I have started a blog on Wordpress where I can start working on and promoting Neosocialism. The goal of Neosocialism is to develop a philosophy which combines atheism, socialism, information freedom with scientific and technological progress. The goal is to develop and implement a new vision for the future of humanity in space.

The current economic, social and government systems are inappropriate for a life in space and for the future. If we all them to proceed then humanity is doomed to be limited to where we are now.

Religion, in all its forms, seeks to limit the realms of human knowledge and social progress.

Capitalism, with its focus on profit and raising the individual at the cost of the society, is incompatible with the interdependence needed for an advanced human future.

The true needs of humans must be considered as a prime focus for the future.

Information monopolization, in the form of restrictive patent and copyright practices, is a direct impediment to the progress of science, technology and culture.

Energy accounting, which was first promoted by the Technocracy Movement, is the only realistic method of determining cost. It can take into actual account the various inputs and mechanisms of production.

This is a work in progress and I don't consider it something that people will accept, but it is how I plan to live my life.

Galactian: A Neosocialist Future

Views: 99

Tags: Neosocialism, future, humanity, intellectual, property, socialism

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Dee Neely on January 21, 2012 at 2:56pm

The word just is an overt simplification, but does indicate a crucial aspect of Neosocialism. The reasons and motivations which lead people to participate need to be changed in a fundamental way.

Comment by Andrew Wiggin on January 21, 2012 at 2:23pm

> We just need to switch what people consider to be a reward for their hard work.

I see your point now.  I'm not so sure the word "just" belongs in there :)

Comment by Dee Neely on January 21, 2012 at 2:19pm

He's set for life, in fact - maybe not in accumulated wealth but definitely in rewarding work.

My impertinent question is, if their basic needs were guaranteed, how many of these folks would be doing anything at all?

You kind of answered the question earlier in your post. This would depend on the what the surrounding culture considered "rewarding work." If the culture valued contribution, excellence and development you could have the same result as motivation from profit. You just change the aspects of what is considered as a gained profit.

Lets take Torvalds as an example. He will be remembered as a contributor way after his death and way after any amount of "profits" will have passed away. The same example can be drawn from many people in history. We don't remember Netwon, Asimov, Heinlein, Salk, Einstein or any number of other people because of the amount of money they made or the number of things they owned. We just need to switch what people consider to be a reward for their hard work.

Comment by Andrew Wiggin on January 21, 2012 at 2:02pm

> the fact that Linus Torvalds is indicative of the problem with the society. He works because society doesn't provide for his basic needs

I was coming from a different direction, predictably.

Linus Torvalds has a pretty good job, which probably provides for a lot more than his basic needs.  He's set for life, in fact - maybe not in accumulated wealth but definitely in rewarding work.  My point was that his Open Source efforts are not purely motivated by creativity.  He always expected to make a living in software.  The same goes for most Open Source software contributors.  Google pays people to write free software so they can win on advertising.  IBM does it so they can avoid paying Microsoft for stuff. Other companies and individuals, like the SQLite guy, create open source software but sell their maintenance and consulting services.

Open Source is a good example of creativity decoupled from ownership, just not from profit.

My impertinent question is, if their basic needs were guaranteed, how many of these folks would be doing anything at all?

Comment by Dee Neely on January 21, 2012 at 1:32pm

I guess that makes me a bad socialist.

No, since the system simply isn't actually set up to support the lifestyle. There would be a central place for tool access if it were. There would also be a community pressure on people to return tools when they were done or even bring the tools over to help you complete your task. The cooperative aspects of the Amish are a good example of what I am talking about. The cooperative aspect of the Amish is the only think I admire about their culture, but it does show you that such interactions are possible.

Comment by Dee Neely on January 21, 2012 at 1:27pm

I agree with the performance art aspect of open source. However, the fact that Linus Torvalds is indicative of the problem with the society. He works because society doesn't provide for his basic needs which is the prime motivation for most of what people do. A person is forced by society to these ends because of those needs. The need for food, water, shelter, security. clothing and several essentials require that he do things other than follow his aptitudes and simply build on human knowledge.

Yes, I am definitely serious about outer space. In order to preserve life we need to expand beyond earth. There may be, and probably is, life on other planets, but as far as we "know" life is limited to here. This is extremely dangerous to our survival. All it would take is one gamma ray burst and it would all be over. In addition, space has the abundance of materials which the earth lacks. The sheer amount of raw materials in a couple of asteroids could supply everything our society needs for a strong period of time. All they require is access and energy. The conditions of space are incompatible with the capitalist system in anything other than short term.

Comment by Andrew Wiggin on January 21, 2012 at 1:20pm

> the incredible "I have to have my own copy of everything mindset" which runs through modern society is incompatible with my idea

I live in a rural setting where each house has at least 5 wooded acres.  It makes sense to share seldom used items like posthole diggers and plumbing tools.  In practice, though, trying to borrow tools around the neighborhood leaves me open to return borrowing.  Since my neighbors are much better at mooching than I am, I quickly come out behind.  I find that it's better to own my own stuff, or go rent it when I need it.  I guess that makes me a bad socialist.

Comment by Andrew Wiggin on January 21, 2012 at 1:12pm

> There is no actual connection between the ownership of thing and the drive to create...Open Source...drive to excel

Open Source is a great example, thanks.  Leaping to the thing I'm most familiar with, there is definitely an element of performance art in they way people participate in Open Source Software. Obviously, even Linus Torvalds has a day job.  But you still make a good point.

Are you serious about outer space, or just using it as a way to mentally frame an isolated society?

Comment by Dee Neely on January 21, 2012 at 12:53pm

I would also point out that the drive to excel simply because you want to be the best is something that we have lost as we have progressed. It is now all about how much money you can make.

Comment by Dee Neely on January 21, 2012 at 12:51pm

You are making a conceptual jump that isn't true. There is no actual connection between the ownership of thing and the drive to create. Capitalism has created the illusion that making money is the only driver of innovation, invention and progress. It is the one fact that the Zeitgeist movement did get right. People through the ages have worked hard, solved problems and created it filled an inner drive. We have lost the concept of doing things because we are good at them and because we like them.

I am communicating with one of them at the moment. I use Open Source for everything and the entire movement is based on the idea of doing things because we want to do them and not how can we profit from them.

There is also nothing inherent in any socialist system that says people can never own anything. It is a common misconception fueled by its opponents. The difference is the attachment you place on the level of ownership. The things you wear, the important personal items you treasure and many things are not incompatible with socialism and are explicitly not incompatible with Neosocialism.

However, the incredible "I have to have my own copy of everything mindset" which runs through modern society is incompatible with my idea. It is also an impossibility for a space faring society.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service