
Vs consult the masses, 99% of whom don’t even understand the question.
Seems like a no brainer
Well in your scenario who will implement this? Furthermore, what is the goal that you’re trying to engineer with a science based government? Is it personal happiness, population numbers, the production of capital, or to indoctrinate the masses to serve the state? Are you going to justify the use of eugenics? What happens when goals conflict or individuals don’t want to participate in experiments? What if the science you’re implementing has different philosophies or different schools of thought? How do you determine what is the optimal method?
What models are you suggesting we use that are making these good decisions?
You’re using a lot of very general language throughout this thread. We need some elaboration. Otherwise it’s just “we should be logical and stuff.”
Democracy could be said to work on trial an error too, just with human factors thrown into the mix?
A very good point.
I should mention many Utopian Socialists wanted scientists to rule society, but their dreams failed and were coopted. They didn’t understand the class character of the state.
Well you’d just have to convince the upper class that science is their friend. Which is arguably what we have.
Science is their friend. Companies pay people to make studies that make their dangerous products look good. Think tanks run studies to figure out how to keep the economy growing at the expense of working people.
Science tells us how to achieve objectives, democracy what our objectives should be. (obviously this doesn’t always work perfectly in practice).
OP’s just ignoring every comment that points this out.
It’s a dumb point. Basically fanfic/dogmatism processed through a child’s brain. I’d really rather spend my attention on something better
It’s amazing how small the 99% is. Narrow and shallow. I am re-astonished every time I come here. It’s like the zombie apocalypse happened and nobody noticed.
Would you like to explain how choosing an objective is fanfic/dogmatism? This is what everyone cares about. You’re not going to convince anyone to change to a different system by ignoring the thing they want.
I think a better term to use would be “fact-based policy.” I believe that even if we intended to rework politics to be more scientific, it would just lead to all the same manipulations and twisting of facts that current politics involves. Don’t like a particular scientific consensus because it interferes with your goals? Hire a bunch of “think-tanks” to publish contradictory papers. Hah, guess what, that’s where we already are.
So like philosopher kings?
I was thinking straight up science.
Given these observations, and this bit of sound reasoning, we concluse that these policies should be implemented.
No voting required.
You forget a piece: “Given these observations, these objectives, and this bit of sound reasoning, …”
Without objectives, no amount of reasoning will tell you what to do. Who sets the objectives?
Science has brought us some rather advanced artificial intelligence that can do many amazing things.
It can model extremely complex protein chains, yet can’t even render a hand properly and doesn’t even comprehend how people consume nutrients.
You really wanna leave all the decisions up to science and technology?
Well that’s the question.
Voting means lots of dummies, a sea of propaganda… Bad stuff there too.
While I can agree that dummies shouldn’t be allowed to vote, how would/could/should we go about designing a proper voter verification program that more or less eliminates the actual dummies/sheeple?
But I don’t think taking the voter factor completely out of the equation in favor of pure raw science is the answer either.
If you leave everything to science, then science would say the world is overpopulated and we should eliminate half or more of the population…
I read a short story where they took a humane approach to population reduction.
An engineered disease. A short fever and then your uterus stops working. 95% effective.
Rioting. All scientists hung. But the world was better.
Ah yes, forced sterilization. Very humane.
That’s called fascism. You read a fascist fan-fic. I guarantee the people who were forcefully sterilized wouldn’t agree that the world was better.
It’s called science fiction you gibbering philistine.
You must be really fun at parties…
/s
Elaborate?
Two methods for determining policy.
We vote.
We do science.
Should we switch to the latter?
Under representative democracy, policies are not defined by voting. Representatives are voted in, to make the decision. They supposed to make decisions based on facts (including scientific facts) and interests of the constituents. In order to do that, institutions are created, such is bureaucracy, executive branch, committees, etc., those will employ scientists as needed. But a policy can not be made just by scientists. Climatologists can not make policy about climate change, for example, because those should rely on many aspects, including economics, security, international relationships and even internal politics (different states have different needs).
How about the current system where we vote and do science?
99% of the voters wouldn’t know science if it bit them on the butt
You make a good case for your own argument.
Well somebody’s got to.
I mean, trying to prove your own theory by being the perfect case study seems a little extreme…
Sounds like a wildly unscientific statement, considering e.g ~10% of the US population works in STEM.
That doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, strangely enough.
Or, maybe we already do 100% science. It’s just that the agenda isn’t precisely popular. And the voting is just for show.
Science is an empirical method of finding fact.
Government is a philosophical method of seeking truth.
You are being pretty incoherent.
How does science determine the order initiatives are addressed?
Well first we would change beans into peas.
The rest is trivial.
This is why we need people to study humanities. STEM majors taking a few undergraduate courses and then spending the rest of their lives thinking science is a replacement for a system of government
I would argue OP hasn’t studied science either 😂
Democracy cannot coexist equally with capitalism.
If we’re talking about the right kind, are they not parts of the same thing?
A clear indicator that I reached the bottom of the community
Bottom? This is par for the course.
