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)
If what you suggest was effective then that's how we'd be doing things. Surgery would be done by vote. Instead of surgeons spending years learning how to do it, you'd just get a bunch of people off the street and what on where and how to cut. Bridges would be designed by vote, where people would just get together and figure out what materials to use and how to arrange them. There's a reason these things aren't happening anywhere in the world.
There's also zero reason to believe that there would be no corruption in such a system. People would still try to influence others for their own benefit, make deals, and so on. And as I've already pointed out at the very start, direct democracy works at small scale. The problem is that it runs into physical limits both in nature and in society. Complex organisms like humans aren't organized as a form of a direct democracy either. You end up with hierarchical structures with cells organizing into organs, organs into organ groups, brains coordinating the operation of the organism as a whole.
At the end of the day it comes down to thermodynamics. A society has to organize with a sufficient level of efficiency in order to function. As it grows in scale, it becomes necessary to delegate and abstract things because the scale escapes human comprehension.
As i said above, « The solution is often a moral choice, while its implementation is often a technical one »
You can't corrupt a whole population is what i'm saying, only individuals.
But ok, thanks for taking the time to exchange with me :) 👍
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. :)