Neo-Utopian Socialists – a vision for the future
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Neo-Utopian Socialists ? a vision for the future
This is written to counter all those who see doom and gloom is a post peak world.
Neo-Utopian Socialists ? a vision for the future.
? Utopian Socialist? is a term used for the early socialist from about the French Revaluation to about 1830. Out of it came modern socialism, communism and Marxism. However, theses later branches of socialism, in a way, turned their back on the utopian socialist.
As a movement utopian socialists were dwarfed by the later socialists and did not really form part of socialism / communism as it developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. The only really part of it that survived is the co-operative movement that was started by Robert Owen. He also established some communities, some of which were successful in themselves but failed for reasons outside their control.
?Neo-Utopian Socialist? could be used to describe latter 20th early 21st century movements in this idea. It is ?socialist? in the sense that it is about societies (and to my mind, ?societies? in a loose definition of the word, not necessary ?all together in one house? type of community). It is utopian in the sense of ?designed societies? rather than a ?perfect society? (I don?t believe in a perfect society). In other words, it is about thinking about how we live rather than just letting it happen.
A fictitious example of neo-utopian socialism could the United Federation of Planet in Star Trek, which is a society without money where the citizens attempt to improve on themselves. More real examples include Open Source and techno communism. Another example, in the context of PO, is Holonic Societies for the Future and the idea of a Terran Federation, a non-authoritarian Worldwide network of autonomous communities based on the concept of a holon.
Holonic Societies for the Future is a networking project for networking communities together. It builds on the idea of forming self-sufficient communities that are autonomous and joins then together so that they can self-organise to form larger and more complex projects. It is a project that takes a holistic view and sees the network as a Worldwide inter-connection of communities forming a ?Terran Federation?, going beyond the concept of nations. With such networking, it is argued, a higher standard of living could be achieved than otherwise possible, as today?s self-centred capitalism would not be able to survive in a sustainable world as it depends on growth. Networking, however, would allow communities to build up industry to create what communities perceive as being needed for a good standard of living. In doing so it offers a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak future.
The project is new but already it has attracted a few participants who work in the area of sustainable communities and even have their own communities.
Neo-Utopian Socialists ? a vision for the future.
? Utopian Socialist? is a term used for the early socialist from about the French Revaluation to about 1830. Out of it came modern socialism, communism and Marxism. However, theses later branches of socialism, in a way, turned their back on the utopian socialist.
As a movement utopian socialists were dwarfed by the later socialists and did not really form part of socialism / communism as it developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. The only really part of it that survived is the co-operative movement that was started by Robert Owen. He also established some communities, some of which were successful in themselves but failed for reasons outside their control.
?Neo-Utopian Socialist? could be used to describe latter 20th early 21st century movements in this idea. It is ?socialist? in the sense that it is about societies (and to my mind, ?societies? in a loose definition of the word, not necessary ?all together in one house? type of community). It is utopian in the sense of ?designed societies? rather than a ?perfect society? (I don?t believe in a perfect society). In other words, it is about thinking about how we live rather than just letting it happen.
A fictitious example of neo-utopian socialism could the United Federation of Planet in Star Trek, which is a society without money where the citizens attempt to improve on themselves. More real examples include Open Source and techno communism. Another example, in the context of PO, is Holonic Societies for the Future and the idea of a Terran Federation, a non-authoritarian Worldwide network of autonomous communities based on the concept of a holon.
Holonic Societies for the Future is a networking project for networking communities together. It builds on the idea of forming self-sufficient communities that are autonomous and joins then together so that they can self-organise to form larger and more complex projects. It is a project that takes a holistic view and sees the network as a Worldwide inter-connection of communities forming a ?Terran Federation?, going beyond the concept of nations. With such networking, it is argued, a higher standard of living could be achieved than otherwise possible, as today?s self-centred capitalism would not be able to survive in a sustainable world as it depends on growth. Networking, however, would allow communities to build up industry to create what communities perceive as being needed for a good standard of living. In doing so it offers a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak future.
The project is new but already it has attracted a few participants who work in the area of sustainable communities and even have their own communities.
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Re: Neo-Utopian Socialists ? a vision for the future
Eww, not for me, thanks.isenhand wrote: Neo-Utopian Socialists
Utopian. Eww. Socialists. Eww. All idealism.
I have to second Tess here. I don't believe that non-authoritarian social systems are viable in the long term, given the basic human tendency to act selfishly and exploit other's work whenever possible (maybe apart from a few honest idealists, but they're always the tiny minority).
Last edited by JMP on 02 Nov 2005, 15:16, edited 1 time in total.
People are actually capable of a variety of behaviours. Our tendency for acting selfishly and exploit other's work is one aspect but not the only one. We currently live in a system that encourages that type of behaviour. Change the system and you can change the behaviour. There is plenty of evidence that that can happen, open source is one such example.
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Re: Neo-Utopian Socialists ? a vision for the future
Without vision you just wonder wherever the current takes you. I think cooperation and communities will offer a better standard of living than just waiting around to see what will happen and a better way to live than greedy capitalism. But if that?s not for you, that?s okTess wrote:Eww, not for me, thanks.isenhand wrote: Neo-Utopian Socialists
Utopian. Eww. Socialists. Eww. All idealism.
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Re: Neo-Utopian Socialists ? a vision for the future
The trouble with idealistic visions is that they tend to get imposed on everyone whether they like it or not, or indeed whether the architects of the vision like it or not.isenhand wrote:But if that?s not for you, that?s ok
Not that we shouldn't think about what would work for us... just don't like the idea of 'em being put forward as an alternative to the doom and gloom.
Re: Neo-Utopian Socialists ? a vision for the future
I think it will be very difficult to impose a non-authoritarian idea on people. If you were to try it would no longer be so. On the other hand, there needs to be some common agreement, without such there would be no way for networking to work. The intention then is to minimise as much as possible and never in force. I think that has to built into the system from the very beginning or there is a danger of it going the way you say. To me, a minimum would a network that allows self-organising but does not say how each community should be run or impose anything on individules.Tess wrote:The trouble with idealistic visions is that they tend to get imposed on everyone whether they like it or not, or indeed whether the architects of the vision like it or not.isenhand wrote:But if that?s not for you, that?s ok
Not that we shouldn't think about what would work for us... just don't like the idea of 'em being put forward as an alternative to the doom and gloom.
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Re: Neo-Utopian Socialists ? a vision for the future
Which post neatly illustrates the problem of labels and preconceptionsTess wrote:Eww, not for me, thanks.isenhand wrote: Neo-Utopian Socialists
Utopian. Eww. Socialists. Eww. All idealism.
RogerCO
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
I know putting three swear words in would get some ?response? so I did try and make a point that it was not Socialism in the 19th / 20th century idea of the word. It was socialism in the sense of forming communities and cooperation (which is, btw, another human characteristic but one we like to suppress in our current system as people work get rich that way). In that sense it is revolutionary in the proper sense of the word.
Having a goal and cooperating to achieve that goal I think is a desirable activity.
Having a goal and cooperating to achieve that goal I think is a desirable activity.
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
-
- Posts: 859
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Sheffield
isenhand's right about the baggage attached to the term "socialism". For me this snip from the wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism ) sums it up:
We talk about individuals "taking advantage" and of "greed" without seeming to realise they are just other names for key aspects of the human character - aspects that need not be all bad.
For me all 20th century socialist or communist systems failed (or are failing) because they suppress one of the best human characteristics - individual inovation, individual motivation. And because such systems generally provide a sizeable "welfare" system people become dependant on it and not themselves.
Remember DimitryO's statement that "hard worker" translated into Russian, in the context of the Soviet system, equated to "fool" - the system had bred such thinking into the whole populous.
You'll probably think from that that I'm a right-winger, but that couldn't be further from the truth.
It's my view that you have to HARNESS indivualism, direct it, channel it, maximise it's potentional. I'm also of the view that the "state" should be very small and provide only those functions that are really best suited to state-level. A whopping "welfare state" is brilliant at breeding a populous dependant on it.
In my view hand-outs DO NOT WORK - it's leadership, mentoring, motivation, education and the occational helping hand from your neighbour that helps the less fortunate improve.
How much does the UK welfare state cost today? Does it work? Does it improve the lives of the huge numbers of very disadvantaged people in the UK? It's my view that money fails such people - they need a different form of assistence.
Rampant ruthless self individualism is rarely good for your neighbours - but does evey indivudal have to behave that way?
I'm not into idealism either, but I think with just a few "rules" (for want of a better word), some guidence about the future we want to collectively make then I think most people could strive to be self-supporting individuals ina way THAT IS GOOD for the community they live in, not bad.
People love freedom and they love being able to find their own solutions to things AND they are best motivated by directly linking a persons efforts to their rewards, on a singular basis.
I do not believe that is incompatible with society and community and collective improvement, moreover I think it is the route to such - it just needs the right framework.
For me this is the root of the problem with the modern socialist view - the attempt to supress individualism and to focus on "welfare" fails to appreciate the flaws/traits in the human character that seemed to have persisted for centuries.The earliest modern socialist groups shared characteristics such as focusing on general welfare rather than individualism, on co-operation rather than competition, and on laborers rather than on industrial or political leaders and structures.
We talk about individuals "taking advantage" and of "greed" without seeming to realise they are just other names for key aspects of the human character - aspects that need not be all bad.
For me all 20th century socialist or communist systems failed (or are failing) because they suppress one of the best human characteristics - individual inovation, individual motivation. And because such systems generally provide a sizeable "welfare" system people become dependant on it and not themselves.
Remember DimitryO's statement that "hard worker" translated into Russian, in the context of the Soviet system, equated to "fool" - the system had bred such thinking into the whole populous.
You'll probably think from that that I'm a right-winger, but that couldn't be further from the truth.
It's my view that you have to HARNESS indivualism, direct it, channel it, maximise it's potentional. I'm also of the view that the "state" should be very small and provide only those functions that are really best suited to state-level. A whopping "welfare state" is brilliant at breeding a populous dependant on it.
In my view hand-outs DO NOT WORK - it's leadership, mentoring, motivation, education and the occational helping hand from your neighbour that helps the less fortunate improve.
How much does the UK welfare state cost today? Does it work? Does it improve the lives of the huge numbers of very disadvantaged people in the UK? It's my view that money fails such people - they need a different form of assistence.
Rampant ruthless self individualism is rarely good for your neighbours - but does evey indivudal have to behave that way?
I'm not into idealism either, but I think with just a few "rules" (for want of a better word), some guidence about the future we want to collectively make then I think most people could strive to be self-supporting individuals ina way THAT IS GOOD for the community they live in, not bad.
People love freedom and they love being able to find their own solutions to things AND they are best motivated by directly linking a persons efforts to their rewards, on a singular basis.
I do not believe that is incompatible with society and community and collective improvement, moreover I think it is the route to such - it just needs the right framework.
I agree with your entire post - my own thoughts. There is one thing which trouble me immensely though: Gender issues. I wrestle with the thing like crazy.fishertrop wrote: People love freedom and they love being able to find their own solutions to things AND they are best motivated by directly linking a persons efforts to their rewards, on a singular basis.
Let's face it: This entire thing with childbirth, breastfeeding and early care make us tremendeously unequal. There are very significant health risks involved in childbirth, and taking care of small children put pretty harsh limitations on other choices. Having brought up two of them, i know!
Silvio Gesell had a radical suggestion, and I tend to side with him. In short: All land should be publicly owned, and leased out long term to the highest bidder. Conditions concerning preservation and stewardship is attached. The leaser have no specific rights to the land, only to improvements made and products generated. The incomes from the fees are used mainly for basic "citizen salaries" for all women in the society.
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Interesting comment on gender issues MacG.
I suspect that being a stay-at-home Mum (or Dad) in our modern culture is all the more isolating and restrictive because the economy is something that happens "over there" eg away from the community. We are also often removed from extended family (I live half a world away from mine ).
A social structure where more economic activity happens locally and within the community might make the childcaring/work lie much more blurry and allow for easier interchange of activities between members of a household, including extended family.
Another benefit of a stronger community ties is that neighbours can also help out. Since a friendly family with similar aged kids moved across the street, I find all our kids are in and out of each others houses and amusing themselves much more easily than if we were all in our strict nuclear family units all the time.
Part of this is about perspective. Child rearing as an activity is devalued in our society - somehow like getting the short straw - because it doesn't contribute to GDP or the economy in the direct sense. The fact that doing it well is fundamentally important isn't taken into account because in doesn't make it onto the economists radar.
I'm not trying o say that people *should* be stay-at-home Mums (or Dads) rather than have a career (or vice versa) - I'm just observing that our social set-up makes this much more of an "either/or" choice than it needs to be, and also makes the stay-at-home option much more isolating and less attractive than it might be.
I suspect that being a stay-at-home Mum (or Dad) in our modern culture is all the more isolating and restrictive because the economy is something that happens "over there" eg away from the community. We are also often removed from extended family (I live half a world away from mine ).
A social structure where more economic activity happens locally and within the community might make the childcaring/work lie much more blurry and allow for easier interchange of activities between members of a household, including extended family.
Another benefit of a stronger community ties is that neighbours can also help out. Since a friendly family with similar aged kids moved across the street, I find all our kids are in and out of each others houses and amusing themselves much more easily than if we were all in our strict nuclear family units all the time.
Part of this is about perspective. Child rearing as an activity is devalued in our society - somehow like getting the short straw - because it doesn't contribute to GDP or the economy in the direct sense. The fact that doing it well is fundamentally important isn't taken into account because in doesn't make it onto the economists radar.
I'm not trying o say that people *should* be stay-at-home Mums (or Dads) rather than have a career (or vice versa) - I'm just observing that our social set-up makes this much more of an "either/or" choice than it needs to be, and also makes the stay-at-home option much more isolating and less attractive than it might be.
Fishertrop, spot on
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
<< Let's face it: This entire thing with childbirth, breastfeeding and early care make us tremendeously unequal.>>
MacG, my view of ?gender equality? as it is in Sweden is to say that it is not about ?equality? it is about ?being the same?. For a woman to be considered to be equal to a man in Sweden then she is expected to go out and have a carrier like a man. So anything specifically female like giving birth to children has low status. I think there are a number of complicated reasons why this is so (or at least how I see it) and SherryMayo picks up on some of them.
My view on gender equality is that each gender is to be considered of equal value and that individuals have equal opportunities as far as their physical abilities allow. It?s like a team. A team is made of individuals, each one different from the next but each has their small part to play in the whole and by contributing what they can they are just as much a valued member of the team as any other member. So in my view, giving birth to children is something women contribute to society and that is just as much valued as being a big business person in a top company. That is an activity that is more specific to women but other roles in society may be more male or more female dominated like engineering or nursing but an individual should not be stopped undertaking a position that is dominated by one gender just because that person is not of that gender.
Now, in a future society assuming the worse of PO, will that be more likely to be the case?
MacG, my view of ?gender equality? as it is in Sweden is to say that it is not about ?equality? it is about ?being the same?. For a woman to be considered to be equal to a man in Sweden then she is expected to go out and have a carrier like a man. So anything specifically female like giving birth to children has low status. I think there are a number of complicated reasons why this is so (or at least how I see it) and SherryMayo picks up on some of them.
My view on gender equality is that each gender is to be considered of equal value and that individuals have equal opportunities as far as their physical abilities allow. It?s like a team. A team is made of individuals, each one different from the next but each has their small part to play in the whole and by contributing what they can they are just as much a valued member of the team as any other member. So in my view, giving birth to children is something women contribute to society and that is just as much valued as being a big business person in a top company. That is an activity that is more specific to women but other roles in society may be more male or more female dominated like engineering or nursing but an individual should not be stopped undertaking a position that is dominated by one gender just because that person is not of that gender.
Now, in a future society assuming the worse of PO, will that be more likely to be the case?
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/