Is Socialism Scientism & Technocracy?

Shhh, I was trying to hide, lol

Lol, I totally believed you were.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I try to be respectful with respectful people.
Sometimes I let myself get dragged into the mud by disrespectful people.

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

edit ^ added some more of its output, bolded my favorite bits