Q&A Time, Featuring Revleft's Technocrats!

[Yazman]

Hi guys, I wanted to make this topic just in case anybody here in OI has any questions about the technocracy movement. There are quite a few of us here at Revleft - even the resident moderator Jazzrat is one :)

So if you have any questions about technocracy, or technocracy as an anarchist or communist tendency, where we stand on certain issues, what it is we want and propose, etc. then feel free to ask your questions here.

[Bud Struggle]

Excellent! Thank you. I'm pretty interested in this--

Are Technocrats always Anarchists or can Marxists fall into their framework? For that matter I could imagine Capitalists being driven by a technological viewpoint, too.

Any thoughts?

[Sentinel]

Are Technocrats always Anarchists or can Marxists fall into their framework? For that matter I could imagine Capitalists being driven by a technological viewpoint, too.


I'm not a technocrat, so I guess others are better suited in replying to this. I am however sympathetic and positively curious towards the line of thought, and know some technocrats quite well online.

Technocracy is fundamentally 'communistic' in certain ways, with it's goals to abolish money and human labor. It's however not a traditional part of the 'revolutionary left' at all, but a separate movement started in the United States nearly a hundred years ago.

Today it has followers in Europe as well, such as the Network of European Technocrats. The technocrats are divided on the issue of the workers movement, some going as far as calling themselves anarchists or marxists (understandably generally not orthodox marxists, however).

Others on the other hand take distance from the leftist movement and would most certainly end up restricted on Revleft.. I've had some interesting debates over at NET's forums (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63) -- check them out!

Serpent, who is moderator here is a member of the organisation and an admin on their forums, and will probably be delighted to answer all kinds of questions about NET's branch of technocracy.

[Dejavu]

I've asked some question regarding technocracy and though I did not get a wealth of info in response there were some good replies.

Technocracy is not specifically an anarchist movement. There are technocratic anarchists though.

Technocracy is a type of economic central planning, in this way it resembles the classical model for socialist economics. Based on the info I've received from several technocrats I've talked to , there are some distinct features about technocracy.

1. All major economic decisions involving energy consumption are planned out by experts in a relevant field instead of politicians , entrepreneurs , capitalists , etc.

2. Automation is a goal where machine-like technology does all of the major production for necessities like food, clothing, etc.

3. Instead of money, energy accounting credits are distributed equally to all members of society regardless of their occupation. All costs are measured in energy consumption.


I don't believe Marxists can fully appreciate technocrat ideas simply because technocracy does not measure value in terms of labor exhaustion but rather in terms of energy consumption.

Lets say I was a software programmer. If it took me a week to write a new software program , lets say 10 hrs/day , then technocracy would not measure the value of the software based on my labor time. Rather, the value of the software would be measured by how ever many kilowatt hours of energy I used up. My 'payment,' if you even want to call it that is a fixed amount of energy credits but the credits I receive are equal to what everyone else in society receives.

This is a very basic explanation and I'm sure there is a lot missing but this is a crude model of understanding I have when it comes to technocracy.

[Dimentio]

As Sentinel has stated, technocrats do nog belong to one uniform movement. Already in the 1930's, there were four or five technocracy movements in the US. What is characteristic of the technocratic movement(s) is 1) their unique socio-economic model which they have outlined for society, and 2) that no technocratic movement has either formed a parliamentarian or revolutionary party.

The reason why is that technocrats focus their energy towards research and building blueprints for the future. That does not mean that we are against political activism, just that we are focusing on post-capitalist theories.

We do not strive to replace anarchism or marxism as creeds. What we want to do is to widen the understanding of how a post-capitalist sustainable society might operate.

[Lynx]

3. Instead of money, energy accounting credits are distributed equally to all members of society regardless of their occupation. All costs are measured in energy consumption.


I don't believe Marxists can fully appreciate technocrat ideas simply because technocracy does not measure value in terms of labor exhaustion but rather in terms of energy consumption.

Lets say I was a software programmer. If it took me a week to write a new software program , lets say 10 hrs/day , then technocracy would not measure the value of the software based on my labor time. Rather, the value of the software would be measured by how ever many kilowatt hours of energy I used up. My 'payment,' if you even want to call it that is a fixed amount of energy credits but the credits I receive are equal to what everyone else in society receives.
This is an example of a gift economy.

[trivas7]

The reason why is that technocrats focus their energy towards research and building blueprints for the future.
Building blueprints for the future is exactly what Marx referred to as utopian socialism. This is legitimate after the revolution, not before.

[Technocrat]

Excellent! Thank you. I'm pretty interested in this--

Are Technocrats always Anarchists or can Marxists fall into their framework? For that matter I could imagine Capitalists being driven by a technological viewpoint, too.

Any thoughts?

I just recently completed the test at politicalcompass.org. I fell into the "anarchist/communist" or "libertarian/left" category and I think most other Technocrats would fall into this category as well. However, it is important to realize that Technocracy is not so much a political philosophy as a set of instructions for how to produce and distribute an abundance. As such, it is rather a-political. Politics tends to be derived from philosophy, while Technocracy is derived from science applied to the social situation.

Technocracy is completely at odds with Capitalism. In fact there were investigations into Tech, Inc to determine if it was a communist plot, and the organization was banned in Canada temporarily. William Randolph Hearst (Publishing giant and collector of castles) reportedly threatened to fire anyone caught discussing Technocracy. It is after all a system which would not only remove all capitalists from power, but prevent them from ever rising to power again!


Technocracy is a type of economic central planning, in this way it resembles the classical model for socialist economics. Based on the info I've received from several technocrats I've talked to , there are some distinct features about technocracy.I don't think Technocracy can be described as either a free market or a centrally planned economy. In a centrally planned economy a group of experts makes all the decisions regarding what will be produced. In a Technocracy production is determined by a very simple method of automatic accounting. That is, if one hundred units of a given item are consumed during a particular cycle, than one hundred units of that item are produced for the next cycle. Therefore a Technocracy is more like an interactive economy, where a person "votes" on what gets produced through the very act of consuming.


Lets say I was a software programmer. If it took me a week to write a new software program , lets say 10 hrs/day , then technocracy would not measure the value of the software based on my labor time. Rather, the value of the software would be measured by how ever many kilowatt hours of energy I used up. My 'payment,' if you even want to call it that is a fixed amount of energy credits but the credits I receive are equal to what everyone else in society receives.Funny you should use the example of software programming, as Richard Stallman, author of the GNU Manifesto (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html), basically advocated for the same type of post-scarcity society that is described by Technocracy. People are not "paid" for anything in Technocracy, because everything is provided to them for free. Energy credits are merely a way of tracking what is "bought" so that production can be matched to consumption. This means that if someone wants to spend all day playing video games, they are free to do so. It is no business of the Technate. People will still do certain difficult and challenging jobs because those jobs are interesting to some people, and those people are usually the ones who are skilled at those jobs. For example there is today no shortage of professional artists even though only a small fraction of them are able to make a living that way. The technate is not going to fall apart due to refusal of people to work, and if it was threatened by that there are easily workable solutions to that problem as well. What we are essentially discussing here is human motivation where there is no monetary incentive. I think it is here that communists can find some common ground with Technocrats. Communists and Technocrats both recognize that there are other things motivating humans to do work besides money.


This is an example of a gift economy.I don't think so. Gift economies still have the idea of reciprocity, where one person is expected to give gifts in return. In a Technocracy people are simply given things for free as a right of citizenship. No one is required to perform service in order to receive these benefits. Nothing is expected from the individual in return for these benefits.


Building blueprints for the future is exactly what Marx referred to as utopian socialism. This is legitimate after the revolution, not before.Might it not be useful for people to know what they are revolting for?

Technocracy's preferred method of installation would be a two-thirds vote of all citizens. In order for that to happen, the citizenry must be educated.

[Lynx]

I don't think so. Gift economies still have the idea of reciprocity, where one person is expected to give gifts in return. In a Technocracy people are simply given things for free as a right of citizenship. No one is required to perform service in order to receive these benefits. Nothing is expected from the individual in return for these benefits.
There is not supposed to be any reciprocity in a communist gift economy. There are no wages, having been replaced by voluntary effort and trust.

Can you explain how the justice system would function in a technate?

[Technocrat]

There is not supposed to be any reciprocity in a communist gift economy. There are no wages, having been replaced by voluntary effort and trust.

Can you explain how the justice system would function in a technate?

Ah, I see. I thought we were talking about more traditional gift economies, such as those found among native peoples, where reciprocity is usually important and giving gifts is a way of displaying one's status. There is usually a strong internal obligation to give, which is not required in a Technate.

In regards to your second question, I think it is important to first realize that more than 95% of all crime today is directly related to property. Since private property does not exist in a Technate, those crimes relating to property would also be eliminated - in other words, more than a 95% reduction in crime. The only remaining crimes would be crimes of passion such as murders, rapes, etc. and those would probably be greatly reduced as well for various social reasons, such as a greatly improved standard of living for all.

The Sequence of Social Relations would act much in same way as the judiciary today. Under the Continental Control are the various Regional Divisions, which are themselves divided into different Area Controls. The Area Control also operates directly under the Continental Control and coordinates the actions of the various regions. It is a bit hard to understand without seeing an organizational chart. For more information on how this works, refer to chapter 22 of the Study Course which explains in detail the organization of the Technate and includes an organizational chart. I will try to find an image of the chart and upload it later.

[danyboy27]

how a military structure would work under a technocrat society?

i am sorry, i am just a big fan of military stuff.

[Technocrat]

how a military structure would work under a technocrat society?

i am sorry, i am just a big fan of military stuff. No problem. The armed forces would form their own functional sequence which is controlled by the Continental Control. The Continental Constabulary would be one branch of the military which replaced all the various branches of police that we have today. A unit within the Continental Constabulary would receive specific orders from the Area Control that they were operating in, and the Sequence of Social Relations would also play a part in determining the role and actions of the Continental Constabulary.

If I could find a chart of all this, it would make it a lot easier to understand :)

I think it should be noted though that the Technocratic stance is essentially pacifist. There is no reason for the Technate to engage in warfare because it is self-sufficient in resources, and since the Technate would not interfere in the affairs of other nations (except when they desired it), those nations would have little reason to attack the Technate. This does not mean that defense would be neglected. On the contrary, the Technate would probably possess weapons superior to anything that exists today, purely as a deterrent. This combined with the Technate's pacifist stance would eliminate all motivation for others to attack the Technate.

[Pogue]

question: What the hell are you crazy robots dudes on about! :lol:

srsly guys, i dont get it, is it about machines making a workless utopia or whut?

[Post-Something]

Thanks for this thread,

I have a question to ask if you don't mind, I may ask more, but I'll stick with this for now:

How would Technocracy practically deal with future ecological crisis?

and

How would production be organised in a technate?

[Technocrat]

question: What the hell are you crazy robots dudes on about! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

srsly guys, i dont get it, is it about machines making a workless utopia or whut?There is a lot of information already on the forums regarding what Technocracy is all about, why don't you start there? If you have specific questions I'll try and answer them to the best of my abilities.

The goal of the Technate is to give to each citizen the highest standard of living possible that can be sustained indefinitely given the limits of available resources and environmental constraints. The Technate is a post-scarcity society which is only intended for areas which have met the requirements for a Technate. Those requirements are: 1) sufficient natural resources to produce an abundance 2) sufficient technology to produce an abundance 3) sufficient trained personnel to operate the technology.

Technocracy is a fairly complicated subject, and the more one tries to summarize it the less accurate the description becomes. That is why when people ask "what Technocracy is about" I generally refer them to either the Study Course or Technocracy's Technological Continental Design. Both of these documents are freely available online. Pretty much anything you want to know is going to be found there. For those looking for a faster read, TTCD is probably better. For those wanting a more in-depth explanation, the Study Course is better. The Study Course is also the original document co-authored by M. King Hubbert. I can try to answer specific questions regarding Techncoracy, but a general summary is pretty much impossible. There is nothing inherently difficult to understand about Technocracy, but the various peices of knowledge build on each other in a way that does not lend itself well to summaries.


Thanks for this thread,

I have a question to ask if you don't mind, I may ask more, but I'll stick with this for now:

How would Technocracy practically deal with future ecological crisis?

and

How would production be organised in a technate? I have stated the goal of Technocracy above. Technocracy would accomplish this goal by eliminating all of the waste associated with the Price System, and by only using the most efficient designs possible in all aspects of society. This latter aspect is the result of the katascopic nature of Technocracy. In addition, because of the goal of the Technate, our natural resources would only be used on a sustainable basis, since depleting those resources would interfere with the Technate's goal of distributing an abundance to everyone.

If you want to know more specific design aspects that would contribute to a more sustainable society, I can briefly go over that. Housing in a Technate would be in Urbanates, resort-like structures which would be self-contained cities planned top-down for maximum livability and energy efficiency. As such, they would be planned so that cars would be completely unecessary as a form of transportation. Transportation within an Urbanate would mainly be by foot as everything would be located within easy walking distance of your home. Since there are no cars the surface can be dedicated entirely to pedestrians with landscaped park areas covering much of the surface area. An urbanate would consume less than 1/3rd the energy, per capita, of our sprawling automobile dominated cities. In case this leads one to think that residents of an Urbanate would lead an austere lifesytle, one should remember that a Technate is a post-scarcity society, where everyone would enjoy a vastly improved standard of living over what exists today. We could also look at transportation. The technocratic plan for transportation calls for walking, cycling, and automated mass transit within the Urbanates. Connecting the Urbanates to each other and to popular destinations in the countryside would be a network of high speed trains, possibly mag-lev. A person riding a passenger train has a per-capita fuel efficiency of 300-500 mpg. If faster travel is desired than planes would of course also be available. A series of canals would be created for the shipping of goods, as it is drastically more fuel efficient to ship things this way than by truck. We could also look at consumer products. Today, we have needless competition arising from the pressure to make profit, which results in needless duplication and waste of materials. We also have planned obsolesense, again a strategy used to make more money that is intentionally wasteful. We have planned waste because wasting resources is profitable for the merchants of those resources. We also have inneficient designs because different companies don't share knowledge and resources with each other. If those companies cooperated and had access to the same knowledge and resources, vastly improved and more efficient designs become possible.

In order to build all these infrastructure projects, our existing cities would be razed over time and recycled for resources. We have all the building materials we already need if we re-use the materials in our existing cities. As residents are relocated into Urbanates, abandoned sections of the old city are torn down and recycled. As urbanates would occupy a much smaller area of land than our automobile dominated cities, vast tracts of land could be reclaimed by nature or used for agriculture or parkland.

The above aspects are merely design proposals that were put forward by members of Tech, Inc. It is really impossible to say what the final design would be until the Technate is in place, because it is only once all the Functional Sequences and the Continental Control are established that a Katascopic Plan could be devised. However, given that the members of Tech, Inc. were all various experts in their respective fields, it is safe to assume that what they envisioned would be pretty close to whatever actually gets implemented.

As far as how production would be organized, this would be done by grouping together by field of operation all the personnel and technology involved in a particular function. These organizations are called Functional Sequences. There would be a sequence for housing, one for transportation, one for healthcare, one for education, etc. The process of appointment from above and selection from below determines one's position within a Functional Sequence, but it should be remembered that no one has to work if they don't want to. In other words you don't have to be part of a Functional Sequence if you don't want to. Anyone can be removed from their position at any time by a two-thirds vote as a safeguard against corruption, and to ensure the continued functioning of the Technate.

Hope this helps.

[RGacky3]

We do not strive to replace anarchism or marxism as creeds. What we want to do is to widen the understanding of how a post-capitalist sustainable society might operate.

That actually clears a lot up for me.

[Yazman]

I have to note that there is very little rhetoric associated with technocracy and as noted before its not so much a political theory as it is a method of assembling a viable, post-scarcity, non-capitalist society.

For this reason, there are a lot of technocrats who are neither communists nor anarchists. I think it tends to be a lot more accessible.

[Technocrat]

One analogy that a Technocrat associate of mine often uses is to compare Technocracy to the instruction manual for your DVD player. "If you want this to happen, this is what you have to do." Technocracy is an a-political set of instructions for how to produce an abundance. Although Technocracy is a-political in nature, if you had to put it somewhere within the spectrum of different political philosophies, it would most likely fall to the left/libertarian side of things as described by the political compass. (http://www.politicalcompass.org)

[Bud Struggle]

Yes! that's one of the more appealing aspects of technocracy--they are less interested in "theory" than what works and what doesn't to produce the best life for the most people.

[RGacky3]

Yes! that's one of the more appealing aspects of technocracy--they are less interested in "theory" than what works and what doesn't to produce the best life for the most people.

From what I understand its not even in the same category as anarchism, as its not a set of principles, but like a model for economics.

[Dejavu]

Post-Scarcity is the key word here. Post-Scarcity is impossible. There will always be a scarcity limit on anything because we know there is one thing scarce beyond reasonable dispute, and that is time.

Its an interesting idea though, sort of a mental exercise for me. :)

[Dejavu]

how a post-capitalist sustainable societyThis does not address a post-market based society. I assume no market would exist in technocracy, or?

[Cult of Reason]

There will always be a scarcity limit on anything because we know there is one thing scarce beyond reasonable dispute, and that is time.

That's not all. There are other things that will remain scarce: status, reputation, leadership roles, popularity (yes, I know these overlap) are all important factors that affect most people. There are also more marginal cases: original works of art, faberge eggs, cashmere curtains etc.. However, these things and time being scarce, for humans, is not an impediment to the system.

In the case of the rare objects, people can simply do without them and have copies if they really want them, perhaps with the originals on public display.

In the case of the social "capital", while people will find them motivating factors (which I think is a good thing), these will be unlikely to have a significant effect on the productive process (apart from, perhaps, ensuring people actually go to work) as people cannot trade abundant things for scarce ones. No one can trade air for popularity or a Ferrari. Just as now, social "capital" will be gained in a reasonably reciprocal way: through deeds and interaction, both of which are also scarce.

Regarding time, that is a little more complex. What also needs to be considered is whose (and indeed what's) time is the problem. Human time? Or machine time? Since machines would be doing most of the grunt work, they are the primary part of the economy. As long as the machines can work fast enough (and they can, as modern industry has historically shown: many factories, even automated ones, are online for much less than 24 hours each day, though there is no technical reason for this (there are market reasons, though, which is an example of the retarding effect of the market)) to produce an abundance of goods in the time they have available, the question of time scarcity is moot. Regarding human time, I assume you refer mostly to scarcity of "free" time, as it can be said that time at works is not "yours". However, since, in the 1930s, the original Technocrats determined that average working hours would be 16 hours per week (for four hours per day for four days per week), I think it would be reasonable to suggest that people will have more free time than they know what to do with, and so use some of it to be productive. Even if it turns out there isn't enough time in a 24 hour cycle (very unlikely), then, to make sure people work, coercion can always be called upon.

There is an important general point about the immaterial, but scarce: they cannot easily be traded in a way similar to the modern Capitalist economy and, even if they were, they would not affect the more "important" parts regarding goods production and distribution. If people have less time than they want to savour everything that a post-scarcity society offers them then that is tough, but it will not harm the productive process or the structure of society. In fact, in placing a limit on the consumptive powers of people, time scarcity may even strengthen the system by lowering the threshold for abundance of other things. Have you ever done linear programming? In it, if you have one constraint that dominates, all other constraints no longer have any effect and, if those other constraints are based upon resources, those resources become "abundant".


This does not address a post-market based society. I assume no market would exist in technocracy, or?

There is no market in Technocracy, that is true. A market cannot deal with things that are not scarce: it cannot even trade scarce things with abundant things.

[Technocrat]

From what I understand its not even in the same category as anarchism, as its not a set of principles, but like a model for economics.

Yes, you are mostly correct. Although, I think most Technocrats wouldn't say "model for economics", because most Technocrats dislike that word. "Model for production and distribution" might be better.

The only real principle that Technocracy has is that it would be desirable to give the highest standard of living possible to all citizens that is indefinitely sustainable. There is no way to determine that this should be our goal through objective means, but there is ample evidence that this is what most people would consider "good". Having defined the goal, we can use objective means to determine the best way of achieving that goal.

[Technocrat]

Post-Scarcity is the key word here. Post-Scarcity is impossible. There will always be a scarcity limit on anything because we know there is one thing scarce beyond reasonable dispute, and that is time.

Its an interesting idea though, sort of a mental exercise for me.I think another thing to note here is that the words "abundance" and "scarcity" are both relative and subjective. That means that they are meaningless without context. For example, if I have food for 10 people, and there are 5 people consuming food, then I have an abundance of food. If I have food for 10 people, and there are 20 people consuming food, then suddenly that same amount of food becomes scarce. The amount of food did not change, it was how the food was being used that determined whether it was scarce or abundant.

When Technocracy says that it could produce an abundance of goods, "abundance" is taken to mean more than could be physically consumed. Obviously not everyone can have a hope diamond, but this type of good is not consumed, it is owned, and is therefore in an entirely different category. There are definite limits as to how much a human being can physically consume. There are no such limits on what a human being can own; they can own an unlimited number of things. For this reason, Technocracy never said that it could give everyone whatever they wanted. It only said that it could produce more than people could consume. Such items as the Hope Diamond could be put on public display or copied as Cult of Reason suggested.

[Dimentio]

Post-Scarcity is the key word here. Post-Scarcity is impossible. There will always be a scarcity limit on anything because we know there is one thing scarce beyond reasonable dispute, and that is time.

Its an interesting idea though, sort of a mental exercise for me. :)

For the 110th time, technocrats do not use terms as scarcity and abundance in the same terminology as economists. Adam Smith's five postulates are helpful in defining a free-market economy, in telling about the incentives for human beings.

What economists mean with scarcity is that scarcity is an absolute since human beings have "limitless needs" and always want to possess more than less of product A.

When technocrats are talking about scarcity, they mean "less than what we could supply the population with during x amount of time". Economists are talking in generals and absolutes, while technocrats are talking about specifics.

[Technocrat]

For anyone interested, here is the administration chart for the North American Technate, as conceived by Tech, Inc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually, I have a question about that - what exactly is the purpose of the Continental Director?

[Technocrat]

Actually, I have a question about that - what exactly is the purpose of the Continental Director?

From the Technocracy Study Course:

"22.4.2 The Continental Control

The Continental Director, as the name implies, is the chief executive of the entire social mechanism. On his immediate staff are the Directors of the Armed Forces, the Foreign Relations, the Continental Research, and the Social Relations and Area Control.

Next downward in the sequence comes the Continental Control, composed of the Directors of the Armed Forces, Foreign Relations, Continental Research, Social Relations and Area Control, and also of each of the Functional Sequences. This superstructure has the last word in any matters pertaining to the social system of the North American Continent. It not only makes whatever decisions pertaining to the whole social mechanism that have to be made, but it also has to execute them, each Director in his own Sequence. This latter necessity, by way of contrast with present political legislative bodies, offers a serious curb upon foolish decisions.

So far nothing has been said specifically as to how vacancies are filled in each of these positions. It was intimated earlier that within the ranks of the various Functional Sequence jobs would be filled or vacated by appointment from above. This still holds true for the position of Sequence Director. A vacancy in the post of Sequence Director must be filled by a member of the Sequence in which the vacancy occurs. The candidates to fill such position are nominated by the officers of the Sequence next in rank below the Sequence Director. The vacancy is filled by appointment by the Continental Control from among the men nominated.

The only exception to this procedure of appointment from above occurs in the case of the Continental Director due to the fact that there is no one higher. The Continental Director is chosen from among the members of the Continental Control by the Continental Control. Due to the fact that this Control is composed of only some 100 or so members, all of whom know each other well, there is no one better fitted to make this choice than they.

The tenure of office of every individual continues until retirement or death, unless ended by transfer to another position. The Continental Director is subject to recall on the basis of preferred charges by a two-thirds decision of the Continental Control. Aside from this, he continues in office until the normal age of retirement. Similarly in matters of general policy he is the chief executive in fact as well as in title. His decisions can only be vetoed by two-thirds majority of the Continental Control.

It will be noted that the above is the design of a strong organization with complete authority to act. All philosophic concepts of human equality, democracy and political economy have upon examination been found totally lacking and unable to contribute any factors of design for a Continental technological control. The purpose of the organization is to operate the social mechanism of the North American Continent. It is designed along the lines that are incorporated into all functional organizations that exist at the present time. Its membership comprises the entire population of the North American Continent. Its physical assets with which to operate consist of all the resources and equipment of the same area."

[Dimentio]

NET is proposing a different kind of model regarding how centralised the system should be. Recent studies have shown that decentralised systems with autonomous units are actually quite efficient if communication channels are handled properly. Other than that, we will not say that the North Americans are wrong. They are proposing their model, and we are developing ours. Its good with diversity. :)

[Technocrat]

Recent studies have shown that decentralised systems with autonomous units are actually quite efficient if communication channels are handled properly.

Doesn't that defy the entire concept of katascopic design?

I think the design of Tech, Inc. does allow for a high degree of local autonomy when making subjective decisions, through the Social Relations Unit and the various Area Controls.

I am not too familiar with the European system. How would it differ from this model?

[Dimentio]

Doesn't that defy the entire concept of katascopic design?

I think the design of Tech, Inc. does allow for a high degree of local autonomy when making subjective decisions, through the Social Relations Unit and the various Area Controls.

I am not too familiar with the European system. How would it differ from this model?

The European model keeps the functional sequence system.

But for operating projects on local, regional and sectorial level, we set up holons which are composed of the necessary expertise drawn from many different sequences. These holons could in their turn be composed of smaller holons doing their part, and so on. The sequences are mostly used as communication channels. The holons could be studied as autonomous units. The technate and the consumers provide them with the goals, but they are free to find the most resource-efficient way of reaching the goals.

And yes. We have basically scrapped the entire katascopic foundation. ^^

[Technocrat]

I'm still having trouble seeing exactly what is different about the European system. It seems like the functions performed by the proposed Holons are performed just as well if not better by the Continental Research, the Social Relations Unit and Area Controls.

As far as Katascopic design is concerned, I think it has been demonstrated that katascopic processes are far more efficient than anascopic ones. What if one Holon decided that the most efficient way to perform a given task interfered with the goals of another Holon? This is why you need top-down design.

Under the American system, the various Area Controls receive their instructions from the Area Board, which receives its orders from the Continental Board. The Continental Board is made up of the Directors of the Armed Forces, the Foreign Relations, the Continental Research, and the Social Relations and Area Control.

I cruised around the NET site for a bit looking for more information on the Holons concept but couldn't find anything. Could you point me somewhere?

[Dimentio]

I'm still having trouble seeing exactly what is different about the European system. It seems like the functions performed by the proposed Holons are performed just as well if not better by the Continental Research, the Social Relations Unit and Area Controls.

As far as Katascopic design is concerned, I think it has been demonstrated that katascopic processes are far more efficient than anascopic ones. What if one Holon decided that the most efficient way to perform a given task interfered with the goals of another Holon? This is why you need top-down design.

Under the American system, the various Area Controls receive their instructions from the Area Board, which receives its orders from the Continental Board. The Continental Board is made up of the Directors of the Armed Forces, the Foreign Relations, the Continental Research, and the Social Relations and Area Control.

I cruised around the NET site for a bit looking for more information on the Holons concept but couldn't find anything. Could you point me somewhere?

The articles archive.

I think you should talk to dr. Wallace about our points. He's the expert on that. But I am disqualifying Technocracy Incorporated's view. The best model will prevail in a field test, I could assure you that. ^^

[Technocrat]

Thanks. I have spoken briefly with Dr. Wallace a couple of times, mainly over PM. He has posted on tech.ca and continues to do so every so often.

From what I can tell, under the European system some items would still be scarce, and labor credits would be used to distribute those items. That seems like just another Price System to me, albeit a more efficient one.

Is there not a specific article you could point me to? I looked through the archive but I guess I will do some more digging.

I don't think anything has been disqualified yet. It is too early to tell. A field test is pretty much impossible with the North American concept, since it is basically an all-or-nothing proposition. However, with katascopic design you know exactly what the end result will be, because every aspect of the design is determined by the katascopic plan ahead of time. With anascopic design you have no idea what the final result will be, which makes a comparison between the two pretty much impossible, doesn't it? The only way to really test that hypothesis would be to have all of North America use the katascopic design for a few years, and then dismantle the system and start over with an anascopic process. In other words there is no practical way to do a "field test" of any kind, at least that I can tell.

You couldn't really compare Europe's anascopic Technate with America's Katascopic Technate, because a European to American comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. They are two different geographic areas with a different set of variables. To test this hypothesis (efficiency of katascopic vs anascopic design) we would have to eliminate these other variables, which is obviously impossible.

[Dimentio]

Thanks. I have spoken briefly with Dr. Wallace a couple of times, mainly over PM. He has posted on tech.ca and continues to do so every so often.

From what I can tell, under the European system some items would still be scarce, and labor credits would be used to distribute those items. That seems like just another Price System to me, albeit a more efficient one.


That is not a question.

What we are talking about is the transitionary period. Eventually, everything would be distributed through energy credits.

Personally, I think that we never could know the result beforehand. But we could create a structure which is so adaptable that you won't have to tear it down and build it again if things don't go as planned. :)

[ZeroNowhere]

Lets say I was a software programmer. If it took me a week to write a new software program , lets say 10 hrs/day , then technocracy would not measure the value of the software based on my labor time. Rather, the value of the software would be measured by how ever many kilowatt hours of energy I used up. My 'payment,' if you even want to call it that is a fixed amount of energy credits but the credits I receive are equal to what everyone else in society receives.The theory of value is part of an analysis of capitalism, there would be no value (there would be use-values, but that's the opposite of value) in socialism. Surplus value certainly doesn't originate in the kilowatts of energy used.

[Judicator]

Why do technocrats think prices are unable to efficiently allocate resources?