Progressivism = Social Democracy? Discuss. | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
hmmm... (none / 0)
It was not meant to be prophetic :-D

It is not a vision of how things will eventually evolve... it is a theory of how (given perfect conditions) the political systems in my opinion would evolve... and where less than perfect conditions in human history prohibited that evolvement... if anything it gives the prediction that because central power has become too strong in the world today it will now evolve 'backwards' to no-holds-barred free-market Capitalism and stay there (to the detriment of the 'common man'... and that will be done by producing more and more 'false' scarcities centralizing power more and more...

What I am 'fighting' for through my political beliefs and activism and writing on political sites like this one is trying to reverse this trend and bring the natural evolution back by advocating Libertarian Socialism (which is one of the steps towards the final goal of Technocratism)...

Now I should say that I do this in spite of my belief that we actually have the technology today (and have had for some time) to go directly to Technocratism and skip the intermediate steps of Libertarian Socialism and Anarchism/Humanism... but I do this because I believe that such a drastic change would be unlikely to be accepted by the public except by force... and I am wholeheartedly opposed to forcing my views onto others involuntarily so I have selected the slower but more humane road of persuasion in which the smaller and more logical change into Libertarian Socialism is more likely to succeed :-D

Let me try and explain why I believe that Technocratism could technologically be implemented today without problems…
For Technocratism to work the technologies (as explained in my original post) should provide for 6 things (everything else would provide for luxury items and availability to those would be determined by available resources in a sustainable cycle with Earths eco systems)…

1. It should provide abundant energy to supply ALL living humans…
2. It should provide abundant food supplies to feed ALL living humans…
3. It should provide abundant raw materials to provide housing for ALL living humans…
4. It should provide advanced enough technology to automate healthcare…
5. It should provide abundant raw materials to sustain set technologies worldwide…
6. It should provide advanced enough technology to automate the extraction of set raw materials and the production of set technologies…

1. It should provide abundant energy to supply ALL living humans…
Well if we drop fossil fuel energy dependant technologies and replace them with electric energy dependant technologies (we have already made magnetic trains (Maglev’s) that potentially could travel at 8 times the speed of commercial flight (limited now to 531Mph because of the curvature of the rails… which is the same speed as a commercial flight at 600Mph but with an expansion of the infrastructure worldwide for this technology you could travel from New York, USA to Hong Kong, China in under 2 hours) making commercial flight obsolete and unnecessary and the electric car can now outperform the gasoline car in speed and in distance one charge can drive 300 miles as opposed to an average of 350-400 miles on a tank of gas so the switch to electric cars should be seamless and heating of houses could easily be converted to electrical etc…) we only have to look at free energy in the perspective of electrical energy…

Well for at least 100 years we have had the technology to produce free overabundant electrical energy we just haven’t used it yet… about a hundred years ago a man named Nicolai Tesla invented a tower like structure financed by J.P Morgan that literately could extract electricity from the Schuman Resonance in the atmosphere (proven in lab tests and he patented the design) and he even started to build a large scale model (one of which could produce enough electrical energy to sustain the populations of the world need at that time by a factor of 20… but due to worldwide distribution problems NT calculated that 20 of those towers were needed strategically places worldwide to provide the entire world population at that time with free abundant energy)… but when J.P Morgan found out that energy would become overabundant (and thereby free and thereby not making him any money) he pulled the plug midway and tore down the already build structure and that was the last we heard of that… but extrapolated up till today we would still only need 1 of those towers today to provide us with free overabundant electric energy to the entire world with the added benefit of NO CO2 and other gas emissions…

And that technology is 100 years old… if we really started to priorities this area of research who knows what we could come up with (i.e. Nassim Haramein (a physicist from Georgetown University) is in the process right now to develop a technology that can extract the endless energy potential of the vacuum (just to name 1 example)… endless meaning in practical terms that a Haramein-device the size of a golf ball could easily provide all the energy the world consumes today times 50… so we could have all the overabundant free energy we want right now if we wanted)…

2. It should provide abundant food supplies to feed ALL living humans…
Well we already do that now… the industrialized countries overproduce food to the extent that if for instance the EU gave its surplus storage of food during a year (which today just gets destroyed) to the entire population in the 3. world for free nobody would die of starvation on the planet for that year… add to that the surplus produced by the rest of the industrialized world incl. the US the world would have an overabundance and thereby free supply of food by just keeping up current productions…

3. It should provide abundant raw materials to provide housing for ALL living humans…
Well nobody really contents that this is a problem… we have plenty of material to build housing to the entire population of the world as it is…

4. It should provide advanced enough technology to automate healthcare…
Well today most of the doctors job is being (or could be if it was not too expensive under Capitalism) performed by computers and machines (i.e. in diagnostic most doctors today ask you what is wrong… you then list your symptoms which he plots into his computer which then spits out a diagnosis or (if multiple possibilities exists) suggests the tests needed to reach a final conclusion which your doctor then does and sends them to a lab (where most tests and results are automated too) and when the results come back he plots them into the computer which then spits out the final diagnosis… it’s all automated already… in surgery we already have machines that can perform even the most complicated and delicate procedures with a smaller margin of error of any human doctor… but it is WAY too expensive as opposed to the doctors salaries so doctors still perform most of those by hand… but the technology is there and if we lived under Technocratism it would be free and cost therefore would not be a problem in that regard… etc.)…

5. It should provide abundant raw materials to sustain set technologies worldwide…
Well I don’t have all the amounts of raw materials produced and producible in all areas of the world today… but we have the possibility of enough food and housing and free energy with the materials we use today so in that respect we should be ok… but on the material needed to build the needed infrastructure for the Maglev trains and the various delivery systems and the new cities etc. you will have to educate me… I think we have enough but if not that would be the only hurdle we would need to overcome to introduce Technocratism worldwide…

6. It should provide advanced enough technology to automate the extraction of set raw materials and the production of set technologies…
Well as free energy goes it is just to build the already available technologies and the needed delivery systems and infrastructures and we are good to go… all automated…

As for food production there is no reason that it could not be completely automated and with the right infrastructure and delivery systems we could actually get away with producing less food than we do today (creating a smaller strain on the Earths eco system) and we could do it more effective than we do today by selecting the places on Earth where crops and husbandry and… etc. would grow and live the most effective with respect to climate and weather and etc and then transport the end product freely to everyone for free…

And as for housing we could construct cities where they would create the least impact on Earths eco systems in different forms of nature and with everything free incl. housing and travel you could if you wanted wake up one morning in North America and decide you would like to live in Africa for a while and maybe see some lions and zebras etc.… leave everything behind (you could just get the same for free when you arrived)… and in a couple of hours you would be there… move into a new free house and live there for as long as you liked and then move on when you again wanted a change of scenery…

As for automated healthcare we are already there technologically and when enough machines and computer diagnostic programs and automated test kits etc. have been created we are good to go…

And lastly for the automation of the extraction of set raw materials we are already there (maybe except with respect to oil rigs which would not be needed anymore so not a problem) so in that respect we are good to go… and as for the automated production of set needed technologies we have already done that (i.e. the production of cars and computers and… etc. are completely automated as we speak)…

So the only thing still needed to create a worldwide Technocratism society today would be to construct the new housing (cities) and the new needed infrastructure and delivery systems (which we could do in a generation) after which we could disband the monetary system and governments and countries and their boundaries and we would be good to go…

All in all if we as a world society wanted we could all live in a Technocratism world in a generation but it would be a tough sell if not to the public then at least to the sitting governments and powerful companies and families in the world so like I said… I’m a Technocratist fighting to move a Capitalistic society towards its natural evolution of Libertarian Socialism :-D

Then you speak of human nature and as I have explained in the original post it seems (by looking at history) that human nature is to decentralize power and thereby empowering themselves and it is the nature of existing power structures to want the opposite (i.e. every public demand whether it be by the labor movement or revolutions or even the introduction of democracy have so far been to decentralize power and give it in the hands of the individual people and at every step it has been opposed by those already in power… so I feel VERY comfortable saying that human nature is to empower himself by decentralizing existing power structures and it is existing power structures nature to horde more power by centralizing it around itself… so no genetic engineering… and even though we the public seems to have lost the battle so far the war is not over :-D

You then say that you believe that there will always be the need for a centralized government to avoid abuse and illegality… well I disagree based on what I wrote in the original post… with no centralized power structures and ALL power placed in the individual (i.e. everyone) there would be NO possibility of abuse and without the need for laws (i.e. all solutions would change to be technologically based) there would be NO possibility of illegality (you can’t break none existing laws)… and on top of that there would be no social unrest either (explained in original post)…

And as for projects for the common good… I would suggest that we use already existing technologies like the internet and the social networking technologies it provides… so for instance if someone saw the need for improving an area of the society or for the world society at large you could post your suggestion online and if enough wanted to volunteer so your project could be under way and the resources where available then you and your volunteers could just go ahead and do it and if not enough volunteers came forward then it wasn’t a real need so we will have to do without :-D – but that’s just one way… so for instance in the new society if you (or somebody else) thought of a better way than the internet to do these sort of things or better technologies to travel of produce food or… etc. and enough people agreed then they would get together and change that aspect of society for the better… it’s that simple…

It would change the focus from competition (since there would be nothing to compete over if everything was free) to collaboration (a much more powerful and efficient motivator and executor)…

And lastly if there were no more resources to fight over or different political systems to disagree with or countries to dispute territory over there would be no more wars :-D

So all in all I think I’ll prefer Technocratism (which is possible now) to all the other systems we have now… but I’m a patient man and I can wait for the natural evolution of Libertarian Socialism and then Anarchism/Humanism before we get there if that’s what the public will be able to agree on… am I not merciful :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/11/2009 03:39:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
PS... (none / 0)
(God damn where is the edit button when you need it)... :-D

I just wanted to clarify... I'm not saying that Capitalism is bad or evil or even just worse than the other systems...

Capitalism is the best system for a high scarcity world and if we lived in such I would be a die hard free market Capitalist... Capitalism is better than all the other systems under specific conditions just as all the other systems are better than all the rest under their particular scarcity level...

But just as Technocratism and Anarchism is unsustainable in a high scarcity world (if there is shortages all over the place and there is not enough rescources to go around you can not distribute the available resources if everything is free and without the rule of law there would be all out chaos) so is Capitalism unsustainable in a no/low scarcity world (if all the resources are abundant and there therefore is plenty to go around everything under Capitalism gets the prizetag $0,- and it falls apart under it's own weight...

And today we live in a no/low scarcity world (or could be if we wanted to) and therefore the best system right now in my opinion is Technocratism...

But the way Capitalism is hanging on by a thread (read: recession = forewarning of a total economical colaps in the near future... see there I go predicting things again hehe) is by creating 'false' scarcities (i.e. 3 times as much diamonds are mined that reaches the markeds because the mining compagnies burn the last 2/3 so to keep world prizes artificially up... they destroy the food surplusses instead of giving it away to hungry people in the world so they can sustain decent food prizes worldwide... etc.)... and in the process the Capitalistic system is taking the hard earned power back away from the individuals by increasing the centralization of power unnessecarially (and by creating 'false' scarcities they deny all people their fair share of the actual resources and needlessly starving the world of food comford etc.)...

This is why I'm against Capitalism in this no/low scarcity world we live in (or could be living in if we wanted)... it's the worst suited system for this world :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/11/2009 05:48:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Some General problems (none / 0)
"if anything it gives the prediction that because central power has become too strong in the world today it will now evolve 'backwards' to no-holds-barred free-market Capitalism"

What??? What central power are you talking about? Economic or political? A central power exists in neither of these fields and they interact. The most wealthy cooperations have enormous political power. If something would lead to a deregulation and free market capitalism the power of these companies would increase. Still that would be no backwards development, because such a deregulated market has never existed.

Problem 2:

You focus too much on technology and politics and nearly completly ignore psychology.

Example:

"It would change the focus from competition (since there would be nothing to compete over if everything was free) to collaboration (a much more powerful and efficient motivator and executor)..."

You want a world without good looking, intelligent women? As long as there is any one of them left I will do my best to compete for them. Gaining economical power is one strategy to reach this goal (education and physical fitness being others). People will always finf something that is scarce to fight over. That's just human nature.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 12/12/2009 02:35:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
What??? What central power are you talking about? Economic or political?
Well you sort of answered your own question with ‘The most wealthy cooperations have enormous political power’... because money equals power under Capitalism and power centralizes no matter what regulations political power might install (as explained in original post)... power just centralizes slower under regulation but it still centralizes...

But I’m not talking about companies (since they are only slightly more powerful than political power at this point and are not the most powerful entities on the planet)… I’m talking about the families like Rothschild and Rockefeller and DuPont and Warburg and Hilton and… who have more money than most countries GNP and therefore have the power to make or break governments or crash entire economies or… on the world stage if they wanted… they are the central power I’m talking about… you think they answer to anyone or are regulated in any way?

And they are not unique in history… you think the British East India Company at its heyday answered to anyone or were regulated by the Monarchs of Europe? – or you think the Knights Templar when they were the richest entity in the world in the early second millennium (until they were destroyed by the combined power of the catholic church and the French Monarch) answered to any one or were regulated in any way? – or… it is not a conspiracy… it’s just the way Capitalism works… and when entities with that much political power exists then they have the power to halt political changes towards Socialism or Technocratism or… if they want too no matter what the people want… and they want too since power likes the status quo (or changes towards more centralized power such as deregulation etc.) and it doesn’t like giving the power it has to anyone incl. the people (as explained in original post)…

Still that would be no backwards development, because such a deregulated market has never existed
Well if by market you mean the financial market (trading money for moneys sake) then yes you are right… no such free market existed before (that’s a fairly new invention in history)… but if you think of the free market as an unregulated economy in its totality (which is its original definition) then you are wrong… then the free market was how Capitalism started and it was only after democracy (another attempt of decentralization of power by the people) got implemented that Capitalism got regulated so the people wouldn’t lose that power again (at least not so fast)…

But I don’t mean backwards in the negative sense… like I said in my PS… I don’t think Capitalism is bad (this is not a moral question) and if we still lived in a high scarcity world I would be a fierce defender of Capitalism… but just as Technocratism (or even Anarchism) would be VERY poorly suited to handle high scarcity societies so is Capitalism VERY poorly suited to handle this no/low scarcity world we have today (or could have if it was not for the ‘false’ scarcities created to keep Capitalism going when we should be moving on)…

You focus too much on technology and politics and nearly completly ignore psychology
Well this is a discussion on politics and technology is the only way we can combat scarcity and thereby change policies so yes that’s my main focus and that’s why I only mention psychology when it’s relevant in the form of the movements to decentralize power through history by the people and the movements to centralize power through history by the existing power structures…

You want a world without good looking, intelligent women?
NEVER!!! :-D

As long as there is any one of them left I will do my best to compete for them
Me too :-D

Gaining economical power is one strategy to reach this goal
Yes and only one of many (as you yourself point out)… so in that respect under Technocratism you’ll have to make do with education and physical fitness and… (all the other attributes women look for in a man) :-D

I’m not saying that competition in people’s personal lives will seize to exist but I hope you don’t believe that the government should EVER have a hand in deciding who gets the girl etc. :-D - and since we are talking about political systems (or the lack thereof in Technocratism) that’s not really relevant (which is why I didn’t mention it or the rest of human psychology)…

What I’m talking about is societal problem solving (which is what politics and lawmaking is all about)… in that respect we would naturally change from competition to collaboration and switch to technological solutions as compared to lawmaking solutions under Technocratism if there were abundant and free resources to go around…

People will always finf something that is scarce to fight over. That's just human nature.
Sure… but it doesn’t have to be resources and politics (which is what we are talking about here)…

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/12/2009 11:17:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Progressivism = Social Democracy? Discuss. | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)