Leontyev G.D., Leontieva L.S. —
Digital Techno-Democracy as a Post-non-Classical Praktopia
// Sociodynamics. – 2023. – ¹ 4.
– P. 1 - 10.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2023.4.40407
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/pr/article_40407.html
Read the article
Abstract: The analysis of digital, socio-technological projects of the future is carried out in the context of post-non-classical utopian discourse based on a systematic approach, concepts of information society, dynamic information theory, K. Popper's ideas about social engineering. In order to identify the social effects of modern IT innovations, the current situation with universal ChatGPT is considered. It is argued that technology does not have an autonomous moral status, it is a projection of a person on the world. Their ethical burden, as well as the functionality and framework of self-organization are set from the outside. Artificial intelligence is a technology for simulating the reproduction of human reality, including patterns of social deviations. It means that not so much the virtual world as the actual reality needs humanizing correction. Information – technological, communicative mechanisms of overcoming social imperfections can be traced in the conceptually successive projects of "holotechnodemocracy" by M. Bunge, "information democracy" by M. Rocard, in projects of digital, cloud, electronic democracy. It is revealed that the modeling of an ideal digital future is based on a procedural approach, characterized by the authors of the article in the terminology of K. Popper as a "piecemeal" method, that is, "social engineering of private solutions". Therefore, digital techno-democracies are defined as a kind of modern praktopia, which evolutionarily and permanently forms an alternative social reality based on information and communication technologies and socio–network self–organization of a person and neural networks.
Leontyev G.D., Leontieva L.S. —
Praxeology of social utopia: protest-project-practice
// Sociodynamics. – 2020. – ¹ 2.
– P. 64 - 73.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2020.2.30089
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/pr/article_30089.html
Read the article
Abstract: This article analyzes the phenomenon of utopia as a social alternative in the aspect of its praxeological specificity. Confidence in the idea of the utopian due and despair, justified by dissatisfying real, comprise the existential basis of protest state of mass consciousness. The ideological stimulus to social protest becomes the utopian project that produces a trend to practical development of ideal sociality. Systematic functionality of these praxeological elements of utopia substantiates the goal of determining the specificity of correlation between anti-system protest, socially-constructive project, and practice of social transformation. Anticipatory reflection of reality in utopia reveals the synergetic principle of determination by future, according to which the utopic constructs as trends already exists in the present. Their activation on the level of individual and public consciousness is common for the situation of social entropy and chaos; and socio-utopian ideal manifests as an attractor of protest movement. Faith in its realization is explained by the “Principle of Hope” of Ernest Bloch; while precaution for the risks of “social engineering” is reflected in the ideas of Karl Popper and Karl Mannheim. The conclusion is made on the dual nature of praxeological element of the utopia. The first aspect implies that utopia is an anti-system protest as the denial of real, and simultaneously, it is a socially-systemic project as creation of “better”. The second aspect of dualism means that utopia is a project that transforms public consciousness, and a practice that transforms social being. The presence of direct correlation between the intensity of development of utopian ideas and the level of sociopolitical self-organization is established. The reverse correlation is characteristic for the political ideology. Along with humanistic optimism of the utopia, the author determines the risk of “denying denial”: practical implementation of utopian project formed within the framework of social protest, denies the utopia itself.
Leontyev G.D., Leontieva L.S. —
The dialectics of freedom and property in society of real utopianism
// Sociodynamics. – 2018. – ¹ 4.
– P. 56 - 64.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2018.4.25198
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/pr/article_25198.html
Read the article
Abstract:
This article analyzes the peculiarities of implementation of the ideas of socialism in practice. Transformation of the philosophical-political and socioeconomic foundations of the state is revealed through the interdependent phenomena of economic “assumption” and freedom. Such subject angle of research is explained by the fact that any political regime strives for self-preservation, and any society assesses the efficiency of its functionality in accordance with the parameters of the quality of life, primarily the level of welfare and civic freedoms. Thus, the goal of the article is to examine the key directions of practical implementation of the fundamental ideas of freedom and property during the period of the establishment of socialism and after it. The peculiarities of civic self-fulfillment and economic “assumption” are analyzed with the help of dialectical method, systemic and comparative-historical approaches, using the statistical and sociological data. A conclusion is made on the differences in interpreting the concept of social property and individual freedom in the theory of Karl Marx, as well as practice of real socialism. The author determines a common feature in the processes of redistribution of property of the early and late XX century, which is the confluence of government and property, and thus the alienation of citizens not only from the results of their work, but also the sphere of public policy. The author concludes on prolongation of the period of “real utopianism” in development of the Russian society as a result of presence of the relevant dystopic tendencies. In political-administrative sphere – this is the fluctuations between the bureaucratic authoritarianism and authoritarian bureaucracy; while in economic sphere – the consolidation of the government-monopolistic, bureaucratic-speculative (pseudo) capitalism.