Let's see if I can get this right - I've been trying to
get my thoughts around Orwellian Socialism, skepticism and the 21st century
for a while and I'll try to get it down in one piece.
It's first important to note that Socialism hasn't really had a decent go at
any stage, anywhere. I think the closest we've had are the UK Government of
Clement Attlee, and the NZ Government led by the
Magnificent Michael Joseph Savage, creator of the welfare state.
That is the kind of Socialism I'm talking about - Orwellian Socialism that
begins with a capital S - it is the diametric (and dialectic) opposite of
Conservatism. It counts all people as equal, is democratic, and will not
allow the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. (Note this has
nothing to do with 1984, but is
about Orwell's essays and personal opinions.)
Ok, so first off, we go to skepticism.
I don't want to raise the old "skeptics can be religious" because I think
that "official" position is quite absurd. What's the point of saying that
one form of Magick doesn't work if you claim an even bigger and bullshittier
one does? The baby Jeebus is every bit as [more?] illogical and
unsupportable as belief that reiki works.
I am crediting skeptics with a little intelligence here, so I think it's a
given that a skeptic must see all people/colours/genders/......... as equal.
I also expect skeptics to be able to accept that society has been the
driving force behind human expansion and dominance. No grouping: no plunder.
We are successful because we bond into groups. You could even make a pretty
good argument that this is why England dominated the world until they got
out-bred; they were always a cohesive unit, unlike the Frogs, Dagoes, Krauts
and Russkies. Ditto the Romans before them; whatever legion you belonged to,
you were Rome, and when in Rome, do as you're fucking told.
If you accept that humans are equal and that our evolution demands we work
together, then you must be a humanist, and to my way of thinking, Socialism
is a default position for humanists.
Whatever way you look at humanism, their self-described beliefs scream
"Socialism". Whether you're in
NZ,
Australia,
UK or
USA, humanism
is "a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency
of human beings, individually and collectively..." (Wiki)
The only way that goal can possibly be achieved is by Socialism. We've been
trying "trickle down" for the past 35-40 years, and sadly, the wealth
trickles up, not down. There are endless
statistics
that
show this to be true.
I'm confident Libertarians and Conservatives who self-identify as skeptics
will disagree violently - if we have any of those here - but in my analysis
of those people, all I see are people who are not applying their skepticism
fairly or even reasonably. It's all very well to say that Darwinian
evolution favours the strong, but that's only true until you build society.
Without grouping, humans are easy fodder for every predator above 30 kg on
the planet. Show me the strongest man in the world in a fight against a
baboon and the bloke will be dead in seconds.
I will also add that those Libertarians and Conservatives neatly ignore the
fact that wealth must be created, and it can only be created by trading with
other people. Hedge funds, gold miners, you name it, and they can only
enrich themselves by earning money other people have created or earned.
One-sided swaps aren't going to earn any money, nor is the gold miner, until
some Indian chick buys herself her 150th gold bracelet.
Libertarianism and Conservatism are perfectly valid forms of democratic
government, but there is no skeptical argument available that supports
either. Not that I'm aware of, anyway.
Copyright © Alan Charman