Do you support democracy within an RBE?

Activism Support
1

To know whether the supporters of the RBE concept also support democracy (specifically direct democracy) and accountability (multilateralism) to the people, I made a poll where the user selects the closest preferred system of decision-making.

For some it may be desirable to remove all or most humans from the decision-making process to “remove or reduce speculation”, while others may argue that removing humans could create a rigid system that does not serve the best interests of the people as a whole, and that decision making should be evidence-driven and based on research as opposed to completely or mostly automated.

Those who believe that most or all decision-making should not be human will likely associate RBE with Technocracy (expert rule) as the closest match while those who believe that there should be more human involvement will likely associate RBE with Socialism (economic democracy) as the closest match.

Complete computer/scientific control is closest to being TVP’s stance, Most computer/scientific control is closest to TZM Czech’s DSED, Mixed expresses an ambivalent position, and Largely human is now the closest to HS stance (“Technology and scientific methods enhance decision-making, but direct democracy should be the primary governance model. This approach allows citizens to vote directly on significant issues, ensuring that their preferences are accurately represented, and this is possible thanks to digital voting systems that can bring people together online”), which I modified since I originally posted about it.

It’s difficult to unite people who don’t believe in democracy under a RBE and those who do, because of all those models use science and technology, and claim to be efficient, but may not be perceived even remotely as such by all the others.

While some may see the possibility of a single RBE uniting everyone, realistically, assuming that the conflict between the RBE democrats, the RBE technocrats, and the moderates in between might not be reconcilable, only the base framework will unite people, and the actual systems that are being advocated for may diverge.

  • Complete computer/scientific (cybernetics with humans only used for maintenance purposes)
  • Mostly computer/scientific (scientific direct democracy used to implicate people in the decision making, but computers and science do most of the decision-making)
  • Mixed (the means of production are collectivelly owned, and democracy is established within those means of production, however, anything beyond that is controlled by computers and science)
  • Largely human (a true direct democracy is established within all levels of the economy and government, and the computers and science assist, but do not have the final say)
0 voters
2

You really keep trying to make your RBE-marxist socialist hybrid a thing, even though the vast majority don’t care for it.

3

I personally do not believed in democracy because people who vote need to have significant amount of background in science (STEM). And people don’t have that

1 Like
4

Democracy is built-in an RBE. It’s based on open-source decision making. Everyone is encouraged to join in and is supported by the freely accessible research centers in the cities. This is I believe highlighted in TZM Defined and The Best Money Can’t Buy.

Have you already had time to read TZM Defined? Because I think it will help you understand the systemic change proposed by TZM better.

1 Like
5

I will not debunk this comment again. There is no original marxist tenet in HS, and Peter Joseph’s definition of socialism, if you look at its diversity of thought and adaptability, it’s very innacurate, as it does not mean unaccountable state ownership (as in state capitalism).

And there are some successful experiments (at achieving their goals) like Rojava (running today) and CNT in Spain (collapsed due to fascist forces), for which pressures seemed to be external most of the time, rather than internal contradictions.

Socialist states like the former USSR and China claim they are socialist, but are better characterized by state capitalism with authoritarian features.

Socialism is essentially economic democracy, where the people decide on the means of production and other sectors of the economy. And you voted against true economic democracy.

My approach is divergent from the RBE techno-orthodoxy. I do support the RBE core framework, but a lot of the problems we have today also result from unelected, and not just unsustainable systems and computers don’t solve every problem we have, and can fail, for which there needs to be checks and balances, and should rather assist than replace humans entirely. It’s not acceptable to most of TZM or TVP, but it’s ultimately, I believe, more nuanced, realistic and accountable.

For example, a computer decides a housing unit is needed at a certain city, and places a lot where it thinks the house is best built. However, the longterm residents don’t like the given position and what do we do? We vote on the position of the lot, and the position with the most votes wins, balancing the interests of the people with the calculations of computers.

The interests of the engineers, technologists and experts that make those computers must be balanced out with the interests of the ordinary people who are directly affected by the RBE, and I believe it’s done via a democracy with computers assisting, not replacing humans.

6

That is socialism. Instead of the letting the market organically do its thing (invisible hand), the government is controlling it. And yes, to mandate that control, you need to be authoritarian.

Where is this coming from? I really think you should go back to the basics, because you seem to digress more and more from the original material, which makes your own personal flavor of socialism sound more attractive. At least, I get that vibe when reading your comments over time.

This as well makes me believe you really have an alternative view on an RBE. There are no “regular” people. People can interactively design their own house and furniture with basically an AI powered CAD system. This was science fiction at the time PJ and Jacque were talking about this, but not anymore. Everyone can be and is motivated to be a scientist/engineer. The society stimulates and rewards this.

1 Like
7

There’s no such thing. Capitalism would never exist without a State so that’s an oxymoron.

8

Yes, it’s socialism.
The State is the apparatus with which the ruling class holds the power and influence, ensuring that their interests are promoted and maintained. In a REAL Socialist State the ruling class is the working class, needless to say they are the overwhelming majority of the human beings on this planet. Because the transition from a Capitalist State to a Socialist State will be met with huge antagonism from the 1%, there needs to be authoritarian control. Every State in the world is authoritarian because of what I mentioned in the beginning.

While I’m a strong proponent of a RBE model of society, and since we’re far from getting to that stage of human development, I do believe the best stepping stone to get there faster, because we’re in a race against the climate damage done, is by a workers revolution all around the globe. I’m 100% sure China is way closer to a RBE society than we in the west are with this current “let’s soften capitalism with patchwork” policies.