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)
I would also add to this that even if people had both the necessary education and inclination to understand and be involved in the process of decision making by debate+referendum that is being described, they simply don't have the time. It is a full time job just trying to develop a sufficient understanding to make competent governance decisions, and even that can only be done for a limited number of topics before you need to delegate. And that's before we even start to consider conflicting interest groups.
I would suggest to OP that they take some time to read Mao's writings on the Mass Line and some of his other thoughts on how effective policy is made, because i find those writings particularly insightful given that the CPC had to actively grapple with this problem (how should a revolutionary party whose legitimacy comes from the collective power of the masses approach policy making and governance) not just in theory but in practice, and through experience learned what works, what doesn't.
Right, you only have so much time in the day. And most people don't actually want to be engaged politically all the time. You just want to live your life in peace at the end of the day.