It's year 0, we have finally achieved glorious ML worker's republic with cybernetic planning. Obviously, and especially in this transitionary phase, we are going to need competent people in top administrative positions to hold power for an extended period of time. How do we avoid the fermentation of corruption at these highest levels of the state?
A proposal:
Basically, it would be a way more shitty version of jury duty that you would have a slightly higher chance of being selected for than you would winning the lottery. But it would make the exercise of power completely transparent, and nobody would want to hold positions of power unless their motivations were completely altruistic.
I would propose instating this system at all levels, by the way, including local officials and heads of major unions/factories.
I know that this is more theoretical than Zig Forums gets most of the time, but what do you all think of this idea? What are the flaws with this system? Also, I can't be the first one to have thought of this - is there a historical precedent?
Also I'm assuming that each official's written communication, electronic and on paper, will be monitored by a separate group of citizens.
Noah Long
t. cybernetic pol pot supporter.
Ryan Martinez
Wow, ya really got me there! I was being glib, engage the question seriously or fuck off, anarkiddie.
Owen James
I would suggest that the notes and recordings are made available immediately, released online, but with multiple physical records copied and kept in a few disparate locations should anything funny happen to the internet. With the information constantly available, citizens can view it and discuss it at their leisure and change their position for or against. Additionally, cycle the monitors every month or so. officials are extremely vulnerable to assassination there's now somebody who has to follow them into the toilet, and sleep in the same room :( it would be an awful job, holy shit, I'd hate to be a monitor
I think, anybody who is in a position that one way or another gives them siginificantly more power than their fellow man should forfeit his life to the glory of a united and peaceful humanity, by subjecting himself to execution once his term is up. At the end of the term (a amount of time, might I add), the public decides how they want to end his life, but end it they will. I doubt you'll get many self serving politicians this way.
Gavin Lopez
Death penalty?
Elijah Allen
You need a constant group of mathematicians and computer programmers. You can't just pick people off the street and expect them to have a thorough understanding of linear programming. I think that just voting is sufficient to avoid too much corruption.
As stipulated in OP, the monitors would for sure be switched out every month in order to avoid the corruption of that position. I'm totally on board with everything else you propose, though.
For sure, it would be terrible, but temporary, and we could probably make it up to them with a cushy month of vacation at a resort or whatever afterward. As to it sucking for those in power, tough luck I guess?
I think the system I outline might be good enough? Don't know that we have to go that far…
Gabriel Bell
I'm not sure you understood my original post. I'm saying that the citizens overseeing the authorities/planners would be randomly selected, not the planners themselves. I guess that you could hypothetically select the monitors from within a group of citizens who work in fields similar to the function the authority is performing, but I think that that ultimately has more potential to lead to cronyism and corruption.
Liberal BS. Does voting, in itself, alleviate corruption in our current society? Why should that be any different under communism without radical transparency?
I think a good summation of the philosophy outlined in all these posts might be this: after we transition to socialism/communism, an exercise of power is going to be necessary for some time, and it's best to make that exercise as diffuse as possible, that is, to have it be wielded by the people at large, until the state finally withers away.
Ryan Brown
I’d suggest making everything instantly public. It isn’t hard for only three people to plot a coup.
Hudson Rodriguez
wewlad no need to install 1984-tier government organs Apart from that selecting people from the population seems like an alright proposal
Ayden Taylor
Also and this official is also someone randomly selected from the population?
Elijah Bell
If not bait, this is seriously worse than the most insane things i've seen Zig Forums say, and that's saying a lot.
Nicholas Smith
If the conditions are that you're under continuous surveillance, hardly anyone will be willing to take up that position. I surely wouldn’t. If I were selected in that system I would literally flee and find a place to hide. If seized by the state anyway, and forced to submit to that position, I would probably develop a severe depression which would make me unfit for the job just as well. The human cost for this system is simply too high. It would be the most extreme and totalitarian police state mankind has known. Honestly I would prefer living in Nazi Germany or in fucking ancapistan over a socialist society where I live in constant fear of being seized by the government for a month of unimaginable hardship. If this is the price that needs to be payed for socialism, I honestly prefer barbarism. Socialism isn’t worth this.
Tyler Johnson
This is not only stupid but incredibly easy to subvert. Everyone knows who is corrupt in the current leadership, why they are corrupt, and some of the people know what is happening but are afraid to speak out for fear of being denounced as a conspiracy theorist or insane. Watch as the pool of monitors is curbed by declaring 80% of the population incurably and totally insane - it's not that far from what is already happening with ~20% of the population deemed as such and their medical records being permanent and following them everywhere they go.
Gabriel Myers
Ebin attempt at making the lefties look like nutjobs who want a police state:DDD now go back to Zig Forums
Yeah ok, make everything instantly public, I'm for that. But do you really think that three randomly selected people, from divergent backgrounds, would be able to plan and stage a coup in a month's time?
I guess it's '1984-tier', sure, but it would be 1984-style surveillance directed at single individuals with power, rather than the reverse, 1984-style surveillance directed at millions of individuals with exponentially less access to the levers of power.
No, I'm not saying that people in power should be randomly selected, only the people overseeing those that hold power. Obviously we need competent and trained people to direct the economy, etc.
Sebastian White
Alright It still wouldn't be justifiable, ethically speaking, and also unnecessary. There's literally no reason why they can't just continue their private live during this month. Especially since the whole system is supposed to be transparent, so there's no sensitive information for them to leak in the first place.
Jose Russell
Oh wait. I misunderstood your OP. You want the actual officials in power to be constantly monitored, like the entirety of their term? That's even worse. Literally no one will want a high level position.
Logan Young
It's a fucking joke. t. the user you replied to
Andrew Perry
Why can nobody fucking read what I wrote as written? You're getting it completely backwards: the population, at large, would be free of police state tactics. Those in positions of power would be subject to extreme scrutiny by the people. It's the literal opposite of totalitarianism - rather than the repression of the many by the few, it would be the repression of the few by the many. But that might be putting it too harshly. In the system I'm proposing, I do think that there should be some extra compensation involved for top-level officials who retire from their posts corruption-free, what that might be would be the subject of a different line of discussion. Honestly don't know why I'm replying to your post in the first place, you aren't arguing in good faith.
I get where you're coming from with this fear. To counteract all that, we would need to put the system of people's surveillance into place before appointing initial top-level positions. That way there would be no way for corruption to develop in the first place.
Jack Hernandez
That's the point
Matthew Taylor
Steaming take
James Cook
Right, nobody will want a high-level position for the glory or status of having that position in and of itself. Instead, it will become an extreme personal sacrifice to hold that position, and only those with truly altruistic intentions will want to make that sacrifice.
I thought people on Zig Forums were supposed to be woke - we are all being constantly watched and controlled in a myriad of different ways now as it is, and yet you want to try and claim that an exercise by the people to control power would be some new form of totalitarianism? Get fucking real.
Isaiah Campbell
The idea is intriguing, but I have my doubts that a sufficient amount of people will ever be willing to make that extreme sacrifice, even if there are additional rewards. The difference is that we are born in this society, we're totally used to these forms of surveillance since our childhood, while such an official as you describe would know beforehand he's entering into a system of extreme personal surveillance. But maybe you should elaborate more on how continuous the surveillance should be. Does he really need to be followed into the bathroom? Can't he have a family and personal life? Seems like an extreme and overly dramatic measure that no one will be willing to accept.
Jaxson Thompson
Yes
Wyatt Adams
user, you're just suggesting the Spartan system. Every year 5 random Spartans were chosen to become Ephors, their job being to document the two Kings of Sparta to make sure they weren't fucking the country. If 3/5 of the Ephors voted against one of the Kings then he would have a court case over his abdication. They were a much of low ranking Spartans who kept tabs on Kings and made small amounts of political legislation.
The point is that whoever is in charge will know the ins and out of the planning system, the math, etc. If some random hairdresser or streetlayer is chosen, they might not understand it, and the official can very easily do corrupt shit without them being seen. He might as well speak another language to them.
Dylan Cook
Making all documents and shit public instantly sounds much better.
Apart from the whole scenario, making all government things that are not highly confidential military stuff instantly available is the way to go. Livestream all parlemaint discussions, publish all documents online, etc.
Easton Hughes
Also read cockshott, excecutive branch should not have the power to make the dicisions, the people should.
