[extropy-chat] Socialism versus Transhumanism

[Technotranscendence]

On Friday, November 21, 2003 10:33 PM Jose Cordeiro
jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com wrote:
> I totally agree with Max's point below. We should
> oppose this misuse of the name democracy
> meaning socialism as proposed by leftists. For
> a long time, I have been making the same critique
> about James Hughes's paper, which should be
> called "socialist" transhumanism as opposed to
> "democratic" transhumanism.

The problem is that democracy is not antithetical to statism, especially
not government intervention in the economy.  All extant democratic
polities are welfare states, some bordering on socialism.  You might say
this tendency is contingent and in a different setting democracy would
not lead to welfare statism or socialism.  However, people like
Hans-Hermann Hoppe argue on purely political economic grounds that
democracies will always tend in that direction.  If Hoppe and the others
are correct, the best we can hope for with democracy is a watered down
welfare state wherein the internal dynamics of the system keep pushing
it toward higher levels of government control -- because people in a
democracy see state power as both a threat and a goal.

You can ignore Hoppe's argument.  You can also ignore the other
libertarian critiques of democracy, but that doesn't mean their
arguments are flawed.

> The leftists already "stole" the name "liberal" in
> the Anglosaxon world and that is why the word
> "libertarian" had to be created. Words are
> important. Another example is how some US
> sports people stole the name football (for a US
> game with no round ball and with not much use
> of our feet) from the real football played around
> the world, and created instead the silly name
> soccer.

I'm not sure about American "football" being a stolen term, but the
problem is that democracy, for most of its long history, has meant more
what the Left means by it then what you mean by it.  From Ancient Athens
up until the American Republic, democracy meant rule by the people
without limits.  This is why the American Founders were suspect of
having democracy and imposed all sorts of limits on it.  Most of them
also feared that these limits would be short-lived, but for many of them
being schooled in the Ancients this was just a belief that all free
polities would be ephemeral.  (Notably, they were right.  The limits on
democracy and state power in the US were eroded or ignored.  Yes,
America is still relatively free -- if you don't mind having every
aspect of your life regulated and being taxed at a rate an order or two
of magnitude greater than what drove the Americans to rebellion against
the British.)

> I am a believer in democracy and libertarian ideas,
> which are perfectly compatible,

I disagree.  In the end, I believe one will have to choose between
freedom and democracy because the two will conflict.  Any system that
seeks to limit either can only set up a dialectic that at best is
metastable -- probably like the US or now the global system where there
are periods of greater and lesser freedom, but the general trend is
toward less until we have some revolutionary break out of this system.

(Of course, this is not to say some perfect system is possible that does
not change.  In this, I agree with the Founders that societies will
decay eventually.  However, I think democratic societies decay much
quicker -- well, that is, if you believe the rise of democratic
depostism and other corruptions of democratic systems are decay.  If you
take a neutral moral position on these, then you might just say these
are the end states of democracy and any limitations merely delay the
inevitable.)

> and I strongly oppose the "stealing" of the term
> democracy by leftists to cover up their socialist
> plot. Socialism has been always a disgrace
> wherever it has been tried. The funny thing is
> that socialists always "steal" words to cover up:
> in Latin American most leftists propose State
> Capitalism, which is nothing but Socialism
> under another name.

Well, you have to admit, first of all, that just from the meaning of the
word "rule by the people," the Left has a point.  If the people are
going to rule, then socialism is compatible with that rule -- provide
the people want socialism and vote it into power.  In fact, most the
people of all of the nations of this planet either want a high degree of
government control over their lives or they are, for the most part,
unwilling to work against it.  (As Hoppe points out, the system works
that way.  Most people don't think about long range freedom in the
abstract.  They think about what they want now and they see state power
as a means of getting it.  When state power is used against them, they
don't think about limiting or abolishing such power.  They, instead,
think about how they can obtain such power to either use in their favor
or use against their adversaries.  It's very rare to see people think
state power is _the_ problem, instead of merely its particular use being
the problem.)

> My concern about socialists is that they will
> want to restrict liberties, as they always do,

If like me, by "liberties" you mean stuff like being able to freely
contract -- form organizations, trade, etc. -- then, yes, this is an
obvious point.  However, most socialists I know either don't see this as
a liberty or believe that it's extremely rare when such liberties don't
create externalities or can be actually implemented.  (I'm sure you know
how many of them will argue that a poor man who must work is not able to
exercise freedom when choosing a job.)

> and stop the free rise of transhumanism.

I think that it might be hampered but not stopped.  Of course, this
would be an unintended consequence of their actions.  I.e., I don't
think transhumanists who are socialist or welfare statist consciously
want to stop or hamper progress, but I do think they will delay it.

> By its very nature, transhumanism depends very
> much on individual liberties, since people will
> decide what to do with their lifes, minds and
> bodies. The main opposition will be coming
> from socialists, and communists, facists, Sharia
> Islamists and other groups that "know better"
> what is good for you.

I believe the real choice is whether posthumanity comes about above
ground with most people being able to see a lot of what's happening or
whether it's driven underground.  Those who oppose it might delay it,
but they will actually only do themselves a disservice as they won't be
able to track most of the changes.  Instead, they will live in a world
where they have ever less understanding of what is happening.  This
would be a worse outcome, but that's life.

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/