I believe in a more pluralistic worldview because the faith of Atom is already backed and proven by science. We just need to show people that background radiation is omnipresent and that radiation is a spiritual force.
There are other spiritual forces in the world but Atomicism is focused on radiation and the Atom. Other gods and stuff are considered the gods of different religions and therefore unrelated.
Nobody would be forced to have a do-nothing job in this scenario. If someone is called to be a firefighter, nurse or social worker that option would still exist, and a do-nothing job could even help them provide for themselves in college. The main beneficiaries of this arrangement would be those excluded from all jobs and education despite wanting to participate. Even the most counterculture person can just go clock in and browse the web for 8 hours so they don't starve to death or become homeless.
For the second argument, it's true that work should be divided equally by everyone who is willing and able to do it, but the current system is so picky and people need so much specialized education to perform useful jobs that are inaccessible to many people. In order to make it so everyone has the education and societal access to do useful jobs, there would have to be a shift so large in education, labor, workplace organization that it would feel like living in a different civilization.
You want to get rid of the do-nothing jobs and split the work evenly but you also say that I am reflecting pro-work attitudes? I feel that you are disagreeing from both sides.
For me, the do-nothing jobs are just a way for everyone to get their economic needs met and not be stigmatized for not being needed or able to participate in the economy. Even if you’re just watching anime in an office somewhere it’s more conducive to social participation and making progress in life than doing the same behavior at home while officially unemployed. This is about disabled or less fortunate people having a job officially to protect them (and society) from the social consequences of unemployment.
I think that because many men are failed by society but aren't allowed to have emotions. If they say "I feel abandoned by society" they can be open to ridiculed while if they say the phrase "I am being dishonored by the state" it reads as more serious and would be more likely to be received. Maybe a lot of people will still ridicule the second one but at least it sounds more masculine even if it is somewhat subjective at the end of the day.
As far as dignity and respect, society neglects and discards many people while still technically not disrespecting them. Respect is based on understandings of treating people properly, but in political or institutional settings this doesn't always translate to everyone being treated well. Honor is about reputation and respect because the ancient world had no government or ideas of rights, so your reputation and how well you (Or your family/clan) avenged past grievances would stop others from messing with you. Honor can also be about good deeds but isn't always about respect or treating people well. Honor is more about not making someone look bad or weak, not humiliating/insulting them or lowering their social status.
To your third point, feeling disrespected is emotional but honor is about a mix of emotions, reputation, social status, and respect. Someone can do something that dishonors someone else, their family, or themselves without it necessarily being emotional. Historically many grievances or disrespect were framed in the context of honor because they did not have modern ideas of respect and grievances with others had to be framed in a way that they understood and that was actionable. Modern men are discouraged from having feelings or saying they were wronged in some way which I believe leads to them externalizing their problems becoming manosphere or worse.
And for therapy speak, that's more of people saying "I feel this way" or "I am emotionally hurt" because men are culturally not allowed to say those things. There are other kinds of therapy speak like diagnosing themselves with ADHD or something and using therapy terms like dissociation, but for this conversation I meant it as discussion of emotion.
I believe in technocracy as described by Howard Scott and was based on energy accounting and other ideas that are found on the Technocracy wiki. It's economically left of communism and so practical that it feels like radical centrist sometimes.
I think you're right that it's not monolithic and I don't necessarily disagree that various people don't want things to be the way they are. What I think though is that on some level we are accepting these things as a society if the resistance we put up to it is not strong or organized.
In the modern world participation by everyone has created extreme right-wing regimes. How can we reconcile leftism and democratic ideas with a perception that elections are rigged and a sizeable amount of the population is not qualified to make decisions?
I believe in a more pluralistic worldview because the faith of Atom is already backed and proven by science. We just need to show people that background radiation is omnipresent and that radiation is a spiritual force.
There are other spiritual forces in the world but Atomicism is focused on radiation and the Atom. Other gods and stuff are considered the gods of different religions and therefore unrelated.
Climate change will kill them all anyway.
TLDR; Without class struggle you have to validate bourgeois ideas and moral frameworks which makes leftism redundant as a whole.
To clarify, this community reflects the Technocracy ideology by Howard Scott and not anything related to modern tech bros or MAGA.
You would prefer a list or graph as opposed to an essay? I might be able to make one easily.
Nobody would be forced to have a do-nothing job in this scenario. If someone is called to be a firefighter, nurse or social worker that option would still exist, and a do-nothing job could even help them provide for themselves in college. The main beneficiaries of this arrangement would be those excluded from all jobs and education despite wanting to participate. Even the most counterculture person can just go clock in and browse the web for 8 hours so they don't starve to death or become homeless.
For the second argument, it's true that work should be divided equally by everyone who is willing and able to do it, but the current system is so picky and people need so much specialized education to perform useful jobs that are inaccessible to many people. In order to make it so everyone has the education and societal access to do useful jobs, there would have to be a shift so large in education, labor, workplace organization that it would feel like living in a different civilization.
You want to get rid of the do-nothing jobs and split the work evenly but you also say that I am reflecting pro-work attitudes? I feel that you are disagreeing from both sides.
For me, the do-nothing jobs are just a way for everyone to get their economic needs met and not be stigmatized for not being needed or able to participate in the economy. Even if you’re just watching anime in an office somewhere it’s more conducive to social participation and making progress in life than doing the same behavior at home while officially unemployed. This is about disabled or less fortunate people having a job officially to protect them (and society) from the social consequences of unemployment.
I do have my own opinions but I make sure to be fair and unemotional in my political posts, even to the point of understatement as you've shown.
I think that because many men are failed by society but aren't allowed to have emotions. If they say "I feel abandoned by society" they can be open to ridiculed while if they say the phrase "I am being dishonored by the state" it reads as more serious and would be more likely to be received. Maybe a lot of people will still ridicule the second one but at least it sounds more masculine even if it is somewhat subjective at the end of the day.
As far as dignity and respect, society neglects and discards many people while still technically not disrespecting them. Respect is based on understandings of treating people properly, but in political or institutional settings this doesn't always translate to everyone being treated well. Honor is about reputation and respect because the ancient world had no government or ideas of rights, so your reputation and how well you (Or your family/clan) avenged past grievances would stop others from messing with you. Honor can also be about good deeds but isn't always about respect or treating people well. Honor is more about not making someone look bad or weak, not humiliating/insulting them or lowering their social status.
To your third point, feeling disrespected is emotional but honor is about a mix of emotions, reputation, social status, and respect. Someone can do something that dishonors someone else, their family, or themselves without it necessarily being emotional. Historically many grievances or disrespect were framed in the context of honor because they did not have modern ideas of respect and grievances with others had to be framed in a way that they understood and that was actionable. Modern men are discouraged from having feelings or saying they were wronged in some way which I believe leads to them externalizing their problems becoming manosphere or worse.
And for therapy speak, that's more of people saying "I feel this way" or "I am emotionally hurt" because men are culturally not allowed to say those things. There are other kinds of therapy speak like diagnosing themselves with ADHD or something and using therapy terms like dissociation, but for this conversation I meant it as discussion of emotion.
There are those who think there are gods, and there are skilled occultists who know because they managed to speak to them directly.
I believe in technocracy as described by Howard Scott and was based on energy accounting and other ideas that are found on the Technocracy wiki. It's economically left of communism and so practical that it feels like radical centrist sometimes.
I think you're right that it's not monolithic and I don't necessarily disagree that various people don't want things to be the way they are. What I think though is that on some level we are accepting these things as a society if the resistance we put up to it is not strong or organized.
This is good an socialism would solve many issues, but here in Florida nobody is willing to fight against the state to implement it.
In the modern world participation by everyone has created extreme right-wing regimes. How can we reconcile leftism and democratic ideas with a perception that elections are rigged and a sizeable amount of the population is not qualified to make decisions?