Humanist Socialist Thought

Lounge
1

I created an article to help clarify my ideology, since we got into a lot of contradictions with @Kees, the supposed representative of the general consensus, or so I think.

https://miculpionier.ro/projects/humanist-socialist-thought/

It’s important to note that Humanist Socialism, the Ideology I describe, is in line with TZM goals, but it’s not a mirror of the general consensus.

The topic shall be closed via assuming Full Neutrality based on this contract:

  • We collectively don’t know what works and what doesn’t exactly, besides what has been tested. We leave it to the judgement of others.
  • We are neutral to systems, judging from case-by-case basis. Systems which are not eligible for case-by-case basis evaluation are broad generalizations like socialism and communism.
  • Some systems, despite that they are all theory, are better than others.
  • Regardless of what system we use, we strive for the same goal: maximizing the quality of life of all humans.
  • Capitalism prioritizes profits over people, no question. As for other systems, we refer to the case-by-case evaluation.
2

I do not represent any kind of consensus. My thoughts and arguments are my own :wink:

No Way Baby GIF by MOODMAN

With ‘we’ you mean you and me, right?

3

So, we neither represent the general consensus. But what represents the general consensus?

Probably the only difference between my ideology and ideologies like Josephism (Peter Joseph, anti-political RBE) and Frescoism (Jacque Fresco, centralized anti-political RBE) is that because it’s slightly more decentralized and neutral in its approach, so you can work with the socialists within the existing system and make a universal basic needs program inside to challenge traditional market logic, while in Josephism and Frescoism you can largely only create a parallel system and be hostile to all the other ideologies (in the purist versions)

4

TZM Defined is the go-to book to learn more about the train of thought. And as highlighted in that book, our train of thought is emergent, because in nature you have to be able to adapt. That book therefore explains a way of thinking, but not a consensus of how things should be. Which basically makes it a timeless book.

5

And Is Humanist Socialism and its Thought actually in line with TZM Defined, despite diverging from Josephism and Frescoism, the initial ideologies?

6

I really don’t know, from what I’ve seen so far it’s just patching up the current system. Which isn’t a socialist activity, capitalist countries are doing this eco patching. I know that goes against the narrative on the socials where people like to bash capitalism, but it’s just a fact. Again, I’m not rooting for capitalism. But I do want to be factual. :slight_smile: Patching up the market economy will only get us to a certain extent.

I think this sums up the system redesign pretty well:

And I don’t see that in eco isms happening. It does act as a great transitional step though.

That’s also not a term how I would describe the emergent nature of TZM.

7

If Humanist Socialism relies on the RBE instead of markets, is bound in part to the Free World Charter, it’s more flexible in its approach, places emphasis on environmental protection and believes in progress, and has human centric goals, then what is not enough?

Note that this is a general ideology, and there are multiple ways to achieve it. Project Earth is one of them.

And yes, I do agree with Project Earth.

Then how you would describe it? What Humanist Socialism is in this emergent nature?

8

An ideology is by definition not emergent, that’s why I pointed it out :slight_smile:

I don’t really have anything else to add. At this point we’re somewhat going in circles I think. Maybe someone else can share their thoughts?

9

Then If Humanist Socialism has some degree of flexibility, then it isn’t an ideology, it is an approach to making RBE. An ideology is usually defined by a system of belief with common pillars, which can change.

10

From your sentence I thought you revered to TZM as an ideology :slight_smile: I can’t really judge about humanist socialism. But I really appreciate your thoughts though! But I don’t understand why you’re not using your time to improve and spread an RBE. But that’s of course totally up to you, I’m not judging, just a bit confused.

I’ll wind down a bit on this subject. It would be interesting to see some more interaction from others about this. So that my thoughts are not confused with a “consensus” :slight_smile:

11

Via Humanist Socialism then, I think I made an improvement to existing frameworks within TZM by being more flexible by being more neutral in its approach and reducing hostilities to “all isms”. RBE purists can be inflexible and hostile to other systems of though, which can be counterproductive.

But again, to avoid creating false consensus, we need more perspectives into discussions.

12

If a system is not designed to support the planet as a whole, it’s just another anti-economy :wink: Of course it’s more nuanced, like eco isms can indeed make a difference in the short term. There is no hostility against it :wink: Just valid criticism, from my point of view.

13

Environmental Protection: The protection of the environment is an integral component of human welfare.

We must be committed to protecting our environment for current and future generations by prioritizing sustainable practices, conservation, and the responsible management of natural resources.

Humanist Socialism tries to protect the environment, because it is important for human welfare, a core goal.

14

So do capitalist countries already :slight_smile:

1 Like
15

Resource-Based Economy

The ideal economic system under Humanist Socialism is the Resource-Based Economy (RBE).

A Resource-Based Economy (RBE) is an economic model that prioritizes the effective and sustainable utilization of natural resources, leveraging technological advancements and scientific principles to cater to the necessities of every individual. The management of resources in an RBE adheres to rigorous scientific standards aimed at enhancing efficiency while reducing wastage. It incorporates sophisticated technologies like automation and artificial intelligence to streamline production and distribution channels.

It employs systems thinking to comprehend the intricate web of connections between various components of the economy and societal structures. By doing so, it facilitates the discovery of comprehensive remedies and averts unintended consequences. Furthermore, this model encourages the adoption of renewable and reusable resources alongside reduced energy and material usage.

Decision-making follows the scientific methodology, ensuring choices are predicated on empirical evidence instead of subjective or partisan inclinations. Consequently, judgements become more fact-driven to minimize any potential harm.

Replacing monetary transactions and market forces, a RBE implements a demand-driven allocation system. This mechanism guarantees equitable access to essential resources for leading a comfortable lifestyle. An international network of interlinked computers governs this process, accurately tracking, managing, and coordinating the generation and dissemination of commodities and services based on genuine requirements.

But it does so thanks to the RBE in an ideal system, and less due to regulations which can be broken. Minimize potential harm to the environment and people.

Here is a explanation of the Free World Charter, which Humanist Socialism in part agrees to (And I said in part, because there will be varying levels of agreement to it, some will agree to all of it, some to most, and not all actions will be based on the charter, although it can happen to be in line with the charter):

And probably, another improvement is that it’s more generalized (it doesn’t do an explicit reference to an organization), so it can be explained outside TZM, which is essential if we want to make meaningful change, which requires collaboration and interpretation across systems, even some of the established ones.

So, Humanist Socialism improves Josephism, Frescoism and what is called RBE Purism by:

  • Being more neutral (so you can be not hostile to other methodologies which can be helpful)
  • Being more generalized (and not explicit about the support of an organization)

Of course, without even knowing, Humanist Socialism or some form might be already existing in TZM.

16

More specifically, instead of being utopian or closely aligned with any organization, it follows a structure that ensure that it is understandable by as many people as possible within different ideological spectrums.

In the Introduction part, I describe core values using neutral terminology, avoiding euphemisms and ideological cover-ups (which can be frequent in TZM discourse).

In the Guiding Values section, I state the values that the platform has. Instead of stating them clearly, again, avoiding euphemisms and ideological cover-ups.

In the Resource-Based Economy section, I state what is the ideal economic system under Humanist Socialism and what is an RBE, using less utopian tones.

In the Free World Charter, I mention an agreement which basically both TVP, TZM and other post-scarcity organizations and people can agree to.

In the Notes section, I clarify some things.

We need neutrality because to make change, we need to collaborate with potential, natural allies, even if we might not fully agree. I personally believe in coalition-building and the uniting different people, including socialists, even if their beliefs might be different from ours.

17

As I already mentioned, I will not mingle too much anymore in this subject because I already said a few times what I have to say about this. But I still see you think TZM is not neutral or dogmatic. I really recommend to read the first chapter of TZM Defined. Because this is far from how TZM is actually organized.

18

Officially, TZM is organized in chapters, and is decentralized. Everyone acts on the behalf on themselves, not the organization. TZM has common goals, and everyone is free to diverge from the default methodology and act differently, with the condition to be in line with those goals.

Maybe just because Peter Joseph thinks every ism is bad and conflates certain things, doesn’t mean everyone or the general consensus thinks or conflates certain things.

My Ideology is just one way of doing things, and there are many more valid ways under this decentralized structure. Like every methodology, it has strengths (like interoperability) and flaws (an ideal system operates under RBE, but can also be implemented without, which is not ideal), and this ideology itself can have derivations, just like TZM does.

Just like with all approaches on paper, we said to all of them “we don’t know”, and although we may not agree on this, it shall remain settled.

19

Well, as mentioned, isms are namely socialism, communism and capitalism. Those are infinite growth systems. There are as we discussed some eco ism variations of them. They are doing a better job and may act as a stepping stone to an RBE. But as long as they are at the core infinite growth, it’s an anti economy. And thus the skeptical attitude towards it.

But this doesn’t mean TZM is narrow minded or dogmatic, I think. The argument is pretty clear against those type of systems. And TZM is emergent by nature, so nothing is static. But this anti-economy argument is I think pretty logical.

The definition of an ideology is:

A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Doctrine:

A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

Maybe that’s not what you mean :slight_smile:

1 Like
20

Yes, I don’t mean a doctrine. I mean a set of values and systems we can or must follow, which can change or be adapted over time, collectively known as an ideology. They are not beliefs per se, they are procedures.

And by communism you don’t refer a classless, moneyless (an important distinction that PJ missed) and stateless society (as defined by this checklist) but marxism-leninism, titoism and other systems which are obviously flawed (by nature, a dictatorship of any kind creates an elite, for example, which we didn’t acknowledge at the time those implementations were tried) specifically?