Might I present an alternate view? I have noticed the political discussion go back and forth for a long time over the various benefits of fascism vs democracy, capitalism vs. communism, and there never seems to be any consensus. I think that the reason for this is because each brings something to the table, has some merit, that give proponents of each something to point to that "proves" that theirs is the superior ideology. More pluralistic people tend to recognize this and resign themselves to saying that perhaps one's political/economic ideology is based purely on personal opinion, in other words, how would you personally like to see society run? Which kind of society would you prefer to live in? Ostensibly this is partly the idea behind democracy. Yet still, nothing gets resolved as we have hardcore followers all over the spectrum.
Can a consensus be reached? Is there any objective reality to the situation? Here's what I've discovered. Democracies, and indeed even anarchy as some see it, present people with one thing that most really seem to like: freedom. This is what they tend to talk about most anyway, and is why these ideologies remain so very popular. People like to be able to live how they like without interference, and express themselves individually. On the other hand, statist and centralized nations also have their advantages. Looking at examples like Nazi Germany and the USSR, these countries tend to do well economically and technologically. They become powerhouses to be contended with by other nations, and even threaten to dominate them all. It's happened throughout history in fact. I know that we can niggle the details of these examples, but I just want to paint with broad strokes here so that you can see where I am going with this.
So which is better? To better understand the situation we need to separate two areas of society, the people, and the technology. Now any engineer will tell you that technology has to be operated and built a certain way, that way being called by some as "katascopic", or top-down. This is a centralized, goal oriented method of doing things. A quick example is your DVD player: If you want to play the DVD, you have no choice but to push the play button. You're opinion doesn't matter, you can't bargain with it, it's just the way that the machine works, kind of like a dictatorship. Play by the rules, and things go your way. People on the other hand work differently than machines. Sociologically people have the best chance of both being happy and achieving their potential when they are given the freedom to do so (all other factors being equal of course). This is called "anascopic". So now we can look at these four ideas and use them to compare our various ideologies.
When both people and technology are ruled katascopically, we have a classic dictatorship. As mentioned with the above examples, they tend to accomplish much in terms of production and technological development, even conquest, but living conditions tend to be rather poor, especially for those not included as the "chosen ones" or "elite". Democracies on the other hand, and even more so with an anarchist nation, have plenty of freedom for people to enjoy, handling both people and technology in an anascopic fashion, but find it very difficult to perform concerted efforts to accomplish anything big, and indeed often end up competing and interfering with each other's efforts. This leaves us with the classic choice of which type of society do you prefer, or does it? Suppose we separate how people and technology are handled, each according to how they should be, what would that look like? If we were to handle technology in a katascopic, centralized way, but somehow still allow people the freedom to live how they like, what would that look like? Looking at the parts, it should work better than the other two ways, but nothing like that has ever existed, so it may be hard to visualize how such a society would work. For an example of this, I present to you Technocracy. Technocracy handles all objective, technical matters in a purely scientific way, because to do anything else is simply ignoring physical reality and no smarter than drinking poison because you think it won't hurt you. On the other hand, Technocracy is only an economic system, one designed to work without political government, thus affording people all the freedom they could want, while at the same time providing them with a technologically potent economic system that provides each citizen with the high standard of living needed to fully express their individuality and achieve their potential. I know that this sounds difficult to believe, and you can already see many problems with this idea, but that is because this is not simply an ideology; following what I have said thus far will not provide you with the benefits I mentioned and yes result in the problems that you foresee. However Technocracy is a system, a scientific technological system, with many details. It takes time to learn all the parts and how they work together, but from what I have heard from everyone who has put in the time to learn all that, is that it is the most elegant system ever devised, and it can work.
I invite everyone here regardless of ideology to explore Technocracy. It can most likely provide whatever it is that you are looking for in whatever sort of society that you support right now. For those focused on security, Technocracy would be the most secure nation ever. For those that prefer freedom, likewise it would be the most free. (Anyone looking for domination of other human beings or living at their expense might be disappointed however.) Along with all the other benefits Technocracy can bring, isn't it worth the time to learn it, to see whether or not it can do all this or not? You'll never know unless you see it for yourself. Maybe there can be a consensus, and an end to the constant "debate" that has occurred for centuries.
(This post is a somewhat hastened form of the article Technocracy Comparative, or the Best of Both Worlds.
If you want a clearer explanation of what I've written, try this article.)
"Only when there is zero opinion in the arrivation of social decisions in the operation of a technological totality will there be a maximum of personal selectivity, choice, and opportunity." -Howard Scott
- By Deutschmania
- By FiveofSwords
- By wat0n