The Perfect Political Philosophy: TeCaSoDemism

There are 8 political philosophies required to create the perfect political philosophy. Technocracy, Socialism, Capitalism, Democracy. They are the first four. Moderation, Extremism, Centrism, Radicalism. They are the final four. Technocracy rivals democracy. Socialism rivals capitalism. Moderation rivals extremism. Centrism rivals radicalism. The first four are the kinds of governments which can exist. The last four are the ways in which one can manage political philosophies guiding a government.

Technocracy is ideal for efficiency. Democracy is ideal for ethics. Socialism is ideal for fairness. Capitalism is ideal for opportunity. Technocracy's corruption caused by having elites choose people purely based upon technical abilities is cancelled through democracy's ethical representation of the people. Democracy's inefficiency caused by electing people purely based upon majority choice is cancelled through technocracy's bureaucratic efficiency created by choosing people based upon their technical abilities. Socialism's stagnation of economies by giving everyone equal pay and thus a feeling of hopelessness to gain a better standard of living is cancelled by capitalism's opportunities created by allowing some people to have more wealth than others. Capitalism's unfairness is cancelled by socialism's redistribution of the wealth through taxation and social programs.

Moderacy of political philosophies is key so that one does not absolutely control the others. Extremism is key to empowering a weak political philosophy. Centrism is key to balancing the four political philosophies. Radicalism is key to overthrowing false balances of political power between political philosophies which should not even be part of the playing field.

Absolute technocracy, socialism, capitalism, or democracy immediately causes problems which will in the long-term result in war or reforms to outright undo the absolute control of any one of said political philosophies. Thus, moderate technocracy, moderate socialism, moderate capitalism, and moderate democracy are necessary. Extreme favor of one of the political philosophies should only be conveyed if one of them is under-powered compared to the others. Too much moderacy with any one of the political philosophies will weaken one of them. Centrism should only be used to preserve a balance between the four political philosophies, which means they should all be at the same level of power, no matter if that power is weak or strong. Radicalism is only for destroying a false balance of political power between political philosophies which are outside of technocracy, capitalism, socialism, and democracy.

Techno Social Capital Democracy: TeCaSoDemism. The first four political philosophies compose TeCaSoDemism, the final four political philosophies are tools for ensuring TeCaSoDemism is properly applied in all its aspects.

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/epycwynn
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Pure Ideology

I'LL BREAK YOU DEAD

is it… the memeozizek?

i have to say im utterly convinced.

fucken lost. saved

be completely honest with me OP

what stimulant have you been using/abusing

It somehow makes sense. In a Technocracy, most private porperty (not personal property in case an Holla Forumsuter is reading this) is siezed while price sythem is abolished, by having a debt-free currency (energy credits), which reflects the value of the commodity or service (including the value of all work that was neccesary, to produce/do it, wheter it is human or not.), measured in energy. This whould create a currency with a set value, putting an end to inflation and deflation. Another core ascpect of a Technocracy whould be an universal basic income. While not being an actual socialist state, a Technate whould share some core aspects it. The problem here is, that a Technate is basicly fashism, if you read Brave new world or 1985, you will notice, that the distopian societies in those books, can be seen as Technocracies, especially Brave new World. Its a highly automised and efficient State that appoints all autorities by their skill, expertese and knowledge (In this case by geneticly engeneering them into casts but thats anouther story.) in which most citizens life a life that is statisfiing and stable eneugh, so that they dont think of revolution. Decisions are made besed upon facts and cold Utilitarism,
sacfrifices are seen as neccesary. Seems creepy I know.
However, just imagine a sythem that whould provide the positive aspects of both, while eliminating the negative ones. Ok Anerchists whould still hate it but its an intresting thought.
Im sleepy ignore the typos.

I'll bet 500 Prole Points its ethylphenidate

The original inspirations for this philosophy were the 4 factions from Fallout 4, some principles on polarity and duality from the 7 principles in a hermetic text called The Kyballion which I found on the /fringe/ board, and the Political Compass

Technocracy is government by technical elites, originally envisioned as engineers, economists, and scientists. It comes from a brief movement popular in the U.S. and Canada from around the 1920s which was proposed to solve some of the problems caused by The Great Depression, though ultimately other solutions were chosen instead which to this day seem to have held up well. I made the Technocracy symbol green and grey, when the original was red and grey. The reason for this is technical abilities are generally associated with the color green, and socialism is already associated with red so it makes a nice balance. Meritocracy is very similar to technocracy though there are some distinct albeit somewhat nuanced differences.

In the typical political compass authoritarianism is on the top, democracy is at the bottom, left-wing economics is on the left, and right-wing economics is on the right. This together forms a grid-shaped political spectrum. By today's standards, left-wing economics would be synonymous with socialism and right-wing economics would be synonymous with capitalism. Democracy works since the whole point of it is a majoritarian choosing of people based often on social influence, and it's just supposed to represent people as a whole. As for authoritarianism which typically goes at the top, it is replaced by Technocracy because authoritarianism is too much like democracy due to the fact people are still being chosen without a basis in how technically skilled at the job they are. Technocracy maintains the aspect of authoritarianism associated with the indeed 'authority' aspect of it but also includes the highly necessary aspect of choosing people based upon technical abilities. TeCaSoDemism proposes that one should partially and equally favor all four aspects.

So you all are aware, TeCaSoDemism is of my own making. It is what you might refer to as a neo-moderate philosophy; although technically it heavily favors modern-day social democracy. That might seem odd since social democracy seems far-left at first glance. Democracy is not left or right wing in nature, it's just stereotyped often as being left-wing because Democrat sounds like Democracy. As for social, the term social means favoring socialism but not fully. This is the same thing as being dead-center on the TeCaSoDemism spectrum, which is the ideal place to be. Thus, being a social democrat is in reality by TeCaSoDemist standards a moderate political stance. It all depends on what spectrum you are using and how you are being measured. Naturally, such measurements are highly subjective.

Oh damn I got quad sevens. Too bad I forgot my username in that.

...

The Institute is literally the embodiment of Technocracy.

The Brotherhood of Steel is Capitalism gone wild.

The Minutemen are hardcore in favor of Democracy.

The Railroad is a bunch of Socialists.

So yes, a mainstream video game inspired the philosophy. But the game is highly political in the philosophies of these factions so that's fine.

Fallout 4 was shit and bethdrones couldn't put two neurons together to make a viable political philosophy if they had two neurons to spare.

You're retarded

I CAN'T

Okay. But OP, do you even know what you're advocating? Like in terms of an actual system. Let's say in your society I wake up and I need to go to work, get groceries, then go out to do something with my girlfriend in the evening? What will that entail? Where do I work? Do I get paid in money? Do I go to a supermarket and pay to get food? What are you even advocating?

The game is centered on post-nuclear-war politics. The culture surrounding them, the effects of following those philosophies to their natural conclusions, the murders and punishments delivered in the name of them, etc. You can densely go "OH LOOK AT THIS RETARDED GAMERFAG PULLING POLITICS FROM A VIDEOGAME" like a retarded Holla Forums rooster cawing their daily ignorance if you want but the game does have 4 distinctly dual and polarized political values with a large amount of thought which went into them. That, however, was simply an inspiration for the philosophy, not the BASIS of the philosophy.

Here is what you are really saying: "I just read a bunch of political philosophical generalizations that all sound nice but what about the specifics of applying it in a pragmatic way to real life government?"

Techno, meaning when people are chosen there is a set standard of technical abilities required of people when choosing them so they can actually create effective bureaucracy for the government and get shit done effectively. Capital, meaning there is still a decent amount of free-market economics in play without the government being terribly controlling of business and people are still able to get more money than others if they work hard or even just get lucky. Social, meaning there is a fair amount of tiered taxation where the richer you are the more taxed you are, and social programs are still heavily in play to help out the poor and are funded chiefly by taxing the highest upper class. Democracy, meaning elections are still done by the will of the people and even though there are some technocratic standards such as for instance having a master's degree or some form of economic or political background, anyone can run for office and win by majority vote.

As for your other ultraspecific questions, that would all depend on what jobs are being offered and what the economy is like at the time regardless of how thoroughly this philosophy guided the government. Your employer would pay you money, it would be taxed as always especially depending on your class of income, you would get a living wage with a little more for yourself to have fun with, and your healthcare would come from a government-controlled business. Groceries would be bought from whatever business of groceries you chose to buy from and that business would not be controlled by the government. That being said, food stamps or something closely similar would be in place for poor people. Businesses are not run by the government in a TeCaSoDemist society but they can be heavily controlled by the government if, and only if, they are dealing with something considered a utility as is already standard in many countries.

I am advocating a moderate centrist usage of all 4 of these rival political philosophies without extremely favoring any single one of them and without radically hating a specific part of TeCaSoDemist philosophy.

That all being said all businesses would have government standards of ethics they would have to pass and any economic loopholes in getting out of paying taxes would absolutely not exist unless it is a non-profit or a utility-based company.

So you're just shilling for the neoliberal establishment then

Instead of playing video games you should read some actual political theory. For you do not seem to understand what socialism actually entails.

To begin, socialism is intrinsically incompatible with capitalism and vice versa. You cannot simultaneously have the means of production be collectively and privately owned. In this regard you have mistaken socialism with social democracy which seeks to improve the standard of living for people within the confines of capitalism.

Secondly, abstract concepts like "radical", "extremism", "centrism" and "moderation" are devoid of any significant political meaning except as labels people apply to demarcate where they and others stand in relation to the status quo.

Epyc Wynn is a well known shitposter across the internet who edits KYM. I suggest never replying to any of his threads seriously.

twitter.com/epycwynn

Yeah, he got doxed as well.
Here's a picture of him.

Ah you see, the system got the socialisms, and Hitler was a socialist, and it also got techno, so picture Hitler raving with glowsticks, and Hitler, who is your girlfriend in this equation, raves so hard it rains groceries. Does this answer your question?

Look, basically all you're arguing for is elitist social democracy, why not just say that instead of coming up with this gay shit? We have labels for a reason.

Also, Fallout 4 is not supposed to be a frikkin political study, it's a dumbed down turd for normies, but beyond that your examples don't even make sense, the Brotherhood isn't capitalistic, it's more fascist if anything, the railroad isn't socialist since they never bring up economics, they're just race based militants, arguably the institute is technocratic but only due to the power to stupid videogame logic where there's a super science underground society where everyone is a genius, and the minutemen are just I dunno, civic-nationalist partisans if anything.

At an extremely superficial level. Their differences reduce more or less to the purely aesthetic.

This is highly debatable

Well you see, you would be right except TeCaSoDemism is social, not socialist. There is a difference. Being social, means you use elements of socialism for redistributing wealth through taxation and social programs. Socialism, means divvying up the wealth equally to everyone based on the work they do. TeCaSoDemism is moderate, meaning it only partially borrows from technocracy, capitalism, socialism, and democracy. That means TeCaSoDemism does not use straight technocracy, capitalism, socialism, or democracy. The full term is Techno Capital Social Democracy, not Technocratic Capitalist Socialist Democracy, the former implying partial borrowing while the latter implies full-on usage. Socialism is incompatible with capitalism sure, but social is compatible with capital because both terms are partial and thus allow for each other's existence.

Your second point is correct. I did not claim otherwise. Moderacy, extremism, centrism, and radicalism are tools of ensuring each branch of TeCaSoDemism is equally powerful, is powerful enough, is not too powerful, and is not being imbalanced by other outside political philosophies. They are just tools -a means to an end of achieving the ultimate goals of TeCaSoDemism by replacing the old status quo of whatever is in power with the new status quo of TeCaSoDemism.

Although insulting, you bring up a valid point. Social democracy inherently implies elements of socialism, capitalism, and democracy, which right off the bat takes care of 3 of the 4 branches of TeCaSoDemism. However, the term Social Democracy does not at face value reflect the partial values of capitalism which inherently are merged with it. TeCaSoDemism is very outright with what it stands for and that is important because the name of a political philosophy in itself can turn off or entice people. Capitalists might be tempted to turn their nose to a stigmatized term like 'socialism' yet technically social democracy has as many social elements involved as it does capital elements. So that turning-of-the-nose does not occur, the capital and the social element of the philosophy need to be emphasized. The term TeCaSoDemism achieves that.

Elitism is not a good term for it, although I can see why you would draw the parallel. Elitism not only has a well-justified stigma surrounding itself, but elitism is also way too vague. There is a reason I did not use the philosophy of Authoritarianism or Elitism and that's because both terms just generalize things as a "circle of powerful elites with authority". That is just random and thus ignorant in the giving of power. Power must be given based on ethics and efficiency. To that end, technocracy fulfills the efficiency part of things, while democracy fulfills the ethics part of things. Again, it is not absolute technocracy but only partial, meaning there is a minimal level of efficiency required to run certain positions in office while at the same time the majority vote of the people is still how people are chosen.

As for your statements on Fallout 4, it was just an influence, not the damned basis of the whole philosophy. I see how you can align the brotherhood more with fascism and the railroad with race-based terrorists and how the minutemen can be viewed as simple partisan nationalists but the alignments with technocracy, capitalism, socialism, and democracy, while not perfect, do on a surface level appear to be there.

To reclarify in the previous post, Technocracy makes more sense than Authoritarianism/Elitism because Technocracy gives a specific reason of "technical abilities/experience/knowledge" while Authoritarianism and Elitism simply give power without a specific basis of giving the power in mind.

Well if that's all the arguments then I guess TeCaSoDemism doesn't have any other flaws to discuss. It truly is The PERFECT POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. It is PPP 100% legit.

Hooray I created the perfect political philosophy and there are no arguments which exist against it. I am the greatest.