Criticism of technocracy

[Revy]

In The Two Souls of Socialism, Hal Draper twice connects technocracy to fascism, calling it "semi-fascist" and noting that it "already reveals fascist features". In Draper's view, technocracy was another form of the "Socialism-from-Above" he described in his treatise. To Draper, technocracy would have been one of the "middle-class socialisms" with its appeal to "disgruntled class-elements of intellectuals, technologists, scientists and scientific employees, administrative bureaucrats and organization men of various types, who can most easily identify themselves with a new ruling class based on state power rather than on money power and ownership, and therefore visualize themselves as the new men of power in a non-capitalist but elitist setup."

This latter part of the above paragraph was not Draper's view of technocracy but rather part of his position on Socialism-from-Above. His lack of explanation of his view on technocracy may be objectionable but as Draper said, "There are a number of tendencies which would have been difficult to treat briefly".

While I really never called technocracy "fascist", I did share the same impression of the ideology. It was my impression that technocracy meant "the rule of engineers and scientists" not really the "rule of technology", and thus, it was hard to see how it fits from a proletarian Marxist perspective.

As I wrote in a thread on it, shortly after I signed up for RevLeft:

Technocracy is the rule of scientists and technical experts. The proletariat has no role in this vision. So I fail to see why anyone here would identify with that ideology. It was popular during the Great Depression when people wanted alternatives to the capitalist system but didn't want to be associated with socialism.That was, of course, my first impression when I came here and saw that technocrats were here. Another person had the same opinion.

Here was the response (written by Cult of Reason):


In a Technocratic economy, the vast majority of productive labour (in the human sense) would be by scientists, engineers and technicians of some sort or another (among other things, there will be very little place for manual labour, especially not on a large scale). As a result, the vast majority of people would find that their work was of a technical nature.

To put it another way:
Not only would the scientists, engineers and technicians be working class, the working class would be scientists, engineers and technicians, for the most part.
Technocracy has not exactly been beloved by some on the left. Edgar Hardcastle, of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, defined it in this way:


A distortion of truth can be as misleading as a downright lie. A new craze called Technocracy has swept America and is now being lapped up eagerly by all kinds of muddleheaded people in Great Britain. It is based on a distortion of the facts and leads to thoroughly unsound conclusions. The word itself means Government by technicians or engineers.Of course, technocratic communism (anarchist or not) cannot be held to the same standard as potentially bureaucratic forms of technocracy. It would not be fair. It would be like comparing anarcho-communism to anarcho-capitalism...or eco-socialism to eco-primitivism, etc...

[Dimentio]

The Technocracy Incorporated movement in the 1930's and 1940's was quite authoritarian. Partially, it had a very centralised design of how it envisioned North America, and secondly, Howard Scott was a dominating and uncompromising leader who almost destroyed his own movement. It was also very influenced by behaviourism, which is not entirely usable to understand the human being.

It was also using uniforms and wanted to utilise "total conscription" to bring about a technate. Many members of modern technocratic organisations are very critical of Technocracy Incorporated and their approaches.

The core which we in NET, and other modern technocrats, are working with is the idea of Energy Accounting as a replacement for monetary-based systems. That is the core of technocracy as we see it.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=96

[Technocrat]

I would just like to point out that there is an important distinction to be made between technocracy with a lower case t - defined as a government of scientists and engineers, and Technocracy with a capital T - the specific proposals of Technocracy, Inc.

Technocracy, Inc. never advocated a "government of scientists" - it advocated functional governance. It's a system that ensures that every job is performed by a person who had the skills needed for the job and that every job that is necessary is filled.

This is a common problem, and I wish there were an easy way around it, but it's important to remember that "technocracy" and "Technocracy" are two different things.

[Technocrat]

The Technocracy Incorporated movement in the 1930's and 1940's was quite authoritarian. Partially, it had a very centralised design of how it envisioned North America, and secondly, Howard Scott was a dominating and uncompromising leader who almost destroyed his own movement. It was also very influenced by behaviourism, which is not entirely usable to understand the human being.

I disagree. People saw it as authoritarian because they misunderstood it, the same way that if you proposed anything with the name Technocracy today you would have all kinds of kooks freaking out about new world order conspiracy theories. The administrative structure is proven and well thought out - it isn't "authoritarian" by any definition of the word. Howard Scott might have gone a little off the deep end toward the end there but that doesn't mean that the work done by Hubbert and all the others isn't still just as valid. Behaviorism just says everything has a material cause. What's wrong with that? Yeah they had incomplete data but we're talking about the 1930s here. Mainstream psychology today is still heavily influenced by Behaviorism and most of the more "rational" psychologists adhere to some version of it.


It was also using uniforms and wanted to utilise "total conscription" to bring about a technate. Many members of modern technocratic organisations are very critical of Technocracy Incorporated and their approaches.

The "uniforms" they wore were regular grey suits! Total Conscription was simply a way to use existing military wartime powers to bring about the Technate, and many unions of the time actively supported it - there were even a couple unions that completely endorsed the program! That's partially why it was banned after the war!


The core which we in NET, and other modern technocrats, are working with is the idea of Energy Accounting as a replacement for monetary-based systems. That is the core of technocracy as we see it.

That's cool - Technocracy was designed for North America so maybe something different is needed for Europe. I don't think this eco-unit idea they are currently toying with is going to go anywhere, though.

[Revy]

btw, I'm not posting this to bash on technocracy. Rather to provide an overview of some of the criticisms it has faced. Just to get people thinking on what future it might have in the left.

[Invincible Summer]

I smell a little faction war brewing b/w Technocrats here :lol:


Seriously though, i think Technocracy has potential in the left - I see it as essentially a more technologically-focused vision of Communist society. Whereas some (if not most) other Communist tendencies seem to be dogmatic and have vague propositions, I feel that Technocracy's propositions are grounded and fairly consistent. However, I am still sort of getting into the whole realm so my opinion may not be well-founded.

[ckaihatsu]

Here was the response (written by Cult of Reason):




In a Technocratic economy, the vast majority of productive labour (in the human sense) would be by scientists, engineers and technicians of some sort or another (among other things, there will be very little place for manual labour, especially not on a large scale). As a result, the vast majority of people would find that their work was of a technical nature.

To put it another way:
Not only would the scientists, engineers and technicians be working class, the working class would be scientists, engineers and technicians, for the most part.


This is an eloquent and concise summation of the topic, and it happens to be absolutely compatible with a revolutionary conception of how a revolutionary society should be structured.





some [...] other Communist tendencies seem to be dogmatic and have vague propositions


I find anything forward-looking to be valuable since there's a *surprising* lack of discussions in the literature about potential societal setups that could be enabled by a worldwide proletarian revolution. (I understand that, from a more strictly *political* position, we don't want to make fanciful and careless promises beyond the self-emancipation of humanity from starvation and needless want -- but from a *planning* or *engineering* perspective I think it's always helpful to more-precisely describe what kinds of constructive societal possibilities could be established by a worldwide workers revolution.)

[RED DAVE]

Let me ask any of you who are flirting with this crypto-fascist belief system the following:

(1) What is the relationship between technocracy and socialism?

(2) How is technocracy to be established?

(3) What is the active role of the working class, those who are neither scientists nor engineers, in the establishment and functioning of technocracy?

(4) What is the role of scientists and engineers in the establishment and functioning of technocracy?

(5) How the does the technocracy movement, now, in 2009-2010, deal with such problems as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, unversal healthcare, unemployment and racism?

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Let me ask any of you who are flirting with this crypto-fascist belief system the following:

(1) What is the relationship between technocracy and socialism?

(2) How is technocracy to be established?

(3) What is the active role of the working class, those who are neither scientists nor engineers, in the establishment and functioning of technocracy?

(4) What is the role of scientists and engineers in the establishment and functioning of technocracy?

(5) How the does the technocracy movement, now, in 2009-2010, deal with such problems as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, unversal healthcare, unemployment and racism?

RED DAVE

1. Technocracy had relationships with the IWW during the 1920's and 1930's. It is also obviously advocating a system where the access to the means of productions will be equally distributed to all human beings.

2. Technocracy Incorporated believe it will be established when capitalism is failing, in some sort of "Phoenix model". NET isn't agreeing, and instead advocate experiments with energy accounting and cooperation with political and social movements through a proto-technate. Neither Technocracy Inc. or NET are political movements, but NGO's/NPO's.

3. NET believes that all human beings, especially those who are working, have talents which are necessary to be utilised in the creation of a technate. As for Technocracy Incorporated, I cannot speak.

4. Research, management and administration. In NET's model though, decision-making is decentralised, giving workers a large and substantial influence on the running of industry.

5. Neither NET or Technocracy Incorporated are political parties. We are not seeking votes. While we as organisations are against racism, imperialism, sexism and capitalism, we focus on the solutions to all these problems, namely the redesign of the social environment to take away the profit motive, corporations and capitalism. We do not intend to replace progressive political movements, but to cooperate with them.

Let me then ask you something:

How is for example what NET is doing "crypto-fascist"? You know that fascism isn't just a slur you could throw around, but that it has meaning? In what way is getting rid of classes and money, and then give all human beings access to an equal share of the fruits of the means of production "fascist"?

[RED DAVE]

Let me ask any of you who are flirting with this crypto-fascist belief system the following:

(1) What is the relationship between technocracy and socialism?
1. Technocracy had relationships with the IWW during the 1920's and 1930's. It is also obviously advocating a system where the access to the means of productions will be equally distributed to all human beings.Apparently, technocracy's relationship with the IWW was brief and ephemeral.

http://www.iww.org/cic/history/scott.html

And you have not answered my question. What would the relations of production be under a technocracy: who would control the means of production and the economy as a whole?


(2) How is technocracy to be established?
2. Technocracy Incorporated believe it will be established when capitalism is failing, in some sort of "Phoenix model". NET isn't agreeing, and instead advocate experiments with energy accounting and cooperation with political and social movements through a proto-technate. Neither Technocracy Inc. or NET are political movements, but NGO's/NPO's.Any organization that gets involved in working for the future of mankind is political. I have no idea, really, what a Phoenix model" is. Presumably, mankind will arise from the ashes of the old society. This is a wholly inadequate answer with no meaningful details. The rest of your answer is jargon.


(3) What is the active role of the working class, those who are neither scientists nor engineers, in the establishment and functioning of technocracy?
3. NET believes that all human beings, especially those who are working, have talents which are necessary to be utilised in the creation of a technate. As for Technocracy Incorporated, I cannot speak.Translation: you have no concept of class or the role of the working class in the transformation of society.


(4) What is the role of scientists and engineers in the establishment and functioning of technocracy?
4. Research, management and administration. In NET's model though, decision-making is decentralised, giving workers a large and substantial influence on the running of industry.Sound like the scientists and engineers will be "management" while workers will have "influence." In other words, scientists and engineers are in control.


(5) How the does the technocracy movement, now, in 2009-2010, deal with such problems as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, unversal healthcare, unemployment and racism?
5. Neither NET or Technocracy Incorporated are political parties. We are not seeking votes. While we as organisations are against racism, imperialism, sexism and capitalism, we focus on the solutions to all these problems, namely the redesign of the social environment to take away the profit motive, corporations and capitalism. We do not intend to replace progressive political movements, but to cooperate with them.in other words, you have no answers to these pressing issues, but you expect people to listen to you in the "redesign of the social environment." Why the fuck would anyone listen to you if you have no solutions to immediate problems?


Let me then ask you something:Is this an open-book test?


How is for example what NET is doing "crypto-fascist"? You know that fascism isn't just a slur you could throw around, but that it has meaning? In what way is getting rid of classes and money, and then give all human beings access to an equal share of the fruits of the means of production "fascist"?Any organization can throw around slogans, key words, etc. The nazis themselves styled themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party, but that didn't make them either a socialist or a workers party.

Technocracy, basically, adovocates the rule of scientists and engineers. You made it clear, above, that scientists and engineers would be "management," while workers would have "influence." That's no different from any half-way decent work environment, where the boss is always open to good suggestions. What you are advocating is government-organized control of industry. That fascism.

Specifically, the organization, was given to uniforms, etc., and an authoritarian style and practice. The picture below, from the 1930s, has a distinctly fascist look to it.


http://i50.tinypic.com/kan1z.jpg

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

I find anything forward-looking to be valuable since there's a *surprising* lack of discussions in the literature about potential societal setups that could be enabled by a worldwide proletarian revolution.


Ironically, after saying that we need more discussions about the possibilities of a socialist future, I have none -- no, actually, I have *one*. It's a model I developed recently that extrapolates the (possible) contours of a communist economy from the principle that all productive property would be collectivized into the hands of the workers themselves -- the model is attached, below.

Much of my participation here at RevLeft has been in this direction of mapping out the broad material possibilities from the implications of collectivized productive property.





(1) What is the relationship between technocracy and socialism?


I wouldn't presume to speak from the standpoint of technocracy itself, but rather will say that it is a sound *technical* ("empirical") framework for describing and planning societal structures that could only be realized from a successful worldwide revolutionary movement.





(3) What is the active role of the working class, those who are neither scientists nor engineers, in the establishment and functioning of technocracy?


This is the point that we, as revolutionaries, are best equipped to address.

I would say that with sufficient class consciousness and revolutionary mobilizations the bulk of these technical concerns and considerations pretty much melt away into the larger, empowered self-rule of the proletariat. Distinctions between "skilled" labor and "unskilled" labor wouldn't matter so much because all would have shared, collective, cooperative responsibility for the most vital functions -- how the revolutionary workers happened to dispatch these responsibilities would be purely an *internal* matter among themselves, at the time.

(This is just a reiteration of Cult of Reason's statement which I reproduced earlier.)

(Digging deeper into this idea of the self-activity of the revolutionary workers reveals that the overwhelming bulk of the formality around job duties these days is *imposed* on us from above. A post-bourgeois work environment would not *require* such a compartmentalization regime since workers would be free to determine how priority tasks get accomplished given *their own* resources, at *their own* discretion. Much knowledge could be passed along in and around the production process itself, for the sake of collectivized production.)


Chris



--



--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Tearing up more shit than a weightless astronaut on the toilet --

[Dimentio]

Those in control of the means of production under the technate are the people. There is no money. Every citizen has an energy certifikate, with a certain consumption quota which is equal between all citizens. They could allocate their certifikate to what they want produced for themselves (by the system).

The technate is not per definition authoritarian. Though we in NET believe that Technocracy Incorporated are more authoritarian and centralised than we in their approach, we could attest that no technocratic movement has ever attained the level of authoritarianism present in some of the more radical vanguardist marxist parties.

That Technocracy Incorporated used uniforms during the 1930's isn't a proof of any inherent fascism then, and certainly not today.

As for management. We technocrats have a system which has an in-built defense against privilegie. There isn't one class of scientists controlling everything in our system. Especially not in NET's model, which is so transparent and distributed that it cannot really be controlled from any single point.

Read more here: http://en.technocracynet.eu

[ckaihatsu]

Those in control of the means of production under the technate are the people. There is no money.


This part is good, and obviously anti-capitalist / communist.





Every citizen has an energy certifikate, with a certain consumption quota which is equal between all citizens. They could allocate their certifikate to what they want produced for themselves (by the system).


We covered this topic back in August, at this thread: 'A new economic system'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-economic-system-t110476/index.html

I expressed a critique of the base Energy Accounting idea -- that somehow a system *could* add up *all* energy inputs, from a wide range of disparate energy sources, that would each fractionally feed into the production of each separate component, in the making of a final product for the consumer.

This "genealogical" approach for translating source-energy into material-end-product has also been advanced elsewhere for the realm of *labor* inputs, and I find *that* to be just as unwieldy in construction as this EA one.





Considering the wide variation of material inputs that go into the production of some fancier, more complex finished goods -- especially varying by location of production -- I don't think we should look to trying to define a standard unit of *all-material* input.

Instead, it would be better to reduce the equation to the single variable of human labor time since that is what an economy -- and a revolutionary politics -- is based on, anyway. Animals *don't* produce a surplus -- only people do, and it is that human effort that is the ultimate basis of everything that has been built up in the world -- civilization, in short.




It would be better to attempt to quantify the range of human effort, on some sort of sliding scale of difficulty, divided by units of time, as a standard for *everything else material*, especially considering that all of the resources provided to us by nature, all over the world, really can't justifiably be "claimed" by anyone in particular since all of us just happened to find ourselves existing on this planet. So, in the course of socially planned production we can *attach* natural resources to the production process, and make note of it, but the fundamental input will always be human attention and labor.


Since this writing in August I've developed the model that's attached to my previous post at this thread. The model reflects a realization that while a basic system of material quantification is required -- (to measure labor hours times difficulty or hazard) -- this measurement, into labor credits, must remain *detached* from the realm of resulting goods and services, *and*, of course, from the infrastructure of collectivized productive assets and resources.

The model includes these two points:

- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits

- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

Taken together these mean that the system of labor credit circulation remains with workers alone -- it could be likened to regular cash that can *only* buy other people's labor time. (Consumer demand, for pre-planned goods and services, is treated as *political demands* against the collective administration, to be fulfilled -- or not -- according to labor's discretion, rewarded in labor credits.)

[Dimentio]

The goal for the Technate is to move from a service-based economy to a distribution-based economy. We want to minimise working hours. Its a huge probability that only a minority of the population during very short amounts of time would engage in what we usually are defining as "labour" in the future.

Another point with Energy Accounting is that it is giving the foundation for an environmentally sustainable society.

[Invincible Summer]

On the NET site I found this article (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=103) which has some parts that bother me.. this is sort of nit=picking and I'm not 100% aware of the context of this piece, but I'll address the portions on their own.


The old politics *base*d on the workers in general is out. We cannot have the "General Strike" -- what is needed is the Particular Strike, of the scientists. If the workers, the people generally, jacked up against war, a handful of scientists could still rub them out with an atomic weapon... The socialists still talk about the abolition of wage slavery. They can only talk about it. The technician does it, by abolishing the wage slave -- by replacing the human slave by a machine.

[...]

But we don't want to be abolished -- we cling to our slave mentality, fight for our status as workers, as political subjects, as the people. We think the State will be removed, but that we will remain to flourish. But while the people, while vast sprawling populations persist, the problems -- of decentralisation, distribution, social service, etc., etc. -- the "Welfare State" will persist. The anarchists and communists say that the State will be abolished, or "wither away." Implied in this is that the people will continue to proliferate and prosper. This is an idiot, top-heavy travesty of all reality. We say, on the contrary, that the "State" -- the new rule of the engineers -- must be strengthened; and that the people will -- "wither away."

[...]

The engineers must rule. Who else could rule in a machine age -- the Golden Philosopher King? All the political philosophies from Plato to Marx must be shot on to the scrap heap. We tend to think of technocracy as a crank cult of the thirties. This is tragic stupidity. A decade or two is nothing in the march of events. And there have never been enough cranks in the world.

Um... is this supposed to be an anarchist (as implied in the title) article? Why is it suggesting a "rule by engineers?" That seems very bureaucratic, unless by "engineers" the author means that each worker is an "engineer" or "technician" in a "modern-worker" sort of sense. Even then, how does Technocracy establish itself in less-than-developed areas of the world?


We want a small society -- one of quality, not quantity, in which every human being can be powerful and free. We need a small society, as Greek society was small.
What do the Greeks have to do with anything? Since when were they the shining model for future society?? I suppose I understand the logistics for having smaller-population technates, but surely it's not a "need" as the author states?

[Dimentio]

That is an old article published by one Harry Hooton (in 1953). The NET article archive is assembling most things written by technocratic authors historically as well as updated articles from the organisation.

I recommend this one:

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=103

[Invincible Summer]

That is an old article published by one Harry Hooton (in 1953). The NET article archive is assembling most things written by technocratic authors historically as well as updated articles from the organisation.

I recommend this one:

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=103

Fair enough. Are you saying then, that the article I had issues with is a bunch of outdated opinions that no Technocrat has/should have? Or...?

[Demogorgon]

I have criticised Technocracy many times here, largely because I think it is a waste of time as pursuing it will not lead to workable policies. I have given a large number of reasons why it is fairly pointless, but the principal one that I urge people to consider is that you cannot boil the total cost of production down to energy consumption. Therefore any attempt at energy accounting is bound to fail as it is working with irrelevant numbers.

Two things with identical costs of production may have (in fact almost certainly have) taken different amounts of energy to use. Once you realise that, you realise that attempting to make economic calculations based on energy expended is about as relevant as trying to do it on the basis of the total weight of the resources.

[Technocrat]

1. Technocracy had relationships with the IWW during the 1920's and 1930's. It is also obviously advocating a system where the access to the means of productions will be equally distributed to all human beings.

2. Technocracy Incorporated believe it will be established when capitalism is failing, in some sort of "Phoenix model". NET isn't agreeing, and instead advocate experiments with energy accounting and cooperation with political and social movements through a proto-technate. Neither Technocracy Inc. or NET are political movements, but NGO's/NPO's.

3. NET believes that all human beings, especially those who are working, have talents which are necessary to be utilised in the creation of a technate. As for Technocracy Incorporated, I cannot speak.

4. Research, management and administration. In NET's model though, decision-making is decentralised, giving workers a large and substantial influence on the running of industry.

5. Neither NET or Technocracy Incorporated are political parties. We are not seeking votes. While we as organisations are against racism, imperialism, sexism and capitalism, we focus on the solutions to all these problems, namely the redesign of the social environment to take away the profit motive, corporations and capitalism. We do not intend to replace progressive political movements, but to cooperate with them.

Let me then ask you something:

How is for example what NET is doing "crypto-fascist"? You know that fascism isn't just a slur you could throw around, but that it has meaning? In what way is getting rid of classes and money, and then give all human beings access to an equal share of the fruits of the means of production "fascist"?

Just needed to correct some errors here:

2. Technocracy Incorporated does not advocate a Phoenix scenario like you describe. They always said it would be up to the people of America to demand Technocracy. There are various methods for achieving this, but Technocracy did not concern themselves with that because that was not their purpose. One possible method would be a mass protest in Washington to completely shut the city down until the government gives in. Another possibility would be the Total Conscription program which would use existing emergency wartime powers.

3. Technocracy Incorporated says that every citizen will be obligated to contribute his pro-rate share of time and effort towards the operations of the continent, which would be very small compared to today. Education would be free to all giving everyone the opportunity to develop to their full potential.

4. The role of scientists and engineers is the following: to continue doing their jobs. The difference is that in a Technate special interests (corporations and politics) would be eliminated and the only interest being served would be the common interest. Since it is these people that have the technical knowledge needed to build and operate the Technate, then they would be the ones who built and operated the Technate. The main difference is that special interests have been eliminated, which in turn changes everything. Decision making is centralized but the process of appointment from above and selection from below ensures that every position is filled by the person most qualified for the position, and that every position is filled. Income on the basis of energy accounting and the ability to remove anyone from their position at any time by a 2/3rd vote by their peers eliminates corruption.

5.
Wars - all our military personnel will be called home as quickly as possible.
Unemployment - there will be employment for all with Technocracy's program. The work week would probably be around 10 hours long and people would work for half of the year between the ages of 25 and 45.
Healthcare - free to all.
Racism - No system can "solve" this but if we consider the fact that racists tend to lack education and that education would be free and mandatory in a Technate, including college, it is a reasonable assumption that racism would decline in a Technate.

[Technocrat]

I have criticised Technocracy many times here, largely because I think it is a waste of time as pursuing it will not lead to workable policies. I have given a large number of reasons why it is fairly pointless, but the principal one that I urge people to consider is that you cannot boil the total cost of production down to energy consumption. Therefore any attempt at energy accounting is bound to fail as it is working with irrelevant numbers.

Two things with identical costs of production may have (in fact almost certainly have) taken different amounts of energy to use. Once you realise that, you realise that attempting to make economic calculations based on energy expended is about as relevant as trying to do it on the basis of the total weight of the resources.

Therein lies the problem with your thinking. Energy Accounting is a way of matching production with consumption, and of ensuring that the most efficient methods are used to perform any given task. It has nothing to do with allocating individual resources - a separate linked inventory system would be used for that, similar to what they already use today just linked up at a continental level. Energy Accounting applies to literally everything, it is universal. Study the physics of energy flow.

Also study economics - cost is based upon value which disappears in a condition of abundance. In a Technate only the most efficient methods would be used to perform any given task, achieving an abundance of resources. The terms abundance and scarcity are relative, not absolute. The scarcity or abundance of a particular resource is determined by how that resource is used, NOT HOW MUCH THERE IS.

[Hyacinth]

I have criticised Technocracy many times here, largely because I think it is a waste of time as pursuing it will not lead to workable policies. I have given a large number of reasons why it is fairly pointless, but the principal one that I urge people to consider is that you cannot boil the total cost of production down to energy consumption. Therefore any attempt at energy accounting is bound to fail as it is working with irrelevant numbers.

Two things with identical costs of production may have (in fact almost certainly have) taken different amounts of energy to use. Once you realise that, you realise that attempting to make economic calculations based on energy expended is about as relevant as trying to do it on the basis of the total weight of the resources.
This. Apart from all the other issues with it (and there are many) the fact that it is premised upon a misunderstanding, and caricature, of political economy renders it worthless. One need only browse the economics subforum to see that technocrats are unable to provide any substantive responses to the objections raised against their energy accounting scheme.

[Technocrat]

This. Apart from all the other issues with it (and there are many) the fact that it is premised upon a misunderstanding, and caricature, of political economy renders it worthless. One need only browse the economics subforum to see that technocrats are unable to provide any substantive responses to the objections raised against their energy accounting scheme.

I believe I have addressed this in my above post and directly to you in the past. Many, many, people have a flawed understanding of Energy Accounting, including those calling themselves Technocrats.

[Hyacinth]

Therein lies the problem with your thinking. Energy Accounting is a way of matching production with consumption, and of ensuring that the most efficient methods are used to perform any given task. It has nothing to do with allocating individual resources - a separate linked inventory system would be used for that, similar to what they already use today just linked up at a continental level. Energy Accounting applies to literally everything, it is universal. Study the physics of energy flow.
Your position on this is more reasonable than some of the defenders of technocracy here, insofar as you don't argue for the use of energy accounting as a means of planning production (presumably we're back to calculation in-kind for production). Rather, what you seem to be proposing is the use of energy accounting as a means of tracking consumption, and of allocation.

Fair enough, except that any system of credits is capable of serving such a purpose, we can easily do so with labour credits just as well as energy credits. And energy accounting for such purposes has no advantages over labour accounting.

Also, while energy, insofar as, trivially, all production processes employ it, is an objective measure, it does not give us the overall cost of production of goods and services, except its overall energy cost. And while this information is certainly relevant, it isn't the only relevant information. There is no need to handicap ourselves by limiting our focus to only one aspect of production cost, and, at that, not even the most relevant one. Consider, for instance, that the directive to planners to minimize energy expenditures, which, under a system of energy accounting would make sense, might result in the adoption of labour-intensive production methods, insofar as the operation of a fully-automated production line consumes more energy than does the use of human labour power. But, plainly, this is an outcome no one wants. What we want to minimize is the use of labour, not energy. Especially so if we are capable of producing energy in relative abundance. In fact, under conditions of relative abundance, the use of energy accounting in the planning of production becomes pointless, insofar as we no longer need to economize on energy. In contrast, labour is something that we would always want to economize. Hence, even from the perspective of allocation of resources labour credits make more sense than energy credits.

[Technocrat]

Your position on this is more reasonable than some of the defenders of technocracy here, insofar as you don't argue for the use of energy accounting as a means of planning production (presumably we're back to calculation in-kind for production). Rather, what you seem to be proposing is the use of energy accounting as a means of tracking consumption, and of allocation.

Not just that, Energy Accounting is also used in planning production: Say we have two tires. Tire A lasts 5 years and costs 5 units of energy to produce. Tire B lasts 3 years and costs 1 unit of energy to produce. Tire B would be the tire that was produced (assuming they perform the same function, that is, they are the same type of tire).


Fair enough, except that any system of credits is capable of serving such a purpose, we can easily do so with labour credits just as well as energy credits. And energy accounting for such purposes has no advantages over labour accounting.No, it wouldn't work quite the same as energy accounting: With energy accounting, the total availability of energy on a continental scale is determined and then this number is divided among the number of citizens, the resulting number being each citizen's share of energy. This is in no way tied to the work that a person does. At the end of a specified period of time, say 2 years, all energy "credits" would become void, and new ones would be issued to the population, after the availability of energy was again calculated - this to ensure that the amount of energy "credits" is always the same as the amount of available energy "units". Any "unspent" credits would simply be carried over to the next production period and re-divided among the population.


Also, while energy, insofar as, trivially, all production processes employ it, is an objective measure, it does not give us the overall cost of production of goods and services, except its overall energy cost. And while this information is certainly relevant, it isn't the only relevant information. There is no need to handicap ourselves by limiting our focus to only one aspect of production cost, and, at that, not even the most relevant one.See my above post - cost is based upon value which is based upon scarcity.


Consider, for instance, that the directive to planners to minimize energy expenditures, which, under a system of energy accounting would make sense, might result in the adoption of labour-intensive production methods, insofar as the operation of a fully-automated production line consumes more energy than does the use of human labour power.That couldn't happen, because that would conflict with the mandate of the Technate to provide everyone with the highest possible service at the lowest possible cost. "Cost" in this sense means the actual physical cost in terms of resources, energy, and human effort.


But, plainly, this is an outcome no one wants. What we want to minimize is the use of labour, not energy. Especially so if we are capable of producing energy in relative abundance. In fact, under conditions of relative abundance, the use of energy accounting in the planning of production becomes pointless, insofar as we no longer need to economize on energy. In contrast, labour is something that we would always want to economize. Hence, even from the perspective of allocation of resources labour credits make more sense than energy credits.Energy accounting doesn't become pointless, because it is a way of ensuring that production is matched with consumption - thus avoiding waste of resources and scarcity and making abundance POSSIBLE in the first place.

Technocracy would determine the most efficient way to provide everyone with the goods and services they require. Efficiency is simply defined as output divided by input, with the output being the goods and services people require and the input being resources, energy, and human effort.

We want to reduce the amount of human effort involved. This is one of those planning issues that energy accounting doesn't deal with, it's more like a condition that must be fulfilled by the design of the Technate. Automation and eliminating the waste associated with the Price System is the key to this.

Any system which involves human labor is going to have workers, right? So, using the system of selection from below and appointment from above, coupled with the ability to remove anyone with a 2/3rd vote, means that anyone who can devise a way to reduce the amount of effort on the part of the workers will be put into a position where they can do so, while those who would increase the amount of human effort involved would be quickly voted out and replaced with someone else.

[Demogorgon]

Therein lies the problem with your thinking. Energy Accounting is a way of matching production with consumption, and of ensuring that the most efficient methods are used to perform any given task. It has nothing to do with allocating individual resources - a separate linked inventory system would be used for that, similar to what they already use today just linked up at a continental level. Energy Accounting applies to literally everything, it is universal. Study the physics of energy flow.

Also study economics - cost is based upon value which disappears in a condition of abundance. In a Technate only the most efficient methods would be used to perform any given task, achieving an abundance of resources. The terms abundance and scarcity are relative, not absolute. The scarcity or abundance of a particularly resource is determined by how that resource is used, NOT HOW MUCH THERE IS.
This makes no sense at all. First of all you are engaging in the usual technocrat game of trying to change the meaning of the word "scarcity". You aren't going to advance your cause by trying to speak at odds with everyone else.

You further say: "a Technate only the most efficient methods would be used to perform any given task, achieving an abundance of resources.". Until you define what the most efficient means are and why they are so, this is an empty statement. Nobody holds to an ideology that states we should go for inefficient ways of doing this, they just disagree as to what efficiency means and how to go about achieving it. Proclaiming your ideology to be the one that will achieve this is pretty unimpressive without rather more substance.

Now to your first point that energy accounting is really about matching production to consumption. This is another meaningless statement because by definition production and consumption are matched. Things are made and then they are consumed. Perhaps you mean that it is a means as to determine who gets what but we have ample means of doing that already or indeed it is even possible that you mean that it is a means for an individual to direct production to match what they wish to consume, "placing an order as it were". The delay between requesting something and getting it make that rather undesirable!

Really though, the point I come back to is that technocracy is offering a means of allocating resources. Plainly as can be seen from various discussions here, some of its adherents do not realise that the important thing in economics is working out how to allocate resources to best meet people's demands, but certainly those who came up with it realised it because there is a method there. I simply point out that it is wholly inadequate. Energy cannot be used for economic calculation therefore energy accounting is useless (whether we change the definition of scarcity or not!).

[Cult of Reason]

Consider, for instance, that the directive to planners to minimize energy expenditures, which, under a system of energy accounting would make sense, might result in the adoption of labour-intensive production methods, insofar as the operation of a fully-automated production line consumes more energy than does the use of human labour power.

You seem to neglect two things in your assessment. Firstly, in terms of energy cost per unit, artificial machines often (I would probably be able to say "mostly") use less than human machines. Secondly, in the (unlikely) doom scenario where the human being was the most efficient machine available, it would be sufficient to give a hard limit to the amount of human labour available for use. This would act like a constraint like in linear programming, allowing energy use then to be minimised. The question could be "is it both technically feasible and socially acceptable to have a certain amount of human labour per person per week and to have a certain consumption capacity (energy credits) that is above typical consumption levels per person per double year?" If the answer is yes, then an abundance of goods and services would be producible with that level of human labour. As said earlier in the thread, the level of human labour required is likely to be less than that of the average human work week in, say, the UK at the moment. Of course, that depends on what level of consumption would tend to be the maximum in an equal society; a question I do not think has been answered yet.


What we want to minimize is the use of labour, not energy.

Both must be minimised. Labour to improve quality of life and energy (per process or product) to improve quality of life through improved standard of living.


Especially so if we are capable of producing energy in relative abundance. In fact, under conditions of relative abundance, the use of energy accounting in the planning of production becomes pointless, insofar as we no longer need to economize on energy. In contrast, labour is something that we would always want to economize. Hence, even from the perspective of allocation of resources labour credits make more sense than energy credits.

On the contrary, energy abundance can only be achieved by careful use of the energy. Enough inefficiency and waste in the use of any resource will make it effectively scarce. This applies for energy as well as for food, steel, concrete and so on. The difference is that energy use is implied by the production or processing of all these other things, so accounting of energy is also essential in keeping those things abundant.

[Technocrat]

This makes no sense at all. First of all you are engaging in the usual technocrat game of trying to change the meaning of the word "scarcity". You aren't going to advance your cause by trying to speak at odds with everyone else.

No, it is economists who have redefined the meaning of the word scarcity so that it makes no sense.

Consider the following example: I have 10 loaves of bread, but 20 people. The bread is scarce. I have 10 loaves of bread, but 5 people. The bread suddenly becomes abundant. Did the bread change in any way? No. It was the way the bread was being used that determined whether or not it was abundant or scarce. ABUNDANCE AND SCARCITY ARE RELATIVE.


You further say: "a Technate only the most efficient methods would be used to perform any given task, achieving an abundance of resources.". Until you define what the most efficient means are and why they are so, this is an empty statement. Nobody holds to an ideology that states we should go for inefficient ways of doing this, they just disagree as to what efficiency means and how to go about achieving it. Proclaiming your ideology to be the one that will achieve this is pretty unimpressive without rather more substance.There is plenty of substance, if you like I can point you to the 300+ page study course authored by M King Hubbert. The means are all described within it.


Now to your first point that energy accounting is really about matching production to consumption. This is another meaningless statement because by definition production and consumption are matched. Things are made and then they are consumed. Perhaps you mean that it is a means as to determine who gets what but we have ample means of doing that already or indeed it is even possible that you mean that it is a means for an individual to direct production to match what they wish to consume, "placing an order as it were". The delay between requesting something and getting it make that rather undesirable! No, you are again confused. Consumption is defined as people's ability to consume. What you are saying is only true if you are defining consumption as what is consumed, another ridiculous economic teleology similar to how they define scarcity and abundance. Today production is not matched to consumption, things are produced and there is either not enough (scarcity) or there is too much, resulting in waste of resources, which results in scarcity. This is because money is not a physical measurement of anything and the money supply is regulated through what is essentially guesswork. Since it is better to overproduce then underproduce in the short term, we tend toward overproduction and thus waste (although underproduction is also common). Waste of resources contributes to scarcity.


Really though, the point I come back to is that technocracy is offering a means of allocating resources. Plainly as can be seen from various discussions here, some of its adherents do not realise that the important thing in economics is working out how to allocate resources to best meet people's demands, but certainly those who came up with it realised it because there is a method there. I simply point out that it is wholly inadequate. Energy cannot be used for economic calculation therefore energy accounting is useless (whether we change the definition of scarcity or not!).Economic calculation is dependent upon scarcity, as I've already said repeatedly. You haven't pointed out how energy accounting is inadequate, you've only pointed out your ignorance of how it actually works.

[Dr Mindbender]

i was going to add the point about it being necessary to keep tabs on energy usage; energy can be easilly lost to external factors outside the work process etc. Therefore not only do we want to minimise both labour and energy, but also we need to maximise efficiency.

Cult of Reason pretty much nailed it though.

[Cult of Reason]

by definition production and consumption are matched.

Not so. It is perfectly possible (in fact it happens now) that more is produced than is consumed, whether food or clothing or whatever. Either production is higher than consumption or demand is higher than production or demand is higher than consumption or a combination of those three, or we have the perfect situation where demand, consumption and production are all equal. Technocracy aims to get close to the perfect situation.


or indeed it is even possible that you mean that it is a means for an individual to direct production to match what they wish to consume, "placing an order as it were". The delay between requesting something and getting it make that rather undesirable!

Which is why Technocrats have always talked about use of energy accounting to track and predict demand so that bulk goods can be produced before they are "ordered".

[Demogorgon]

No, it is economists who have redefined the meaning of the word scarcity so that it makes no sense.

Consider the following example: I have 10 loaves of bread, but 20 people. The bread is scarce. I have 10 loaves of bread, but 5 people. The bread suddenly becomes abundant. Did the bread change in any way? No. It was the way the bread was being used that determined whether or not it was abundant or scarce. ABUNDANCE AND SCARCITY ARE RELATIVE.
What? :lol: What makes you think that two loaves per person is abundance. Or indeed for that matter what makes half a loaf each scarcity? To me they both sound like scarcity given there is not nearly enough for everyone to have as much as they can consume in either case.


No, you are again confused. Consumption is defined as people's ability to consume. What you are saying is only true if you are defining consumption as what is consumed, another ridiculous economic teleology similar to how they define scarcity and abundance. Today production is not matched to consumption, things are produced and there is either not enough (scarcity) or there is too much, resulting in waste of resources, which results in scarcity. This is because money is not a physical measurement of anything and the money supply is regulated through what is essentially guesswork. Since it is better to overproduce then underproduce in the short term, we tend toward overproduction and thus waste (although underproduction is also common). Waste of resources contributes to scarcity. By definition consumption is what is being consumed. I can hardly see how this is controversial. But anyway you have thrown forth a whole smattering of strange ideas into the mix here. First of all, you have taken the face that there are sometimes shortages and sometimes surpluses to be the cause of scarcity which is absurd as the level of overproduction is nowhere near significant enough to account for how short we are of all we need for a world where everybody can be given a comfortable life, let alone have as much as they can consume.

At any rate though, I don't think you understand what is meant by something being overproduced. When that happens it does not necessarily, indeed it rarely does, mean that more was made than desired, but rather more was made than people could afford at that price. A quite different thing. That of course brings us to money. Money is another subject on which I have said a great deal indeed and will not go into again here because it is not terribly relevant, but your notion that energy credits would be better than money is wrong because they retain all its disadvantages (adding a few new ones for good measure) and don't even manage to match its benefits.

Money obviously isn't a physical representation of anything, and thank heavens for that because when it was that was disastrous indeed, but it isn't regulated through guesswork but rather based on inflation which is a quite different thing. That is a spectacularly bad way of doing things, both because inflation is not what should be the primary concern and also because the means of regulating it is truly appalling, but nonetheless it is not done the way you describe.

Energy credits however would be even worse than money, because they don't mean anything at all in relation to cost. Money tends to determine its value based on how much of it there is in circulation compared to how many goods there are. Energy credits won't be able to do even that. They will be based on something which has nothing whatsoever to do with economics.


Economic calculation is dependent upon scarcity, as I've already said repeatedly. You haven't pointed out how energy accounting is inadequate, you've only pointed out your ignorance of how it actually works.
Yes well, you seem to want to change the definition of scarcity, in the hope that if you write it out of the language it will cease to be a problem, but it doesn't work that way.

Nonetheless if you think it is even worth talking about a system without economic calculation...

[Demogorgon]

Technocracy aims to get close to the perfect situation.

Very impressive. Of course all systems aim for that. Telling us technocracy's lofty goals is not terribly useful because the problem is it cannot achieve them owing to the fact the very basis of it is mistaken.


Which is why Technocrats have always talked about use of energy accounting to track and predict demand so that bulk goods can be produced before they are "ordered".That already happens. How do you think firms decide what they are going to make?

I am reminded very vividly of the debates I have in OI with the various Miseans who proclaim the glory of what their proposed systems will achieve and give me unworkable policies and economic bunk to prove it. It pains me to say it, but the exact same thing is happening here, the only difference being that the Miseans at least know a bit of economics.

[Hyacinth]

Not just that, Energy Accounting is also used in planning production: Say we have two tires. Tire A lasts 5 years and costs 5 units of energy to produce. Tire B lasts 3 years and costs 1 unit of energy to produce. Tire B would be the tire that was produced (assuming they perform the same function, that is, they are the same type of tire).
Except far more goes into a tire than just energy and time, alas we don't have Star Trek like replicators yet. So if energy accounting amounts to telling us that we have to account for energy in production, it becomes trivial; if it is telling us that we need only use energy in planning production, then it is absurd.


No, it wouldn't work quite the same as energy accounting: With energy accounting, the total availability of energy on a continental scale is determined and then this number is divided among the number of citizens, the resulting number being each citizen's share of energy. This is in no way tied to the work that a person does. At the end of a specified period of time, say 2 years, all energy "credits" would become void, and new ones would be issued to the population, after the availability of energy was again calculated - this to ensure that the amount of energy "credits" is always the same as the amount of available energy "units". Any "unspent" credits would simply be carried over to the next production period and re-divided among the population.
Again, you're just introducing an arbitrary currency based on a factor of production involved in all production processes; labour is the same. You can take the total labour input of an economy, create a currency where 1 unit corresponds to 1 hour of labour time, and distribute it among the population equally. Everything else you said of energy credits and how they would function could equally apply to labour credits (i.e., that they are non-transferable, that they expire, etc.). I fail to see how energy is in any way special.


See my above post - cost is based upon value which is based upon scarcity.
Which just demonstrates your ignorance of even basic economics. There is a distinction between between use value, exchange value, and cost-of-production. Given abundance of a certain good we wouldn't need to regulate or constrain its consumption by introducing some sort of currency, so exchange value wouldn't exist for such abundant good (even the term is a misnomer, insofar as under a planned economy there are no market transactions, and as such strictly speaking no exchange value). But cost-of-production and use value remain in place under abundance.


That couldn't happen, because that would conflict with the mandate of the Technate to provide everyone with the highest possible service at the lowest possible cost. "Cost" in this sense means the actual physical cost in terms of resources, energy, and human effort.
I don't disagree, in fact I advocate calculation in kind which takes into consideration all factors of production. But this is just a concession that energy accounting isn't sufficient for the planning of production (a claim which you yourself don't make, but it is common enough among proponents of technocracy to be worth commenting upon).


Energy accounting doesn't become pointless, because it is a way of ensuring that production is matched with consumption - thus avoiding waste of resources and scarcity and making abundance POSSIBLE in the first place.
And apart from the assertion that energy accounting could preform this function, what else do we have to go off of?


Technocracy would determine the most efficient way to provide everyone with the goods and services they require. Efficiency is simply defined as output divided by input, with the output being the goods and services people require and the input being resources, energy, and human effort.
If this is what you mean by "techocracy" then it is no different than socialist planning. But clearly you mean something more by it than just a planned economy.


We want to reduce the amount of human effort involved. This is one of those planning issues that energy accounting doesn't deal with, it's more like a condition that must be fulfilled by the design of the Technate. Automation and eliminating the waste associated with the Price System is the key to this.
But calculation in kind (as opposed to energy accounting) can deal with that issue directly, as we can given planners the directive to minimize whatever input of production we want, in this case labour input.


Any system which involves human labor is going to have workers, right? So, using the system of selection from below and appointment from above, coupled with the ability to remove anyone with a 2/3rd vote, means that anyone who can devise a way to reduce the amount of effort on the part of the workers will be put into a position where they can do so, while those who would increase the amount of human effort involved would be quickly voted out and replaced with someone else.
I would rather have real economic democracy via a combination of direct democracic and demarchic decision making, with only an administrative role accorded to anyone selected to serve on planning and coordination committees. But this is a separate issue from the economic criticisms of technocracy.

[Hyacinth]

You seem to neglect two things in your assessment. Firstly, in terms of energy cost per unit, artificial machines often (I would probably be able to say "mostly") use less than human machines. Secondly, in the (unlikely) doom scenario where the human being was the most efficient machine available, it would be sufficient to give a hard limit to the amount of human labour available for use. This would act like a constraint like in linear programming, allowing energy use then to be minimised. The question could be "is it both technically feasible and socially acceptable to have a certain amount of human labour per person per week and to have a certain consumption capacity (energy credits) that is above typical consumption levels per person per double year?" If the answer is yes, then an abundance of goods and services would be producible with that level of human labour. As said earlier in the thread, the level of human labour required is likely to be less than that of the average human work week in, say, the UK at the moment. Of course, that depends on what level of consumption would tend to be the maximum in an equal society; a question I do not think has been answered yet.
All well and good, except that you have yet to show that any of this can be effected without recourse to planning in kind (i.e., taking into consideration all the inputs of some given product). I am, as those who follow the discussions on the economics sub-forum, very much a proponent of socialist planning without recourse to market mechanisms, and hold that we have the technical capacity to produce abundance in most goods and services right now; technocracy just isn't the way to do this.


Both must be minimised. Labour to improve quality of life and energy (per process or product) to improve quality of life through improved standard of living.
Why? It is clear why we would want to minimize labour inputs, after all we all want to work less, as well it is clear how this would contribute to an improvement in our lives (as it would give us more leisure time to pursue whatever other pursuits we have). But it isn't clear to me that minimizing energy inputs in production (especially if we can effect abundance of energy, and this is technically feasible in the not-too-distant future via nuclear energy) would have any impact upon our lives. If we can make energy cheaply, as nuclear energy has the promise of doing, then we need not be concerned with energy-intensive production processes.


On the contrary, energy abundance can only be achieved by careful use of the energy. Enough inefficiency and waste in the use of any resource will make it effectively scarce. This applies for energy as well as for food, steel, concrete and so on. The difference is that energy use is implied by the production or processing of all these other things, so accounting of energy is also essential in keeping those things abundant.
Not if the cost of production of energy is cheap, or zero, or near zero. Once we have the proper power plant infrastructure in place (which, admittedly, will take considerable initial investment) we can create energy abundance (for all relevant intents and purposes).

[Technocrat]

What? :lol: What makes you think that two loaves per person is abundance. Or indeed for that matter what makes half a loaf each scarcity? To me they both sound like scarcity given there is not nearly enough for everyone to have as much as they can consume in either case.

Now you're just trying to quibble or else you're just dense. The obvious point I was trying to make is that abundance is defined as having enough to satisfy everyone's needs. So if each person needs one piece of bread then if there is one piece of bread per person (or more) then there is an abundance of bread. This is how the word actually works in the English language. The English language defines scarcity as an insufficiency of supply. Abundance is the opposite of this. Economics, on the other hand, redefines the word in a teleological way and says that an abundance is impossible because resources will always be limited and human wants are infinite. THIS IS FLAWED THINKING. What matters is not what humans can potentially WANT but what they can potentially CONSUME. A person can only consume so much of anything in a 24 hour period, even given free access to whatever they want. So while HUMAN WANTS could theoretically never be fulfilled under any system, because human wants are infinite, it is theoretically possible to provide everyone with as much as they could CONSUME. The only question to be answered is whether the given geographic area in question has the resources and technology to produce such an abundance. This is where Technocracy comes in.


By definition consumption is what is being consumed. I can hardly see how this is controversial. But anyway you have thrown forth a whole smattering of strange ideas into the mix here. First of all, you have taken the face that there are sometimes shortages and sometimes surpluses to be the cause of scarcity which is absurd as the level of overproduction is nowhere near significant enough to account for how short we are of all we need for a world where everybody can be given a comfortable life, let alone have as much as they can consume.It's like you are really trying hard to not understand. Fine, let me rephrase the whole thing for you: production would be set at a rate equal to and no higher than people's ABILITY to consume, by using energy accounting. I just used the word "consumption", because in a Technate, consumption would be as high as people's ability to consume - thus consumption. Production would be set to this, thus "production is matched to consumption." If you weren't trying to be dense you probably could have figured this out by now!

Also, I never said that surpluses and shortages were the primary cause of scarcity, I said that they contribute to scarcity. Get this: THE MARKET SYSTEM DEPENDS ON SCARCITY! Economic calculation DEPENDS upon scarcity: market prices exist to reflect opportunity costs. In a state of abundance, there are no opportunity costs. If something is abundant, it CANNOT be sold. If confronted with possible abundance, the market system will do everything it can to enforce ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY because that is the only way it can survive! The amount of resources that the MARKET SYSTEM uses to distribute goods and services to people is around THREE TIMES higher than what would be needed in a Technate! If you like I can provide figures for this, but for the sake of brevity I'll omit them here.


At any rate though, I don't think you understand what is meant by something being overproduced. When that happens it does not necessarily, indeed it rarely does, mean that more was made than desired, but rather more was made than people could afford at that price. A quite different thing. That of course brings us to money. Money is another subject on which I have said a great deal indeed and will not go into again here because it is not terribly relevant, but your notion that energy credits would be better than money is wrong because they retain all its disadvantages (adding a few new ones for good measure) and don't even manage to match its benefits. Of course I understand by what is meant by overproduce, but it looks like you could do a little brushing up on economic theory yourself. Particularly how economic calculation depends upon scarcity values and breaks down in the face of abundance.


Money obviously isn't a physical representation of anything, and thank heavens for that because when it was that was disastrous indeed, but it isn't regulated through guesswork but rather based on inflation which is a quite different thing. That is a spectacularly bad way of doing things, both because inflation is not what should be the primary concern and also because the means of regulating it is truly appalling, but nonetheless it is not done the way you describe. It is essentially an educated guess because the interest rates are set based upon what they PREDICT is going to happen. Sure they have mathematical formulas for this but all the variables are themselves predictions! So you are WRONG.


Energy credits however would be even worse than money, because they don't mean anything at all in relation to cost. Money tends to determine its value based on how much of it there is in circulation compared to how many goods there are. Energy credits won't be able to do even that. They will be based on something which has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. You're right! It has nothing to do with economics. I have said this REPEATEDLY:

Money's value is based upon SCARCITY. It doesn't WORK WITHOUT IT!

Economic calculation doesn't exist at all in a Technate - AND IT ISN'T NECESSARY!

Economic calculation - market prices - exist to reflect opportunity costs. In a state of abundance, there is no opportunity cost.

Economic calculation, like money, DEPENDS upon scarcity.


Yes well, you seem to want to change the definition of scarcity, in the hope that if you write it out of the language it will cease to be a problem, but it doesn't work that way.

Nonetheless if you think it is even worth talking about a system without economic calculation...How is this hard to understand? Scarcity is defined as want of supply. Abundance is defined as the opposite. These are the words as they are used in the English language. This means they ARE RELATIVE to the situation at hand.

Economics REDEFINES the words scarcity and abundance as ABSOLUTES, by using the TELEOLOGICAL explanation that because HUMAN WANTS are infinite, and resources are limited, that SCARCITY will always exist! As if what people WANTED was more important than what they could PHYSICALLY CONSUME.

Let's say each person can only physically consume 5 pieces of bread for the time period we're talking about. Technocracy says that if you have 5 people and 25 pieces of bread, you have abundance. Economics says that this is not abundance because one person could still desire to have 10,000 pieces of bread. THIS IS ABSURD!

You haven't demonstrated that you even know what energy accounting is or how it works, or how it would work in relation to Technocracy, so how can you possibly refute it?

[Technocrat]

Except far more goes into a tire than just energy and time, alas we don't have Star Trek like replicators yet. So if energy accounting amounts to telling us that we have to account for energy in production, it becomes trivial; if it is telling us that we need only use energy in planning production, then it is absurd.

We don't need Star Trek replicators to achieve an abundance, all we need to do is produce goods and services using the most efficient means possible and we will have an abundance - this has been possible since the 1930s. It is not trivial to account for energy, because doing so is what allows us to determine WHAT means are the most efficient. Energy accounting is also a direct measurement of activity. If I dedicate 10% more energy to the production of a given good then 10% more will be produced assuming production methods remain the same. With energy accounting everything is priced according to the energy used to produce it. Of course other things would have to be considered - energy accounting is a resource-based economy. Consumption of other resources would have to be managed so that there was more than enough to perform all the functions needed by society. This is done with planning.


Again, you're just introducing an arbitrary currency based on a factor of production involved in all production processes; labour is the same. You can take the total labour input of an economy, create a currency where 1 unit corresponds to 1 hour of labour time, and distribute it among the population equally. Everything else you said of energy credits and how they would function could equally apply to labour credits (i.e., that they are non-transferable, that they expire, etc.). I fail to see how energy is in any way special.Energy is special because IT APPLIES TO EVERYTHING, not just production! It's thermodynamics. If you used a labor credit system like you propose, you would NEED TO DO ENERGY ACCOUNTING ANYWAY. In a planned economy using labor credits, you would need to do energy accounting anyway since it is a resource that has to be tracked and allocated. Since you're already doing energy accounting, why introduce the superfluous labor credit system? Energy accounting does everything the labor credit system does, and energy accounting is already necessary - making labor credits superfluous.


Which just demonstrates your ignorance of even basic economics. There is a distinction between between use value, exchange value, and cost-of-production. Given abundance of a certain good we wouldn't need to regulate or constrain its consumption by introducing some sort of currency, so exchange value wouldn't exist for such abundant good (even the term is a misnomer, insofar as under a planned economy there are no market transactions, and as such strictly speaking no exchange value). But cost-of-production and use value remain in place under abundance.From Wikipedia:

"In economics, the cost-of-production theory of value is the theory that the price of an object or condition is determined by the sum of the cost of the resources that went into making it."

Hmmm... the SUM of the COST of the RESOURCES that went into making. So we're back to costs being dependent upon scarcity. If resources are used correctly, they can become abundant, theoretically. This means that the resources themselves have no cost, which means that there is no cost-of production value where there is abundance of resources.

Use value would still exist but USUALLY when economists use the word value they are talking about exchange value. Use value is just defined as what a person gets out of consuming something. Technocracy takes this into account by asking of anything which is owned or consumed, what is the need that is being fulfilled? And, is there a more efficient way of fulfilling the same need?


I don't disagree, in fact I advocate calculation in kind which takes into consideration all factors of production. But this is just a concession that energy accounting isn't sufficient for the planning of production (a claim which you yourself don't make, but it is common enough among proponents of technocracy to be worth commenting upon). Yeah, of course you would need a separate but linked inventory system for other resources. Energy Accounting is a resource-based economic system.


And apart from the assertion that energy accounting could preform this function, what else do we have to go off of? Well, I've already explained how energy accounting is a direct measurement of activity... assuming production methods remain the same, if I dedicate 10% less energy to the production of good x, then 10% less of good x is produced. If I dedicate 10% more energy to its production, 10% more is produced. It's a direct measurement of ACTIVITY. As such, it can be used to directly CONTROL that activity.


If this is what you mean by "techocracy" then it is no different than socialist planning. But clearly you mean something more by it than just a planned economy.Technocracy is a form of resource-based, planned economy using energy accounting. Technocracy, Inc. also had some very specific proposals about what could be done on the North American continent to achieve the abundance of resources necessary for a Technate.


But calculation in kind (as opposed to energy accounting) can deal with that issue directly, as we can given planners the directive to minimize whatever input of production we want, in this case labour input.Like I said, Energy Accounting is not the sole means of planning production. Other resources would be considered and that includes human effort as well.


I would rather have real economic democracy via a combination of direct democracic and demarchic decision making, with only an administrative role accorded to anyone selected to serve on planning and coordination committees. But this is a separate issue from the economic criticisms of technocracy.Technocracy simply means rule by skill - its administrative system is one that ensures that every position is filled by the person most qualified, and that every position that is necessary is filled. In Technocracy positions are filled using the proven method of selection from below and appointment from above and anyone can be removed by a 2/3rd vote by their peers. Democracy is what happens when people don't know the answer to a question, but need to make a decision anyway. The factors involved in the physical operation of society are MEASURABLE. This means we can use objective means to determine the ideal way of operating it. Since we can use objective means, we don't need to vote on it! We only need to vote on those things which are inherently subjective. Voting on major issues and the popular election of people into vital functional positions would come to an end. There would be a hierarchy, with those at the top making the decisions and with positions filled using the described system (it's described in more detail in an earlier post).

[Demogorgon]

This is feeloing more and more like an argument with a Misean. Not least owing to the assumption that because I don't agree with your crack pot views I must not understand them, nevertheless:
Now you're just trying to quibble or else you're just dense. The obvious point I was trying to make is that abundance is defined as having enough to satisfy everyone's needs.No it isn't. It is quite clearly not defined as that. In economics it is defined as the ability to satisfy everybody's wants. You might not like that definition, but that is how it is defined. A better definition would be producing enough that all people can consume as much as they are capable of. Either way it does not mean satisfying everybody's need. Britain during the second world war satisfied everyone's needs when it came to food for instance and that was far from a situation of abundance.

This is how the word actually works in the English language. The English language defines scarcity as an insufficiency of supply. Abundance is the opposite of this. Economics, on the other hand, redefines the word in a teleological way and says that an abundance is impossible because resources will always be limited and human wants are infinite. This is troubling behaviour indeed. The desire to control the way words are used to narrow the field of debate in favour of your position and is something I see all the time with Miseans and even more Randroids.

Anyway words have different meanings in different contexts and in the context of economic study scarcity and abundance have the definitions used by economists. If you think the words are being misused, by all means argue that different words should be used in their place. I think many economists would be sympathetic to that. What you cannot do however is use the same words but with different meanings and claim you have solved the economic problem as defined using the old terms.


It's like you are really trying hard to not understand. Fine, let me rephrase the whole thing for you: production would be set at a rate equal to and no higher than people's ABILITY to consumeYes, we would all like to live in such a world. After all economics is at its most basic level is simply the study of how we can get as close as possible to that goal. However saying that because it is the goal of your particular theory that therefore your theory is the only one that sets out to achieve this is a bit of a stretch, especially when...

by using energy accounting.And therein is your problem. You propose to use an absolutely meaningless means of accounting to work out your calculations.

At any rate though, apart from in the dreams of technocrats I have never seen any evidence that our capacity to produce is anything close to our capacity to consume. Simply saying you will set production levels to achieve it is a bit like saying you will solve the world's water problems by ensuring every person has access to sufficient clean water and leaving it at that.


Also, I never said that surpluses and shortages were the primary cause of scarcity, I said that they contribute to scarcity. Get this: THE MARKET SYSTEM DEPENDS ON SCARCITY! Economic calculation DEPENDS upon scarcity: market prices exist to reflect opportunity costs. In a state of abundance, there are no opportunity costs. If something is abundant, it CANNOT be sold. If confronted with possible abundance, the market system will do everything it can to enforce ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY because that is the only way it can survive! Yeah here we really start with the cultist stuff. Both the aforementioned attempt to change the meanings of words and a conspiracy theory to explain why your ideas are being prevented from being realised.

See yes, economic calculations are all about scarcity, but they are about scarcity as defined in economic terms. You seem to think they are about scarcity, the word, however you want to define it. If we accept your definition of scarcity then economic calculations aren;t about scarcity at all, they are about something else that used to be called scarcity but still very much exists.


The amount of resources that the MARKET SYSTEM uses to distribute goods and services to people is around THREE TIMES higher than what would be needed in a Technate! If you like I can provide figures for this, but for the sake of brevity I'll omit them here. Yes and it is NINE TIMES more than under my proposed system which means technocracy uses THREE TIMES as much resources than my proposed system. (I just made those claims up too).

Look we can all make fantastic claims about how much better things would be if our own pet system were functioning but we can't actually know until it is functioning in practice and in the meantime need some pretty robust and convincing evidence to support our claims. That means we must make our case using generally accepted methodology, something I have never seen a technocrat attempt.

As it happens though, I think the whole question of whether technocracy would be more resource efficient is a bit of a moot point anyway as an attempt to implement it would lead to precious little production in the first place. Due to both throwing any kind of real calculation out the window and going for the hopelessly utopian claim that we can simultaneously vastly increase our production while vstly decreasing our work hours.


It is essentially an educated guess because the interest rates are set based upon what they PREDICT is going to happen. Sure they have mathematical formulas for this but all the variables are themselves predictions! So you are WRONG. Well not really because the starting point when setting base interest rates (which is how the money supply is regulated) is current inflation figures. If inflation is seen as too high interest rates are raised and if it is too low interest rates are cut. It is pretty effective too. The problem is that the money supply should not be based on inflation at all.

And at any rate though, basing policy on economic forecasts isn't exactly guesswork either, no more so than preparing for storms based on weather forecasts anyway. And of course are you seriously arguing that your system does not require predictions as to what will happen?


You're right! It has nothing to do with economics. I have said this REPEATEDLY:

Money's value is based upon SCARCITY. It doesn't WORK WITHOUT IT!

Economic calculation doesn't exist at all in a Technate - AND IT ISN'T NECESSARY!

Economic calculation - market prices - exist to reflect opportunity costs. In a state of abundance, there is no opportunity cost. What you are describing is utopia. The serious technocrats here have attempted to explain how their theory would work in the real world. You are simply describing an earthly paradise and wondering why people don't think that a description of it is sufficient proof that it is workable. Everybody wants the situation you describe, but most don't think it will simply land in our lap.


Let's say each person can only physically consume 5 pieces of bread for the time period we're talking about. Technocracy says that if you have 5 people and 25 pieces of bread, you have abundance. Economics says that this is not abundance because one person could still desire to have 10,000 pieces of bread. THIS IS ABSURD!Actually it doesn't. It says that people will be wanting other things besides bread. If you can only consume five pieces in a given amount of time you won't want more. But you will want other things. Suppose we are happily producing enough bread that people can have as much as they can eat and our resources are thus allocated. What happens when somebody wants some jam to go with their bread? Well we allocate resources to the jam. Of course it could be that we need to move some resources away from bread to achieve that, so already we have scarcity.

But let's say we have enough resources for bread and jam. Some people might not like jam and want cheese instead, so we need some resources for that. Others might want their bread toasted, so we have to allocate resources to that (plus producing the electricity required). Then of course people might want to watch television while eating so we need resources to produce that, others want to read the newspaper and so on...

It rapidly builds up. In no case is anyone claiming that anyone will want an infinite amount of these things, merely that there will be more and more things required and sooner or later there won't be enough resources for all of it. Just saying "oh we will be able to produce it" simply does not cut it, does it?

[Demogorgon]

Technocracy simply means rule by skill - its administrative system is one that ensures that every position is filled by the person most qualified, and that every position that is necessary is filled. In Technocracy positions are filled using the proven method of selection from below and appointment from above and anyone can be removed by a 2/3rd vote by their peers. Democracy is what happens when people don't know the answer to a question, but need to make a decision anyway. The factors involved in the physical operation of society are MEASURABLE. This means we can use objective means to determine the ideal way of operating it. Since we can use objective means, we don't need to vote on it! We only need to vote on those things which are inherently subjective. Voting on major issues and the popular election of people into vital functional positions would come to an end. There would be a hierarchy, with those at the top making the decisions and with positions filled using the described system (it's described in more detail in an earlier post).
While I certainly don't imagine that this represents the views of all technocrats here (indeed it may represent the views of nobody but the poster), comments like this are a large part of the reason the reference to fascism was made in the first place.

[Dimentio]

This makes no sense at all. First of all you are engaging in the usual technocrat game of trying to change the meaning of the word "scarcity". You aren't going to advance your cause by trying to speak at odds with everyone else.

You further say: "a Technate only the most efficient methods would be used to perform any given task, achieving an abundance of resources.". Until you define what the most efficient means are and why they are so, this is an empty statement. Nobody holds to an ideology that states we should go for inefficient ways of doing this, they just disagree as to what efficiency means and how to go about achieving it. Proclaiming your ideology to be the one that will achieve this is pretty unimpressive without rather more substance.

Now to your first point that energy accounting is really about matching production to consumption. This is another meaningless statement because by definition production and consumption are matched. Things are made and then they are consumed. Perhaps you mean that it is a means as to determine who gets what but we have ample means of doing that already or indeed it is even possible that you mean that it is a means for an individual to direct production to match what they wish to consume, "placing an order as it were". The delay between requesting something and getting it make that rather undesirable!

Really though, the point I come back to is that technocracy is offering a means of allocating resources. Plainly as can be seen from various discussions here, some of its adherents do not realise that the important thing in economics is working out how to allocate resources to best meet people's demands, but certainly those who came up with it realised it because there is a method there. I simply point out that it is wholly inadequate. Energy cannot be used for economic calculation therefore energy accounting is useless (whether we change the definition of scarcity or not!).

Technocrats do not use the same terminology as economists. That does not in itself render technocracy valueless as a discipline. The main difference is that economists are studying scarcity and abundance from subjective viewpoints, while we are studying these phenomenas from objective viewpoints.

Production capacity can be used for economic calculation in so far that we look at all resources needed to perform certain tasks. 97% of the necessary work to sustain our civilisation today is performed by machine power. 3% is the human labour input. Energy accounting is simply a simplified form of a resource-based economy.

With energy accounting, we are not talking electricity only. We are talking the energy it takes to produce everything. In order to produce anything, you need energy input, whether in the form of food, fuels, electricity or whatever. We are simply creating a simplified and workable model to calculate the total production capacity of any given system.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=103

Different disciplines have different terminologies for the same words. Technocracy doesn't even claim to have any relationship with economics, and isn't even using the terms scarcity and abundance under the same terms. Economics (per default) assume that whatever social system we might have, it should be built on a worldview remniscent of economics. It (economics as a discipline) is also ideologically constructed to defend inequality through the idea that human wants are infinite (despite that human beings have a finite capacity to actually use their property).

Enough food is produced each year to feed 12 billion people with enough nutrients remniscent of the levels in a developed western country. Yet, most of that food is wasted or thrown away. The reason why scarcity is the law under the rule of a market economy is that private property - enforced by police and law - is making it possible for individuals and organisations to hoard production capacity and resources and prevent others from accessing them.

[Demogorgon]

Technocrats do not use the same terminology as economists. That does not in itself render technocracy valueless as a discipline. The main difference is that economists are studying scarcity and abundance from subjective viewpoints, while we are studying these phenomenas from objective viewpoints. Using the words in a different way is not a problem per se though it is only going to lead to confusion. The problem comes with the particular member here wanting to substitute his definitions into economic problems.

In other words he thinks that he has solved the problem of scarcity as defined in economics simply by using a different definition of the word.


Production capacity can be used for economic calculation in so far that we look at all resources needed to perform certain tasks. 97% of the necessary work to sustain our civilisation today is performed by machine power. 3% is the human labour input. Energy accounting is simply a simplified form of a resource-based economy.That is quite a claim. To have reached that figure I can only conclude that you are attributing the marginal contribution of all work done by people with machinery to the machinery itself.


With energy accounting, we are not talking electricity only. We are talking the energy it takes to produce everything. In order to produce anything, you need energy input, whether in the form of food, fuels, electricity or whatever. We are simply creating a simplified and workable model to calculate the total production capacity of any given system.I know what you mean by energy, but I argue that it has no relationship to the overall cost of production and is therefore a useless measurement.


Enough food is produced each year to feed 12 billion people with enough nutrients remniscent of the levels in a developed western country. Yet, most of that food is wasted or thrown away. The reason why scarcity is the law under the rule of a market economy is that private property - enforced by police and law - is making it possible for individuals and organisations to hoard production capacity and resources and prevent others from accessing them.
Well hang on here, plainly there is a problem with private property leading to a poor distribution of goods, but that isn't an argument for technocracy unless it can show first of all that it can do better and secondly other systems can't. Something I doubt on both counts.

Please note though, I realise you are not like Technocrat (the member) and do have more to offer than utopian visions of economics and semi-fascist ideas of political structure, so don't think the comments I made to him about behaving like a cultist apply to you.

[Dimentio]

There are some differences between North American and European technocrats.

Yes, we are substituting all labour done by human beings with machines to the combined energy of human energy and machine energy. ^^

Technocracy (Energy Accounting) could lead to a wiser use of resources as we immediately could see how much we have available and thus could be able to project and plan our manners of producing these items more efficiently and thus balance the balance of nature with human needs.

As for the claims of Technocracy Incorporated, I must admit that it feels like a lot of what they are saying cannot be substantiated. I put the blame on Howard Scott. But I do not think a conflict with Tech. Inc is necessary.

We in NET tend to ignore them mostly and focus on what we are doing.

[Technocrat]

As for the claims of Technocracy Incorporated, I must admit that it feels like a lot of what they are saying cannot be substantiated. I put the blame on Howard Scott. But I do not think a conflict with Tech. Inc is necessary.

What specifically do you feel is unsubstantiated? They had an Energy Survey which was the basis of all their claims.

[Technocrat]

While I certainly don't imagine that this represents the views of all technocrats here (indeed it may represent the views of nobody but the poster), comments like this are a large part of the reason the reference to fascism was made in the first place.

My "views" are those of Technocracy, Inc. The originators of the Technocracy movement.

You obviously have no idea what fascism is and appear to be a very confused individual. That's okay, there is a cure for that - it's called education.

Fascism is rule by opinion - the opinions of a few people.

Technocracy was called fascist prior to WWII when our enemies - Hitler and Mussolini - were fascist. Then at the end of WWII when communism became the enemy, Technocracy was branded as communism! In fact it was lumped together as "Technocracy, communism, atheism, and science" - the great evils! This was done by the Hearst papers and other cheerleaders for capitalism.

TECHNOCRACY IS THE LEAST AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT EVER DEVISED!

As I explained above, the factors involved in the PHYSICAL operation of a social mechanism are MEASURABLE. What this means is that we can use objective means (not opinions) to determine the ideal solution to a given problem. WHAT THIS MEANS is that in a Technate, decisions made on the basis of AUTHORITY and OPINION would be reduced to a MINIMUM. Authoritarians DESPISE technocracy for this reason and have opposed it since the beginning. In FACT, AUTHORITARIANS PREFER COMMUNISM because under communism they can still continue to do business (although perhaps not as well as under capitalism).

Let's examine some common forms of government shall we?

Aristocracy - rule by the OPINIONS of the upper class
Monarchy - rule by the OPINIONS of the king
Plutocracy - rule by the OPINIONS of the wealthy
Theocracy - rule by the OPINIONS of the church
Oligarchy - rule by the OPINIONS of a few
Democracy - rule by the OPINIONS of everyone

Now, are you going to continue with your baseless assertions or are you going to undertake the necessary education that is required for you to actually understand what it is you're talking about? What I keep hearing from you repeatedly is: "I don't understand what Technocracy is or how it works but it could never work".

[Technocrat]

Using the words in a different way is not a problem per se though it is only going to lead to confusion. The problem comes with the particular member here wanting to substitute his definitions into economic problems.

I'm using the word AS IT USED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! How many times do I have to say this: ECONOMISTS ARE THE ONES WHO REDEFINE WORDS IN A TELEOLOGICAL WAY SO THAT THEY NO LONGER MAKE SENSE.

You need to unlearn what you have learned from economics, you literally have to physically re-wire your brain, because it is clearly damaged from too much exposure to economics.


In other words he thinks that he has solved the problem of scarcity as defined in economics simply by using a different definition of the word.
That is quite a claim.OKAY I'LL SAY IT AGAIN:

If a person is only physically capable of consuming 5 pieces of bread for a given time period, and there are 5 people, Technocracy says you have abundance if you have 25 pieces of bread. THIS IS HOW THE WORD IS USED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! Scarcity is defined as lack of supply, abundance, the opposite. The words scarcity and abundance, as DEFINED BY THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, ARE RELATIVE.

ECONOMICS redefines the words scarcity and abundance as ABSOLUTES using TELEOLOGICAL thinking. If a person can only physically consume 5 pieces of bread in a given time frame, and there are 5 people and 25 pieces of bread, the economist asserts that THIS IS NOT ABUNDANCE because one person could desire to have 10,000 pieces of bread! THIS IS CLEARLY ABSURD.


I know what you mean by energy, but I argue that it has no relationship to the overall cost of production and is therefore a useless measurement.Okay, I'm just going to have to conclude that you are being deliberately dense. What else can I do after REPEATING THE SAME THING MULTIPLE TIMES?

THERE ARE NO COSTS IN A SITUATION OF ABUNDANCE.


Well hang on here, plainly there is a problem with private property leading to a poor distribution of goods, but that isn't an argument for technocracy unless it can show first of all that it can do better and secondly other systems can't. Something I doubt on both counts.Actually yes it can do better AND EXPLAINS HOW IN DETAIL. I've already offered to point you to the study course where all of your questions will be answered. Sure I could sit here and paraphrase THE ENTIRE THING for you but that would be a waste of my time and you can read the same thing, written in better words than I could come up with, from the Study Course.


Please note though, I realise you are not like Technocrat (the member) and do have more to offer than utopian visions of economics and semi-fascist ideas of political structure, so don't think the comments I made to him about behaving like a cultist apply to you.You haven't adequately addressed anything, you've only made baseless assertions based on your severely lacking knowledge of Technocracy, and If you do not desist I will ask a moderator to step in. It is now bordering on harassment with the name-calling.

[Technocrat]

This is feeloing more and more like an argument with a Misean. Not least owing to the assumption that because I don't agree with your crack pot views I must not understand them, nevertheless:No it isn't. It is quite clearly not defined as that. In economics it is defined as the ability to satisfy everybody's wants. You might not like that definition, but that is how it is defined. A better definition would be producing enough that all people can consume as much as they are capable of. Either way it does not mean satisfying everybody's need. Britain during the second world war satisfied everyone's needs when it came to food for instance and that was far from a situation of abundance.

You are confused and reactionary. ECONOMISTS redefine words. I'm using the word as it is defined by the English language. What is this, the fifth time I've said this?


Yes, we would all like to live in such a world. After all economics is at its most basic level is simply the study of how we can get as close as possible to that goal. However saying that because it is the goal of your particular theory that therefore your theory is the only one that sets out to achieve this is a bit of a stretch, especially when...
And therein is your problem. You propose to use an absolutely meaningless means of accounting to work out your calculations.

At any rate though, apart from in the dreams of technocrats I have never seen any evidence that our capacity to produce is anything close to our capacity to consume. Simply saying you will set production levels to achieve it is a bit like saying you will solve the world's water problems by ensuring every person has access to sufficient clean water and leaving it at that. I AM NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND PARAPHRASE THE 300+ PAGE STUDY COURSE FOR YOU AS IT IS A WASTE OF MY TIME AND EFFORT. ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED THERE. The energy survey, conducted in the 1920s, concluded that we had already reached the point where we could produce more than could be physically consumed.


Yeah here we really start with the cultist stuff. Both the aforementioned attempt to change the meanings of words and a conspiracy theory to explain why your ideas are being prevented from being realised.I'll just ignore this since I've addressed it at least five times already.


See yes, economic calculations are all about scarcity, but they are about scarcity as defined in economic terms. You seem to think they are about scarcity, the word, however you want to define it. If we accept your definition of scarcity then economic calculations aren;t about scarcity at all, they are about something else that used to be called scarcity but still very much exists. IT'S TALKING ABOUT OPPORTUNITY COSTS, WHICH DO NOT EXIST IN A SITUATION OF ABUNDANCE!

scar⋅ci⋅ty - 1. insufficiency or shortness of supply; dearth. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scarcity)

So, TAKEN ON ITS OWN, this means that if I have 4 pieces of bread and am only physically capable of consuming 5 pieces of bread, then I have scarcity. Abundance is the absence of scarcity, so if I have 5 pieces of bread then I have an abundance! THAT'S HOW THE WORD WORKS IN ENGLISH!

ECONOMICS REDEFINES the words scarcity and abundance in an irrational way using teleological thinking. The ultimate ends being served, according to economics, are HUMAN WANTS rather than what people actually PHYSICALLY CONSUME. Economics says that because human wants are infinite, and resources are limited, that scarcity will always exist and that abundance will never exist. This is REDEFINING the words so that they are ABSOLUTES rather than RELATIVE. This is only POSSIBLE if you use TELEOLOGICAL thinking. This is the same as saying that if I am only capable of physically consuming 5 pieces of bread and I have 5 pieces, that I still have a scarcity because maybe I want 10,000! RIDICULOUS!


Yes and it is NINE TIMES more than under my proposed system which means technocracy uses THREE TIMES as much resources than my proposed system. (I just made those claims up too). I said I could provide you with figures, yet you just come back with an insult rather than asking for them. Typical. Or maybe you are just afraid of asking for the figures because you will be proven wrong?


Look we can all make fantastic claims about how much better things would be if our own pet system were functioning but we can't actually know until it is functioning in practice and in the meantime need some pretty robust and convincing evidence to support our claims. That means we must make our case using generally accepted methodology, something I have never seen a technocrat attempt. Read the Study Course.


As it happens though, I think the whole question of whether technocracy would be more resource efficient is a bit of a moot point anyway as an attempt to implement it would lead to precious little production in the first place. Due to both throwing any kind of real calculation out the window and going for the hopelessly utopian claim that we can simultaneously vastly increase our production while vstly decreasing our work hours.
Well not really because the starting point when setting base interest rates (which is how the money supply is regulated) is current inflation figures. If inflation is seen as too high interest rates are raised and if it is too low interest rates are cut. It is pretty effective too. The problem is that the money supply should not be based on inflation at all. You are really hung up on this calculation thing aren't you? Not going to say anything here because I've already said the same thing at least five times. Economists base their predictions on past performance, that's obvious. Here you contradict yourself by saying that this works pretty well but that we shouldn't do this at all. Huh?


And at any rate though, basing policy on economic forecasts isn't exactly guesswork either, no more so than preparing for storms based on weather forecasts anyway. And of course are you seriously arguing that your system does not require predictions as to what will happen?
What you are describing is utopia. The serious technocrats here have attempted to explain how their theory would work in the real world. You are simply describing an earthly paradise and wondering why people don't think that a description of it is sufficient proof that it is workable. Everybody wants the situation you describe, but most don't think it will simply land in our lap. No, I have actual, mathematically worked out figures if you like. When has anyone ever claimed that it would land in our lap? THE PROBLEM is that since this is a complicated subject, the more I try to summarize, THE LESS ACCURATE MY DESCRIPTIONS BECOME. Have you noticed how long this series of posts is already? Yet the amount of information I've omitted for the sake of brevity easily exceeds in length what I have written here. This is why I insist that you read the Study Course, I won't waste my time on this anymore. The Technical Alliance weren't a bunch of head in the sky dreamers, they were scientists and engineers who used the SCIENTIFIC method to determine the optimum way to operate this continent for the distribution of an abundance with the maximum conservation of resources! You may want to look up who M King Hubbert was for an idea of the kind of people that joined the Technical Alliance.


Actually it doesn't. It says that people will be wanting other things besides bread. If you can only consume five pieces in a given amount of time you won't want more. But you will want other things. Suppose we are happily producing enough bread that people can have as much as they can eat and our resources are thus allocated. What happens when somebody wants some jam to go with their bread? Well we allocate resources to the jam. Of course it could be that we need to move some resources away from bread to achieve that, so already we have scarcity.

But let's say we have enough resources for bread and jam. Some people might not like jam and want cheese instead, so we need some resources for that. Others might want their bread toasted, so we have to allocate resources to that (plus producing the electricity required). Then of course people might want to watch television while eating so we need resources to produce that, others want to read the newspaper and so on...

It rapidly builds up. In no case is anyone claiming that anyone will want an infinite amount of these things, merely that there will be more and more things required and sooner or later there won't be enough resources for all of it. Just saying "oh we will be able to produce it" simply does not cut it, does it? This is your problem - you seem to think we can't produce enough bread and enough jam at the same time to supply everyone with as much of what they can consume. As I've pointed out, this is a simple question - does the area in question have sufficient resources to meet these consumption levels for all members of the population? This is the question answered by the Energy Survey of Technocracy. I'M NOT EXPECTING YOU TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

Your scenario is a tautology:

If we start with scarcity of resources so that we cannot produce an abundance of both bread and jam, then we will have scarcity of either bread or jam. THIS IS OBVIOUS.

[Technocrat]

I'll just go ahead and post this since I know I'll wind up having to anyway:

HOW TECHNOCRACY WOULD REDUCE ENERGY USE BY 2/3rds:

Our current energy use, by percentage, looks like this (for the U.S.):

transport 32.8
industrial 29.3
residential 20.5
commercial 17.4

Technocracy's transportation system would use roughly 1/10th the energy our current transportation uses - high speed rail, canals, and reduced need to travel altogether through urbanates.

A passenger train at 75% capacity easily has a fuel efficiency of more than 500mpg PER CAPITA. If we assume that all automobiles are hybrid cars, then the train is still 10 times more efficient!

Sail barges on canals can move goods with 1/10th the amount of energy required by trucks.

Urbanates would be designed so that every needed service was within walking distance of home, eliminating most of the need to travel altogether.

If you are going to re-work the transportation system you also have to re-work the cities; you can't do one without the other. Transportation patterns determine urban patterns. So, how much more efficient would urbanates be than cities? That's difficult to say, but our current knowledge of urban density suggests that buildings could be made to use 1/4th the energy they now consume by building at optimal densities.

Commercial space in a Technate will be 20 times less than today since a Technate only needs enough commercial space to meet the needs of the population, not to meet the needs of businesses and corporations like today.

Commercial: 17.4 / 20 = 0.87. 0.87 / 4 = ~0.21

So the total energy used in the commercial sector would be reduced to 0.21% of our current total energy use.

Residential: 20.5 / 4 = ~5.12

The total energy used in the residential sector would be reduced to 5.12% of our current total energy use.

Transportation: 32.8 / 10 = 3.28

The energy used in transportation would be reduced to 3.28% of our current total energy use.

Now let's add the numbers...

3.28 + 5.12 + 0.21 = 8.61

Add Industry...

8.61 + 29.3 = 37.91

So with the above estimates, our total energy use is reduced to 37.91% of our current total, and that is completely disregarding the potential gains in efficiency that could be had in the industrial sector! Existing efficiency measures, if applied universally, could reduce the energy used in Industry by 20-30%. The reason these measures are not currently implemented is because of their high cost, but in a Technate that's not a problem because the only cost of implementing such measures would be the energy required to do so, all other resources simply being allocated where needed (and with need being greatly reduced through improved efficiency, elimination of waste, etc). If we assume a 25% gain in efficiency in the Industrial sector, then our total energy consumption drops to ~30.58%, less than a third of our current total consumption! This also doesn't take into account the potential energy savings by eliminating planned obsolescence, so it is likely that the real total would be even lower.

Logic (and energy accounting) dictates that if our energy use is reduced by 2/3rds, that our resource use will likewise be reduced by 2/3rds, assuming production methods remain the same. It is likely though that more efficient production methods and methods for providing other services would be used (see above), so that our total resource use would be reduced to LESS than 1/3rd of what it currently is.

Here's the link on potential efficiency in Industry: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow/

Fuel efficiency in transportation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

Per capita retail space: http://www.retailchatr.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/6a00d834515e6b69e200e54f18ff3e8833-800wi.jpg

Energy savings from density: http://i.treehugger.com/files/density-efficiency-02.jpg

[Ravachol]

I didn't read the full thread, so I apologize on forehand if I am restating things already said in this thread.

I've heard accusations of Technocracy being 'crypto-fascist' before and quite honestly, I think it's utter nonsense.

Technocracy's model is no more 'fascist' than Syndicalism is. Do recall fascism sprang from national-syndicalism and whilst vertical top-down syndicalism (especially when combined with exclusion-based nationalism) is completely opposed to the core principles of syndicalism, it did originate in the syndicalist movement. The core differences, and the main reasons why national-syndicalism isn't actually syndicalist, lie with the top-down authority model and the class collaboration for the sake of 'national unity'. Technocracy doesn't argue in favor of either, quite the contrary.

In fact, i think Technocracy is rather promising.

Also, don't throw around the term fascism lightly, fascism is a very diffuse political movement grouped around a set of core principles that a lot of movements grouped under the umbrella of 'fascism' do not actually adhere to.

[Technocrat]

Technocracy's model is no more 'fascist' than Syndicalism is. Do recall fascism sprang from national-syndicalism and whilst vertical top-down syndicalism (especially when combined with exclusion-based nationalism) is completely opposed to the core principles of syndicalism, it did originate in the syndicalist movement. The core differences, and the main reasons why national-syndicalism isn't actually syndicalist, lie with the top-down authority model and the class collaboration for the sake of 'national unity'. Technocracy doesn't argue in favor of either, quite the contrary.

You are correct in your assessment. Technocracy asserts that the factors involved in the physical operation of society are measurable. The Technate only concerns itself with the physical operations of the continent - all else is subjective and would be sorted out by the people affected. Since the PHYSICAL operation of society is objective in nature, it is possible to use objective means (the scientific method) to determine an ideal solution for any given problem involved in the physical operation of society. Since this is so, decisions made on the basis of Authority and Opinion would be reduced to a minimum in a Technate. There is no room for opinions when dealing with something that is objective (blue is blue), and since there are no opinions there can be no authority to defend them. So while there would definitely be a hierarchy, it would be completely un-authoritarian and purely FUNCTIONAL in nature. See my post where I explain how positions would be filled in a Technate if this doesn't make sense.

[RED DAVE]

You are correct in your assessment. Technocracy asserts that the factors involved in the physical operation of society are measurable.How do you measure, for example, various needs, such as healthcare. Inevitably, questions of value come into play.


The Technate only concerns itself with the physical operations of the continent - all else is subjective.Decisions concerning physical operations are as subjective as any other decisions.


Since the PHYSICAL operation of society is objective in nature, it is possible to use objective means (the scientific method) to determine an ideal solution for any given problem involved in the physical operation of society.This has got ot be some of the weirdest utopian shit I have read in years. What are your criteria for an ideal solution. Are there ideal solutions to problems, say, in architecture?


Since this is so, decisions made on the basis of Authority and Opinion would be reduced to a minimum in a Technate. There is no room for opinions when dealing with something that is objective (blue is blue)This is beginning to sound very dictatorial.


and since there are no opinions there can be no authority to defend them.How do you deal with differences of opinion based on taste, style, etc.?


So while there would definitely be a hierarchy, it would be completely un-authoritarian and purely FUNCTIONAL in nature. See my post where I explain how positions would be filled in a Technate if this doesn't make sense.Oh, this makes perfect sense, just like the hierarchy of any corporation makes sense. Decisions are made based on the values of management, extracting maximum surplus value, buying cheap and selling dear, and the rest of us are supposed to carry them out.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

How do you measure, for example, various needs, such as healthcare. Inevitably, questions of value come into play.

Only if there is a scarcity! If everyone can be provided with as much of whatever they can consume, scarcity disappears, and with it all of economic calculation (except for perhaps use-value, but that is a different beast entirely)


Decisions concerning physical operations are as subjective as any other decisions. Not so. PHYSICAL OPERATIONS are measurable. Anything that can be MEASURED is OBJECTIVE in nature. So you are clearly wrong.


This has got ot be some of the weirdest utopian shit I have read in years. What are your criteria for an ideal solution. Are there ideal solutions to problems, say, in architecture? Yes read through my posts more thoroughly particularly the above post on how Technocracy could reduce our energy use by 2/3rds, also do a search on urbanates for a solution to the housing problem. Technocracy has always been active in proposing solutions to our social problems.


This is beginning to sound very dictatorial.

How do you deal with differences of opinion based on taste, style, etc.? In matters regarding production, THIS IS STILL OBJECTIVE. If I REGULARLY sell 100 blue dresses and 50 red dresses, then I know exactly how much to make of each! For subjective matters not pertaining to production, people would SORT IT OUT THEMSELVES. Or would you suggest some kind of authoritarian system?


Oh, this makes perfect sense, just like the hierarchy of any corporation makes sense. Decisions are made based on the values of management, extracting maximum surplus value, buying cheap and selling dear, and the rest of us are supposed to carry them out.

RED DAVEA corporation is an entity created with one purpose in mind: to make a profit for its shareholders. A corporation is inherently parasitic because of this. If you define corruption as looking out for one's own interests at the expense of others - that is exactly what a corporation's legal responsibility is! A corporation's legal responsibility is to be corrupt! In a Technate, all of the functions currently carried out by corporations would instead be under the jurisdiction of a government agency, which would be made up of members who were placed into positions on the basis of demonstrated skill relevant to the position, and would be recallable by a 2/3rd vote if they failed to fulfill their mandate. This mandate would be to provide goods and services at the lowest possible cost in terms of resources, energy, and human effort.

Have you ever wondered why the power stays on more than 99% of the time, or why when you turn the faucet on the water comes out 99% of the time, or why when you pick up the phone it works 99% of the time, etc, etc? Do you think that no people at all are involved in the running of these tasks? The reason is simple: BECAUSE ALL OF THESE FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS USE THE EXACT SAME PROCESS OF SELECTION FROM BELOW, AND APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE. IT IS PROVEN. If one of the people essential to these functions were to fail to perform their duties adequately, IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE NOTICED and that person would be replaced! You are forgetting that a corporation has SHAREHOLDERS, and it is the LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY of the corporation to make a profit for those shareholders. Money, and likewise profit, would be eliminated in a Technate, thereby eliminating this kind of Special-Interest corruption. If everyone is already getting as much as they can consume, how can they want more except as the result of some pathology? Such a person would be recognized by all around him and he would never find himself in a position of power, since you can only get to a position of power by rising through the ranks through hard work and demonstrated ability, and because anyone can be voted out by a 2/3rds vote.

[Dr Mindbender]

How do you measure, for example, various needs, such as healthcare. Inevitably, questions of value come into play.
Technocracy does it differently to capitalism because needs like healthcare are not portioned out on your spending power.

Secondly as technocrat has already said, a technate does not suffer from the effects of scarcity so it is a redundant concern.


Decisions concerning physical operations are as subjective as any other decisions.
What do you mean by 'physical operations'? If by that you mean industrial activity, then you are wrong because abundancy is ensured through the rule of science and maximisation of efficiency, rather than profit, or in the case of traditional communism, available non-extraneous means of labour (ie.humans).


This has got ot be some of the weirdest utopian shit I have read in years. What are your criteria for an ideal solution. Are there ideal solutions to problems, say, in architecture?
I think architecture in a technate would be grander and more aesthetically pleasing. Homes, factories and offices could be much wider and pleasant to be in. Transport systems could use more diverse means of engineering so as not to protrude the landscape. The problem with current architecture is that the streets are designed primarilly for the movement of traffic; Cars being the most cost effective means depended on by capitalism due to our heavy dependance on non renewable fuels. This ignores the fact they are ugly and our children cannot play safely on them. I would envisage a technate using modes such as underground electric bullet trains, fast, effective and not dependent on antiquated fuel sources or design methods.


This is beginning to sound very dictatorial.
I have no problem with a dictatorship of reason.



How do you deal with differences of opinion based on taste, style, etc.?
These are arbitrary in relation to the general planning of an abundancy society and not applicable to the debate.



Oh, this makes perfect sense, just like the hierarchy of any corporation makes sense. Decisions are made based on the values of management, extracting maximum surplus value, buying cheap and selling dear, and the rest of us are supposed to carry them out.

No, desicions are as i said made by the rule of science.

Not by a given individual or group of individuals with self serving agendas.

[Technocrat]

I think architecture in a technate would be grander and more aesthetically pleasing. Homes, factories and offices could be much wider and pleasant to be in. Transport systems could use more diverse means of engineering so as not to protrude the landscape. The problem with current architecture is that the streets are designed primarilly for the movement of traffic; Cars being the most cost effective means depended on by capitalism due to our heavy dependance on non renewable fuels. This ignores the fact they are ugly and our children cannot play safely on them. I would envisage a technate using modes such as underground electric bullet trains, fast, effective and not dependent on antiquated fuel sources or design methods.

Here is an article I wrote on Urbanates, Technocracy's solution to the housing problem, which was originally proposed in the 1950s:

Housing Solution:

Technocracy, Inc. has long recognized that bungalows and suburbs are inherently wasteful of materials, energy, and land, and that this method of housing the population is in the exact opposite direction of what would be beneficial to us as individuals and as a society.

Techncracy, Inc. proposes the following solution to the problem of suburbia:

Eco-density megastructures, called urbanates, would be mass produced to house the population. These could largely be built out of materials recycled from our existing cities, which would gradually be abandoned as people re-settled into urbanates.

Urbanates would be designed for maximum comfort and efficiency and would be designed and built by the best and brightest minds available for the task

They would be large, perhaps up to 40 stories high and 400x1000 meters wide

The bottom 4 or 5 stories would be used for public services and facilities in a "service core". Resting on top of the service core and occupying its periphery would be the residential structure. The rooftop of the the service core would function as a large park which would be surrounded by the residential structure. Elevators would connect the residential area to the service area and moving walkways would be available at all levels for horizontal travel. There would also be small, electric-powered vehicles for disabled citizens or those disinclined to walk. This is one possible arrangement; it is possible that more efficient and beneficial arrangements would be found.

They would house 20,000 - 50,000 people and all the facilities and services required by a self-contained community including shops, schools, hospitals, parks and recreation areas, cultural facilties, eating places, etc. The type of services and facilities available would be determined entirely by the needs of the population.

Several urbanates could be grouped together and interspersed with green space to form a "city of urbanates" wherever a large population was needed such as with a large manufacturing center or port. Or, a single urbanate could function as its own town such as with an agricultural unit.

There would be no roads or cars within an urbanate, as all transportation needs would be easily met by walking or cycling due to the urbanate's compact size. All cars would be parked in garages located in the service core. There would be far fewer cars altogether because they would be shared, and because the need for them would be greatly reduced with urbanates.

Deliveries within an urbanate could be handled by an automatic conveyor system: Order something on the www and have it shipped to you within minutes from the distribution center to your apartment via conveyor belt. Anything that can fit on the belt can be shipped directly to your home. Recycling and waste disposal would be made easier with this system as well.

Entertainment - each home could be equipped with a central computer which could download anything which has ever been recorded in any kind of media including music, movies, books, video games, art, etc. Imagine Hulu except you can download anything that has every been recorded or written.

Dwelling sizes within the urbanate would be generous; comparable to a high-end luxury apartment.

Food would be grown adjacent to the urbanate to eliminate the need to transport it long distances.

Surrounding the urbanate would be natural parklands extending for miles which could be enjoyed by anyone.

Urbanates would be located adacent to a continent-wide canal system, which would be used for shipping and could also be used for recreation. Technocracy, Inc. estimates that sail barges can move goods at less than 1/10th the energy cost of trucks.

It is estimated that people would voluntarily choose to move to urbanates because of all the advantages they would have over suburbs, and because the suburbs will continue to deteriorate as resources become more expensive. However, if someone is happy living where they are, they would not be forced to move. They may simply have their car confiscated by the government and needed supplies would be delivered to households on a weekly basis.

Eventually urbanates would come to replace most cities and towns, though some parts of the old cities may be preserved for their historic value or as a reminder of "the way things used to be."

It is estimated that the cost of building urbanates would be "paid back" within 20 years due to the resulting energy savings alone.

The suburbs offer the illusion of a country or frontier lifestyle. As such, they do not really satisfy the real need for nature. The backyard does not satisfy the need for nature. It may be a safe place for the children and pets to go unsupervised, but that's it. In an urbanate, all would be given comfortable shelter. The courtyard park would be the safe place that children could go to be outside. Because it is surrounded by apartments on all sides, there would be sufficient "eyes on the street" to prevent the only type of crime which would remain in a Technate - pathological crimes. In addition there would be security officers patrolling 24/7, just to make parents feel at ease. The Urbanate itself is surrounded by natural parklands which could be enjoyed by anyone. So we see that with Technocracy's plan, all the needs which suburbs ATTEMPT to fulfill WOULD BE fulfilled, and at a much lower cost. The suburbs offer the illusion of a country lifestyle. It is an extremely costly illusion, and as an illusion it doesn't really fulfill the need.

[Demogorgon]

Seeing how you utterly refuse to understand the problem of misusing words in their technical sense (and thus confirm yourself as a cultist in my eyes and not worth talking to), I see little point in going on. But this one thing here is worth addressing because it also applies to non cultist technocrats.
I'll just go ahead and post this since I know I'll wind up having to anyway:

HOW TECHNOCRACY WOULD REDUCE ENERGY USE BY 2/3rds:

The argument I have made is that energy consumption is irrelevant when considering resource use. Even is technocracy did reduce energy consumption by two thirds (which I doubt) then that doesn't mean anything at all. Something can use less energy while still using resources far less efficiently.

[Dimentio]

Seeing how you utterly refuse to understand the problem of misusing words in their technical sense (and thus confirm yourself as a cultist in my eyes and not worth talking to), I see little point in going on. But this one thing here is worth addressing because it also applies to non cultist technocrats.
The argument I have made is that energy consumption is irrelevant when considering resource use. Even is technocracy did reduce energy consumption by two thirds (which I doubt) then that doesn't mean anything at all. Something can use less energy while still using resources far less efficiently.

Of course. But what technocrats in general mean is to increase the quality of life while minimising resource usage.

[ckaihatsu]

Red Dave, I think you should put your suspicions and mistrust aside -- instead, think of the technocracy as being akin to a worldwide revolutionary communist centralized planning.

In my estimation the prerequisite for a technocracy would be the victory of the world's working class over the bourgeoisie. Only *then* would there be the material / political conditions to enable the technocracy -- a system of proletarian centralized planning on a rational basis. *Until* then the revolutionary struggle would be paramount -- seizing the state infrastructure, temporarily repurposing it (for socialized economic functions), and dissolving it in favor of direct proletarian control.

I developed my model, the 'communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors' at post #11, to serve as an illustration of how proletarian control could give rise to a technocratic-like administration. It describes only an *outline*, or framework, of material functioning, and does not presume to spell-out *policy* itself. Its functioning would enable a solid feedback loop from collective (and more-specialized) public concerns back through to its component of liberated labor, with appropriate compensation and accurate material accounting throughout.

At its best it may even be a *replacement* for technocracy altogether -- a *post-technocratic*, *automatic* societal function for workers' conscious self-rule.

[Technocrat]

Seeing how you utterly refuse to understand the problem of misusing words in their technical sense (and thus confirm yourself as a cultist in my eyes and not worth talking to), I see little point in going on. But this one thing here is worth addressing because it also applies to non cultist technocrats.

I have tried repeatedly to explain to you that YOU ARE THE ONE MISUSING WORDS BECAUSE YOU ARE USING AN ECONOMICS DEFINITION WHICH IS THOROUGHLY IRRATIONAL. Get this: ECONOMISTS MISUSE WORDS! I AM USING THE WORD AS IT IS DEFINED BY THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! I have tried explaining to you that in order for you to understand how these words ACTUALLY WORK that you will have to UNLEARN classical economics. You need to PHYSICALLY re-wire your brain. The only way to do this is with education, but you have shown an unwillingness to commit to that. I am not a cultist, nor a crackpot - I've backed up everything I've said with reason, which is more than can be said for you - you just respond with insults, baseless assertions, and generally confused responses which indicate that you either don't know what you're talking about or simply didn't read what I wrote.


The argument I have made is that energy consumption is irrelevant when considering resource use. Even is technocracy did reduce energy consumption by two thirds (which I doubt) then that doesn't mean anything at all. Something can use less energy while still using resources far less efficiently.Yes you've repeated that endlessly while failing to acknowledge what I've repeatedly said - energy use is a DIRECT measurement of ACTIVITY. As a DIRECT MEASUREMENT it can be used to CONTROL that activity. Simple logic really. I've provided plenty of evidence to support my claims. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately dense because you WANT to argue as some kind of ego-boosting exercise, I suppose.

Also you are quite dense if you think that we can reduce energy use while increasing resource use. You would have to deliberately set out to do that for that to be possible. Suppose I have a car and I consume x units of energy. If I consume half of that, the car will now last twice as long before it dies, meaning twice as long before I have to buy another car. THEREFORE THE TOTAL RESOURCES USED WERE REDUCED BY AN AMOUNT EXACTLY EQUAL IN PROPORTION TO THE REDUCTION IN ENERGY USE. This is simple energy accounting or physics.

Now, you're absolutely right in that if a transportation system was proposed that used less than 1/3rd the energy of our present system, that it would be done with entirely different methods. These methods would NECESSARILY use LESS resources: a train car seats 20 people and has one engine, a private car seats 5 people and has one engine (but 99% of the time the car has one person in it). One bigger engine serving 20 people is more efficient in terms of materials than a smaller engine serving 1 person. One train car seating 20 people uses less materials (per person) than one automobile seating one person. Then we could look at roads vs rails and the amount of maintenance required for each. Hint: it's a lot more for roads. Look at Urbanates: Since dwellings would be in apartments, this is fewer walls and thus fewer MATERIALS that would be used. The list goes on and on.

P.S. I am not a cultist nor a crackpot. I have been through the 300+ page study course multiple times and have been told by senior members of Techncoracy, Inc (the originators of Technocracy) that I have a firm grasp of the subject.

I find it INSULTING that you resort to name-calling like this, and politely request that you desist immediately. If you are incapable of having a civil conversation, perhaps it is better that you just stay away altogether.

[Technocrat]

Red Dave, I think you should put your suspicions and mistrust aside -- instead, think of the technocracy as being akin to a worldwide revolutionary communist centralized planning.

Technocracy can be applied to any part of the world, but the results will not always be the same, and in the words of Howard Scott "They won't all have pink cheeks". This is due to the simple fact that because of geography, natural resources are not distributed evenly across the globe. While a world-wide Technate is possible in theory, Technocracy, Inc.'s focus was on North America and what could be done there. The feeling was that if a working Technate could be established in North America that the rest of the world would have an example to follow. Note that Lenin had similar feelings re: communism.


In my estimation the prerequisite for a technocracy would be the victory of the world's working class over the bourgeoisie. Only *then* would there be the material / political conditions to enable the technocracy -- a system of proletarian centralized planning on a rational basis. *Until* then the revolutionary struggle would be paramount -- seizing the state infrastructure, temporarily repurposing it (for socialized economic functions), and dissolving it in favor of direct proletarian control.For it to happen in North America, the people who are right now responsible for the physical production of goods and services must be removed from all corporate and political control. All directives will come from the common interest, by merging all these different corporations into different government departments. For this to happen those people currently occupying vital positions only need to realize that this is the only way to survive on this continent while retaining some semblance of our way of life. The "common worker" could certainly support this and agitate for it, but it isn't ESSENTIAL to the Technate being realized. The ones occupying FUNCTIONAL positions are the ones who need to revolt - by FUNCTIONAL I mean their job directly contributes to the production of a good or service. Only around 5% of the work being done today falls into that category, the rest of us are employed in some form of paper-pushing or other manipulation which contributes nothing of value but is necessary under a Price System.


I developed my model, the 'communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors' at post #11, to serve as an illustration of how proletarian control could give rise to a technocratic-like administration. It describes only an *outline*, or framework, of material functioning, and does not presume to spell-out *policy* itself. Its functioning would enable a solid feedback loop from collective (and more-specialized) public concerns back through to its component of liberated labor, with appropriate compensation and accurate material accounting throughout."Appropriate compensation" seems like you are re-introducing scarcity values which would bring us right back to where we started - the Price System. If you allow some to acquire more than others what is to prevent them from buying a share in the social mechanism itself, putting us right back where we were by re-introducing special interest groups. Income MUST be equal to avoid corruption and ensure that abundance reaches every citizen.


At its best it may even be a *replacement* for technocracy altogether -- a *post-technocratic*, *automatic* societal function for workers' conscious self-rule.Technocracy is rule by skill itself - not "rule by the workers" which would still be a form of rule by OPINION - the opinions of the workers. Its goal is to provide every person with the maximum standard of living in terms of physical consuming power that is sustainable given ecological and resource limits. This is the common interest. Since we have defined the goal, we can use objective means - the scientific method - to determine the best route to get there. Decisions made on the basis of opinion and authority would be reduced to a bare minimum in a Technate. Essentially everyone would get what they want, but everyone wouldn't have a say in production. The only way to effect decisions as an individual would be to rise through the ranks by demonstrating that you had the skills and knowledge required for a higher position. Since all those making decisions could only find themselves in that position by demonstration that they have the knowledge and skills needed for that position, where is the problem? Anyone can be removed by a 2/3rd vote. That, combined with equal income for all pretty much eliminates all possibility of corruption.

[Demogorgon]

Of course. But what technocrats in general mean is to increase the quality of life while minimising resource usage.
Everybody wants to do that. Like I say though, you can't use energy accounting to do so because it doesn't reflect what is actually being consumed (plus of course the fact that energy isn't necessarily transferrable, in many cases you either use it or you don't, you can't transfer it to other activities).

Technocracy is attempting to address economic activity (the production and consumption of goods) but it isn't taking into account the vital question of what it actually costs to make goods. Certain lunatics here, whom I am done with, have told us that this isn't an issue, because we'll magically have everything we could possibly need. You however are no cultist and have never claimed that and can therefore be addressed in terms of the real world, but you still have to explain how we can efficiently decide what to use.

Suppose for instance there are two ways to produce something we have decided we want. One is very resource efficient but uses a lot of energy. The other is much more wasteful but uses less energy. What will technocracy do?

I will say again though, don't take anything I said to Technocrat as applying to you, except where I explicitly said it applied to all technocrats. Technocracy has problems but it is not in of itself a cult and I happily acknowledge that.

[ckaihatsu]

I developed my model, the 'communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors' at post #11, to serve as an illustration of how proletarian control could give rise to a technocratic-like administration. It describes only an *outline*, or framework, of material functioning, and does not presume to spell-out *policy* itself. Its functioning would enable a solid feedback loop from collective (and more-specialized) public concerns back through to its component of liberated labor, with appropriate compensation and accurate material accounting throughout.

At its best it may even be a *replacement* for technocracy altogether -- a *post-technocratic*, *automatic* societal function for workers' conscious self-rule.





"Appropriate compensation" seems like you are re-introducing scarcity values which would bring us right back to where we started


No, because the 'appropriate compensation' would *not* be convertible into material goods or any portion of the (collectivized, commonly administered) assets and resources. The use of labor credits in the model I developed could *only* be applied to the provisioning / compensating of labor time, especially in the service of fulfilling mass-prioritized projects and production runs.





Income MUST be equal to avoid corruption and ensure that abundance reaches every citizen.


Within the 'communist supply & demand' model the ensurance of abundance is done in a non-currency / non-market way, through the mass prioritization of *political demands* -- this method can accomodate fulfilling every basic human need and imagined desire, but all demands would be treated *politically* and would benefit from political organizing efforts.

[RED DAVE]

Red Dave, I think you should put your suspicions and mistrust asideWhy should i do that? What you call my "suspicions and mistrust," are why I call my critical intelligence and experience.


instead, think of the technocracy as being akin to a worldwide revolutionary communist centralized planning.Why should I do that when it has nothing in common with any kind of revolutionary communism. It's some kind of an elitist system pulled out of someone's mind, with little or nothing to do with socialism, which is the radically democracy of the working class.


In my estimation the prerequisite for a technocracy would be the victory of the world's working class over the bourgeoisie.Having done that, why would they want a weirdo system contrived by a bunch of american crackpots?


Only *then* would there be the material / political conditions to enable the technocracy -- a system of proletarian centralized planning on a rational basis. *Until* then the revolutionary struggle would be paramount -- seizing the state infrastructure, temporarily repurposing it (for socialized economic functions), and dissolving it in favor of direct proletarian control.Nice words but based on other quotes by other people who support technocracy, the truth is elsewhere. Technocat, for example says, "Technocracy is rule by skill itself - not "rule by the workers" which would still be a form of rule by OPINION - the opinions of the workers."

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

In my estimation the prerequisite for a technocracy would be the victory of the world's working class over the bourgeoisie. Only *then* would there be the material / political conditions to enable the technocracy -- a system of proletarian centralized planning on a rational basis. *Until* then the revolutionary struggle would be paramount -- seizing the state infrastructure, temporarily repurposing it (for socialized economic functions), and dissolving it in favor of direct proletarian control.





Nice words but based on other quotes by other people who support technocracy, the truth is elsewhere. Technocat, for example says, "Technocracy is rule by skill itself - not "rule by the workers" which would still be a form of rule by OPINION - the opinions of the workers."

RED DAVE


It's a *very* good point, Red Dave -- it's the same old story of asking ________ that if they're "so close" to the revolutionary position, then why don't they just become revolutionaries themselves?

*My* concern, from what I've seen, is that there are these *pre-made* policy constructions all ready to go -- I've *advised* Technocrat off-board that *at best* these technocratic plans can only be *suggestions* to the revolutionary working class for when it takes control out of the hands of the bourgeoisie. Certainly all decision-making would be at the preregogative of the revolutionary workers, *at that time*, and can't be decided by any of us, now.

[Technocrat]

It's a *very* good point, Red Dave -- it's the same old story of asking ________ that if they're "so close" to the revolutionary position, then why don't they just become revolutionaries themselves?

*My* concern, from what I've seen, is that there are these *pre-made* policy constructions all ready to go -- I've *advised* Technocrat off-board that *at best* these technocratic plans can only be *suggestions* to the revolutionary working class for when it takes control out of the hands of the bourgeoisie. Certainly all decision-making would be at the preregogative of the revolutionary workers, *at that time*, and can't be decided by any of us, now.

Technocracy, Inc.'s plan is simply a plan to achieve an abundance on the North American continent - these aren't so much policy recommendations as they are requirements that need to be fulfilled to produce and distribute an abundance. It's an all-or-nothing proposal. Nothing is in the design that doesn't need to be there in order for the goal to be achieved. Now, the specifics of the design (such as the exact configuration of Urbanates) could possibly need refining, but that is something which the planners of the Technate would do AFTER they were assembled - in other words, after the decision to install a Technate had been made.

You are right that people would have to first demand technocracy - but which people? Those currently performing FUNCTIONAL work. It is this distinction which I think is significant. In order for there to be a Technate, it has to be designed and built. Who designs and builds it? The ones who have the knowledge and skills to do so. Who has the knowledge to do so? The ones that CURRENTLY occupy FUNCTIONAL positions. Those involved in manipulation or non-productive work do not NEED to revolt in order for a Technate to happen, but it would certainly help if they supported it, since 95% of the population is engaged in non-productive work. Those involved in manipulation or non-productive work have NO SKILLS required by the Technate, because the only positions in the Technate are FUNCTIONAL. These people would retire or find another line of work in one of the functional sequences.

Technocracy would not be rule by democratic consensus - study the process of selection from below and appointment from above. The only positions in a Technate are FUNCTIONAL, and the only way to be in a position is to have the skills required for it. All subjective matters not pertaining to production are matters to be sorted out by the people themselves in whatever way seems best to them. It should again be noted that the factors involved in the physical operation of something, such as the physical equipment of a continent for the production of an abundance, ARE MEASURABLE. This means that this is NOT SUBJECTIVE. Anything which can be MEASURED is OBJECTIVE. Any problem which is OBJECTIVE can be solved OBJECTIVELY using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Voting is only necessary when it is impossible to use science to determine an ideal solution. This means voting is only necessary for those matters which are inherently SUBJECTIVE in nature.

Voting on OBJECTIVE matters is another way for special interest groups to gain control!

[Demogorgon]

Nice words but based on other quotes by other people who support technocracy, the truth is elsewhere. Technocat, for example says, "Technocracy is rule by skill itself - not "rule by the workers" which would still be a form of rule by OPINION - the opinions of the workers."

Quite so, it sounds very like the old concept of the "philosopher king" to me.

[Technocrat]

Quite so, it sounds very like the old concept of the "philosopher king" to me.

Maybe if you would actually try to LEARN about it rather than compare it to things which you already know, which is the LAZY WAY OUT, you would understand why statements like this are BASELESS and IGNORANT. It is tempting, when confronted with a new idea, to try to relate it to something one already knows that seems similar. What needs to be understood is that Technocracy is UNLIKE any previous form of government yet devised. Any surface similarities are just that - surface similarities. Dig deeper and you will see just HOW different Technocracy is.

Technocracy's administrative system is THE LEAST AUTHORITARIAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT EVER DEVISED.

COMMUNISM IS MORE AUTHORITARIAN THAN TECHNOCRACY EVER COULD BE! Read my previous posts for an explanation as to why.

A philosopher king is a type of king and as such they have absolute AUTHORITY to enforce their OPINIONS. No such person exists in a Technate nor could they exist given the structure of the system!

[ckaihatsu]

You are right that people would have to first demand technocracy - but which people? Those currently performing FUNCTIONAL work.




Those involved in manipulation or non-productive work do not NEED to revolt in order for a Technate to happen, but it would certainly help if they supported it, since 95% of the population is engaged in non-productive work.




In order for there to be a Technate, it has to be designed and built. Who designs and builds it? The ones who have the knowledge and skills to do so. Who has the knowledge to do so? The ones that CURRENTLY occupy FUNCTIONAL positions.


It's *these* arguments, around the *formation* of the technocracy, that sound quite elitist -- and even cultish.

If anything, we should be *building* on the democratic legacies of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the 18th century, and moreso on the potential of the emergent workers collectives -- soviets -- that developed with the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

I think you're making a fetish out of "knowledge" and "skills" here, Technocrat, and suggesting the ordering of human activity according to *that* basis. Taking it back a step we can simply ask, "Who should receive the appropriate knowledge and skills in order to be eligible for functional positions?"

Also, can you address * why * "95%" of the population is currently engaged in non-productive work? Do you think society would have an *objective interest* in making sure that far more numbers would be *supported* into eligibility for technate-oriented positions, and *not limited* to 5% of the population?

My concern here is that the technocratic strata could become too detached from the rest of the population. A good way to prevent this is not even necessarily to have widespread *approval* of the technocracy, but rather to have widespread *education* and *training* so that the majority of the population is given ready *access* to the hallowed knowledge and skills that you speak of. In our well-industrialized / Information Revolution era it seems that there would be no excuse for any elitist tendencies in the societal caretaking of the relevant knowledge base.




I would say that with sufficient class consciousness and revolutionary mobilizations the bulk of these technical concerns and considerations pretty much melt away into the larger, empowered self-rule of the proletariat. Distinctions between "skilled" labor and "unskilled" labor wouldn't matter so much because all would have shared, collective, cooperative responsibility for the most vital functions -- how the revolutionary workers happened to dispatch these responsibilities would be purely an *internal* matter among themselves, at the time.




(Digging deeper into this idea of the self-activity of the revolutionary workers reveals that the overwhelming bulk of the formality around job duties these days is *imposed* on us from above. A post-bourgeois work environment would not *require* such a compartmentalization regime since workers would be free to determine how priority tasks get accomplished given *their own* resources, at *their own* discretion. Much knowledge could be passed along in and around the production process itself, for the sake of collectivized production.)

[Technocrat]

I think you're making a fetish out of "knowledge" and "skills" here, Technocrat, and suggesting the ordering of human activity according to *that* basis. Taking it back a step we can simply ask, "Who should receive the appropriate knowledge and skills in order to be eligible for functional positions?"

Taking a further step back, we can ask, what tasks are necessary in order for there to be a Technate? Once we know what those tasks are, we need ask: who has the knowledge and skill required for those tasks, RIGHT NOW? We can train others to have the same knowledge and skills - BUT THIS TAKES TIME. You don't become an engineer, scientist, etc overnight. That's why it is up to the people with functional abilities to INSTALL a technate - NO ONE ELSE CAN DO IT. Only AFTER the installation of a Technate can we provide everyone with the necessary training for them to take a functional position.


Also, can you address * why * "95%" of the population is currently engaged in non-productive work? Do you think society would have an *objective interest* in making sure that far more numbers would be *supported* into eligibility for technate-oriented positions, and *not limited* to 5% of the population?Sure. 95% of the population is engaged in non-productive activities because productive activities have largely been AUTOMATED. The U.S. reached its peak in industrial employment between 1880 - 1900. This means that the jobs from productive work have largely DISAPPEARED. However, given the rules of the game of the Price System, people still have to continue to earn money. This was accomplished by creating busy-work for people to do - the service economy. Society doesn't need to support more people becoming eligible for functional positions - 5% of the population working at any given time is ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO PRODUCE EVERYTHING WE CONSUME. With education free for every citizen, and mandatory, the Technate will have a "reserve army" of skilled professionals. The work week would be reduced to the bare minimum needed to produce the goods and services being consumed by the population. The work week would probably start around 10 hours long and get gradually shorter as efficiency and education improved.


My concern here is that the technocratic strata could become too detached from the rest of the population. A good way to prevent this is not even necessarily to have widespread *approval* of the technocracy, but rather to have widespread *education* and *training* so that the majority of the population is given ready *access* to the hallowed knowledge and skills that you speak of. In our well-industrialized / Information Revolution era it seems that there would be no excuse for any elitist tendencies in the societal caretaking of the relevant knowledge base.OF COURSE! Education would be FREE and MANDATORY for every citizen of the Technate. This includes college.

I can see that the fear is of some disconnected cabal of scientists making decisions without regard for the people. Here's how this works: If anyone occupying a functional position started to abuse their power or neglect the needs of the people, THEY WOULD BE VOTED OUT. Everyone in the Technate has a "position". As soon as a citizen reaches the age of 25 their employment would begin. This means that EVERYONE over the age of 25 has the ability to VOTE OUT their bosses should they begin abusing their power!

[RED DAVE]

Technocracy, Inc.'s plan is simplyTechnocracy is not anything simple.


a plan to achieve an abundance on the North American continentSo, immediately, we are confronted with a system that is not worldwide but restricted to North America.


these aren't so much policy recommendations as they are requirements that need to be fulfilled to produce and distribute an abundance.According to who and abundance for who?


It's an all-or-nothing proposal.In other words, if you disagree, there's something wrong with you.


Nothing is in the design that doesn't need to be there in order for the goal to be achieved.This begins to sound more and more like Shigalovism. (Three red stars if you know what this is without googling it. )


Now, the specifics of the design (such as the exact configuration of Urbanates) could possibly need refining, but that is something which the planners of the Technate would do AFTER they were assembled - in other words, after the decision to install a Technate had been made.In other words, the system is so perfect that workers get no input into the system that is going to run the economy until after it's implemented. Sounds like an arranged marriage.


You are right that people would have to first demand technocracy - but which people?Good question.


Those currently performing FUNCTIONAL work.Uh-oh.


It is this distinction which I think is significant.You bet your ass it's signficant.


In order for there to be a Technate, it has to be designed and built.We prefer "planned and organized."


Who designs and builds it?Great question.


The ones who have the knowledge and skills to do so.Terrible answer. Begs every possible question, such as who judges who has the knowledge and skills


Who has the knowledge to do so?Great question.


The ones that CURRENTLY occupy FUNCTIONAL positions.Worst answer yet. This is an invitation to technocratic dictatorship. Why not admit that that's what Technocracy is and get it over with?


Those involved in manipulation or non-productive work do not NEED to revolt in order for a Technate to happenRevolution from above.


but it would certainly help if they supported itNice of you to invite us to the revolution.


since 95% of the population is engaged in non-productive work.Source of this bizarre statistic please?


Those involved in manipulation or non-productive work have NO SKILLS required by the Technate, because the only positions in the Technate are FUNCTIONAL.In other words, we're too stupid to control our own lives.


These people would retire or find another line of work in one of the functional sequences.Actually, I'd rather spend my time blowing up the offices of the Technocracy.


Technocracy would not be rule by democratic consensusI assume that by “consensus” you mean democractic election. Why not, pray tell.


[S]tudy the process of selection from below and appointment from above.This seems to be a paradox.


The only positions in a Technate are FUNCTIONAL, and the only way to be in a position is to have the skills required for it.What skills and who decides who has the required skills? And how about the skills to govern?

All subjective matters not pertaining to production are matters to be sorted out by the people themselves in whatever way seems best to them.I assume that you mean that the technological elite will let us decide what color underwear we wear.


It should again be noted that the factors involved in the physical operation of something, such as the physical equipment of a continent for the production of an abundance, ARE MEASURABLE.Even if they are, this is trivial. The crisis of capitalism is a crisis of distribution, not production.


This means that this is NOT SUBJECTIVE. Anything which can be MEASURED is OBJECTIVE. Any problem which is OBJECTIVE can be solved OBJECTIVELY using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.Boy do you have a weird idea of the scientific method. Maybe it’s because your Technocracy hero, Howard Scott, was not a trained engineer. Actually, all decisions contain a subjective element. This is easily proven.


Voting is only necessary when it is impossible to use science to determine an ideal solution.In other words, practically all the time.


This means voting is only necessary for those matters which are inherently SUBJECTIVE in nature.Which is virtually everything.


Voting on OBJECTIVE matters is another way for special interest groups to gain control!Give us an example of a major economic decision that is objective.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

Taking a further step back, we can ask, what tasks are necessary in order for there to be a Technate? Once we know what those tasks are, we need ask: who has the knowledge and skill required for those tasks, RIGHT NOW? We can train others to have the same knowledge and skills - BUT THIS TAKES TIME. You don't become an engineer, scientist, etc overnight. That's why it is up to the people with functional abilities to INSTALL a technate - NO ONE ELSE CAN DO IT. Only AFTER the installation of a Technate can we provide everyone with the necessary training for them to take a functional position.


I guess I would prefer to see the implementation of, and education for, applied science -- the technate -- done at the *same time*. That way there would be no artificial barriers to keep the technical process hidden from public view. Hopefully the requisite revolutionary conditions would provide a mass-labor-guild kind of working environment so that *all* formal education would be directly oriented towards the locus of the liberated point of production itself.

A proletarian revolution would remove the need for private-property-owning, profit-making-minded management and control, thereby opening up the productive / construction process to the broadest public interest ever.

My lingering concern *now* is that you're sounding similar to a Stalinist stagist -- that there would have to be *two* discrete steps, the first one being dependent on those who are technically privileged.

(The Stalinist stagism was to first allow bourgeois capital development in backward countries like Russia before the nation's proletariat would then be given the state imprimatur for revolutionizing the productive process.) (The Trotskyist program was 'permanent revolution' in which the workers of already-industrialized countries, like Germany, could take up the revolution where they were, thus providing the *international* material and proletarian basis for a successful revolution.) (The revolutionary-proletarian step was forcibly *suppressed* in Russia, under Stalin.)





Sure. 95% of the population is engaged in non-productive activities because productive activities have largely been AUTOMATED. The U.S. reached its peak in industrial employment between 1880 - 1900. This means that the jobs from productive work have largely DISAPPEARED. However, given the rules of the game of the Price System, people still have to continue to earn money. This was accomplished by creating busy-work for people to do - the service economy. Society doesn't need to support more people becoming eligible for functional positions - 5% of the population working at any given time is ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO PRODUCE EVERYTHING WE CONSUME. With education free for every citizen, and mandatory, the Technate will have a "reserve army" of skilled professionals. The work week would be reduced to the bare minimum needed to produce the goods and services being consumed by the population. The work week would probably start around 10 hours long and get gradually shorter as efficiency and education improved.

OF COURSE! Education would be FREE and MANDATORY for every citizen of the Technate. This includes college.


Agreed.





I can see that the fear is of some disconnected cabal of scientists making decisions without regard for the people.


Let's call it a *valid political concern* instead.





Here's how this works: If anyone occupying a functional position started to abuse their power or neglect the needs of the people, THEY WOULD BE VOTED OUT. Everyone in the Technate has a "position". As soon as a citizen reaches the age of 25 their employment would begin. This means that EVERYONE over the age of 25 has the ability to VOTE OUT their bosses should they begin abusing their power!


This *does* sound better.... I'll continue to prefer *my own* model (from earlier in this thread) which I consider to be "post-technocratic".

[Technocrat]

Technocracy is not anything simple.

I didn't say that IT was simple.


So, immediately, we are confronted with a system that is not worldwide but restricted to North America.The Technical Alliance was a North American organization - do some homework. I have already addressed EVERY SINGLE CONCERN THAT YOU RAISE IN THIS POST LEADING ME TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU ARE MERELY BEING BELLIGERENT. For this reason, I will not continue to repeat what I have already written elsewhere. Instead I will just point out to you where I have already addressed your concerns.

Technocracy is a SET OF INSTRUCTIONS for how to PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE AN ABUNDANCE.

There are certain REQUIREMENTS for an abundance to EXIST:

1) sufficient resources
2) sufficient trained personnel
3) sufficient level of technology

Due to the fact that resources are not distributed evenly across the globe, some areas of the globe lack the necessary resources to produce an abundance! I HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST. Technocracy can be applied to any part of the globe, but the results WILL NOT BE THE SAME, and in the words of Howard Scott, "they might not all have pink cheeks." I HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.


According to who and abundance for who?Listen: Technocracy is a DESIGN. Like the design of a car, there are COMPONENT PARTS. If you remove any of the component parts of car, IT WILL NOT WORK AS INTENDED.

An abundance cannot TRULY BE an abundance UNLESS it is for ALL. BY DEFINITION, an abundance MUST REACH ALL PEOPLE. This goal is EXPLICITLY stated by Technocracy.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.


In other words, if you disagree, there's something wrong with you. No, this is just more of your STUPID BELLIGERENCE. It's an ALL OR NOTHING proposal, because, like a car, if you were to only use HALF of the parts, IT WOULDN'T WORK AT ALL!


This begins to sound more and more like Shigalovism. (Three red stars if you know what this is without googling it. )Only to someone who DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT!


In other words, the system is so perfect that workers get no input into the system that is going to run the economy until after it's implemented. Sounds like an arranged marriage.How are the planners going to CREATE A PLAN unless they are ASSEMBLED to CREATE THE PLAN?

THIS IS JUST DAFT.


Terrible answer. Begs every possible question, such as who judges who has the knowledge and skillsAnd you would have the answer to that question if you read my previous posts regarding the process of selection from below and appointment from above. IT'S ALL EXPLAINED.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.


Worst answer yet. This is an invitation to technocratic dictatorship. Why not admit that that's what Technocracy is and get it over with?Nope, no, and nonsense. Read my posts.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.


Source of this bizarre statistic please?THE TECHNOCRACY STUDY COURSE.


In other words, we're too stupid to control our own lives. Uh, no. More belligerence. Maybe if you were less defensive and reactionary some of this information could actually GET THROUGH TO YOU. The only positions in a Technate are FUNCTIONAL. FUNCTIONAL positions require SKILLS that can be MEASURED through PERFORMANCE. If someone LACKS the skills for a certain job, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT JOB! This is both FUNCTIONAL and FAIR.

As far as controlling lives - see my post on how Technocracy is the LEAST AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT EVER DEVISED.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.


Actually, I'd rather spend my time blowing up the offices of the Technocracy.This statement alone reveals a lot about the character of the speaker.


I assume that by “consensus” you mean democractic election. Why not, pray tell. See my post on how Technocracy is the least authoritarian government ever devised.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.

IN FACT, I ADDRESSED THIS IN THE VERY SAME POST THAT YOU JUST QUOTED:
Voting on OBJECTIVE matters is another way for special interest groups to gain control! Ponder that for a moment.


This seems to be a paradox.Study it. I have explained it more than once in this thread.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.


What skills and who decides who has the required skills? And how about the skills to govern? I answer all of this in my explanation of the process of selection from below and appointment from above.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.


I assume that you mean that the technological elite will let us decide what color underwear we wear. What else do you want? To vote on OBJECTIVE matters and enforce the opinions of special interest groups using AUTHORITY?


Even if they are, this is trivial. The crisis of capitalism is a crisis of distribution, not production. Wrong. The problem is one of both distribution AND production. Capitalism wastes at least three times more resources than is required to distribute goods and services to people. That is a PRODUCTION problem as well as a DISTRIBUTION problem. Regardless, even if the problem was only DISTRIBUTION, this is still something which is MEASURABLE.


Boy do you have a weird idea of the scientific method. Maybe it’s because your Technocracy hero, Howard Scott, was not a trained engineer. Actually, all decisions contain a subjective element. This is easily proven.Scott's not "my hero", but if you want to bring his credentials into question why don't we look at all the accomplishments that have been made throughout history by people who "lacked credentials". Scott was not a trained engineer in the sense that he didn't go to school for it - because he had to work! You should know that Technocracy isn't the sole creation of Howard Scott - many people worked on this. Maybe you should look up who M King Hubbert was.


In other words, practically all the time. Nope, no, and nonsense. Learn the difference between what is objective and what is subjective, I think you are getting hung up there.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.


Give us an example of a major economic decision that is objective.Anything which can be MEASURED is OBJECTIVE. See the tire example that I provided in a PREVIOUS POST.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.

[RED DAVE]

This is actually fun: Sort of like debating theology with a fundy.

One more time, Technocrat, let's have an example of what you call an objective decision that doesn't have to be voted on.

Humor me.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

I guess I would prefer to see the implementation of, and education for, applied science -- the technate -- done at the *same time*. That way there would be no artificial barriers to keep the technical process hidden from public view. Hopefully the requisite revolutionary conditions would provide a mass-labor-guild kind of working environment so that *all* formal education would be directly oriented towards the locus of the liberated point of production itself.

This might be ideal, but I don't think we have time for this. We have less than 10 years to get our continent in order or else we will face collapse from looming resource shortages. The kind of labor guilds you propose could be implemented immediately upon formation of the Technate.

This is an EMERGENCY plan to ensure the continued SURVIVAL and PROSPERITY of North America.


A proletarian revolution would remove the need for private-property-owning, profit-making-minded management and control, thereby opening up the productive / construction process to the broadest public interest ever.Nothing would be owned in a Technate by anybody, but there would still be custody rights (such as over your house).


My lingering concern *now* is that you're sounding similar to a Stalinist stagist -- that there would have to be *two* discrete steps, the first one being dependent on those who are technically privileged. It's true though - only those with the skills required by the job are capable of doing the job. Only a pilot can fly an airplane. What others have been suggesting on this thread is tantamount to the passengers electing a pilot from among their own ranks. It's a FUNCTIONAL thing. Certainly, ANYONE can learn the skills needed for a given job, but not EVERYONE is going to have the same skills and not EVERYONE is going to be qualified for any given job! How is this objectionable in any way?


Let's call it a *valid political concern* instead.I think I've sufficiently addressed this concern. I'd like to point out that all of these "concerns" are just as applicable, if not more so, to ANY theoretical re-structuring of society, including SOCIALISM. In fact, the EXACT SAME CHARGES being made against Technocracy, in this thread, have been made against both SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM. It is MORE THAN A LITTLE IRONIC that so-called leftists are now hurtling these same insults at Technocracy.


This *does* sound better.... This is why I ask that people RESERVE THEIR JUDGMENTS. Like a car, Technocracy has many parts that work together. Like a car, if you remove one of those parts it won't work, or it won't work the way it is supposed to. Like a car, you cannot understand how Technocracy works by just looking at one aspect of it. That would be like trying to figure out how a car works by studying the spark plugs, concluding that these cannot make the car run, and declaring that therefore the entire idea of a car is impossible. This is why when something DOESN'T APPEAR TO MAKE SENSE REGARDING TECHNOCRACY, it is more than likely a GAP IN YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE THAT NEEDS TO BE FILLED IN. That's why it is important to not only ASK QUESTIONS but to KEEP AN OPEN MIND. Please note that I'm not accusing you of not having an open mind, ckaihatsu.


I'll continue to prefer *my own* model (from earlier in this thread) which I consider to be "post-technocratic".Fair enough, but I think that model wouldn't work quite as well. Having to create "shopping lists" and figure out ahead of time what you were going to need, sounds like kind of a lousy lifestyle to me compared to being able to get as much of whatever you can consume without having to think about it. I think the Technocratic model accomplishes the goals which your model sets out to accomplish, just in a more efficient way. There are MANY similarities between your model and Technocracy, but I would argue that Technocracy's is a little better thought out, being the result of a collaboration between many dozens of scientists, engineers, etc. Your model is certainly very sophisticated for having been developed by yourself. I'm also concerned about the use of labor credits as it seems this would re-introduce the entire concept of scarcity values putting us right back into a Price System.

[Technocrat]

This is actually fun: Sort of like debating theology with a fundy.

One more time, Technocrat, let's have an example of what you call an objective decision that doesn't have to be voted on.

Humor me.

RED DAVE

This is like bashing my head against a brick wall repeatedly.

The goal is to produce goods and services with the least possible input of resources, including energy, materials, and human effort.

Two tires perform the same function - they are the same type of tire. Tire A costs 5 units of whatever and lasts 3 years. Tire B costs 2 units of whatever and lasts 2 years. Which tire do we produce to fulfill our goal of producing goods and services with the least possible input of resources? Obviously, Tire B, because over a 6 year period you will have consumed 6 units of whatever, while with Tire A you would have consumed 10 units of whatever.

A simplified example, obviously, but adequate to make the point.

Go do some research on total-systems planning.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.

[Demogorgon]

This is like bashing my head against a brick wall repeatedly.

The goal is to produce goods and services with the least possible input of resources, including energy, materials, and human effort.

Two tires perform the same function - they are the same type of tire. Tire A costs 5 units of whatever and lasts 3 years. Tire B costs 2 units of whatever and lasts 2 years. Which tire do we produce to fulfill our goal of producing goods and services with the least possible input of resources? Obviously, Tire B, because over a 6 year period you will have consumed 6 units of whatever, while with Tire A you would have consumed 10 units of whatever.

A simplified example, obviously, but adequate to make the point.

Go do some research on total-systems planning.

I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.I know I said there was no point in arguing with you, but consider a few things:

What if Tyre B is less safe? What if Tyre B is more prone to going flat? What if people just plain prefer Tyre A for whatever reasons of their own?

[Technocrat]

I know I said there was no point in arguing with you, but consider a few things:

What if Tyre B is less safe? What if Tyre B is more prone to going flat? What if people just plain prefer Tyre A for whatever reasons of their own?

I already said that Tire A and Tire B PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION. THIS MEANS THEY DO THE SAME THING, HAVE THE SAME SAFETY RATING, DURABILITY (in terms of likelihood of it going flat), ETC.

The example was there to show that given the choice between two options that PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION, there is a way to determine THE MOST EFFICIENT OPTION AVAILABLE. The same equally applies to a design for a bridge, a house, a car, or WHATEVER.

If people just prefer to be wasteful for whatever reason of their own, IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

NO ACTION WHICH IS HARMFUL TO THE COMMONS WILL BE TOLERATED IN A TECHNATE. It should be noted that this is not enforced through AUTHORITY, but through DESIGN, making Technocracy completely UN-authoritarian in nature!

[ckaihatsu]

I guess I would prefer to see the implementation of, and education for, applied science -- the technate -- done at the *same time*. That way there would be no artificial barriers to keep the technical process hidden from public view. Hopefully the requisite revolutionary conditions would provide a mass-labor-guild kind of working environment so that *all* formal education would be directly oriented towards the locus of the liberated point of production itself.





This might be ideal, but I don't think we have time for this. We have less than 10 years to get our continent in order or else we will face collapse from looming resource shortages. The kind of labor guilds you propose could be implemented immediately upon formation of the Technate.

This is an EMERGENCY plan to ensure the continued SURVIVAL and PROSPERITY of North America.


I *don't* see any *conflict* here -- all I'm saying is that there should be an end to capitalist rule and a fully transparent mass productive process. It's not at all a time-sensitive issue that I'm raising here. Your fully qualified technocratic layer would only *benefit* from having good relations with the larger, liberated population -- transparency, news-reporting, and labor-guild-like workshops around the productive process could only *help* things all around, worldwide.





My lingering concern *now* is that you're sounding similar to a Stalinist stagist -- that there would have to be *two* discrete steps, the first one being dependent on those who are technically privileged.





It's true though - only those with the skills required by the job are capable of doing the job.


Agreed.





Only a pilot can fly an airplane. What others have been suggesting on this thread is tantamount to the passengers electing a pilot from among their own ranks.


The (technocracy) paradigm that you're coming from is consumer- / customer-service-oriented, while revolutionary leftist politics is a *labor*-oriented paradigm.

(So how about considering a scenario in which *all qualified pilots* determine *their own* work schedules, including which pilot(s) from their ranks go up in the air with which groups of passengers -- ?)





It's a FUNCTIONAL thing. Certainly, ANYONE can learn the skills needed for a given job, but not EVERYONE is going to have the same skills and not EVERYONE is going to be qualified for any given job! How is this objectionable in any way?


I have to side with Red Dave a bit on this one, to say that *politics* can be messier than any of us would like. Even with private, capital-based rule out of the way there could still be room for plenty of factionalism and power struggles over *which version* of the technate to implement, so to speak -- qualifications aside.





I think I've sufficiently addressed this concern. I'd like to point out that all of these "concerns" are just as applicable, if not more so, to ANY theoretical re-structuring of society, including SOCIALISM. In fact, the EXACT SAME CHARGES being made against Technocracy, in this thread, have been made against both SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM. It is MORE THAN A LITTLE IRONIC that so-called leftists are now hurtling these same insults at Technocracy.


Agreed. Welcome to politics! = D





I'll continue to prefer *my own* model (from earlier in this thread) which I consider to be "post-technocratic".





Fair enough, but I think that model wouldn't work quite as well. Having to create "shopping lists" and figure out ahead of time what you were going to need, sounds like kind of a lousy lifestyle to me compared to being able to get as much of whatever you can consume without having to think about it.


Well, again, there doesn't necessarily have to be *conflict* with a technocratic layer here -- my model is all about the decision-making *process* in regards to mass demand and labor supply, given the collectivization of all assets and resources.

If there was some sort of "automatic surplus" lying around for people to just pick up, then all the better....





I think the Technocratic model accomplishes the goals which your model sets out to accomplish, just in a more efficient way. There are MANY similarities between your model and Technocracy, but I would argue that Technocracy's is a little better thought out, being the result of a collaboration between many dozens of scientists, engineers, etc.




Your model is certainly very sophisticated for having been developed by yourself.


Why, thank you...! I merely thought-through the *implications* to the rest of the material society of having a fully collectivized (communist) system of productive property.





I'm also concerned about the use of labor credits as it seems this would re-introduce the entire concept of scarcity values putting us right back into a Price System.




"Appropriate compensation" seems like you are re-introducing scarcity values which would bring us right back to where we started - the Price System. If you allow some to acquire more than others what is to prevent them from buying a share in the social mechanism itself, putting us right back where we were by re-introducing special interest groups.





No, because the 'appropriate compensation' would *not* be convertible into material goods or any portion of the (collectivized, commonly administered) assets and resources. The use of labor credits in the model I developed could *only* be applied to the provisioning / compensating of labor time, especially in the service of fulfilling mass-prioritized projects and production runs.





Income MUST be equal to avoid corruption and ensure that abundance reaches every citizen.





Within the 'communist supply & demand' model the ensurance of abundance is done in a non-currency / non-market way, through the mass prioritization of *political demands* -- this method can accomodate fulfilling every basic human need and imagined desire, but all demands would be treated *politically* and would benefit from political organizing efforts.

[Technocrat]

I have to side with Red Dave a bit on this one, to say that *politics* can be messier than any of us would like. Even with private, capital-based rule out of the way there could still be room for plenty of factionalism and power struggles over *which version* of the technate to implement, so to speak -- qualifications aside.

Just to clarify, If you define politics as decision making on the basis of OPINION, Technocracy never said that this would disappear altogether, just that it would be reduced to the BARE MINIMUM necessary for the operations of the Technate.

I agree with all of your other points.

In regards to this:


No, because the 'appropriate compensation' would *not* be convertible into material goods or any portion of the (collectivized, commonly administered) assets and resources. The use of labor credits in the model I developed could *only* be applied to the provisioning / compensating of labor time, especially in the service of fulfilling mass-prioritized projects and production runs.

I can see how this might work for the provisioning of labor, but if you have to provision labor doesn't that suggest that there is a scarcity of labor? If you have an abundance of labor you don't need to worry about provisioning it. An abundance of labor, defined as having enough workers to perform all required tasks, is a prerequisite and requirement of a Technate, which is why eduction would play such a large role in a Technate.

I am still confused as to how this would work for "compensation" if the credits are not convertible into material goods/services. Is there a way you could rephrase this maybe?


Within the 'communist supply & demand' model the ensurance of abundance is done in a non-currency / non-market way, through the mass prioritization of *political demands* -- this method can accomodate fulfilling every basic human need and imagined desire, but all demands would be treated *politically* and would benefit from political organizing efforts.

This also SEEMS to be based on scarcity. I think you are saying here that what people demand would itself be a political decision that the people decided. If there is an abundance, there is no need for them to make this kind of decision - this is the same as an opportunity cost decision, which doesn't exist in a condition of abundance. In a situation of abundance, people don't have to choose between having need A fulfilled vs need B. By definition, an abundance is able to fulfill needs A and B.

If you are just saying that people would have input into what goods and services are produced and how they could be improved, that would be an essential element to Technocracy as well.

[Demogorgon]

I already said that Tire A and Tire B PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION. THIS MEANS THEY DO THE SAME THING, HAVE THE SAME SAFETY RATING, DURABILITY (in terms of likelihood of it going flat), ETC.

The example was there to show that given the choice between two options that PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION, there is a way to determine THE MOST EFFICIENT OPTION AVAILABLE. The same equally applies to a design for a bridge, a house, a car, or WHATEVER.

If people just prefer to be wasteful for whatever reason of their own, IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

NO ACTION WHICH IS HARMFUL TO THE COMMONS WILL BE TOLERATED IN A TECHNATE. It should be noted that this is not enforced through AUTHORITY, but through DESIGN, making Technocracy completely UN-authoritarian in nature!
Yes, yes, we know. Anything that goes against the plan is forbidden but it is the least authoritarian system on earth, you've told us.

As for your claim about tires, there is no such thing as such a convenient comparison. Give us a real world example where there is a clear objective answer that no reasonable person could object to.

[RED DAVE]

This is actually fun: Sort of like debating theology with a fundy.


One more time, Technocrat, let's have an example of what you call an objective decision that doesn't have to be voted on.

Humor me.
This is like bashing my head against a brick wall repeatedly.I suggest you not do that, but if you do, please film it for “American’s funniest Home Videos.”


The goal is to produce goods and services with the least possible input of resources, including energy, materials, and human effort.Perhaps, so, but there are a lot questions being avoided here, such as quality, quantity, geographical distribution of resources, esthetics, etc. In my experience, resources are always, to a certain degree, distributed "subjectively."


Two tires perform the same function - they are the same type of tire. Tire A costs 5 units of whatever and lasts 3 years. Tire B costs 2 units of whatever and lasts 2 years. Which tire do we produce to fulfill our goal of producing goods and services with the least possible input of resources? Obviously, Tire B, because over a 6 year period you will have consumed 6 units of whatever, while with Tire A you would have consumed 10 units of whatever.

A simplified example, obviously, but adequate to make the point.Unless, of course, for example, Tire A is made in an area of economic depression, in which case it might be worthwhile to produce it there to provide employment. And there are still decisions to be made such as scheduling, wages, hours, who does the work, etc. And, in addition, suppose the technocrat in charge of production makes an unwanted sexual advance to a worker. Who disciplines this person. Under what auspices is a hearing held?

And, by the way, how did the manager get there in the first place? Who appointed this person. You say it’s because they have the requisite skill. In my work experience, stretching back about half a century, the skill required for management is minimal. Management is not a matter of technical skill but of the willingness to fire your mother if you are told to do this.

And besides, who the fuck wants a tire plant near their home? Suppose it's most efficient to produce tires in Central Park or on the beach at Waikiki. Since when has minimal input been an infallible guide to production decisions. And besides, those B tires are as ugly as shit. The people in my city don't want them. We want the A tires. They're much prettier. We voted for the A tires.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

Just to clarify, If you define politics as decision making on the basis of OPINION, Technocracy never said that this would disappear altogether, just that it would be reduced to the BARE MINIMUM necessary for the operations of the Technate.


Right -- since there *would* be room for the consideration of some form of consumer preference in the technocracy then there *would* be some kind of politics continuing to exist -- depending on what's at stake there could very well be several "competing" scenarios for accomplishing roughly the same thing, each with their own proponents. Some proposals might source materials one way, from one region, while another policy proposal might source slightly *more robust* materials a different way, but from slightly farther afield, etc. -- logistics....





No, because the 'appropriate compensation' would *not* be convertible into material goods or any portion of the (collectivized, commonly administered) assets and resources. The use of labor credits in the model I developed could *only* be applied to the provisioning / compensating of labor time, especially in the service of fulfilling mass-prioritized projects and production runs.





I can see how this might work for the provisioning of labor, but if you have to provision labor doesn't that suggest that there is a scarcity of labor? If you have an abundance of labor you don't need to worry about provisioning it. An abundance of labor, defined as having enough workers to perform all required tasks, is a prerequisite and requirement of a Technate, which is why eduction would play such a large role in a Technate.

I am still confused as to how this would work for "compensation" if the credits are not convertible into material goods/services. Is there a way you could rephrase this maybe?


This is just one of those optimization things, like the logistics thing above.

It's not about abundance or scarcity as much as it's about *prioritization*. Given that our desires may very well be infinite, far outstripping our physical ability to fulfill them all in a lifetime (assuming that we have hypothetically perfect access to any of them, immediately), we have to *first* personally decide exactly which one we want to do next, and *then* still go through exactly which combination of the available, qualified laborers would best be arranged to fill the labor roles for the realization of the project / desires. Taken up to the collective, societal level this kind of prioritization / optimization problem only gets increasingly complex -- that's why I developed the 'communist supply & demand' model.... (To see a sample scenario played through with the model, see this post, at 'A world without money')

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1608511&postcount=113

[Technocrat]

Yes, yes, we know. Anything that goes against the plan is forbidden but it is the least authoritarian system on earth, you've told us.

So why exactly is this so difficult for you to understand?


As for your claim about tires, there is no such thing as such a convenient comparison. Give us a real world example where there is a clear objective answer that no reasonable person could object to.I've given plenty of examples already in the post "How Technocracy could reduce energy use by 2/3rds."

In this case we are looking at what FUNCTION is being performed by a given good or service - its USE VALUE in Marxist terms.

In the example I gave with shelter, I demonstrated how the suburbs attempt to fulfill the following needs:

-comfortable shelter
-safe outdoor space
-access to nature
-a frontier lifestyle

The suburbs fail in their attempt to fulfill the need for a frontier lifestyle because they are only the illusion of such. They succeed in providing comfortable shelter and safe outdoor space but at a cost much higher than would be required by urbanates. Access to nature is only possible by driving the car to the nearest park, if there is one. Even then, the park doesn't fulfill the need for natural, preserved parklands. To get to those today you would have to drive for miles.

In an urbanate, all would receive comfortable shelter at a lower cost than in suburbs. This means that the same FUNCTION is performed at a lower cost.

The central park in an urbanate would FUNCTION as safe outdoor space, at a lower cost than suburban backyards.

In an urbanate one could literally walk from one's home and be within natural parklands within MINUTES. This means that the FUNCTION of access to nature is performed both more efficiently and at a lower cost than suburbs.

With urbanates occupying such a small fraction of land compared to cities, vast tracts of land could be returned to wilderness, increasing the opportunities for outdoor living - and allowing people to ACTUALLY live a frontier lifestyle if that is their choice.

You have to consider the USE VALUE or FUNCTION of a given thing. Then you can ask: what is the most efficient way of performing this FUNCTION/fulfilling this need.

Of course there is more than one variable when determining this: the tire example was not meant to make you think that we only have to account for one type of resource/variable! It was to demonstrate that comparisons between measurable variables are possible, which makes it possible to choose an ideal solution from the solutions that are available! This is no less true even if there are multiple variables involved:

Let's say it takes resources x, y, and z to make a tire.

Guess what? IT STILL WORKS THE SAME:

You just now have three variables to account for. The "global optima" (in terms of efficiency) is the lowest average of the three variables. IT IS REALLY QUITE SIMPLE.

[Technocrat]

Perhaps, so, but there are a lot questions being avoided here, such as quality, quantity, geographical distribution of resources, esthetics, etc. In my experience, resources are always, to a certain degree, distributed "subjectively."

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: all of these questions which you think are being avoided have either already been directly addressed by myself in a previous post or are addressed in the Study Course. Saying "in your experience ... whatever" is pretty pointless, isn't it? OF COURSE resources are distributed subjectively in a PRICE SYSTEM - The PRICE SYSTEM is based upon VALUE which is SUBJECTIVE.

DO YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY READING OR SOMETHING? This is getting quite annoying, and I am losing patience.


Unless, of course, for example, Tire A is made in an area of economic depression, in which case it might be worthwhile to produce it there to provide employment. And there are still decisions to be made such as scheduling, wages, hours, who does the work, etc. And, in addition, suppose the technocrat in charge of production makes an unwanted sexual advance to a worker. Who disciplines this person. Under what auspices is a hearing held?How could there be an ECONOMIC DEPRESSION in a Technate? This shows that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of how this system works and haven't been listening to A WORD I'VE SAID. You know, there is a difference between LISTENING and LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO DISAGREE WITH.

Okay, this is about the TENTH time I've said this - ANYONE CAN BE REMOVED FROM ANY POSITION AT ANY TIME BY A 2/3RD VOTE OF THOSE WHO WORK WITH THE PERSON.

ONE CAN ONLY BE PROMOTED BY FIRST DEMONSTRATING TO THEIR PEERS THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE AND POSSESS THE NEEDED SKILLS. AFTER DEMONSTRATING THIS THEY MAY BE CHOSEN BY THEIR PEERS TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR PROMOTION. AFTER THIS THOSE IN THE "RANK" IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THE POSITION TO BE FILLED WOULD CHOOSE FROM THE POOL OF AVAILABLE CANDIDATES WHO WOULD TAKE THE JOB, AS THEY HAVE ALREADY PASSED THROUGH THAT POSITION THEY ARE INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE JOB REQUIREMENTS.

OF COURSE sexual harassment would be illegal, just as it is today! How this is handled would be determined BY THE PEOPLE. The Technate is a method of organizing production only!


And, by the way, how did the manager get there in the first place? Who appointed this person. You say it’s because they have the requisite skill. In my work experience, stretching back about half a century, the skill required for management is minimal. Management is not a matter of technical skill but of the willingness to fire your mother if you are told to do this.I have answered this ten times at least - someone could only find themselves in a position, ANY position, by demonstrating the necessary abilities required for it! Management as it exists today is intimately tied in with capitalism - the problem is that you are trying to compare management as it exists today to how it would work in a Technate, without considering all the other factors in play! Managers in a CAPITALIST system have to be ruthless and be ready to fire people on a whim - because it's CAPITALIST!

This whole conversation with you is like if I were to try explaining to you how a car works, starting with the spark plugs, and having you conclude that because the spark plugs alone can't make the car work, that the idea of the car itself is impossible. It is literally that stupid.


And besides, who the fuck wants a tire plant near their home? Suppose it's most efficient to produce tires in Central Park or on the beach at Waikiki. Since when has minimal input been an infallible guide to production decisions.

RED DAVEWho the hell said tire plants would be built near homes?! Of course they would be built a safe distance away and out of sight! I HAVE STATED THIS EXPLICITLY SEVERAL TIMES:

The goal is to provide for the common interest. The common interest is defined as providing everyone with the maximum quality of life using the least possible input so as to achieve an abundance without sacrificing long term sustainability. Obviously, building tire plants in parks or beaches is going to conflict with the "quality of life" part!


And besides, those B tires are as ugly as shit. The people in my city don't want them. We want the A tires. They're much prettier. We voted for the A tires.No action which is harmful to the commons would be tolerated, AS IT SHOULD BE. People would not be able to vote to be intentionally wasteful, they would not be able to vote to dump toxic waste in rivers, they would not be able to vote to give everyone an SUV and a suburban house, they would not be able to vote to continue pouring C02 into the atmosphere and rendering the planet inhospitable to human life, they would not be able to vote to consume our resources at unsustainable rates, they would not be able to vote to re-instate capitalism, they would not be able to vote to re-instate slavery, etc, etc. AUTONOMY HAS RESULTED IN THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS. In order to protect the commons, NO ACTION WHICH CAN HARM THE COMMONS WOULD BE POSSIBLE. I say possible instead of "allowed" here. The word "allowed" implies a set of rules and an authority that enforces them. Instead, in a Technate, the POSSIBILITY of harming the commons would be eliminated through DESIGN. With DESIGN, the need for AUTHORITY is reduced to a bare minimum.

I'm sorry Dave, but you are being incredibly stupid. I don't think you ARE stupid, but I think looking for something to disagree with has made you CLOSE-MINDED which has rendered you unable to really UNDERSTAND what it is I'm saying. In order to UNDERSTAND you have to take time to THINK, but all I've gotten from you are these knee-jerk, reactionary comments which indicate that YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN THE TIME TO THINK. You have not yet offered a single statement that demonstrates that you even KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

[RED DAVE]

In order to protect the commons, NO ACTION WHICH CAN HARM THE COMMONS WOULD BE POSSIBLE. I say possible instead of "allowed" here. The word "allowed" implies a set of rules and an authority that enforces them. Instead, in a Technate, the POSSIBILITY of harming the commons would be eliminated through DESIGN. With DESIGN, the need for AUTHORITY is reduced to a bare minimum.And there you have it folks: interfere with the decisions of the existing AUTHORITY and you get zapped. If they decide that energy efficiency requires that we all eat fried green tomatoes, protesting that will get you ... .


I'm sorry DaveYou're not sorry, and neither was HAL.


but you are being incredibly stupid.As an active marxist with a lot of experience, I think that as a member of an obscure cult, it behooves you to have a little restraint when tossing around remarks like that.


I don't think you ARE stupidI'm humbly grateful for your mercy/


but I think looking for something to disagree with has made you CLOSE-MINDED which has rendered you unable to really UNDERSTAND what it is I'm saying.When it comes to your classically crackpot system, I don't have to look for something to disagree with. It's staring me right in the face.


In order to UNDERSTAND you have to take time to THINK, but all I've gotten from you are these knee-jerk, reactionary comments which indicate that YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN THE TIME TO THINK. You have not yet offered a single statement that demonstrates that you even KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.Well, dude, we'll just have to see about that. In the meantime, we still haven't addressed the source of power of that "bare minimum" of "AUTHORITY" you love so much.

So, the workers in a plant disagree with a major decision of their highly-qualified manager. The manager brings out their charts, etc., to prove that they're right, but the workers still disagree. Who gets to make the final decision? And, if the workers still disagree, who enforces the decision of the manager?

And was Jesus really the son of a virgin?

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

And there you have it folks: interfere with the decisions of the existing AUTHORITY and you get zapped. If they decide that energy efficiency requires that we all eat fried green tomatoes, protesting that will get you ... .

I don't know why I continue with this since you are clearly INCAPABLE of understanding, whether deliberately or not.

In a society of ABUNDANCE, anything that people want to CONSUME would be freely available to them. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF ABUNDANCE. The above statement is just more of your stupidity!

It's like you're really not getting what I am saying - I say one thing, and you take a radically inaccurate interpretation and just run with it. Your failure to understand me is related to your belligerence. A closed mind cannot receive new information.


As an active marxist with a lot of experience, I think that as a member of an obscure cult, it behooves you to have a little restraint when tossing around remarks like that.You're unable to counter any of my arguments with logic, so you resort to name calling - the last refuge of the debater who has been defeated.


Well, dude, we'll just have to see about that. In the meantime, we still haven't addressed the source of power of that "bare minimum" of "AUTHORITY" you love so much.Nope, its been addressed, both by myself MULTIPLE times in this thread and in the Technocracy Study Course. Not gonna repeat myself again for your sake. Go through my posts again and you'll see I've already addressed this MULTIPLE times. Study the process of selection from below and appointment from above.


So, the workers in a plant disagree with a major decision of their highly-qualified manager. The manager brings out their charts, etc., to prove that they're right, but the workers still disagree. Who gets to make the final decision? And, if the workers still disagree, who enforces the decision of the manager?STUDY THE PROCESS OF SELECTION FROM BELOW AND APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE WHICH I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED MULTIPLE TIMES IN THIS THREAD.

THIS IS A PROVEN PROCESS IN USE BY THE FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF TODAY. THE VERY FACT THAT THE LIGHTS STAY ON MORE THAN 99% OF THE TIME IS PROOF ENOUGH THAT IT WORKS.


And was Jesus really the son of a virgin?

RED DAVEWhat does that have to do with anything? Little too much eggnog or something? Get your head on straight.

This little demo/dave tag team is really quite sad. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong? I won't hold it against you.

An observation: the more time and effort a person expends on arguing something, the more psychologically invested they become in their position. With such people, arguing facts and logic doesn't help, because they need to be right in order for their effort and time to not have been wasted. For all you Kunstler fans out there, this is what he calls "the psychology of previous investment". I understand all of this - you have invested much of your time and life into a moribund social system and don't want to admit that to yourself now in your old age, such would be tantamount to admitting that YOU HAVE WASTED YOUR LIFE. However, if you don't want the rest of your life to be a WASTE, you had better wise up and realize that you're wrong before it's too late! Note that I don't hold out much hope for this.

I don't think you even read my posts. I think you just heard the word "Technocrat" and your mind started running wild with all kinds of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

[RED DAVE]

Interesting article on Technocracy, Fascism and LaRouche.

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.MONADMAN


And was Jesus really the son of a virgin?
What does that have to do with anything? Little too much eggnog or something? Get your head on straight.One feature of cult members is the absence of a sense of humor.

More later if I'm in the mood to cult bash.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Interesting article on Technocracy, Fascism and LaRouche.

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.MONADMAN

More later if I'm in the mood to cult bash.

RED DAVE

The article has been discredited due to libelous historical inaccuracy (at least how you are attempting to use it). More later if I'm in the mood to waste my time. Maybe you should read the article first?

From the article itself:

No doubt simpletons, ideologues, or simpleton ideologues with polemical axes to grind may claim that I am arguing that LaRouche's NCLC somehow is the direct descendent of Technocracy Inc. I emphatically am not. To be as clear as possible: I am unaware of a single bit of evidence that concretely links either LaRouche personally -- or any other member of the NCLC -- to Technocracy Inc. Nor do I believe one exists.Here are the facts:

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/history.htm

[RED DAVE]

Interesting article on Technocracy, Fascism and LaRouche.

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pm...brary.MONADMAN (http://www.anonym.to/?http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.MONADMAN)

More later if I'm in the mood to cult bash.
The article has been discredited due to libelous historical inaccuracy (at least how you are attempting to use it). More later if I'm in the mood to waste my time. Maybe you should read the article first?

From the article itself:

No doubt simpletons, ideologues, or simpleton ideologues with polemical axes to grind may claim that I am arguing that LaRouche's NCLC somehow is the direct descendent of Technocracy Inc. I emphatically am not. To be as clear as possible: I am unaware of a single bit of evidence that concretely links either LaRouche personally -- or any other member of the NCLC -- to Technocracy Inc. Nor do I believe one exists.Jeez! All I said was that it was an interesting article. If this cultist thinks it's discredited, let him discredit it.

This is more fun than playing poker with my grandchildren. :D

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Jeez! All I said was that it was an interesting article. If this cultist thinks it's discredited, let him discredit it.

This is more fun than playing poker with my grandchildren. :D

RED DAVE

I have read the article and it contains many historical inaccuracies. I don't have time right now to go through point by point (I will later), but this will suffice for now to help you understand WHY Technocracy was branded as fascist:


Propagandists, whether in the economic, political, or religious fields, have had a long experience in, and have perfected various techniques for propagating deception. One of these techniques, as we have already indicated, is that of "association". The trick is to take something and attempt to influence opinion for or against it by associating it with something else regarding which either a favorable or unfavorable opinion has already been formed...

During WWII, a certain disdain for fascism developed in America and some other countries, although the authoritarians did not take an active part in promoting this disdain, rather, they actively tried to soft-pedal it and direct the stigma toward the personalities of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo (but not against Pacelli, Victor Emanuel, or Hirohito; for evidently, the former were considered expendable but the latter were not)

In character with the true propaganda techniques of the authoritarians, Technocracy was proclaimed to be "fascistic" during World War II. But, as soon as the war was over, the communism was branded to be the mortal enemy of authoritarianism (while fascism was blessed with absolution), and in complete disregard for intellectual consistency the propagandists of authoritarianism associate Technocracy with communism, Technocrats were no longer depicted in cartoons as goose-stepping fascists, but were transformed into swaggering commissars. The Hearst papers went so far as to lump the four great heresies together into one "brotherhood" - Science, Technocracy, Communism, and Atheism.

Various petty officials have, from time to time, attempted to brand Technocracy as "subversive," but the reasons for such (when given at all) have always been very vague and evasive. When investigated, these petty persons usually turn out to be affiliates or dupes of some organized intrusion of authoritarianism on this Continent - which is opposed to abundance, security, and freedom from toil for the inhabitants of North America. Source: Wilton Ivie, "Who is a Technocrat?"

The link in my above post addresses many of the historical inaccuracies found in the article. I will do a more thorough point-by-point refutation when I have the time to do so and if I feel so inclined.

[RED DAVE]

From the above:


[Daniel] Bell, however, never accused Technocracy Inc. of being fascist per se in its politic but he insisted that with its elite theory that it was tilting in a fascist-like totalitarian direction.36 As Bell put it in his 14 March 1942 piece:

The conveniently stereotyped slogans cannot be draped around Mr. Scott's organization. It rejects liberalism and democracy. In effect, it preaches a rule by an elite, this elite to be composed of engineers who have the sufficient wisdom to utilize our technical resources. It rejects aliens, Asiatics and politicians, with politics and finance its two chief bugaboos.
Technocracy is lodged in a large suite at 155 East 44th St., outfitted in slick chrome style. Young men standing guard salute Technocracy officials on entering. One person in the office insisted that the men did not wear uniforms, that "they are ordinary double-breasted suits," but all happen to be the same. They wear grey-coats, grey pants, grey shirts and blue ties. On the label is the monad emblem of Technocracy.http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.MONADMAN

Let's see: salutes, uniforms, rejection of religion and democracy. I wonder why Technocracy got confused with fascism in the 1930s and 1940s?

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

The role of scientists and engineers is the following: to continue doing their jobs. The difference is that in a Technate special interests (corporations and politics) would be eliminated and the only interest being served would be the common interest. Since it is these people that have the technical knowledge needed to build and operate the Technate, then they would be the ones who built and operated the Technate.

Back in the '30s when this ideology was developed or prominent, statist central planning was all the rage. And that is what technocracy is a form of. Notice that in these various quotes there is little said about governance or decision-making power. But in this quote it is scientists and engineers who "operate" the proposed social arrangement.

Here it is also necessary to look at the role of engineering and related "professional" fields in corporate or late capitalism. Engineering didn't even exist as a profession before roughly the 1890s because technical knowhow was the prerogative of skilled workers. In the 1890s the American Society of Mechanical Engineers was taken over by Frederick Taylor and others pushing the same program of re-org of work. Their proposals helped to facilitate the emergence of engineering as a separate profession and growth of the managerial hierarchies. The Taylorist plan is to take skill and expertise as much as possible away from workers and put it in an elite group directly working with management. This was one of the main forces leading to the growth of engineering. During this early period, there were some conflicts between the Taylorists and old style company managers over the power or role of the engineers. And some, such as Henry Gantt, became advocates for elimination of the capitalist "coupon-clippers".

The apparent universality of this new hierarchical scheme in industry was also helped by Stalin's campaign to train many members of the Communist Party thru the universities to become members of a rising Soviet managerial and engineering elite, comparable to that in the big corporations. These trends led James Burnham, a former Trot, to abandon marxism in favor of his thesis of the inevitability of technocratic control, in hiis book "The Managerial Revolution."

The idea of a conflict between the engineers and capitalists was also promoted in the World War 1 era by Thorstein Veblen, who was no socialist. It was due to the influence of Veblen that Ralph Chaplin and some other members of the IWW flirted with the idea of a working class alliance with engineers and lower manageement against the capitalists. (You can find elements of this in Chaplin's "The General Strike for Industrial Freedom.")

But what we need to realize is that the hierarchies of engineers, managers, and various other experts serving management -- lawyers, HR experts, financial analysts, etc -- who have become so important to capitalism in the past century, are essentially a third techno-cratic class, in between capital owners and the proletarian class.

What technocracy leaves out is that this class was essentially created. It's role isn't "neutral".

Thus I interpret technocracy as being akin to Marxism-Leninism as being an ideology that would empower the techno-managerial class to become the ruling class. Of course, I know that some Leninists would deny that this is a consequence of Leninism, even tho bureaucratic or techno-managerial class rule has always flowed from Leninist parties taking power.

Liberation of the working class requires that the power of this techno-managerial class be broken, not puffed up. To break it requires workers taking over the means of production, ousting the management hierarchy, and developing training and educaitonal programs to educate more and more workers to be able to do the kind of work that now gets siphoned off to engineers, accountants, architects and so on. in other words, jobs need to be re-defined so that everyone has some skill or expertise and thus better able to participate in decision making about governance of industry effectively. But this would require a major change in the educational system, so as to democratize expertise and knowledge.

[Technocrat]

Liberation of the working class requires that the power of this techno-managerial class be broken, not puffed up. To break it requires workers taking over the means of production, ousting the management hierarchy, and developing training and educaitonal programs to educate more and more workers to be able to do the kind of work that now gets siphoned off to engineers, accountants, architects and so on. in other words, jobs need to be re-defined so that everyone has some skill or expertise and thus better able to participate in decision making about governance of industry effectively. But this would require a major change in the educational system, so as to democratize expertise and knowledge.

First of all you seem to be making the common mistake of assuming that Technocracy is a government of scientists and engineers. IT IS NOT. The vertical alignment process makes sure that those occupying functional positions have the SKILLS necessary for the job. So while it is LIKELY that someone occupying a FUNCTIONAL position would have a science or engineering background, it is BY NO MEANS NECESSARY in order for them to take a job. The only thing which is necessary is that they possess the skills required by the job! Hence the word Technocracy which literally means "rule by skill". What you are describing is "technocracy" with a lower-case t. This is not the same thing as the proper-noun "Technocracy" which refers to the program of Technocracy, Inc. Obviously, much confusion has resulted from this over the years.

You say Workers must take over the means of production. How are they going to do that UNLESS THEY HAVE THE SKILLS REQUIRED TO OPERATE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION?

To me it seems OBVIOUS that those CONTROLLING the means of production must have the KNOWLEDGE and SKILLS necessary to do so!

The vertical alignment process (selection from below and appointment from above) ENSURES that the only way to find oneself in any given position is to demonstrate the needed abilities and be elected by one's peers!

This means that ANYONE can take a given position if they are QUALIFIED for it. This is both FUNCTIONAL and FAIR.

Technocracy has ALWAYS advocated that education be FREE and MANDATORY for every citizen, including college. This means that in such a society, people WOULD have the "skill or expertise [needed] to participate in decision making". But, NOT EVERYONE would have the SAME skills or expertise (as a function of specialization) - decisions would be made by THOSE WHO HAD THE KNOWLEDGE RELEVANT TO THE DECISION BEING MADE. If someone wants to provide input into a particular problem, the only requirement is that they actually be familiar with the subject at hand! This is both FUNCTIONAL and FAIR. Note that this doesn't mean that a person's proposals would be rejected outright if they happened to fall outside of their own field of expertise, just that the only way to gain more authority over decision-making is to demonstrate to others that you have the skills and knowledge to warrant such authority and to be given it by one's peers! This is THE LEAST AUTHORITARIAN SYSTEM DEVISED.

This goes back to what was said at the very beginning of this thread: Technocracy is NOT incompatible with socialism, because in a Technocratic society, the scientists, engineers, etc would BECOME the new working class - all other "dirty jobs" being automated to the degree possible.

[Technocrat]

From the above:

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.MONADMAN

Let's see: salutes, uniforms, rejection of religion and democracy. I wonder why Technocracy got confused with fascism in the 1930s and 1940s?

RED DAVE

Those are just Scott's opinions, and are not representative of all Technocracy. Or perhaps all of communism should be rejected because of Stalin's opinions? It's a common enough argument, and a piss poor one.

This is an example of the "association" technique of propaganda.

[Technocrat]

It's not about abundance or scarcity as much as it's about *prioritization*. Given that our desires may very well be infinite, far outstripping our physical ability to fulfill them all in a lifetime (assuming that we have hypothetically perfect access to any of them, immediately), we have to *first* personally decide exactly which one we want to do next, and *then* still go through exactly which combination of the available, qualified laborers would best be arranged to fill the labor roles for the realization of the project / desires. Taken up to the collective, societal level this kind of prioritization / optimization problem only gets increasingly complex -- that's why I developed the 'communist supply & demand' model.... (To see a sample scenario played through with the model, see this post, at 'A world without money')

To me, this still seems to be based on scarcity. In a condition of abundance, there is no need for prioritization of needs. In a condition of abundance, by definition, one doesn't have to choose between A and B, because they have the resources to do both.

Now, if you are talking about prioritization in terms of choosing the most efficient option for performing a given task, then it seems like that would more easily be done with energy accounting and total-systems planning like I described previously.

Am I just not understanding you correctly?

[RED DAVE]

First of all you seem to be making the common mistake of assuming that Technocracy is a government of scientists and engineers. IT IS NOT.Well, if it isn't, which class is the ruling class?


The vertical alignment process makes sure that those occupying functional positions have the SKILLS necessary for the job.One more time: who tests those occupying the positions?


So while it is LIKELY that someone occupying a FUNCTIONAL position would have a science or engineering background, it is BY NO MEANS NECESSARY in order for them to take a job. The only thing which is necessary is that they possess the skills required by the job! Hence the word Technocracy which literally means "rule by skill".One more time, who determines that they have these so-called skills.


What you are describing is "technocracy" with a lower-case t. This is not the same thing as the proper-noun "Technocracy" which refers to the program of Technocracy, Inc. Obviously, much confusion has resulted from this over the years.

You say Workers must take over the means of production. How are they going to do that UNLESS THEY HAVE THE SKILLS REQUIRED TO OPERATE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION?Considering that, in fact, it is the workers operate the means of production, that's a pretty dumb question. Or don't you think that the working class actually operate the means of production.


To me it seems OBVIOUS that those CONTROLLING the means of production must have the KNOWLEDGE and SKILLS necessary to do so!True enough, and those are the workers who, as a class, have the collective knowledge and skill to do this.


The vertical alignment process (selection from below and appointment from above) ENSURES that the only way to find oneself in any given position is to demonstrate the needed abilities and be elected by one's peers!Just like in a corporation where the boss's son has the "needed abilites," which means, fundamentally, the ability to fire anyone who pisses him off.


This means that ANYONE can take a given position if they are QUALIFIED for it. This is both FUNCTIONAL and FAIR.One more time, who makes the determination?


Technocracy has ALWAYS advocated that education be FREE and MANDATORY for every citizen, including college.How does Technocracy deal with those groups who are disadvantaged by capitalism. Does Technocracy support affirmative action?


This means that in such a society, people WOULD have the "skill or expertise [needed] to participate in decision making". But, NOT EVERYONE would have the SAME skills or expertise (as a function of specialization) - decisions would be made by THOSE WHO HAD THE KNOWLEDGE RELEVANT TO THE DECISION BEING MADE.i agree. And since the workeers have both the knowledge and skill to make those decisions, democratically, they should do the decision making.


If someone wants to provide input into a particular problem, the only requirement is that they actually be familiar with the subject at hand!Those who do a job, day by day, are certainly familiar with their work. In fact, they're the people who are most familiar.


This is both FUNCTIONAL and FAIR. Note that this doesn't mean that a person's proposals would be rejected outright if they happened to fall outside of their own field of expertise, just that the only way to gain more authority over decision-making is to demonstrate to others that you have the skills and knowledge to warrant such authority and to be given it by one's peers! This is THE LEAST AUTHORITARIAN SYSTEM DEVISED.Yep. When it comes to workers control of industry, all inputs must be democratically considered.


This goes back to what was said at the very beginning of this thread: Technocracy is NOT incompatible with socialism, because in a Technocratic society, the scientists, engineers, etc would BECOME the new working class - all other "dirty jobs" being automated to the degree possible.Yeah, well, I guess it's cool. Everyone has to take a turn. I would love to deliver the mail or drive a truck with an engineer as a buddy. Really help him/her get educated about work.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Well, if it isn't, which class is the ruling class?

There is no "ruling class" because a ruling class is one which enforces its OPINIONS through the use of AUTHORITY. Here there is absolutely NO CONFLICT with Marxism.


One more time: who tests those occupying the positions?It's entirely based upon PERFORMANCE. If someone does well and DEMONSTRATES that they have ability, then their PEERS will RECOGNIZE it and keep that in mind the next time there is an election to promote someone (when a position becomes vacated in the level above them). If someone consistently does a POOR job, then their PEERS would notice that as well, and would elect to remove them to another position to ensure the continued functioning of society!


Considering that, in fact, it is the workers operate the means of production, that's a pretty dumb question. Or don't you think that the working class actually operate the means of production.That is PRECISELY my point! THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH MARXISM HERE.


Just like in a corporation where the boss's son has the "needed abilites," which means, fundamentally, the ability to fire anyone who pisses him off.The workers in the corporation don't have the right to fire the boss's son, do they? They would in a Technate, making this scenario extremely unlikely in the first place.


One more time, who makes the determination? You are really daft if you have not figured this out by now - It's been explained multiple times throughout the thread and I've advised you repeatedly to STUDY THE PROCESS OF SELECTION FROM BELOW AND APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE - ALSO KNOWN AS THE VERTICAL ALIGNMENT PROCESS.


How does Technocracy deal with those groups who are disadvantaged by capitalism. Does Technocracy support affirmative action?That's a pretty ridiculous question, isn't it? Technocracy proposes giving EVERYONE the MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PURCHASING POWER, in terms of ability to consume, that is sustainable! In other words, abundance for all. It's pretty remarkable that I have to go over this at all at this stage in the debate - this was already established a long time ago in this thread.


i agree. And since the workeers have both the knowledge and skill to make those decisions, democratically, they should do the decision making. No, not democratically - that is RULE BY OPINION. Decisions regarding OBJECTIVE matters are to be determined OBJECTIVELY - using science. VOTING on OBJECTIVE matters CREATES SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP is a group that has an OPINION regarding a particular topic, and seeks to have that OPINION made into LAWS which are then enforced with AUTHORITY.


Those who do a job, day by day, are certainly familiar with their work. In fact, they're the people who are most familiar. Absolutely.


Yep. When it comes to workers control of industry, all inputs must be democratically considered.Absolutely not - see the above.

The factors involved in the operation of INDUSTRY for an explicitly stated goal (in this case, the production and distribution of an abundance) are MEASURABLE, making them OBJECTIVE in nature.


Yeah, well, I guess it's cool. Everyone has to take a turn. I would love to deliver the mail or drive a truck with an engineer as a buddy. Really help him/her get educated about work.

RED DAVEThe Technocratic way would be to AUTOMATE the dirty jobs as much as possible, so that NO ONE had to do them - or at least so that the amount of human effort involved was reduced to a bare minimum. The remaining "dirty work" would be minimal, and would be shared by all. Perhaps once a month you would need to "deliver the mail" or "drive a truck" for a couple hours.

[syndicat]

First of all you seem to be making the common mistake of assuming that Technocracy is a government of scientists and engineers. IT IS NOT. The vertical alignment process makes sure that those occupying functional positions have the SKILLS necessary for the job. So while it is LIKELY that someone occupying a FUNCTIONAL position would have a science or engineering background, it is BY NO MEANS NECESSARY in order for them to take a job. The only thing which is necessary is that they possess the skills required by the job! Hence the word Technocracy which literally means "rule by skill". What you are describing is "technocracy" with a lower-case t. This is not the same thing as the proper-noun "Technocracy" which refers to the program of Technocracy, Inc. Obviously, much confusion has resulted from this over the years.

You say Workers must take over the means of production. How are they going to do that UNLESS THEY HAVE THE SKILLS REQUIRED TO OPERATE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION?

To me it seems OBVIOUS that those CONTROLLING the means of production must have the KNOWLEDGE and SKILLS necessary to do so!


You see, you're talking as if it's some how due to the order of nature or something, due to some neutral requirement of production, that the jobs that exist are the ones that must exist. This assumes the existence of a class system. That's because the division of labor within corporate capitalist production is inherently a system of class domination.

your assumption seems to be that, to run production, we need exactly the jobs we now have...managers, engineers, accountants, etc. You seem to think that the existing division of labor is something Writ by Nature. as you say:


No, not democratically - that is RULE BY OPINION. Decisions regarding OBJECTIVE matters are to be determined OBJECTIVELY - using science.

"Science" isn't what created engineering as an occupation, dude. Engineering didn't exist as a profession in the 19th century. It began to be created only in the late 1800s. And the expansion of engineering as a profession happened due a movement to re-org production by taking the responsibility for technology and technical know how away from skilled workers and put it in a group directly allied with management...engineers. The existing hierarchy in production is a product of corporate capitalism and expresses capitalist requirements...for control over workers, intensification of pace of work. De-skilling jobs has the effect of lessening worker power on the job since reliance on worker skills makes management more dependent on them. Taylorism is a power strategy. It wasn't dictated by "objective science." In reality there is no particular reason that a science-based education could not have continued workers as the repository for all the technological expertise.

A large part of the work that the techno-managerial class does is controlling workers, to extract profit. This is why there is such a bloated managerial hierarchy in corporate capitalism. Engineers participate in this by designing equipment and software to control and monitor workers.

Also, the job of "manager" is inherently a job that implies class domination. When workers take over management of production, they eliminate the management hierarchy. Immediately there begins a learning process where skills and knowledge they did not have the opportunity to acquire, they start to do so.

Consider as an example the recuperated factories in Argentina. The workers started these up without the techno-managerial class. This means that a number of them had to learn to do things like bookkeeping and coordinating with other workplaces, marketing the product and so on.

Further, there are likely to be many members of the techno-managerial class who will be sympathetic to conversion of industry to a more democratic, self-managed form. Instead of being part of a boss class, they can work as advisors to the worker self-management organizations.

Also, an immediate priority for workers self-management would be setting up popular education programs to broadly educate in particular industries on technical subjects they may not have learned about because the work they were doing was relatively less skilled.

Even so, many workers who are not a part of the techno-managerial class do in fact have quite a bit of the expertise relevant to manage workplaces. I'm thinking here of workers such as computer system admins, electronic technicians, medical technicians, skilled mechanics and machinists, and so on.

Even less skilled workers learn a lot of things from the jobs they do. Thus the total workforce has a pool of skills and experience that is sufficient to continue production going.

So your assumption that the techno-managerial hierarchy would have to continue to run production as they do now is false, and is inconsistent with workers liberation from class domination and exploitation.

Without democratic worker self-management of production, there can be no liberation of the working class from subordination and exploitation by a dominating class. your opposition to democratic worker control of industry shows that your ideology has a dominating class agenda.

[Technocrat]

You see, you're talking as if it's some how due to the order of nature or something, due to some neutral requirement of production, that the jobs that exist are the ones that must exist. This assumes the existence of a class system. That's because the division of labor within corporate capitalist production is inherently a system of class domination.

I'm going to stop you right there and say that you are severely mistaken in your interpretation and assessment of my words. I AM IN NO WAY SUGGESTING THAT THE JOBS THAT EXIST NOW MUST BE THE JOBS THAT CONTINUE TO EXIST IN A TECHNATE. Perhaps you have not read through all of my posts carefully enough? I won't bother to address the rest of your post until you acknowledge what I have said here so that I KNOW that you understand what I'm saying. ONLY THEN can we continue the conversation in an intelligible way.

[syndicat]

You may say that at some point in the future the educational system may distribute expertise more broadly. But that is merely handwaving. That's because it won't happen if the working class doesn't gain power. And it won't gain power if it doesn't take over control of production, push out management power, and institute a collective, democratic worker management of production, and also of social affairs...including decisions about allocation to systems that provide public provision of public goods such as education, health care, and so on.

without the direct power of workers in production, no such change in the structure of jobs will come about.

Moreover, altho you make allusion to expertise being more broadly distributed in the future, you say that "scientists" will run production. If we are talking about the situation where control is taken from the capitalist, this implies that it those who currently have a science-based education, the engineers and other experts and managers, who will run production. Hence that workers would still be subordinate.

[Demogorgon]

There is no "ruling class" because a ruling class is one which enforces its OPINIONS through the use of AUTHORITY. Here there is absolutely NO CONFLICT with Marxism.

Well hang on, those who are doing the running of things are by definition part of a different class from everyone else, so either they are ruling or everyone else is ruling. Unless of course the two classes are existing in harmony?

[ckaihatsu]

It's not about abundance or scarcity as much as it's about *prioritization*. Given that our desires may very well be infinite, far outstripping our physical ability to fulfill them all in a lifetime (assuming that we have hypothetically perfect access to any of them, immediately), we have to *first* personally decide exactly which one we want to do next, and *then* still go through exactly which combination of the available, qualified laborers would best be arranged to fill the labor roles for the realization of the project / desires. Taken up to the collective, societal level this kind of prioritization / optimization problem only gets increasingly complex -- that's why I developed the 'communist supply & demand' model.... (To see a sample scenario played through with the model, see this post, at 'A world without money')

http://tinyurl.com/yfjmjzc





To me, this still seems to be based on scarcity. In a condition of abundance, there is no need for prioritization of needs. In a condition of abundance, by definition, one doesn't have to choose between A and B, because they have the resources to do both.


The reason I introduce the *prioritization* process is simply to acknowledge that time itself moves in a *linear* direction, from the past to the future. In this way the reality of scarcity or abundance *wouldn't matter*, because we still have to deal with the *present situation*, hopefully as a result of *past planning* using some kind of prioritization.

If you have both A and B can you fit them both into your mouth at the same time? Okay, maybe you can, but what about C? Or D? (Etc.)





Now, if you are talking about prioritization in terms of choosing the most efficient option for performing a given task, then it seems like that would more easily be done with energy accounting and total-systems planning like I described previously.

Am I just not understanding you correctly?


I've covered my reservations / concerns with EA in previous posts -- I can always dig them up for reposting, but in short I think that the *logistics* of any kind of "genealogical"-type of bookkeeping of past energy / labor / resource / asset inputs into a single product out of a production run is just too complicated and unwieldy. That's why I developed and advance the 'communist supply & demand' model -- it limits *all* value-quantification *solely* to labor time (times a hazard / difficulty multiplier).

[RED DAVE]

There is no "ruling class" because a ruling class is one which enforces its OPINIONS through the use of AUTHORITY. Here there is absolutely NO CONFLICT with Marxism.As a Marxist, with much more understanding of Marxism than you, let me tell you that you are dead wrong.

You are assuming, with no proof whatsoever beyond the assumptions of your belief system, that the day-to-day decisions in a factory, or in an economy, are objective. And that anything else is OPINION. Well, you are wrong. The vast majority of day-to-day decisions are, precisely, OPINIONS, based on values and experience, not on some phony, so-called objective criteria that stand above the classes.


It's entirely based upon PERFORMANCE. If someone does well and DEMONSTRATES that they have ability, then their PEERS will RECOGNIZE it and keep that in mind the next time there is an election to promote someone (when a position becomes vacated in the level above them).Notice that, already, you are assuming that the decision-making process in, say, the factory, is on a higher level than on the shop floor and that there is some kind of semi-permanent group above the shop floor that makes decisions.

This is not workers democracy as conceived of by Marxists.


If someone consistently does a POOR job, then their PEERS would notice that as well, and would elect to remove them to another position to ensure the continued functioning of society!By their PEERS, I assume you mean the other managers. This is not workers democracy. In a condition of workers democracy all key decisions are made by the workers. While expertise may be brought in to aid in decision making, the fact is that under socialism, workers make the decisions, not a group of "expert" managers, engineers, technocrats, etc. And, gradually, all such expertise will be transferred to the working class through education.


That is PRECISELY my point! THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH MARXISM HERE.And your point is PRECISELY WRONG. THERE IS COMPLETE CONFLICT WITH MARXISM HERE.


The workers in the corporation don't have the right to fire the boss's son, do they? They would in a Technate, making this scenario extremely unlikely in the first place.You are damned by your own words here. You are assuming that under socialism there will be "bosses." Sorry, kiddo, but that's not the way Marxists want it to work.


One more time, who makes the determination?[/QUOTE
You are really daftDaft! Daft! I wonder if your concept of labor/management, like your vocabulary, comes from the 19th Century. :D


if you have not figured this out by now - It's been explained multiple times throughout the thread and I've advised you repeatedly to STUDY THE PROCESS OF SELECTION FROM BELOW AND APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE - ALSO KNOWN AS THE VERTICAL ALIGNMENT PROCESS.For those who are mystified by this weird-ass terminology, here's an explanation from a Technocracy website.


The government itself would be a self-perpetuation hierarchy; recommendation from below and appointment from above.http://technocracy1.org/

In other words, we peons get to recommend, but the self-perpetuating elite makes the choices. Not socialism.


How does Technocracy deal with those groups who are disadvantaged by capitalism. Does Technocracy support affirmative action?That's a pretty ridiculous question, isn't it?No, it isn't. What is ridiculous is your attempt to sweep under the rug the whole issue of racism. Let's see what you propose:


Technocracy proposes giving EVERYONE the MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PURCHASING POWER, in terms of ability to consume, that is sustainable! In other words, abundance for all. It's pretty remarkable that I have to go over this at all at this stage in the debate - this was already established a long time ago in this thread.It's pretty remarkable that you think you can, with a few capitalized words, perform an act of political legerdemain (:D).

Capitalism, in case you hadn't noticed, produces vast inequalities in the population, even within classes. One of the most critical cases of this is racism, which is used both to boost profits and divide the working class by enforcing unequal access to that portion of the pie that workers receive.

Now, once workers democracy has been established, this inequality will have to be made up; otherwise, the workers themselves will be guilty of racism. Great portions of the economic product will have to be dedicated, for quite awhile, to erasing the wounds of racism. This will include huge outlays for compensatory education, medical treatment, the rebuilding of the slums, etc. For you to believe that the establishment of "the MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PURCHASING POWER" for "EVERYONE" will heal the institutional, structural, long-term damage of racism evinces a dangerous naivite towards racism which, itself, racist.


i [sic] agree. And since the workeers [sic] have both the knowledge and skill to make those decisions, democratically, they should do the decision making.[/QUOTE[QUOTE=Technocrat;1634386]]No, not democratically - that is RULE BY OPINION.And there you have it Comrades: the democratic control of industry by the working class is precluded from Technocracy. What we have is a nice, cozy little (or big) dictatorship of the engineers, instead of the capitalists. Are we really going to exchange one set of bosses for another?


Decisions regarding OBJECTIVE matters are to be determined OBJECTIVELY - using science.Dude, there is science and there is science, and science is as riddled with values as any other set of socially created knowledge.

Your OBJECTIVE matters are, in fact, the life and death economic decisions for billions of people. And if you think we're going to let a bunch of engineers (remember, the ones with the short haircuts who can't get a date :D) make those decisions, you're crazy.


VOTING on OBJECTIVE matters CREATES SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.No, voting on all matters creates workers democracy and expertise.


A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPIs what Marxists call a CLASS. (Damn, now you've got me going with the all-caps. :D)


is a group that has an OPINION regarding a particular topic, and seeks to have that OPINION made into LAWS which are then enforced with AUTHORITY.Which is a pretty good description, using your eccentric terminology, of class struggle, which is at the heart of what we advocate and you reject.


The factors involved in the operation of INDUSTRY for an explicitly stated goal (in this case, the production and distribution of an abundance) are MEASURABLE, making them OBJECTIVE in nature.Uh, no they're not because the essence of the operation of industry is control of industry. And since Technocracy makes it clear that the control of industry will be in the hands of a technological elite, the chosen factors will be the factors chosen by this elite, which is self-perpetuating and not subject to democratic.

'Nuff for now.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

You may say that at some point in the future the educational system may distribute expertise more broadly. But that is merely handwaving. That's because it won't happen if the working class doesn't gain power. And it won't gain power if it doesn't take over control of production, push out management power, and institute a collective, democratic worker management of production, and also of social affairs...including decisions about allocation to systems that provide public provision of public goods such as education, health care, and so on.

Why do we need democratic decision making regarding allocation in a condition of ABUNDANCE? That is only necessary in a condition of SCARCITY, by DEFINITION.


without the direct power of workers in production, no such change in the structure of jobs will come about.

I'm going to repeat this again since apparently you missed it:

VOTING ON OBJECTIVE MATTERS CREATES SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS BY DEFINITION.


Moreover, altho you make allusion to expertise being more broadly distributed in the future, you say that "scientists" will run production. If we are talking about the situation where control is taken from the capitalist, this implies that it those who currently have a science-based education, the engineers and other experts and managers, who will run production. Hence that workers would still be subordinate.

No, I simply said that whoever is QUALIFIED will run production. Most likely this will be scientists or engineers because it is those fields which are involved in the PHYSICAL operation of production. Read my posts more carefully next time.

Maybe you think we should just get a bunch of tatted-up anarchists off the streets and start assigning jobs at random?

[Technocrat]

Well hang on, those who are doing the running of things are by definition part of a different class from everyone else, so either they are ruling or everyone else is ruling. Unless of course the two classes are existing in harmony?

No, you are mistaken. "RULE" is a way that a group or individual enforces their OPINION on everyone else through the use of AUTHORITY. In a Technate, AUTHORITY is given and taken away by one's peers on the basis of demonstrated ABILITY, not the ability to COERCE or DECIEVE people such as in a democratic system (opening the door to special interest groups).

[Technocrat]

The reason I introduce the *prioritization* process is simply to acknowledge that time itself moves in a *linear* direction, from the past to the future. In this way the reality of scarcity or abundance *wouldn't matter*, because we still have to deal with the *present situation*, hopefully as a result of *past planning* using some kind of prioritization.

If you have both A and B can you fit them both into your mouth at the same time? Okay, maybe you can, but what about C? Or D? (Etc.)

Of course what you are saying would have to be taken into account. Let's say A is food and B is travel. Well, I can still figure out how much food a person can eat in a single day, and I can still figure out how much travel a person can consume given a particular set of technoloy. If I'm unable to fulfill BOTH needs, then I don't have an abundance, I still have scarcity.


I've covered my reservations / concerns with EA in previous posts -- I can always dig them up for reposting, but in short I think that the *logistics* of any kind of "genealogical"-type of bookkeeping of past energy / labor / resource / asset inputs into a single product out of a production run is just too complicated and unwieldy. That's why I developed and advance the 'communist supply & demand' model -- it limits *all* value-quantification *solely* to labor time (times a hazard / difficulty multiplier).

Really? I think it would be LESS unwieldy: Energy labelling is a simple process and many companies are already doing it. A company already needs to know what resources it needs for its functional operations, so no additional work is needed there. A single linked inventory system would handle the distribution and allocation of resources to the various functional sequences - similar to the systems already in use today but linked up at a continental level. Nothing remarkable about this. I'm still not seeing the necessity of your model vs Technocracy's, although perhaps I am just missing something?

[RED DAVE]

No, you are mistaken. "RULE" is a way that a group or individual enforces their OPINION on everyone else through the use of AUTHORITY. In a Technate, AUTHORITY is given and taken away by one's peers on the basis of demonstrated ABILITY, not the ability to COERCE or DECIEVE people such as in a democratic system (opening the door to special interest groups).Nice, neat justification for dictatorship.

Some people are, according to this system, just better at governing than others, and we peons need to give them the power and let them run things for our benefit. Those PEERS will run things and keep us fat and happy and give us bread and circuses.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

Of course what you are saying would have to be taken into account. Let's say A is food and B is travel. Well, I can still figure out how much food a person can eat in a single day, and I can still figure out how much travel a person can consume given a particular set of technoloy. If I'm unable to fulfill BOTH needs, then I don't have an abundance, I still have scarcity.


Yeah, sure -- I don't see why anything about technocratic *planning*, as long as it is within the sphere of cooperation of mass liberated labor, would be *precluded* -- right now, though, you seem to have your hands full in dealing with more of the *political* aspects of how to get to *there* from *here*...(!)





Really? I think it would be LESS unwieldy: Energy labelling is a simple process and many companies are already doing it. A company already needs to know what resources it needs for its functional operations, so no additional work is needed there. A single linked inventory system would handle the distribution and allocation of resources to the various functional sequences - similar to the systems already in use today but linked up at a continental level. Nothing remarkable about this. I'm still not seeing the necessity of your model vs Technocracy's, although perhaps I am just missing something?


Yeah, again, I have *no* quibbling to do with any method of systems planning that happens to work well -- of course *any* productive system would have to keep track of energy usage, etc....

My *difference* with EA, as I mentioned, is that I don't think the *entire material system* should *hinge* on the energy unit as the independent variable -- instead, *labor time* should be the most basic unit of political-economic material measurement, with *all* productive infrastructure (assets) and nature-sourced-or-manufactured resources being treated as *qualitative* *attachments* to the labor-time-indexed production process.

All finished goods would have been collectively intentionally pre-planned in advance anyway, with *specific* consumer-destinations -- *nothing* would be accidental inventory surplus resulting from market-based, speculative investment-gambling -- and so *nothing* would be commodity production. (In this way the feast-or-famine boom-bust cycles endemic to the capitalist market system could be avoided altogther, including rampant overproduction, deflation, and all the rest of the hands-off financial chaos that we know all too well.)

[syndicat]

Why do we need democratic decision making regarding allocation in a condition of ABUNDANCE? That is only necessary in a condition of SCARCITY, by DEFINITION.

There will always be scarcity. there are only 24 hours in the day and only so many people with relevant skills for any particular kind of production. The people must be in control if they are going to be able to determine that THEIR priorities are the priorities that dominate in production of goods and services. For example, there are onlyso many people with construction worker skills. The community wants, at a particular point in time, larger and better houses, but also a new network of health clinics, oh, and a new set of popular universities. so where should the construction workers be working? this depends on how the society determines what is most important at this point in time. This can't happen without people expressing their preferences for production. In the case of public goods like health and education etc, this means through direct democracy.


Quote:
without the direct power of workers in production, no such change in the structure of jobs will come about.

I'm going to repeat this again since apparently you missed it:

VOTING ON OBJECTIVE MATTERS CREATES SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS BY DEFINITION.


What people want is not an "objective" matter. That's because desire is subjective. But the effectiveness of an economy depends on its ability to meet the desires of the population. That won't happen if the people don't have the power to ensure their desires are reflected in what is produced.


Quote:
Moreover, altho you make allusion to expertise being more broadly distributed in the future, you say that "scientists" will run production. If we are talking about the situation where control is taken from the capitalist, this implies that it those who currently have a science-based education, the engineers and other experts and managers, who will run production. Hence that workers would still be subordinate.


No, I simply said that whoever is QUALIFIED will run production. Most likely this will be scientists or engineers because it is those fields which are involved in the PHYSICAL operation of production. Read my posts more carefully next time.

Thanks for conceding exactly the point I was making! What you're proposing is power to the techno-managerial class, as society comes out of capitalism...just as I said.



Maybe you think we should just get a bunch of tatted-up anarchists off the streets and start assigning jobs at random?

what an ass you are. You ***** about me allegedly not paying attention to what you say, then do the same in regard to what i wrote, i.e.ignore what I said.

[Technocrat]

There will always be scarcity. there are only 24 hours in the day and only so many people with relevant skills for any particular kind of production. The people must be in control if they are going to be able to determine that THEIR priorities are the priorities that dominate in production of goods and services. For example, there are onlyso many people with construction worker skills. The community wants, at a particular point in time, larger and better houses, but also a new network of health clinics, oh, and a new set of popular universities. so where should the construction workers be working? this depends on how the society determines what is most important at this point in time. This can't happen without people expressing their preferences for production. In the case of public goods like health and education etc, this means through direct democracy.

If you've been paying attention AT ALL, you'd see that I'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS.

An ABUNDANCE is defined as a sufficient supply to MEET THE DEMAND of the population within a 24 hour period. So the fact that time is limited is not a factor at all, since abundance is defined as being able to meet all of a people's demands WITHIN a given period of time! Having a sufficient number of trained people to operate the essential functions of society is a PREREQUISITE and REQUIREMENT for a Technate - which HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID. What you are saying is a TAUTOLOGY; if we have a scarcity of a particular resource, then we will have scarcity.

What you are saying above in regards to prioritization is ONLY NECESSARY where there is scarcity - BY DEFINITION!


What people want is not an "objective" matter. That's because desire is subjective. But the effectiveness of an economy depends on its ability to meet the desires of the population. That won't happen if the people don't have the power to ensure their desires are reflected in what is produced.NOTE THAT I NEVER ONCE SAID THAT WHAT PEOPLE WANT IS OBJECTIVE.

OF COURSE desires are subjective. That is why I have repeatedly said several times that IF THE GOAL IS EXPLICITLY STATED it becomes possible to use OBJECTIVE means to determine the best way of accomplishing that goal! In this case, the EXPLICITLY STATED GOAL is to provide an abundance with the lowest possible input of resources, labor, and energy. The factors involved in the organization of production for this explicitly stated goal ARE MEASURABLE and therefore SUBJECTIVE.



Moreover, altho you make allusion to expertise being more broadly distributed in the future, you say that "scientists" will run production. If we are talking about the situation where control is taken from the capitalist, this implies that it those who currently have a science-based education, the engineers and other experts and managers, who will run production. Hence that workers would still be subordinate. No, I said THOSE WITH THE NECESSARY SKILLS would run production. More than likely this will be scientists and engineers because they are the ones WITH THE NECESSARY SKILLS. It isn't a requirement, though - the only requirement to have a job is to KNOW HOW TO DO THE JOB.


Thanks for conceding exactly the point I was making! What you're proposing is power to the techno-managerial class, as society comes out of capitalism...just as I said.No, you are mistaken. Maybe try reading a little more thoroughly next time.


what an ass you are. You ***** about me allegedly not paying attention to what you say, then do the same in regard to what i wrote, i.e.ignore what I said.No, I just followed what you are saying through to its logical conclusion. If positions are not allocated on the basis of demonstrated ability, then on what basis do you allocate positions? Random choice through popular consensus?

You are an ignorant fool, insulting someone who is clearly your intellectual superior. Maybe shut up and listen and you might learn a thing or two.

[Technocrat]

As a Marxist, with much more understanding of Marxism than you, let me tell you that you are dead wrong.

Dave, you're an idiot. No need to beat around the bush any longer. You are just stupid, plain and simple. You are the only one who has been consistently proven wrong throughout the debate. It's alright though, you still have a chance to redeem yourself - it's not too late!


You are assuming, with no proof whatsoever beyond the assumptions of your belief system, that the day-to-day decisions in a factory, or in an economy, are objective. And that anything else is OPINION. Well, you are wrong. The vast majority of day-to-day decisions are, precisely, OPINIONS, based on values and experience, not on some phony, so-called objective criteria that stand above the classes.That is because THEY ARE. LISTEN: The entire scientific method rests on our ability to separate the objective from the subjective. If we were UNABLE to do so, then the scientific method wouldn't work at all! Since it does work, and indeed since it is THE BEST METHOD WE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR DETERMINING THE TRUTH, we can conclude that IT IS POSSIBLE to separate the objective from the subjective! Determining a GOAL is subjective, but once that GOAL is determined the problem of determining the best solution to achieving that goal becomes an OBJECTIVE matter. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?

Maybe you need to go back and take grade school science again.


Notice that, already, you are assuming that the decision-making process in, say, the factory, is on a higher level than on the shop floor and that there is some kind of semi-permanent group above the shop floor that makes decisions. That's because it is - In an INDUSTRIALIZED society SPECIALIZATION exists out of NECESSITY. This means that NOT EVERYONE is going to share the same knowledge and skills, and that some people are going to have knowledge and skills applicable to a particular problem while others are not! For this reason, a hierarchy for decision making must exist OUT OF NECESSITY.


This is not workers democracy as conceived of by Marxists. Gee, thanks! I know.


By their PEERS, I assume you mean the other managers. This is not workers democracy. In a condition of workers democracy all key decisions are made by the workers. While expertise may be brought in to aid in decision making, the fact is that under socialism, workers make the decisions, not a group of "expert" managers, engineers, technocrats, etc. And, gradually, all such expertise will be transferred to the working class through education.Nope, once again your erroneous assumptions have led you to false conclusions. This is why I have repeatedly suggested that you ASK QUESTIONS rather than MAKE ACCUSATIONS. By PEERS it is meant ALL INVOLVED in the operations of the Technate!


You are damned by your own words here. You are assuming that under socialism there will be "bosses." Sorry, kiddo, but that's not the way Marxists want it to work.Not bosses in the traditional sense, but yeah there would be a hierarchy OUT OF NECESSITY as I explain above.


No, it isn't. What is ridiculous is your attempt to sweep under the rug the whole issue of racism. Let's see what you propose:

It's pretty remarkable that you think you can, with a few capitalized words, perform an act of political legerdemain (:D).

Capitalism, in case you hadn't noticed, produces vast inequalities in the population, even within classes. One of the most critical cases of this is racism, which is used both to boost profits and divide the working class by enforcing unequal access to that portion of the pie that workers receive.

Now, once workers democracy has been established, this inequality will have to be made up; otherwise, the workers themselves will be guilty of racism. Great portions of the economic product will have to be dedicated, for quite awhile, to erasing the wounds of racism. This will include huge outlays for compensatory education, medical treatment, the rebuilding of the slums, etc. For you to believe that the establishment of "the MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PURCHASING POWER" for "EVERYONE" will heal the institutional, structural, long-term damage of racism evinces a dangerous naivite towards racism which, itself, racist.Affirmative action is giving jobs away to minorities who have been negatively effected. They are given JOBS so that they can make MONEY to acquire RESOURCES. In a Technate they would just be GIVEN those resources for free! This makes affirmative action completely unnecessary! In terms of employment, as has already been stated repeatedly, the only criteria is that a person KNOW HOW TO DO THEIR JOB.


i [sic] agree. And since the workeers [sic] have both the knowledge and skill to make those decisions, democratically, they should do the decision making.[/QUOTEAnd there you have it Comrades: the democratic control of industry by the working class is precluded from Technocracy. What we have is a nice, cozy little (or big) dictatorship of the engineers, instead of the capitalists. Are we really going to exchange one set of bosses for another?

Addressed above.


Dude, there is science and there is science, and science is as riddled with values as any other set of socially created knowledge.

Your OBJECTIVE matters are, in fact, the life and death economic decisions for billions of people. And if you think we're going to let a bunch of engineers (remember, the ones with the short haircuts who can't get a date :D) make those decisions, you're crazy.Addressed above.


No, voting on all matters creates workers democracy and expertise. No, voting on OBJECTIVE matters creates SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS by DEFINITION. If you are having trouble understanding this ASK QUESTIONS and I can expand on this.


Is what Marxists call a CLASS. (Damn, now you've got me going with the all-caps. :D)If what you want is a society run by SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, well, that is precisely what we have today! Mission accomplished!


Uh, no they're not because the essence of the operation of industry is control of industry. And since Technocracy makes it clear that the control of industry will be in the hands of a technological elite, the chosen factors will be the factors chosen by this elite, which is self-perpetuating and not subject to democratic.

'Nuff for now.

RED DAVEAddressed above. The only way to gain more authority and decision making power is to be given it by one's peers and the only way to keep it is to not be voted out by one's peers, making this the LEAST authoritarian system ever devised.

You seem to get a lot of info from bunk sites. Might I suggest the following sites:

http://www.technocracy.org
http://www.technocracy.ca
http://www.technocracy-think-tank.org/

The first site is the only official site. The other two are made by long-time members.

[ckaihatsu]

You are an ignorant fool, insulting someone who is clearly your intellectual superior. Maybe shut up and listen and you might learn a thing or two.


From this remark I can see that there's no more pragmatic political ground here -- check back after the revolution, maybe....

[Technocrat]

From this remark I can see that there's no more pragmatic political ground here -- check back after the revolution, maybe....

I'm only responding in kind - what else am I to do here? Logic and reason have failed, so maybe using their language (insults) is the only way to get through to them? Any suggestions here as to how we can get this conversation back on track would be welcome.

I think if one looks at the insults that have been directed toward me from the very beginning that it is remarkable that I have kept my patience for as long as I have.

When one is forced to repeat the same thing over and over, one can only conclude that the audience one is speaking to is lacking in the capacity to understand... in other words, they are stupid. When the audience shows an unwillingness to ask questions to remedy their stupidity, they demonstrate WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

Dave et al: Just because I have not adequately explained something to YOUR satisfaction does not mean that the idea itself is false... it just means that YOU LACK understanding. That's okay though, this can be cured BY ASKING QUESTIONS. MAKING ACCUSATIONS will only further your own stupidity. The audience to which I'm referring has shown an UNWILLINGNESS to maintain an open mind and ASK QUESTIONS, which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that they are either belligerent and/or STUPID.

I am getting FED UP.

I have addressed all of Dave et al's comments with REASON and LOGIC and have had to REPEAT myself several times. It's just not getting through due to the CLOSE MINDEDNESS of the audience.

Dave et al just keeps coming back with the same bullshit accusations that have been made against Technocracy (and socialism) for decades! It's like arguing with a broken record.

[Technocrat]

Nice, neat justification for dictatorship.

Some people are, according to this system, just better at governing than others, and we peons need to give them the power and let them run things for our benefit. Those PEERS will run things and keep us fat and happy and give us bread and circuses.

RED DAVE

Dave, ignorant statements such as these are what lead people to conclude that you are a moron.

The term PEER has been defined for you. Go figure it out.

[Demogorgon]

No, you are mistaken. "RULE" is a way that a group or individual enforces their OPINION on everyone else through the use of AUTHORITY. In a Technate, AUTHORITY is given and taken away by one's peers on the basis of demonstrated ABILITY, not the ability to COERCE or DECIEVE people such as in a democratic system (opening the door to special interest groups).
Yet again, precisely who gets to define what is an opinion and what is an objective matter? As there will be disagreement on every matter, plainly we need to be told which we are allowed to vote on and which we should just leave to our betters. And if we don't much like being told what to do, who makes us obey, why shouldn't we overthrow those who seek to rule us? Just because they tell us they aren't ruling by opinion? When decisions come that we dislike and we had no hand in making, we will have a hard time believing that.

[Technocrat]

Yet again, precisely who gets to define what is an opinion and what is an objective matter? As there will be disagreement on every matter, plainly we need to be told which we are allowed to vote on and which we should just leave to our betters. And if we don't much like being told what to do, who makes us obey, why shouldn't we overthrow those who seek to rule us? Just because they tell us they aren't ruling by opinion? When decisions come that we dislike and we had no hand in making, we will have a hard time believing that.

The OBJECTIVE matter that the Technate concerns itself with is the goal of producing an abundance with the least possible input (I've said this at least a dozen times already). This is the ONLY thing the Technate concerns itself with! Everything else - subjective matters ie those maters NOT concerning production, would be handled by the people themselves in whatever way they saw fit!

Of course ANYONE could be "overthrown" if enough people got together and voted on it! I've said this DOZENS of times in this thread.

For the nth time, The Technate is concerned with PHYSICAL PRODUCTION ONLY. All matters not pertaining to this would be handled by the people themselves, without ANY interference from ANY government institution.

I would like to thank you for not resorting to stupid insults in your post. Questions are good.

It is worth noting that Technocrats fall into the libertarian/left or anarchist/communist category, as defined by the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org.

[Demogorgon]

And again who decides what the objective decisions are. In my experience I have never come across a question in this field with a simple objective answer. The reason being that different people want and need different things and there has to be a trade off when trying to allocate to everybody. In a utopia there would be no such trade-off, but the reality is choices have to be made.

Moreover, nobody ever has perfect knowledge. You keep going on about making scientific calculations to make these decisions (as if science is an uncontroversial and entirely objective field), but how on earth can this be done when it is impossible to know all the variables?

[syndicat]

An ABUNDANCE is defined as a sufficient supply to MEET THE DEMAND of the population within a 24 hour period. So the fact that time is limited is not a factor at all, since abundance is defined as being able to meet all of a people's demands WITHIN a given period of time! Having a sufficient number of trained people to operate the essential functions of society is a PREREQUISITE and REQUIREMENT for a Technate - which HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID. What you are saying is a TAUTOLOGY; if we have a scarcity of a particular resource, then we will have scarcity.


There is no guarantee whatever that what is produced will meet what the people want -- authentic "demand" -- if they don't have the power to ensure that this is so. And your reference to "demand" contradicts the claim that it is all a question of what is "objective"...since what people want is subjective.

What I said about scarcity isn't a tautology. I said that there will be scarcity because there will always be things we would want but can't produce without giving up other things. That is a factual claim.


No, I just followed what you are saying through to its logical conclusion. If positions are not allocated on the basis of demonstrated ability, then on what basis do you allocate positions? Random choice through popular consensus?

The issue isn't so simple. That's because who has the knowledge and skills depends on class power. I already explained how the techno-managerial class and the engineering profession were created in order to have a more effective control over workers. there is no "objective" necessity of this. In the mid 19th century farmers and skilled workers possessed the technology (know how) in their heads.

So it's not enough to say "Whoever has the qualifications should have the jobs requiring skills". It's not enough because the working class, to free itself, also has to set up a system to recoup the skills and knowledge. and that can't happen if the workers don't have collective democratic power over production.

Moreover, at the time of revolutionary transition, many of the skills required to run production will be possessed by the working class in the various industries. they wouldn't be working there if they didn't have relevant skills. you are wrong in supposing that only the techno-managerial elite could "run" production. and some of them will sympathize with a working class reorg of industry oriented to meeting authentic social needs and run democratically, and will put their skills as the service of the collective.



You are an ignorant fool, insulting someone who is clearly your intellectual superior. Maybe shut up and listen and you might learn a thing or two.

well you're consistent in being an elitist ass. but your ideas are hopelessly confused.

[Technocrat]

And again who decides what the objective decisions are. In my experience I have never come across a question in this field with a simple objective answer. The reason being that different people want and need different things and there has to be a trade off when trying to allocate to everybody. In a utopia there would be no such trade-off, but the reality is choices have to be made.

You are essentially arguing that an abundance is impossible, which is not true as I've already demonstrated. Refer to my previous post:


Technocracy is a SET OF INSTRUCTIONS for how to PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE AN ABUNDANCE.

There are certain REQUIREMENTS for an abundance to EXIST:

1) sufficient resources
2) sufficient trained personnel
3) sufficient level of technology

An ABUNDANCE is here defined as an amount that is equal to the people's ability to PHYSICALLY CONSUME. If the population is only physically capable of consuming X within a 24 hour period, then an abundance is possible if X can be produced within a 24 hour period. X is here defined as the sum total of all being consumed.


Moreover, nobody ever has perfect knowledge. You keep going on about making scientific calculations to make these decisions (as if science is an uncontroversial and entirely objective field), but how on earth can this be done when it is impossible to know all the variables?

You keep going on and on as if this were some very mystical thing, when it is not. Given three different designs for a bridge built to the same safety standards one of them is going to be optimal in terms of durability and cost. Sure they might later discover something that they missed before, but of the AVAILABLE designs, it is possible to pick the best one. Optimization like this is done all the time - it's part of what is called total-systems planning. The difference is that currently we plan for maximum profit rather than the maximum benefit at the lowest cost (in other words, maximum efficiency), as would be done in Technocracy.

[Technocrat]

There is no guarantee whatever that what is produced will meet what the people want -- authentic "demand" -- if they don't have the power to ensure that this is so. And your reference to "demand" contradicts the claim that it is all a question of what is "objective"...since what people want is subjective.

What people want is subjective, but once people decide what they want, in other words, once the goal has been defined, it becomes possible to use objective means to determine the best way to acheive that goal, of all the options which are available at the time. There is nothing mystical or confusing about this - what exactly are you having trouble understanding here?

Of course people have the power to ensure that what is produced is what they want... that's kind of the ENTIRE POINT of the Technate and is what is GUARANTEED by the vertical alignment system.


What I said about scarcity isn't a tautology. I said that there will be scarcity because there will always be things we would want but can't produce without giving up other things. That is a factual claim.

No, it's a tautology:
Tautology (rhetoric) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)), repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words to say the same thing twice, especially where the additional words fail to provide additional clarity and meaning. (Source: Wikipedia)


For example, there are onlyso many people with construction worker skills. The community wants, at a particular point in time, larger and better houses, but also a new network of health clinics, oh, and a new set of popular universities. so where should the construction workers be working? this depends on how the society determines what is most important at this point in time. This can't happen without people expressing their preferences for production.

You provided an example of a scarcity of a particular resource, say construction workers, asserted that there will always be such scarcities, and because of that there will always be scarcity. In other words, there will be scarcity because there is scarcity - a tautology.

What you are saying is not true:


You are essentially arguing that an abundance is impossible, which is not true as I've already demonstrated. Refer to my previous post:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Technocrat
Technocracy is a SET OF INSTRUCTIONS for how to PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE AN ABUNDANCE.

There are certain REQUIREMENTS for an abundance to EXIST:

1) sufficient resources
2) sufficient trained personnel
3) sufficient level of technology
An ABUNDANCE is here defined as an amount that is equal to the people's ability to PHYSICALLY CONSUME. If the population is only physically capable of consuming X within a 24 hour period, then an abundance is possible if X can be produced within a 24 hour period. X is here defined as the sum total of all being consumed.




The issue isn't so simple. That's because who has the knowledge and skills depends on class power. I already explained how the techno-managerial class and the engineering profession were created in order to have a more effective control over workers. there is no "objective" necessity of this. In the mid 19th century farmers and skilled workers possessed the technology (know how) in their heads.

19th century production methods do not require the kind of specialization that is REQUIRED by an advanced industrial system. With 19th century production methods it was possible for the workers to each individually possess almost all the skills necessary for production. With Industrialization, the number of different tasks increases and the number of tasks that require several years of advanced training also increases such that it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for any single individual to know ALL the skills necessary for production in an INDUSTRIALIZED system. This means that SPECIALIZATION is necessary! Unless you want us all to go back to 19th century production methods...?


So it's not enough to say "Whoever has the qualifications should have the jobs requiring skills". It's not enough because the working class, to free itself, also has to set up a system to recoup the skills and knowledge. and that can't happen if the workers don't have collective democratic power over production.

Moreover, at the time of revolutionary transition, many of the skills required to run production will be possessed by the working class in the various industries. they wouldn't be working there if they didn't have relevant skills. you are wrong in supposing that only the techno-managerial elite could "run" production. and some of them will sympathize with a working class reorg of industry oriented to meeting authentic social needs and run democratically, and will put their skills as the service of the collective.

I never said it would be the techno-managerial elite - I said it would be the ones with the skills and know-how. Many of those people would come from the working class but MANY of them would require PROFESSIONAL SKILLS - how else are you going to DESIGN AND BUILD the Technate without the SKILLS needed to do so. So it would be governance based on SKILL - the literal meaning of the word TECHNOCRACY. YOU are the one who said THAT I SAID that it was the techno-managerial elite - putting words in my mouth. Maybe drop your assumptions and prejudice and you won't make such erroneous conclusions in the future.


well you're consistent in being an elitist ass. but your ideas are hopelessly confused.

The only thing hopelessly confused is yourself! :lol:

You were the first to openly insult me by calling me an ass, remember?

[RED DAVE]

As a Marxist, with much more understanding of Marxism than you, let me tell you that you are dead wrong.
Dave, you're an idiot. No need to beat around the bush any longer.Do you consider yourself to be enough of an authority on Marxism to be this aggressive? What major works of Marxism have you read and absorbed?

For instance, why is it so hard for you to understand that the following is entirely incompatible with workers democracy, which is the essence of socialism:


The government itself would be a self-perpetuation hierarchy; recommendation from below and appointment from above.http://technocracy1.org/

Under no circumstances would a socialist society ever permit any kind of "self-perpetuation hierarchy," nor would it permit appointment from above. Now, if you think otherwise, all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of socialism.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

And again who decides what the objective decisions are. In my experience I have never come across a question in this field with a simple objective answer. The reason being that different people want and need different things and there has to be a trade off when trying to allocate to everybody. In a utopia there would be no such trade-off, but the reality is choices have to be made.

Moreover, nobody ever has perfect knowledge. You keep going on about making scientific calculations to make these decisions (as if science is an uncontroversial and entirely objective field), but how on earth can this be done when it is impossible to know all the variables?

Technocrats are using a different terminology as earlier said. But I agree that Technocracy Inc's choices of words are sometimes very bad. NET is not using the term "abundance" to describe what we want to achieve. Rather, we use the key-word "balance". Neither NET or Tech Inc want to create a Utopia, but Tech Inc is pretending they want to do that.

[Dimentio]

Under no circumstances would a socialist society ever permit any kind of "self-perpetuation hierarchy," nor would it permit appointment from above. Now, if you think otherwise, all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of socialism.

RED DAVE

Hardly any worse than any marxist-leninist state where a self-perpetuating vanguard tend to sit in power for decades. But I agree with your points, and so do NET.

Oh, and to Technocrat:

1. Writing with LARGE LETTERS do not constitute any better argument just for being SHOUTED OUT.

2. Don't call users idiots. You are warned.

[Demogorgon]

Technocrats are using a different terminology as earlier said. But I agree that Technocracy Inc's choices of words are sometimes very bad. NET is not using the term "abundance" to describe what we want to achieve. Rather, we use the key-word "balance". Neither NET or Tech Inc want to create a Utopia, but Tech Inc is pretending they want to do that.
Yes, we have discussed this before and have agreed that better use of terminology is a good thing. s you have no doubt observed, technocrat thinks that redefining the term "abundance" is enough to solve the basic economic problem, when in fact it will still exist, just under a different name. That alone makes his position pretty useless.

The trouble both of you have of course, is how you are going to make your calculations. Technocrat has told us it will be simple and objective, something you are probably less keen to say. At any rate however there will be several billion variables to address in these calculations, most of which those making the calculations will not even be aware of. This is not a problem that can easily be avoided.

[Dimentio]

Yes, we have discussed this before and have agreed that better use of terminology is a good thing. s you have no doubt observed, technocrat thinks that redefining the term "abundance" is enough to solve the basic economic problem, when in fact it will still exist, just under a different name. That alone makes his position pretty useless.

The trouble both of you have of course, is how you are going to make your calculations. Technocrat has told us it will be simple and objective, something you are probably less keen to say. At any rate however there will be several billion variables to address in these calculations, most of which those making the calculations will not even be aware of. This is not a problem that can easily be avoided.

Dr Andrew Wallace and Jure Sah have actually constructed models for how to manage Energy Accounting. I am by no means the prime expert on their models as I am focusing on other matters within the organisation, but rather than energy accounting, we are talking about emergy accounting.

But human work is actually accounted for in our model, through the heat which the human body is needing to conduct work. But it ends there, since we do not give to each according to his or her work but to each according to the total production capacity*. ^^

*= NET defines the total production capacity as what we could produce within the framework of Earth's re-generation capacity.

[Technocrat]

Do you consider yourself to be enough of an authority on Marxism to be this aggressive? What major works of Marxism have you read and absorbed?

Do you consider yourself enough of an expert on Technocracy to be as aggressive as YOU have been?


Under no circumstances would a socialist society ever permit any kind of "self-perpetuation hierarchy," nor would it permit appointment from above. Now, if you think otherwise, all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of socialism.

RED DAVEThere's your problem - you keep running with false assumptions. No one ever said it would be a self-perpetuating hierarchy except FOR YOU.

On top of that, you're wrong about this type of hierarchy being incompatible with socialism - that's just your opinion that you're stating.


The distinction between technocratic/scientific management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy) and democratic management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogestion) refers to positions on how state institutions and the economy are to be managed. Some proponents of technocratic socialism include Claude Henri de Saint-Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy,_comte_de_Saint-Simon), Alexander Bogdanov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bogdanov) and H. G. Wells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells). They include proponents of economic planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) (except those, like the Trotskyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism), who tend to emphasize the need for democratic workers control), and socialists inspired by Taylorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorism). They show a tendency to promote scientific management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management), whereby technical experts manage institutions and receive their position in society based on a demonstration of their technical expertise or merit, with the aim of creating a rational, effective and stable organization.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

[Technocrat]

Hardly any worse than any marxist-leninist state where a self-perpetuating vanguard tend to sit in power for decades. But I agree with your points, and so do NET.

Oh, and to Technocrat:

1. Writing with LARGE LETTERS do not constitute any better argument just for being SHOUTED OUT.

2. Don't call users idiots. You are warned.

Caps were added for emphasis not to indicate anger - I'll use Italics from now on.

I've been called names, too.

[Pogue]

Yeh I think it'd be a good idea if we all just chilled out a bit.

[Technocrat]

Yes, we have discussed this before and have agreed that better use of terminology is a good thing. s you have no doubt observed, technocrat thinks that redefining the term "abundance" is enough to solve the basic economic problem, when in fact it will still exist, just under a different name. That alone makes his position pretty useless.

No sir, I see you are still quite confused. I am not redefining words - that's what economists do. Nor am I claiming that the problem of scarcity can be solved by redefining the words. I use the word as it is defined by the English language. See my previous posts:



Originally Posted by Technocrat
You are essentially arguing that an abundance is impossible, which is not true as I've already demonstrated. Refer to my previous post:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Technocrat
Technocracy is a SET OF INSTRUCTIONS for how to PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE AN ABUNDANCE.

There are certain REQUIREMENTS for an abundance to EXIST:

1) sufficient resources
2) sufficient trained personnel
3) sufficient level of technology
An ABUNDANCE is here defined as an amount that is equal to the people's ability to PHYSICALLY CONSUME. If the population is only physically capable of consuming X within a 24 hour period, then an abundance is possible if X can be produced within a 24 hour period. X is here defined as the sum total of all being consumed.

If you are still having trouble understanding the above, ask questions and I will try to help you.


The trouble both of you have of course, is how you are going to make your calculations. Technocrat has told us it will be simple and objective, something you are probably less keen to say. At any rate however there will be several billion variables to address in these calculations, most of which those making the calculations will not even be aware of. This is not a problem that can easily be avoided.A billion variables? No, again you are trying to make something that is quite straightforward into some mystical thing:


You keep going on and on as if this were some very mystical thing, when it is not. Given three different designs for a bridge built to the same safety standards one of them is going to be optimal in terms of durability and cost. Sure they might later discover something that they missed before, but of the AVAILABLE designs, it is possible to pick the best one. Optimization like this is done all the time - it's part of what is called total-systems planning. The difference is that currently we plan for maximum profit rather than the maximum benefit at the lowest cost (in other words, maximum efficiency), as would be done in Technocracy.As I point out above, we already do the kind of calculations I'm talking about (on practically a daily basis)- it's just that the goal, since this is capitalism, is to make a profit, not to benefit people.

[Technocrat]

Yeh I think it'd be a good idea if we all just chilled out a bit.

Agreed - I've been put on the defensive by accusations of fascism, cultism, and crackpottery.

Maybe if others laid off with the accusations...?

If something doesn't seem to make sense to you, ask questions - don't make accusations.

[Decolonize The Left]

Oh, and to Technocrat:

1. Writing with LARGE LETTERS do not constitute any better argument just for being SHOUTED OUT.

2. Don't call users idiots. You are warned.

The post in question did not constitute grounds for a verbal warning, especially in the context of this thread. Warning removed.

- August

[al8]

I am a bit disappointed in Red Dave and Demogorgon. They again and again initiated to debate in an uncivil and bratty manner. Instead of asking for clarification much of their posts were littered with smug paranoid accusations and other bully tactics meant to annoy. It is very tiring to read and not conducive to a productive discussion where posters post to, not past each other.
--
In reading the initial debate about the economist and technocrat meaning of abundance between Demogorgon and Technocrat - I couldn't help but think, with all respect to Technocrat, that there was a term missing in the debate that would perhaps settle the issue.

In my mind Technocracy is not so much striving for abundance but rather adequacy or having or producing enough. This doesn't have as bombastic a sound and propaganda value, but I think it strikes a more accurate punch. Abundance has of course meaning depending on context but in my mind it connotes more that something is overflowing - almost as if there is maybe a little to too much. As I understand it adequacy is a word in daily use in the English language and means according to the Oxford American dictionary; satisfactory or acceptable in quality or quantity. I think this captures what Technocrat has been referring to as abundance.


Let's say each person can only physically consume 5 pieces of bread for the time period we're talking about. Technocracy says that if you have 5 people and 25 pieces of bread, you have abundance. Economics says that this is not abundance because one person could still desire to have 10,000 pieces of bread. THIS IS ABSURD!

I think with anything bellow 25 bread would be scarce, anything above abundant. But 5/25 itself to be adequate or enough. And I agree that physical consumer capacity to be the materialist standard by which to assess general or specific scarcity -> adequacy -> abundance of consumables.
It is quite weird to state that if one has a sufficient amount of bread that one is suffering scarcity of bread if one in the group of 5 desires 10,000 pieces of bread. But this is understandable. Because in the capitalist system it's economists get their orientation from the practice of a private property set up, where persons can own more items of whatever than they could ever touch or use in their entire life times - simply because there is a pool of wage slaves available to work and maintain the property in the owners absence. So this conception is semi-rational, based as it is on an existing but flawed system.

[Dimentio]

Adequacy is a better word than abundance, I concur. What is an even better word for what we are trying to achieve is balance. We need to achieve balance between Earth's re-generation capacity and our needs and wants.

[Technocrat]

I am a bit disappointed in Red Dave and Demogorgon. They again and again initiated to debate in an uncivil and bratty manner. Instead of asking for clarification much of their posts were littered with smug paranoid accusations and other bully tactics meant to annoy. It is very tiring to read and not conducive to a productive discussion where posters post to, not past each other.
--
In reading the initial debate about the economist and technocrat meaning of abundance between Demogorgon and Technocrat - I couldn't help but think, with all respect to Technocrat, that there was a term missing in the debate that would perhaps settle the issue.

In my mind Technocracy is not so much striving for abundance but rather adequacy or having or producing enough. This doesn't have as bombastic a sound and propaganda value, but I think it strikes a more accurate punch. Abundance has of course meaning depending on context but in my mind it connotes more that something is overflowing - almost as if there is maybe a little to too much. As I understand it adequacy is a word in daily use in the English language and means according to the Oxford American dictionary; satisfactory or acceptable in quality or quantity. I think this captures what Technocrat has been referring to as abundance.



I think with anything bellow 25 bread would be scarce, anything above abundant. But 5/25 itself to be adequate or enough. And I agree that physical consumer capacity to be the materialist standard by which to assess general or specific scarcity -> adequacy -> abundance of consumables.

I concur with all of the above, but I just wanted to clarify one point:

With the above definitions, adequacy is what you would aim for. If the supply of whatever is adequate to meet the entire population's ability to consume whatever, than anything above that would actually entail a form of waste, which would make abundance wasteful. However, saying "abundance is wasteful so Technocracy aims for adequacy" could also lead to a lot of confusion. There just isn't an easy way to explain these concepts without having to define every term that's used.


It is quite weird to state that if one has a sufficient amount of bread that one is suffering scarcity of bread if one in the group of 5 desires 10,000 pieces of bread. But this is understandable. Because in the capitalist system it's economists get their orientation from the practice of a private property set up, where persons can own more items of whatever than they could ever touch or use in their entire life times - simply because there is a pool of wage slaves available to work and maintain the property in the owners absence. So this conception is semi-rational, based as it is on an existing but flawed system.It is weird, but that's how economists define scarcity and abundance: In economics, there will always be scarcity and there will never be abundance, because of how economics defines those terms (based on the concept of ownership rather than one's ability to consume).

[ckaihatsu]

It is weird, but that's how economists define scarcity and abundance: In economics, there will always be scarcity and there will never be abundance, because of how economics defines those terms (based on the concept of ownership rather than one's ability to consume).




There just isn't an easy way to explain these concepts without having to define every term that's used.


A *cooperative* / *collaborative* / *collectivist* politics should *not* be shy or averse about doing this very step -- defining terms is a prerequisite for establishing a common understanding, or a customized, agreed-upon *glossary* of shared meanings upfront.

It was too bad that the discussion devolved into the ad hominem mess that it did -- perhaps focusing on a defining of terms early on is the way to go so that participants can take baby steps first and make sure everyone stays on the same page for each step.





With the above definitions, adequacy is what you would aim for. If the supply of whatever is adequate to meet the entire population's ability to consume whatever, than anything above that would actually entail a form of waste, which would make abundance wasteful. However, saying "abundance is wasteful so Technocracy aims for adequacy" could also lead to a lot of confusion.


I continue to find it *ironic* that a technocratic orientation is not proposing a *pre-planned* approach to the production of goods and services -- instead of getting bogged down in hazy conceptions of whether everything, produced *and* imaginary, is sufficient or not, it would make more sense to talk about whether there is a *correct match-up* of collectivized production to *formal requests* for *specific items and labor*.





All finished goods would have been collectively intentionally pre-planned in advance anyway, with *specific* consumer-destinations -- *nothing* would be accidental inventory surplus resulting from market-based, speculative investment-gambling -- and so *nothing* would be commodity production. (In this way the feast-or-famine boom-bust cycles endemic to the capitalist market system could be avoided altogther, including rampant overproduction, deflation, and all the rest of the hands-off financial chaos that we know all too well.)

[Technocrat]

A *cooperative* / *collaborative* / *collectivist* politics should *not* be shy or averse about doing this very step -- defining terms is a prerequisite for establishing a common understanding, or a customized, agreed-upon *glossary* of shared meanings upfront.

It was too bad that the discussion devolved into the ad hominem mess that it did -- perhaps focusing on a defining of terms early on is the way to go so that participants can take baby steps first and make sure everyone stays on the same page for each step.

I agree that it's important to define key terms, and I attempted to do so. The argument over the validity of certain definitions was meaningless and a waste of time.


I continue to find it *ironic* that a technocratic orientation is not proposing a *pre-planned* approach to the production of goods and services -- instead of getting bogged down in hazy conceptions of whether everything, produced *and* imaginary, is sufficient or not, it would make more sense to talk about whether there is a *correct match-up* of collectivized production to *formal requests* for *specific items and labor*.I'm not sure what you mean here - Technocracy does propose a pre-planned approach to the production of goods and services.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not sure what you mean here - Technocracy does propose a pre-planned approach to the production of goods and services.


Okay, I stand corrected.

[Dimentio]

Energy Accounting is neither a market approach or a planned approach. Some things in every economy are produced through a centrally or regionally planned approach, like infrastructure for example.

In the technate, the consumers decide what should be produced by the allocation of their energy credits. The technate is deciding how it should be produced.

[RED DAVE]

Technocracy does propose a pre-planned approach to the production of goods and services.Who does the planning?

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Energy Accounting is neither a market approach or a planned approach. Some things in every economy are produced through a centrally or regionally planned approach, like infrastructure for example.

In the technate, the consumers decide what should be produced by the allocation of their energy credits. The technate is deciding how it should be produced.

Not exactly, because it would also be the job of the Technate Administration to determine the most efficient way of providing these goods and services. For example, if the service being provided is a comfortable place to live, the sequence in charge of housing would be charged with coming up with the most efficient plan that conformed to a list of specifications all designed to accomplish the goal of "a comfortable place to live". This is important to clarify, because what you are saying suggests that people would be able to decide to produce things like suburban McMansions or private automobiles, when they wouldn't. The Technate Administration would look at the needs or functions being fulfilled by the McMansion and the automobile, and determine the most efficient way of performing the same function. This would involve planning, making Technocracy a form of planned economy, although one completely unlike traditional concepts of such.

The Technate isn't just determining the most efficient way of producing a particular good or service, it is looking at the specific need or function being met by a particular good or service and then determining the most efficient way of meeting those needs or functions.


Who does the planning?

RED DAVE

Hasn't this been answered at least a dozen times already?

[RED DAVE]

Technocracy was very popular with several labor unions of which I'm sure blacks were a significant percentage.None of this is true as far as I know.

Howard Scott, the primary leader of Technocracy, was, briefly, the first and only Research Director of the IWW in the early 1920s, prior to the organization of the Technocracy movement. During that time, unfortunately, the IWW, while it had a major commitment to organizing all workers, had few Black members. I know of no other contact between Technocracy and the labor movement or of any contact at all between Technocracy and any organized group of Blacks or any major Black leader or personality.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Who does the planning?
Hasn't this been answered at least a dozen times already?
Humor us. Explain it again.

As far as I can tell, the planning is done by an elite corps of engineers. Please clarify, one more time, for us poor slow-to-comprehend souls:

(1) How are these engineers selected?

(2) Can those situated "below" a particular engineer or group of engineers reject them as managers once they are selected.

(3) Can the hierarchy of engineers refuse to accept a nominee?

(4) Once the plans of the engineers are formulated, is it possible, by a class or group, say all the union members in a particular city, to reject the plan and refuse to follow it.

(5) In the case of (4) above, how would the plan be enforced against these "rebels"?

Just trying to get things clarified.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Humor us. Explain it again.

As far as I can tell, the planning is done by an elite corps of engineers. Please clarify, one more time, for us poor slow-to-comprehend souls:

(1) How are these engineers selected?




One more time: who tests those occupying the positions?


It's entirely based upon PERFORMANCE. If someone does well and DEMONSTRATES that they have ability, then their PEERS will RECOGNIZE it and keep that in mind the next time there is an election to promote someone (when a position becomes vacated in the level above them). If someone consistently does a POOR job, then their PEERS would notice that as well, and would elect to remove them to another position to ensure the continued functioning of society!



Have you ever wondered why the power stays on more than 99% of the time, or why when you turn the faucet on the water comes out 99% of the time, or why when you pick up the phone it works 99% of the time, etc, etc? Do you think that no people at all are involved in the running of these tasks? The reason is simple: BECAUSE ALL OF THESE FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS USE THE EXACT SAME PROCESS OF SELECTION FROM BELOW, AND APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE. IT IS PROVEN. If one of the people essential to these functions were to fail to perform their duties adequately, IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE NOTICED and that person would be replaced! You are forgetting that a corporation has SHAREHOLDERS, and it is the LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY of the corporation to make a profit for those shareholders. Money, and likewise profit, would be eliminated in a Technate, thereby eliminating this kind of Special-Interest corruption. If everyone is already getting as much as they can consume, how can they want more except as the result of some pathology? Such a person would be recognized by all around him and he would never find himself in a position of power, since you can only get to a position of power by rising through the ranks through hard work and demonstrated ability, and because anyone can be voted out by a 2/3rds vote.

If a position becomes vacant, for any reason, those in the rank immediately below the vacant position choose candidates among themselves for promotion. Those in the rank immediately above the position to be filled choose from this pool of candidates who should take the job. This is because those in the rank above the position to be filled had to pass through that position to get to their current position, which means they are familiar with the responsibilities of the job and the needed abilities and traits for the job.


(2) Can those situated "below" a particular engineer or group of engineers reject them as managers once they are selected.Is this not obvious? YES.


(3) Can the hierarchy of engineers refuse to accept a nominee?YES. See above.


(4) Once the plans of the engineers are formulated, is it possible, by a class or group, say all the union members in a particular city, to reject the plan and refuse to follow it.There would not be any union members, since unions are something which only exist in a Price System (capitalism). This chart shows how the Technate would be organized: http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/admin-chart.gif

The Area Controls are based on the Regional Divisions. The Regional Divisions are arbitrary geographic units, perhaps 100 mile square units or whatever proves best. The directives for the Area Control come from above, from the Continental Board and the Continental Director. All the directives themselves are the result of a common interest study. Thus, all directives must contribute to the common interest. If anyone working in the Technate fails to comply with these directives, they would be removed from their position by their peers.


(5) In the case of (4) above, how would the plan be enforced against these "rebels"?They would be removed by their peers who would decide the appropriate course of action. See the above.

[Technocrat]

None of this is true as far as I know.

Howard Scott, the primary leader of Technocracy, was, briefly, the first and only Research Director of the IWW in the early 1920s, prior to the organization of the Technocracy movement. During that time, unfortunately, the IWW, while it had a major commitment to organizing all workers, had few Black members. I know of no other contact between Technocracy and the labor movement or of any contact at all between Technocracy and any organized group of Blacks or any major Black leader or personality.

RED DAVE

This doesn't even warrant a response; you might as well condemn all of communism since there is evidence that communists persecuted homosexuals.

You might as well call an abolitionist group with all or primarily white members (there were many if you study history) racist because of the fact that it lacked blacks!

[RED DAVE]

Technocracy was very popular with several labor unions of which I'm sure blacks were a significant percentage.
None of this is true as far as I know.

Howard Scott, the primary leader of Technocracy, was, briefly, the first and only Research Director of the IWW in the early 1920s, prior to the organization of the Technocracy movement. During that time, unfortunately, the IWW, while it had a major commitment to organizing all workers, had few Black members. I know of no other contact between Technocracy and the labor movement or of any contact at all between Technocracy and any organized group of Blacks or any major Black leader or personality.
This doesn't even warrant a response; you might as well condemn all of communism since there is evidence that communists persecuted homosexuals.Huh?


You might as well call an abolitionist group with all or primarily white members (there were many if you study history) racist because of the fact that it lacked blacks!Huh?

Actually, the vast majority of members of abolitionist groups were white. If you want to use historical examples, learn some history.

Anyway, you have evaded the points that I made.

(1) You stated that "Technocracy was very popular with several labor unions," which, as far as I know was not true, and you have presented no evidence to the contrary. I have never seen any evidence for any popularity for Technocracy in any union, except for the very brief IWW involvement by Howard Scott, mentioned above

(2) You stated that of the unions Technocracy was allegedly popular with, "... blacks were a significant percentage." (a) As above, there was no such popularity. (b) No union in the United States, including the IWW, which was the first union to admit Blacks to membership in 1909, had a significant Black membership prior to the 1930s.

Keep on truckin', Technocrat. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Humor us. Explain it again.
As far as I can tell, the planning is done by an elite corps of engineers. Please clarify, one more time, for us poor slow-to-comprehend souls:

(1) How are these engineers selected?
It's entirely based upon PERFORMANCE. If someone does well and DEMONSTRATES that they have ability, then their PEERS will RECOGNIZE it and keep that in mind the next time there is an election to promote someone (when a position becomes vacated in the level above them). If someone consistently does a POOR job, then their PEERS would notice that as well, and would elect to remove them to another position to ensure the continued functioning of society!So, I gather, only a manager/engineer's PEERS can replace them.


Have you ever wondered why the power stays on more than 99% of the time, or why when you turn the faucet on the water comes out 99% of the time, or why when you pick up the phone it works 99% of the time, etc, etc? Do you think that no people at all are involved in the running of these tasks? The reason is simple: BECAUSE ALL OF THESE FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS USE THE EXACT SAME PROCESS OF SELECTION FROM BELOW, AND APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE. IT IS PROVEN. If one of the people essential to these functions were to fail to perform their duties adequately, IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE NOTICED and that person would be replaced! You are forgetting that a corporation has SHAREHOLDERS, and it is the LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY of the corporation to make a profit for those shareholders. Money, and likewise profit, would be eliminated in a Technate, thereby eliminating this kind of Special-Interest corruption. If everyone is already getting as much as they can consume, how can they want more except as the result of some pathology? Such a person would be recognized by all around him and he would never find himself in a position of power, since you can only get to a position of power by rising through the ranks through hard work and demonstrated ability, and because anyone can be voted out by a 2/3rds vote.

If a position becomes vacant, for any reason, those in the rank immediately below the vacant position choose candidates among themselves for promotion. Those in the rank immediately above the position to be filled choose from this pool of candidates who should take the job. This is because those in the rank above the position to be filled had to pass through that position to get to their current position, which means they are familiar with the responsibilities of the job and the needed abilities and traits for the job. Sigh, to refute all this nonsense would take all night.

Let me just point out that anyone who thinks that the functional principle in a corporation is "SELECTION FROM BELOW, AND APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE" has never worked for a corporation. The principle for a corporation, for good or ill, is "SELECTION FROM ABOVE, AND APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE." Next time your supervisor is some boss's asshole son, or someone who kissed ass, maybe you'll notice that.


(2) Can those situated "below" a particular engineer or group of engineers reject them as managers once they are selected.
Is this not obvious? YES.Considering your principle of "APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE," obvious this is not at all.


(3) Can the hierarchy of engineers refuse to accept a nominee?
YES. See above.In other words, the hierarchy gets to choose its own membership in the end. Workers can nominate anyone they please, but if the manager/engineers don't dig them, they don't get the job.


(4) Once the plans of the engineers are formulated, is it possible, by a class or group, say all the union members in a particular city, to reject the plan and refuse to follow it.
There would not be any union members, since unions are something which only exist in a Price System (capitalism). This chart shows how the Technate would be organized: http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/admin-chart.gifNo unions! And this is supposed to be a society that workers choose to be a part of after a revolution? Fat fucking chance.


The Area Controls are based on the Regional Divisions. The Regional Divisions are arbitrary geographic units, perhaps 100 mile square units or whatever proves best. The directives for the Area Control come from above, from the Continental Board and the Continental Director. All the directives themselves are the result of a common interest study. Thus, all directives must contribute to the common interest. If anyone working in the Technate fails to comply with these directives, they would be removed from their position by their peers.(emph. added)

Sounds like the worst aspects of labor organization under fascism. I think Jack London outlined a similar system of dictatorship in The Iron Heel. Shigalovism.


(5) In the case of (4) above, how would the plan be enforced against these "rebels"?
They would be removed by their peers who would decide the appropriate course of action. See the above.And what if "their peers" declined to take any action and the plan is still not being carried out? What then? is there an independent police force under Technocracy to enforce the plan?

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Technocratic organisations generally promote the idea of selection amongst peers, which means that those who would receive more responsibility would be proposed amongst their co-workers, but ultimately appointed by committees on the level with a higher degree of responsibility.

The reason why this is acceptable is that the decision-makers within the technate are not supposed to make political decisions. Their function is to administer the infrastructure and production.

In the proposed structure of the European technate, we are using a system of sequences to keep an overview over information, while de-centralised autonomous holons would actually manage the projects. Technocracy Incorporated is more using a GOSPLAN model in their management plan.

[RED DAVE]

Technocratic organisations generally promote the idea of selection amongst peers, which means that those who would receive more responsibility would be proposed amongst their co-workers, but ultimately appointed by committees on the level with a higher degree of responsibility.So, if I understand correctly, those above get to choose who is exalted to their ranks. Correct?


The reason why this is acceptableAcceptable to who? You?


is that the decision-makers within the technate are not supposed to make political decisions. Their function is to administer the infrastructure and production.All decisions are political decisions. Your statement is extremely naive. Next time you lose your job to a corporate "efficiency expert," you'll know what I mean.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

So, if I understand correctly, those above get to choose who is exalted to their ranks. Correct?

Acceptable to who? You?

All decisions are political decisions. Your statement is extremely naive. Next time you lose your job to a corporate "efficiency expert," you'll know what I mean.

RED DAVE

1. No. It is a transparent process where those who are appointed are appointed from a group of candidates which have been selected by their fellow workers. Moreover, there ain't any privileges associated with being on a "higher" level.

2. Acceptable to the population.

3. There won't be any "corporate" experts in a technate since there are no corporations since there is no money.

4. In NET's model, political and social decisions are taken care on by a confederate structure of communities with a direct democratic system.

[Technocrat]

Huh?

Yeah, go study history. Certain communists persecuted homosexuals, in part because homosexuality was associated with Fascism.

The point is that you're trying to condemn an idea because of the person (actually just one of the people) who had it - also known as an ad hominem argument, a type of logical fallacy and a propaganda technique.


Actually, the vast majority of members of abolitionist groups were white. If you want to use historical examples, learn some history.That is exactly what I just said.


(1) You stated that "Technocracy was very popular with several labor unions," which, as far as I know was not true, and you have presented no evidence to the contrary. I have never seen any evidence for any popularity for Technocracy in any union, except for the very brief IWW involvement by Howard Scott, mentioned above

(2) You stated that of the unions Technocracy was allegedly popular with, "... blacks were a significant percentage." (a) As above, there was no such popularity. (b) No union in the United States, including the IWW, which was the first union to admit Blacks to membership in 1909, had a significant Black membership prior to the 1930s.So you have established that Technocracy was involved with the IWW which was the first union to admit Blacks. Good for you, you just defeated your own point.


Keep on truckin', Technocrat. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

RED DAVEYeah, keep it up with the ad hominem attacks, those are working real well for you.

[Technocrat]

So, I gather, only a manager/engineer's PEERS can replace them.

Yes, PEERS being anyone who works with the individual - this include those at the same level as well as those above and below that level, since they are immediately effected by the decisions being made. Maybe if you spent more time asking for clarification and less time being a total ass, you would understand this by now.


Sigh, to refute all this nonsense would take all night.

Let me just point out that anyone who thinks that the functional principle in a corporation is "SELECTION FROM BELOW, AND APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE" has never worked for a corporation. The principle for a corporation, for good or ill, is "SELECTION FROM ABOVE, AND APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE." Next time your supervisor is some boss's asshole son, or someone who kissed ass, maybe you'll notice that.Which I already acknowledged when I explained that corporations have shareholders. Pay attention.


Considering your principle of "APPOINTMENT FROM ABOVE," obvious this is not at all.If you spent less time being belligerent and more time asking for clarification we wouldn't be having this problem now.


In other words, the hierarchy gets to choose its own membership in the end. Workers can nominate anyone they please, but if the manager/engineers don't dig them, they don't get the job.This is both fair and functional. Those above you are only there because they had to pass through your job to get there and had to demonstrate that they have the skills needed to be where they are. The workers would nominate a POOL of candidates, probably using multiple runoff voting, and then those above would choose from this pool of candidates who to take the job, also probably using multiple runoff voting. This is the fairest system ever devised. What you are suggesting would be both unfair and completely stupid:

Those in level 1 (the lowest) choose candidates for promotion to level 2. Those in Level 3 recognize that the "first choice" of level 1 lacks the necessary skills for the job, so they move to the "second choice" who has the necessary skills.

First of all you are suggesting that those in level 1 would choose someone who didn't have the right skills, as if they would just overlook that somehow. Then you are suggesting that it would be more fair for their pet candidate to have the job despite the fact that he lacks the necessary skills, even though "second choice" has the necessary skills.

I am beginning to see that you just suffer from a severely warped view of reality.


No unions! And this is supposed to be a society that workers choose to be a part of after a revolution? Fat fucking chance.Unions only exist in a capitalist society! They wouldn't exist under ANY form of society that lacked capitalism! This is obvious to all but a complete buffoon!

Having to repeat myself this often is getting really tiring.


Sounds like the worst aspects of labor organization under fascism. I think Jack London outlined a similar system of dictatorship in The Iron Heel. Shigalovism.More of your propaganda, lets look at the same quote with a different emphasis:


The Area Controls are based on the Regional Divisions. The Regional Divisions are arbitrary geographic units, perhaps 100 mile square units or whatever proves best. The directives for the Area Control come from above, from the Continental Board and the Continental Director. All the directives themselves are the result of a common interest study. Thus, all directives must contribute to the common interest. If anyone working in the Technate fails to comply with these directives, they would be removed from their position by their peers.Thus, if anyone failed to comply with their directives the common interest would immediately be effected which would be noticed BY EVERYONE, particularly those who worked with the person - either above, below, or equal in rank. The important thing is that those voting to remove the person came IN CONTACT with the person regularly - thus those doing the voting to remove (fire) someone would probably be those in the same regional division of the same functional sequence. This is what is meant by PEER. In the Case of the Continental Director, he can be fired by the Continental Board, who are themselves the heads of each of the functional sequences.


And what if "their peers" declined to take any action and the plan is still not being carried out? What then? is there an independent police force under Technocracy to enforce the plan?

RED DAVEIf the plan is not being carried out then their peers would immediately begin to suffer since the common interest would no longer be satisfied - the plan being to fulfill the common interest. Common sense dictates that they would take swift action out of self-interest.

[Technocrat]

is that the decision-makers within the technate are not supposed to make political decisions. Their function is to administer the infrastructure and production.
All decisions are political decisions. Your statement is extremely naive. Next time you lose your job to a corporate "efficiency expert," you'll know what I mean.

RED DAVE
We've already been over this, and it's already been addressed:


You are assuming, with no proof whatsoever beyond the assumptions of your belief system, that the day-to-day decisions in a factory, or in an economy, are objective. And that anything else is OPINION. Well, you are wrong. The vast majority of day-to-day decisions are, precisely, OPINIONS, based on values and experience, not on some phony, so-called objective criteria that stand above the classes.


That is because THEY ARE. LISTEN: The entire scientific method rests on our ability to separate the objective from the subjective. If we were UNABLE to do so, then the scientific method wouldn't work at all! Since it does work, and indeed since it is THE BEST METHOD WE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR DETERMINING THE TRUTH, we can conclude that IT IS POSSIBLE to separate the objective from the subjective! Determining a GOAL is subjective, but once that GOAL is determined the problem of determining the best solution to achieving that goal becomes an OBJECTIVE matter. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?


You keep going on and on as if this were some very mystical thing, when it is not. Given three different designs for a bridge built to the same safety standards one of them is going to be optimal in terms of durability and cost. Sure they might later discover something that they missed before, but of the AVAILABLE designs, it is possible to pick the best one. Optimization like this is done all the time - it's part of what is called total-systems planning. The difference is that currently we plan for maximum profit rather than the maximum benefit at the lowest cost (in other words, maximum efficiency), as would be done in Technocracy.


As I point out above, we already do the kind of calculations I'm talking about (on practically a daily basis)- it's just that the goal, since this is capitalism, is to make a profit, not to benefit people.

[Dimentio]

I think that RD and Technocrat are addressing two different kinds of decisions. While Technocrat is focusing on the method for reaching goals, Dave is interpreting it more as an issue about power.

[RED DAVE]

I think that RD and Technocrat are addressing two different kinds of decisions. While Technocrat is focusing on the method for reaching goals, Dave is interpreting it more as an issue about power.You are minimizing a much more severe difference. It is about power: class power. Techno, for some reason, seems to think that the working class, after seizing power after a revolution, is going to hand economic decisionmaking over to another class: the engineer/managers. This exchange sums it up.


In other words, the hierarchy gets to choose its own membership in the end. Workers can nominate anyone they please, but if the manager/engineers don't dig them, they don't get the job. This is both fair and functional.
This is both fair and functional. Those above you are only there because they had to pass through your job to get there and had to demonstrate that they have the skills needed to be where they are. The workers would nominate a POOL of candidates, probably using multiple runoff voting, and then those above would choose from this pool of candidates who to take the job, also probably using multiple runoff voting. This is the fairest system ever devised. What you are suggesting would be both unfair and completely stupid:Bizarre!

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

You are minimizing a much more severe difference. It is about power: class power. Techno, for some reason, seems to think that the working class, after seizing power after a revolution, is going to hand economic decision-making over to another class: the engineer/managers. This exchange sums it up.

Technocracy in terms of mere "techno power" (like mere "people power") isn't necessarily a bad thing. Neither is the usage of some technocratic features, such as job slotting but on a randomly selected basis: Such-and-such position is deemed by broader bodies to be important enough to have a spot on the executive committee, so when we randomly select the successful candidate, he or she will instantly become an executive committee member, too.

However, what Techno is advocating here is a form of technarchy, or "techno rule," in which coordinators are the bosses. That, of course, is not good. Example: the bureaucratic job slot system in the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

[ckaihatsu]

I think that RD and Technocrat are addressing two different kinds of decisions. While Technocrat is focusing on the method for reaching goals, Dave is interpreting it more as an issue about power.


I've seen this kind of "vortex" of disagreement before....

Most revolutionaries (like Red Dave) are, understandably, more concerned with historical precedents / lessons, and the *immediate* struggle which is far from decided -- anything beyond today's horizon is seen as overly formalistic and presumptuous at best. Grand plans for *after* the revolution are interpreted within the context of *today's* balance-of-power struggle and so are seen as a political power play, possibly an elitist one.

Technocrat is more concerned with what would be *materially possible*, given the achievement of the socio-political basis for it. In the right environment the proposed formalism would *not* foster petty jockeying for position but, instead, would be the realization of bureaucracy in its best possible manifestation.





Technocracy in terms of mere "techno power" (like mere "people power") isn't necessarily a bad thing. Neither is the usage of some technocratic features, such as job slotting but on a randomly selected basis: Such-and-such position is deemed by broader bodies to be important enough to have a spot on the executive committee, so when we randomly select the successful candidate, he or she will instantly become an executive committee member, too.


Right -- the *formal structures* wouldn't matter that much once the boot of class rule is off of our necks. It could even be a "randomocracy"...!





However, what Techno is advocating here is a form of technarchy, or "techno rule," in which coordinators are the bosses. That, of course, is not good. Example: the bureaucratic job slot system in the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union.


This point is debatable -- we can't draw direct conclusions based on the *formal structure* alone -- we *always* *have* to include the surrounding socio-political *context* in any formulation, or argument.

If we wind up reaching back into history for a *historical* context, then that's what it is, the major factor that defines the model being discussed.

For a *hypothetical future* context we have to go out on a limb and *construct a context* based on crude, hypothesized *general* material factors, extrapolated out into a possibly realizable model. That's what Technocrat is more concerned with. But in arguing hypothetical futures there is no definitive grounding involved, as in arguing from historical precedents.

Here is a model that precedes all of us, *and* has some grounding in history, in the soviets made possible by the Bolshevik Revolution:





Q. What are the elements required for proletarian (workers') democracy?

A. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. From the very first day of the socialist revolution, there must be the most democratic regime, a regime that will mean that, for the first time, all the tasks of running industry, society and the state will be in the hands of the majority of society, the working class. Through their democratically-elected committees (the soviets), directly elected at the workplace and subject to recall at any moment, the workers will be the masters of society not just in name but in fact. This was the position in Russia after the October revolution. Let us recall that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a workers’ state—that is, for the transitional period between capitalism and socialism:

Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.

No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.

No standing army but the armed people.

Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/119/60/#workersdemocracy

[Dimentio]

The problem with having elections in a technate is that no one could decide what person should work as a brain surgeon by voting. The person must first and foremost have the qualifications for the job.

[Technocrat]

You are minimizing a much more severe difference. It is about power: class power. Techno, for some reason, seems to think that the working class, after seizing power after a revolution, is going to hand economic decisionmaking over to another class: the engineer/managers. This exchange sums it up.

Bizarre!

RED DAVE

This brings us right back to the very start of this thread:


Not only would the scientists, engineers and technicians be working class, the working class would be scientists, engineers and technicians, for the most part. I would extend this to include such professions as: Doctors, Artists, Teachers/Professors, etc - basically all of the "professions" minus the financial and legal professions. These would be the only remaining jobs in a Technate, since these jobs require specialized training and skills which cannot be automated (at least not with our current set of technology). Education would be free and mandatory for all citizens including college. The number of graduates admitted into a particular type of school (such as Medical or Engineering) would be determined by society's need for those particular professions. Work would be required from all citizens between the ages of 25 and 45, with the work week being between 10 and 20 hours long with half of the year off - these were the original estimates of Technocracy, Inc.

[Technocrat]

However, what Techno is advocating here is a form of technarchy, or "techno rule," in which coordinators are the bosses. That, of course, is not good. Example: the bureaucratic job slot system in the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Wrong. The number of Coordinators/administrators would be reduced to the bare minimum required for the functioning of society.

What I am advocating is Technocracy. This means rule by skill. The only way to attain and keep a position is by having the skills necessary for the position. There would be no political authority (special interest) controlling decision making. Rather, decisions would be made by those most qualified: those working in a particular field would make decisions relating to that particular field. Greater decision-making power would be given to those individuals who demonstrated greater skill. This decision-making power would be given to the individual by one's peers and could be removed by one's peers.

[Dimentio]

Coordinators would just be responsible for keeping information transparent between the sequences. In the American proposal, the sequences themselves handle matters on the appropriate level. The European system is using a combination between sequences and holons.

[RED DAVE]

Rather, decisions would be made by those most qualified: those working in a particular field would make decisions relating to that particular field.And that means, of course, those actually doing the work.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

And that means, of course, those actually doing the work.

RED DAVE

Yes - your point?

[RED DAVE]

And that means, of course, those actually doing the work.
Yes - your point?That you have virtually no concept of how work is done. Who, for instance, will make the commanding decisions over, say the national railway net or the airline industry? Socialists believe that these decisions must and will be made by those who are actually doing the work, from the bottom up. The national railyway net will be controlled by the railway workers: engineers, repair people, conductors, track workers, etc. Airline decisions will be made by loaders, repair and maintenance people, air traffic controllers, pilots, attendants, flight engineers, etc.

Somehow, I don't think this is the concept of Technocracy.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem with having elections in a technate is that no one could decide what person should work as a brain surgeon by voting. The person must first and foremost have the qualifications for the job.

Well, notwithstanding the obvious need for job group rotations a la Devine, again random selection after hard qualifications is the optimal solution, especially for purely "expert" groups advising leading bodies (themselves having "expert" components, too).

[Dimentio]

Well, notwithstanding the obvious need for job group rotations a la Devine, again random selection after hard qualifications is the optimal solution, especially for purely "expert" groups advising leading bodies (themselves having "expert" components, too).

Yes, and that is the methodology advocated by NET for example.

[Technocrat]

That you have virtually no concept of how work is done. Who, for instance, will make the commanding decisions over, say the national railway net or the airline industry? Socialists believe that these decisions must and will be made by those who are actually doing the work, from the bottom up. The national railyway net will be controlled by the railway workers: engineers, repair people, conductors, track workers, etc. Airline decisions will be made by loaders, repair and maintenance people, air traffic controllers, pilots, attendants, flight engineers, etc.

Somehow, I don't think this is the concept of Technocracy.

RED DAVE

No, it is you who have absolutely no concept of how work is done. Who is to plan where the railroads are to be built? The conductors themselves? That's how your proposal works. Under my proposal, it would be those most qualified for the job. The vertical alignment system that I've been describing to you is simply a tool to ensure that each position is filled by the person most qualified for it.

This excerpt from an article on katascopic vs anascopic processes may enlighten you (but probably not):

"First let us look at the use of each process on each area. We will begin with the machines. As mentioned before, engineers typically design and operate machines in a katascopic way. This is because of the way machines are. The steamship Normandie, for instance, was the fastest ship in its day. The reason why is because it was designed specifically with that in mind. This was the katascopic 'goal' that her designers began with before a single detail was decided upon. From there began a list of requirements (number of passengers, level of comfort, safety concerns, and of course, minimum speed), which then led to the design of the details. These requirements, derived from its goal, dictated the shape of the hull, to the size and type of her engines, the layout of the decks and staterooms, etc. Once complete, every detail contributed to its goal and requirements, and none were included that did not.

Now imagine for a moment if such a ship were to be designed anascopically. There would be dozens of people, some engineers, perhaps others that are not. Each would work on some part of the ship, each one with their own idea of a what the ship should be like. One person would decide that it should be fast; another that it should be big. One decides that it should be spartan in comforts, another wants opulant accommodations. Thus each person designs their “part” according to their own thoughts, opinions, or needs. This may result in a front part of the hull made large, and the back end made small by another person, so that the two don't even fit together. Given this method is can be seen that such a ship, if it were able to remain afloat at all, would scarcely break any records, or achieve what all of its “designers” intended.(http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=26&page=1)

The same thing would happen if you had the workers, en mass, collectively decide where the railroads should be built, or indeed if you had the workers en mass collectively design the continental design of anything whatsoever - it simply wouldn't work at all. These things have to be centrally planned, by those who have been trained to have the necessary skills needed for such planning.

This system is based on the fact that for any given task, some people will be more qualified than others! It is impossible in an industrialized society for every member of that society to possess the same skills.

[Technocrat]

Well, notwithstanding the obvious need for job group rotations a la Devine, again random selection after hard qualifications is the optimal solution, especially for purely "expert" groups advising leading bodies (themselves having "expert" components, too).

This statement is not incompatible with Technocracy. However, I don't think random selection would be necessary if you required that education be mandatory for every citizen and also require that work be mandatory. You could set the number of applicants into a particular school based upon society's need for certain jobs, ensuring that enough people had the right education to perform the tasks essential to society.

[ckaihatsu]

Huh! We've arrived at an interesting point in the exchange here....





Under my proposal, it would be those most qualified for the job.


I don't think *anyone* is disputing that those involved in certain roles and/or tasks should be *qualified* for those particular responsibilities.





The steamship Normandie, for instance, was the fastest ship in its day. The reason why is because it was designed specifically with that in mind. This was the katascopic 'goal' that her designers began with before a single detail was decided upon.


What you're describing here, Technocrat, is the *project goal*, from which the project *details* may be deduced fairly straightforwardly -- perhaps with a technocratic method, as you advocate.





Who, for instance, will make the commanding decisions over, say the national railway net or the airline industry?


Red Dave is correct in posing the question of *which projects* will comprise an *industry* altogether, as with freighter usage, train routes, or airplane flight schedules.

While you're *believing* that your approach originates at the highest, most macro level possible -- the "ceiling", if you will -- what Red Dave is pointing out is that the *extent* of the *overall capacity* to be created must still be decided somehow, and so *that* issue is a *political one* that should be done by the collective decision of the workers themselves, throughout their respective industries of labor.

I'd like to use the term 'objective social reality' as a generic way of referring to this magnitude of socio-political consensus. Once certain industry goals have been decided on then the rest can be logically figured out, or deduced, according to each component's relative efficacy of furthering progress towards the overall end goal.

Worldview Diagram

http://i45.tinypic.com/111to46.jpg





Now imagine for a moment if such a ship were to be designed anascopically. There would be dozens of people, some engineers, perhaps others that are not. Each would work on some part of the ship, each one with their own idea of a what the ship should be like. One person would decide that it should be fast; another that it should be big. One decides that it should be spartan in comforts, another wants opulant accommodations. Thus each person designs their “part” according to their own thoughts, opinions, or needs.


This is an unfair presumption, and is the reason why your 'technocracy', as presented, catches accusations of "elitism" so easily. The characterization of project participation presented is one of feudal-like, turf-based piecemeal interests, each separate one inexplicably bull-headed against all the rest. It's not at all a realistic depiction of how things get done in the modern age, either by separate components of private capital in a business, or by a group of workers in communication and cooperation at a workplace.





[Y]ou have virtually no concept of how work is done.


Red Dave is correct again -- certainly the average person knows that a project isn't handled as a spontaneous aggregation of individual efforts -- there *has* to be a *planning*, or *political* stage first, and therein lies the question of overall management and authority.





These things have to be centrally planned,[I] by those who have been trained to have the necessary skills needed for such planning.


Now *here* you're being more realistic and noting that qualified workers, in their respective positions, would have to have a process of planning that is centralized. This is *different* from the chaotic scenario that just preceded it.





Socialists believe that these decisions must and will be made by those who are actually doing the work, from the bottom up. The national railyway net will be controlled by the railway workers: engineers, repair people, conductors, track workers, etc. Airline decisions will be made by loaders, repair and maintenance people, air traffic controllers, pilots, attendants, flight engineers, etc.

Somehow, I don't think this is the concept of Technocracy.


I still don't think that technocracy is *incompatible* with the socialist understanding of how decisions would be made, once capitalist rule is done away with -- but the technocratic *over-emphasis* on "skilled technicians" only begs the *political* question of how *capacity-planning* is to be decided for each particular industry.

[Technocrat]

I don't think *anyone* is disputing that those involved in certain roles and/or tasks should be *qualified* for those particular responsibilities.The entire purpose of the vertical alignment system is to ensure that every position is filled by the person most qualified for it.


What you're describing here, Technocrat, is the *project goal*, from which the project *details* may be deduced fairly straightforwardly -- perhaps with a technocratic method, as you advocate.Yep, that's how katascopic planning works - you start with the goal and that tells you what your requirements are.


Red Dave is correct in posing the question of *which projects* will comprise an *industry* altogether, as with freighter usage, train routes, or airplane flight schedules.

While you're *believing* that your approach originates at the highest, most macro level possible -- the "ceiling", if you will -- what Red Dave is pointing out is that the *extent* of the *overall capacity* to be created must still be decided somehow, and so *that* issue is a *political one* that should be done by the collective decision of the workers themselves, throughout their respective industries of labor.This would lead to the creation of conflicting special interests. What if the railroad department decided the most efficient route for a planned line went straight through some land that the agricultural department decided was prime land to grow food on? These macro-level decisions that extend across industries (or interests) need to be made at the appropriate level, and that is the purpose of the Technate's Administrative structure.


I'd like to use the term 'objective social reality' as a generic way of referring to this magnitude of socio-political consensus. Once certain industry goals have been decided on then the rest can be logically figured out, or deduced, according to each component's relative efficacy of furthering progress towards the overall end goal.This makes sense.


This is an unfair presumption, and is the reason why your 'technocracy', as presented, catches accusations of "elitism" so easily. The characterization of project participation presented is one of feudal-like, turf-based piecemeal interests, each separate one inexplicably bull-headed against all the rest. It's not at all a realistic depiction of how things get done in the modern age, either by separate components of private capital in a business, or by a group of workers in communication and cooperation at a workplace.I think the metaphor is a fair one for describing how competing special interests in a capitalist society results in just about the least efficient organization possible.


Red Dave is correct again -- certainly the average person knows that a project isn't handled as a spontaneous aggregation of individual efforts -- there *has* to be a *planning*, or *political* stage first, and therein lies the question of overall management and authority.Of course they know that planning has to be done, but how do they go about it? It comes down to how you define democracy. In Red Dave's view, everyone involved should get an equal say in the planning of a particular project regardless of their abilities or training. In my view, the workers who were qualified to make decisions would be the ones making decisions. If they made a bad decision they would be removed from their position. This sort of mirrors the debate that has been going on since this country was founded between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Here's a little history lesson: the Anti-Federalists were wrong.

Here's a real world example for you: When it comes to city planning, most cities go about it in the Red Dave way. Whenever a new project is proposed, they hold neighborhood meetings where everyone can offer their input. What is the most common result of this? That nothing ever gets built, anywhere, and that what does get built is more of the same status-quo crap that is ruining our cities. Portland, held up by urban planners as a model of successful planning, goes about planning in a completely different way: The goals come from the top-down. Neighborhoods are given specific goals that they must meet and are then allowed to come up with a plan to meet those goals. They do not get to reject the goals altogether because these goals have been derived from a common-interest study involving all the affected parties/individuals.

China built around 650 miles of high speed rail in the last 4 years, and it's the fastest system in the world. Did they plan this through democratic participation? No. China actually has a chance to survive the coming energy crises because they have the ability to get things done. Here in America we have so many competing special interests that we will just continue to debate everything until our time is up.


Now *here* you're being more realistic and noting that qualified workers, in their respective positions, would have to have a process of planning that is centralized. This is *different* from the chaotic scenario that just preceded it.I provided those two scenarios to illustrate the difference between anascopic (bottom-up) vs katascopic (top-down) processes.

[ckaihatsu]

Red Dave is correct in posing the question of *which projects* will comprise an *industry* altogether, as with freighter usage, train routes, or airplane flight schedules.

While you're *believing* that your approach originates at the highest, most macro level possible -- the "ceiling", if you will -- what Red Dave is pointing out is that the *extent* of the *overall capacity* to be created must still be decided somehow, and so *that* issue is a *political one* that should be done by the collective decision of the workers themselves, throughout their respective industries of labor.





This would lead to the creation of conflicting special interests. What if the railroad department decided the most efficient route for a planned line went straight through some land that the agricultural department decided was prime land to grow food on? These macro-level decisions that extend across industries (or interests) need to be made at the appropriate level, and that is the purpose of the Technate's Administrative structure.


If a technocracy is adopted by the revolutionary workers then the structure you describe would be in effect, to centralize decision-making across several industries so that there isn't logistical interference among them.

A technocracy isn't the *only* way that top-level planning could get done, but I consider it to be a feasible system for it.





Now imagine for a moment if such a ship were to be designed anascopically. There would be dozens of people, some engineers, perhaps others that are not. Each would work on some part of the ship, each one with their own idea of a what the ship should be like. One person would decide that it should be fast; another that it should be big. One decides that it should be spartan in comforts, another wants opulant accommodations. Thus each person designs their “part” according to their own thoughts, opinions, or needs.





This is an unfair presumption, and is the reason why your 'technocracy', as presented, catches accusations of "elitism" so easily. The characterization of project participation presented is one of feudal-like, turf-based piecemeal interests, each separate one inexplicably bull-headed against all the rest. It's not at all a realistic depiction of how things get done in the modern age, either by separate components of private capital in a business, or by a group of workers in communication and cooperation at a workplace.





I think the metaphor is a fair one for describing how competing special interests in a capitalist society results in just about the least efficient organization possible.


Yes, you're right -- certainly this kind of dynamic is rife at certain scales, mostly in inter-organizational / inter-entity competition.





Of course they know that planning has to be done, but how do they go about it? It comes down to how you define democracy. In Red Dave's view, everyone involved should get an equal say in the planning of a particular project regardless of their abilities or training.


I'm not exactly sure that you're speaking accurately on Red Dave's behalf.

I developed a model of my own precisely to fill in this kind of synapse -- in what you're describing I would see mass public input as having to go through a funneling, or winnowing, process so as to eliminate the possibility of having several competing (and even conflicting) project goal packages, or policies, on the table at the same time. The model is here,


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://i50.tinypic.com/ilc20z.jpg


...and a walk-through scenario with it can be found here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1608511&postcount=113





In my view, the workers who were qualified to make decisions would be the ones making decisions. If they made a bad decision they would be removed from their position. This sort of mirrors the debate that has been going on since this country was founded between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Here's a little history lesson: the Anti-Federalists were wrong.


In terms of *execution* of formal job roles I am in complete agreement and I don't find technocracy to be the least bit controversial. (It's the policy-*making* process, as for overall industrial capacity, that's far more unresolved.)





Here's a real world example for you: When it comes to city planning, most cities go about it in the Red Dave way. Whenever a new project is proposed, they hold neighborhood meetings where everyone can offer their input.


I'm still uncertain that you're correctly representing Red Dave's position here.





What is the most common result of this? That nothing ever gets built, anywhere, and that what does get built is more of the same status-quo crap that is ruining our cities. Portland, held up by urban planners as a model of successful planning, goes about planning in a completely different way: The goals come from the top-down. Neighborhoods are given specific goals that they must meet and are then allowed to come up with a plan to meet those goals. They do not get to reject the goals altogether because these goals have been derived from a common-interest study involving all the affected parties/individuals.

China built around 650 miles of high speed rail in the last 4 years, and it's the fastest system in the world. Did they plan this through democratic participation? No. China actually has a chance to survive the coming energy crises because they have the ability to get things done. Here in America we have so many competing special interests that we will just continue to debate everything until our time is up.




I provided those two scenarios to illustrate the difference between anascopic (bottom-up) vs katascopic (top-down) processes.


I also don't think that you're accurately portraying a *definitive* bottom-up process -- rather it's *one* type, or dynamic, of bottom-up process that exists, or can exist, but there can certainly be other ways of aggregating widespread, heterogeneous consumer sentiment into active policy. My model uses a system of mass prioritization along with past-labor-based funding.

[Dimentio]

Anascopic processes is what North American technocrats are defining as the "waste" occurring when two competing firms making identical products are duplifying a chain of distribution in order to bring out products on a market.

[Technocrat]

If a technocracy is adopted by the revolutionary workers then the structure you describe would be in effect, to centralize decision-making across several industries so that there isn't logistical interference among them.

Right, that's the point of it.


A technocracy isn't the *only* way that top-level planning could get done, but I consider it to be a feasible system for it.The democratic way to settle these disputes between special interests is to hold an election. Then the special interest group who wins (ie the one with the most money) gets to make their opinion into law. The special interest groups that built America are General Motors, Firestone, Standard Oil, etc. That's why we have the same generic urban sprawl from sea to shining sea. Autonomy has resulted in the tragedy of the commons.

In most cases, the common interest is readily apparent: if we stopped making food we would all quickly begin to starve. In some cases the common interest isn't readily apparent: such as is the case with climate change or global resource shortages. In such cases, the common interest must be mandated if it is to be protected.


I'm not exactly sure that you're speaking accurately on Red Dave's behalf.Perhaps not, but he's done little to clarify his position except to argue against mine. So I can only assume that he holds the opposite view.

[RED DAVE]

If a technocracy is adopted by the revolutionary workers then the structure you describe would be in effect, to centralize decision-making across several industries so that there isn't logistical interference among them.Why, oh why, oh why, oh why, would revolutionary workers, having seized power, turn that power over to engineers and managers?

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

Why, oh why, oh why, oh why, would revolutionary workers, having seized power, turn that power over to engineers and managers?


Dave, I think you're falling into a trap of stereotyping workers as all being blue-collar, or something like that -- if revolutionary workers worldwide seized power they *would be* the engineers and managers, collectively. New generations of workers would be educated through to proficiency in *several* areas of work so as to prevent the (re-)emergence of elitist groups based on privileged knowledge.

We need to *distinguish*, or *differentiate*, between the *current* situation today under capitalism, and a very possible one for the future, that of revolutionary workers' control of the means of mass production. While educated, technical types are often groomed for entry into the bourgeois political machine in the here-and-now, it *doesn't* have to be done the same way once a proletarian revolution has swept the rule of capital off of the face of the planet.

[Technocrat]

New generations of workers would be educated through to proficiency in *several* areas of work so as to prevent the (re-)emergence of elitist groups based on privileged knowledge.

Technocracy, Inc. proposed that education be free and mandatory for all citizens, and that work be mandatory as well for all between the ages of 25 and 45 who are able to work. The amount of work would be reduced to the bare minimum required for the functioning of society (the amount required to produce all that is being consumed), and most of the unpleasant work would be automated wherever possible. Almost any task that is routine can be automated, but those tasks that require years of training cannot. In such a scenario, the only available jobs would be professional jobs, and everyone is required to take a job. The result would be a society of professionals who worked around 2 hours per day, on average. As efficiency and education improve, the amount of work required would steadily decrease.

An important thing to understand is that the production of any good or service requires inputs that can be measured. One of these inputs is the amount of human labor required. Knowing this, we can "work backward" and determine ahead of time all of the inputs we will need - labor, energy, raw materials, etc.

With this knowledge, we can determine how many students to admit into a particular type of school (medical, engineering, science, etc) to ensure that we will always have enough trained personnel at any given time.

If the total number of hours of labor required to produce all that is being physically consumed is x, then the amount of labor required by each person is x divided by the total number of people working - we'll call this y. Using this you can determine how many workers of each particular type are needed in each field to ensure that the number of hours worked by each person is equal to y.

[ckaihatsu]

[W]e can determine how many students to admit into a particular type of school (medical, engineering, science, etc) to ensure that we will always have enough trained personnel at any given time.


This is a *minor* point since I don't want to quibble about formalism, but I'd imagine that a liberated, revolutionary society might have a much more flexible and open-ended approach towards education. Those who are serious and focused about a chosen avenue of study could easily communicate their intentions for studying and could be *qualitatively* assessed on an ongoing basis by peers in the work environment once there.








If the total number of hours of labor required to produce all that is being physically consumed is x, then the amount of labor required by each person is x divided by the total number of people working - we'll call this y. Using this you can determine how many workers of each particular type are needed in each field to ensure that the number of hours worked by each person is equal to y.

[chegitz guevara]

What you are advocating is government-organized control of industry. That fascism.

No, that's state capitalism. Fascism is a mass movement of the enraged middle classes which has the support of the leading sectors of the capitalist class.

[Technocrat]

This is a *minor* point since I don't want to quibble about formalism, but I'd imagine that a liberated, revolutionary society might have a much more flexible and open-ended approach towards education. Those who are serious and focused about a chosen avenue of study could easily communicate their intentions for studying and could be *qualitatively* assessed on an ongoing basis by peers in the work environment once there.

I don't see any problem with that. If the only remaining jobs are professional/skilled jobs like engineer, doctor, scientist, researcher, artist, etc, and if everyone is required to work for a specified period, it is likely that there should always be enough jobs for anyone to enter into whatever field they choose. Since all the remaining work would be of relatively equal difficulty, the choice of work would be more determined by an individual's personality, desires, and abilities.

[Technocrat]

No, that's state capitalism. Fascism is a mass movement of the enraged middle classes which has the support of the leading sectors of the capitalist class.

It's not state capitalism or fascism... try again.


State capitalism has various different meanings, but is usually described as a society wherein the productive forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_forces) are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#cite_note-0) Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage) system of producing and appropriating surplus value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value) — with ownership or control by a state apparatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state). By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation). There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have been around since the October Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution) or even before. The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism. Other socialists use the term state capitalism to refer to an economic system whereby it is nominally capitalist, where business and private owners reap profits from an economy largely subsidized, developed and promoted by the state sector and public cost. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism)None of this remotely applies to the description of Technocracy that we have been discussing. Knee-jerk reactions aren't helpful... if you are having trouble understanding something, ask questions.

[Dimentio]

Technocracy is a moneyless society without profits or trade. It couldn't be state capitalist even if it tried.

[revolution inaction]

no but it sound just as bad if not worse

[Dimentio]

In what way?

[ckaihatsu]

a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation.


This is a rough description of the status quo -- the *current* economic / political (bourgeois) setup, particularly for those "cutting-edge", or "looked-to" (financial / imperialist) countries in the world economy.

(The dominant, predominantly Western economies *don't* have full, at-will control over the economy, as evidenced by the current, ongoing crisis of overproduction / collapsing profits.)





Technocracy is a moneyless society without profits or trade. It couldn't be state capitalist even if it tried.





no but it sound just as bad if not worse


Getting past profit-driven commodity production is definitely a step in the right direction. It *must* be controlled by the workers of the world, though -- the collectivization of the means of mass production.

[Demogorgon]

This is both fair and functional. Those above you are only there because they had to pass through your job to get there and had to demonstrate that they have the skills needed to be where they are. The workers would nominate a POOL of candidates, probably using multiple runoff voting, and then those above would choose from this pool of candidates who to take the job, also probably using multiple runoff voting. This is the fairest system ever devised.Calling it "the fairest system ever devised" makes you at best look like a fanatic. In truth it resembles the means by which legislatures are sometimes chosen in Constitutional monarchies when the monarch exercises a great deal of personal power.

Perhaps an even closer comparison would be the state bureaucracy in China. In that system people are evaluated by their peers and recommended for promotion or not and from that pool those above make promotions. Is that an efficient system, or one conducive to a free society?

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that those above know better than those below, that authoritarian hierarchies are naturally the best systems. It is an argument as old as society itself and has been used to oppose democracy at every turn. Yet appointed Governments (or those chosen through a closed process) have never had as good a track record as those elected by universal and free suffrage. For all the objections to democracy raised they have always worked out as the best. Actually on that subject, do you even agree with elected political Government? In the brave new world will we be able to at least vote on legislation, have control over the criminal justice system and so on or will that be left to "those who know best" as well?

Anyway, most of us at least, know that democracy is the best system in the political arena. So why is it not the best system in the workplace? Why shouldn't we freely elect our bosses and make various decisions ourselves? Empirical evidence shows that enterprises operated in this manner are the most successful by a long way after all. I certainly am not speaking theoretically. Other than tired old arguments against democratic self rule, why do we need an undemocratic hierarchy?

[revolution inaction]

In what way?

see Technocrat's descriptions of technocracy

[Dimentio]

see Technocrat's descriptions of technocracy

Technocracy Inc needs to update their aesthetics and their ideology with a good seventy years. They almost managed to put me off from the idea of Technocracy.

[Technocrat]

Calling it "the fairest system ever devised" makes you at best look like a fanatic. In truth it resembles the means by which legislatures are sometimes chosen in Constitutional monarchies when the monarch exercises a great deal of personal power.

Perhaps an even closer comparison would be the state bureaucracy in China. In that system people are evaluated by their peers and recommended for promotion or not and from that pool those above make promotions. Is that an efficient system, or one conducive to a free society?

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that those above know better than those below, that authoritarian hierarchies are naturally the best systems. It is an argument as old as society itself and has been used to oppose democracy at every turn. Yet appointed Governments (or those chosen through a closed process) have never had as good a track record as those elected by universal and free suffrage. For all the objections to democracy raised they have always worked out as the best. Actually on that subject, do you even agree with elected political Government? In the brave new world will we be able to at least vote on legislation, have control over the criminal justice system and so on or will that be left to "those who know best" as well?

Anyway, most of us at least, know that democracy is the best system in the political arena. So why is it not the best system in the workplace? Why shouldn't we freely elect our bosses and make various decisions ourselves? Empirical evidence shows that enterprises operated in this manner are the most successful by a long way after all. I certainly am not speaking theoretically. Other than tired old arguments against democratic self rule, why do we need an undemocratic hierarchy?

You are apparently ignorant of human nature and human behavior. More reading is required:

Quoted from the Technocracy Study Course, p.199-200


"Much light in recent years has been thrown on the problem of individual differences by observations made on various sorts of animals. It is a common observation, for instance, around any barnyard that certain individuals for no apparent reason, assume priority and take precedence over other members of the same species. In a dairy herd, for example, coming from the pasture to the barnyard, a certain cow always goes through the gate first, and the others follow after in their proper order. Or, between two cows, it is observed that one will hook the other without the second one fighting back. If a strange cow is introduced into the herd there may be a bit of fighting until she establishes her proper rank, but after that rank is once established it remains fixed.

Within recent years a German biologist has made extensive studies of similar relations among chickens. He found that in a given flock of chickens there existed a fixed system of what he called ‘peck-rights’—which chicken pecked which. He found, for instance, that between A and B, say, A would peck B, but B would not peck A. Hence, A was said to have a ‘peck-right’ over B. This man studied the peck-rights between every pair of chickens in a given group, and he found the system, though complicated, to be quite rigid. Sometimes the peck-right system would form a closed chain. That is, A would peck B, B would peck C, C would peck D, and D would peck A. According to press reports a series of similar experiments has recently been made at the University of Wisconsin, using apes. According to this report, pairs of strange apes of like sexes were placed in a cage together and allowed to remain there until they established a state of mutual tolerance. It was found in each case that there was no such thing as equality between the two members of the pair. There might be quarreling in the earlier stages, but once equilibrium was established, one of them always assumed priority over the other thereafter; one was definitely No. 1, and the other was No. 2. No. 2 in one pair might be No. 1 in another pair, but in any given pair there was nothing that corresponded to the concept of equality. One sees identically this same type of thing among any group of children on a playground, or among any group of workmen of the same rank on a job. Certain individuals dominate, and the others take orders. These dominant ones need not be, and frequently are not, large in stature, but they dominate just as effectively as if they were.

In the Declaration of Independence there occurs the familiar line: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...’ This concept is philosophic in origin and, as we have seen, has no basis in biologic fact. Upon biologic fact, theories of democracy go to pieces. The greatest stability in a social organization would be obtained where the individuals were placed as nearly as possible with respect to other individuals in accordance with ‘peck-rights,’ or priority relationship which they would assume naturally (emphasis added). Conversely, the most unstable form of social organization would be one in which these ‘peck-rights’ were most flagrantly violated. Examples of this latter type of instability are to be found in the case of the army during the late World War, and in many business organizations at the present time. In the case of the army, several million men were hastily put under arms, so that there was little opportunity in advance, had any provision to do so been made, to choose the officers on the basis of spontaneous natural priority. Instead, following the well known West Point tradition of catering to the ‘right people,’ and to what is ‘socially correct,’ the officers were picked largely on the basis of the social prestige of their families, their college training, and other superficial considerations, but with little or no regard for their ability to command the respect of the men under them. Their positions consequently were maintained largely by military police power, and many an officer fared badly once the protection of that police power was relinquished. This accounts for the reputed high fatality of officers at the front from bullets in the back, and for the scores of others who took a proper beating upon the discharge of the men serving under them. The same thing is true of business organizations. The weapon of control in this case is the police power of the state and the club of economic insecurity which is held suspended over the heads of the workmen. There are few business organizations today whose administrative staffs, selected largely upon the basis of favoritism to relatives, and upon pecuniary considerations, are not to a great extent inverted with regard to the question of natural priority. In such organizations this state of inversion is maintained underthe protection of the police power of the state, and by means of the weapon of economic insecurity which the relatively incompetent staffs are enabled to wield over the heads of the workmen. Were these artificial controls removed, it need hardly be added, these functional incompetents would find their existences extremely unsafe until they gravitated back to the level where they properly belonged."

[Technocrat]

Technocracy Inc needs to update their aesthetics and their ideology with a good seventy years. They almost managed to put me off from the idea of Technocracy.

It's amusing how so-called leftists suffer from the same reactionary paranoia that is leveled against communism!

Technocracy falls into the libertarian/left or communist/anarchist category. How many times does this need to be said?

[ckaihatsu]

In the Declaration of Independence there occurs the familiar line: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...’ This concept is philosophic in origin and, as we have seen, has no basis in biologic fact. Upon biologic fact, theories of democracy go to pieces. The greatest stability in a social organization would be obtained where the individuals were placed as nearly as possible with respect to other individuals in accordance with ‘peck-rights,’ or priority relationship which they would assume naturally.


I'd like to note for the public record that I do *not* agree with this conception of social order. It's problematic because it relies on biological determinism and does not recognize the potential for self-determination and flexibility within the individual person.





If anything, we should be *building* on the democratic legacies of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the 18th century, and moreso on the potential of the emergent workers collectives -- soviets -- that developed with the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

[Technocrat]

I'd like to note for the public record that I do *not* agree with this conception of social order. It's problematic because it relies on biological determinism and does not recognize the potential for self-determination and flexibility within the individual person.

Chris, this statement is based on an incorrect understanding.

How does it not recognize the potential for self-determination and flexibility within the individual person? Can you point to a specific quote that suggests that? The quote you provided does not suggest what you are saying.

I would say that the system most certainly does acknowledge the potential for self-determination.

If two different people, chosen at random, are asked to do the exact same task - one of them will do better than the other, 99.99% of the time. This is just a natural fact. This is because although human potential is limitless, time is not - there is only so much time to invest into the development of certain skills. The amount of skilled positions (those requiring extensive training and specialized abilities) increases with Industrialization/Automation. This means that in an industrialized society the likelihood that two random people will have equal skill at any given task decreases. Does this make sense?

[Dimentio]

I hate to appear as a sectarian, but the manners of some Technocracy Inc members are really deteriorating the credibility of Technocracy overally. I find the habit of using superlatives frivolously quite endearing. Moreover, I start to get tired by the constant referencing to the TSC as a guidance to salvation.

[RED DAVE]

It's amusing how so-called leftists suffer from the same reactionary paranoia that is leveled against communism!Considering that Technocracy has a very checkered past, which you have misrepresented, why shouldn't we be mistrustful?


Technocracy falls into the libertarian/left or communist/anarchist category. How many times does this need to be said?You can say it all you want, but Technocracy, historically and now, has virtually nothing to do with the Left. in fact, it has more to do with some of the more cranky versions of the Right. Since Technocracy does not support direct democratic control of industry by the working class, it has nothing to do with socialism, marxism, the Left, etc.

I think that you are pretentious to think that serious leftists will accept your bizarre belief system as having anything to do with our practices or beliefs.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

The technate is not a government, but rather a service which is working for the public to produce what they want in the most efficient manner possible. Thus, technocracy is primarily not a political ideology but an ideology of management.

[Technocrat]

I hate to appear as a sectarian, but the manners of some Technocracy Inc members are really deteriorating the credibility of Technocracy overally. I find the habit of using superlatives frivolously quite endearing. Moreover, I start to get tired by the constant referencing to the TSC as a guidance to salvation.

You find the frivolous use of superlatives to be endearing?

I've been insulted throughout the thread, so I find it somewhat irritating that you would suggest that it is MY manners which need improving. I'm beginning to sense some disturbing favoritism in your actions, Dimentio. The verbal warning stands out as reeking of favoritism since others had been engaging in verbal abuse long before I rightly called Red Dave an idiot. In my opinion, if someone is going to be as willfully ignorant as Red Dave has been, they deserve to be called an idiot, particularly if they have already set the precedent with prior verbal insults (crackpot, fascist, cultist, pretentious, an ass, etc). Trying to argue that being called one name is worse than another is ludicrous - they all amount to the same thing. Now, I have put forth a lot of effort to keep things civil on my end, but I have noticed NO SUCH effort on the part of Red Dave et al.

A lot of trouble would be saved if people just read the Study Course.

It's like explaining a car: I start with the spark plugs, someone points out that the spark plugs could never make the car run, and therefore the entire idea of the car is "disproven". You have to understand how all the parts work together.

I find repeating myself endlessly to be quite tiresome. The quote from the Study Course was provided so that I didn't have to repeat myself for the Nth time and also to demonstrate that the Technocrats already thought of that (whatever the objection was). Really, it's like some people assume that these people were not smart enough to have already thought about that sort of thing. Thanks for the vote of confidence!

[Technocrat]

Considering that Technocracy has a very checkered past, which you have misrepresented, why shouldn't we be mistrustful?

That's a libelous thing to say, isn't it? Your points about Technocracy's "checkered past" were addressed and refuted if you hadn't noticed. Stalin also killed more people than Hitler - I suppose we should dismiss communism because of that? This is just more ad hominem crap - "checkered past", etc. Ad hominem attacks are one of the favored strategies of those who cannot win a debate on logical grounds.


You can say it all you want, but Technocracy, historically and now, has virtually nothing to do with the Left. in fact, it has more to do with some of the more cranky versions of the Right. Since Technocracy does not support direct democratic control of industry by the working class, it has nothing to do with socialism, marxism, the Left, etc.Says you. You are making a dogmatic statement, and I've already responded to this:



On top of that, you're wrong about this type of hierarchy being incompatible with socialism - that's just your opinion that you're stating.

Quote:
The distinction between technocratic/scientific management (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy) and democratic management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogestion) refers to positions on how state institutions and the economy are to be managed. Some proponents of technocratic socialism include Claude Henri de Saint-Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy,_comte_de_Saint-Simon), Alexander Bogdanov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bogdanov) and H. G. Wells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells). They include proponents of economic planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) (except those, like the Trotskyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism), who tend to emphasize the need for democratic workers control), and socialists inspired by Taylorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorism). They show a tendency to promote scientific management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management), whereby technical experts manage institutions and receive their position in society based on a demonstration of their technical expertise or merit, with the aim of creating a rational, effective and stable organization.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism))


I think that you are pretentious to think that serious leftists will accept your bizarre belief system as having anything to do with our practices or beliefs.

RED DAVEI think you are pretentious for making these judgments when you clearly lack sufficient information to even understand what it is that you're judging. It's as if you really think that you already know everything. You have not yet demonstrated that you understand how Technocracy works - Do you understand how positions would be filled in a Technate? I've explained this at least ten times, but I think you still aren't getting it.

[RED DAVE]

Considering that Technocracy has a very checkered past, which you have misrepresented, why shouldn't we be mistrustful?
That's a libelous thing to say, isn't it? Your points about Technocracy's "checkered past" were addressed and refuted if you hadn't noticed.I noticed that you continue to misrepresent Technocracy's past with regard to unions. You state that the org had extensive labor contacts with unions and Black people. It turned out that Howard Scott had been briefly the research director of the IWW, which had a small Black membership at the time. And that's all folks.

Also, you have consistently denied the authoritarian and semi-fascist elements of Technocracy during the 1930s, which led to the Canadian government temporarily banning the group.


Stalin also killed more people than Hitler - I suppose we should dismiss communism because of that? This is just more ad hominem crap - "checkered past", etc.As to Stalin killing more people than hitler, you are simply fully of shit. hitler bares major responsibility for World War II, which resulted in over 50 million deaths. Not even the most hardened right-winger claims that Stalin was responsible for that many deaths.


You can say it all you want, but Technocracy, historically and now, has virtually nothing to do with the Left. in fact, it has more to do with some of the more cranky versions of the Right. Since Technocracy does not support direct democratic control of industry by the working class, it has nothing to do with socialism, marxism, the Left, etc.
Says you.Yes, says me. As a leftist with considerable left-wing political experience, more than yours I dare say, I think I know what is left and what is not. Now since the hallmark of leftism is workers democracy, which Technocracy does not support, it cannot be considered a part of the left. And, by the way, I am not a supporter of Stalin, which further demonstrates your ignorance.


I think you are pretentious for making these judgments when you clearly lack sufficient information to even understand what it is that you're judging.I have a reasonably good idea of what is left an what is not, and a smattering of an idea of what Technocracy is. And I see little or no relationship between the two. Since no organizational or programmatic relationship exists, either historically or presently, the burden of proof lies with you that such a relation in fact exists. I think that pretentiousness is what you can be charged with. Your notion of what is or is not left, socialist, communist, etc., seem to be hopelessly muddled.


It's as if you really think that you already know everything.No, but I do understand the left and its purview.


You have not yet demonstrated that you understand how Technocracy works - Do you understand how positions would be filled in a Technate? I've explained this at least ten times, but I think you still aren't getting it.Yes I understand it quite well: an authoritarian system in which the working class, after having shed its blood to seize power, turns control of industry over to a self-perpetuating class or manager/engineers. You can deny it all you want, but in your system, direct democratic control of industry, from bottom to top, by the working class is not what happens.

Keep it coming Techno. I know my subject, the general purview of the left, much better than you do. :cool:

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

I noticed that you continue to misrepresent Technocracy's past with regard to unions. You state that the org had extensive labor contacts with unions and Black people. It turned out that Howard Scott had been briefly the research director of the IWW, which had a small Black membership at the time. And that's all folks.


Which is more than can be said for the vast percentage of organizations which existed at the time, defeating your point.
As to Stalin killing more people than hitler, you are simply fully of shit. hitler bares major responsibility for World War II, which resulted in over 50 million deaths. Not even the most hardened right-winger claims that Stalin was responsible for that many deaths.Stalin killed around 20 million of his own people, Hitler killed around 11 million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll). But that's missing the point: the point is that your arguments are just a bunch of ad hominem crap!


Yes, says me. As a leftist with considerable left-wing political experience, more than yours I dare say, I think I know what is left and what is not. Now since the hallmark of leftism is workers democracy, which Technocracy does not support, it cannot be considered a part of the left. And, by the way, I am not a supporter of Stalin, which further demonstrates your ignorance.In the quote I provided in my previous post It is explained that technocracy is not incompatible with socialism, and that workers democracy is just one possible method of socialist organization! So, what you are stating is your opinion, and always has been! I didn't say you were a supporter of Stalin, I was pointing out the ad hominem nature of your comments. Way to miss the point yet again.


I have a reasonably good idea of what is left an what is not, and a smattering of an idea of what Technocracy is. And I see little or no relationship between the two. Since no organizational or programmatic relationship exists, either historically or presently, the burden of proof lies with you that such a relation in fact exists. I think that pretentiousness is what you can be charged with. Your notion of what is or is not left, socialist, communist, etc., seem to be hopelessly muddled.No, it is you who are confused as to what is and is not socialist or technocratic - see the above.


Yes I understand it quite well: an authoritarian system in which the working class, after having shed its blood to seize power, turns control of industry over to a self-perpetuating class or manager/engineers. You can deny it all you want, but in your system, direct democratic control of industry, from bottom to top, by the working class is not what happens.No, that's not what it is. False assumption number one: "an authoritarian system". As I've pointed out already, authority is a tool used in our present system in the absence of scientific fact to enforce one's opinion over everyone else - which would be eliminated or reduced to the bare minimum in a Technate. False assumption number two: "turns control of industry over to a self-perpetuating class of manager/engineer". First, you are mistaken in assuming that this is a "government run by engineers." I've stated repeatedly that it is not. Second, you seem to think that engineers are themselves a distinct class from the workers, which they are not. Third, you seem to think that power would be "handed over" when it would not - those currently occupying functional positions would continue to do their jobs, as I've already said. Fourth, you seem to think the system would be "self-perpetuating", which is something you seem to have come up with yourself. Those occupying functional positions only do so as long as they continue to perform their duties - if they fail, it negatively effects everyone and those who work with the individual (ie those that come into daily contact with the person) would be responsible for taking appropriate action, ie removing the person to a different position and replacing them with someone who is capable of doing the job.


Keep it coming Techno. I know my subject, the general purview of the left, much better than you do. :cool:

RED DAVEYeah, if you say so - just keep on patting yourself on the back there. :thumbup:

[ckaihatsu]

I'd like to note for the public record that I do *not* agree with this conception of social order. It's problematic because it relies on biological determinism and does not recognize the potential for self-determination and flexibility within the individual person.





Chris, this statement is based on an incorrect understanding.

How does it not recognize the potential for self-determination and flexibility within the individual person? Can you point to a specific quote that suggests that? The quote you provided does not suggest what you are saying.

I would say that the system most certainly does acknowledge the potential for self-determination.

If two different people, chosen at random, are asked to do the exact same task - one of them will do better than the other, 99.99% of the time. This is just a natural fact. This is because although human potential is limitless, time is not - there is only so much time to invest into the development of certain skills. The amount of skilled positions (those requiring extensive training and specialized abilities) increases with Industrialization/Automation. This means that in an industrialized society the likelihood that two random people will have equal skill at any given task decreases. Does this make sense?


Certainly. I *do* understand what you're saying on a person-by-person, or position-by-position basis, Technocrat, but now my concern is more about the *collective* -- I think the weak part of technocracy is its overriding *emphasis* on formalism, at least from your presentation of it.

Given a *collective workers'* control of industry the *formalism* surrounding specific work roles would not be nearly as much of a concern as the *overall* project, or policy -- and of *paramount* importance would be the *process* of arriving at that policy decision (that is then implemented).





Since Technocracy does not support direct democratic control of industry by the working class, it has nothing to do with socialism, marxism, the Left, etc.


Red Dave is continuing to raise the valid, critical point of how mass demand is coalesced into public policy, and execution by mass, liberated labor. I've *also* spoken to this point and you've been unresponsive to it, instead favoring your emphasis on the technocratic formalism around work positions.




(It's the policy-*making* process, as for overall industrial capacity, that's far more unresolved.)




[T]here can certainly be other ways of aggregating widespread, heterogeneous consumer sentiment into active policy. My model uses a system of mass prioritization along with past-labor-based funding.

Dimentio helps to clarify things here by putting technocracy in its proper context:





The technate is not a government, but rather a service which is working for the public to produce what they want in the most efficient manner possible. Thus, technocracy is primarily not a political ideology but an ideology of management.


I agree with Dimentio's contextualization here -- it is *compatible* with my own model's treatment of public policy, once decided upon:





Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions.

http://i50.tinypic.com/ilc20z.jpg


Note that my model *differs* from a relatively-static technocratic hierarchy of formal job *positions*, and is instead flexible according to the unit of each particular agreed-upon *policy package* -- this is more compatible in practice with the *direct democratic* control of industry by the working class.

[Demogorgon]

You are apparently ignorant of human nature and human behavior. More reading is required:

Quoted from the Technocracy Study Course, p.199-200
Empirical evidence shows again and again that democratic organisation is the most efficient means to organise any given institution.

At any rate though, it seems now that your argument is that there is a natural hierarchy with some people being naturally better than others and that any attempt to upsurp this hierarchy is doomed to failure and therefore said hierarchy should be maintained for the good of all.

Your own words damn you.

[Demogorgon]

You find the frivolous use of superlatives to be endearing?

I've been insulted throughout the thread, so I find it somewhat irritating that you would suggest that it is MY manners which need improving. I'm beginning to sense some disturbing favoritism in your actions, Dimentio. The verbal warning stands out as reeking of favoritism since others had been engaging in verbal abuse long before I rightly called Red Dave an idiot. In my opinion, if someone is going to be as willfully ignorant as Red Dave has been, they deserve to be called an idiot, particularly if they have already set the precedent with prior verbal insults (crackpot, fascist, cultist, pretentious, an ass, etc). Trying to argue that being called one name is worse than another is ludicrous - they all amount to the same thing. Now, I have put forth a lot of effort to keep things civil on my end, but I have noticed NO SUCH effort on the part of Red Dave et al.

A lot of trouble would be saved if people just read the Study Course.

It's like explaining a car: I start with the spark plugs, someone points out that the spark plugs could never make the car run, and therefore the entire idea of the car is "disproven". You have to understand how all the parts work together.

I find repeating myself endlessly to be quite tiresome. The quote from the Study Course was provided so that I didn't have to repeat myself for the Nth time and also to demonstrate that the Technocrats already thought of that (whatever the objection was). Really, it's like some people assume that these people were not smart enough to have already thought about that sort of thing. Thanks for the vote of confidence!
Has it occurred to you that Dimentio has spent years here trying to explain Technocracy in rational terms and argue it is compatible with the left and that you have barged in and with one thread undermined a lot of that? The position he is in is rather like the position I would be in if after years of making careful arguments for Communism to a sceptical audience, some idiot barged in proclaiming North Korea (for instance) to be a wonderful utopia and proof of the wonders of Communism.

No wonder he is annoyed.

[Dimentio]

Moreover, I have spent years to critically examine Technocracy Incorporated from both an ideological and an organisational perspective. While I do have much respect for some members of Technocracy Incorporated, I believe that there are many flaws within the ideology of the organisation.

Firstly, Technocracy Incorporated denies of even having an ideology or that technocracy is a particular ideology. Moreover, they claim that their design - envisioned in 1934 - is the only possible solution in all its details. And all details are evidently of equal importance.

I would not dwell over their ideas to sit on the back idly and wait for the society to collapse by its own weight to then take over. But I will claim that technological development since 1934 has rendered the design of hyper-centralisation envisoned by Technocracy Incorporated moot and insufficient as there are better methods available nowadays to get projects done.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

This is not some sectarian assault on some organisation upon another. NET doesn't have any position on Technocracy Incorporated, so this is my personal view. And, no, this isn't favouritism at all. I have no obligation to defend technocrats when their actions are both condescending in an overall manner and also run contrary to the interests of Technocracy.

What angers me most about Technocracy Incorporated is the utopianism ingrained in every fibre of that organisation. The idea that all diseases, accidents and all crime would vanish simply because of a six month overhaul of the entire productive structure of a civilisation.

Even if that would be true, it is hyperbolical to shout it out day and night and attempt to silence any criticism with that. One of the reasons why other technocratic organisations are growing while Technocracy Incorporated is stagnating is that Technocracy Incorporated is working by rehashing old articles and producing them in new versions, while other organisations are actually attempting to examine the original proposals critically, omit everything superfluous and improve on the designs, as well as conducting empirical experiments regarding their validity.

Don't interpret me wrong. I am all for Technocracy Incorporated to have their little puppet theatre and come to solve their differences in a civilised manner as long as they aren't abusive against any other technocratic movement. What is disturbing me though, is this idea that Technocracy Incorporated is somehow representing all technocrats.

There is an incredible, positive energy flowing up in the movement right now. The Venus Project is the world's most successful technocratic organisation, and NET is making quite a remarkable process right now. Technocracy Incorporated in that aspect have not taken any part in the success.

I remember 2004-2005 when there was a small technocratic momentum associated with Technocracy Incorporated. It waned off simply because Bill DesJardins, the webmaster of www.technocracy.ca couldn't manage the activity or steer it, so he closed the forums.

I very well remember the little debate you had with Mansel about science and the validity of your claims. ^^

[RED DAVE]

Just for fun, let me add an additional element to this discussion:

Technocracy exists as some kind of an organized movement. Let me ask its defenders, then, what are its political positions on the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Should you care to say that Technocracy is "not political" or something of the sort, you will have given a wholly adequate answer.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

At any rate though, it seems now that your argument is that there is a natural hierarchy with some people being naturally better than others and that any attempt to upsurp this hierarchy is doomed to failure and therefore said hierarchy should be maintained for the good of all.


I've been re-reading the text that Technocrat posted and it's *very* easy to misinterpret it because of its use of dated concepts, particularly the "natural priority" one. It would have been better if Technocrat had *parsed*, or *interpreted* the text in a more concise form. That's what *I'll* do here....

The text is basically making an argument for some kind of meritocracy, *relative to*, a fascist corporate dictatorship. I initially interpreted it as an argument for biological determinism because it uses the "natural priority" concept, along with the full introduction describing the emergent social order of *animals*.

Moreover, the text makes a slight at the Declaration of Independence as being "philosophic in origin", saying that, "Upon biologic fact, theories of democracy go to pieces." This only confuses its line since one would expect a *support* of basic democratic principles (over any given arbitrary top-down command structure), as for example set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Instead, it's saying that even (bourgeois) *democracy* does not provide as much social stability as a more-meritocratic approach of job-position-hierarchy-making.





The technate is not a government, but rather a service which is working for the public to produce what they want in the most efficient manner possible. Thus, technocracy is primarily not a political ideology but an ideology of management.


If the text is confining the extent of its "social organization" to the technate-as-a-service-working-for-the-public, then it could be considered as compatible with a Marxist conception of worker democracy.

But if it is arguing on the basis of *governmental authority* -- as it seems to be, since it references the Declaration of Independence, military power, police power, business organization, and economic insecurity -- then it *is* in the ring of the political arena and so should be judged as a political ideology.

As a political ideology it can only be found lacking because it doesn't address a mechanism for the translation of mass political demands and consumer sentiment into active public policy. I'd welcome any input that Technocrat can provide along these lines here, but for the moment I'll be preferring my own model (which I've referenced in earlier posts).

[Dimentio]

The problem with the North American technate as envisioned by the Technocracy Incorporated is that they see law and military power as merely "technical" instruments when under the control of the technate. Also, the chain of command is hierarchic and centralised. While the technate should supposedly do what the public wants, there is no system in the North American model to canalise it above the individual level, and thus hypothetically there is a huge risk that the system could deteriorate into just some kind of authoritarianism.

To limit the powers of the technate, NET has implemented a reform proposal where society is divided into two organised layers, a technate and a confederacy.

The technate is responsible for infrastructure, resource management, distribution and waste management and recycling.

The confederacy is composed of direct democratic communities of moderate size, who are abiding to a common code of basic human rights. They are responsible for laws.

What should be produced is decided by the total allocation patterns of the consumers given their usage of the energy certifikates for a given period of time. In short, the people is planning what should be produced while the technate is responsible for how it should be produced.

The design for the European technate is composed of two layers as well. First, we have the sequences. They are webs of information which would be fully available to the public. Each sequence has two directors who are sitting on a maximum of two five year terms and are recallable.

Then, we have the holons. A holon is an autonomous unit designed to fulfil a particular goal. The goal could be everything from the management of a local clinic to the construction of a giant solar power plant. The holons are assembling experts from the sequences to achieve their goals. Everything is managed on the level where it is done most efficiently, in order to give the people oversight over what is done.

At the same time, holons could merge and form larger holons, which in their turn could merge and form even larger holons. The European technate in itself could be defined as one giant holon. The word "holon" is meaning an entity which is a part of another entity but could be studied as a wholity in itself.

This de-centralised but integralised process allows us to combine the best features of a dynamic economy with the oversight needed to have intelligent management. That is the theory as well.

As for what the European technate is supposed to do. It isn't supposed to make laws, to decide how people should live their lives or to exert political power. Its only purpose is to canalise the needs of the population and do it efficiently.

As for Technocracy Incorporated and their design, I don't feel that I have enough understanding of how it would be any different from a typically, centrally planned socialist state of the forms we've seen utilised during the last century. I have asked that question numerous times, and the answers I have received have either been re-confirmations ("it won't simply happen"), technophilia ("scientists cannot make a dictatorship") or accusations that I am somehow paranoid.

I wouldn't claim that Technocracy Incorporated is an authoritarian organisation though, as they generally express disdain at any attempt to control people. They simply don't see that their design could be misused. It seems to me that their greatest problem is bad usage of language and creation of an own terminology without properly defining that terminology.

There are some technocrats who are very authoritarian though. Skip Sievert, I remember, was very angry against any idea that civil organisations (ranging from religious groups to soccer clubs) could exist in a technate, claiming that "special interests groups" had no place in a technate and that everyone should just live by themselves and receive their allotment from the technate.

The problem is arising when Technocracy Inc members are starting to claim they have a monopoly on technocracy.

[Dimentio]

Just for fun, let me add an additional element to this discussion:

Technocracy exists as some kind of an organized movement. Let me ask its defenders, then, what are its political positions on the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Should you care to say that Technocracy is "not political" or something of the sort, you will have given a wholly adequate answer.

RED DAVE

Neither Technocracy Incorporated, NET or the Venus Project are political parties.

NET is a research organisation, a non-governmental association, and a think tank.

The Venus Project is an experimental project.

Technocracy Incorporated is a... well... hm... hmmmmm... dunno.

To actively write articles about every political issue today, including even important issues like Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, would be a derailment of the purpose of the organisations in question. Moreover, it is encroaching on other movements which are focused on those kind of issues.

Our goal is to construct a model for a post-capitalist society scientifically to ensure that it is achieving what it is supposed to achieve.

[Demogorgon]

You provide an interesting enough explanation of the European version of technocracy, but to me it sounds like a a super-version of a Westminster system civil service. For those who do not know, in the Westminster system the Civil Service is (in theory) strictly non-political and exists to carry out the decisions of the political Government (again in theory, in practice anyone who has ever seen Yes Minister knows that it doesn't quite work that well...). Seems to me the "technate" envisaged by the European variety of technocrats is simply a variation of this. Of course that might be what they are intentionally aiming for, but if that is the case it seems to me that the "technocracy" they have in mind is really a set of policies that the civil service should be directed to carry out.

That seems rather less grandiose than some of the statements we see from other parties here. Of course I still don't think it is possible, or even desirable, but it is rather less fascistic in nature.

[Demogorgon]

Neither Technocracy Incorporated, NET or the Venus Project are political parties.

NET is a research organisation, a non-governmental association, and a think tank.

The Venus Project is an experimental project.

Technocracy Incorporated is a... well... hm... hmmmmm... dunno.

To actively write articles about every political issue today, including even important issues like Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, would be a derailment of the purpose of the organisations in question. Moreover, it is encroaching on other movements which are focused on those kind of issues.

Our goal is to construct a model for a post-capitalist society scientifically to ensure that it is achieving what it is supposed to achieve.
I think the problem comes when people are clearly identifying their politics as being "technocratic" or whatever. Obviously it is fine, even plain common sense, to have think tanks focussing on a specific issue, but when they start laying out very detailed plans for society, it becomes very important to know where they stand generally.

For instance with Technocrat here, many of us are very interested indeed as to where he stands on a number of political issues. You are one of the most knowledgeable members on the board about early Italian Fascism so you obviously know why we are drawing parallels and also presumably know that there is a blatant futurist influence in what he is saying. Obviously under the circumstances, we need to see precisely where he and his organisation stand on all issues.

[Dimentio]

Well, there are no bureaucrats in our version of the technate. There is only people who are working with projects of practical nature, research and similar. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Westminster ultimately a bureaucracy intended to spread information and distribute money to different parts of the system?

Since no money is existing in a technate and the system is wholly transparent, the bureaucratic elements could be so integrated in the overall process of work that they cease to exist. Moreover, the European technate doesn't have any "leader" or "group of leaders". The directors are merely coordinators and practically incapable of doing anything to benefit their own interests at the expense of the community.

As for the influences of Technocracy. It was influenced partially by syndicalist theories, partially by taylorism and partially by the institutional economist Thorstein Veblen. It is true that fascism was influenced by futurism and syndicalism. But so were most major non-establishment ideologies during that period.

I know about who Technocrat is, and I do not think that politics or interests somehow are his major interests to be frank.

[Demogorgon]

Well, there are no bureaucrats in our version of the technate. There is only people who are working with projects of practical nature, research and similar. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Westminster ultimately a bureaucracy intended to spread information and distribute money to different parts of the system?

Since no money is existing in a technate and the system is wholly transparent, the bureaucratic elements could be so integrated in the overall process of work that they cease to exist. Moreover, the European technate doesn't have any "leader" or "group of leaders". The directors are merely coordinators and practically incapable of doing anything to benefit their own interests at the expense of the community.
Well the Civil Service in the Westminster system is the public sector apparatus, it fulfills all sorts of roles depending on which branch of it you are talking about. The treasury is obviously responsible for allocating money but there are a lot of other branches.

Anyway, the reason I made the comparison is because what you are talking about sounds very like the way it works, that is a politically neutral body, carrying out the general decisions of the political Government. Your model is a lot more "high tech" but it still sounds like it could end up with many of the same problems.

[Dimentio]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the westminster model highly centralised and hierarchical, and moreover non-transparent. The main problem in the series "Yes Minister" is that the civil service is able to cloud information from the public. Moreover, a technate is really responsible for all the resource management within a given society, not only what we today are thinking of as the public services.

[Demogorgon]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the westminster model highly centralised and hierarchical, and moreover non-transparent. The main problem in the series "Yes Minister" is that the civil service is able to cloud information from the public. Moreover, a technate is really responsible for all the resource management within a given society, not only what we today are thinking of as the public services.
Yes, but you are thinking of the very high end of the civil service, the Sir Humphrys who work with the Cabinet Ministers and such like, and while I fear such a system would also emerge under your model, I was particularly referring to the overall system. Most civil servants are just ordinary people doing an ordinary public sector job. Not everything about the system is necessarily bad, but it does have problems and what you call for would be a lot bigger than the civil service, having a much larger remit.

Perhaps my example was a little too specific, but your model does remind me very much of a political Government and non political civil service. Of course that is rather better than the all powerful hierarchical structure certain other parties have told us of...

[Dimentio]

Well, but there isn't any money in a technate. Moreover, we will need some kind of system which could set up goals and follow them in order to achieve the highest possible quality of life for all people. You cannot pretend there won't be any management in your professed ideal society as well.

[Demogorgon]

Well, but there isn't any money in a technate. Moreover, we will need some kind of system which could set up goals and follow them in order to achieve the highest possible quality of life for all people. You cannot pretend there won't be any management in your professed ideal society as well.No I don't. Not for a minute. I've posted tonnes of stuff over the years concerning better ways to manage things, however the devil is in the details, and I have problems with some of your details.

Bare in mind of course that my fundamental objection to your form of technocracy is that energy accounting isn't possible because cost is not reducible to energy consumption. So it probably wouldn't be terribly productive to get too far into this sideshow.

[Dimentio]

Energy accounting is not about electric energy, but all forms of energies. When we account for human labour, we do it for all the calories required to keep a human being alive. Whatever you need to do, you need energy to achieve it.

[Demogorgon]

Energy accounting is not about electric energy, but all forms of energies. When we account for human labour, we do it for all the calories required to keep a human being alive. Whatever you need to do, you need energy to achieve it.
You do, but it doesn't account for cost. Some energy is readily attainable, others take a lot of work to produce. And of course it is not necessarily transferable, you cannot simply switch from allocating energy from one thing to another unless they are of a similar nature.

[Dimentio]

You do, but it doesn't account for cost. Some energy is readily attainable, others take a lot of work to produce. And of course it is not necessarily transferable, you cannot simply switch from allocating energy from one thing to another unless they are of a similar nature.

Yes, I have addressed that point earlier. We are using the same scale to account for the cost of the operation. When we are saying "allocating energy credits", we do not mean that the people are allocating physical energy, but rather a digital currency which is representing productive capacity. The energy certifikates do not contain physical energy.

[RED DAVE]

Just for fun, let me add an additional element to this discussion:

Technocracy exists as some kind of an organized movement. Let me ask its defenders, then, what are its political positions on the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Should you care to say that Technocracy is "not political" or something of the sort, you will have given a wholly adequate answer.
Neither Technocracy Incorporated, NET or the Venus Project are political parties.

NET is a research organisation, a non-governmental association, and a think tank.

The Venus Project is an experimental project.

Technocracy Incorporated is a... well... hm... hmmmmm... dunno.

To actively write articles about every political issue today, including even important issues like Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, would be a derailment of the purpose of the organisations in question. Moreover, it is encroaching on other movements which are focused on those kind of issues.

Our goal is to construct a model for a post-capitalist society scientifically to ensure that it is achieving what it is supposed to achieve.Translation: you will stand aside and let the workers fight to overthrow capitalism. And then, having kept your hands oh-so-clean, you will expect people to take your "scientific" model for "post-capitalist society" seriously.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Translation: you will stand aside and let the workers fight to overthrow capitalism. And then, having kept your hands oh-so-clean, you will expect people to take your "scientific" model for "post-capitalist society" seriously.

RED DAVE

No. A lot of technocrats are as individuals active in progressive political parties and social movements. So we are not standing aside. Right now, you are trolling (or you must be extremely childish).

[ckaihatsu]

Translation: you will stand aside and let the workers fight to overthrow capitalism. And then, having kept your hands oh-so-clean, you will expect people to take your "scientific" model for "post-capitalist society" seriously.





No. A lot of technocrats are as individuals active in progressive political parties and social movements. So we are not standing aside. Right now, you are trolling (or you must be extremely childish).


That's entirely a dodge -- why wouldn't you want to have a *formal* politics that is revolutionary in the present and then technocratic in plan for the post-revolutionary, post-capitalist period -- ?

[Dimentio]

That's entirely a dodge -- why wouldn't you want to have a *formal* politics that is revolutionary in the present and then technocratic in plan for the post-revolutionary, post-capitalist period -- ?

Have anyone claimed that we don't want it? We just don't intend to run states, but to offer transition programmes which others could utilise in due time. Of course, we are also forming an own structure. ^^

[Technocrat]

Empirical evidence shows again and again that democratic organisation is the most efficient means to organise any given institution.

At any rate though, it seems now that your argument is that there is a natural hierarchy with some people being naturally better than others and that any attempt to upsurp this hierarchy is doomed to failure and therefore said hierarchy should be maintained for the good of all.

Your own words damn you.

I'd like to see your empirical evidence. I've already described how the services you rely on in your daily life are NOT run democratically and provided numerous real-world examples! The fact that your power stays on 99.99% of the time is testament to the fact that the system that I am describing WORKS.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. Let's take any given random task - pushups for example. I can do 100 pushups, how many can you do? You see, for any given task some people will be better than others. This effect increases with industrialization.

[Technocrat]

Certainly. I *do* understand what you're saying on a person-by-person, or position-by-position basis, Technocrat, but now my concern is more about the *collective* -- I think the weak part of technocracy is its overriding *emphasis* on formalism, at least from your presentation of it.

No, I don't think you understand - the formalism that you refer to is a simple system that is designed to allow for the natural priority relationships to express themselves, which is functionally necessary in any given task and for any functional organization. Any system which would not allow these priority relationships to establish themselves will result in a less than optimal organization, and may not even function at all.


Red Dave is continuing to raise the valid, critical point of how mass demand is coalesced into public policy, and execution by mass, liberated labor. I've *also* spoken to this point and you've been unresponsive to it, instead favoring your emphasis on the technocratic formalism around work positions.Mass demand = the common interest. I've addressed how Technocracy works for the common interest.


I agree with Dimentio's contextualization here -- it is *compatible* with my own model's treatment of public policy, once decided upon:It is the same with Technocracy, Inc.

[Technocrat]

Has it occurred to you that Dimentio has spent years here trying to explain Technocracy in rational terms and argue it is compatible with the left and that you have barged in and with one thread undermined a lot of that? The position he is in is rather like the position I would be in if after years of making careful arguments for Communism to a sceptical audience, some idiot barged in proclaiming North Korea (for instance) to be a wonderful utopia and proof of the wonders of Communism.

No wonder he is annoyed.

Has it occurred to you that Dimentio represents an entirely different school of thought that branched off of Technocracy, Inc and started its own movement? I'm not undermining anything because NET is a completely different program. What I'm describing is the original Technocracy, which is completely fair given that we have so many branch-off movements drifting about these days.

[Technocrat]

Moreover, I have spent years to critically examine Technocracy Incorporated from both an ideological and an organisational perspective. While I do have much respect for some members of Technocracy Incorporated, I believe that there are many flaws within the ideology of the organisation.

That's fine, I'm not a dues-paying member or anything. I'm just a guy who has read the Study Course several times and a stack of Technocracy magazines.


I would not dwell over their ideas to sit on the back idly and wait for the society to collapse by its own weight to then take over. But I will claim that technological development since 1934 has rendered the design of hyper-centralisation envisoned by Technocracy Incorporated moot and insufficient as there are better methods available nowadays to get projects done.When did Technocracy claim that it's plan was to sit back idly? That seems to be a common misconception. Technocracy has written the program - that was their goal. It's up to the people to demand that it be installed. Educating people about the alternatives that Technocracy proposes has always been central.


What angers me most about Technocracy Incorporated is the utopianism ingrained in every fibre of that organisation. The idea that all diseases, accidents and all crime would vanish simply because of a six month overhaul of the entire productive structure of a civilisation.When did they ever claim that? It's true that they claimed that those problems would be reduced by the plan, but they never claimed that they would be eliminated altogether - that's unrealistic. If they didn't think that the plan would help with those problems, what would be the point of it?


Even if that would be true, it is hyperbolical to shout it out day and night and attempt to silence any criticism with that. One of the reasons why other technocratic organisations are growing while Technocracy Incorporated is stagnating is that Technocracy Incorporated is working by rehashing old articles and producing them in new versions, while other organisations are actually attempting to examine the original proposals critically, omit everything superfluous and improve on the designs, as well as conducting empirical experiments regarding their validity.I've been arguing my point with logic and reason which is more than can be said for some others around here. Technocracy has always been the librarians for the Technical Alliance. There are other organizations doing the very things you are talking about, using Technocracy as a primary source of information.


Don't interpret me wrong. I am all for Technocracy Incorporated to have their little puppet theatre and come to solve their differences in a civilised manner as long as they aren't abusive against any other technocratic movement. What is disturbing me though, is this idea that Technocracy Incorporated is somehow representing all technocrats.The machismo toward NET is unwarranted, in my opinion. You have your set of solutions for your set of problems, we have ours.


There is an incredible, positive energy flowing up in the movement right now. The Venus Project is the world's most successful technocratic organisation, and NET is making quite a remarkable process right now. Technocracy Incorporated in that aspect have not taken any part in the success.I would argue that the so called progress is largely ephemeral, but perhaps that is just my opinion.


I remember 2004-2005 when there was a small technocratic momentum associated with Technocracy Incorporated. It waned off simply because Bill DesJardins, the webmaster of www.technocracy.ca (http://www.technocracy.ca) couldn't manage the activity or steer it, so he closed the forums.It's picking back up. There's been quite a bit of activity on the forums lately, I myself have been invited to host a series of webinars to a fairly prominent peak oil group, and there are new research projects in the works.


I very well remember the little debate you had with Mansel about science and the validity of your claims. ^^You mean El Diablo? Well, he's been pretty thoroughly proven wrong, hasn't he? He's just a curmudgeon who enjoys petty philosophical debates.

[Technocrat]

I think the problem comes when people are clearly identifying their politics as being "technocratic" or whatever. Obviously it is fine, even plain common sense, to have think tanks focussing on a specific issue, but when they start laying out very detailed plans for society, it becomes very important to know where they stand generally.

For instance with Technocrat here, many of us are very interested indeed as to where he stands on a number of political issues. You are one of the most knowledgeable members on the board about early Italian Fascism so you obviously know why we are drawing parallels and also presumably know that there is a blatant futurist influence in what he is saying. Obviously under the circumstances, we need to see precisely where he and his organisation stand on all issues.

If you want to know where I stand on political issues I have already told you: I fall into the libertarian/left category as defined by this website:

http://www.politicalcompass.org

Go check it out if you haven't already.

All true Technocrats would fall into the same category.

[Technocrat]

No I don't. Not for a minute. I've posted tonnes of stuff over the years concerning better ways to manage things, however the devil is in the details, and I have problems with some of your details.

Bare in mind of course that my fundamental objection to your form of technocracy is that energy accounting isn't possible because cost is not reducible to energy consumption. So it probably wouldn't be terribly productive to get too far into this sideshow.

This has already been addressed - costs depend upon scarcity. In an environment of abundance you might as well price everything at one dollar, or zero dollars - in other words prices cannot be obtained for anything in an environment of abundance. We won't go through all this again, though - you can go back and re-read my posts if you need to.

[Technocrat]

You do, but it doesn't account for cost. Some energy is readily attainable, others take a lot of work to produce. And of course it is not necessarily transferable, you cannot simply switch from allocating energy from one thing to another unless they are of a similar nature.

The work used to "produce" a form of energy is also expressible in expendable energy thus energy accounting works the same way. Looks like we're back to square one again.

[Dimentio]

You mean El Diablo? Well, he's been pretty thoroughly proven wrong, hasn't he? He's just a curmudgeon who enjoys petty philosophical debates.

:sleep:

El Diablo is one of the best and brightest minds of the overall technocratic movement today.

[revolution inaction]

If you want to know where I stand on political issues I have already told you: I fall into the libertarian/left category as defined by this website:

http://www.politicalcompass.org

Go check it out if you haven't already.

All true Technocrats would fall into the same category.

it dosn't matter what the political compass says, its run by liberals and doesn't really apply to the far left, for example i don't accept that political and economic can be separated, and i don't think that there is any connection between direct control of the means of production by the workers and control by the state, but the political compass does, putting stalinist and anarchism on the same side for economics, which is clearly wrong.
I also don't think that political groups/ideologies can meaningful be placed on a spectrum/chart.

[Demogorgon]

I'd like to see your empirical evidence. I've already described how the services you rely on in your daily life are NOT run democratically and provided numerous real-world examples! The fact that your power stays on 99.99% of the time is testament to the fact that the system that I am describing WORKS.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. Let's take any given random task - pushups for example. I can do 100 pushups, how many can you do? You see, for any given task some people will be better than others. This effect increases with industrialization.
This is not something I normally have to debate outside of OI, fortunately I have addressed it within, to take one example: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1556791&postcount=40

At any rate though, it is becoming plainer and plainer what your views amount too. We have already seen that your economic views are hopelessly utopian. We can add some very interesting political views to that.

[al8]

Tell me, Demogorgon, what is wrong with being Utopian? Isn't Utopian just a slanderous word for visionaries?

[Demogorgon]

Tell me, Demogorgon, what is wrong with being Utopian? Isn't Utopian just a slanderous word for visionaries?
No, it means seeking completely unrealistic perfection. Technocrat believes we can have as much as we could need with current (scratch that, nineteen thirties) resources while being able to work far less. As usual, if things were that easy...

[ckaihatsu]

At any rate though, it is becoming plainer and plainer what your views amount too. We have already seen that your [Technocrat] economic views are hopelessly utopian. We can add some very interesting political views to that.




No, ['utopian'] means seeking completely unrealistic perfection. Technocrat believes we can have as much as we could need with current (scratch that, nineteen thirties) resources while being able to work far less. As usual, if things were that easy...


This is a prime example of *sectarianism* -- we *all* know that the material *capacity* of human productive ability is *not* the limiting factor in today's world. And we know that the use of industrial machinery leverages human labor (hours) to enormous factors of scale.

Any system of technical administration that's responsive to the democracy of the world's revolutionary workers should be seen as a *positive*, *constructive* thing.

[al8]

No, it means seeking completely unrealistic perfection. Technocrat believes we can have as much as we could need with current (scratch that, nineteen thirties) resources while being able to work far less. As usual, if things were that easy...

But this is exactly the same accusation that status-quo advocates level at communists. It's simply a gambit used to shout down heretics that go against the TINA dogma (There Is No Alternative [to Capitalism]). We do not have a goal of unrealistic or metaphysical perfection and neither do the Technocrats. In fact they back up their claims with evidence and illustrate the principles involved in their proposals for an Alternative societal set-up quite clearly.

[Dimentio]

But this is exactly the same accusation that status-quo advocates level at communists. It's simply a gambit used to shout down heretics that go against the TINA dogma (There Is No Alternative [to Capitalism]). We do not have a goal of unrealistic or metaphysical perfection and neither do the Technocrats. In fact they back up their claims with evidence and illustrate the principles involved in their proposals for an Alternative societal set-up quite clearly.

Yes. But Technocracy Incorporated need to be A) better at defining their words, B) having more detailed documents and falsifiable research available.

[al8]

Yes. But Technocracy Incorporated need to be A) better at defining their words, B) having more detailed documents and falsifiable research available.

That may be so. But what I have read of them so far seems clear enough and understandable. I have yet to read their literature to the extent that I can deem what is woefully lacking or missing.

But on that note, I have not found a comparable volume of accessible literature from NET.

[Dimentio]

That may be so. But what I have read of them so far seems clear enough and understandable. I have yet to read their literature to the extent that I can deem what is woefully lacking or missing.

But on that note, I have not found a comparable volume of accessible literature from NET.

To paraphrase the Japanese videogame makers: Here you are.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=143

[ckaihatsu]

To paraphrase the Japanese videogame makers


Hey! Who're you calling a "Japanese video game maker" -- ???

Is that some kind of slur?!


x D





http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=143


Whoa, whoa, whoa -- first off, you've *got* to re-do the photo at the top -- what's with that 'bridge to nowhere' -- ?!


x D

[Dimentio]

Ah no. I kind of like the broken English in for example the first Zelda game. ^^

"All your base are belong to us"

[Technocrat]

No, it means seeking completely unrealistic perfection. Technocrat believes we can have as much as we could need with current (scratch that, nineteen thirties) resources while being able to work far less. As usual, if things were that easy...

This was documented with their Energy Survey. At any rate, you are making the same mistake economists make in assuming that scarcity will always be a fact.

[Technocrat]

This is not something I normally have to debate outside of OI, fortunately I have addressed it within, to take one example: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1556791&postcount=40

At any rate though, it is becoming plainer and plainer what your views amount too. We have already seen that your economic views are hopelessly utopian. We can add some very interesting political views to that.

Worker input is completely different from worker's democracy. Worker input would be vital to a Technate - if those in higher positions did something that went against the desires of those in the lower positions, they would be voted out by those in the lower positions. So it would be of utmost importance to those in the higher ranks to always make sure they were doing what "the workers" wanted. Quite simple, really.

What is there not to get about this:

worker's democracy = special interest control over the means of production.

[Demogorgon]

But this is exactly the same accusation that status-quo advocates level at communists. It's simply a gambit used to shout down heretics that go against the TINA dogma (There Is No Alternative [to Capitalism]). We do not have a goal of unrealistic or metaphysical perfection and neither do the Technocrats. In fact they back up their claims with evidence and illustrate the principles involved in their proposals for an Alternative societal set-up quite clearly.
TINA is rubbish because there is obviously an alternative. However that does not mean that every proposed model is workable or realistic. The model being pushed by Technocrat here, quite apart from its frightening political and social implications is unscientific and largely based on wishful thinking.

Any proposed alternative to capitalism needs to be based on sound theory. That means amongst other things that it must be falsifiable, not based on circular reasoning and so forth. Technocrat's proposed model is simply failing to achieve this.

[Demogorgon]

worker's democracy = special interest control over the means of production.
Stuff like this is why it is getting so dull to talk to you. We know you don't like democracy and think a hierarchical system is best, but might I suggest that you are on the wrong site to be pushing that idea?

[ckaihatsu]

What is there not to get about this:

worker's democracy = special interest control over the means of production.


Now *you're* the one being sectarian, Technocrat.

I've seen *plenty* of sectarianism around the left, and it's really too bad. There's often a *lot* of compatibility and overlap among the tendencies that people espouse, but once they get in the spotlight it goes to their head and they begin to care more about turf than anything else....

For the record I'll say that, based on previous exchanges in this thread, the composition of the hypothetical technocracy can be mostly synonymous with the workers' democracy as a whole, especially since a post-capitalist society would accelerate its collective's automation to eliminate lower-level / blue-collar / distasteful / gruntwork positions.

While the liberated labor force and its administration would overlap for the most part I could see that there might be some "outlying areas" of the workforce, outside of the administration proper -- in other words, people should strive to be as politically involved in the political administrative issues as much as possible, but no one would be *obligated* to be so. In my own model I have it defined this way:





Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions.

http://i50.tinypic.com/ilc20z.jpg

[ckaihatsu]

Any proposed alternative to capitalism needs to be based on sound theory. That means amongst other things that it must be falsifiable, not based on circular reasoning and so forth.




it must be falsifiable


I *disagree* with this being a *valid criterion* for a proposed, possibly feasible, model. Yes, I agree that a model should be based on sound theory, meaning that it holds up to rational, reasonable scrutiny.

But this argument that something has to be "falsifiable" is basically an argument *against success*. If we say, for example, that a model workers' democracy must be "falsifiable", then that means that there would have to be instances where it might not work as expected. But how can we ever really *determine* what these instances are, when the entire argument is hypothetical?

A model is just that -- a *model*. It is an imagined *general* description premised on a hypothetical *extrapolation* (from theory, from history) and so *cannot* be *tested* in reality, in the field, until it -- or some version of it -- is actually *won* in a successful mass struggle.

In this way a model is under less stringent requirements than, say, a controlled experiment in a lab setting -- it is more *artistic*, meant as a more-concrete *guide* for those who are thinking along similar lines. Either enough people can agree on a suitable, fairly specific "blueprint" for a future society, or else there might not be enough of a critical mass to overcome the status quo.

[Dimentio]

There is nothing wrong with worker's democracy. But it is my conviction that democracy must be merged with a model that allows for a maximum of efficiency. The communist goal is not only to give the average individual influence over her working environment, but to greatly increase the human quality of life.

The managers of the technate are not bureaucrats or central planners, but engineers, doctors, programmers, electricians and teachers. Each individual is obliged to assemble her work in logs which would be available to all citizens living within the area of the technate. If any individual is questioned by intentions or competence, she could be re-called by the citizenry.

Ultimately, the technate is supposed to be employed by the people and for the people. Not the other way around.

[RED DAVE]

There is nothing wrong with worker's democracy.Nice of you to say so, but that sounds awfully fucking condescending.

Especially since workers democracy is the essence of socialism.


But it is my conviction that democracy must be merged with a model that allows for a maximum of efficiency.Where did you get this conviction? It's odd that no major socialist theoretician that I'm aware of, from Marx on down, considered that workers democracy needed to be merged with any kind of efficiency notion.


The communist goal is not only to give the average individual influence over her working environment, but to greatly increase the human quality of life.True, of course, but one person's increased quality of life might well be another person's misery. That's one of the many reasons why workers democracy is crucial.


The managers of the technate are not bureaucrats or central planners, but engineers, doctors, programmers, electricians and teachers.You and Technocrat have yet to demonstrate this. The fact that you adhere to this cockamamie notion of nomination from below and selection from above would seem to give the lie to this. The essence of workers democracy is just that, but you and Technocrat seem to be adamant that, in the end, the managers must make the final decisions. This is antithetical to the notion of workers democracy.


Each individual is obliged to assemble her work in logs which would be available to all citizens living within the area of the technate. If any individual is questioned by intentions or competence, she could be re-called by the citizenry.This is just utopian tinkering. Workers might decide to employ an entirely different method of accounting. I find it significant that you conceive of records as being individual as opposed to collective. This implies the ability to exert social control over atomized individuals as opposed to democratic control within and between groups. In this regard, Technocrat states that unions would be abolished. This gives the individual worker no collective defense against decisions they disagree with.


Ultimately, the technate is supposed to be employed by the people and for the people. Not the other way around.If the technate is just a group of experts who have valuable information to share with the workers, there should be no reason to put them into a management position. They can be part of the collective decision-making process with their own kind of input.

What I keep seeing is that the fundamental notion of Technocracy is that certain kinds of decisions can and must be reserved for the manager/engineers and them only. This is incompatible with the notion of workers democracy.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

The fact that you adhere to this cockamamie notion of nomination from below and selection from above would seem to give the lie to this. The essence of workers democracy is just that, but you and Technocrat seem to be adamant that, in the end, the managers must make the final decisions. This is antithetical to the notion of workers democracy.




Workers might decide to employ an entirely different method of accounting. I find it significant that you conceive of records as being individual as opposed to collective. This implies the ability to exert social control over atomized individuals as opposed to democratic control within and between groups. In this regard, Technocrat states that unions would be abolished. This gives the individual worker no collective defense against decisions they disagree with.




If the technate is just a group of experts who have valuable information to share with the workers, there should be no reason to put them into a management position. They can be part of the collective decision-making process with their own kind of input.




What I keep seeing is that the fundamental notion of Technocracy is that certain kinds of decisions can and must be reserved for the manager/engineers and them only. This is incompatible with the notion of workers democracy.


These are all *very* good points, and I agree with Red Dave on them.

[Lynx]

Certain kinds of decisions can be delegated to the appropriate 'experts'.

e.g. Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "Make it so."

In computer science there is a concept referred to as the 'separation of policy and mechanism'. I'm unsure if this goal is applicable to social organization.

The only inherent problem I see with delegating tasks and functions is that a bureaucracy will attempt to make itself indispensable.

[ckaihatsu]

Without meaning to get too preachy here, I'd like to take a moment to note a couple of types of "bad politics" that are all-too-common:

- Besides sectarianism (turf-building), another sad, destructive kind of motivation is *playing politics*, wherein people get into petty games of "one-upmanship" over mundane, everyday-type things that should *not* be politicized *at all*. One-upmanship is really *not* politics, because it's not dealing with any kind of *political issue* -- it's just personal showboating, really, with a juvenile impulse to play "gotcha".

- Another kind of "bad politics" is the so-called "political animal" who darts all over the political spectrum, forever trying to "win" whatever political issue pops up at the moment. This *may* be called 'political opportunism', though I think a *real* political opportunist is at least smart enough to be self-serving and has some kind of material payoff from their involvement.

Politics, being about who-gets-what, should be reserved for *large-scale* issues that *matter* -- those that affect lives broadly, as through governmental policy.

[Lynx]

Political animals can be avoided by limiting their involvement to a set number of terms. After they have 'served' x number of times, they are politely shown to the door marked 'exit'.

[Technocrat]

Now *you're* the one being sectarian, Technocrat.

I've seen *plenty* of sectarianism around the left, and it's really too bad. There's often a *lot* of compatibility and overlap among the tendencies that people espouse, but once they get in the spotlight it goes to their head and they begin to care more about turf than anything else....

A special interest group is defined as one that has its own unique interest apart from the common interest that attempts to pass legislation specifically designed to protect their own unique interest. A democracy is a system run by special interest groups - it's implied in the definition. How in the world is a system run by special interest groups ever going to fulfill the common interest?


For the record I'll say that, based on previous exchanges in this thread, the composition of the hypothetical technocracy can be mostly synonymous with the workers' democracy as a whole, especially since a post-capitalist society would accelerate its collective's automation to eliminate lower-level / blue-collar / distasteful / gruntwork positions.

Yes, the dirty work would be automated leaving only professional jobs left. Any remaining "dirty work" could be divided up among the population - maybe you have to drive a truck once a month or something.


While the liberated labor force and its administration would overlap for the most part I could see that there might be some "outlying areas" of the workforce, outside of the administration proper -- in other words, people should strive to be as politically involved in the political administrative issues as much as possible, but no one would be *obligated* to be so. In my own model I have it defined this way:

I don't see any conflict here.

[Technocrat]

Political animals can be avoided by limiting their involvement to a set number of terms. After they have 'served' x number of times, they are politely shown to the door marked 'exit'.

This is partly accomplished by limiting the entire working period to 20 years - between the ages of 25 and 45.

[Technocrat]

Certain kinds of decisions can be delegated to the appropriate 'experts'.

e.g. Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "Make it so."

In computer science there is a concept referred to as the 'separation of policy and mechanism'. I'm unsure if this goal is applicable to social organization.

The only inherent problem I see with delegating tasks and functions is that a bureaucracy will attempt to make itself indispensable.

Bureacrats would be reduced to the bare minimum necessary for the functional operations of society - there would likely be far fewer of them in a Technate. In a Technate, there is no reward for being indispensable other than keeping one's job - so I think that could actually work in society's favor.