Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:18 pm

It's not.
Socialism is, socialism and ergatocracy, not scientism and technocracy.
While socialism at its core is an economic ideology, it has social, political and epistemological implications.
By implication, socialism is rule by and the wisdom of the working class, not scientists.
Socialists can certainly consider what scientists, physical, medical and social, have to say, but it's the workers themselves who must have the final word.
And the more scientists align themselves with the interests of capital, the more socialists ought to doubt them.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:21 pm

Gloominary wrote:It's not.
Socialism is, socialism and ergatocracy, not scientism and technocracy.
While socialism at its core is an economic ideology, it has social, political and epistemological implications.
By implication, socialism is rule by and the wisdom of the working class, not scientists.
Socialists can certainly consider what scientists, physical, medical and social, have to say, but it's the workers themselves who must have the final word.
And the more scientists align themselves with the interests of capital, the more socialists ought to doubt them.

Thanks, man, you gave me a fright there for a minute(well, less than a minute) but then set my mind more at ease.

Now I am on edge...erm...I mean slightly on edge...

:lol:

Indeed... heart skipped a beat...coffee was spat...
Last edited by encode_decode on Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:40 pm

encode_decode wrote:
Gloominary wrote:It's not.
Socialism is, socialism and ergatocracy, not scientism and technocracy.
While socialism at its core is an economic ideology, it has social, political and epistemological implications.
By implication, socialism is rule by and the wisdom of the working class, not scientists.
Socialists can certainly consider what scientists, physical, medical and social, have to say, but it's the workers themselves who must have the final word.
And the more scientists align themselves with the interests of capital, the more socialists ought to doubt them.

Thanks, man, you gave me a fright there for a minute(well, less than a minute) but then set my mind more at ease.

Now I am on edge...erm...I mean slightly on edge...

:lol:

You're totally not being facetious. :lol:
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:46 pm

Gloominary wrote:
encode_decode wrote:Thanks, man, you gave me a fright there for a minute(well, less than a minute) but then set my mind more at ease.

Now I am on edge...erm...I mean slightly on edge...

:lol:

You're totally not being facetious. :lol:

Shhh, I was trying to hide, lol
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:52 pm

encode_decode wrote:
Gloominary wrote:
encode_decode wrote:Thanks, man, you gave me a fright there for a minute(well, less than a minute) but then set my mind more at ease.

Now I am on edge...erm...I mean slightly on edge...

:lol:

You're totally not being facetious. :lol:

Shhh, I was trying to hide, lol

Lol, I totally believed you were.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:31 am

Gloominary wrote:While socialism at its core is an economic ideology, it has social, political and epistemological implications.

Socialism at its core is a power ideology - economy, scientism, media, and technology are merely the current tools and currency of the realm. If those are surpassed by other tools, socialism will stay the same - just play a different game.

Socialism is rule by elitist control - centralized authority.

Democracy is rule by the people - distributed authority.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3126
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby encode_decode » Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:40 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:While socialism at its core is an economic ideology, it has social, political and epistemological implications.

Socialism at its core is a power ideology - economy, scientism, media, and technology are merely the current tools and currency of the realm. If those are surpassed by other tools, socialism will stay the same - just play a different game.

Socialism is rule by elitist control - centralized authority.

Democracy is rule by the people - distributed authority.

I would add democracy should be distributed authority - also what happens when the people are retarded? I agree with Gloom on the epistemological implications, however, but I think this should apply to both.

Also when deeply consider as I have already done, scientism is kind of fucking awful - but I would derail the topic if I got started in this.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:03 am

encode_decode wrote:I would add democracy should be distributed authority - also what happens when the people are retarded?

What do you mean by "should"? The consequence of a structure doesn't change what the structure is. Democracy - by its definition - is "distributed authority" - the people get to have "free-and fair" elections - else it is not a democracy.

The only difference between a dictatorship and socialism is the number of people involved on top - one person vs a voting council (so they called it "democratic socialism"). The elite council tells the peasants what to vote for. The peasants then vote. Then the elite find out from their votes who are loyal and who are dissidents. The people actually have no say in the rules - or in the content of their propaganda - from which they choose to vote. So their vote is merely the result of the centralized authority - feigned democracy.

Democracy requires education of actual reality.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3126
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby encode_decode » Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:48 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
encode_decode wrote:I would add democracy should be distributed authority - also what happens when the people are retarded?

What do you mean by "should"? The consequence of a structure doesn't change what the structure is. Democracy - by its definition - is "distributed authority" - the people get to have "free-and fair" elections - else it is not a democracy.

Democracy requires education of actual reality.

Yes, since we are in the sandbox, I will play up a little. Agreed, education of actual reality. Do you think the last around 25 years have been free-and-fair with regards to democracy?

The consequence of the definition may not have changed. Does it reflect reality the way it should? The authority being distributed.

:-k

I should also add what happens when either system is as it should be - not corrupt. From my point of view corruption is the real problem - not so much the systems.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:33 pm

encode_decode wrote:Yes, since we are in the sandbox, I will play up a little.

Why is this in the sandbox? Has Mr Carleas gone completely communist? :-?

encode_decode wrote:Agreed, education of actual reality. Do you think the last around 25 years have been free-and-fair with regards to democracy?

I love good humored sarcasm - but vulgar sarcasm is another issue. I think "free and fair" disappeared long ago - mostly due to media interference - propaganda.

encode_decode wrote:The consequence of the definition may not have changed. Does it reflect reality the way it should? The authority being distributed.

The definition points out one pole - if that pole is abandoned - the opposite pole sweeps the world (as is being proven right now).

encode_decode wrote:I should also add what happens when either system is as it should be - not corrupt. From my point of view corruption is the real problem - not so much the systems.

I agree with that. Corruption is extremely resilient and pervasive. A different kind of governing is required to stop corruption and the only new kind that I have read about from anyone is one that seems to be aimed specifically at corruption prevention - and extremely extremely democratic. I have not completely analyzed its actual viability yet - I'll get to it.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3126
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:51 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:While socialism at its core is an economic ideology, it has social, political and epistemological implications.

Socialism at its core is a power ideology - economy, scientism, media, and technology are merely the current tools and currency of the realm. If those are surpassed by other tools, socialism will stay the same - just play a different game.

Socialism is rule by elitist control - centralized authority.

Democracy is rule by the people - distributed authority.



That’s not true. I’m coming after you obsrvr because you talk more shit now than I used to.

Here’s the deal man.

Do you like that highways are public property built by taxes?

PUBLIC property!!?

That’s socialism man.

National parks? Socialism.

Military? Socialism.

Corporate bail outs (welfare)?

Socialism.

Debate me dude. I’m tired of your shit.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12167
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:59 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:While socialism at its core is an economic ideology, it has social, political and epistemological implications.

Socialism at its core is a power ideology - economy, scientism, media, and technology are merely the current tools and currency of the realm. If those are surpassed by other tools, socialism will stay the same - just play a different game.

Socialism is rule by elitist control - centralized authority.

Democracy is rule by the people - distributed authority.



That’s not true. I’m coming after you obsrvr because you talk more shit now than I used to.

Here’s the deal man.

Do you like that highways are public property built by taxes?

PUBLIC property!!?

That’s socialism man.

National parks? Socialism.

Military? Socialism.

Corporate bail outs (welfare)?

Socialism.

Debate me dude. I’m tired of your shit.


I’ll even add to this... in the US.. k-12 education is socialism.

Medicare is socialism too.

I’m going to hurt your spirit, not your body.

You say dumb offensive anti American shit everyday on these boards. Everything that Americans appreciate is because of socialism.

Take that to the debate forums with me.

You’re a coward of truth ... I know you are.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12167
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:30 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:While socialism at its core is an economic ideology, it has social, political and epistemological implications.

Socialism at its core is a power ideology - economy, scientism, media, and technology are merely the current tools and currency of the realm. If those are surpassed by other tools, socialism will stay the same - just play a different game.

Socialism is rule by elitist control - centralized authority.

Democracy is rule by the people - distributed authority.

Socialism has a libertarian and an authoritarian wing.
Communism has a libertarian and an authoritarian wing too.

In libertarian communism, there is no state and property is redefined.
Land and infrastructure belongs to everyone.
Your personal belongings is shit you can carry with you that you made, was given or sold to you.

In libertarian socialism, there is no state and property is redefined.
Land and infrastructure belongs to whoever built, bought or it was given to, same as capitalism, however rent, usury and wages are seen as illegitimate.
To pay or be paid by someone to use land and infrastructure is to become a co-owner of it, so renters and employees would become co-owners.

You can take these principles a step further and extend them from land and infrastructure to personal belongings too.

I mean how do we define coercion, force, violence?
If I try to take an apple out of your hand, I have to exercise force against you, but if you drop the apple and I pick it up and eat it, I don't have to exercise force against you, you have to exercise force against me to get it back.
Is intellectual property a legitimate form of property?
In right-libertarianism you can sell yourself into slavery, temporary or permanent servitude, but in left-libertarianism you can't, for in right-libertarianism property is contract oriented, whereas in left-libertarianism it's occupation/use oriented.
Some people are in favor of capitalism but believe there oughta be a cap on the amount of assets, employees or renters one can have.

Of course property is (inter)subjective.
There's many ways to do it.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:25 pm

State socialism can be libertarian or authoritarian oriented.
In libertarian state socialism, residences and businesses with renters and employees would be turned into co-ops.
They would be owned and managed by the people who live and work there, not by government, altho government would still exist to protect people from the libertarian state socialist conception of force and fraud.
In authoritarian state socialism, residences and businesses with renters and employees would either be national socialized, or kept private but heavily regulated by government to protect the rights of renters, workers and consumers.

The political counterpart of socialism is ergatocracy, rule by the working class, not democracy, rule by all, nor technocracy or noocracy, rule by scientists or philosophers.
While the working class could appoint a dictator from among them to govern on their behalf, it'd be much more affective for them to govern as directly as possible, by becoming legislators and forming militias to carry out their own will.
Such a form of government could be called direct ergatocracy.

They could also annually elect representatives to carry out their will.
They could divide their representatives into a legislative, executive and judicial branch with a constitution the way we do, the difference being only members of the working class could elect and become representatives.
Such a form of government could be called representative ergatocracy or an ergatocratic republic.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:33 pm

As we can see, socialism and communism can arguably be as or more libertarian than capitalism.
Capitalism also has a libertarian and authoritarian wing, perhaps more on this later.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:56 pm

And socialism is most compatible with ergatocracy, at least theoretically, that is all working men and women directly participating in the legislative, executive and judicial process, socialism is less compatible with democracy, and much less compatible with dictatorship, plutocracy and technocracy.
I think what we're seeing contemporaneously is socialism getting hijacked by plutocrats and technocrats on the one hand and leftwing identity politics on the other.
Socialism works best with ergatocracy, or democracy, grassroots/bottom-up.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:08 pm

Capitalism has a libertarian and an authoritarian wing.
Libertarian capitalism is straightforward, guys like Ron and Rand Paul, altho there's some factionalism, ancaps, disputes over intellectual property, monetarism and so on.

Authoritarian capitalists comes in 2 basic camps, there's corporatists, who want to keep business private, but the state to intervene to protect capitalists and big business; slave labor, union busting, lots of corporate welfare for and underregulation of big business, little corporate welfare for and overregulation of small-medium business and so on, tender on white collar crime, tough on blue collar crime, then there's state capitalists, who want to nationalize business without socializing it, government to own and run everything for its own power and profit.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:23 pm

encode_decode wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:While socialism at its core is an economic ideology, it has social, political and epistemological implications.

Socialism at its core is a power ideology - economy, scientism, media, and technology are merely the current tools and currency of the realm. If those are surpassed by other tools, socialism will stay the same - just play a different game.

Socialism is rule by elitist control - centralized authority.

Democracy is rule by the people - distributed authority.

I would add democracy should be distributed authority - also what happens when the people are retarded? I agree with Gloom on the epistemological implications, however, but I think this should apply to both.

Also when deeply consider as I have already done, scientism is kind of fucking awful - but I would derail the topic if I got started in this.

Epistemologically and governmentally, socialism works best with ergatocracy, then democracy, it doesn't work well with plutocracy or technocracy.
Insofar as socialism is practiced by plutocrats and technocrats, it'll be corrupted.
I'd like to see socialism purged of plutocracy, technocracy and leftwing identity politics.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:26 am

All governments have "wings" (hands) - even dictators.

And in socialism individuals have absolutely no rights - if the elite choose to take them away for disobedience or any other reason.

That is why they have revolutions.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3126
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby encode_decode » Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:15 am

I like to start with the simplest things possible Gloom. I just take a look around out of curiosity and see what different books, people, and websites mention and/or discern their definitions as best I can when they are not mentioned. You may think this a little dumb. I have a little look at television, YouTube, and as many video media as I can afford the time to. Occasionally I like to look back in time a little too with old words and video - see if anything has changed.

Gloominary wrote:
encode_decode wrote:Also when deeply consider as I have already done, scientism is kind of fucking awful - but I would derail the topic if I got started in this.

Epistemologically and governmentally, socialism works best with ergatocracy, then democracy, it doesn't work well with plutocracy or technocracy.
Insofar as socialism is practiced by plutocrats and technocrats, it'll be corrupted.
I'd like to see socialism purged of plutocracy, technocracy and leftwing identity politics.

I am totally with you on plutocracy and technocracy. I am not by definition a leftwinger but I do admire different things about different systems/ideologies - I just don't like corruption.

Have you ever seen how Google dictionary puts left-wing:

1. the liberal, socialist, or radical section of a political party or system.

Whereas opposed to right-wing it says:

1. the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.

I am not saying I disagree with Google here - just that life is a little more complicated than this - actually a lot more. I can only hope that people don't pull definitions for political matters from Google dictionary without cross-referencing with more depth - even wiki is a step up. Even simpler for me is this - looking at the things I personally value and removing some of the complexities that can sometimes cloud my thinking: I like the idea of public hospitals and public education as well as taking care of the environment. I enjoy the idea of an element of freedom in my life - I don't like racism, globalism and would prefer to see things go back to simpler times - as an example, the first-ever feminism does not bother me but the feminism of today does. People in my mind just seem crazy - lunatic - I prefer to leave the fighting to the politicians and discussions to the people - this is a slightly idealistic picture and things don't always go the way I like them too but I always like a good discussion no matter what side you or anyone else is on - I don't appreciate the name-calling or any other thing that just won't achieve anything - name-calling does not achieve anything - so where I see behavior like name-calling, I just stay away - worthless conversation to me.

If someone is an asshat then they are an asshat no matter whether they are liberal, conservative or whatever. Can you discern my mental pattern here - basically comes down to we are all human and best to not have corruption. Starting from this basis, I like things to be defined before I discuss things like you mostly did in the OP - but if I am to comment on the OP then I like to build a picture of myself as it somewhat relates to the OP before I state my position on different things that are associated - from this picture of myself and the position I state it seems to be easier to go in-depth no matter what the subject and you know, right up to the point that the conversation appears to be going nowhere - because, well I like to be productive, not destructive - in saying that, I don't mind figuratively slapping people in the face occasionally.

Debates are not something I do here but my friends and I are constantly at each other about different things - I have friends on every side imaginable - it makes things interesting. I don't think people should be lazy and have things handed to them but I do like the idea of some safety netting in my society - this stuff works well when leaders and people are not corrupt - so people do not take advantage of the system and the system to not fuck people over.

From this, whoever can label me however they want - I wont lose any sleep over it - one day I am going to be dead and hopefully there will be something left for my children - this is my hope for while I am alive.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:32 pm

encode_decode wrote:I like to start with the simplest things possible Gloom. I just take a look around out of curiosity and see what different books, people, and websites mention and/or discern their definitions as best I can when they are not mentioned. You may think this a little dumb. I have a little look at television, YouTube, and as many video media as I can afford the time to. Occasionally I like to look back in time a little too with old words and video - see if anything has changed.

Gloominary wrote:
encode_decode wrote:Also when deeply consider as I have already done, scientism is kind of fucking awful - but I would derail the topic if I got started in this.

Epistemologically and governmentally, socialism works best with ergatocracy, then democracy, it doesn't work well with plutocracy or technocracy.
Insofar as socialism is practiced by plutocrats and technocrats, it'll be corrupted.
I'd like to see socialism purged of plutocracy, technocracy and leftwing identity politics.

I am totally with you on plutocracy and technocracy. I am not by definition a leftwinger but I do admire different things about different systems/ideologies - I just don't like corruption.

Same here, I'm not a left or rightwinger, both the left and right contain ideas that attract and repel me.
But I'm not a centrist either because I'm antiestablishment.
I'd say I'm eclectic rather than centrist.

Have you ever seen how Google dictionary puts left-wing:

1. the liberal, socialist, or radical section of a political party or system.

Whereas opposed to right-wing it says:

1. the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.

I am not saying I disagree with Google here - just that life is a little more complicated than this - actually a lot more. I can only hope that people don't pull definitions for political matters from Google dictionary without cross-referencing with more depth - even wiki is a step up. Even simpler for me is this - looking at the things I personally value and removing some of the complexities that can sometimes cloud my thinking: I like the idea of public hospitals and public education as well as taking care of the environment. I enjoy the idea of an element of freedom in my life - I don't like racism, globalism and would prefer to see things go back to simpler times

Same here, I like the old, Anglo-American left before it was co-opted, 1st by fiscal conservatives and hawks, then by identity politics and technocrats.
That is the left we had from 1922 with the ascendance of the labour party in the UK to the ascendance of Tony Blair in 1997.
With Blair it was co-opted by crony capitalists and hawks, after Blair increasingly by woke technocrats.
The old left was about social democracy, peace and liberty, the new left took a far right turn fiscally, militarily, medically and a far left turn on identity.
The old left was anti-big pharma/Monsanto or big pharma/Monsanto hesitant, the new left is pro-big pharma/Monsanto.
For America, the old left was from FDR-Bill Clinton.
Blair and Clinton began dismantling the old left.
It became less populist, more elitist.

You might say the new left is the new right, not the left.
Perhaps more on this later.

- as an example, the first-ever feminism does not bother me but the feminism of today does.

Feminism was originally about equality, gradually it became more about 'equity' and misandry.

People in my mind just seem crazy - lunatic - I prefer to leave the fighting to the politicians and discussions to the people - this is a slightly idealistic picture and things don't always go the way I like them too but I always like a good discussion no matter what side you or anyone else is on - I don't appreciate the name-calling or any other thing that just won't achieve anything - name-calling does not achieve anything - so where I see behavior like name-calling, I just stay away - worthless conversation to me.

I try to be respectful with respectful people.
Sometimes I let myself get dragged into the mud by disrespectful people.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Parodites » Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:55 pm

Gloominary wrote:It's not.
Socialism is, socialism and ergatocracy, not scientism and technocracy.
While socialism at its core is an economic ideology, it has social, political and epistemological implications.
By implication, socialism is rule by and the wisdom of the working class, not scientists.
Socialists can certainly consider what scientists, physical, medical and social, have to say, but it's the workers themselves who must have the final word.
And the more scientists align themselves with the interests of capital, the more socialists ought to doubt them.


Can't say I agree with GPT, but I fed it your post verbatim and here is what it had to say:

GPT wrote:I’m afraid I haven’t a very good answer to this question. I do think that there is a connection between science and socialism, though I am not entirely certain whether it is a necessary connection.

Of course I’m a scientist too. Like Marx, Engels and so many of their contemporaries and followers, I hold that workers have the ability and are the masters of their own destiny. But I don’t expect my scientific work to lead directly to socialism. Like capitalism, socialism won’t be implemented overnight.


Socialism should not be limited by scientific knowledge, but by moral knowledge.

It is not enough to recognize the limits of our understanding. It is also necessary to understand the limits of our actions.

Marxist ideology has long presented itself as science, but in fact it offers merely political advice and moral recommendations.

There are various ways to view the problem. One is to take the Marxist view that all of human history, all of economics and all of society are essentially the same. The only differences are superficial; economic structures are always changing, but there is no true evolution or improvement. This view is expressed by saying that capitalism has replaced feudalism and imperialism, and now we have the new class struggle between the exploited masses and the capitalist bosses, while socialism is just around the corner.

The main problem with this approach is that it takes very little account of the historical changes that have occurred. The Marxist view is that capitalist development is always better than feudalism and socialism will follow, but we don’t know if this is true. The Marxist view can be summed up in the saying, “History is a lie we tell ourselves.”

The second approach is to note that capitalism is not really a system as it is a social order with rules for society which we call capitalism. Some rules are explicit; we have a labor market, an exchange system, and a division of labor. And some of the rules are expressed in the basic principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based on the principle of competition which rewards success. It is a system based on the exchange of value, so we exchange labor for goods and services and then we exchange products for more services. In short, capitalism has its own internal logic and it cannot be changed by an outside force.

What can be done then? Some economists suggest the market is self-regulating. In fact, capitalism has the advantage of producing the best results and can adapt to new situations, so the market tends to correct problems and create a system of checks and balances, so we’re not in for a communist takeover.

However, this cannot explain the origins of capitalism because it is simply assumed that capitalism emerged naturally as the best social order. Instead, the historical view is that capitalism was invented by kings and conquerors for the express purpose of taking control over their people. It is not a spontaneous social order. It can be changed but you have to take on the role of a conqueror, not a philosopher.

One might think that we are stuck with this debate and that there is no way to reconcile the two different views of history. Not true! We can change the way we interpret history. There is an alternative view of history.

When socialists claim that they don't care what scientists say, they're really doing that because what the scientists have to say has become just another piece of a puzzle they must solve.

No individual may presume to hold the full picture.
What the average person can't see is the whole truth.
When the average person, i.e. the working class, becomes an "advanced" socialist, they would be the ones to lead the struggle to develop a socialist society.
They'd be the ones to know what's good for the rest of us.
They'd be the ones to understand and use the science that they've found.
Only they can, they would be the class who would build socialism, it would be the class that would rule.
The more that scientists align themselves with the interests of capital, the more socialism we need.

Capitalism has built an industrial society.
It created a new system.
Now the workers are going to rebuild it, from the bottom up.

Whenever we encounter a new problem, we're going to need the knowledge of the scientists, the physical and medical scientists.
But also the social scientists and the historians.
All of these sciences must be, if they're ever going to be truly available, they must be open to everyone, every single person who is interested in the truth.
The truth for us is socialism.
In the end, whatever we're all working for, all of us, is socialism.

While some socialists think that the environmental movement is part of the socialist movement, this should be seen as a mistake.
The environmental movement, like socialism, can come about in multiple ways and in different eras and countries.
What all of these environmentalist movements have in common is that they do not want to continue the old-fashioned way of life.
The environmental movement is opposed to the status quo and all of the waste, damage and destruction that comes from the old ways.

1. Socialism for All

The basic concept of the environmental movement is that it wants everyone to have access to clean air, clean water, and a clean environment.
But that requires more than merely protecting this natural world from exploitation.
That is not socialism.
It also requires the elimination of the social injustice that prevents people from living in environmentally clean conditions.
The environmental movement has many other demands for improvements, but these are not the fundamental points.
The problem is that the environmental movement has many forms.

2. Liberal Environmentalism

There is liberal environmentalism which can be easily explained.
It is based on the idea that there is a separation between nature and society.
It says that human beings are separate from nature and can live their own way in this separation.
Liberal environmentalism says we are separate from nature and we can simply leave things the way they are.

This is the separation of man and nature.
But in this separation there are no demands that man change the fundamental structure of society.
This is still the way of life that is leading to the destruction of the planet.
This kind of environmentalism leads to a situation where the environment is destroyed, because man is not forced to change his ways.
The demand for environmentalism is that a different way of life must be developed.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Postby Parodites » Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:02 pm

edit ^ added some more of its output, bolded my favorite bits
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm


Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users