Technocracy and Communism

[Technocrat]

Technocracy is NOT incompatible with Communism - in fact, they seem to compliment each other perfectly.

A technocracy is a socioeconomic system in which all production would be organized by field of operation. There would be one department for housing, one for education, healthcare, communications, transportation, food production, etc.

Within each field of operation would be a hierarchy of authority (or decision making power) based upon demonstrated ability and expertise. Authority would be given or revoked by one's peers, a peer being any person who works with the individual and whose actions or decisions immediately influence or are influenced by the individual. To elaborate: if a position becomes available for whatever reason, those workers who have less authority then the position to be filled would choose candidates among themselves for promotion. The workers who had more authority than the position to be filled would then choose someone from the available candidates for promotion. This is because they are already familiar with the job requirements of the position, having already passed through the ranks themselves. Anyone can be recalled by a 2/3rds vote by their peers at any time. The heads of each field of operation would form a council who would be responsible for overall planning. In this system those in authority are completely accountable to those who are influenced by their decisions - there would be complete government transparency and accountability. Planning would be done on a continental level, with regional and area divisions for management purposes.

Economically, a technocracy would not use money and would instead by a planned economy. It would be the job of each department within the administration to provide their service in the most efficient way possible. Work would be mandatory for all citizens able to work between the ages of 25 and 45. All of the boring and routine work would be automated to the degree possible, or eliminated through improved efficiency. Any dirty work still remaining would be shared equally by everyone in society. The work week in a Technocracy could be as little as 10 hours long according to some estimates. Everyone who had the ability would be a professional of some kind, since everyone would be given free education to the fullest extent of their abilities.

Money would not be used and goods would no longer be exchanged. Instead, there would be a system of direct distribution; a person would simply order whatever they wanted and it would be delivered to them, or they would walk into a distribution center and take what they needed. A distribution card would be issued to each person for two reasons: if a person refused to work, their distribution card would be deactivated. If a person decided to buy 10,000 pairs of shoes, then someone in the local Social Relations department (the equivalent of the courts) would be notified and proper action would be taken. This is to ensure that such acts of deliberate waste could be prevented, but it is expected that such instances would be extremely rare in the first place.

With a system of direct distribution, a record is kept of how much is produced so that production can be matched to consumption. The economy would be steady state and would also be in a state of simple reproduction. New technology would be adopted whenever it became available so that the amount of work required by everyone would steadily decline as technology improved.

People would not own things but they would still have access to everything they wanted and would still have "personal items". In fact, with a Technate, everyone would have access to everything they wanted. By sharing certain items that are not practical for 300 million+ people to own, such as cars, the highest possible level of service can be provided to everyone. In other words, everyone could live like the rich do now. Items like houses, clothes, computers, etc would be considered "personal items" and could only be used by the individual they were issued to. Items like cars, 4-wheeler ATVs, yachts, etc would not be owned individually by anyone but would be shared. Enough would be made available so that everyone would be able to use one whenever they wanted.

By planning the economy in the above way, everyone can live like the rich do now while at the same time reducing the amount of work that is required from everyone and the amount of resources which are consumed.

I'm curious, does any of this directly conflict with communism?

[Little Bobby Hutton]

A comrade on here sent me a link about it, i dont really get it, is it like a commune, and are there actually any technocracies to go and live, the link i was sent looked bit alternative lifestylish.
All power to the people.

[Muzk]

What I don't like is that "normal" human beings are treated like puppets; you have your card, in the morning you go to work, check in, check out, buy consumer goods with your card and go to bed, while the intelligent elite does the rest... it seems like a big alienation to me... nothing like complete democracy... I would like to see every human being capable of doing many different complicated tasks, not just a selected few

[Dimentio]

What I don't like is that "normal" human beings are treated like puppets; you have your card, in the morning you go to work, check in, check out, buy consumer goods with your card and go to bed, while the intelligent elite does the rest... it seems like a big alienation to me... nothing like complete democracy... I would like to see every human being capable of doing many different complicated tasks, not just a selected few

It isn't at all like that.

Our goal is to minimise human labour, not to try to control human beings.

Let me quote a little about the European Technocratic Movement.


The European Technate is the suggested name for a resource-based economy in Europe utilising energy accounting. We are not implying that Europe somehow is superior to the rest of the world, but we thing that we should dig where we stand. Why we are proposing a European technate instead of an Irish or Swedish technate is just out of sheer necessity - a system which is moneyless per definition is needing to have access to enough resources, infrastructure and skilled personnel to maintain functional abundance. Thus, the technate must have a specific size to be successful.

Energy accounting is a system which is aiming to balance the quality of life of the human being with the sustainability of the environment. We would try to accomplish that through the following process.

1. The entire production capacity of the technate is accounted into energy.

2. Each citizen would get an energy certifikate which would represent her share of the energy which the largely automated system could generate for her.

3. She could use her certifikate and allocate specific amount of energy credits, representing the production cost, to what she want produced for herself.

4. Energy credits could not be saved over the course of a specific time period, as you cannot save production capacity. Neither could they be bartered between individuals, stolen or inflated. It is a physical currency. When the time period is up, your certifikate is getting reloaded with new energy credits.

The technate would not be a government or a state, but a service. Its aim is to "provide the highest possible quality of life for the greatest possible number of people for the longest possible span of time". It would be composed mainly of experts and governed through the use of science.

It would not decide what should be produced, only how what is produced is produced. The users would decide what they want to have produced for themselves. The people would also govern themselves within the framework of direct-democratic communities which would exist in parallell with the technate.

Here is our website: www.technocracynet.eu (http://www.technocracynet.eu/)

Does that sound like a 1984 control society or a caricature of a stalinist dictatorship?

[Technocrat]

A comrade on here sent me a link about it, i dont really get it, is it like a commune, and are there actually any technocracies to go and live, the link i was sent looked bit alternative lifestylish.
All power to the people.

It is just how I described it. It's a socioeconomic system. Do you have a specific question? What link were you sent?

[Technocrat]

What I don't like is that "normal" human beings are treated like puppets; you have your card, in the morning you go to work, check in, check out, buy consumer goods with your card and go to bed, while the intelligent elite does the rest... it seems like a big alienation to me... nothing like complete democracy... I would like to see every human being capable of doing many different complicated tasks, not just a selected few


The "normal human beings" would be the ones running the entire operation. Did you not understand what I wrote? Maybe you need to re-read it.

[Dimentio]

It is just how I described it. It's a socioeconomic system. Do you have a specific question? What link were you sent?

He were probably sent the link to the European movement. I wouldn't describe is as lifestylist though. Our goal is not to depart from society, but to transform society.

[Technocrat]

To Dimentio:

I'm beginning to think that perhaps it isn't necessary to talk about energy accounting when defining Technocracy to people. It is really more of a planning detail, is it not? Energy accounting would be used along with resources accounting to manage resource allocation. The important thing to focus on is that it would be a system of direct distribution (as described by Marx), where people would simply take as much of whatever they needed, as contrasted by a market system where goods are exchanged.

Also, how would the European proposal differ from what I have written here?

[Kamerat]

I'm curious, does any of this directly conflict with communism?
Yes, the dictatorship of the engineers is in direct conflict with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Technocracy is very elitist, where as you say power is divided according to your ability and experience, and not equally.

The "normal human beings" would be the ones running the entire operation.
The "normal human beings" who are a selected few engineers would be the ones running the entire operation.

Technocracy is created by engineers for engineers.

[Technocrat]

Yes, the dictatorship of the engineers is in direct conflict with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Technocracy is very elitist, where as you say power is divided according to your ability and experience, and not equally.

I never said power is divided according to ability and experience, I said it was divided according to ability and EXPERTISE. Try to read a little more carefully before responding next time.

I'm curious, do you have any knowledge of any behavioral science or Evolutionary Psychology in particular?

Take any group of workers trained for a given task and put them to work. Over time, it will become apparent that for whatever reason, some workers are going to excel more than others, even if they have all been given the same training! This is a fact of behavioral science. If left alone, these same workers will naturally establish a set of priority relationships - peck rights - in which those with less ability naturally defer to those with more ability. This pattern of behavior is observed not only in humans in industrialized societies, but also in hunter-gatherer societies, lower order primates, and even primitive mammals! So, your fantasy of a society based on equality of power is just that - a fantasy. You are talking opinions - based on your subjective idea of fairness. I'm talking facts. In a Technocracy, everyone is given the opportunity to excel to the degree they are capable of. You are assuming that everyone could have the same ability if everyone were given the same training. Evolutionary Psychology tells us that this is scientifically false. It also isn't even possible in an Industrialized society with any degree of specialization: it isn't possible for everyone to receive the same training because to train a person for all the tasks required in an industrialized society would require more time than the individual has to dedicate to training within their lifetime! It isn't possible to train a person for every job, so specialization is necessary. The natural behavior of humans is that those with greater demonstrated ability and expertise are given greater authority. If the person abuses their authority and starts to act in a corrupt way, everyone else takes away their authority. This is entirely compatible with marxist and anarchist thinking. This is the way people NATURALLY behave when you remove capitalist institutions like bosses and managers. The Technocratic system of administration is derived from behavioral science, not a subjective idea of fairness with no grounding in scientific reality. If you are not familiar with behavioral science I suggest you direct your efforts toward improving your knowledge in that area. The Technocratic system of administration is also entirely compatible with marxist thinking.

It is entirely fair for those who work harder and excel to have greater authority relative to their work.


The "normal human beings" who are a selected few engineers would be the ones running the entire operation.

Technocracy is created by engineers for engineers.It takes much more than engineers to run the system I described - obviously. Reactionary comments like these are anti-constructive. Maybe stop getting your definitions from wikipedia and start responding to what I have actually written. That would be a good place to start.

[Kamerat]

I never said power is divided according to ability and experience, I said it was divided according to ability and EXPERTISE. Try to read a little more carefully before responding next time.So? Expertise/experience does not make a difference its still elitist and undemocratic.

[Technocrat]

So? Expertise/experience does not make a difference its still elitist and undemocratic.

You have a lot to learn about both politics and behavioral science.

Regarding behavioral science, it appears you have a lot to learn about the concept of fairness. Expertise most certainly does make a difference. If I know more than you do about building bridges than I should have greater decision making authority over the building of a bridge than you. That is fair. What is unfair is if you, with no knowledge of building bridges, were given the same authority over building a bridge than a bridge building expert. What is fair is to give people authority in accordance with their ability and expertise. This is completely compatible with Marxist philosophy.

Let's take another example. Let's say I am a doctor considering whether or not to perform surgery. You are an architect. Should you have a say in whether or not I perform surgery? Or let's say you are a nurse. Should the nurse have equal authority with the surgeon as to whether or not to perform surgery?

Remember, it is not possible to train everyone to have every ability that is required in an industrialized society. To do so would require more time than a person has available in their entire lifetime. An industrialized society absolutely requires specialization. Since specialization is necessary, a person's knowledge is limited by their field of expertise. Therefore, It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to have all the information relevant to every given field of operation!

Also, it takes time to train a person. Take the doctor/nurse example, above. The nurse would simply be on his way to becoming a doctor, if he desired. Nurse would just be a position one had to pass through before becoming a doctor.

In regards to politics, you seem to have a misunderstanding of what democracy is. Democracy does not demand equality of power - where are you getting that definition from? Democracy only demands the willing consent of the people (the Social Contract), and Technocracy has that.

[cb9's_unity]

Democracy is the equality of power. In a general assembly or in a commune each persons vote counts just as much as the next. Democracy is the rule of the people, not of the science experts.

Now democracy doesn't mean that everybody needs to be in the decision making of everything. If general consensus decides that their should be a group dedicated to bridge makers then people who take interest in making bridges will join the group and service society that way. The group should be set up in a way that the better bridge makers have authority over the specific goals of the group. If the bridge making group does not do well enough for the public's interest then the democracy as a whole can decide either to scrap the group or reorganize it to fit the public interest.

Once socialism is brought i think technocracy should be given serious consideration. However technocrats often focus on giving authority purely based on skill. If this "peer council" is not getting the job done they should no longer have their jobs. They may have all gotten into their positions because they were brilliant at creating bridge schematics, but if they are poor organizers or planners then they have no right to be in the position. If the people below the "peer council" recognize that they are doing the job poorly then they have every right to usurp then and put in a group that will get the job done.

I like a lot of what I see when it comes to technocracy. However there certainly needs to be more of an emphasis on real democracy. It must be clear that overall power rests with the people and that real overarching authority isn't simply based on ones skill in a specific area of study or practice. Everyone must be made accountable to the people as a whole and in turn the people must understand (as they usually do) that certain skilled people are better at doing certain specific jobs than they are.

To sum it up, a good bridge maker may be good at making bridges, but good bride making itself is no basis on which to good someone authority over the general public.

[bcbm]

It would not decide what should be produced, only how what is produced is produced. The users would decide what they want to have produced for themselves. The people would also govern themselves within the framework of direct-democratic communities which would exist in parallell with the technate.

so the producing class will exist on its own outside of the democratic control of "the people," without oversight and controlling the means of production?

[Dimentio]

To Dimentio:

I'm beginning to think that perhaps it isn't necessary to talk about energy accounting when defining Technocracy to people. It is really more of a planning detail, is it not? Energy accounting would be used along with resources accounting to manage resource allocation. The important thing to focus on is that it would be a system of direct distribution (as described by Marx), where people would simply take as much of whatever they needed, as contrasted by a market system where goods are exchanged.

Also, how would the European proposal differ from what I have written here?

The difference between North American and European technocracy is an issue about the limits of the scope of the technate, the grade of intervention in people's lives and the attitude to science. I think these articles would serve best to describe it.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=97

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

Technocracy is not about political authority based on skill, but technical authority based on skill. There won't be any bureaucracy as you know, because those who are working within the technate won't work with administrating people, but rather with electricity, infrastructure, hospitals, production facilities, etc. The goal is to give control over the assembly lines to those who are working with the assembly lines (in automated systems, there is no physical labour as we are used of, and most workers are what earlier would be considered engineers).

Moreover, the model espoused by European technocrats de-centralise control to the factory floor, meaning that those who decide what is the best management of the factory floor would be those who are the direct experts on it - i.e workers. Unskilled labour would be systematically downsized and eliminated through automatisation and elimination of waste (for example the advertisement industry, the fashion industry, and so on).

That won't mean that we would make people starve, as anyone would receive an own share of the total production capacity in the form of energy credits. Neither would it mean that we intentionally would make the existence of people purposeless. Rather, we would slash labour times so people could get more control and more meaningful control over their own existence.

As for the accusation of elitism:

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=169&Itemid=103

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=103

[Muzk]

We want everyone to be able to run the state. This is entirely incompatible with your elitist system. And I have already said that technocracy encourages laziness and alienation.


If the European people wants it, they could keep their traditional nation-states within the European technate, and govern the laws regulating social life and laws (and other issues not under the sphere of the technate) under their customs, for example parliamentarism in Britain combined with a constitutional monarchy, or a republic in France.

We choose communism

Oh and please reply as short as you can in this thread, not by giving us links without even telling us which part tells us what you mean!


In regards to politics, you seem to have a misunderstanding of what democracy is. Democracy does not demand equality of power - where are you getting that definition from? Democracy only demands the willing consent of the people (the Social Contract), and Technocracy has that.

So it's democracy if everyone wants a dictatorship? It's rather mass stupiditiy. Yo could only push this technocracy through by owning the means of propaganda, which I hope you don't.

[black magick hustla]

my problem with technocracy is that it is outright utopian socialism. in the sense that you folks already meticulously engineered the future society, rather than let it grow organically.

tbh i have no problem with engineers, etc doing what engineers always do. i cant build a fuckin power plant. nor i necessarily believe in direct democracy - i think i would have better things to do than discuss all day in the direct democratic commune or whatever. however, this things will be decided by the future society, when the old society had already been torched down.

[Dimentio]

my problem with technocracy is that it is outright utopian socialism. in the sense that you folks already meticulously engineered the future society, rather than let it grow organically.

tbh i have no problem with engineers, etc doing what engineers always do. i cant build a fuckin power plant. nor i necessarily believe in direct democracy - i think i would have better things to do than discuss all day in the direct democratic commune or whatever. however, this things will be decided by the future society, when the old society had already been torched down.

That is not entirely true. I cannot speak for Technocracy Incorporated, but NET/EOS rather have a detailed growth strategy than a detailed blueprint, which will be obvious if you took the time to read the website.

The problem with allowing socialism growing organically is that if it grows too organically, it could possibly degenerate down into despotism, capitalism or even outright absolutism.

[RED DAVE]

Technocracy is NOT incompatible with Communism - in fact, they seem to compliment each other perfectly.

...

I'm curious, does any of this directly conflict with communism?This was all thrashed out in a previous thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/criticism-technocracy-t124878/index.html?t=124878

Technocracy is an elitist system that has nothing to do with socialism, communism or any other ism that is respected here. It's basis is the rule of a self-perpetuating elite of engineers who make all "technical" decisions on the basis that such decisions are not political.

Technocracy does not permit workers control of industry, bans labor unions and does not participate in other movements for human freedom.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

This was all thrashed out in a previous thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/criticism-technocracy-t124878/index.html?t=124878

Technocracy is an elitist system that has nothing to do with socialism, communism or any other ism that is respected here. It's basis is the rule of a self-perpetuating elite of engineers who make all "technical" decisions on the basis that such decisions are not political.

Technocracy does not permit workers control of industry, bans labor unions and does not participate in other movements for human freedom.

RED DAVE

There are several technocratic movements, man. Technocracy Incorporated does not have a monopoly on the term. Technocrat being a member of them, he should answer those criticisms.

We in the European movement scrapped the idea that all problems are technical at the beginning.

[(A)(_|]

My only problem with it is that it would still be a system of governance were people would be alienated from decisions concerning their lives. I know of the argument that that technate would only be responsible for the infrastructure in a technocratic society and would not be involved in social spheres, but isn't this a bit elitist? the idea sounds theoretically sound, where portions of society would be administered by professionals that have the necessary expertise to run them, but I hold that fairness should be the utmost goal for an egalitarian society, where people participate in decisions that essentially affect their lives. Otherwise, by using the same logic, it would be justified for a certain partner in a marriage and specifically in regions where the idea of male dominance is rampant for say a male to exercise authority over his partner in, for example, handling financial aspects of the household by rule of his higher intellect, or his degree in accounting(?)

Can any individual break off the contract with the technate at any time? but then what would be his/her alternatives? I understand that all of this is done with the consent of each individual in this society, but wouldn't it be forced on some simply because an alternative would not exist?

[Dimentio]

My only problem with it is that it would still be a system of governance were people would be alienated from decisions concerning their lives. I know of the argument that that technate would only be responsible for the infrastructure in a technocratic society and would not be involved in social spheres, but isn't this a bit elitist? the idea sounds theoretically sound, where portions of society would be administered by professionals that have the necessary expertise to run them, but I hold that fairness should be the utmost goal for an egalitarian society, where people participate in decisions that essentially affect their lives. Otherwise, by using the same logic, it would be justified for a certain partner in a marriage and specifically in regions where the idea of male dominance is rampant for say a male to exercise authority over his partner in, for example, handling financial aspects of the household by rule of his higher intellect, or his degree in accounting(?)

Can any individual break off the contract with the technate at any time? but then what would be his/her alternatives? I understand that all of this is done with the consent of each individual in this society, but wouldn't it be forced on some simply because an alternative would not exist?

In the European model, it is voluntary for communities and individuals to join the technate and to break off. As for elitism, I think you have misunderstood the main tenets of the system.

All individuals who are users of the services provided by the technate are also people who work inside the technate. Since we would strive to minimise work hours and don't have any monetary constraint, we could offer to give everyone meaninful employment. Thus, most people would have influence over what is done and how its done from both ends.

Specialisation is necessary in an advanced technological society. The only societies which don't have professions are hunter-gatherers societies. I do not agree with the idea that specialisation is equal with alienation. I think what is alienating is when you are indirectly forced to work for 40 or more hours to make others wealthy. That practice would be eliminated by the implementation of our system.

^^

[Kamerat]

You have a lot to learn about both politics and behavioral science.

Regarding behavioral science, it appears you have a lot to learn about the concept of fairness. Expertise most certainly does make a difference. If I know more than you do about building bridges than I should have greater decision making authority over the building of a bridge than you. That is fair. What is unfair is if you, with no knowledge of building bridges, were given the same authority over building a bridge than a bridge building expert. What is fair is to give people authority in accordance with their ability and expertise. This is completely compatible with Marxist philosophy.

Let's take another example. Let's say I am a doctor considering whether or not to perform surgery. You are an architect. Should you have a say in whether or not I perform surgery? Or let's say you are a nurse. Should the nurse have equal authority with the surgeon as to whether or not to perform surgery?

Remember, it is not possible to train everyone to have every ability that is required in an industrialized society. To do so would require more time than a person has available in their entire lifetime. An industrialized society absolutely requires specialization. Since specialization is necessary, a person's knowledge is limited by their field of expertise. Therefore, It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to have all the information relevant to every given field of operation!

Also, it takes time to train a person. Take the doctor/nurse example, above. The nurse would simply be on his way to becoming a doctor, if he desired. Nurse would just be a position one had to pass through before becoming a doctor.

In regards to politics, you seem to have a misunderstanding of what democracy is. Democracy does not demand equality of power - where are you getting that definition from? Democracy only demands the willing consent of the people (the Social Contract), and Technocracy has that.
I was talking about political decisions, not job technical decisions. Of course doctors should make the medical decision when working with their patients, fucking straw man argument. The decisions concerning the whole society should be decided through direct democracy involving all people the decision is concerning, it should not just be the experts that make those decisions even though they have the expertise. What the experts can do is inform the public about what they think will be the result of each decision.

[Dimentio]

I was talking about political decisions, not job technical decisions. Of course doctors should make the medical decision when working with their patients, fucking straw man argument. The decisions concerning the whole society should be decided through direct democracy involving all people the decision is concerning, it should not just be the experts that make those decisions even though they have the expertise. What the experts can do is inform the public about what they think will be the result of each decision.

I cannot speak for Technocrat's organisation (Technocracy Incorporated), but we Europeans have proposed something like this:

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=103

[RED DAVE]

I cannot speak for Technocrat's organisation (Technocracy Incorporated), but we Europeans have proposed something like this:

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=103From the link:


This structure would be producing and conducting services after the wishes of each and every citizen through Energy Accounting. It would be kept in check by the merit that no one person controls more than her own area of expertise and function, thus creating a complex web without any clear command centre.

That is for how we intend to manage the resources, the production, the distribution and the recycling.

Now we should discuss how we intend to manage the people.Manage the people! Fuck you! We will "manage" ourselves.

Technocrat is an elitist troll. You have always appeared to be a far better person. With all due respect, Dimentio, I have no idea why you give this anti-socialist shit even a passing glance.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

From the link:

Manage the people! Fuck you! We will "manage" ourselves.

Technocrat is an elitist troll. You have always appeared to be a far better person. With all due respect, Dimentio, I have no idea why you give this anti-socialist shit even a passing glance.

RED DAVE

You seem to not have read the article. Let me quote the segments which followed after you cut the quote:

Now we should discuss how we intend to manage the people.







Technocracy vs Democracy



You have probably noted from a lot of our earlier articles that we do not discuss how people should live their lives within society. We do not hold an ideal of how people should chose to behave, act and work in our society. We do not discuss what laws the technate is going to enact. We do not discuss how we should police the technate.




The reason is simple: the technate is by no means supposed to be a state. Rather, it is supposed to be a service, responsible to provide the people of Europe with the highest possible quality of life for the longest possible span of time.


Hence, that we are technocrats do not by any reason implicate that we want to abolish the constitutional arrangements structuring up the European states or the EU, although content certainly has to change in order for the European people to be able to install the technate.


If the European people wants it, they could keep their traditional nation-states within the European technate, and govern the laws regulating social life and laws (and other issues not under the sphere of the technate) under their customs, for example parliamentarism in Britain combined with a constitutional monarchy, or a republic in France.


To the technate, it is not relevant what flag a European country choses to have, what language its people is speaking, or whether or not people should eat meat, go out and drink late, or what things people are watching on TV. We are not interested by acquiring the power of legislation. That is a matter which we leave to other authorities, under the condition that they – like the technate under this hypothetical condition – would have the support from the citizens of Europe.


In conclusion: Technocracy and Democracy could co-exist and prosper alongside each-other, as their areas of responsibility does not collide or contradict each-other. The European technate would administrate that aspect of Europe which today only is indirectly regulated by states and by the European Union, namely the aspect which consists of extraction, production, distribution and recycling of goods and services.




__________________________________________________ ____

In short, the entire article was an affirmation that we don't intend to manage people and that we would leave that task to the people themselves. Later down in the article, we outline models for direct democracy which could co-exist with a technate. Yet, I have an inkling you would simply ignore that.

I have wondered one thing about people who selectively quote articles to make them appear as something other - often opposite - than they are.

Don't you see that it would be revealed and that you later would have some explaining to do?

Since when have I said "fuck you" to you? I don't expect an apology of course, but you selectively misquoted the article and then started to throw insults around.

[Sentinel]

Red Dave, please refrain from flaming. Consider this a verbal warning.

[Demogorgon]

To remind others what Technocrat (the poster advocates), he advocates a hierarchical society where people are vertically grouped for the supposed benefit of everyone, so society where resource rich areas are grouped together to create prosperous "technates" and the areas unneeded in this international gerrymandering are left to rot with no possibility of achieving similar prosperity. This is not something that can even be considered by leftists.

The technocracy envisaged by Dimentio on the other hand is a different kettle of fish, and one that those following it might be advised to give a different name to differentiate it from the quasi-fascist ideology being promoted at Technocrat. Insofar as I see it, it sort of envisages a much improved civil service that provides services alongside a more conventionally understood Government.

So far, so reasonable. The trouble with this proposal is less that it is a downright frightening vision for society that no sane person would want to live in (indeed Dimentio's version would probably be quite nice if it actually worked), but that it is impossible. The first and biggest problem is energy accounting. I have said many times that it is economically speaking irrelevant (the cost of making something is not the energy expended to make it, that is two things requiring identical energy to make could place completely different burdens on societies resources) but it also seems to fall down on a more basic common sense level. You cannot after all transfer energy readily from one thing to another should a change in what is needed occur. Suppose we ned less energy for powering cars and more for feeding people, what are we to do, make people drink petrol? The defenders of Technocracy might present a means by which the energy can be put to use growing food, but as I say, it might have to come from a different source entirely, making the whole process pointless.

Another major problem, which admittedly Dimentio's proposal might partially avoid is that it ignores how society actually develops. That is to say it presents an entirely new and complete structure not based on existing developments and indeed Technocrat at least claims it has to be taken as a whole. That simply isn't how society changes. Institutions are changed over time, flaws are discovered and corrected. In periods of revolution major changes take place, but even then they are based on an understanding of what came before, are not administered as a single complete dose and are reviewed and altered after they have been implemented as the new system is tweaked. Anybody ignoring this reality will make completely unrealistic proposals.

I don't want to say too much more, but I want to give an example or two of unrealistic thinking. For instance Technocrat once made a suggestion about how cities would be rationally planned so that they were sensibly spaced, people would be able to travel around by bicycle and so forth. This sounds lovely, but it ignores the stark reality that we already have cities and they are not like that. What are we going to do, pull them down and build new ones? We can make piecemeal improvements to them over time to improve their infrastructure but we can't change them utterly.

This example also serves to indicate another major problem, the fact that anyone making prescriptive lists of what should happen will often fail to think things through. In this case we can see this from the supposedly sensible suggestion that traveling around by bicycle would be the most efficient and cleanest way of doing things. Trouble is, what about people who can't ride bikes? What about places where it rains too much? These kinds of problems will arise with every conceivable issue. If your proposals aren't flexible and open to easy alteration then they are rendered useless the second a problem comes up.

[RED DAVE]

I apologize for my vehemence to you Dimentio, but having dealt with Technocracy all the way back to the 1960s, when it existed in its original form among engineers in aero-space industry in California, I dO not see the point of it for anyone who calls themself a leftist. Certainly back then its elitist and semi-fascist elements were clear, and they are clear in the writings of Technocrat in spite of his denial. And I still don't see the point of it.

At best, technocracy is a utopian fantasy of perfectly functioning administrative systems over industry. What is missing is workers democracy. Decisions of production are not adminstrative or formal. They are human and dyanmic. In the absence of workers democracy, a system like technocracy is revealed as an engineers wet dream of power. It's revealing that technocracy has never had anything ot say about real-world problems of labor, war, racism, oppression, etc. It stands aside from the mass movements and hopes that its fantasy system will be adopted, somewhere, somehow.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

To remind others what Technocrat (the poster advocates), he advocates a hierarchical society where people are vertically grouped for the supposed benefit of everyone, so society where resource rich areas are grouped together to create prosperous "technates" and the areas unneeded in this international gerrymandering are left to rot with no possibility of achieving similar prosperity. This is not something that can even be considered by leftists.

The technocracy envisaged by Dimentio on the other hand is a different kettle of fish, and one that those following it might be advised to give a different name to differentiate it from the quasi-fascist ideology being promoted at Technocrat. Insofar as I see it, it sort of envisages a much improved civil service that provides services alongside a more conventionally understood Government.

So far, so reasonable. The trouble with this proposal is less that it is a downright frightening vision for society that no sane person would want to live in (indeed Dimentio's version would probably be quite nice if it actually worked), but that it is impossible. The first and biggest problem is energy accounting. I have said many times that it is economically speaking irrelevant (the cost of making something is not the energy expended to make it, that is two things requiring identical energy to make could place completely different burdens on societies resources) but it also seems to fall down on a more basic common sense level. You cannot after all transfer energy readily from one thing to another should a change in what is needed occur. Suppose we ned less energy for powering cars and more for feeding people, what are we to do, make people drink petrol? The defenders of Technocracy might present a means by which the energy can be put to use growing food, but as I say, it might have to come from a different source entirely, making the whole process pointless.

Another major problem, which admittedly Dimentio's proposal might partially avoid is that it ignores how society actually develops. That is to say it presents an entirely new and complete structure not based on existing developments and indeed Technocrat at least claims it has to be taken as a whole. That simply isn't how society changes. Institutions are changed over time, flaws are discovered and corrected. In periods of revolution major changes take place, but even then they are based on an understanding of what came before, are not administered as a single complete dose and are reviewed and altered after they have been implemented as the new system is tweaked. Anybody ignoring this reality will make completely unrealistic proposals.

I don't want to say too much more, but I want to give an example or two of unrealistic thinking. For instance Technocrat once made a suggestion about how cities would be rationally planned so that they were sensibly spaced, people would be able to travel around by bicycle and so forth. This sounds lovely, but it ignores the stark reality that we already have cities and they are not like that. What are we going to do, pull them down and build new ones? We can make piecemeal improvements to them over time to improve their infrastructure but we can't change them utterly.

This example also serves to indicate another major problem, the fact that anyone making prescriptive lists of what should happen will often fail to think things through. In this case we can see this from the supposedly sensible suggestion that traveling around by bicycle would be the most efficient and cleanest way of doing things. Trouble is, what about people who can't ride bikes? What about places where it rains too much? These kinds of problems will arise with every conceivable issue. If your proposals aren't flexible and open to easy alteration then they are rendered useless the second a problem comes up.

You have misunderstood what energy accounting is meaning. What we really are talking about is a conversion of the production cost in terms of resources (both present and future) for the production of certain products and services. It is connected to something essential for human survival on Earth, namely our bio-sustainability. We are not talking about electric energy, but a unit which would convert the production cost into tangible units - a system similar to MIPS in Germany. In fact, our member dr Mark Ciotola in San Francisco is involved in a project called Energy Input Labeling, where the production cost basically is written below the price.

Neither do we intend to create a civil service alongside a government. Our system could work under stateless conditions too. We are not talking about a bureaucracy but rather a large, continental-wide cooperative which would entail all production, recycling and infrastructure management.

I am in agreement that a lot of research and implementation is needed before a full-scale switch could be made. That is why the European movement do exist.

[Dimentio]

I apologize for my vehemence to you Dimentio, but having dealt with Technocracy all the way back to the 1960s, when it existed in its original form among engineers in aero-space industry in California, I dO not see the point of it for anyone who calls themself a leftist. Certainly back then its elitist and semi-fascist elements were clear, and they are clear in the writings of Technocrat in spite of his denial. And I still don't see the point of it.

At best, technocracy is a utopian fantasy of perfectly functioning administrative systems over industry. What is missing is workers democracy. Decisions of production are not adminstrative or formal. They are human and dyanmic. In the absence of workers democracy, a system like technocracy is revealed as an engineers wet dream of power. It's revealing that technocracy has never had anything ot say about real-world problems of labor, war, racism, oppression, etc. It stands aside from the mass movements and hopes that its fantasy system will be adopted, somewhere, somehow.

RED DAVE

No hard feelings man. ^^

[Demogorgon]

You have misunderstood what energy accounting is meaning. What we really are talking about is a conversion of the production cost in terms of resources (both present and future) for the production of certain products and services. It is connected to something essential for human survival on Earth, namely our bio-sustainability. We are not talking about electric energy, but a unit which would convert the production cost into tangible units - a system similar to MIPS in Germany. In fact, our member dr Mark Ciotola in San Francisco is involved in a project called Energy Input Labeling, where the production cost basically is written below the price.

Neither do we intend to create a civil service alongside a government. Our system could work under stateless conditions too. We are not talking about a bureaucracy but rather a large, continental-wide cooperative which would entail all production, recycling and infrastructure management.

I am in agreement that a lot of research and implementation is needed before a full-scale switch could be made. That is why the European movement do exist.
No, this is something that gets said to me in these debates and it is wrong. I am specifically not referring to electricity but to energy as a whole as understood in physics. My point is that firstly it does not translate into resources, so it cannot measure cost in any meaningful way and secondly that it is not transferrable, that is we cannot simply change our use of energy from one thing to the next unless they are very similar. That is to say that in terms of human usage of energy, it is not a single thing. The energy humans expend to live is different from the energy cars need to drive which is different from the energy cars need to grow. The reason for this practical difference in human terms is it is derived from different resources. You can have all the energy in the world and not be able to do anything if the energy is not coming from the right source and being used in the right way.

That is why things like the so called Energy Survey carried out by Tech Inc are so laughable. They concluded that so much energy was required to produce the goods and services they regarded as necessary and that society was able to expend so much energy and that this was more than enough. They utterly missed the point that you cannot simply expend any energy on anything. Regardless of how much "energy" there might be (and let's not forget we have a near infinite source of it in the sky), the fact remains that actual resources are limited and cannot be accounted for in terms of the energy being expended.

As for the point about it not being a civil service, well if it bothers you I won't use that term anymore, but it seems as good a term as any other for a non political organisation seeking to provide goods and services to society. Indeed the reason I used the term was as a courtesy to you to differentiate it from "The World State" that I believe Technocrat's vision amounts to.

[Dimentio]

Energy of course is all the labour you need to do to accomplish a certain task. Human beings need energy as well. But as emergy, energy could be understood as future costs as well, for example in depletion of resources we could account for the energy cost it would take to dig for resources farther down the ground and how we could use that energy more efficiently. Thus, energy in our context could be said to represent the cost for taking out resources and transform them, as well as accounting for environmental effects and future extraction or production costs. There are some economists within different institutions who propose a carbon-based system as another alternative as well.

You shouldn't really talk with me about it. I'm no physicist. Its Andrew, Mark, Jure and to a certain extent Igor who are the main scientists. And Mandrake as well. ^^

[OldMoney]

From what Ive read and understood, this system is not commpatible with communism. It seems more like a dictatorship of the elite, where there would be clear divisions between the different classess of people. The power for decission making at the upper levels would clearly exploit the lower caste's in order to stay in power. IE: with the goal of the technate to "provide the highest possible quality of life for the greatest possible number of people for the longest possible span of time" with all this free time people are going to be multiplying like crazy, and living for centurys right? What style of population control do you all have in mind? Is it efficient to keep 60% of the people; those done thier share at 45, not working and just consuming space and energy? The whole system seems like Brave new world mixxed with Anthem, a dictators wet dream.

[Dimentio]

From what Ive read and understood, this system is not commpatible with communism. It seems more like a dictatorship of the elite, where there would be clear divisions between the different classess of people. The power for decission making at the upper levels would clearly exploit the lower caste's in order to stay in power. IE: with the goal of the technate to "provide the highest possible quality of life for the greatest possible number of people for the longest possible span of time" with all this free time people are going to be multiplying like crazy, and living for centurys right? What style of population control do you all have in mind? Is it efficient to keep 60% of the people; those done thier share at 45, not working and just consuming space and energy? The whole system seems like Brave new world mixxed with Anthem, a dictators wet dream.

Where on the European website do you see any assertion that we want to start a caste system? People should have right to seek every education they want and everyone would receive equal access to the means of production, mo matter their profession. :lol:

As for multiplying like crazy, that is a Malthusian thought. I think education has proven to be enough to hold the population on a good level. Most countries with high population growth are countries were a lot of people - especially women - are illiterate. Under such conditions, they don't get any control over their own lives.

When social systems which take care of those who are elderly are built, when female literacy rates approach 100% and similar, population growth would decrease. Europe's current population would shrink would it not be for immigration.

[Red Commissar]

Just an small comment to this debate, but didn't HG Wells advocate for a socialist state modeled along technocratic lines? At least that's the gist of what I was getting in his commentaries on socialism versus the Marxist interpretation.

[Dimentio]

Just an small comment to this debate, but didn't HG Wells advocate for a socialist state modeled along technocratic lines? At least that's the gist of what I was getting in his commentaries on socialism versus the Marxist interpretation.

Yes, he did.

[Dr Mindbender]

It seems that theres a lot of unfounded accusations that technocrats are elitist and want to reinforce a class system again. If you look into it, perhaps theres a certain anti-worker cynicism that our detractors are guilty of that they're not willing to admit to.

We all want good fulfilling roles in life, that is no newsflash. If you were to go into a classroom full of schoolchildren, and ask them what jobs they want, you would probably hear the usual, doctor, astronaut, professional sportsperson etc. No one would say toilet cleaner or factory worker. The reason they dont all get these roles is the later life factors, such as the bias in the academic infrastructure towards petty bourgeoisie families, but mainly scarcity which is evident even in conventional socialist systems. Intelligence is barely a secondary factor, considering IQ is distributed across social classes in a way that resources are not. This cynicism among so called progressives falling into the bourgeoisie trap that workers are somehow not capable of technical work is something that certain members here need called out on.

Moreover, menial work is brutalling demeaning but also inefficient and unnecessary. What is the use of getting humans to do a job if a machine can do it x times more efficiently while giving the person concerned the time to concentrate on their own self-embetterment?

[bcbm]

This cynicism among so called progressives falling into the bourgeoisie trap that workers are somehow not capable of technical work is something that certain members here need called out on.

Moreover, menial work is brutalling demeaning but also inefficient and unnecessary. What is the use of getting humans to do a job if a machine can do it x times more efficiently while giving the person concerned the time to concentrate on their own self-embetterment?

i don't think any of the concerns raised have been based in the belief that workers cannot do technical work, or that from a standpoint glorifying drudgery. rather they're skeptical of the proposed systems where it appears that a technical "class" holds total control over production.

[Dimentio]

i don't think any of the concerns raised have been based in the belief that workers cannot do technical work, or that from a standpoint glorifying drudgery. rather they're skeptical of the proposed systems where it appears that a technical "class" holds total control over production.

Workers are basically a part of what you call "the technical class" in most European countries today. Most industrial workers remaining are CAD experts, machine repairmen/repairwomen and so on.

[Dr Mindbender]

i don't think any of the concerns raised have been based in the belief that workers cannot do technical work, or that from a standpoint glorifying drudgery. rather they're skeptical of the proposed systems where it appears that a technical "class" holds total control over production.

what dimentio says. I think you are falling into the trap of thinking when we say technical, we mean engineer and scientist. The reason i used the classroom analogy is an important one because children have an idealistic view of how they want to spend their lives. To me, technocracy is about removing the factors which kill this childhood idealism. Our technical class is not the bourgeoisie understanding. We value the artist, the playwright and the athlete as much as the engineer and doctor. Science enables us to live but the arts give us reason to live.

I think its important to analyse the origin of the word 'science'. It is derived from the latin word'scientia' or 'pursuit of the truth'. If you want to rely on that definition a theologist, philosopher or even a political theorist could be a scientist. The test tube and bunsen burner is not science's be all and end all.

[bcbm]

dimentio posted from the european technocrat movement and i asked a clarifying question that (i don't think) was ever addressed:



It would not decide what should be produced, only how what is produced is produced. The users would decide what they want to have produced for themselves. The people would also govern themselves within the framework of direct-democratic communities which would exist in parallell with the technate.so the producing class will exist on its own outside of the democratic control of "the people," without oversight and controlling the means of production?

i think clarifying that it would be a good place to start. as it stands, i don't disagree that the "technical class" i refer to are currently workers, but they are an extreme minority of the class in most "developed" nations, i would imagine. given the stated aim to remove unskilled labor and automatize most production, it seems to me that what is being suggested is to place industrial control entirely in the hands of this minority. is this incorrect?

[Demogorgon]

Energy of course is all the labour you need to do to accomplish a certain task. Human beings need energy as well. But as emergy, energy could be understood as future costs as well, for example in depletion of resources we could account for the energy cost it would take to dig for resources farther down the ground and how we could use that energy more efficiently. Thus, energy in our context could be said to represent the cost for taking out resources and transform them, as well as accounting for environmental effects and future extraction or production costs. There are some economists within different institutions who propose a carbon-based system as another alternative as well.

You shouldn't really talk with me about it. I'm no physicist. Its Andrew, Mark, Jure and to a certain extent Igor who are the main scientists. And Mandrake as well. ^^
Again though, the problem is that even if energy costs may bare some indirect relation to the costs mentioned, they do not correspond properly and as such cannot measure the resource cost being expended. A carbon based system would indeed be somewhat closer but it still wouldn't account for the cost of human labour.

To try and explain the problem simply, when we talk about cost we mean that when we have used a resource we have sacrificed another use for it, either to make an alternative product or to save it for later. This is why energy cannot work for accounting cost, because you cannot necessarily use it for something else and cannot necessarily save it for later. To be sure there are energy costs because we do have to decide how to allocate energy, but energy is only one resource amongst many and energy costs are only a fraction of overall costs.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think clarifying that it would be a good place to start. as it stands, i don't disagree that the "technical class" i refer to are currently workers, but they are an extreme minority of the class in most "developed" nations, i would imagine. given the stated aim to remove unskilled labor and automatize most production, it seems to me that what is being suggested is to place industrial control entirely in the hands of this minority. is this incorrect?

What we seek is a dual pronged approach. Both to liberate human beings from the manicle of menial toll and to educate or train all so that they are able to join the technical or skilled work force.

If many machines can get a menial job done more quickly then many scientists can map the human genome more quickly.

[ckaihatsu]

As Red Dave mentioned these issues have already been hashed out in a previous, recent thread:

'Criticism of technocracy'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/criticism-technocracy-t124878/index.html?t=124878


That said, I think this topic will continue to be a perennial one because of its inherent importance. It's important because it's *forward*-looking -- any revolutionary movement should be able to point to a solid political program, at least, and if there's a revolutionary / technical plan as well, then all the better. There's nothing wrong with having a good plan, even if it's only to serve initially as a *proposal* to the incipient revolutionary masses -- certainly it's better than *not* having one.... And, I think that the *more detailed* we can be about what it is that we're fighting for, the more *certain* and *together* we'll be in that fight.





Technocracy is NOT incompatible with Communism - in fact, they seem to compliment each other perfectly.


I wouldn't put the two on an equal footing -- communism is a political *program* while technocracy is one proffered *plan* *for* it, or a particular *implementation* of it that might be adopted, or might not be, by those concerned -- the revolutionary masses of the world.





Within each field of operation would be a hierarchy of authority (or decision making power) based upon demonstrated ability and expertise. Authority would be given or revoked by one's peers, a peer being any person who works with the individual and whose actions or decisions immediately influence or are influenced by the individual.


The concerns raised with this conception of social organization all rest on a critique of the use of *representative* political authority itself. If capitalism is to be left by the wayside for economic matters then its political analogue, bourgeois representative "democracy", should *also* be seen as anachronistic and imprecise, and be discarded as well.





Expertise/experience does not make a difference its still elitist and undemocratic.




I was talking about political decisions, not job technical decisions. Of course doctors should make the medical decision when working with their patients, fucking straw man argument. The decisions concerning the whole society should be decided through direct democracy involving all people the decision is concerning, it should not just be the experts that make those decisions even though they have the expertise. What the experts can do is inform the public about what they think will be the result of each decision.





At best, technocracy is a utopian fantasy of perfectly functioning administrative systems over industry. What is missing is workers democracy. Decisions of production are not adminstrative or formal. They are human and dyanmic. In the absence of workers democracy, a system like technocracy is revealed as an engineers wet dream of power. It's revealing that technocracy has never had anything ot say about real-world problems of labor, war, racism, oppression, etc. It stands aside from the mass movements and hopes that its fantasy system will be adopted, somewhere, somehow.





Democracy is the equality of power. In a general assembly or in a commune each persons vote counts just as much as the next. Democracy is the rule of the people, not of the science experts.

Now democracy doesn't mean that everybody needs to be in the decision making of everything. If general consensus decides that their should be a group dedicated to bridge makers then people who take interest in making bridges will join the group and service society that way. The group should be set up in a way that the better bridge makers have authority over the specific goals of the group. If the bridge making group does not do well enough for the public's interest then the democracy as a whole can decide either to scrap the group or reorganize it to fit the public interest.


cb9's unity describes this *nested* relationship between the mass-political and the technical *very* well -- another way of conceptualizing it is to say that we could see the general population as being the consumers, or end-users. It is from the origination-point of their 'demands' that a liberated labor force would be tasked and set into motion.

*How* the liberated labor pool handled their *internal* composition and execution of the projects should be left up to them -- hence their *self-empowered*, *self-organized*, and *liberated* status.

The point, of course, of all of this political discussion is to be *in service of* that which ultimately has *meaning* -- it's the active *policy* that counts (and its execution / enforcement). The reason to be on the revolutionary left at all is to say that the revolutionary workers of the world can produce *far better* results from *their* running of the means of mass production, and can enact far better *policy* that actually reflects mass needs and demands.

I've developed a model of my own from past discussions here, one that takes into account the components of mass demands, prioritization of political processes, labor self-organizing, rates of material compensation for labor, and varying hazards and difficulties of different kinds of work:





With this [communist supply & demand] model the checks and balances would be built-in between the interests of labor for organizing strength (channels of labor credits flowing forward), and the interests of the population for skilled, experienced, readily available labor (large-group demands, concentrated and formalized through politically agreed-upon prioritizations of work projects, and paid for with difficulty-factored labor credits, by the hour).





A carbon based system [of energy accounting] would indeed be somewhat closer but it still wouldn't account for the cost of human labour.





Currently production requires [1] labor, and [2] capital, right? Without the abstracted, bullshit capital-market-pricing valuation at play we would have to have a *political economy* that *collectively, consciously* assumes mass control and planning over society's productive capacities, right?

But this *political* aspect doesn't speak to the *labor* component in a post-capitalist political economy -- sure no one could be blackmailed into work roles against their basic human living needs, but how would the potential, willing labor *supply* be treated by the *larger*, *overarching* political society -- the "demand" -- ?

This is where *past work completed*, quantified into labor credits, would confer a kind of *seniority* or *labor social status* in organizing the (numerically smaller) supply of labor to potentially meet the (numerically larger) population's requests ("demand") for production runs.


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/
tinypic.com/ckaihatsu

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

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Epitomizing generalities --

[Comrade_Stalin]

We are not going an were till we make sure we have an understanding of both communism and technocracy.

Check my understanding, of a Technocracy. You move up with a vote from the people below you, and the people above you, just like in industry, unless you are at the top an you are voted in by the people below you as there are no one above you? You beleive in Total conscirption for the army right? Now I have to ask you what do you mean by total consciption.

[Dermezel]

Basically a Communist is willing to see society itself as a technology:


ut, it will be argued, economic production is just what entails all the ‘constraints’ of society. Daily work, division of labour under superintendents, all the laws of contract and capital, all the regulations of society, arise out of this work of economic production. Precisely, for, as we saw, freedom is the consciousness of causality. And by economic production, which makes it possible for man to achieve in action his will, man becomes conscious of the means necessary to achieve it. That a lever must be of a certain length to move the stone man wills to move is one consequence; the other is that a certain number of men must co-operate in a certain way to wield the lever. From this it is only a matter of development to the complicated machinery of modern life, with all its elaborate social relations.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/caudwell/1938/liberty.htm


That is why all lovers of liberty, who have understood the nature of freedom, and escaped from the ignorant categories of bourgeois thought, turn to Communism. For that is simply what Communism is, the attainment of more liberty than bourgeois society can reach. Communism has as its basis the understanding of the causality of society, so that all the unfreedom involved in bourgeois society, the enslavement of the have-nots by the haves, and the slavery of both haves and have-nots to wars, slumps, depression and superstition, may be ended. To be conscious of the laws of dead matter: that is something; but it is not enough. Communism seizes hold of a higher degree of self-determination, to rescue man from war, starvation, hate, and coercion, by becoming conscious of the causality of society. It is Communism that makes free will real to man, by making society conscious of itself. To change reality we must understand its laws. If we wish to move a stone, we must apply the leverage in the proper place. If we wish to change bourgeois social relations into communist, we must follow a certain path. The have-nots, the proletariat, must take over the means of production from the haves, the bourgeoisie, and since, as we saw, these two freedoms are incompatible, restraint, in the form of the coercive State, must remain in being as long as the bourgeoisie try to get back their former property. But unlike the former situation, this stage is only temporary. This stage is what is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat, the necessary step from the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie – which is what the bourgeois State is – to the classless State, which is what Communism is. And as Russia shows, even in the dictatorship of the proletariat, before the classless State has come into being, man is already freer. He can avoid unemployment, and competition with his fellows, and poverty. He can marry and beget children, and achieve the decencies of life. He is not asked to oppress his fellows.

[Dimentio]

dimentio posted from the european technocrat movement and i asked a clarifying question that (i don't think) was ever addressed:



i think clarifying that it would be a good place to start. as it stands, i don't disagree that the "technical class" i refer to are currently workers, but they are an extreme minority of the class in most "developed" nations, i would imagine. given the stated aim to remove unskilled labor and automatize most production, it seems to me that what is being suggested is to place industrial control entirely in the hands of this minority. is this incorrect?

In a system where there is widespread use of technology and automasiation, specialisation tend to occur. We say that we have a technate now, and that you are a member of the sequence of production, within a holon which is producing software for the seventeenth generation of 3D cell-phones. The technate does not plan how the cell-phones should look like or how many should be produced. The technate would only produce cell-phones when people are asking for them. Thus, the people who are the users are those who are creating the "plans" for what should be produced.

At the same time, you yourself want to install a new flat screen TV in your house module. You search for a producer through the web, which you think could produce what you want, and specify what kind of TV you want, what components and so on.

There aren't two castes, but all people in the technate are both producers and consumers at the same time, and everyone would have equal access to the means of production.

The two criticisms usually aimed at us, that we either would want an expert government, or on the contrary that the consumers and not the producers would have influence over production is built on the dualistic thinking which is assuming that we want to keep a class society, which isn't true.

[Dimentio]

We are not going an were till we make sure we have an understanding of both communism and technocracy.

Check my understanding, of a Technocracy. You move up with a vote from the people below you, and the people above you, just like in industry, unless you are at the top an you are voted in by the people below you as there are no one above you? You beleive in Total conscirption for the army right? Now I have to ask you what do you mean by total consciption.

You should not forget that the technocratic movement is very differentiated. Technocracy Incorporated should answer the questions aimed at them, as they brought up the idea for using the armanent in the USA of 1941 as a mean to transform the entire economy. We in the European Movement believe in a more gradual approach.

[Technocrat]

Democracy is the equality of power. In a general assembly or in a commune each persons vote counts just as much as the next. Democracy is the rule of the people, not of the science experts.

Again, where are you getting this definition? It's not in any definition of Democracy that I've ever seen.


Once socialism is brought i think technocracy should be given serious consideration. However technocrats often focus on giving authority purely based on skill. If this "peer council" is not getting the job done they should no longer have their jobs. They may have all gotten into their positions because they were brilliant at creating bridge schematics, but if they are poor organizers or planners then they have no right to be in the position. If the people below the "peer council" recognize that they are doing the job poorly then they have every right to usurp then and put in a group that will get the job done.Did you actually read how the system of appointments - promotions and demotions - would work? I think you may need to go back and read it again (my first post). I think you will find it agreeable.


I like a lot of what I see when it comes to technocracy. However there certainly needs to be more of an emphasis on real democracy. It must be clear that overall power rests with the people and that real overarching authority isn't simply based on ones skill in a specific area of study or practice. Everyone must be made accountable to the people as a whole and in turn the people must understand (as they usually do) that certain skilled people are better at doing certain specific jobs than they are.Everyone would occupy a functionally vital position. This means everyone's work would be important. The job of the Technate administration system is to meet people's consumption requirements in the most efficient way possible so that the highest level of service can be provided to everyone. If someone decided to act in a corrupt way this would negatively effect everyone else and they would take proper action.

[Technocrat]

I'm going to request that Red Dave not post in this thread anymore if all he's going to do is Troll. Red Dave is still sore because he was unable to dominate other threads on Technocracy with his reactionary comments.

[Technocrat]

so the producing class will exist on its own outside of the democratic control of "the people," without oversight and controlling the means of production?

No - the producing class and the controlling class would be ONE AND THE SAME in a Technocracy.

[Technocrat]

We are not going an were till we make sure we have an understanding of both communism and technocracy.

Check my understanding, of a Technocracy. You move up with a vote from the people below you, and the people above you, just like in industry, unless you are at the top an you are voted in by the people below you as there are no one above you? You beleive in Total conscirption for the army right? Now I have to ask you what do you mean by total consciption.

You move up by being first nominated by your peers and then elected by those higher up, who have already passed through the position that is to be filled and are thus familiar with the job requirements.

At the very top would be the head director of each industry. The directors would form an executive council responsible for overall planning. They would elect a president from among themselves who would set the agenda.

Anyone can be removed at any time by a 2/3rd vote from their peers - a peer is anyone whose actions or decisions immediately effect or are affected by the individual in question.

Total Conscription is just a way to use existing wartime powers to bring about Technocracy. This doesn't mean that people would be forced to join the army. What is being conscripted are the physically infrastructure and resources needed by the Technate. Therefore, corporations will be "conscripted".

[RED DAVE]

I'm going to request that Red Dave not post in this thread anymore if all he's going to do is Troll. Red Dave is still sore because he was unable to dominate other threads on Technocracy with his reactionary comments.Translation: I demonstrated that Technocracy is a system more related, historically and theoretically, to fascism, than anything else, and you can't deal with it.


You move up by being first nominated by your peers and then elected by those higher up, who have already passed through the position that is to be filled and are thus familiar with the job requirements.In other words, if the guys above you don't like you, tough shit.


At the very top would be the head director of each industry. The directors would form an executive council responsible for overall planning. They would elect a president from among themselves who would set the agenda.So the presidents are not popularly elected.


Anyone can be removed at any time by a 2/3rd vote from their peers - a peer is anyone whose actions or decisions immediately effect or are affected by the individual in question.Also fuck majority rule.


Total Conscription is just a way to use existing wartime powers to bring about Technocracy.That's called the draft, and we got rid of it in the USA 40 years ago.


This doesn't mean that people would be forced to join the army. What is being conscripted are the physically infrastructure and resources needed by the Technate. Therefore, corporations will be "conscripted".In other words, if the big shots say you go, you go.

By the way, T, how about unions? Do we get to organize unions to protect our interests? And do we have the right to strike? And who detrmines things like length of the working day?

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

To try and explain the problem simply, when we talk about cost we mean that when we have used a resource we have sacrificed another use for it, either to make an alternative product or to save it for later. This is why energy cannot work for accounting cost, because you cannot necessarily use it for something else and cannot necessarily save it for later. To be sure there are energy costs because we do have to decide how to allocate energy, but energy is only one resource amongst many and energy costs are only a fraction of overall costs.

Demo, you are referring to opportunity costs which I have repeatedly pointed out DO NOT EXIST in a post-scarcity environment, BY DEFINITION!

I've also repeatedly pointed out that ALL resources would be accounted for in a Technate! Energy Accounting is just one part of it!

I have been repeating the same thing FOR MONTHS now and some people STILL don't get it!

[Dimentio]

RED DAVE has the right to write what criticisms he want of technocracy, as long as he isn't misquoting statements or doing ad hominems or throwing curse-words around.

[Technocrat]

In other words, if the guys above you don't like you, tough shit.

If the people above you determine that you don't have the skills needed for the job, then tough shit. That's life. Maybe you are bitter because you haven't gotten some job that you weren't qualified for and decided to blame "the man" rather than your lack of qualifications.

Here's a question: if people are not appointed/demoted on the basis of skill, what do you suggest? A popularity contest? That way if you can get the people above you to like you, you can get the job whether or not you are qualified for it. Maybe that would suit you better.


So the presidents are not popularly elected. No. Neither does the president get to appoint his friends to functionally vital positions that they may not be qualified for, as is their privilege in most systems currently called "democratic".


Also fuck majority rule.Yes. Fuck oppression of minority groups.


That's called the draft, and we got rid of it in the USA 40 years ago.Wow, it's like you posted before even finishing the rest of the sentence! You are the very definition of a reactionary. Total Conscription has nothing to do with the draft, which is to say, it has nothing to do with forcing people to serve in the army.


In other words, if the big shots say you go, you go.No, it's another way of saying that the resources and infrastructure currently owned by corporations would be requisitioned by the government - the EXACT same thing which would happen under communism!


By the way, T, how about unions? Do we get to organize unions to protect our interests? And do we have the right to strike? And who detrmines things like length of the working day?

RED DAVEEach Industry would in effect BE A UNION. The controlling class and the producing class would be one and the same.

Drop the bullshit and adopt an open mind, already. You keep going on and on, but we aren't the enemy, seriously. You want someone to fight so bad that it doesn't really matter what I say - you are going to interpret my words however you want to mean whatever you want, so that you can continue with your bullshit argument. Technocracy isn't the enemy - the enemy is the Price System/Capitalism.

[Technocrat]

RED DAVE has the right to write what criticisms he want of technocracy, as long as he isn't misquoting statements or doing ad hominems or throwing curse-words around.

Which he does repeatedly. All of his posts are intentional mischaracterizations, he throws curse words around, and he has most definitely used ad hominem attacks in the past.

[Wolf Larson]

The direct application of technology in order to create abundance under socialism is good but the hierarchy/authority rhetoric doesn't sit well with me. I agree with everything except for the hierarchy/authority part as we should have learned by now those in a position of authority, no matter how many checks and balances you put in place, will always find a way to abuse it. Would these people in authority live in bigger homes, attain more status within the community and have more sway in the decision making process? Wouldn't a hierarchical centralized government simply be an extension of what we have now? I'm against any elite minority holding authority no matter if we voted them in. We need to get away from the Darwinian representative mind frame and focus on education- equal education and dismantling authority/hierarchy not preserving it. In your vision the so called intellects would rule society. We don't need leaders or authority figures/hierarchy.

Have you read about or seen the videos concerning the Stanford Prison Study? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0jYx8nwjFQ&feature=related Hierarchy/authority and accountability are like oil and water but I agree the application of technology will shorten the work day while creating abundance as will an end to capitalism [capitalist careers]. Without capitalism countless millions of people will be available for other lines of work and the perpetual unemployed reserve labor force capitalism creates will also be available so there will be millions and millions of people who will be able to work in jobs which are actually productive and will help create abundance. To have a central government with representatives who hold authority is exactly what we shouldn't do though. We need direct democracy not representative democracy. We also need to meld the workplace and government we shouldn't perpetuate a centralized state under the control of a elite minority even if a 2/3 vote can vote them out. Power corrupts. Hierarchy corrupts. In my opinion these hierarchical authority figures would simply replace the capitalist class just as capitalists replaced feudal lords.

[Dr Mindbender]

The direct application of technology in order to create abundance under socialism is good but the hierarchy/authority rhetoric doesn't sit well with me. I agree with everything except for the hierarchy/authority part as we should have learned by now those in a position of authority, no matter how many checks and balances you put in place, will always find a way to abuse it. Would these people in authority live in bigger homes, attain more status within the community and have more sway in the decision making process? Wouldn't a hierarchical centralized government simply be an extension of what we have now? I'm against any elite minority holding authority no matter if we voted them in. We need to get away from the Darwinian representative mind frame and focus on education- equal education and dismantling authority/hierarchy not preserving it. In your vision the so called intellects would rule society. We don't need leaders or authority figures/hierarchy.

I dont think your concerns are warranted. In a technate, there would be no need for an authority of an 'intellectual' or 'skilled' clique because every member would be a member of the skilled society. It is capitalism that upholds the chauvinist position that certain roles should be regarded as higher than others because of cronyism, nepotism or the 'old boys club'.

In a society where all menial roles are automated the cultural and material conditioning that supports the idea that its acceptable for humans to perform such tasks will wither away in much the same way that class institutions will wither away under communism. In a society where all humans engage in skilled activities related to their personality and aspirations there is no need for heirarchy.

[Technocrat]

Would these people in authority live in bigger homes,

No. Everyone would live in the same dwelling which would be designed to provide the maximum level of comfort and service with the available resources.


attain more status within the community and have more sway in the decision making process?Yes, but is that a bad thing if based on actual merit and if they are recallable with a sufficient vote by those effected by their decisions?


Wouldn't a hierarchical centralized government simply be an extension of what we have now?No, not if set up the way I describe. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.


I'm against any elite minority holding authority no matter if we voted them in. Authority is the ability to enforce one's opinions on the rest of the group. In a Technate, those responsible for overall planning have a mandate to meet people's consumption requirements in the most efficient way possible so as to provide everyone with the highest possible standard of living. If they fail to meet this mandate then they are voted out and replaced. In a Technate, authority doesn't really exist in the way you are talking about it because those with authority are completely accountable to those who are effected by their decisions. There isn't some "elite" group running everything - you are still thinking about things as if there would be different classes like in capitalism. Decisions made on the basis of authority would be reduced to an absolute minimum in a Technocracy, making it un-authoritarian.


We need to get away from the Darwinian representative mind frame and focus on education- equal education and dismantling authority/hierarchy not preserving it. In your vision the so called intellects would rule society. We don't need leaders or authority figures/hierarchy. I agree. In a Technate, everyone would be given free education to the fullest extent of their abilities. Now, the fact remains, that even if you give everyone access to the same education, that not everyone will have the same skill level, regardless of vocation. You seem to think that if we gave everyone the same training that everyone could possess the same skills, which as I point out in my first post is impossible in an Industrialized society with any degree of specialization. This is because the amount of time required to train people for certain positions (such as a doctor) means that some will have more training than others at any given point in time - a nurse would just be someone on their way to becoming a doctor (if they wanted to become a doctor), for example. It is also impossible for everyone to have the same skills because the number of skilled positions required in an Industrialized society is such that it would be impossible to train an individual to do everything within the individual's lifetime. The hierarchy is based on acquired ability and training. One doesn't just become a surgeon overnight. They would first have to pass through a series of lower positions with less responsibility until they had completed their training. As they acquired more skills and knowledge relevant to their profession, they would be promoted to higher positions with more responsibility. Go back and re-read my very first post: everyone in society would essentially be a professional of some kind, with all the boring mundane work automated to the extent that is possible. Any remaining "dirty" work is shared equally by everyone. I think you have misunderstood/misinterpreted my argument.

I'm aware of the Prison Study. Can you ask specific questions about the first post I made? I think you need to re-read it.

[Wolf Larson]

No. I don't need to re-read it you just don't understand my point in bringing up the Stanford Prison Study. Yes it would be bad/counterrevolutionary to create an elite class which has more status within the community and has more sway in the decision making process. It was a rhetorical question not an outright question- I obviously knew what your answer would be. My point in asking this rhetorical question is - people in positions of authority can never be truly held accountable. Your system doesn't take reality into account. The reality that not only concentrated wealth but also concentrated power corrupts our social structures and when an elite intelligentsia runs the show, voted in or not, we are not free or equal. As I said we'd simply be replacing our capitalist masters with this new dominant class just as capitalists replaced feudal lords. You are describing a hierarchical structure which I oppose.

The reason I posted the Stanford Prison Study is because Philip Zimbardo's prison study had nothing to do with the prison environment- his mock prison was a scaled down version of society in general. He basically proved that hierarchy is at the root of mankind's social problems. The reason the Soviet Union failed is because hierarchy was maintained. Put a person in a position of power and people begin to follow no matter if he is right or wrong. This is what you don't understand. Besides the Stanford Prison Study the Milgram Experiment shows us the same thing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

You may want to reread what I posted. :) EDIT - Also, let me reiterate, I agree with everything but the hierarchical structure. People with "more skills" should not be put in hierarchical positions. This is your capitalist box dictating your thoughts. Think outside of the box.

[Technocrat]

In a society where all humans engage in skilled activities related to their personality and aspirations there is no need for heirarchy.

While I agree with this in principal, the reality is that even if you give everyone access to the same education and training, not everyone is going to have the same level of skill regardless of what job you are talking about. It's statistically impossible.

Evolutionary Psychology sheds some light on this problem: if you observe any group of people who have come together voluntarily to work on a problem, there emerges over time a series of priority relationships between the workers where they naturally defer to one another on the basis of their skills. All I'm talking about is a system that ensures that these functional priority relationships would be allowed to establish themselves.

[Technocrat]

No. I don't need to re-read it you just don't understand my point in bringing up the Stanford Prison Study. Yes it would be bad/counterrevolutionary to create an elite class which has more status within the community and has more sway in the decision making process. It was a rhetorical question not an outright question- I obviously knew what your answer would be. My point in asking this rhetorical question is - people in positions of authority can never be truly held accountable. Your system doesn't take reality into account. The reality that not only concentrated wealth but also concentrated power corrupts our social structures and when an elite intelligentsia runs the show, voted in or not, we are not free or equal. As I said we'd simply be replacing our capitalist masters with this new dominant class just as capitalists replaced feudal lords. You are describing a hierarchical structure which I oppose.

The reason I posted the Stanford Prison Study is because Philip Zimbardo's prison study had nothing to do with the prison environment- his mock prison was a scaled down version of society in general. He basically proved that hierarchy is at the root of mankind's social problems. The reason the Soviet Union failed is because hierarchy was maintained. Put a person in a position of power and people begin to follow no matter if he is right or wrong. This is what you don't understand. Besides the Stanford Prison Study the Milgram Experiment shows us the same thing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

You may want to reread what I posted. :) EDIT - Also, let me reiterate, I agree with everything but the hierarchical structure. People with "more skills" should not be put in hierarchical positions. This is your capitalist box dictating your thoughts. Think outside of the box.

I think you are thinking about hierarchy and authority in a different way, as if there would be some elite class with different privileges than anyone else. This isn't the case - the only "reward" for a higher position is increased RESPONSIBILITY (and therefore, accountability). Therefore the only reason someone would strive for a higher position is because they actually wanted to do the job (out of a sense of civic duty, or because they wanted to win a name for themselves, or because they were genuinely interested in the work, etc).

Maybe you should read my reply to doctor mindbender above. The "hierarchy" I'm describing is nothing more than the natural peck-rights which establish themselves among any group of workers who voluntarily come together to work on a problem.

The soviet union didn't fail because of hierarchy. It failed because it lacked government transparency and never had a true system of equal, direct distribution like the one I described. This allowed the bureaucrats to conspire to re-instate capitalism in order to enrich itself. This would be impossible with the system I've described.

We could do without hierarchy if everyone possessed the same skills and the same knowledge, but this is impossible. If you designed a test that accurately reflected a person's ability in a particular area, you would almost NEVER get the same score on every test (its a practical statistical impossibility), even if everyone were given access to the same education.

[Technocrat]

No. I don't need to re-read it you just don't understand my point in bringing up the Stanford Prison Study. Yes it would be bad/counterrevolutionary to create an elite class which has more status within the community and has more sway in the decision making process. It was a rhetorical question not an outright question- I obviously knew what your answer would be. My point in asking this rhetorical question is - people in positions of authority can never be truly held accountable. Your system doesn't take reality into account. The reality that not only concentrated wealth but also concentrated power corrupts our social structures and when an elite intelligentsia runs the show, voted in or not, we are not free or equal. As I said we'd simply be replacing our capitalist masters with this new dominant class just as capitalists replaced feudal lords. You are describing a hierarchical structure which I oppose.

The reason I posted the Stanford Prison Study is because Philip Zimbardo's prison study had nothing to do with the prison environment- his mock prison was a scaled down version of society in general. He basically proved that hierarchy is at the root of mankind's social problems. The reason the Soviet Union failed is because hierarchy was maintained. Put a person in a position of power and people begin to follow no matter if he is right or wrong. This is what you don't understand. Besides the Stanford Prison Study the Milgram Experiment shows us the same thing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

You may want to reread what I posted. :) EDIT - Also, let me reiterate, I agree with everything but the hierarchical structure. People with "more skills" should not be put in hierarchical positions. This is your capitalist box dictating your thoughts. Think outside of the box.

I think you are thinking about hierarchy and authority in a different way, as if there would be some elite class with different privileges than anyone else. This isn't the case - the only "reward" for a higher position is increased RESPONSIBILITY (and therefore, accountability). Therefore the only reason someone would strive for a higher position is because they actually wanted to do the job.

Maybe you should read my reply to doctor mindbender above.

[Wolf Larson]

While I agree with this in principal, the reality is that even if you give everyone access to the same education and training, not everyone is going to have the same level of skill regardless of what job you are talking about. It's statistically impossible.

Evolutionary Psychology sheds some light on this problem: if you observe any group of people who have come together voluntarily to work on a problem, there emerges over time a series of priority relationships between the workers where they naturally defer to one another on the basis of their skills. All I'm talking about is a system that ensures that these functional priority relationships would be allowed to establish themselves.

No. All you're talking about is perpetuating hierarchy. You don't have to hide it behind all manner of wiggly semantics. And if you want to bring up psychology please take the time to actually understand my reasons for bringing up both the Stanford Prison Study and the Milgram experiment before you brush it off. I understand your position quite clearly. You want to perpetuate a hierarchical system because the smarter people know better. No no and no. The so called smarter people will work side by side with everyone else. In a different capacity obviously but to give them hierarchical position goes against everything the revolution stands for. You may as well go ahead and keep the wage scale. While you're at it preserve capitalist property and let people work for a boss. Hell, why even have a revolution? But seriously, hierarchy cannot be completely abolished within society but we can control our man made institutions. I will never support a hierarchical system of governance.

Marx's materialist critique of history shows us whoever controls the surplus goods [in any way] will control society [in any way they can]. We should never put a minority in control of production/distribution of our surplus goods. Never never never. No no and no. It puts those people in a position of authority. If human psychology was different- if people didn't have a tendency to follow those in a hierarchical position then I'd be all for it but our human history shows us otherwise.

The Russian communist system failed because the Bolsheviks were in power. Because an elite minority had control of the government. Marxists should learn from the past....we need no managers, no owners and no bosses. No representatives who "know better" than the people. Fuck that. No. And before you go and say these authority figures would be held accountable and a repeat of the atmosphere the Bolsheviks created couldn't happen take the time to actually read Philip Zimbardo's material and read about the Milgram Experiment. I do understand your vision and it does sound good on paper, yes, but we have learned much about human psychology and I'm trying to show you that power corrupts- not just the people in power but it also effects the judgment of the people under them.

[OldMoney]

The technoids have some good progressive ideas in thier platform. its apparent that this imperialist waste of natural resources has to stop. We need to produce more green energy, and products and stop building crap that falls apart. But these ideas arent inherient only to technocracy, communism achived through socialist reform will be very effiecient, and strive to new levels constantly. I dont disagree completley with them, but theres something scary built into the system, where it appears that they would be just more efficient, crueler exploiters of the proliterait than the capitolists.

Hierarchys do corupt. Based on what we know about human tendancies to exploit possitions of power in order to keep said power, can we really be naive enough to belive that this system will not be exploited. It also seems where even though you need to be voted in for a higher caste from bellow and above, by others who have done the job, doesnt mean that it still wont become a popularity contest. Where people wont be elected in based on qualifications, rather by popularity. Is the jury still out for me, if you cant beat em join em? I sure hope we can beat em.

[Technocrat]

No. All you're talking about is perpetuating hierarchy. You don't have to hide it behind all manner of wiggly semantics. And if you want to bring up psychology please take the time to actually understand my reasons for bringing up both the Stanford Prison Study and the Milgram experiment before you brush it off. I understand your position quite clearly. You want to perpetuate a hierarchical system because the smarter people know better. No no and no. The so called smarter people will work side by side with everyone else. In a different capacity obviously but to give them hierarchical position goes against everything the revolution stands for. You may as well go ahead and keep the wage scale. While you're at it preserve capitalist property and let people work for a boss. Hell, why even have a revolution? But seriously, hierarchy cannot be completely abolished within society but we can control our man made institutions. I will never support a hierarchical system of governance.

I agree, the so called smarter people will work side by side with everyone else, in a different capacity. That is precisely what I've been saying all along, and you are merely putting words in my mouth to have something to argue against, apparently.


Marx's materialist critique of history shows us whoever controls the surplus goods [in any way] will control society [in any way they can]. We should never put a minority in control of production/distribution of our surplus goods. Never never never. No no and no. It puts those people in a position of authority. If human psychology was different- if people didn't have a tendency to follow those in a hierarchical position then I'd be all for it but our human history shows us otherwise.You are still thinking about things in terms of capitalism. There would be no separate, distinct group which controlled production apart from the producers themselves.

As I've said - people wouldn't have AUTHORITY. Those in higher positions would have increased RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY.


The Russian communist system failed because the Bolsheviks were in power. Because an elite minority had control of the government. Marxists should learn from the past....we need no managers, no owners and no bosses.In the system I've described, no minority would have power - no special interest group could ever gain power. The structure of the system itself prevents special interests from gaining power. The structure of the system ensures that the common interest is served, always. If you have questions about why this is so, ask away.


No representatives who "know better" than the people. Fuck that. No. And before you go and say these authority figures would be held accountable and a repeat of the atmosphere the Bolsheviks created couldn't happen take the time to actually read Philip Zimbardo's material and read about the Milgram Experiment. I do understand your vision and it does sound good on paper, yes, but we have learned much about human psychology and I'm trying to show you that power corrupts- not just the people in power but it also effects the judgment of the people under them.I have read the experiment (many years ago actually). It shows how if you give people the appearance of authority and divide them into groups, one with authority and the other without, that those without will tend to go along with those with authority. As I've tried explaining to you, no one has authority in a Technocracy, just varying levels of responsibility and accountability, depending on the skills that they've acquired. It is completely un-authoritarian in nature. If you are describing hierarchy as a system of authority, then it is also completely un-hierarchical as well. It all depends on the definitions you are using, which I think is the real source of our disagreement. That is, I think our disagreement is insubstantial and has to do with differing vocabularies. I hope you'll have an open mind and ask the questions you need to ask to further your understanding. I think you'll find Technocracy quite agreeable.

[Technocrat]

The technoids have some good progressive ideas in thier platform. its apparent that this imperialist waste of natural resources has to stop. We need to produce more green energy, and products and stop building crap that falls apart. But these ideas arent inherient only to technocracy, communism achived through socialist reform will be very effiecient, and strive to new levels constantly. I dont disagree completley with them, but theres something scary built into the system, where it appears that they would be just more efficient, crueler exploiters of the proliterait than the capitolists.

I really don't know where these ideas come from... is it the prefix "techno" that gets people so freaked out? If so, please drop the sci-fi fantasies and realize that the word was invented in the 1930s and translates literally to "rule by skill" NOT "rule by the skilled" as some here have suggested.


Hierarchys do corupt. Based on what we know about human tendancies to exploit possitions of power in order to keep said power, can we really be naive enough to belive that this system will not be exploited.A hierarchy can corrupt when the higher-ups get more privileges than everyone else, which isn't the case in a Technocracy.


It also seems where even though you need to be voted in for a higher caste from bellow and above, by others who have done the job, doesnt mean that it still wont become a popularity contest. Where people wont be elected in based on qualifications, rather by popularity. Is the jury still out for me, if you cant beat em join em? I sure hope we can beat em.First of all your use of the word caste is incorrect. I suggest you look up the definition.

The reason the vote is 2/3rds is to avoid popularity contests. If a popular but incompetent individual were elected to a position, the system would immediately stop working which would negatively effect everyone. Read my first post again.

This stuff is really simple, folks.

The reason people are having a hard time understanding this is because their prejudices are leading them into knee-jerk reactions. A mind must be open in order for it to receive new information.

Hierarchy itself is not bad if it is based upon increased responsibility and accountability contingent upon acquired skills and knowledge. Hierarchy IS bad if it is authoritarian.

Let's say you me and Bob are riding in the car and it breaks down. Bob is the only one with knowledge of car engines since he used to work in a shop. We all decide we need to repair the car. The hood is popped so the engine can be examined. Who decides what we do now?

[RED DAVE]

In other words, if the guys above you don't like you, tough shit.
If the people above you determine that you don't have the skills needed for the job, then tough shit. That's life.That's elitism. In other words, it's the ones who are "above" who get to choose who are their colleagues. A vote from "below" is not sufficient. This, of course, is a violation of a basic principle of Marxism: that the workers have to democratic right to make the decisions with regard to their own work. This includes selecting and replacing their managers.


Maybe you are bitter because you haven't gotten some job that you weren't qualified for and decided to blame "the man" rather than your lack of qualifications.Maybe I'm disgusted by exploitation of those of us "below" by those "above," and I believe that radical working class democracy is the solution, not technocratic elitism.

And maybe you ought to mind your own business about my personal life, about which you know nothing.


Here's a question: if people are not appointed/demoted on the basis of skill, what do you suggest? A popularity contest?How about an election? How about the workers voting for those who make so-called technical decisions or making them themselves?


That way if you can get the people above you to like you, you can get the job whether or not you are qualified for it. Maybe that would suit you better.I suggest instead, according to the principles of Marxist socialism, workers democracy. Democracy doesn't seem to have much of a role in your system.


So the presidents are not popularly elected
No. Neither does the president get to appoint his friends to functionally vital positions that they may not be qualified for, as is their privilege in most systems currently called "democratic".Do you really expect working people to submit to this kind of elitist shit? You are very naive about power: from "above" and "below."


Also fuck majority rule.Yes. Fuck oppression of minority groups.[/QUOTE]You haven't answered my point, of course: that you have thrown majority, democratic rule out the window. Considering that you are constructing a system of which class oppression is at the heart, I think you know little or nothing about "oppression of minority groups."

Technocracy, as a political movement, has never been concerned with racism, political oppression, etc. Technocracy existed during the 1930s. Did it play a role in the rise of the CIO? Did it help fight McCarthyism in the 1950s? Was it involved with civil rights in the 1960s?


That's called the draft, and we got rid of it in the USA 40 years ago.
Wow, it's like you posted before even finishing the rest of the sentence! You are the very definition of a reactionary. Total Conscription has nothing to do with the draft, which is to say, it has nothing to do with forcing people to serve in the army.The burden of proof is on you. Technocracy has had a definite affinity for uniformity and miliarization. Did Technocracy as a political movement oppose the draft during the 1960s?


In other words, if the big shots say you go, you go.
No, it's another way of saying that the resources and infrastructure currently owned by corporations would be requisitioned by the government - the EXACT same thing which would happen under communism!Which shows that you know even less about communism than you know about democracy. Communism is not the militarization of labor by the government. That's fascism.


By the way, T, how about unions? Do we get to organize unions to protect our interests? And do we have the right to strike? And who determines things like length of the working day?
Each Industry would in effect BE A UNION. The controlling class and the producing class would be one and the same.You haven't answered my question, except to put forward a formulation that seems suspiciously like a fascist corporation, where labor and management are united under an undemocratic government.

Again, does the working class, under your system, have the right to form independent unions? Is there the right to strike? Who determines the length of the working day?


Drop the bullshitLook who's talking!


and adopt an open mind, already.You have no concept of what an open mind is. You adhere to a closed, undemocratic system left over from the 1920s and 1930s, with fascist overtones. Your movement displays no interest in struggling against the wrongs of capitalism. All you have is an ultimatistic system that somehow, some way, some where will be established to promulgate the rule of a technocratic elite.


You keep going on and on, but we aren't the enemy, seriously.That remains to be seen, seriously. Your history as a movement is ambiguous at best.


You want someone to fight so bad that it doesn't really matter what I say - you are going to interpret my words however you want to mean whatever you want, so that you can continue with your bullshit argument.Since you are concerned about ad hominum arguments, you could teach lessons on how to make them.


Technocracy isn't the enemy - the enemy is the Price System/Capitalism.Is that the worst thing you can say about capitalism: it's price system? What about the exploitation of labor? I suspect that you have little idea of what capitalism is, let alone how to fight it or replace it.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

That's elitism. In other words, it's the ones who are "above" who get to choose who are their colleagues. A vote from "below" is not sufficient. This, of course, is a violation of a basic principle of Marxism: that the workers have to democratic right to make the decisions with regard to their own work. This includes selecting and replacing their managers.

A vote from below is not sufficient for the following reason:

Let's say you have three levels based on experience. Level one is the lowest level. A position becomes available in level two. Those in level one haven't yet been through level two, while those in level three have. This means that they are familiar with the requirements for the job. This means that only they are capable of determining which of the available candidates from level one will be the most qualified for the job. That's how it works. If one of the higher ups makes a decision that is disliked by everyone, then the workers have the right to replace their managers. They also select their managers, in case you haven't figured that out. It's not like the managers just automatically start out in their position. They have to earn it by demonstrating to their fellow workers that they have the skills and knowledge required for promotion. They are promoted by their peers, and demoted if they act against the desires of their peers. Now explain to me again how this conflicts with communism.


Maybe I'm disgusted by exploitation of those of us "below" by those "above," and I believe that radical working class democracy is the solution, not technocratic elitism. I think you are just being reactionary. What you are reacting against are words - "below", "above", etc. You need to stop thinking about things as if this were still capitalism we are talking about. The old system of exploitation wouldn't be in place anymore - those making decisions regarding production would be the producers themselves, just as it is in communism. That said, there is still the need for a hierarchy for decision making - there is nothing inherent in hierarchy that is anti-socialist or anti-communist or anti-democratic.


And maybe you ought to mind your own business about my personal life, about which you know nothing.Maybe you ought to drop the attitude and quit trolling?


How about an election? How about the workers voting for those who make so-called technical decisions or making them themselves? Can you explain how that differs from a popularity contest?


I suggest instead, according to the principles of Marxist socialism, workers democracy. Democracy doesn't seem to have much of a role in your system.Sure it does - workers vote to promote each other and they vote to demote each other. This system is actually more democratic than the one we have now. In case you didn't know, "democracy" is a catchphrase used by military dictators around the world to promote their regimes. The United States calls itself democratic, but I don't think I have to tell you that it is one of the most corrupt nations on earth. It's really not that complicated, but it's difficult to make a person understand something when they've invested so much of themselves into NOT understanding it, as you've done.


Do you really expect working people to submit to this kind of elitist shit? You are very naive about power: from "above" and "below."Dave, you didn't understand the point of the quote to which you are responding.


You haven't answered my point, of course: that you have thrown majority, democratic rule out the window. Considering that you are constructing a system of which class oppression is at the heart, I think you know little or nothing about "oppression of minority groups." Democracy is and never has been about majority rule - go study history and a little political science. You're just plain wrong on this one. You are also using ad hominem attacks here, which seems to be a favorite tactic of yours.


Technocracy, as a political movement, has never been concerned with racism, political oppression, etc. Technocracy existed during the 1930s. Did it play a role in the rise of the CIO? Did it help fight McCarthyism in the 1950s? Was it involved with civil rights in the 1960s?Of course Technocracy has been concerned with all these things and has written many articles on a diverse array of subjects - just check out the Trend Events newsletter archives.


The burden of proof is on you. Technocracy has had a definite affinity for uniformity and miliarization. Did Technocracy as a political movement oppose the draft during the 1960s?Yes, they did.


Which shows that you know even less about communism than you know about democracy. Communism is not the militarization of labor by the government. That's fascism. Dave, stop putting words in my mouth. This is an intentional mischaracterization. I never said labor would be militarized.


You haven't answered my question, except to put forward a formulation that seems suspiciously like a fascist corporation, where labor and management are united under an undemocratic government. Again, does the working class, under your system, have the right to form independent unions? Is there the right to strike? Who determines the length of the working day?[/quote]

Well Dave, would there be much of a point for unions if every Industry was in effect a union? Would there be a point for banks if money wasn't used? That's why I say you are still thinking about things in terms of capitalism. Unions are needed so long as capitalism exists. In a truly communist (or technocratic) society, unions would not exist! This is because in order for unions to exist, corporations have to exist. If corporations no longer exist, then unions no longer exist. Now, please respond to this - do you understand this point or not? Striking would not be necessary. Why do people strike? They strike when those in power exploit them. This isn't possible in the system I've described to you, because the exploiters just get voted out immediately! You are still thinking about things in terms of capitalism.


You have no concept of what an open mind is. You adhere to a closed, undemocratic system left over from the 1920s and 1930s, with fascist overtones. Your movement displays no interest in struggling against the wrongs of capitalism. All you have is an ultimatistic system that somehow, some way, some where will be established to promulgate the rule of a technocratic elite.Technocracy's main goal since the beginning has been the overthrow of the price system aka capitalism. What you are saying now is factually incorrect and slanderous.


That remains to be seen, seriously. Your history as a movement is ambiguous at best. Couldn't the same be said for socialism?


Since you are concerned about ad hominum arguments, you could teach lessons on how to make them. Dave, what you just said right there is an ad hominem attack.


Is that the worst thing you can say about capitalism: it's price system? What about the exploitation of labor? I suspect that you have little idea of what capitalism is, let alone how to fight it or replace it.

RED DAVEDave, this comment by yourself reveals a lot about you and your intentions. I was not saying anything about capitalism in my closing sentence. I was saying that capitalism/the price system is the enemy so we shouldn't be arguing against each other. You reacted by assuming that I was trying to make some kind of statement on the nature of capitalism and that my apparent brevity was due to a lack of knowledge. Since I was not seeking to make a statement on the nature of capitalism itself in my closing remark to you, you have little ground on which to claim that I lack knowledge regarding the subject of capitalism. Again, you just want to argue.

I really have no idea why you have chosen to pick a fight with me or with technocracy.

Dave, I really don't want to fight you. I hope we can reach an understanding, but it's hopeless so long as you continue acting belligerent as you have been. I am sincerely reaching out and asking for a little open-mindedness. Otherwise a productive discussion is impossible. Can we just try to understand each other? Here's how we do it: rather than assuming that we are coming from different sides, let's assume that we are on the same side, and that we're just using different vocabularies because of our differing educations. Let's assume that we both want a world where everyone has a good life and no one is exploited. Can we start there?

A chinese saying goes: A short argument is evidence that two people disagree with each other. A long argument is evidence that two people agree with each other. Think about it.

[RED DAVE]

Just a quicky.


Again, does the working class, under your system, have the right to form independent unions? Is there the right to strike? Who determines the length of the working day?
Well Dave, would there be much of a point for unions if every Industry was in effect a union?You have not demonstrated that this would be so. A union, hopefully, is a democratically elected body, where members choose their leaders according to their choice. Your system is not such: leadership is basically self-selecting. This is the antithesis of a decent union.


Would there be a point for banks if money wasn't used? That's why I say you are still thinking about things in terms of capitalism. Unions are needed so long as capitalism exists. In a truly communist (or technocratic) society, unions would not exist! This is because in order for unions to exist, corporations have to exist. If corporations no longer exist, then unions no longer exist.You have not demonstrated the difference between a technate and a corporation in terms of democratic structure. So long as the management is not directly chosen by the workers, you have the necessity for a union.


Now, please respond to this - do you understand this point or not?I understand it better than you do. One more time: your system erects a hierarchy over the workers. Therefore a union would be necessary to protect the workers from the depredations of management. The fact that you deny that these depredations are possible demonstrates the necessity for unions.


Striking would not be necessary. Why do people strike? They strike when those in power exploit them. This isn't possible in the system I've described to you, because the exploiters just get voted out immediately! You are still thinking about things in terms of capitalism.(1) You yourself have said, over and over again, that management in your system is partially self-selected. And you have proposed a 2/3 rule for replacing managers. This rule alone would require the right to strike. (2) The right to strike must be present in any system, even one where workers have direct control, unlike in your technocratic elitist system. Strikes are necessary, if for no other reason, than to call attention to an abuse. The fact that you forbid strikes is reason enough to make them a necessity.

If your system is so just an democratic, why do you oppose unions? Under socialism, which is far more democratic than anything you can conceive of, unions will be necessary. Why not under your system?

RED DAVE

[PHUNX]

why is there not a revleft technocracy group?

[punisa]

By planning the economy in the above way, everyone can live like the rich do now while at the same time reducing the amount of work that is required from everyone and the amount of resources which are consumed.

Meh, I don't think many socialists will shoot towards living as "rich do now", but I do get what you meant.
As for work hours - are work hours really a problem?
I have no problem with working 8 hours per day, I believe many workers don't see the "work hours" as the oppressive element, but everything else is.
I'd like to live in a society where I can devote myself to my work without worrying everyday about problems such as: what if I get fired? What if I can't pay my apartment rent?

Once these uncertainties are gone and we have "to everyone according to their needs", work will be a completely different thing.
people will go to work to be with other people, to feel the joy and take pride in collectively producing something meaningful.

This is our step one, all technical innovations will happen almost naturally from there on.

[punisa]

BTW, if this debate needs a judge, I'd say:
RED DAVE / Technocrat 2:1

Why? Let's see... reading the entire thread gave me these conclusion.
Technocrat did a good job in explaining technocracy in details.
No doubt, the idea sounds rather "fancy" and somewhat futuristic, but its burdened with a heavy dosage of utopianism.

Clearly, workers will not achieve a complete equality by turning from capitalism to technocracy, although money will be history.
Interesting eh? Seems that abolishing money is not a foolproof way of achieving equality among people.
Technocracy has a tendency in creating a new ruling elite, it would differ from capitalist elite in a way that the "powerful" ones would not dominate by use of their money, but by the use of their skill and knowledge - but they would still dominate.

RED DAVE on the other hand reminded us once more that there is no tangible alternative to socialism. Socialism is the only road that has potential to lead us towards a communist society, a society ruled by equality and the working people.

All deviations lead (and will eventually lead) to another disaster.
Marxism has been deviated by all too many, making a rather colorful 20th century, but ultimately a failure.
Roots are probably where our best options are - I believe classic Marxism still holds all the answers we need.
Revolution must be led by the workers and they must take their future into their own hands, everything else is elitism, false vanguardism and utter corruption of the socialist force.

Let's not forget that socialism, at least modern history socialism, is a direct product that came to be as a counterforce to capitalism.
Not to sound as an utopian myself, but its eventual triumph is inevitable - socialism is the logical "hard-coded" system that will replace capitalism.
The only difference that we have today comparing to let's say 1917. is the potential outcome in which capitalism might commit one giant suicide and fall apart on its own.
But hey, all the better :lol:

[Dimentio]

why is there not a revleft technocracy group?

Its the Human Progress Group.

[Dimentio]

No. All you're talking about is perpetuating hierarchy. You don't have to hide it behind all manner of wiggly semantics. And if you want to bring up psychology please take the time to actually understand my reasons for bringing up both the Stanford Prison Study and the Milgram experiment before you brush it off. I understand your position quite clearly. You want to perpetuate a hierarchical system because the smarter people know better. No no and no. The so called smarter people will work side by side with everyone else. In a different capacity obviously but to give them hierarchical position goes against everything the revolution stands for. You may as well go ahead and keep the wage scale. While you're at it preserve capitalist property and let people work for a boss. Hell, why even have a revolution? But seriously, hierarchy cannot be completely abolished within society but we can control our man made institutions. I will never support a hierarchical system of governance.

Marx's materialist critique of history shows us whoever controls the surplus goods [in any way] will control society [in any way they can]. We should never put a minority in control of production/distribution of our surplus goods. Never never never. No no and no. It puts those people in a position of authority. If human psychology was different- if people didn't have a tendency to follow those in a hierarchical position then I'd be all for it but our human history shows us otherwise.

The Russian communist system failed because the Bolsheviks were in power. Because an elite minority had control of the government. Marxists should learn from the past....we need no managers, no owners and no bosses. No representatives who "know better" than the people. Fuck that. No. And before you go and say these authority figures would be held accountable and a repeat of the atmosphere the Bolsheviks created couldn't happen take the time to actually read Philip Zimbardo's material and read about the Milgram Experiment. I do understand your vision and it does sound good on paper, yes, but we have learned much about human psychology and I'm trying to show you that power corrupts- not just the people in power but it also effects the judgment of the people under them.

There won't be a minority in control of the means of production in a technate, as I earlier have explained. There is no bureaucracy, like in the old USSR, which is deciding what sectors should receive what benefits. Those who decide what is going to be produced is the people, through their energy certifikates. The same people would largely operate the technate as everyone would receive employment within that structure.

[Technocrat]

Just a quicky.

You have not demonstrated that this would be so. A union, hopefully, is a democratically elected body, where members choose their leaders according to their choice. Your system is not such: leadership is basically self-selecting. This is the antithesis of a decent union.

The leadership is not self-selecting. You seem to be assuming that the leadership would just magically be in place, that those people would automatically start out in their position, when I've tried explaining that this isn't the case. Let's take a situation where everyone is just starting out, so they are all at the same level. They know that they need to elect a coordinator so that they can be more efficient. Now, how do they decide who is going to lead? After some time has passed, it will become apparent that some individuals put forth extra effort and display exceptional ability. When it came time to determine who should lead, the workers would recognize those individuals who put forth extra effort by promoting them to a higher position where there skills could be put to use. The leaders themselves come from the same people as everyone else - the workers. So you see, there aren't two distinct classes here - everyone would be part of the same class. The leaders start out where everyone else starts out and have to earn their position by demonstrating to everyone else that they have what it takes for promotion.


You have not demonstrated the difference between a technate and a corporation in terms of democratic structure. So long as the management is not directly chosen by the workers, you have the necessity for a union. As I point out above, the management IS directly chosen by the workers. Unions are a necessity so long as you have corporations. Unions exist to protect worker's rights from exploitation by corporations. Corporate exploitation is impossible in the system I've described by its very design.


I understand it better than you do. One more time: your system erects a hierarchy over the workers. Therefore a union would be necessary to protect the workers from the depredations of management. The fact that you deny that these depredations are possible demonstrates the necessity for unions.No, there is no hierarchy OVER the workers - the workers would be PART of a hierarchy, based on actual merit. The managers are just workers who have been elected by their peers to be managers. Nothing they do is secret. If they began exploiting the workers, the workers have the right to vote them out and replace them, as I have already said multiple times.


(1) You yourself have said, over and over again, that management in your system is partially self-selected. And you have proposed a 2/3 rule for replacing managers. This rule alone would require the right to strike. (2) The right to strike must be present in any system, even one where workers have direct control, unlike in your technocratic elitist system. Strikes are necessary, if for no other reason, than to call attention to an abuse. The fact that you forbid strikes is reason enough to make them a necessity.Actually, I NEVER said that the management was self-selected: YOU did. I never said that strikes would be explicitly forbidden, I said that they would no longer be necessary after the TRUE realization of what Marx talks about: the end of exploitation based on classes.

You see, so long as we have exploitation then we need Unions - I agree to that. What I'm working on is a system that would actually accomplish the goals of Marxism, so that things like unions and strikes would no longer be necessary.

It's sort of like: why do we need guns if there is no more war?


If your system is so just an democratic, why do you oppose unions? Under socialism, which is far more democratic than anything you can conceive of, unions will be necessary. Why not under your system?

RED DAVEI don't oppose unions, like I explain above. I was merely pointing out how they would no longer be necessary in a post-capitalist world.

Socialism, being an intermediary stage to communism, might require unions. Communism doesn't, because class based exploitation would no longer exist. The workers run everything and if someone acts in a corrupt way they are removed by their fellow workers (ie their peers).

[Technocrat]

BTW, if this debate needs a judge, I'd say:
RED DAVE / Technocrat 2:1

Why? Let's see... reading the entire thread gave me these conclusion.
Technocrat did a good job in explaining technocracy in details.
No doubt, the idea sounds rather "fancy" and somewhat futuristic, but its burdened with a heavy dosage of utopianism.

Clearly, workers will not achieve a complete equality by turning from capitalism to technocracy, although money will be history.
Interesting eh? Seems that abolishing money is not a foolproof way of achieving equality among people.
Technocracy has a tendency in creating a new ruling elite, it would differ from capitalist elite in a way that the "powerful" ones would not dominate by use of their money, but by the use of their skill and knowledge - but they would still dominate.

No. All workers would have true equality of opportunity.

The flaw in many socialist's thinking is to assume that, with everyone given the same access to education and training, that everyone would magically have the same level of skill and knowledge, and that we would then all ride our unicorns off into the rainbow.

Evolutionary Psychology tells us a different story. Even if given the same training and education, you will NEVER see a group of workers display the same skill and knowledge, regardless of the task at hand. It's a statistical impossibility. Why is this? This is because people are different from each other - big shock there. Even if raised in identical environments with identical educations, two different individuals are going to display different levels of ability and knowledge when given different tasks! This is a fact, plain and simple. Do you understand this point? The socialist conception of equality where everyone possesses the same skills and knowledge might work if all we were doing was plowing fields. An industrialized society REQUIRES specialization AND hierarchy (ideally, a meritocracy).

No one "dominates" anything in a Technate. In an industrialized society, someone needs to plan and someone needs to make decisions. The ones making the decisions are elected by their peers on the basis of their ability. Anyone can apply for any position, but if you aren't qualified for it, then you don't get it. This is fair - or do you suggest that the only fair way to do things is to give everyone whatever job they want regardless of their qualifications? That way we could have plumbers as brain surgeons, and brain surgeons as airplane pilots. That would work real well.


RED DAVE
on the other hand
reminded us once more that there is no tangible alternative to socialism. Socialism is the only road that has potential to lead us towards a communist society, a society ruled by equality and the working people.This is ideology.


All deviations lead (and will eventually lead) to another disaster.
Marxism has been deviated by all too many, making a rather colorful 20th century, but ultimately a failure.
Roots are probably where our best options are - I believe classic Marxism still holds all the answers we need.
Revolution must be led by the workers and they must take their future into their own hands, everything else is elitism, false vanguardism and utter corruption of the socialist force.Marx never articulated much on how the final stage of communism would work. I've spent hundreds of hours of my own free time studying this problem. The system of direct distribution and the administrative system that I've proposed are all supported by what we know of human behavior and evolutionary psychology. That's why what I'm talking about here is complimentary to socialism - it's an articulation of one possible set up for a post-scarcity, post-revolution, post-capitalist society.


Let's not forget that socialism, at least modern history socialism, is a direct product that came to be as a counterforce to capitalism.
Not to sound as an utopian myself, but its eventual triumph is inevitable - socialism is the logical "hard-coded" system that will replace capitalism.
The only difference that we have today comparing to let's say 1917. is the potential outcome in which capitalism might commit one giant suicide and fall apart on its own.
But hey, all the better :lol:Marx also didn't foresee several events: like the compromises that capitalists were willing to make in order to keep the system going. Now it looks like the revolution isn't going to happen the way Marx foresaw it - the capitalists have mastered compromise and propaganda. Marx thought that conditions would continue to deteriorate for the worker and they would eventually rise up. In reality, the capitalists realized it was in their best interest to provide the peasants with cheap food and entertainment (bread and circuses) to keep them from revolting. The only way they can do this, though, is by consuming more and more resources until they all run out. At this stage in the game it looks like we will just have to wait for the system to collapse - only then will people begin to wake up.

[Technocrat]

Meh, I don't think many socialists will shoot towards living as "rich do now", but I do get what you meant.
As for work hours - are work hours really a problem?
I have no problem with working 8 hours per day, I believe many workers don't see the "work hours" as the oppressive element, but everything else is.
I'd like to live in a society where I can devote myself to my work without worrying everyday about problems such as: what if I get fired? What if I can't pay my apartment rent?

If you look at the goods and services being consumed by the population, a certain number of man hours is required for their production. These hours would be divided evenly among the population. You can still work on other projects in your free time if you want to. A Technate would have full employment and rents would not exist, housing would be free.


Once these uncertainties are gone and we have "to everyone according to their needs", work will be a completely different thing.
people will go to work to be with other people, to feel the joy and take pride in collectively producing something meaningful.This is a fantasy. Work must be made mandatory. If someone refuses to work then their distribution card must be deactivated. There is no motivation to work when everyone can get whatever they need without working for it. This is based on science: Evolutionary Psychology.

Work will be done because one's distribution card would be contingent upon work done. People will be motivated to greatness by the following: a love for humanity, a love for the work being done, genuine curiosity about the universe, desire to distinguish oneself from the crowd, etc.

Everyone would contribute their per capita share of man hours in manning the operations of society. Everyone would receive the maximum per capita share of resources, based on the availability of resources (in other words, everyone would have the maximum standard of living possible with the available resources).

Bear in mind that work is only mandatory for those who have a distribution card. Those who want to live in the woods and grow their own food are welcome to do so.

I'd also like to point out that not only am I a third year Sociology student, but that I've spent countless hours of free time studying these problems - literally hundreds of hours of my own time. So the accusations from Red Dave that I don't know what I'm talking about are rather annoying. I politely request that we keep the discussion civil. Keep it about the ideas, not the people who have them! Red Dave, your last post was good (an improvement anyway). Questions are good. Thank you for keeping it civil.

[RED DAVE]

Work must be made mandatory. If someone refuses to work then their distribution card must be deactivated. There is no motivation to work when everyone can get whatever they need without working for it. This is based on science: Evolutionary Psychology.This is based on conservative, capitalist psychology, which constructs work as alienated and then institutes repression to force people to work. As I said, Technocracy is dictatorship over the working class.

...


I'd also like to point out that not only am I a third year Sociology student, but that I've spent countless hours of free time studying these problems - literally hundreds of hours of my own time.Whoopie do. Bourgeois sociology. I suggest that you study the history of your field before you boast about it. How much C. Wright Mills have your read?


So the accusations from Red Dave that I don't know what I'm talking about are rather annoying. I politely request that we keep the discussion civil. Keep it about the ideas, not the people who have them! Red Dave, your last post was good (an improvement anyway). Questions are good. Thank you for keeping it civil.Sorry to disappoint you right about now, but you are demonstrating, by touting your "credentials," how little you know about the Marxist theory of work. I also wonder how much work experience you have.

For openers, Marxists make a distinction between alienated work (capitalism) and nonalienated work (socialism). One of the crucial differences is workers control of industry, which is not the case under Techfnocracy.

Any system of work organization that is not based on workers control of industry, from the bottom up, is incompatible with socialism. It is obvious from the first paragraph I quoted that this is not the case with Technocracy.

RED AVE

[Dr Mindbender]

While I agree with this in principal, the reality is that even if you give everyone access to the same education and training, not everyone is going to have the same level of skill regardless of what job you are talking about. It's statistically impossible.
With the exception of the both mentally and physically infirm, i think its unfair to guage peoples social potential or 'worth' with such bourgeoisie values and arbitrary social scoring. Its generally fair to say that those that are poor at academia will probably excel at other disciplines, be it athletics or the aesthetic arts. Most people have a compensatory talent. Which comes back to my point about the 'idealism of childhood' and no such discipline being worth 'less' than those of the educated sector. Technocrats and communists must dispense with the idea that people must be rewarded or punished for their ability or inability to do certain elitist things.

Before the techno sceptics chibe in, menial toll and its co-ercive implementation is punishment.

[Demogorgon]

Demo, you are referring to opportunity costs which I have repeatedly pointed out DO NOT EXIST in a post-scarcity environment, BY DEFINITION!

I've also repeatedly pointed out that ALL resources would be accounted for in a Technate! Energy Accounting is just one part of it!

I have been repeating the same thing FOR MONTHS now and some people STILL don't get it!As I pointed out to you several times, you are playing at fantasy economics. I can only talk about the real world here and it is necessary to point out that in the real world energy use in no way reflects any relevant economic measurement.

[Demogorgon]

Given Technocrat seems to think that the current system of management being hierarchical and largely self selecting is superior to the Marxian goal of it being democratic and open, how he accounts for the sheer amount of incompetence we often see in management today and the extraordinary degree of "jobs for the boys"?

[Dimentio]

Given Technocrat seems to think that the current system of management being hierarchical and largely self selecting is superior to the Marxian goal of it being democratic and open, how he accounts for the sheer amount of incompetence we often see in management today and the extraordinary degree of "jobs for the boys"?

Relax, the guy is using a different terminology.

Besides, the idea that because resources are scarce (mostly because of human want) and that that fact would motivate why we need private property where half the world's resources are monopolised in the hands of one percent of its population is a sheer perversion.

If everything was scarce, the only humane thing would be rationing.

[Technocrat]

This is based on conservative, capitalist psychology, which constructs work as alienated and then institutes repression to force people to work. As I said, Technocracy is dictatorship over the working class.

No, it's based on real psychology, which you are apparently completely ignorant of. If you just give people whatever they want and make work optional, people would not work except on things they wanted to work on. This is a fact.

Evolutionary Psychology tells us why people will not work if you just give them things: People are animals. Like all animals, they require energy. Energy comes from food, which is scarce (in the wild). This means that all animals are designed to conserve energy by only working when they have to! We are biologically programmed to work the bare minimum that is necessary to obtain what we need. Everything else we do is play. Some forms of play are constructive and can lead to major breakthroughs, but a society can not run on play alone!


Whoopie do. Bourgeois sociology. I suggest that you study the history of your field before you boast about it. How much C. Wright Mills have your read?C. Wright Mills is discussed in most Intro to Sociology classes on up and I've read quite a lot, actually - he is one of my favorites. I've referenced the power elite theory in some of my writings on Technocracy.

Do you know who Thorstein Veblen is?


Sorry to disappoint you right about now, but you are demonstrating, by touting your "credentials," how little you know about the Marxist theory of work. I also wonder how much work experience you have.So it's okay for you to make attacks directed toward me based on my supposed lack of credentials, but me stating my credentials is evidence of my lack of knowledge of marxist theory?


For openers, Marxists make a distinction between alienated work (capitalism) and nonalienated work (socialism). One of the crucial differences is workers control of industry, which is not the case under Techfnocracy.Workers would control industry. Who else do you think controls industry in a Technocracy? I've told you several times now that there are no classes in Technocracy. You've invented this fiction to support your argument. WHY you want to argue is something that continues to escape me.


Any system of work organization that is not based on workers control of industry, from the bottom up, is incompatible with socialism. It is obvious from the first paragraph I quoted that this is not the case with Technocracy.

RED AVENo, it isn't obvious, and you stating that it is so doesn't make it obvious, either.

Workers do have control of industry in a Technocracy. Who else do you think it is?

Technocracy is completely compatible and complimentary to communist theory. Your hostility is completely unfounded, and frankly, a little weird.

[Technocrat]

As I pointed out to you several times, you are playing at fantasy economics. I can only talk about the real world here and it is necessary to point out that in the real world energy use in no way reflects any relevant economic measurement.

No, it's called planned economics.

I've explained it many times already:

Energy is but one resource which would have to be accounted for in a resource-based economy. Energy Accounting is more like a planning detail. You would also have to account for every other resource that is used.

In a steady state economy (look this up if you don't know what it is), it is possible for there to be what is called in Marxist terms a state of simple reproduction (look this up if you don't know what it is). A Technocracy is a type of steady-state economy. A steady-state economy is the only sustainable situation, because nothing can grow forever. Market economists like to think that the market will reach equilibrium (steady-state), because people will make wise choices in their consumption, but history and psychology have shown this to be false.

Because there is a state of simple reproduction in a Technocracy, we can use current demand (in a Technocracy) to know exactly how much we need to produce in the future.

You are talking about market-based economics. I'm talking about planned economics - the type that is used in both communism and technocracy. Socialism may use either market or planned economics. The definitions get tricky here! Some economists use "planned economics" to also mean a market based system with government regulation. That's NOT how I'm using the term. I'm using the term to mean a moneyless, planned system of what Marx called direct distribution (look this up if you need to).

[Technocrat]

Given Technocrat seems to think that the current system of management being hierarchical and largely self selecting is superior to the Marxian goal of it being democratic and open, how he accounts for the sheer amount of incompetence we often see in management today and the extraordinary degree of "jobs for the boys"?

I never said that the CURRENT system of management was desirable. In most cases, workers DO NOT have the ability to vote out their superiors and their superiors plan things secretly to benefit themselves! That is COMPLETELY different from what I've described to you.

[Dimentio]

If it is proven that people do react to free and equal income by being so sloppy that they wreck the foundations for the system which is providing for them, then it would probably be necessary to diversify an income ladder - but it is important to always give people a minimum income so they could survive and don't have to live in squalor.

I think Technocrat should read through the material of Technocracy Incorporated again or talk with Kolzene. The part where technocrats usually have most problems in talking with non-technocrats is about the issue of motivation.

[Technocrat]

If it is proven that people do react to free and equal income by being so sloppy that they wreck the foundations for the system which is providing for them, then it would probably be necessary to diversify an income ladder - but it is important to always give people a minimum income so they could survive and don't have to live in squalor.

I think Technocrat should read through the material of Technocracy Incorporated again or talk with Kolzene. The part where technocrats usually have most problems in talking with non-technocrats is about the issue of motivation.

This is one area where Kolzene and I differ.

The material actually supports my position:

Take this quote from Wilton Ivie, from the essay "Who Is A Technocrat?":
"Technocracy is strictly a specific form of social control (or government) which is designed to utilize the knowledge of science and the methods of technology to produce and distribute and abundance of goods and services to all citizens in its domain. It is a form of social control in which the physical factors, not human opinions or traditions, determine WHAT shall be done in the way of social operation, as well as HOW it shall be done."

This part is particularly relevant:

"The resultants of Technocracy applied to the North American Continent would be: The production and distribution of all the goods and services that the entire population of the Continent would require. Reduction of human effort to the minimum that the effective operations of the Continent would permit. The maximization of both Continental and individual security. Obligation of every Citizen to contribute his pro rata share of time and effort in manning the operations of the Continent, which amount would be very meager, indeed, as compared to Price System expectations. The highest standard of health and education that it would be possible for a society to maintain. The individual human being would derive a great deal more from the system than he or she would contribute to it. Hence, everyone would live on a heritage of unearned wealth, a circumstance which, today, is permitted to only a very few of 'the best people'".

The distribution card is proof that one has contributed their share of effort to society. It allows the holder to consume as much of whatever is available. The distribution card remains valid so long as the holder contributes their per capita share of work. In a Technocracy, there would be employment for all who were willing to work.

[Dimentio]

I won't start an inter-technocrat war, but what has always fascinated me about Technocracy Incorporated is the loyalty to the scrolls and the constant references to authorities.

A renowned Zen Buddhist once said: "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha!"

[Wolf Larson]

There won't be a minority in control of the means of production in a technate, as I earlier have explained. There is no bureaucracy, like in the old USSR, which is deciding what sectors should receive what benefits. Those who decide what is going to be produced is the people, through their energy certifikates. The same people would largely operate the technate as everyone would receive employment within that structure.

"Within each field of operation would be a hierarchy of authority (or decision making power) based upon demonstrated ability and expertise."

^ Quit the insincere semantics game. Key words. hierarchy/ authority/power. There's actual meaning behind the phrase no gods no managers. I would kill them. Hows that? I don't think I'd be alone either. In revolutionary conditions the hierarchical structure would be destroyed through the direct application of brutal violence. Is that honest enough for you? A straight up anarchist jihad on hierarchy.

[Technocrat]

"Within each field of operation would be a hierarchy of authority (or decision making power) based upon demonstrated ability and expertise."

^ Quit the insincere semantics game. Key words. hierarchy/ authority/power. There's actual meaning behind the phrase no gods no managers. I would kill them. Hows that? I don't think I'd be alone either. In revolutionary conditions the hierarchical structure would be destroyed through the direct application of brutal violence. Is that honest enough for you? A straight up anarchist jihad on hierarchy.

Again, it all comes down to definitions.

99% of all internet arguments are over word definitions. It's a waste of time.

Even Che Guevara's guerilla forces had hierarchy. Hierarchy is natural in the pecking rights that exist among any group of people if left to their own devices.

If you define hierarchy as a system of distinct classes with distinct privileges, then yes, THAT would be abolished. In Technocracy, the only "authority" one has comes directly from their peers - including those working below them. The workers can also remove a person's authority if they need to.

And Dimiento is right - a simple record would be kept of what was consumed and that would determine what was produced (read my previous posts if you don't understand this).

[Technocrat]

I won't start an inter-technocrat war, but what has always fascinated me about Technocracy Incorporated is the loyalty to the scrolls and the constant references to authorities.

A renowned Zen Buddhist once said: "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha!"

I cited Wilton Ivie as evidence that Kolzene's view may not be the mainstream held by Technocracy, Inc, in response to your suggestion that I should re-read the material.

It is also a view that is supported by Evolutionary Psychology. Do you have any knowledge of this field? Evolutionary Psychology does not support the idea that a complex Industrial society can be run on a strictly volunteer basis.

[Dimentio]

"Within each field of operation would be a hierarchy of authority (or decision making power) based upon demonstrated ability and expertise."

^ Quit the insincere semantics game. Key words. hierarchy/ authority/power. There's actual meaning behind the phrase no gods no managers. I would kill them. Hows that? I don't think I'd be alone either. In revolutionary conditions the hierarchical structure would be destroyed through the direct application of brutal violence. Is that honest enough for you? A straight up anarchist jihad on hierarchy.

The European Movement is using a different model of administration. In our model, the technate is a flat and decentralised structure consisting of holarchic holons (autonomous units) which could be factories, powerplants, nutrient depots or infrastructural systems. These are administrating themselves in accordance with the goals of the technate. There are fucntional sequences which exist to deliver information between nodes of the system, but these sequences are not supposed to run the holons, just to guide them.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=103

[RED DAVE]

From one of the ur-texts of Technocracy: their view of democracy.


There are basic physiological differences among individuals which are partly inherent and partly acquired through differences in diet, secretions of the endocrine glands, etc. It is these basic physiological differences among various human beings that upset all philosophic theories of equality, and hence any governmental theory of democracy. In any group of human beings having practically the same external environment certain individuals always tend to be dominant, and others with regard to these are submissive and constitute the followers. If there were only two men on an island, one of these men would be No. 1 and the other would be No. 2. If this spontaneous natural order of priority among men is inverted by an artificial means whereby the sub- missive type is made superior to the dominant type, a socially unstable
situation is thereby created.(emph. added)

http://www.archive.org/details/TechnocracyStudyCourse

Download the PDF and use a search engine to get this quote. The whole document is pretty long, but it's not hard to find the gamy partys.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

I find it more bizarre that they still want to transform the entire civilisation after a blueprint from 1934, basically ignoring all the technological change which have occurred since that. It is a pretty dumb argument that differences in character and skills should denounce the idea that all human beings are equal - and it would also be inconsistent with the egalitarian nature of energy accounting. Yet, I do not believe that reactionary viewpoints of prominent 1930's technocrats - Howard Scott included - would delegitimise the idea of Energy Accounting.

[Technocrat]

The European Movement is using a different model of administration. In our model, the technate is a flat and decentralised structure consisting of holarchic holons (autonomous units) which could be factories, powerplants, nutrient depots or infrastructural systems. These are administrating themselves in accordance with the goals of the technate. There are fucntional sequences which exist to deliver information between nodes of the system, but these sequences are not supposed to run the holons, just to guide them.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=103

I'm confused how this differs from the Area Controls and Regional Divisions proposed by Technocracy, Inc - or are they more or less analogous to holons?

[Technocrat]

From one of the ur-texts of Technocracy: their view of democracy.

(emph. added)

http://www.archive.org/details/TechnocracyStudyCourse

Download the PDF and use a search engine to get this quote. The whole document is pretty long, but it's not hard to find the gamy partys.

RED DAVE

Red Dave, Evolutionary Psychology supports the view of democracy put forward by Technocracy, Inc. Do you have knowledge of this field?

[The Grey Blur]

Technocrat, why do you constantly refer to Evolutionary/Behavioural Psychology as if they were final proofs?

Both of these are heavily criticised fields of study with many methodological and historical errors.

[Technocrat]

I find it more bizarre that they still want to transform the entire civilisation after a blueprint from 1934, basically ignoring all the technological change which have occurred since that.

Don't communists want to transform civilization based on a blueprint from the 1800s?

Also, Technocrats have always said that the final design of the Technate should be left up to the people after they seize power. The "blueprint" you are referring to are merely proposals based upon the evidence we now have available to us. It's entirely possible that the final design would be different in terms of things like housing, transportation, food production, etc. What we do know is that the administrative structure that they propose is still the most sound way of operating a post-scarcity, post-capitalist society. New findings from Evolutionary Psychology and the other behavioral sciences only SUPPORT this. This is why I suggest you do some reading on this subject if you haven't. It is both fascinating and enlightening.


It is a pretty dumb argument that differences in character and skills should denounce the idea that all human beings are equal - and it would also be inconsistent with the egalitarian nature of energy accounting. Yet, I do not believe that reactionary viewpoints of prominent 1930's technocrats - Howard Scott included - would delegitimise the idea of Energy Accounting.No one ever said that human beings aren't equal. Human beings are equal, but they are also DIFFERENT. A functional social system must recognize this fact. This is a good thing - we NEED different types of people to run the various complex tasks of society. A functional system lets different people do different things depending on their skills and abilities. A dysfunctional system tries to get everyone to do the same exact thing. That sort of system only works if everyone is plowing crops, and is a form of tyranny. Therefore, in a Technate, all would receive the same standard of living, which would be the maximum possible given available resources, and all would contribute their per capita share of man hours in the operation of society. This is getting very close to: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I am trying to move away from Energy Accounting as the focus of Technocracy. It is really part of a resource-based system, is it not? This makes it more of a planning detail. Focusing on this could potentially confuse people, and it has. What I imagine is a linked computer system that tracks every resource in real time. Each person's available energy units would be the total left over after the overhead for operating society has been subtracted, divided by the total number of citizens. This would be spent on consumable items, which would be priced in terms of energy and made from recyclable materials. Everything could be updated in real time using the internet. The citizen wouldn't even need to keep track of his energy units since they would always be in excess of what he was physically capable of consuming.

[Technocrat]

Technocrat, why do you constantly refer to Evolutionary/Behavioural Psychology as if they were final proofs?

Both of these are heavily criticised fields of study with many methodological and historical errors.

Have you done any reading on the subject? To say that it's a heavily criticized field is a cop-out. Every scientific field is criticized. You could say the same thing of climate science or evolution - both are heavily criticized but this makes them no less valid. Criticisms of evolutionary psychology have been addressed by scientists and other experts.

Evolutionary Psychology is but one branch of the behavioral sciences. New findings from the behavioral science confirm and support the ideas of Technocracy, Inc.

[Technocrat]

"...Therefore, recognizing when collaboration is necessary and determining who is
the best collaborative partner are skills shared by both chimpanzees and humans,
so such skills may have been present in their common ancestor before humans
evolved their own complex forms of collaboration...

...Boyd and Richerson (1992) argue convincingly that almost any type of human
behavior can be called forth through social punishment mechanisms. Henrich
(2006) argues further that cooperation and punishment go hand in hand. People
are willing to make sacrifices for others when they are assured that others
(free riders) can be punished if they take advantage of altruistic behavior."
(http://www.warsocialism.com/ducks.pdf)

[Dimentio]

I'm confused how this differs from the Area Controls and Regional Divisions proposed by Technocracy, Inc - or are they more or less analogous to holons?

Not really. Holons could set themselves up and formulate their own approaches for reaching the goals - while the goals are carved in diamond (i.e inviolable). The Technocracy Incorporated approach is more of a taylorist centralist model, of a similar variety to that which existed in the USSR.

Yes, its equally wrong to follow a blueprint from the 19th century in a rapidly changing world, but the communists have actually worked on a model on how to reach their society. Technocracy Incorporated is just sitting there idly, waiting for the collapse of the price system and hoping to educate people so they would establish a technate when that collapse is occurring. That was the philosophy which I think rendered Technocracy Incorporated harmless, despite that it had hundreds of thousands of members during one point in history.

[Technocrat]

"In any group of human beings having practically the same external environment certain individuals always tend to be dominant, and others with regard to these are submissive and constitute the followers. If there were only two men on an island, one of these men would be No. 1 and the other would be No. 2. If this spontaneous natural order of priority among men is inverted by an artificial means whereby the sub- missive type is made superior to the dominant type, a socially unstable
situation is thereby created."

This is true.

[Technocrat]

Not really. Holons could set themselves up and formulate their own approaches for reaching the goals - while the goals are carved in diamond (i.e inviolable). The Technocracy Incorporated approach is more of a taylorist centralist model, of a similar variety to that which existed in the USSR.

Yes, its equally wrong to follow a blueprint from the 19th century in a rapidly changing world, but the communists have actually worked on a model on how to reach their society. Technocracy Incorporated is just sitting there idly, waiting for the collapse of the price system and hoping to educate people so they would establish a technate when that collapse is occurring. That was the philosophy which I think rendered Technocracy Incorporated harmless, despite that it had hundreds of thousands of members during one point in history.

I think I understand.

Here is why it doesn't make sense to me:

The goal is to produce the goods and services that people demand with the lowest possible input of labor, resources, and energy.

Now, say you have a hundred different Holons with a hundred different designs for fulfilling people's consumption requirements (defined as the "use value" of all that is consumed).

This means you have one hundred different designs for fulfilling the same list of requirements.

This is a simple optimization problem. Out of one hundred different designs for fulfilling the same requirements, only one of them is going to be the most efficient - in terms of input of labor, resources and energy! Only one of the designs is going to use the least amount of resources, labor, and energy, to fulfill the list of requirements.

This is done all the time with product optimization, or in civil engineering. Let's say you have 10 designs for a bridge, that all fulfill the same requirements. Only one design will be optimal in terms of efficiency.

Does this make sense?


Yes, its equally wrong to follow a blueprint from the 19th century in a rapidly changing world, but the communists have actually worked on a model on how to reach their society. Technocracy Incorporated is just sitting there idly, waiting for the collapse of the price system and hoping to educate people so they would establish a technate when that collapse is occurring. That was the philosophy which I think rendered Technocracy Incorporated harmless, despite that it had hundreds of thousands of members during one point in history.When Technocracy had hundreds of thousands of members they did have a plan for reaching their society, using labor unions and the military. This was the very poorly named "Total Conscription" program, which was apparently popular - their membership was highest during the time they were advocating "Total Conscription". Now they barely have enough manpower to just maintain the archives. I agree that Technocracy is lacking in this area and I think collaboration with socialist groups would be beneficial to both. I also agree that Technocracy, Inc has not done all it can to attract new members and has not done enough to encourage progress. That's why I'm not an official member. I'm just a guy who's read a lot of books, and at one point I acquired a copy of The Study Course and a stack of Technocracy magazines. That's where I'm coming from.

[Dimentio]

"In any group of human beings having practically the same external environment certain individuals always tend to be dominant, and others with regard to these are submissive and constitute the followers. If there were only two men on an island, one of these men would be No. 1 and the other would be No. 2. If this spontaneous natural order of priority among men is inverted by an artificial means whereby the sub- missive type is made superior to the dominant type, a socially unstable
situation is thereby created."

This is true.

That is actually an anti-technocratic statement. Dominance and submissiveness have nothing to do with skill. Dominant people do not need to be competent in order to be physically or psychologically intimidating. Early societies in some sense did exhibit some of those traits. In early feudal Europe, power was often wielded by what we today would define as criminals who blackmailed peasants and townspeople in return of protection.

So-called failed states often exhibit that form of spontaneous leadership - like Somalia. It was briefly instituted as the so-called Führerprinzip in fascist-governed countries, meaning that five star generals and field marshals would be ordered around by a corporal.

Even if something is natural, it is not per definition positive. Neither is it technocratic. To my understanding, technocratic governance should hold goals at its centre, not individuals. It is paramount that we separate individual ambition, distortion and corruption from governance, instead focusing on embracing the scientific principle - aimed at creating the best possible conditions for all people and the world.

[Technocrat]

That is actually an anti-technocratic statement. Dominance and submissiveness have nothing to do with skill. Dominant people do not need to be competent in order to be physically or psychologically intimidating. Early societies in some sense did exhibit some of those traits. In early feudal Europe, power was often wielded by what we today would define as criminals who blackmailed peasants and townspeople in return of protection.

So-called failed states often exhibit that form of spontaneous leadership - like Somalia. It was briefly instituted as the so-called Führerprinzip in fascist-governed countries, meaning that five star generals and field marshals would be ordered around by a corporal.

Even if something is natural, it is not per definition positive. Neither is it technocratic.

I think you are missing the point. The language is a little misleading. For instance, depending on the situation, NO. 1 might become NO. 2 and NO. 2 might become NO. 1, depending on the task they are trying to perform. The point is that NO relationship is equal, even among two people raised in identical environments. One of the two will display greater ability, 99% of the time, if the two are given identical tasks to perform. A functional system recognizes this and allows the one with greater ability to use his ability in matters where it applies. A dysfunctional system prevents the one with greater ability from using it. This is straightforward.


To my understanding, technocratic governance should hold goals at its centre, not individuals. It is paramount that we separate individual ambition, distortion and corruption from governance, instead focusing on embracing the scientific principle - aimed at creating the best possible conditions for all people and the world.I agree with this. That's what I've been saying all along.

[RED DAVE]

"In any group of human beings having practically the same external environment certain individuals always tend to be dominant, and others with regard to these are submissive and constitute the followers. If there were only two men on an island, one of these men would be No. 1 and the other would be No. 2. If this spontaneous natural order of priority among men is inverted by an artificial means whereby the sub- missive type is made superior to the dominant type, a socially unstable
situation is thereby created."

This is true.Why? Because you, with your elitist bias, say so. Please note that the above quote is an excerpt from a larger quote in which a bullshit theory of psychological dominance is used to debunk democracy.


There are basic physiological differences among individuals which arepartly inherent and partly acquired through differences in diet, secretions of the endocrine glands, etc. It is these basic physiological differences among various human beings that upset all philosophic theories of equality, and hence any governmental theory of democracy. In any group of human beings having practically the same external environment certain individuals always tend to be dominant, and others with
regard to these are submissive and constitute the followers. If there were only two men on an island, one of these men would be No. 1 and the other would be No. 2. If this spontaneous natural order of priority among men is inverted by an artificial means whereby the submissive type is made superior to the dominant type, a socially unstable situation is thereby created.Pure fucking elitism masquerading as psychology.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

When Technocracy had hundreds of thousands of members they did have a plan for reaching their society, using labor unions and the military. This was the very poorly named "Total Conscription" program, which was apparently popular - their membership was highest during the time they were advocating "Total Conscription".Actually, given the anti-democratic nature of Technocracy, it was a perfectly well-named plan. As for popularity, you are the one who talks about elections as "popularity contests." The nazis were popular too in the US at that time. The nazi-funded German-American Bund had thousands of members too, as did other fascist organizations. Even other crack-pot notions such as Lawsonomy had their day.


Now they barely have enough manpower to just maintain the archives. I agree that Technocracy is lacking in this area and I think collaboration with socialist groups would be beneficial to both.Recruit your own people.


I also agree that Technocracy, Inc has not done all it can to attract new members and has not done enough to encourage progress. That's why I'm not an official member. I'm just a guy who's read a lot of books, and at one point I acquired a copy of The Study Course and a stack of Technocracy magazines. That's where I'm coming from.So you have so much faith in your belief system that you aren't even a member of its official organization. And you want socialists to do your recruiting for you. This is pretty tacky.

Tell you want: Join Technocracy Inc., organize a union, an antiwar demonstration, work with the unemployed for awhile. Try to recruit a few people, then give us a report on what happened.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

"In any group of human beings having practically the same external environment certain individuals always tend to be dominant, and others with regard to these are submissive and constitute the followers. If there were only two men on an island, one of these men would be No. 1 and the other would be No. 2. If this spontaneous natural order of priority among men is inverted by an artificial means whereby the sub- missive type is made superior to the dominant type, a socially unstable
situation is thereby created."

This is true.


You keep falling back on a small-group, informal, psychology-dominated, "Lord of the Flies" conception of society, Technocrat.

In contrast, modern society has brought with it the ideal of democratic (non-elitist) politics, *formal* social roles and job descriptions, and an independence of one's life from one's formal work role.

It's odd to see your otherwise-scientific approach falling back to a reliance on natural-world, animal-like (small social groupings) behaviors as acceptable organizational dynamics in an extended-reach, large-scale social order.








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).





No one ever said that human beings aren't equal. Human beings are equal, but they are also DIFFERENT. A functional social system must recognize this fact. This is a good thing - we NEED different types of people to run the various complex tasks of society. A functional system lets different people do different things depending on their skills and abilities. A dysfunctional system tries to get everyone to do the same exact thing. That sort of system only works if everyone is plowing crops, and is a form of tyranny. Therefore, in a Technate, all would receive the same standard of living, which would be the maximum possible given available resources, and all would contribute their per capita share of man hours in the operation of society. This is getting very close to: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


*Overall* I think this guiding ethos is a good one, especially considering the *current* state of (capitalist) society.

But on some of the core definitions -- like "all would receive the same standard of living", and "from each according to his ability" -- I've come to develop some *differences*:








But because other people had to work to support you, framers to make the food, and doctor to do the operation, you should not be given a new xbox, for being in bed, and doing nothing. Under capitalism, you are reward, thought wage, with the right to live, thought food and health care, housing, and you are also give the reward of entertainment as well. So under my system the reason you work is not to live, but to be rewarded thought wages to be entertained. So you don’t have to work to eat, or get health care, but work, to get that new PS3 you have been eyeing.





Speaking for myself, *personally*, I find this approach -- along the lines of the _Communist Manifesto_'s "from each according to his means, to each according to his need" -- to be on the *moralistic* side of things.

I'm of the stance that there should be a *minimum* of value judgments made over a person's social identity (within a workers'-collective administration), over definitions of "deserving", "leisure", "responsibility", and so on.

I don't condone an invisible-hand "market" system whatsoever, either -- rather, the matching up of labor to human demand can be done politically / societally. There can be no question about the *capacity* of contemporary factory production to mechanically produce a *bounty* of the goods to fulfill basic living requirements *and* most of the more-leisurely pursuits that people may have, with a *minimum* of labor input. If better qualities of goods are desired then that would be a *political* issue to be publicized and fought for in the political arena of liberated labor.





in a Technate, all would receive the same standard of living


My critique here is that not everyone would *want* roughly the same standard of living. My favorite example is landscape artists, who would want to receive societal permission for altering large swathes of the natural landscape, thus legitimately "claiming" a disproportionate amount of land for their own endeavors, or "standard of living".

I'm sure many more examples could exist in the post-capitalist, non-collective realm, where understandable *personal* interests might very well wind up requiring *great amounts* of societal resources.

If the resources were significant enough then the requirement would most likely wind up being a *political issue*, due to size alone, and would probably become a collective / political / formal project at that point, then -- I don't mean to be argumentative here, but I hope my larger point is well-taken.

[Dimentio]

Same standard of living doesn't imply identical standard of living. People have different choices. If someone wants to alter the landscape, she would need to work through the technate to accomplish that.

[Comrade_Stalin]

You move up by being first nominated by your peers and then elected by those higher up, who have already passed through the position that is to be filled and are thus familiar with the job requirements.

At the very top would be the head director of each industry. The directors would form an executive council responsible for overall planning. They would elect a president from among themselves who would set the agenda.

Anyone can be removed at any time by a 2/3rd vote from their peers - a peer is anyone whose actions or decisions immediately effect or are affected by the individual in question.

Total Conscription is just a way to use existing wartime powers to bring about Technocracy. This doesn't mean that people would be forced to join the army. What is being conscripted are the physically infrastructure and resources needed by the Technate. Therefore, corporations will be "conscripted".

These types of answer are more help full then the trolling we do to each other. This helps show the difference between communisma and an technocrary then the standerd name calling we all do.

So to help answer the question that was posted here before, the reason communism can't get along with a technocracy is that you are elected from the the people above you, then from the people below you. But Technocrat did bring up a good point, with that many job have requirements. It would be a bad ideal to elect an enginner to build a building with no knowledge of free body diagrams. An ideal would be to train the person who you elected so that they get the job because of the vote, but can also meet the job requirements.

[Dimentio]

These types of answer are more help full then the trolling we do to each other. This helps show the difference between communisma and an technocrary then the standerd name calling we all do.

So to help answer the question that was posted here before, the reason communism can't get along with a technocracy is that you are elected from the the people above you, then from the people below you. But Technocrat did bring up a good point, with that many job have requirements. It would be a bad ideal to elect an enginner to build a building with no knowledge of free body diagrams. An ideal would be to train the person who you elected so that they get the job because of the vote, but can also meet the job requirements.

Or have some sort of eligibility threshold for appointments?

[Technocrat]

Why? Because you, with your elitist bias, say so. Please note that the above quote is an excerpt from a larger quote in which a bullshit theory of psychological dominance is used to debunk democracy.

Dave, you haven't offered an argument to the contrary except for "it's wrong because I say so!". Behavioral science supports the quote I posted. Perhaps you need to do a little homework. Maybe start with reading and responding specifically to some of the evidence I have already provided rather than repeating your tired old dogma over and over again - it's going nowhere.

[Technocrat]

Actually, given the anti-democratic nature of Technocracy, it was a perfectly well-named plan.

Dave, your dogma is showing again. Why is it anti-democratic again? Because you say so?

Look, it's quite clear that you've picked a fight. You don't want to back down now because you've invested so much time and energy already into this. This is completely unproductive. Please respond if you understand this point: no conversation is possible if all the other person wants to do is fight! I'm through fighting with you, Dave.

Our conversation has been following a pattern: I say something, you misinterpret, and then you make an attack based on your misinterpretation. These misinterpretations may or may not be intentional, but regardless, that makes any attack derived from them a straw man. It means that the thing you are arguing against is something other than what I am describing. This makes the argument a waste of time.

So, here is what you can do:

If I say something that doesn't seem to make sense to you, ask for clarification - rather than assuming that I'm just simply wrong and then launching into your attack.


As for popularity, you are the one who talks about elections as "popularity contests." The nazis were popular too in the US at that time. The nazi-funded German-American Bund had thousands of members too, as did other fascist organizations. Even other crack-pot notions such as Lawsonomy had their day.This is a poor argument. Technocracy had lots of members. The nazis had lots of members. Therefore, the Technocrats were nazis. Yeah... right.

Dave, you need to go read about logical fallacies, because every argument you've offered thus far has been a logical fallacy.


Recruit your own people. So now collaboration is bad? You're making more and more sense all the time, Dave!


So you have so much faith in your belief system that you aren't even a member of its official organization. And you want socialists to do your recruiting for you. This is pretty tacky.You assume that the reason I haven't joined is because I lack faith in the ideas put forward, when I ALREADY STATED that the reason I haven't joined is because of their poor organization and "old guard" mentality.

You are trying to equate the organization with the ideas espoused by the organization. Dave, this is ANOTHER straw man.


Tell you want: Join Technocracy Inc., organize a union, an antiwar demonstration, work with the unemployed for awhile. Try to recruit a few people, then give us a report on what happened.

RED DAVEThat's pretty stupid. I shouldn't have to do all that to discuss the logical consistency of a theory.

[Technocrat]

These types of answer are more help full then the trolling we do to each other. This helps show the difference between communisma and an technocrary then the standerd name calling we all do.

Yes, well I've been trying all along to put a stop to the trolling, to no success. Some people just want to fight!


So to help answer the question that was posted here before, the reason communism can't get along with a technocracy is that you are elected from the the people above you, then from the people below you. But Technocrat did bring up a good point, with that many job have requirements. It would be a bad ideal to elect an enginner to build a building with no knowledge of free body diagrams. An ideal would be to train the person who you elected so that they get the job because of the vote, but can also meet the job requirements.Actually, you are elected from both those above you AND those on the same level as you. No one knows a worker better than the people who work side by side with them everyday, so a person's peers on the same level would first nominate a person for promotion. Since those workers above the position to be filled have already passed through that position they would be familiar with its job requirements and therefore would have final say in appointing someone to a position. How could it work any other way? Any other way and you would have those with less experience and knowledge telling those with MORE experience and knowledge what to do! Only a warped mind would consider that type of situation to be fair and/or functional.

Now, stop me if I'm wrong, but nowhere in any of Marx's writings that I've encountered does it state that direct appointment of workers by popular election is the sole method compatible with communism.

You suggest voting people into positions and then training them... but that is actually LESS fair than what I'm proposing! What I'm proposing is the OPPOSITE of that - people would CHOOSE what training they wanted to take, and then their TRAINING would determine their job placement - it's really as simple as that. If you have the training required for a job, you get it. If you don't have the training, you don't get it. Now, SOMEONE has to be responsible for determining if the individual possesses the required training, and that SOMEONE would be the worker's peers, including those who rank higher since they are familiar with the job requirements of the position to be filled. It may not be a perfect system, but it is the MOST perfect system we have available. This is MUCH more effective AND more fair than simply appointing people to various positions on the basis of mob rule. What decides how people are chosen in mob rule? It isn't a person's qualifications - it's how well they can manipulate the crowd's emotions and play on their baser instincts. THAT'S how people win in majority rule. If anyone doesn't understand this point, they need to brush up on their political theory and behavioral science!

With your proposal, I could train 8 years to be a doctor, and still not get the job because I might lose the vote! Meanwhile, some incompetent but likable fellow would get the job. You would then have to train this guy for 8 years.

[RED DAVE]

Tell you want [sic]: Join Technocracy Inc., organize a union, an antiwar demonstration, work with the unemployed for awhile. Try to recruit a few people, then give us a report on what happened.
That's pretty stupid. I shouldn't have to do all that to discuss the logical consistency of a theoryPart of the test of whether or not a theory is consistent is how it works in practice. Anyone can run a line of bullshit and make rhetorical points. There are plenty of crackpot ideas around, like, say, Primitivism. Part of the Marxism is the concept of the unity of theory of practice, and you have no practice whatsoever.

So, like I said, go out and try your ideas out in practice. Organize something using the ability of your theory to develop strategy and tactics now.

Let us know how it comes out.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

So to help answer the question that was posted here before, the reason communism can't get along with a technocracy is that you are elected from the the people above you, then from the people below you. But Technocrat did bring up a good point, with that many job have requirements. It would be a bad ideal to elect an enginner to build a building with no knowledge of free body diagrams. An ideal would be to train the person who you elected so that they get the job because of the vote, but can also meet the job requirements.


You raise a couple of critical issues -- we can see the *difference* between communism and technocracy in terms of *structure* itself. Communism would *not* have to rely on the conventional corporate practice of organizational hierarchy. Under communism there would *not* be a need for formal, fixed *job positions* -- certainly a liberated workers' collective could *pool* its knowledge, especially over the Internet, to find an optimal skill-informed solution, or policy, to whatever mass demands might happen to be.

With the elimination of the need for standing, fixed job positions there wouldn't be a need for any job position hierarchy *whatsoever* -- imagine *all* productivity being done in the same way as the creation of Wikipedia (or RevLeft)...(!)





Dave, you haven't offered an argument to the contrary except for "it's wrong because I say so!". Behavioral science supports the quote I posted.


Technocrat, you're applying the *wrong kind* of science here -- behavioral science addresses *interpersonal*, *small*-group kinds of dynamics -- it's not appropriate to *societal*-scale issues of mass labor, collective decision-making, production, surplus, distribution, and consumption.





You keep falling back on a small-group, informal, psychology-dominated, "Lord of the Flies" conception of society, Technocrat.

In contrast, modern society has brought with it the ideal of democratic (non-elitist) politics, *formal* social roles and job descriptions, and an independence of one's life from one's formal work role.

It's odd to see your otherwise-scientific approach falling back to a reliance on natural-world, animal-like (small social groupings) behaviors as acceptable organizational dynamics in an extended-reach, large-scale social order.

[RED DAVE]

Technocrat, you're applying the *wrong kind* of science here -- behavioral science addresses *interpersonal*, *small*-group kinds of dynamics -- it's not appropriate to *societal*-scale issues of mass labor, collective decision-making, production, surplus, distribution, and consumption.And, by the way, his concepts of interpersonal and small group psychology are ridiculous.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Part of the test of whether or not a theory is consistent is how it works in practice. Anyone can run a line of bullshit and make rhetorical points. There are plenty of crackpot ideas around, like, say, Primitivism. Part of the Marxism is the concept of the unity of theory of practice, and you have no practice whatsoever.

I'm 100% against primitivism, so I guess we have some common ground there.


So, like I said, go out and try your ideas out in practice. Organize something using the ability of your theory to develop strategy and tactics now.

Let us know how it comes out.Dave, why do you assume that I'm not already trying to do something like that right now? It certainly makes it a lot harder with your constant attacks. I'm finishing a sociology degree - cut me a little slack? For the record, I HAVE participated in antiwar demonstrations and I HAVE organized study groups to discuss Technocracy. I spend a significant amount of my free time on this.

[Technocrat]

You raise a couple of critical issues -- we can see the *difference* between communism and technocracy in terms of *structure* itself. Communism would *not* have to rely on the conventional corporate practice of organizational hierarchy. Under communism there would *not* be a need for formal, fixed *job positions* -- certainly a liberated workers' collective could *pool* its knowledge, especially over the Internet, to find an optimal skill-informed solution, or policy, to whatever mass demands might happen to be.

How would this work with any job that required an extensive degree of training, like a scientist, engineer, professor, etc?

It is my stated position that hierarchy is necessary and inevitable in any society with ANY degree of specialization, such as the Industrial society in which we live. There is simply NO WAY for everyone to possess every skill required in a technologically advanced civilization, due to the fact that complexity increases with increasing use of technology.

Please remember that I'm using the word hierarchy in the broadest sense, here - I'm NOT using it to refer to a system based on the use Authority-backed with force.


Technocrat, you're applying the *wrong kind* of science here -- behavioral science addresses *interpersonal*, *small*-group kinds of dynamics -- it's not appropriate to *societal*-scale issues of mass labor, collective decision-making, production, surplus, distribution, and consumption.Societies are made up of individuals. As such, behavioral science can tell us more about how those individuals will behave than any other discipline (such as economics).

Social sciences also come into play, and can also be useful in understanding what we are talking about. I'm currently in the process of completing my Sociology degree, so I'm familiar with the subject. There is a considerable amount of overlap between the social sciences and behavioral sciences.

[RED DAVE]

Dave, why do you assume that I'm not already trying to do something like that right now? It certainly makes it a lot harder with your constant attacks. I'm finishing a sociology degree - cut me a little slack? For the record, I HAVE participated in antiwar demonstrations and I HAVE organized study groups to discuss Technocracy. I spend a significant amount of my free time on this.So, concretely, you've organized study groups. That's what it amounts to concretely.

Considering that when I was a graduate student in social psychology I was an antiwar organizer, a leader of student strikes, engaged in union strike support work, a very active member of a socialist organization, plus a few other activities, how much slack do you want?

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

And, by the way, his concepts of interpersonal and small group psychology are ridiculous.

RED DAVE

Dave, could you please tell me what you think my ideas are and why they're wrong? Because "my ideas" are just the ideas currently supported by science - the behavioral and social sciences. What you are calling "my ideas" are just the currently accepted scientific positions, applied to the social order.

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier when I told you to ask for clarification rather than launch into an attack based on a misreading.

[Technocrat]

So, concretely, you've organized study groups. That's what it amounts to concretely.

Considering that when I was a graduate student in social psychology I was an antiwar organizer, a leader of student strikes, engaged in union strike support work, a very active member of a socialist organization, plus a few other activities, how much slack do you want?

RED DAVE

Well, you WERE a graduate student. I'm still undergrad. Forgive me if I haven't met your standard.

If you want recognition for your efforts, you have it. I'm certainly not trying to compare myself to you.

Is the point of this to try to make me look bad?

[Technocrat]

And, by the way, his concepts of interpersonal and small group psychology are ridiculous.

RED DAVE

All I've said is that if you take two random people and give them a random task to perform - one will almost always (99.99% of the time) do better than the other. It is exceedingly rare for two random people to perform at exactly the same level on a random task - and it becomes increasingly rare as the number of possible tasks is multiplied (ie as social complexity increases). This should be obvious to anyone who has ever worked an any group project.

[RED DAVE]

One more time:

Based on Technocracy, if you were a member of a campus antiwar organization, what would you put forth as strategy or tactics that would distinguish your ideas from those of any other belief system?

Ditto if you were on a job and a bunch of your fellow workers were discussing joining a union?

Ditto if a group of African American students are circulating a petition for the establish for a Black Studies Department?

Remember, anyone can support or oppose. What arguments would you make, in the name of Technocracy that distinguish you?

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

The point is to show that, based on your belief system, you have reamrkably little to crow about. Basically, you have no way to breach the gap between your belief system (not considering for a moment its plausibility or not) and "the real world."

Your use of the word belief system is plainly derogatory and intended to be inflammatory, and it's not the first time you've used it. Everything I've stated is a scientifically verifiable position - that is, they can be verified through experiment.

So, if the point is to make me look bad - how is that not trolling?


For example, based on Technocracy, if you were a member of a campus antiwar organization, what would you put forth as strategy or tactics that would distinguish your ideas from those of any other belief system?There are a number of different strategies. Scientific evidence is one.

What's confusing is your mentality, here - it seems like rather than try to help me out by offering some of your experience, you just want to deride me for having less. How about offering up some examples of successful strategies you've used? A priority right now in our discussion groups is figuring out things like this.


Remember, anyone can support or oppose. What arguments would you make, in the name of Technocracy that distinguish you?

RED DAVEThere are lots, and the arguments would obviously need to differ depending on the audience you are talking to.

The argument I would make, in general, is that Technocracy would give everyone the following:

-an end to 40+ hour work weeks
-complete security for every individual
-an end to pollution and waste of natural resources
-an end to urban sprawl and traffic jams
-a complete moratorium on all debt
-efficient mass transit
-free healthcare, housing, education, transportation, and consumer products - essentially, free everything
-employment for everyone in the field of their choice, an end to unemployment
-a complete transition to clean, renewable energy sources

If people WANT the above, then Technocracy has a blueprint for how to achieve this. It is by no means infallible, but so far, it's the best I've seen.

[RED DAVE]

One more time:

Based on Technocracy, if you were a member of a campus antiwar organization, what would you put forth as strategy or tactics that would distinguish your ideas from those of any other belief system?

Ditto if you were on a job and a bunch of your fellow workers were discussing joining a union?

Ditto if a group of African American students are circulating a petition for the establish for a Black Studies Department?

Remember, anyone can support or oppose. What arguments would you make, what strategy or tactics would you put forth, in the name of Technocracy that distinguish you?

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

All I've said is that if you take two random people and give them a random task to perform - one will almost always (99.99% of the time) do better than the other. It is exceedingly rare for two random people to perform at exactly the same level on a random task - and it becomes increasingly rare as the number of possible tasks is multiplied (ie as social complexity increases). This should be obvious.


Technocrat, this formulation you're using is in a *vacuum* of a context -- these kinds of arbitrary, artificial scenarios are *problematic*, no matter who's making them, because of their lack of context.

Or -- we could say that you're using a context of two random people. This is *still* problematic because under communism it *wouldn't be about* individual accomplishment -- it would be about the mass contribution towards large-scale problem-solving.





You raise a couple of critical issues -- we can see the *difference* between communism and technocracy in terms of *structure* itself. Communism would *not* have to rely on the conventional corporate practice of organizational hierarchy. Under communism there would *not* be a need for formal, fixed *job positions* -- certainly a liberated workers' collective could *pool* its knowledge, especially over the Internet, to find an optimal skill-informed solution, or policy, to whatever mass demands might happen to be.





How would this work with any job that required an extensive degree of training, like a scientist, engineer, professor, etc?


You're *assuming* a context of formal job positions -- I'll again posit that the *point* of a *communist* system would be to *aggregate* know-how and procedural options, for a final mass decision to be implemented.





It is my stated position that hierarchy is necessary and inevitable in any society with ANY degree of specialization, such as the Industrial society in which we live.


Well, it's *my* stated position that hierarchy would be both *antithetical* and *superfluous* to the definition and practice of communism.





There is simply NO WAY for everyone to possess every skill required in a technologically advanced civilization, due to the fact that complexity increases with increasing use of technology.


Please note that knowledge / know-how can be replicated infinitely, so that learning can be made available on demand. Certainly knowing is not the same as having ability, but it *is* the first step.

There would be *no need* for everyone to possess every skill -- not everyone has to be a farmer or a cook for food to be produced and made into meals. (This is due to industrial- and fuel-leveraged labor which produces *increasing returns* from smaller amounts of labor.)





Please remember that I'm using the word hierarchy in the broadest sense, here - I'm NOT using it to refer to a system based on the use Authority-backed with force.


Okay. So noted.





Technocrat, you're applying the *wrong kind* of science here -- behavioral science addresses *interpersonal*, *small*-group kinds of dynamics -- it's not appropriate to *societal*-scale issues of mass labor, collective decision-making, production, surplus, distribution, and consumption.





Societies are made up of individuals. As such, behavioral science can tell us more about how those individuals will behave than any other discipline (such as economics).




Social sciences also come into play, and can also be useful in understanding what we are talking about. I'm currently in the process of completing my Sociology degree, so I'm familiar with the subject. There is a considerable amount of overlap between the social sciences and behavioral sciences.


I'll repeat my contention here that you're *not* addressing the *core* societal / political issues that are at stake here -- mass labor, collective decision-making, production, surplus, distribution, and consumption.

[Dimentio]

Technocrat, could you please define what you mean by "equality"? It seems to me that you are using the English language irresponsibly, replacing "identical" with "equal" (which sometimes is done within maths). What you are writing about equality is very offensive to a lot of people here, myself included, and doesn't make too much sense at all.

[Jazzratt]

So, concretely, you've organized study groups. That's what it amounts to concretely.

Considering that when I was a graduate student in social psychology I was an antiwar organizer, a leader of student strikes, engaged in union strike support work, a very active member of a socialist organization, plus a few other activities, how much slack do you want?

RED DAVE

Well aren't you just the big dick-swinging hero of the working class.


Seriously where the hell is this line of argument even going? There is very little organisation by technocrats as technocrats currently. We're a small, but growing, leftist tendency and as such tend to hold membership within larger sections of the left. Certainly even if we weren't our tactics would closely resemble those of traditional socialists as our goals are similar - even identical in the case of Anarchist-Communist Technocrats.

[Technocrat]

One more time:

Based on Technocracy, if you were a member of a campus antiwar organization, what would you put forth as strategy or tactics that would distinguish your ideas from those of any other belief system?

Ditto if you were on a job and a bunch of your fellow workers were discussing joining a union?

Ditto if a group of African American students are circulating a petition for the establish for a Black Studies Department?

Remember, anyone can support or oppose. What arguments would you make, what strategy or tactics would you put forth, in the name of Technocracy that distinguish you?

RED DAVE

I suppose the best strategy would be to explain how the interests of these particular groups would be fulfilled by Technocracy. For the antiwar people I would explain that the reason we go to war is to secure resources - like Marx said, Imperialism is the last stage of Capitalism. I would then explain how Technocracy would be so much more efficient in using resources that we wouldn't need to go to war to secure resources.

For the Union workers, I would explain how in a Technate every individual would have complete economic security, there would be no debt, and everyone would have employment in the field of their choice.

For the African American students I would explain how every citizen in the Technate would be given an equal share of the continent's resources, putting everyone on equal footing for the first time in history.

[Technocrat]

Technocrat, this formulation you're using is in a *vacuum* of a context -- these kinds of arbitrary, artificial scenarios are *problematic*, no matter who's making them, because of their lack of context.

Chris, the formulation is true REGARDLESS of what context you are using. Take ANY context, and the formulation is true.


Or -- we could say that you're using a context of two random people. This is *still* problematic because under communism it *wouldn't be about* individual accomplishment -- it would be about the mass contribution towards large-scale problem-solving.

It doesn't matter if the people are random or not. You could raise them in identical environments and their performance would STILL almost NEVER be identical.


You're *assuming* a context of formal job positions -- I'll again posit that the *point* of a *communist* system would be to *aggregate* know-how and procedural options, for a final mass decision to be implemented.

Excuse me, but I'm not assuming that at all. I'm not assuming anything, actually. What I have pointed out is that it is impossible for everyone in society to have the same level of skill at every possible task. This isn't an assumption, it's an observation supported by scientific evidence. You could perform the experiment yourself and you would get the same results.


Well, it's *my* stated position that hierarchy would be both *antithetical* and *superfluous* to the definition and practice of communism.

That's fine if that's your position, but you're wrong if you're trying to say that the definition of communism is incompatible with hierarchy. Communism requires a classless society in which property is commonly controlled. Nowhere in any definition of communism that I've seen does it say that communism must be a-hierarchical.


Please note that knowledge / know-how can be replicated infinitely, so that learning can be made available on demand. Certainly knowing is not the same as having ability, but it *is* the first step.

I've said this repeatedly. Even if knowledge is freely available, the amount of knowledge and training required for certain positions is such that it is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone in society to possess the same level of ability at every possible task!


There would be *no need* for everyone to possess every skill -- not everyone has to be a farmer or a cook for food to be produced and made into meals. (This is due to industrial- and fuel-leveraged labor which produces *increasing returns* from smaller amounts of labor.)

I never said there would be a NEED for everyone to possess the same skill - but that is the ONLY way a non-hierarchical social structure would work, while still being fair to everyone.


I'll repeat my contention here that you're *not* addressing the *core* societal / political issues that are at stake here -- mass labor, collective decision-making, production, surplus, distribution, and consumption.

Are you serious? My entire argument addresses all of those things. That's the ENTIRE POINT of what I've written.

Mass Labor - addressed.
Collective decision-making - addressed.
Production - addressed.
Surplus - addressed.
Distribution - addressed.
Consumption - addressed.

If you aren't sure how I've addressed these particular issues, ask more specific questions on them and I'll elaborate.

[Technocrat]

Technocrat, could you please define what you mean by "equality"? It seems to me that you are using the English language irresponsibly, replacing "identical" with "equal" (which sometimes is done within maths). What you are writing about equality is very offensive to a lot of people here, myself included, and doesn't make too much sense at all.

That's funny that you should accuse me of using the English language irresponsibly, considering I received a perfect score on the writing and verbal portion of the SAT.

Equality does mean identical. What do you think it means?

Most OTHERS are misusing the word equality to mean "equal rights". That is something COMPLETELY different from "equality".

If equal rights are what people are concerned about - I have already addressed that.

"i·den·ti·cal (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gif-dhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)adj.1. Being the same: another orator who used the senator's identical words.
2. Exactly equal and alike.
3. Having such a close similarity or resemblance as to be essentially equal or interchangeable.
4. Biology Of or relating to a twin or twins developed from the same fertilized ovum and having the same genetic makeup and closely similar appearance; monozygotic." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/identical)

[Dimentio]

Equality doesn't mean identical at all.

Equality means that all people should get the same opportunities, no matter difference in race, gender, or other factors. It also means that all people should have the right to happiness, to an equal share of the means of production and similar, no matter their differences.

Equivalent or identical are scientific statements.

Equal is a political statement and understood as one here. It is only in mathematics were equal is used as a synonyme for equivalent.

[Technocrat]

my problem with technocracy is that it is outright utopian socialism. in the sense that you folks already meticulously engineered the future society, rather than let it grow organically.

tbh i have no problem with engineers, etc doing what engineers always do. i cant build a fuckin power plant. nor i necessarily believe in direct democracy - i think i would have better things to do than discuss all day in the direct democratic commune or whatever. however, this things will be decided by the future society, when the old society had already been torched down.

Dada - so you suggest we just burn everything down and then try to figure out what to do? Sounds like a non-starter, sorry. You need to have a plan in place for how to run things immediately after the revolution or else people will starve and the revolution will collapse before the new government can even be installed.

Technocrats have always said that the blueprint is subject to revision. It is by no means infallible, but it is based on the data we now have available to us.

Technocracy is offering a blueprint to achieve a post-scarcity society. It is more akin to an instruction manual than a system of governance. Technocracy is a blueprint for how to achieve the following:

-an end to 40+ hour work weeks
-complete security for every individual
-an end to pollution and waste of natural resources
-an end to urban sprawl and traffic jams
-a complete moratorium on all debt
-efficient mass transit
-free healthcare, housing, education, transportation, and consumer products - essentially, free everything
-employment for everyone in the field of their choice, an end to unemployment
-a complete transition to clean, renewable energy sources

[Technocrat]

Equality doesn't mean identical at all.

I just pointed out that IT DOES, according to the English language.


Equality means that all people should get the same opportunities, no matter difference in race, gender, or other factors. It also means that all people should have the right to happiness, to an equal share of the means of production and similar, no matter their differences.Yes, and I already explained that everyone would have equal rights. EQUAL RIGHTS are NOT the same thing as EQUALITY.

YOU are the one who is misusing the word!


Equal is a political statement and understood as one here. It is only in mathematics were equal is used as a synonyme for equivalent.So you admit to redefining words. It's not just mathematics, but English itself, that defines equal as "equivalent".

Only in politics does equal mean "equal rights". This is a redefinition. That's fine, so long as you recognize that it is a redefinition. You accuse ME of redefining words. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I think I have a pretty clear grasp on word definitions. What you are calling "equality" is actually "social equality":

"Social equality is a social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society) state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in a certain respect. At the very least, social equality includes equal rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights) under the law, such as security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security), voting rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights), freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) and assembly, and the extent of property rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights). However, it also includes access to education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education), health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care) and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and so involves the whole society." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality)

Sorry if this seams nit-picky. I've found that 99% of internet arguments are over word definitions. The only way to avoid these wastes of time is to be as precise in our definitions as possible.

[khad]

So, then what's your view on hierarchy, then? Would you support management by rotating councils of workers?

[Technocrat]

So, then what's your view on hierarchy, then? Would you support management by rotating councils of workers?

Council communism is the closest thing in any socialist theory I've encountered to Technocracy.

The working period for everyone would be between the ages of 25 and 45 - this should help prevent an "old guard" mentality from setting in since each department would constantly be infused with new blood.

The problem is that people are still conceiving of things in terms of two entities: one entity which makes decisions, and the other entity which carries them out.

This is NOT how things work in Technocracy. In Technocracy, the people carrying out the decisions would also be responsible for making them in the first place. In other words, it is entirely compatible with the idea of worker's self-management. Health care professionals would be responsible for designing the health care system. Teachers would be responsible for designing the education system. Housing experts would be responsible for designing housing. Energy experts would be responsible for designing our energy systems, etc, etc. Their mandate in all cases would be to fulfill the common interest and they would be voted out if they failed to fulfill this mandate. The common interest is defined as the maximum standard of living, defined as physical consuming power, for all citizens within the limits of resource availability and ecological sustainability.

People are making this out to be more complicated than it is. It is actually pretty straightforward stuff.

[khad]

The working period for everyone would be between the ages of 25 and 45 - this should help prevent an "old guard" mentality from setting in since each department would constantly be infused with new blood.
What? I think there is much experience and wisdom in the "old guard." Forcing retirement on them is a non-solution.

[RED DAVE]

Based on Technocracy, if you were a member of a campus antiwar organization, what would you put forth as strategy or tactics that would distinguish your ideas from those of any other belief system?
I suppose the best strategy would be to explain how the interests of these particular groups would be fulfilled by Technocracy.In other words, you have no strategy or tactics for these groups beyond some vague bromide about how their "interests ... would be fulfilled by Technocracy." Useless.


For the antiwar people I would explain that the reason we go to war is to secure resources - like Marx said, Imperialism is the last stage of Capitalism. I would then explain how Technocracy would be so much more efficient in using resources that we wouldn't need to go to war to secure resources.So, all you have to give is some ideas borrowed from Marx and a promise that things will, somehow, be better in the future under your system, which doesn't have the slightest idea what to do now./i]

So, if it came to how to organize or structure a group, how to plan a demonstration, deciding on how to deal with the police, relationship with the Democratic Party or other groups, your belief system is useless.


Ditto if you were on a job and a bunch of your fellow workers were discussing joining a union?
For the Union workers, I would explain how in a Technate every individual would have complete economic security, there would be no debt, and everyone would have employment in the field of their choice.Again, useless as tits on a bull. On important questions such: Why should people join unions now (or not); which union to choose; how to write a leaflet, etc., you have nothing to say. This isn't surprising, especially since your system is antiunion.


Ditto if a group of African American students are circulating a petition for the establish for a Black Studies Department?
For the African American students I would explain how every citizen in the Technate would be given an equal share of the continent's resources, putting everyone on equal footing for the first time in history.One more time, [I]nothing worthwhile to say. Should these students agitate for a department? Should they appeal to the faculty? What tactics should they use: demonstrations, sit-ins, leaflets, etc.?

Why would anybody take your system seriously when you have demonstrated that you have nothing to say. I gave you three real-life situation, in which a liberal or a radical, let alone a Marxist, could provide ideas (good or bad), and you have nothing to suggest.

You have ideas about restructuring the entire world's economy, but you can't give us any help now. Your belief system fails a most basic test: what is it good for?

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

What? I think there is much experience and wisdom in the "old guard." Forcing retirement on them is a non-solution.

The idea is not to force retirement on anyone, but to reduce the amount of work per person to the bare minimum that is required, so that people can have as much free time to do whatever they want as possible. It's entirely possible that the working age may be different - these are just projections that Technocracy, Inc. made with the data they had available to them.

I imagine that some "retired" individuals would still continue to work in some capacity, perhaps giving council to others.

[Technocrat]

In other words, you have no strategy or tactics for these groups beyond some vague bromide about how their "interests ... would be fulfilled by Technocracy." Useless.

Except scientific evidence could be offered, meaning it isn't some "vague bromide." You certainly have it out for me, don't you?


So, all you have to give is some ideas borrowed from Marx and a promise that things will, somehow, be better in the future under your system, which doesn't have the slightest idea what to do now./i]What's wrong with borrowing ideas from Marx, if, like I said from the very beginning, they are compatible with what I've been saying?

You keep treating this blueprint as if it were just a bunch of vague promises with nothing scientific to back them up. I've been telling you all along that all of Technocracy's positions are the product of scientific observations, and I can provide you with evidence if requested. If something doesn't make sense, ask something specific and I will provide you with scientific evidence for it.This is more than can be said for your philosophy, which is apparently the product of some subjective idea about fairness.


So, if it came to how to organize or structure a group, how to plan a demonstration, deciding on how to deal with the police, relationship with the Democratic Party or other groups, your belief system is useless.

Again, useless as tits on a bull. On important questions such: Why should people join unions now (or not); which union to choose; how to write a leaflet, etc., you have nothing to say. This isn't surprising, especially since your system is antiunion.Dave - you haven't offered any arguments or questions in the above paragraph. All you've done is state how my "belief system" is "useless", and how I have "nothing to say", and how my system is "anti-union", when I have already explained to you how it ISN'T.


One more time, [I]nothing worthwhile to say. Should these students agitate for a department? Should they appeal to the faculty? What tactics should they use: demonstrations, sit-ins, leaflets, etc.?This is ridiculous. You're asking for a specific answer to a hypothetical. The solution used would ultimately depend on the specific circumstances involved, which you haven't provided.

The rest of your post is just plainly insulting, with contentions that I have nothing to say.

You yourself apparently have nothing to say other than that I have nothing to say.

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't have beliefs - all of my positions are derived from observations, which makes them scientific. Do you even know the difference? I assume you do and that you just want to fight for some reason.


Your belief system fails a most basic test: what is it good for?

Once again, this isn't a belief system but a blueprint - akin to an instruction manual. It's good for achieving the goals I've already listed several times.

You calling this a belief system is akin to calling the instruction manual for your VCR a belief system.

[RED DAVE]

In other words, you have no strategy or tactics for these groups beyond some vague bromide about how their "interests ... would be fulfilled by Technocracy."
Useless.Yes, useless. You have presented not one single strategy or tactic that would help the people in the situations I describe to cope with what is presented to them.

Except scientific evidence could be offered, meaning it isn't some "vague bromide." You certainly have it out for me, don't you?I did not ask you for so-called “scientific evidence” about your belief system. I asked you to apply your system to help others to function in given situations and you couldn’t do it. The cliché, by the way, is to have it “in” for someone. Two people can have it “out” if they have it “in” for each other.


So, all you have to give is some ideas borrowed from Marx and a promise that things will, somehow, be better in the future under your system, which doesn't have the slightest idea what to do now.

What's wrong with borrowing ideas from Marx, if, like I said from the very beginning, they are compatible with what I've been saying?Nothing is wrong with borrowing from Marx, except that I asked you to provide something useful that was unique to Technocracy. You haven’t done it.


You keep treating this blueprint as if it were just a bunch of vague promises with nothing scientific to back them up.Yes, and the promises aren’t attractive either.


I've been telling you all along that all of Technocracy's positions are the product of scientific observations, and I can provide you with evidence if requested. If something doesn't make sense, ask something specific and I will provide you with scientific evidence for it.This is more than can be said for your philosophy, which is apparently the product of some subjective idea about fairness.Your pretenses to scientific objectivity are a joke. It has been demonstrated, for example, in the last few posts on this thread that your “scientific” approach to psychology is something that any undergraduate can refute who’s taken Psych 1.
‘


So, if it came to how to organize or structure a group, how to plan a demonstration, deciding on how to deal with the police, relationship with the Democratic Party or other groups, your belief system is useless.

Again, useless as tits on a bull. On important questions such: Why should people join unions now (or not); which union to choose; how to write a leaflet, etc., you have nothing to say. This isn't surprising, especially since your system is antiunion.
Dave - you haven't offered any arguments or questions in the above paragraph.Of course I have. I’ve demonstrated that on practical questions such as might be encountered by an antiwar organization, a union organizing committee or an organization of African-American students, your belief system is useless.


All you've done is state how my "belief system" is "useless", and how I have "nothing to say", and how my system is "anti-union", when I have already explained to you how it ISN'T.You have explained nothing. I gave you concrete situations and asked for guidance as to what to do. You gave zero suggestions.


One more time, nothing worthwhile to say. Should these students agitate for a department? Should they appeal to the faculty? What tactics should they use: demonstrations, sit-ins, leaflets, etc.?
This is ridiculous.According to you. According to a group of students who are looking for ideas, the situation wouldn’t be ridiculous at all.


You're asking for a specific answer to a hypothetical.That’s right. And you can’t do it.


The solution used would ultimately depend on the specific circumstances involved, which you haven't provided.That’s an evasion. The situations are specific enough for you to come up with something useful to say. But you didn’t because you can’t.


The rest of your post is just plainly insulting, with contentions that I have nothing to say.That’s because you don’t.


You yourself apparently have nothing to say other than that I have nothing to say.I’ve presented critiques of your crackpot system for months, pointing out its antidemocratic nature, among other things, and now I’ve shown that it’s useless for any practical, real-world application now.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Yes, useless. You have presented not one single strategy or tactic that would help the people in the situations I describe to cope with what is presented to them.

Again, this is because you asked for a specific answer to a vague hypothetical. Without stating more specific conditions it is impossible to give a meaningful response. In addition, you are asking a blueprint to act like a belief system - A not-so-very clever trap:

My beliefs are left/libertarian or communist/anarchist, whichever you prefer. A belief is applied to every situation. That is, it informs our actions in every situation. A blueprint is applied to specific situations. That is, they can only be used for the situation they were designed for.

You criticizing Technocracy's blueprint for being unable to specifically address the things you are talking about is like criticizing the manual for your DVD player for not having anything specific to say on the things you are talking about.

Technocracy is distinct from belief systems. A Technocrat is one who supports the blueprint. They may have different belief systems, but usually they are left-libertarian.


I did not ask you for so-called “scientific evidence” about your belief system. I asked you to apply your system to help others to function in given situations and you couldn’t do it. The cliché, by the way, is to have it “in” for someone. Two people can have it “out” if they have it “in” for each other.Again, this isn't a belief system. Technocracy is a blueprint. My beliefs are distinct from Technocracy. Understand? You are criticizing the blueprint for not doing something that it wasn't designed to do. You are still getting confused over the difference between a blueprint and a philosophy.


Your pretenses to scientific objectivity are a joke. It has been demonstrated, for example, in the last few posts on this thread that your “scientific” approach to psychology is something that any undergraduate can refute who’s taken Psych 1.You haven't demonstrated this at all.


Of course I have. I’ve demonstrated that on practical questions such as might be encountered by an antiwar organization, a union organizing committee or an organization of African-American students, your belief system is useless. You are confusing a blueprint with a philosophy.


You have explained nothing. I gave you concrete situations and asked for guidance as to what to do. You gave zero suggestions.You did not give concrete situations, but vague hypothetical situations, obviously! A specific situation would go into detail about the kind of people I was dealing with - which you didn't do AT ALL.


According to you. According to a group of students who are looking for ideas, the situation wouldn’t be ridiculous at all. What's ridiculous is that you continue to confuse a blueprint with a philosophy. I suggest you go look up the definitions right now.


That’s an evasion. The situations are specific enough for you to come up with something useful to say. But you didn’t because you can’t.What could I say except for strategies which have already been used? What's the point? For the millionth time, Technocracy is a blueprint. A belief system is something else entirely. What are you not getting about this?


That’s because you don’t.Dave, let me remind you of a basic fact: just because I have not adequately explained something to YOUR satisfaction, DOES NOT mean that it is false.

Instead of asking for clarification, you just run with your misreadings - some of which are intentional, others not - to justify your continued belligerence. This is called a straw man. Your constant use of the word "belief system" and insistence that I have nothing to say are ad hominem attacks.


I’ve presented critiques of your crackpot system for months, pointing out its antidemocratic nature, among other things, and now I’ve shown that it’s useless for any practical, real-world application now.
RED DAVENo, all you've presented are your serious misunderstandings of what has been said, your endless stream of ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments, and your pointless, baseless belligerence toward someone who is trying to help.

To say that technocracy is useless for doing what you're talking about is like criticizing a VCR for being unable to toast bread. You're asking it to do something that it wasn't designed for. A blueprint is a specific design to achieve something specific. A belief system is something else entirely. They cannot be substituted for each other.

My beliefs are left/libertarian or communist/anarchist, whichever you prefer. A belief is applied to every situation. That is, it informs our actions in every situation. A blueprint is applied to specific situations. That is, they can only be used for what they were designed for.

[RED DAVE]

[Y]ou are asking a blueprint to act like a belief systemThis quote pretty much sums up your current error.

Your so-called blueprint is, of course, a belief system, just like any other utopian system, whether it's that of More or Fourier. To call it a blueprint is to demonstrate that you either don't know what a belief system (or ideology if you prefer) is, or you're in denial, or you're just being dishonest.

In any event, what you've shown is that your "blueprint" is nonsense. Beyond the fact that it's undemocratic and elitist, you have shown no way to bridge the gap between your leftover fantasy from the 1920s and 30s and reality.

Lawsonomy anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Lawson#Lawsonomy)

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

This quote pretty much sums up your current error.

Your so-called blueprint is, of course, a belief system, just like any other utopian system, whether it's that of More or Fourier. To call it a blueprint is to demonstrate that you either don't know what a belief system (or ideology if you prefer) is, or you're in denial, or you're just being dishonest.

In any event, what you've shown is that your "blueprint" is nonsense. Beyond the fact that it's undemocratic and elitist, you have shown no way to bridge the gap between your leftover fantasy from the 1920s and 30s and reality.

Lawsonomy anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Lawson#Lawsonomy)

RED DAVE

While Howard Scott certainly had less charming traits, I would claim that there is a fundamental difference between Technocracy Inc and Lawson's work, which seems to be more fuelled by a sort of mental breakdown combined with excessive narcissism.

[Technocrat]

This quote pretty much sums up your current error.

Your so-called blueprint is, of course, a belief system, just like any other utopian system, whether it's that of More or Fourier. To call it a blueprint is to demonstrate that you either don't know what a belief system (or ideology if you prefer) is, or you're in denial, or you're just being dishonest.

You simply don't understand what the difference is between a blueprint and a belief system, as made apparent by the above quote. I already explained it in my previous post.


In any event, what you've shown is that your "blueprint" is nonsense. Beyond the fact that it's undemocratic and elitist, you have shown no way to bridge the gap between your leftover fantasy from the 1920s and 30s and reality.

Lawsonomy anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Lawson#Lawsonomy)

RED DAVEYour idea that Technocracy is undemocratic and elitist is simply your misunderstanding of what's been said. All you've done is make accusations with no argument to support them. This has been your fundamental problem from the beginning.

[Wolf Larson]

Technocrat. Please read The Ecology Of Freedom- The Emergence And Dissolution of Hierarchy by Bookchin. The entire thing. What you're promoting in terms of technology is all well and good but the anti democratic nature of your hierarchical system will repel any self respecting modern Marxist or anarchist. Also playing teh word games/semantics as you've done this thread isn't going to fool anyone. Give it up.

[Technocrat]

Technocrat. Please read The Ecology Of Freedom- The Emergence And Dissolution of Hierarchy by Bookchin. The entire thing. What you're promoting in terms of technology is all well and good but the anti democratic nature of your hierarchical system will repel any self respecting modern Marxist or anarchist. Also playing teh word games/semantics as you've done this thread isn't going to fool anyone. Give it up.

Can you specifically point out what "word games" I've been playing rather than make baseless accusations? If you don't understand something, it isn't because I'm playing word games - it's because you have a gap in your knowledge. The only way to fix this is by asking for clarification. This stuff is incredibly simple but some people aren't getting it because they are used to different word definitions.

Again, nothing is anti-democratic about what I've proposed. Please explain how it is. Saying "it's hierarchical" is NOT evidence that it's undemocratic.

Remember, democracy DOES NOT require equal distribution of power. To say otherwise is simply YOUR OPINION unsupported by ANY FORMAL DEFINITION.

This stuff is incredibly simple! People should perform the tasks that they are trained for - what is so hard to understand about this?

The "hierarchy" I've been referring to is NOT based on domination of one individual over another!

[Wolf Larson]

Technocrat. Please read The Ecology Of Freedom- The Emergence And Dissolution of Hierarchy by Bookchin. The entire thing. What you're promoting in terms of technology is all well and good but the anti democratic nature of your hierarchical system will repel any self respecting modern Marxist or anarchist. Also, playing the word games/semantics as you've done in this thread isn't going to fool anyone. Give it up. Shooting for a post scarcity non capitalist system is about the only thing we have in common. You need to read more into the effects of hierarchy on human social systems. You've chosen to ignore pretty much everything I've said in this thread and at this point it's rather redundant. You will never convince an anarchist to accept a hierarchical institution. Never. This thread = you pissing in the wind.

[Technocrat]

Technocrat. Please read The Ecology Of Freedom- The Emergence And Dissolution of Hierarchy by Bookchin. The entire thing. What you're promoting in terms of technology is all well and good but the anti democratic nature of your hierarchical system will repel any self respecting modern Marxist or anarchist. Also, playing the word games/semantics as you've done in this thread isn't going to fool anyone. Give it up. Shooting for a post scarcity non capitalist system is about the only thing we have in common. You need to read more into the effects of hierarchy on human social systems. You've chosen to ignore pretty much everything I've said in this thread and at this point it's rather redundant. You will never convince an anarchist to accept a hierarchical institution. Never. This thread = you pissing in the wind.

Rejecting something because of the word "hierarchy" is about as ideological as you can get.

I haven't ignored what you've said - please clearly state what your questions and objections are and I will respond. You haven't done that, so I can't respond yet.

You are still using the term "hierarchy" in a redefined political way to mean a system of domination of one person over another. That is NOT how I've been using the term. I've been using the term the way it is defined according to English, not Politics:

"A hierarchy is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) in which the items are represented as being "above," "below," or "at the same level as" one another and with only one "neighbor" above and below each level." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy)

You can perform a scientific experiment to verify what I've been saying all along.

Take 100 people at random and give them the same random task to perform. Let's use pushups as an example.

Record each participant's performance. In this example, record the number of pushups completed.

List each person's performance in order of best to worst - from the highest number of pushups to the lowest number.

And there you have it! A hierarchy! You will get the same result regardless of the number of participants, the environment they are raised in, or the task assigned to them. Hierarchy, according to the purest definition of the word, is literally inevitable.

You could also repeat the same experiment several times, and you would still have a hierarchy based on the AVERAGE performance of each individual.

Remember, I'm using the English definition of hierarchy, not redefined political terminology.

Do you understand all of the above?

[Wolf Larson]

I understand everything you've purposely shrouded behind all manner of doublethinking slight of hand euphemism and insincere semantics. Yes. And yes anarchism is an ideology which stands in total opposition to hierarchy and for good reason. Your ego is rather large to think you can nullify the main goal of anarchism. The insincere pseudo intellectual nature of your position is obvious. Dave and I can smell it from a mile away. I know your intentions are good so I'd rather not argue with you but you haven't even addressed anything I've said in earlier posts outside of some general condescending denial that you're advocating a hierarchical system. I want you to explain to me, in detail, why I brought up the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment. Why would human beings, within a hierarchical system, go against their better judgment in order to appease a person they see in a hierarchical position [accountability or no accountability]. Even if a person can be voted out it's the hierarchical nature of your system itself which will cloud the judgment of the masses. Even if the so called intellectual master class can be voted out the nature of hierarchy shows us they might not be voted out even if things go wrong. Hierarchy and accountability are oil and water. The purpose of the revolution is to unequivocally put power in the workers hands. Power corrupts human judgment, both the judgment of the people in power and the judgment of the people under their power. This is the basic point of anarchism. One in which no matter how hard you try you cannot negate. You're essentially trying to debunk anarchism. Good luck with that.

[Technocrat]

I understand everything you've purposely shrouded behind all manner of doublethinking slight of hand euphemism and insincere semantics. Yes.

This is an ad hominem attack. Just accusing someone of something doesn't make it so. You have to demonstrate that it's true by providing proof - which you haven't done.


And yes anarchism is an ideology which stand in total opposition to hierarchy. Your ego is rather large to think you can nullify the main goal of anarchism. The pseudo intellectual nature of your position is obvious. Dave and I can small it from a mile away. I know your intentions are good so I'd rather not argue with you but you haven't even addressed anything I've said in earlier posts outside of some general condescending denial that you're advocating a hierarchical system.Wrong. Almost EVERY system in nature and society is hierarchical. Marxists are critical of hierarchies in as much that they grant power to one person over another. That is COMPLETELY different from what I've been describing.

Ideologies prevent us from taking in new information. Perhaps your problem is that you adhere to an ideology in the first place.


I want to explain to me why I brought up the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment. Why would human beings, within a hierarchical system, go against their better judgment in order to appease a person they see in a hierarchical position accountability or no accountability. Even if a person can be voted out it is the hierarchical nature of your system itself which will cloud the judgment of the masses.That's only true when the hierarchy is based upon domination, as I've already explained. A natural and unavoidable hierarchy is present in virtually every system in existence. You seem to have difficulty grasping this very basic point.

Clearly, the Stanford Prison Experiment shows us that a hierarchy based upon DOMINATION - power of one individual over another - leads to corruption.


Even if the so called intellectual master class can be voted out the nature of hierarchy shows us they might not be voted out even if things go wrong. Power corrupts human judgment, both the judgment of the people in power and the judgment of the people under their power. This is the basic point of anarchism. One in which no matter how hard you try you cannot negate. You're essentially trying to debunk anarchism. Good luck with that.Again, you are talking about a hierarchy based upon domination. The only "power" a person would have in a Technocracy would be increased responsibility. Do you understand how this is different from a hierarchy based on domination? It's as simple as this: a person performs the tasks that they have trained for.

You are ignoring the fact that almost everything is hierarchical. It is natural and unavoidable. Marxists are critical of hierarchies in as much that they give power to one person over another. You can eliminate domination, but you can never get rid of hierarchy. It's a basic fact of life. If you don't understand this, read my previous post where I describe an experiment anyone could perform to verify this. Did you fail to understand the point?

[RED DAVE]

You are ignoring the fact that everything is hierarchical.Just for fun, let's see if you can, say, find a biologist or a physicist who agrees with you.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Just for fun, let's see if you can, say, find a biologist or a physicist who agrees with you.

RED DAVE

Are you serious? Try finding one THAT DOESN'T.

"Even nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature) itself has its own hierarchies, as demonstrated in numerous schemes such as Linnaean taxonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy), the organization of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_organisation), and biomass pyramids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_pyramid). Hierarchies are so infused into daily life that they are viewed as trivial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy#cite_note-Dawkins-0)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy#cite_note-electrodynamics-10)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy)

[Technocrat]

"Pecking order or just peck order is a hierarchical system of social organization in animals. It was first described from the behaviour of poultry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry) by Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorleif_Schjelderup-Ebbe) in 1921 under the German terms Hackordnung or Hackliste and introduced into English in 1925.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecking_order#cite_note-0)

The original usage of "peck order" referred to expression of dominance of birds. Dominance in chickens is expressed in various behaviours including pecking which was used by Schjelderup-Ebbe as a measure of dominance. In his 1922 German-language article he noted that "defense and aggression in the hen is accomplished with the beak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beak)".[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecking_order#cite_note-1)

This emphasis on pecking led most subsequent studies on fowl behaviour to use it as a primary observation. However, it was also noted that roosters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooster) tended to leap and use their feet in conflicts.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecking_order#cite_note-2) The term dominance hierarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy) is more often used for this phenomenon in other animals.

It is a basic concept in social stratification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification) and social hierarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hierarchy) that has its counterpart in other animal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal) species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) as well, including humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans). Still, the term "pecking order" is often used synonymously as well, because the "pecking order" was the first studied example of the social hierarchy among animals.

The basic concept behind the establishment of the pecking order among, for example, chickens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickens), is that it is necessary to determine who is the 'top chicken,' the 'bottom chicken' and where all the rest fit in between. The establishment of the dominance hierarchy is believed to reduce the incidence of intense conflicts that incur a greater expenditure of energy. The dominance level determines which individual gets preferential access to food and mates." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecking_order)

[Dimentio]

That natural human hierarchies seem to emerge does of course have biological roots - but that doesn't make that kind of behaviour desirable. For example, if we say that a group of 20 (modern) people are stranded on an island, it is likely to assume that the jock would take up a leadership position spontaneously, while the biologist, the physicist and the ornitologist in fact might have more knowledge about the situation. That kind of behaviour is anti-technocratic. In a technocracy, the persons should not matter, the goals should matter.

The only ones talking about natural pecking orders as a positive thing are nazis, and their ideas applied in modern organisations would cause chaos.

[RED DAVE]

The basic concept behind the establishment of the pecking order among, for example, chickens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickens), is that it is necessary to determine who is the 'top chicken,' the 'bottom chicken' and where all the rest fit in between. The establishment of the dominance hierarchy is believed to reduce the incidence of intense conflicts that incur a greater expenditure of energy. The dominance level determines which individual gets preferential access to food and mates." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecking_order)(1) You are confusing hierarchies of organization, as in the Linnaean system and hierarchies of power.

(2) Do you really believe that you generalize from chickens to human beings? Let me know when chickens hold elections.

(3) Your attempts to establish hierarchy as a social principle is one of the many reasons why Marxists think that Technocracy has more to do with fascism than anything else.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

To be fair, marxists have not applied entirely egalitarian principles when in executive power. Instead, they have established systems which are called democratically centralist which - to say the least - have been non-transparent and eventually alienated the population from the party and/or created channels for a restoration or a transition to the capitalist system.

I think its quite frustrating about this confusion between professional hierarchy and what seems to be charismatic hierarchy. What is setting technocracy apart is that decisions should be made according to information and facts, as well as the goals. The agents - the decision-makers on various levels - should not have any authority in their persons, the only thing which could bear any authority whatsoever is the content of what they are proposing and executing.

I would cheer the day when Technocracy Incorporated would finally bury Scott and start to examine his ideas without having them shadowed by the de-facto cult of personality they've built around their founder.

[Technocrat]

That natural human hierarchies seem to emerge does of course have biological roots - but that doesn't make that kind of behaviour desirable.

It doesn't matter if hierarchies are desirable or not. They are a fact of life - it is impossible to get rid of hierarchy (refer to my last two posts for an explanation of why this is). I am not talking about man-made social hierarchies, I am talking about hierarchy itself.


For example, if we say that a group of 20 (modern) people are stranded on an island, it is likely to assume that the jock would take up a leadership position spontaneously, while the biologist, the physicist and the ornitologist in fact might have more knowledge about the situation. That kind of behaviour is anti-technocratic. In a technocracy, the persons should not matter, the goals should matter.I am not using the term hierarchy as you are using it, to mean a system of domination of one person over another. You are using "hierarchy" in political terminology. I'm using the plain and simple English definition of the word.

As you suggest, it is the GOALS that matter. So going with your example, if the goal of the group was to determine whether or not a certain plant was poisonous or edible, the group would NATURALLY defer to whoever had knowledge of plants. If there were another botanist who had less experience, the group would probably side with the one with more experience. If the one with more experience repeatedly made bad decisions, they might start to support the botanist with less experience. The WORST possible idea would be for the group to take a vote on whether or not to eat a plant, ignoring the advice of the botanists.


The only ones talking about natural pecking orders as a positive thing are nazis, and their ideas applied in modern organisations would cause chaos.This is a baseless attack with no evidence offered to support it.

First of all, pecking orders exist whether or not you want them to and are a basic fact of life. Second of all, they are both fair and necessary - I've already provided enough explanation as to why this is.

What is UNFAIR is when the natural peck order is disrupted, say by appointing the boss's son to be the boss of the company, rather than leaving it up to the workers to decide on the basis of demonstrated skill.

[Technocrat]

(1) You are confusing hierarchies of organization, as in the Linnaean system and hierarchies of power.

Wrong. I've repeatedly stated that what I'm talking about IS a hierarchy of organization, and NOT a hierarchy of power. Re-read what I've already wrote, I'm not going to post it again for your benefit when I have dozens of times already.


(2) Do you really believe that you generalize from chickens to human beings? Let me know when chickens hold elections.Before you make your knee jerk reactions, why don't you actually take the time to read the entire quote and digest it? This is from the very same quote you just responded to:


It is a basic concept in social stratification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification) and social hierarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hierarchy) that has its counterpart in other animal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal) species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) as well, including humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans). Still, the term "pecking order" is often used synonymously as well, because the "pecking order" was the first studied example of the social hierarchy among animals.
(3) Your attempts to establish hierarchy as a social principle is one of the many reasons why Marxists think that Technocracy has more to do with fascism than anything else.

RED DAVEHierarchy is already a social principle and always will be. Some Marxists understand this and they criticize hierarchies in as much as they distribute power unequally among people. This isn't a criticism of hierarchy itself, but of the specific way in which some hierarchies are set up. If you think you can get rid of hierarchy altogether, you are living in a fantasy and your entire argument falls apart. Any group of workers left to their own devices will establish a natural hierarchy over time. If every position that is occupied within an organization is vital to that organization's functional operations, then every position will have to be performed adequately. If a position is not performed adequately, the system doesn't work which puts pressure on everyone else to correct the problem.

For the millionth time:

I am not using the term hierarchy to mean a system of domination where power is distributed unequally! We can sit here and argue all day over word definitions but it's a waste of time. I am talking about hierarchy in terms of responsibilities being allocated to those who have the knowledge and skills needed to carry out those responsibilities. The "responsibility" I'm referring to in all cases would be to fulfill the common interest. Pretty straightforward.

[Dimentio]

Your latest reply doesn't make any sense at all. Intense pecking orders, with ostracisation and internal power struggles, would rip any organisation apart. Technocracy is built on the idea that rational cooperation is superior to competition if the goals for the
entire collective are put above the ambition of individual agents which would violate the interests of others.

To support pecking orders and "natural hierarchies" in a scientific, post-scarcity system is bizarre, since such tendencies are a product of scarcity environments.

As earlier said, you seem to claim that natural hierarchies somehow are equivalent with professional hierarchies, which isn't true. Neither did I invoke Godwin's law, I only claimed that it is inconsistent for a technocrat to adhere to biological determinism in defending (what appears to be) professional hierarchical systems, which is like comparing red apples with ladybugs. Everyone could invoke biological determinism or "natural law". Libertarians could support it in claiming that competition is natural, misogynists could use it to defend prostitution and rape, nazis could use it to defend race war, christian fundamentalists have used it to attack homosexuality (until it was made public knowledge that animals indeed show homosexual behavioural patterns).

I very well know that you don't advocate unequal distribution of power, but your posts are constructed in such a manner that suspicions are arising about your intentions.

[Technocrat]

Your latest reply doesn't make any sense at all. Intense pecking orders, with ostracisation and internal power struggles, would rip any organisation apart. Technocracy is built on the idea that rational cooperation is superior to competition if the goals for the
entire collective are put above the ambition of individual agents which would violate the interests of others.

Dimentio, I think you are confused as to what is meant by a pecking order. Pecking orders exist specifically to AVOID ostracisation and internal power struggles. This isn't about cooperation vs competition. I agree with what you say re: Technocracy being built on cooperation.


To support pecking orders and "natural hierarchies" in a scientific, post-scarcity system is bizarre, since such tendencies are a product of scarcity environments.No, as I described in my hypothetical experiment, you could raise 100 people in an identical environment and you would still get varying levels of performance if you assigned them any random task to perform due to genetic variations. In addition, I've repeatedly stated that in a complex society you need a hierarchy just to allocate responsibilities to those who have the skills required to carry out their responsibilities. Another way of saying this is: if you allocate responsibilities on the basis of skills needed to carry out those responsibilities, then you have a hierarchy!


As earlier said, you seem to claim that natural hierarchies somehow are equivalent with professional hierarchies, which isn't true. Neither did I invoke Godwin's law, I only claimed that it is inconsistent for a technocrat to adhere to biological determinism in defending (what appears to be) professional hierarchical systems, which is like comparing red apples with ladybugs.I'm not invoking natural law. To invoke natural law would require me to make an observation about human nature based on how humans supposedly behave "naturally". That's not what I'm doing. What I did was make a statement on human nature based upon observations of humans that anyone can make for themselves - see the experiment I proposed.


I very well know that you don't advocate unequal distribution of power, but your posts are constructed in such a manner that suspicions are arising about your intentions.People's imaginations are just running wild with misinterpretations. I've repeatedly asked for people to ask for clarification if something doesn't make sense, rather than immediately launching into their explanation of why they think it doesn't make sense.

[Dimentio]

Why then take up birds as an example?

[ckaihatsu]

Well, it's *my* stated position that hierarchy would be both *antithetical* and *superfluous* to the definition and practice of communism.





That's fine if that's your position, but you're wrong if you're trying to say that the definition of communism is incompatible with hierarchy. Communism requires a classless society in which property is commonly controlled. Nowhere in any definition of communism that I've seen does it say that communism must be a-hierarchical.





There would be *no need* for everyone to possess every skill -- not everyone has to be a farmer or a cook for food to be produced and made into meals. (This is due to industrial- and fuel-leveraged labor which produces *increasing returns* from smaller amounts of labor.)





I never said there would be a NEED for everyone to possess the same skill - but that is the ONLY way a non-hierarchical social structure would work, while still being fair to everyone.


A non-hierarchical social structure would be *better* than a hierarchical one, given the abolition of private property, because know-how and the means of mass production could all be collectivized and run collectively. The collectivization of common knowledge, assets (infrastructure), resources, liberated labor, and decision-making means that there would be *no need* for everyone to possess the same skills since the best method could be selected from the *pooling* of all of the above, from diverse sources.

(This position statement *refutes* *your* contention above that "there would be a NEED for everyone to possess the same skill - [...] that is the ONLY way a non-hierarchical social structure would work [...].")

Again, just think of a Wikipedia page for every collectivized asset (like factories) -- collectivizing knowledge onto the Internet shows us the way we can do it for the rest of the physical, material world.

[Technocrat]

A non-hierarchical social structure would be *better* than a hierarchical one, given the abolition of private property, because know-how and the means of mass production could all be collectivized and run collectively. The collectivization of common knowledge, assets (infrastructure), resources, liberated labor, and decision-making means that there would be *no need* for everyone to possess the same skills since the best method could be selected from the *pooling* of all of the above, from diverse sources.

(This position statement *refutes* *your* contention above that "there would be a NEED for everyone to possess the same skill - [...] that is the ONLY way a non-hierarchical social structure would work [...].")

Again, just think of a Wikipedia page for every collectivized asset (like factories) -- collectivizing knowledge onto the Internet shows us the way we can do it for the rest of the physical, material world.

Chris, you haven't addressed the fact that SKILL would still be unequally distributed, even if everyone had access to the same education and training.

That's fine if knowledge is collectivized, but you still haven't addressed the fact that some skills require YEARS of training to acquire. This means that there will be a hierarchy of skill among those who are training to acquire that skill - regardless of whether it is formalized or not.

[ckaihatsu]

Chris, you haven't addressed the fact that SKILL would still be unequally distributed, even if everyone had access to the same education and training.


Okay, then I'll address it -- yes, I don't think *anyone* here is disputing your blanket assertion that people are differently-abled, even starting with similar backgrounds and educations.

But I think you've picked the wrong battle in *emphasizing* this point at the expense of your other, better points.





That's fine if knowledge is collectivized, but you still haven't addressed the fact that some skills require YEARS of training to acquire. This means that there will be a hierarchy of skill among those who are training to acquire that skill - regardless of whether it is formalized or not.


So we're agreed that knowledge / know-how would be fully collectivized, and limitless education / training would be made available to the student as a priority of public service availability. This situation would lead to differentiated skill levels among those who have completed their studies, as you've emphasized.

*But* -- here's the thing -- in a fully collectivized, communist society there would be *no point* in *specializing* oneself, or building one's identity, to one particular kind of knowledge *or* skill. Just as common information flows freely today and is replicated infinitely over the innumerable switches of the Internet, so too could workers' *skilled attention* roam to wherever it happened to be needed in realtime, in a communist society. The walls and fences would be down with the abolition of private property and the same would be true for particular branches of highly educated / skilled expertise.

No one would receive any added benefits from *proprietizing* their professional expertise, no matter how many years they had built up -- everyone would receive what they needed and desired (by some kind of societal standards) *independently* from the yardstick of what they contributed in the way of professional service (or production).

(The disclaimer here, of course, is that this give-and-take standard is far from established and is constantly churned about even here within the revolutionary left.)

This principled *detaching* of 'give' from 'take' might, at first glance, seem to encourage avarice, but I would argue that it would actually *free* the individual to do what they think is *most important* or *most worth doing* in their lifetimes, free of concern or worry over their well-being and fulfillment of personal interests.

[RED DAVE]

The following, according to Technocrat, is supposed to compatible with Marxism.


The only exception to this procedure of appointment from above occurs in the case of the Continental Director due to the fact that there is no one higher. The Continental Director is chosen from among the members of the Continental Control by the Continental Control. Due to the fact that this Control is composed of only some 100 or so members, all of whom know
each other well, there is no one better fitted to make this choice than they. The tenure of office of every individual continues until retirement or death, unless ended by transfer to another position. The Continental Director is subject to recall on the basis of preferred charges by a two-thirds decision of the Continental Control. Aside from this, he continues in office until the normal age of retirement.

Similarly in matters of general policy he is the chief executive in fact as well as in title. His decisions can only be vetoed by two-thirds ma jority of the Continental Control. It will be noted that the above is the design of a strong organization with complete authority to act. All philosophic concepts of human equality, democracy and political economy have upon examination been found totally lacking and unable to contribute any factors of design for a Continental technological control. The purpose of the organization is to operate the social mechanism of the North American Continent. It is designed along the lines that are incorporated into all functional organizations that exist at the present time. Its membership comprises the entire population of the North American Continent. Its physical assets with which to operate consist of all the resources and equipment of the same area.p. 222 (emph. add)

http://www.archive.org/details/TechnocracyStudyCourse

SIEG HEIL!

RED DAVE

[Comrade_Stalin]

Actually, you are elected from both those above you AND those on the same level as you. No one knows a worker better than the people who work side by side with them everyday, so a person's peers on the same level would first nominate a person for promotion. Since those workers above the position to be filled have already passed through that position they would be familiar with its job requirements and therefore would have final say in appointing someone to a position. How could it work any other way? Any other way and you would have those with less experience and knowledge telling those with MORE experience and knowledge what to do! Only a warped mind would consider that type of situation to be fair and/or functional.

Now, stop me if I'm wrong, but nowhere in any of Marx's writings that I've encountered does it state that direct appointment of workers by popular election is the sole method compatible with communism.

You suggest voting people into positions and then training them... but that is actually LESS fair than what I'm proposing! What I'm proposing is the OPPOSITE of that - people would CHOOSE what training they wanted to take, and then their TRAINING would determine their job placement - it's really as simple as that. If you have the training required for a job, you get it. If you don't have the training, you don't get it. Now, SOMEONE has to be responsible for determining if the individual possesses the required training, and that SOMEONE would be the worker's peers, including those who rank higher since they are familiar with the job requirements of the position to be filled. It may not be a perfect system, but it is the MOST perfect system we have available. This is MUCH more effective AND more fair than simply appointing people to various positions on the basis of mob rule. What decides how people are chosen in mob rule? It isn't a person's qualifications - it's how well they can manipulate the crowd's emotions and play on their baser instincts. THAT'S how people win in majority rule. If anyone doesn't understand this point, they need to brush up on their political theory and behavioral science!

With your proposal, I could train 8 years to be a doctor, and still not get the job because I might lose the vote! Meanwhile, some incompetent but likable fellow would get the job. You would then have to train this guy for 8 years.

Will let me state my reason for my type of system here, which will show one more of the differences between technocracy and communism. The difference is that communism plans for a scarcity society and technocracy believes that we live in a post-scarcity society. Now both believe that capitalism is a problem. Communism believe that the capitalist are miss using resources and the technocratic believe that the capitalist are keeping the world in a scarcity state.

This produces a difference in how we both view education. Under a technocracy you have abundance, or some much “stuff” that you can allow people to get any education they what, even if they are not going to use that said knowledge. There some much abundance, that a person can get 5 Dr. which allows that person to take up any job that uses any one of those degrees or any comb of them. Now under communism, resources are limited, and who gets those resources, is decided by the majority. This means that education resources are also limited. So under communism, we are just using majority rule must effectively use are limited educational resources. Now I will point out that other major difference between the systems, free will in education. Under technocracy you choose your education which also chooses your job position. Your free will then is that you can choose you education directly. Now let me give an example for my system. Let’s say that you wish to be an engineer. SO you choose to the job section which has an engineer as part of it. Normal an engineer designs something, and then gives the said plans to a manger that then directs the work of workers who work on the physical section of the plan the engineer wrote up. So let’s say that the hierarchy in this case engineer, manger then worker. You start as a worker. Then you must nominate, under wise some one would then be forcing you to take a job you don’t like. Then you are elected by the workers to a manger. Now in order for you to become an engineer you must nominate yourself while you are a manger, at which point you then must be elected by the mangers to the job of an engineer. Now for each level you must be trained. Why, will the limit resource in education does not allow us to give the engineer level of knowledge to everyone. Also people have the problem of forgetting knowledge that we have obtained. How many of use remember EVERTHING that we have learned? Now the reason for my system is that you would know the limitations of the people below, which is one of the common problems with the engineering field. Most of the time engineers write plans that no one can read, in case of the manger, or design parts, that the workers cannot build. So under this system, you have the free will in education, not only under what education you get, but on the spending of educational resources on others (thought the vote).

You could point out the other difference between communism and technocracy comes in the form of the job requirements of each. Under technocracy, you must meet the job requirements, set by the people who will be your peers. While under communism, one of you job requirement, is to understand or have the skills, of the people below you.

Now let’s talk about mob rule. I believe that mob rule only happens, when you are forced to elect people into a level, not directly above you. The reason for this, is that you are more willing to be informed, if you have an equal chance to be elected to that level as the candidate. Many of us could never run for president of the United States, and so we are under informed, because of it. That why crowd's emotions can be manipulated, if we are informed we, we have an understanding of the other persons goal, and therefore cannot be manipulated. If you have the same chance, as the candidate, you will do research on their objectives to use against them. In some cases you find that your objectives and there are one in the same , and all you find is other ally.


You raise a couple of critical issues -- we can see the *difference* between communism and technocracy in terms of *structure* itself. Communism would *not* have to rely on the conventional corporate practice of organizational hierarchy. Under communism there would *not* be a need for formal, fixed *job positions* -- certainly a liberated workers' collective could *pool* its knowledge, especially over the Internet, to find an optimal skill-informed solution, or policy, to whatever mass demands might happen to be.


With the elimination of the need for standing, fixed job positions there wouldn't be a need for any job position hierarchy *whatsoever* -- imagine *all* productivity being done in the same way as the creation of Wikipedia (or RevLeft)...(!)

Technocrat, you're applying the *wrong kind* of science here -- behavioral science addresses *interpersonal*, *small*-group kinds of dynamics -- it's not appropriate to *societal*-scale issues of mass labor, collective decision-making, production, surplus, distribution, and consumption.

Will we do have a hierarchy under communism, but ever position is filled by that person being voted in, instead of the being placed in, by the person above them. Only anarchists believe that we should not have a hierarchy at all.

[Dimentio]

Hierarchies do exist in anarchist societies as well, as they are necessary in order to perform some given tasks (for example a brain surgeon has the last word in how to conduct a brain surgery, no matter what 500 laymen claim). What Technocracy in its original form was proposing was simply to abolish all social and bureaucratic structures of management (politicians, CEO's, bureaucrats). The North American technocrats do not have any bureaucracy in the common sense, since their proposal is a moneyless society. Hence, what is remaining is the industrial "chain of command", but without a capitalist class on the top or a bureaucracy which is managing money to different sectors.

The European Movement on the other hand doesn't want to abolish all non-technate institutions, though we want to abolish the price system. Our goal is that technocracy should be a government over machines, while human beings should be free to administrate their own lives, while they receive a share of the overall production capacity.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=169&Itemid=103
http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=103
http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=89&Itemid=103

[Technocrat]

Okay, then I'll address it -- yes, I don't think *anyone* here is disputing your blanket assertion that people are differently-abled, even starting with similar backgrounds and educations.

But I think you've picked the wrong battle in *emphasizing* this point at the expense of your other, better points.

Which points should I be emphasizing instead?


*But* -- here's the thing -- in a fully collectivized, communist society there would be *no point* in *specializing* oneself, or building one's identity, to one particular kind of knowledge *or* skill. Just as common information flows freely today and is replicated infinitely over the innumerable switches of the Internet, so too could workers' *skilled attention* roam to wherever it happened to be needed in realtime, in a communist society. The walls and fences would be down with the abolition of private property and the same would be true for particular branches of highly educated / skilled expertise. Chris, I'm talking about a steady-state, planned economy with a state of simple reproduction. You're talking about something else. In an economy like the one I'm describing, you already know what to produce so you already know the amount of labor that is involved, including the number of skilled positions.

Everyone would choose a field of study when they entered college and this would determine their future employment. In a Technate, the only remaining jobs would be professional jobs, due to automation. Any dirty work which couldn't be automated would be shared by everyone. Everyone who was able would be a professional, and the "professional" work would be evenly divided among everyone.


No one would receive any added benefits from *proprietizing* their professional expertise, no matter how many years they had built up -- everyone would receive what they needed and desired (by some kind of societal standards) *independently* from the yardstick of what they contributed in the way of professional service (or production).Yes. I've explicitly stated that everyone would receive the same share of resources in a Technate.


This principled *detaching* of 'give' from 'take' might, at first glance, seem to encourage avarice, but I would argue that it would actually *free* the individual to do what they think is *most important* or *most worth doing* in their lifetimes, free of concern or worry over their well-being and fulfillment of personal interests.My concern with this is that you are assuming that people's voluntary activities will be sufficient to run society. I don't think this is possible. I think that society will always require work in order to function, and the fairest way of allocating work is to divide it equally among everyone.

[Technocrat]

Will let me state my reason for my type of system here, which will show one more of the differences between technocracy and communism. The difference is that communism plans for a scarcity society and technocracy believes that we live in a post-scarcity society. Now both believe that capitalism is a problem. Communism believe that the capitalist are miss using resources and the technocratic believe that the capitalist are keeping the world in a scarcity state.

This produces a difference in how we both view education. Under a technocracy you have abundance, or some much “stuff” that you can allow people to get any education they what, even if they are not going to use that said knowledge. There some much abundance, that a person can get 5 Dr. which allows that person to take up any job that uses any one of those degrees or any comb of them. Now under communism, resources are limited, and who gets those resources, is decided by the majority. This means that education resources are also limited. So under communism, we are just using majority rule must effectively use are limited educational resources. Now I will point out that other major difference between the systems, free will in education. Under technocracy you choose your education which also chooses your job position. Your free will then is that you can choose you education directly. Now let me give an example for my system. Let’s say that you wish to be an engineer. SO you choose to the job section which has an engineer as part of it. Normal an engineer designs something, and then gives the said plans to a manger that then directs the work of workers who work on the physical section of the plan the engineer wrote up. So let’s say that the hierarchy in this case engineer, manger then worker. You start as a worker. Then you must nominate, under wise some one would then be forcing you to take a job you don’t like. Then you are elected by the workers to a manger. Now in order for you to become an engineer you must nominate yourself while you are a manger, at which point you then must be elected by the mangers to the job of an engineer. Now for each level you must be trained. Why, will the limit resource in education does not allow us to give the engineer level of knowledge to everyone. Also people have the problem of forgetting knowledge that we have obtained. How many of use remember EVERTHING that we have learned? Now the reason for my system is that you would know the limitations of the people below, which is one of the common problems with the engineering field. Most of the time engineers write plans that no one can read, in case of the manger, or design parts, that the workers cannot build. So under this system, you have the free will in education, not only under what education you get, but on the spending of educational resources on others (thought the vote).

A post-scarcity society does not require limitless resources. Resources will always be limited because there is a finite amount of them. As I have explained before elsewhere on this forum, scarcity and abundance are determined by how the resource is used. It's entirely contextual.

A person can only consume so much of anything within a 24 hour period. This means an entire area of people can only consume so much of anything within a 24 hour period. If the resources available within a given area are more than what the population of that area can PHYSICALLY CONSUME, then you have an abundance (according to the English language). Economists redefine abundance and scarcity into absolutes, using the argument that because human desires are infinite, that it is possible that no one will ever get everything they want. This is ignoring the basic fact that I described above, which is that there are definite physical limits on what a person is capable of consuming. Almost everything economists say is a lie constructed to justify the unequal distribution of wealth and power.

The reason we don't have an abundance is because of poor planning - some unintentional, but most of it the intentional result of capitalism aka the price system.


You could point out the other difference between communism and technocracy comes in the form of the job requirements of each. Under technocracy, you must meet the job requirements, set by the people who will be your peers. While under communism, one of you job requirement, is to understand or have the skills, of the people below you.This isn't a difference - the same would be true in Technocracy. The "higher positions" are merely those jobs within the same field of operation that require more training. "Lower jobs" are just those positions within the same field that require less training.


Now let’s talk about mob rule. I believe that mob rule only happens, when you are forced to elect people into a level, not directly above you. The reason for this, is that you are more willing to be informed, if you have an equal chance to be elected to that level as the candidate. Many of us could never run for president of the United States, and so we are under informed, because of it. That why crowd's emotions can be manipulated, if we are informed we, we have an understanding of the other persons goal, and therefore cannot be manipulated. If you have the same chance, as the candidate, you will do research on their objectives to use against them. In some cases you find that your objectives and there are one in the same , and all you find is other ally. I agree with this but I don't understand why you've said it. You've said that mob rule happens when people vote on people that are in a level not directly above them. This makes sense.

Technocracy works the same way: people only vote amongst themselves (on the same level) for promotion to the level immediately above them. Those in the level immediately above the position to be filled would choose who from the available candidates would be selected. All of this would be done with total transparency.


Will we do have a hierarchy under communism, but ever position is filled by that person being voted in, instead of the being placed in, by the person above them. Only anarchists believe that we should not have a hierarchy at all. Your position seems more reasonable. I hope I've clarified to you how positions are filled.

[ckaihatsu]

Chris, I'm talking about a steady-state, planned economy with a state of simple reproduction. You're talking about something else. In an economy like the one I'm describing, you already know what to produce so you already know the amount of labor that is involved, including the number of skilled positions.




[E]veryone would receive the same share of resources in a Technate.




[Y]ou are assuming that people's voluntary activities will be sufficient to run society. I don't think this is possible. I think that society will always require work in order to function, and the fairest way of allocating work is to divide it equally among everyone.





[W]hat is remaining [in Technocracy] is the industrial "chain of command", but without a capitalist class on the top or a bureaucracy which is managing money to different sectors.





Will we do have a hierarchy under communism, but ever position is filled by that person being voted in, instead of the being placed in, by the person above them.





Only anarchists believe that we should not have a hierarchy at all.





You're talking about something else.


We're really addressing the *finer points* here in this thread's topic, since we're in agreement on the *basics*. *My* difference here is on what should be considered the "independent variable" in structuring the post-capitalist economy. I think that the very *structure* of basing everything around *job positions* would be problematic in a post-capitalist system because it really smacks of a return to *commodification*.

Instead, it would be better to plan the workflow *backwards*, from human need / consumer demand at the terminus, backwards to exactly what production runs and projects are required for such output, backwards to what kinds of labor, where, and in what amounts would be required to produce such output. While there could be some "dedicated" or "key" people tasked from below to coordinating the liberated labor and local assets / resources, these kinds of roles would be per-project *only* and would *not* be a standing administration or enduring job positions.

In the model that I advocate, below, liberated labor would be compensated commensurately with increasing labor organizing power, going forward. The fulfillment of people's demands and wants would be *separate* from this labor-only economy, subject to an ongoing *political* process of mass prioritization (and willing labor participation).





This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

Attached Files communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors.pdf (26.6 KB, 11 views)

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg





Everyone would choose a field of study when they entered college and this would determine their future employment. In a Technate, the only remaining jobs would be professional jobs, due to automation. Any dirty work which couldn't be automated would be shared by everyone. Everyone who was able would be a professional, and the "professional" work would be evenly divided among everyone.





Now for each level you must be trained. Why, will the limit resource in education does not allow us to give the engineer level of knowledge to everyone. Also people have the problem of forgetting knowledge that we have obtained. How many of use remember EVERTHING that we have learned?


The "commodification" of work roles into fixed, formal job positions leads to *further* problems in that liberated labor will want to "(re-)self-commodify" based on their education, training, and expertise. While knowledge and information can physically flow freely human beings are *discrete* entities and should *not* have to define themselves based on what kinds of labor they're used to doing, or what their body of knowledge is, *especially* in a post-capitalist / communist society.

By letting every-*thing* and every-*one* float around the independent variable of (mass-demanded) production runs and projects, we can avoid commodification altogether.

[Dimentio]

I personally disagree with the idea that people should vote on what should be produced. It sounds terribly inefficient and could create rifts where minorities are indirectly repressed. Moreover, constant meetings and decisions could be tirening for people. Coop in Sweden has a similar model as you are advocating, but I would be surprised if 5% of their members are actually showing up on their meetings.

The reason why technocrats are advocating Energy Accounting is that it would combine the egalitarianism of post-capitalist systems with the dynamics of the market and the sustainability of the environment, as people would have the consumption capacity relative to nature's carrying capacity allocated to them, and then in their turn allocate their capacity to what they want produced for themselves, so there always would be a perfect match between need and production capacity.

[Demogorgon]

BTW, to attack Technocrat's position on yet another front (Red Dave's post reminded me of it), consider his ideology's proposed borders for their "technate". They intend to incorporate all of North America and the choicest chunk of South America. They claim that this area is the area with the resources needed for their alleged "economy of abundance". By expanding or contracting these borders, their goals would not be possible.

Now consider the plight of those people in the parts of South America shut out from this and unable to ever really advance because the continents best resources are denied to them. I have challenged Technocrat on this several times and his answer has always been that it is necessary to exclude them as "abundance" apparently isn't possible across the whole two continents.

Excuse me? They intend to leave possibly hundreds of millions of people in perpetual poverty so as to achieve the prosperity of others? Any leftist faced with the problem of certain people not having enough looks for a means to achieve a more balanced distribution of wealth. Technocrat and those he follows propose locking out the worst off from the system forever. How can such a proposal be considered even vaguely connected to the left?

[Technocrat]

We're really addressing the *finer points* here in this thread's topic, since we're in agreement on the *basics*. *My* difference here is on what should be considered the "independent variable" in structuring the post-capitalist economy. I think that the very *structure* of basing everything around *job positions* would be problematic in a post-capitalist system because it really smacks of a return to *commodification*.

Chris, the focus isn't on job positions but job requirements. I've tried explaining this in a number of ways unsuccessfully.


Instead, it would be better to plan the workflow *backwards*, from human need / consumer demand at the terminus, backwards to exactly what production runs and projects are required for such output, backwards to what kinds of labor, where, and in what amounts would be required to produce such output. Chris, this is pretty much how Technocracy works, as I've attempted to explain. We can know in advance how much labor we need and of what types based upon what people demand.


While there could be some "dedicated" or "key" people tasked from below to coordinating the liberated labor and local assets / resources, these kinds of roles would be per-project *only* and would *not* be a standing administration or enduring job positions.If a person trains for 12 years to be a doctor or engineer, it makes little sense to NOT have them in an "enduring position".


In the model that I advocate, below, liberated labor would be compensated commensurately with increasing labor organizing power, going forward.That's the same thing that would be accomplished by Technocracy. It's another way of saying "a hierarchy of authority based upon demonstrated skill and expertise" - what I said in my very first post in this thread.


The fulfillment of people's demands and wants would be *separate* from this labor-only economy, subject to an ongoing *political* process of mass prioritization (and willing labor participation).The part about mass prioritization is incompatible with a state of simple reproduction as would exist in a Technocracy. There is no need for prioritization when a state of simple reproduction exists.


The "commodification" of work roles into fixed, formal job positions leads to *further* problems in that liberated labor will want to "(re-)self-commodify" based on their education, training, and expertise. While knowledge and information can physically flow freely human beings are *discrete* entities and should *not* have to define themselves based on what kinds of labor they're used to doing, or what their body of knowledge is, *especially* in a post-capitalist / communist society.Again, it makes little sense to NOT have fixed positions for those skill sets that require years to acquire.

If there is a state of simple reproduction, and we are working backwards using consumer demand to determine how much work is required and of what types, then we can determine what % of the population needs to be engaged in each particular activity in order for everyone to have the same amount of work. In order for this to be fair the various jobs have to of relatively equal difficulty, which would be accomplished by eliminating easy work through automation.

If we know what % of the population is engaged in a particular task then we know how many to admit into that field of study. People can change jobs if they want to - it would just be a matter of getting the right training, which would be freely available.

This isn't about people defining themselves through their work, it's about organizing people so that they can make the best use of their talents, while making sure that the work of society is shared equally by everyone.


By letting every-*thing* and every-*one* float around the independent variable of (mass-demanded) production runs and projects, we can avoid commodification altogether.I think you're still assuming that consumer demands would change so often that this would be necessary. I've explained that in a Technocracy this wouldn't be the case because there would be a state of simple reproduction.

[Technocrat]

BTW, to attack Technocrat's position on yet another front (Red Dave's post reminded me of it), consider his ideology's proposed borders for their "technate". They intend to incorporate all of North America and the choicest chunk of South America. They claim that this area is the area with the resources needed for their alleged "economy of abundance". By expanding or contracting these borders, their goals would not be possible.

Now consider the plight of those people in the parts of South America shut out from this and unable to ever really advance because the continents best resources are denied to them. I have challenged Technocrat on this several times and his answer has always been that it is necessary to exclude them as "abundance" apparently isn't possible across the whole two continents.

Now you're misquoting me, because I never said that.

What I've said is that you cannot change, geographically, where resources are located and where plants will grow. Therefore it is possible to determine a minimum geographic area that is capable of producing an abundance for the people living within that area.

I have always said that the ultimate goal should be a worldwide Technate that incorporates every Nation. The Price System should be completely abolished across the entire world. The best way to do this is by first establishing a Technate in North America so that its runaway resource consumption can be curbed, and because we are home to the same corporations responsible for exploiting the third world. This will immediately improve the lives of those living in the third world, South America included, since we will no longer be importing their resources and exploiting them for labor. North America is the most wasteful area on Earth. If we can reduce its consumption by at least 2/3rds, as Technocracy would, how would that NOT benefit the third world?

This sort of mirrors the debate on socialism in one country - where do you stand on that?

[Technocrat]

I personally disagree with the idea that people should vote on what should be produced. It sounds terribly inefficient and could create rifts where minorities are indirectly repressed. Moreover, constant meetings and decisions could be tirening for people. Coop in Sweden has a similar model as you are advocating, but I would be surprised if 5% of their members are actually showing up on their meetings.

The reason why technocrats are advocating Energy Accounting is that it would combine the egalitarianism of post-capitalist systems with the dynamics of the market and the sustainability of the environment, as people would have the consumption capacity relative to nature's carrying capacity allocated to them, and then in their turn allocate their capacity to what they want produced for themselves, so there always would be a perfect match between need and production capacity.

The one thing I would say, and I know I've said this before, but I think it would be better to not focus on Energy Accounting.

Think about: a person walks into a distribution center and takes something. A record is made of that person taking it. This is done for everything that is consumed. So, you have a record of what is being consumed. That means you know how much to produce (since a Technate would be in a state of simple reproduction). Energy Accounting is more like a detail that helps with this, but what people should understand is that they would no longer have to budget or keep track of anything - they'd just walk into a distribution center and take what they wanted, or order it online and have it delivered to them.

People get really confused about Energy Accounting, in my experience, and it isn't really essential to understanding how things would work in a Technocracy.

[Comrade_Stalin]

We're really addressing the *finer points* here in this thread's topic, since we're in agreement on the *basics*. *My* difference here is on what should be considered the "independent variable" in structuring the post-capitalist economy. I think that the very *structure* of basing everything around *job positions* would be problematic in a post-capitalist system because it really smacks of a return to *commodification*.


The "commodification" of work roles into fixed, formal job positions leads to *further* problems in that liberated labor will want to "(re-)self-commodify" based on their education, training, and expertise. While knowledge and information can physically flow freely human beings are *discrete* entities and should *not* have to define themselves based on what kinds of labor they're used to doing, or what their body of knowledge is, *especially* in a post-capitalist / communist society.

By letting every-*thing* and every-*one* float around the independent variable of (mass-demanded) production runs and projects, we can avoid commodification altogether.

In fact when we are not trolling each other this is all we are doing, just debating the finer points. An ideal would to replace job sections with worker committees, which would act like political committees. Just like in politics, you can be on many committees at the same time. You could be on the doctor committee and the engineer committee at the same time. All we would have to do is just plan the work week then, so that is no conflict between your duties to each. Then what we could do is have the committee train you to be a productive worker, and the money, which would be your “education cost”, would be the money they pay to you for being under skilled. It would be like a trade guild before they became unions.


A post-scarcity society does not require limitless resources. Resources will always be limited because there is a finite amount of them. As I have explained before elsewhere on this forum, scarcity and abundance are determined by how the resource is used. It's entirely contextual.


A person can only consume so much of anything within a 24 hour period. This means an entire area of people can only consume so much of anything within a 24 hour period. If the resources available within a given area are more than what the population of that area can PHYSICALLY CONSUME, then you have an abundance (according to the English language). Economists redefine abundance and scarcity into absolutes, using the argument that because human desires are infinite, that it is possible that no one will ever get everything they want. This is ignoring the basic fact that I described above, which is that there are definite physical limits on what a person is capable of consuming. Almost everything economists say is a lie constructed to justify the unequal distribution of wealth and power.

The reason we don't have an abundance is because of poor planning - some unintentional, but most of it the intentional result of capitalism aka the price system.

This isn't a difference - the same would be true in Technocracy. The "higher positions" are merely those jobs within the same field of operation that require more training. "Lower jobs" are just those positions within the same field that require less training.

I agree with this but I don't understand why you've said it. You've said that mob rule happens when people vote on people that are in a level not directly above them. This makes sense.

Technocracy works the same way: people only vote amongst themselves (on the same level) for promotion to the level immediately above them. Those in the level immediately above the position to be filled would choose who from the available candidates would be selected. All of this would be done with total transparency.

Your position seems more reasonable. I hope I've clarified to you how positions are filled.

This kind of proves my point. The difference is in the miss use of resources. Communist believes that the reason everyone does not have a job, is that it is planned that way. Technocratic believe that the “reason we don't have an abundance is because of poor planning”.

If we looked an unemployed person, the technocratic would say that the capitalist are so poor planers that man is unemployed, the communist would say that the capitalist planned it that way to drive down the wages of the people who do work for them.

The mob thing way a reply to one of your post, in which it was talking about mob rule. Fromm someone who is ghosting our site, it would look like that you think that all election would result in mob rule, in fact this is what I thought you were thinking.

[Comrade_Stalin]

What Technocracy in its original form was proposing was simply to abolish all social and bureaucratic structures of management (politicians, CEO's, bureaucrats). The North American technocrats do not have any bureaucracy in the common sense, since their proposal is a moneyless society. Hence, what is remaining is the industrial "chain of command", but without a capitalist class on the top or a bureaucracy which is managing money to different sectors.


Will this is one of the basics that we all agree on. We all wish to reduces all the "fat" and only leave thae "chain of command". But we all have different views on what that chain of command will look like.

[Dimentio]

The one thing I would say, and I know I've said this before, but I think it would be better to not focus on Energy Accounting.

Think about: a person walks into a distribution center and takes something. A record is made of that person taking it. This is done for everything that is consumed. So, you have a record of what is being consumed. That means you know how much to produce (since a Technate would be in a state of simple reproduction). Energy Accounting is more like a detail that helps with this, but what people should understand is that they would no longer have to budget or keep track of anything - they'd just walk into a distribution center and take what they wanted, or order it online and have it delivered to them.

People get really confused about Energy Accounting, in my experience, and it isn't really essential to understanding how things would work in a Technocracy.

That model isn't perfect either as people's consumption is changing with the desires of the individual and the family. The best method is only to produce what people're asking for.

[ckaihatsu]

Chris, the focus isn't on job positions but job requirements. I've tried explaining this in a number of ways unsuccessfully.




Again, it makes little sense to NOT have fixed positions for those skill sets that require years to acquire.


And I'm saying that the very *use* of formalized jobs (requirements / positions) is too much in the way of commodification all over again -- it would be unnecessary.





If a person trains for 12 years to be a doctor or engineer, it makes little sense to NOT have them in an "enduring position".


There *is* a difference between working in a job position in order to secure the material means for a life and livelihood, and working in order to benefit society. The former typifies *why* we work under the monolithic economic system of capitalism. The *latter* is why we would work under a *post*-capitalist / communist society. Do you really think that those who *currently* train for 12 years to be a doctor or engineer with a beneficial attitude towards society would *not* do the same under communism? Or, to put it another way, do you really think that there wouldn't be enough professionals / workers in a communist society who wanted to work primarily for society's benefit?

(As long as there were enough people to work "voluntarily" then society would be at a critical mass of functioning to appropriately support these professionals / workers with fulfilling their needs and wants.)





That's the same thing that would be accomplished by Technocracy. It's another way of saying "a hierarchy of authority based upon demonstrated skill and expertise" - what I said in my very first post in this thread.


That's fine and everything, but my *concern* and *difference* with regular labor-hour-based models is that there's a direct linking of labor time to material compensation, similar to today's wages system.

It seems to me that a *communist* system would [1] *not* coerce anyone into labor, would [2] provide the proceeds of collectivized assets and resources freely to the population.

Based on these core principles the whole job-position, position-hierarchy, and material-compensation formulation seems superfluous and unnecessary. There would *not be* any need for a fixed, set position structure, aside from mass labor's *own* self-organizing around mass-demanded production runs and projects. There would *not be* any need for labor-hour-based material-compensation ratios when everything produced would be freely available *and* that labor could not be coerced.





I think you're still assuming that consumer demands would change so often that this would be necessary. I've explained that in a Technocracy this wouldn't be the case because there would be a state of simple reproduction.




The part about mass prioritization is incompatible with a state of simple reproduction as would exist in a Technocracy. There is no need for prioritization when a state of simple reproduction exists.


Well, then, I have differences with the technocracy model on this point, too -- I think *any* society is limited if it can't *pro-actively* plan on a mass scale for producing a (varied) societal surplus and for using that surplus intentionally, with a minimum of waste.

[ckaihatsu]

In fact when we are not trolling each other this is all we are doing, just debating the finer points. An ideal would to replace job sections with worker committees, which would act like political committees. Just like in politics, you can be on many committees at the same time. You could be on the doctor committee and the engineer committee at the same time. All we would have to do is just plan the work week then, so that is no conflict between your duties to each. Then what we could do is have the committee train you to be a productive worker, and the money, which would be your “education cost”, would be the money they pay to you for being under skilled. It would be like a trade guild before they became unions.


Of course I agree with this approach as a substantial improvement over the *current*, capital-based system. On a finer point I would question if even *committees* would be needed, or if whether even *that* structure would be too abstracted from the rank-and-file, thus inherently encouraging power-base-building.

As an illustration I wonder whether the common newspaper -- or a few of them to cover various scales, from global to regional to local -- couldn't be the *ultimate* and *sole* vehicle for organizing consumer demands (human needs), *including* the corresponding needs for social work roles (jobs)?

(Under capitalism there is a *chasm* between the two domains, artificially separated into 'capital supply' (goods and services) and 'labor supply' (job-seekers) -- under mass workers' control there could simply be what people want and want to do, and what collectivized assets and resources are available for the same.)

[Demogorgon]

Now you're misquoting me, because I never said that.

What I've said is that you cannot change, geographically, where resources are located and where plants will grow. Therefore it is possible to determine a minimum geographic area that is capable of producing an abundance for the people living within that area.

I have always said that the ultimate goal should be a worldwide Technate that incorporates every Nation. The Price System should be completely abolished across the entire world. The best way to do this is by first establishing a Technate in North America so that its runaway resource consumption can be curbed, and because we are home to the same corporations responsible for exploiting the third world. This will immediately improve the lives of those living in the third world, South America included, since we will no longer be importing their resources and exploiting them for labor. North America is the most wasteful area on Earth. If we can reduce its consumption by at least 2/3rds, as Technocracy would, how would that NOT benefit the third world?

This sort of mirrors the debate on socialism in one country - where do you stand on that?
I've done myself an injury meaning I can't type very easily, so this will have to be a rather shorter and weaker post than I would like to give but my point is that your attitude is not "how can we spread out what we have equitably?", but "how many need be excluded to allow the others to enjoy abundance?" That is your problem.

"Socialism in one country" is nonsense. We live in an inter-dependent world. Even the USSR with a vast size meaning it was less dependent on outside trade and existing in a less inter-dependent world could not do it.

[Dimentio]

I've done myself an injury meaning I can't type very easily, so this will have to be a rather shorter and weaker post than I would like to give but my point is that your attitude is not "how can we spread out what we have equitably?", but "how many need be excluded to allow the others to enjoy abundance?" That is your problem.

"Socialism in one country" is nonsense. We live in an inter-dependent world. Even the USSR with a vast size meaning it was less dependent on outside trade and existing in a less inter-dependent world could not do it.

Autarchy should be avoided, but it is possible to try to keep such a diversified system as possible within your borders. Despite that the planned economy of the USSR faltered, it was neither completely autarchic or collapsed because of autarchy, but because of other reasons.

[Demogorgon]

Autarchy should be avoided, but it is possible to try to keep such a diversified system as possible within your borders. Despite that the planned economy of the USSR faltered, it was neither completely autarchic or collapsed because of autarchy, but because of other reasons.
I don't mean that it failed because of autarky but rather that it had to trade (and it traded a lot) and (initial) lack of friendly trade partners forced it to take up terms of trade that were not favourable to it.

[Dimentio]

I don't mean that it failed because of autarky but rather that it had to trade (and it traded a lot) and (initial) lack of friendly trade partners forced it to take up terms of trade that were not favourable to it.

Yes, the technate would probably have to barter a lot initially.

[Technocrat]

In fact when we are not trolling each other this is all we are doing, just debating the finer points. An ideal would to replace job sections with worker committees, which would act like political committees. Just like in politics, you can be on many committees at the same time. You could be on the doctor committee and the engineer committee at the same time. All we would have to do is just plan the work week then, so that is no conflict between your duties to each. Then what we could do is have the committee train you to be a productive worker, and the money, which would be your “education cost”, would be the money they pay to you for being under skilled. It would be like a trade guild before they became unions.

Well, the part I disagree with is where you say that worker committees would act like political committees. This entails some form of governance by opinion.

A technocracy is supposed to be a government based on the physical factors involved in production - not opinions.

This may seem confusing at first, but all matters relating to production are objective matters once the goals have been decided.


This kind of proves my point. The difference is in the miss use of resources. Communist believes that the reason everyone does not have a job, is that it is planned that way. Technocratic believe that the “reason we don't have an abundance is because of poor planning”.

If we looked an unemployed person, the technocratic would say that the capitalist are so poor planers that man is unemployed, the communist would say that the capitalist planned it that way to drive down the wages of the people who do work for them.

Actually, the communist position does not differ greatly from the Technocrat position on this matter. Technocracy has long recognized that "poor planning" is often done deliberately in order to increase profits (ie planned obsolescence).


The mob thing way a reply to one of your post, in which it was talking about mob rule. Fromm someone who is ghosting our site, it would look like that you think that all election would result in mob rule, in fact this is what I thought you were thinking.

I pretty much agree with what you say regarding elections - as long as the people voting are voting among themselves for promotion to a position that is immediately above them, then it works fine.

[Dimentio]

Technocracy would not really be considered a political government since it quite much is abolishing governance over people. What would be left in terms of a chain of command, would be a chain of command over machinery, infrastructure and resources.

[Technocrat]

That model isn't perfect either as people's consumption is changing with the desires of the individual and the family. The best method is only to produce what people're asking for.

The system I propose would only produce what people are asking for.

Let me rephrase:

In a state of simple reproduction, future demand equals current demand.

So if x amount of product y is consumed, then x must be produced for the next consumption cycle.

It's an argument of market economists that human needs are so subjective that no planned system can ever meet them. In fact, human needs are objective, meaning we can use science to determine the best way of meeting them.

[Technocrat]

And I'm saying that the very *use* of formalized jobs (requirements / positions) is too much in the way of commodification all over again -- it would be unnecessary.

Chris, now you lost me.

Any task has requirements that must be met for it to be completed.


There *is* a difference between working in a job position in order to secure the material means for a life and livelihood, and working in order to benefit society. The former typifies *why* we work under the monolithic economic system of capitalism. The *latter* is why we would work under a *post*-capitalist / communist society. Do you really think that those who *currently* train for 12 years to be a doctor or engineer with a beneficial attitude towards society would *not* do the same under communism? Or, to put it another way, do you really think that there wouldn't be enough professionals / workers in a communist society who wanted to work primarily for society's benefit?Chris, you seem to be doing two contradictory things here:

First, you propose that we work backwards to determine how much labor is required and of what types, by looking at what goods and services are being demanded by society. This part makes sense and is the same as in Technocracy. This means we know in advance how much labor is needed for every task.

Second, you propose that strictly volunteer labor would automatically allocate labor where needed. This is the contradiction - the first part is a top-down process, but the second is bottom-up.

Basically, if the second part is true, then you don't even need to do the first part. The second part is also an assumption. You haven't provided evidence that society's voluntary actions would be sufficient to produce all the goods and services that people would demand.


That's fine and everything, but my *concern* and *difference* with regular labor-hour-based models is that there's a direct linking of labor time to material compensation, similar to today's wages system. There is no compensation in Technocracy because everything is free.


It seems to me that a *communist* system would [1] *not* coerce anyone into labor, would [2] provide the proceeds of collectivized assets and resources freely to the population.Technocracy doesn't coerce anyone into labor. "From each according to his ability" -Marx

"Each citizen is obligated to contribute his or her per capita share of time and effort in the operations of society". -Technocracy

These are two ways of saying the same thing.

Technocracy would give everyone an equal share of the available resources of society.


There would *not be* any need for a fixed, set position structure, aside from mass labor's *own* self-organizing around mass-demanded production runs and projects.Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself. If we work backwards from consumer demand to determine what we need to produce, then we know what requirements must be met and a hierarchy of fixed positions emerges around that. Certain positions would be fixed because certain production runs would be more or less constant. This doesn't mean the same person would always occupy them, it just means that a constant production run requires the same tasks to be performed constantly. In a state of simple reproduction as would exist in a Technocracy, MOST of the production runs would be fixed.


There would *not be* any need for labor-hour-based material-compensation ratios when everything produced would be freely available *and* that labor could not be coerced.Again, there is no compensation - where did you suddenly get this idea? I've been explaining this for months and I've always said that people wouldn't have to pay for anything - they would just take whatever they needed.


Well, then, I have differences with the technocracy model on this point, too -- I think *any* society is limited if it can't *pro-actively* plan on a mass scale for producing a (varied) societal surplus and for using that surplus intentionally, with a minimum of waste.I think you missed the point. The point is that prioritization is only necessary in a scarcity-based economy. The very idea of "priorities" DEPENDS on scarcity. Since the entire point of the Technate is that we will be able to fulfill everyone's needs, we don't need to prioritize as to which needs to fulfill and in what order.

[Technocrat]

I've done myself an injury meaning I can't type very easily, so this will have to be a rather shorter and weaker post than I would like to give but my point is that your attitude is not "how can we spread out what we have equitably?", but "how many need be excluded to allow the others to enjoy abundance?" That is your problem.

Demo, what is your position on world population growth? I can't go any further with this until I have your answer.

[Technocrat]

Yes, the technate would probably have to barter a lot initially.

Yes - trade with other nations would be done only for essential commodities. This would be direct trade, without money.

Trade for profit would cease.

[RED DAVE]

We've established that the vote for the top dog in Technocracy is done by his/her cronies in the level below him/her: a system that is hard to beat for lack of democracy. It means that the people the lower levels would find it impossible to influence a choice more than a level above them.

Let's see how else it works.


Technocracy works the same way: people only vote amongst themselves (on the same level) for promotion to the level immediately above them. Those in the level immediately above the position to be filled would choose who from the available candidates would be selected. All of this would be done with total transparency.And suppose that a group of people, say, on Level C, object to the choice of people on Level B for Level A (the top dog).

Do they have the right to organize a political party or a union to protest the selection of the Level A person by the Level B people? Do they have the right to demonstrate, to right to strike, to publish an opposition newspaper, set up a website, etc.?

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Let's see how else it works.

And suppose that a group of people, say, on Level C, object to the choice of people on Level B for Level A (the top dog).

Do they have the right to organize a political party or a union to protest the selection of the Level A person by the Level B people? Do they have the right to demonstrate, to right to strike, to publish an opposition newspaper, set up a website, etc.?

RED DAVE

Yes, they would.

I've been saying this for months now:

A person can be removed by a 2/3rd vote by that person's peers.

A peer is anyone whose actions are immediately influenced or are influenced by an individual.

Since the actions of those in level A would effect everyone, then everyone would have the right to vote them out.

I've said that it's UNLIKELY that strikes would be necessary, since corrupt leadership would just be immediately voted out and replaced.

Or, let's say the actions of those in level A DON'T effect those in level C, somehow. Those in level C still have the ability to remove those in level A by threatening to vote out those in level B if those in level B don't comply by voting out those in level A.

[ckaihatsu]

Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself. If we work backwards from consumer demand to determine what we need to produce, then we know what requirements must be met and a hierarchy of fixed positions emerges around that.




Certain positions would be fixed because certain production runs would be more or less constant. This doesn't mean the same person would always occupy them, it just means that a constant production run requires the same tasks to be performed constantly.




And I'm saying that the very *use* of formalized jobs (requirements / positions) is too much in the way of commodification all over again -- it would be unnecessary.





Chris, now you lost me.

Any task has requirements that must be met for it to be completed.


Yes, there's a *difference* between formalized job positions and *tasks*. On a hierarchy of longevity we might order these elements as such: life's purpose / abiding interests, craft / vocation, career, work role, job position, clients, projects, production runs, goals, procedures, tasks, creativity.

The *problem* with abstracting work in realtime into *any* of these generalities is that, while the abstraction / category may be *conceptually* helpful, in practice (under capitalism) we wind up *commodifying*, or *packaging*, these abstractions to the point where the commodity, like a job position, takes on more of a life than the person filling the position. Note that in a corporation many people may come and go into and out of a particular job position, but the position winds up having a greater longevity than any of the people filling it. Going up a level, the job positions in a corporation may be created or folded up, but the corporate *entity* as a whole has a greater longevity than any of the job positions that are its basis.

So as a result of this abstract organizational hierarchy -- distinct and different from the actual *work* accomplished within it -- people's work lives are *demeaned* by being formalized and commodified to it.

The *point* of having a revolution is to *topple* this kind of organization altogether, in favor of a bottom-up approach that allows each worker to also self-manage and co-manage with other workers, without any implicit threats to life and livelihood.





Chris, you seem to be doing two contradictory things here:

First, you propose that we work backwards to determine how much labor is required and of what types, by looking at what goods and services are being demanded by society. This part makes sense and is the same as in Technocracy. This means we know in advance how much labor is needed for every task.




The system I propose would only produce what people are asking for.


Okay -- I'll submit to you that this part of the process is both *bottom-up* and *political* in nature.





In a state of simple reproduction as would exist in a Technocracy, MOST of the production runs would be fixed.




Let me rephrase:

In a state of simple reproduction, future demand equals current demand.

So if x amount of product y is consumed, then x must be produced for the next consumption cycle.




It's an argument of market economists that human needs are so subjective that no planned system can ever meet them. In fact, human needs are objective, meaning we can use science to determine the best way of meeting them.




I think you missed the point. The point is that prioritization is only necessary in a scarcity-based economy. The very idea of "priorities" DEPENDS on scarcity. Since the entire point of the Technate is that we will be able to fulfill everyone's needs, we don't need to prioritize as to which ones to fulfill and in what order.


Your conception of a planned economy is far too *static* for gaining my support, Technocrat -- a society should be able to assess needs *and* wants / desires, and be flexible enough to *grow* as population size and consumer demands grow. Scarcity (of a type) exists whenever wants / desires / whims are initially thought-up and go without being provided for.





Technocracy would not really be considered a political government since it quite much is abolishing governance over people. What would be left in terms of a chain of command, would be a chain of command over machinery, infrastructure and resources.


What you're missing here, Dimentio, is that the political *aspect* of *any* society can't be ignored or dismissed. Disputes could arise as to who gets what positions, whether technocracy should be run according to the structure that Technocrat advocates, what the quantitative threshold is for responding to demand, etc. -- variables abound.





Well, the part I disagree with is where you say that worker committees would act like political committees. This entails some form of governance by opinion.

A technocracy is supposed to be a government based on the physical factors involved in production - not opinions.

This may seem confusing at first, but all matters relating to production are objective matters once the goals have been decided.


I'd also be curious to know of the interaction between the technate and mass demand -- would a population demand less of something upon being informed that the resources required for it are too far away (too onerous to procure)?

Would mass demand be absolutely *trusting* of the official data from the technate? What mass oversight might need to be put into place to verify the official information?





Second, you propose that strictly volunteer labor would automatically allocate labor where needed. This is the contradiction - the first part is a top-down process, but the second is bottom-up.


No, I'd say that the aggregation of mass need / consumer want is *bottom-up* as well.

Labor in a communist society would have to be *uncoerced*. (Labor organized in the process of *getting to* a socialist / communist society -- fighting the bourgeoisie -- may very well *have* to be coerced into action by a revolutionary political command.)





Basically, if the second part is true, then you don't even need to do the first part. The second part is also an assumption. You haven't provided evidence that society's voluntary actions would be sufficient to produce all the goods and services that people would demand.


For the sake of conceptualization and argument I prefer to think of mass demand (need and want) as *separate* from the organizing of labor to fulfill it. If the functioning of the two can be integrated within the same population, then so be it, but in more complex and far-flung societal arrangements there might be some compartmentalization and long-distance distribution routes -- area-wide specializations, in short.

I make no promises myself that a given model will perform perfectly -- obviously it's ultimately up to the participants themselves as to how the whole society's politics and economics are arranged.

[Dimentio]

Ckaihatsu: Your concern is why the European Movement has discussed political governance extensively and agreed through a broad consensus that we do not strive to establish any form of political government, or shift political functions to the technate. Instead, all legislative powers should be put on the shoulders of the people through a confederalist structure of autonomous communes.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=137

Read this article.

[Wolf Larson]

Capitalism has formed a society of inequality. Unequal education, unequal opportunity. Poverty which decimates an individuals chances to enjoy proper parental support and nurturing. In a society of abundance an elite intellectual class will be unnecessary and dare I say non existent unless of course [as I suspect] you subscribe to the theories of Herrnstein and Charles Murray. What this Technocrat isn't taking into account are the reasons we have such vast gaps in intelligence right now.

I'm getting real tiered of reading this elitist bullshit on a forum supposedly committed to equality and the abolition of hierarchy. Under conditions of abundance the human condition itself will be uplifted and with the application of technology combined with revolutionized education under conditions of socioeconomic equality EVERYONE will be smarter. The doctor will be no more important than the sanitation worker. If the sanitation worker did not clean the city disease would overwhelm and destroy millions of lives and with the application of new technology no one would be wading knee deep in shit. From each according to his ability to each according to his need implies a lack of hierarchy. The doctor will be a doctor because she/he is interested in helping humanity as the sanitation worker will clean the city because they also will want to do their part without expectations of holding any more or less responsibility or social status. There will be no intelligent class making decisions for the people. Let me ask you this, and be honest- what do you think determines aptitude for intelligence? All you're doing, in reality, is continuing the Lockean opinion that the masses need shepherds, or enlightened wise men to look after them seeing they know no better. You are counterrevolutionary in regards to your adherence to man made hierarchical institutions under the control of an elite minority class. Try reading Kropotkin or a more modern version of my point- try reading [and understanding] The Ecology Of Freedom; The Emergence And Dissolution Of Hierarchy.

"Yes life is a struggle. But this struggle is not between man and man- it is between man and nature and should be each ones duty to share in it"

-Proudhon-

I'll also reiterate what I said before, under revolutionary conditions, if a so called elite minority made an attempt to circumvent direct worker controlled democracy it would end in bloodshed. We've learned too much to repeat the same mistakes. Go sell your hierarchical institutions to another forum. It will never manifest. The rhetoric surrounding technology is a different story.

[Technocrat]

Yes, there's a *difference* between formalized job positions and *tasks*. On a hierarchy of longevity we might order these elements as such: life's purpose / abiding interests, craft / vocation, career, work role, job position, clients, projects, production runs, goals, procedures, tasks, creativity.

Let me rephrase my position:

The work of society can be broken down into specific tasks with specific requirements. Some of these tasks are temporary, one-time projects, while other tasks are recurring. These recurring tasks would have fixed job positions in the sense that someone would always need to perform them. Some of these recurring tasks might require a great deal of training to perform and for these tasks it makes sense to have someone occupy the position for a long time rather than arbitrarily rotating them out.


The *problem* with abstracting work in realtime into *any* of these generalities is that, while the abstraction / category may be *conceptually* helpful, in practice (under capitalism) we wind up *commodifying*, or *packaging*, these abstractions to the point where the commodity, like a job position, takes on more of a life than the person filling the position. Note that in a corporation many people may come and go into and out of a particular job position, but the position winds up having a greater longevity than any of the people filling it. Going up a level, the job positions in a corporation may be created or folded up, but the corporate *entity* as a whole has a greater longevity than any of the job positions that are its basis.This kind of organization makes sense for recurring tasks.


So as a result of this abstract organizational hierarchy -- distinct and different from the actual *work* accomplished within it -- people's work lives are *demeaned* by being formalized and commodified to it.I don't see how people's work lives would be demeaned by a form of organization if it is undertaken voluntarily.


The *point* of having a revolution is to *topple* this kind of organization altogether, in favor of a bottom-up approach that allows each worker to also self-manage and co-manage with other workers, without any implicit threats to life and livelihood.That's what the system I've proposed would do it is a system of worker's self-management since it would be administered by the workers themselves.


Your conception of a planned economy is far too *static* for gaining my support, Technocrat -- a society should be able to assess needs *and* wants / desires, and be flexible enough to *grow* as population size and consumer demands grow.This is the same argument used by market economists to say that planned economies are inefficient - but the fact is, no planned system has EVER COME CLOSE to the market system's inefficiency, both in terms of per-capita consumption of resources, AND fulfilling human needs.

Population size: for any given area with a given amount of resources and a given set of technology, there exists a maximum optimal population that can be supported with a given standard of living. I've stated my position on this repeatedly and provided scientific evidence to support it: human population must not only be stabilized but reduced from its current level in order to avoid a catastrophic collapse.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/es202/archive/gt1f.gif

Basically, ALL systems must eventually enter into a steady-state, or they will face catastrophic collapse. This is guaranteed by the laws of thermodynamics. We know this because math proves it and we've observed it happening in nature.

Economists say that the market will enter into a steady state because people are rational utility maximizers (homo oeconimicus). This view of human behavior has been shown to be false be behavioral science for more than 50 years! If people are NOT rational utility maximizers, what this means is that a market system WILL NOT reach equilibrium and that it is not efficient at fulfilling people's needs. A market system is any system which uses money of any kind.


Scarcity (of a type) exists whenever wants / desires / whims are initially thought-up and go without being provided for.Let's use housing as an example. Say you are going to build one of the megastructures I've described for 20,000 people. Who decides who gets to live there? The residents of the area would decide. I personally think the fairest way would be to give housing units first to the homeless, then to those in substandard housing, and then use a lottery for everyone else. Eventually you would build enough units to house everyone.


What you're missing here, Dimentio, is that the political *aspect* of *any* society can't be ignored or dismissed. Disputes could arise as to who gets what positions, whether technocracy should be run according to the structure that Technocrat advocates, what the quantitative threshold is for responding to demand, etc. -- variables abound.Disputes over who gets what positions would be handled in the way I've described. I've already described how supply and demand works in a Technocracy. What Dimentio is getting at is that decisions made on the basis of political authority would be reduced to a minimum and that decisions would be made based on the physical factors involved in production.


I'd also be curious to know of the interaction between the technate and mass demand -- would a population demand less of something upon being informed that the resources required for it are too far away (too onerous to procure)? Sufficient resource availability is a pre-requisite for a Technocracy. You are probably thinking of "demand" in terms of specific goods and services, but Technocracy would determine the "use value" of all the various goods and services so it could plan the most efficient way of meeting people's needs and wants. Use value is objective:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/u/s.htm


Labor in a communist society would have to be *uncoerced*. (Labor organized in the process of *getting to* a socialist / communist society -- fighting the bourgeoisie -- may very well *have* to be coerced into action by a revolutionary political command.)Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon:

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/tragedyofthecommons.htm

This is different from "coercion".

[Technocrat]

Capitalism has formed a society of inequality. Unequal education, unequal opportunity. Poverty which decimates an individuals chances to enjoy proper parental support and nurturing. In a society of abundance an elite intellectual class will be unnecessary and dare I say non existent unless of course [as I suspect] you subscribe to the theories of Herrnstein and Charles Murray. What this Technocrat isn't taking into account are the reasons we have such vast gaps in intelligence right now.

Go back and read my very first post where I already addressed this - apparently you ignored it.

I already said:

Everyone would be a skilled professional of some type because everyone would be given free education.

All the remaining "dirty work" (that couldn't be automated) would be shared equally.

Regardless, differences in ability will still exist. Not great ones like we see today, but differences nonetheless. Go back and read my post where I describe an experiment anyone could perform to verify this. Apparently you ignored this, too.

Your point about the doctor and the sanition worker is both erroneous and superfluous but nonetheless all I've described is a system for placing those people in their respective positions based on the skills and knowledge that they possess. Nothing unfair about it.

[ckaihatsu]

That's what the system I've proposed would do it is a system of worker's self-management since it would be administered by the workers themselves.




Certain positions would be fixed because certain production runs would be more or less constant. This doesn't mean the same person would always occupy them, it just means that a constant production run requires the same tasks to be performed constantly.




Some of these recurring tasks might require a great deal of training to perform and for these tasks it makes sense to have someone occupy the position for a long time rather than arbitrarily rotating them out.


Okay, I can appreciate this point -- hopefully the most regular, repetitive routines would be *automated*, leaving *people* in more-political (and "civilization-ally" creative) roles rather than as literal cogs in the machine. It's good that you're open to a system of rotating people through positions so that individuals aren't able to build up cult-like power bases:





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





I don't see how people's work lives would be demeaned by a form of organization if it is undertaken voluntarily.


The answer is that these societal institutions can get *out of control* and take on a kind of momentum of their own -- look at nationalism and imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries, for example. (Would you say that workers' lives were demeaned in the process of serving the capitalist state as soldiers?)





Disputes over who gets what positions would be handled in the way I've described. I've already described how supply and demand works in a Technocracy. What Dimentio is getting at is that decisions made on the basis of political authority would be reduced to a minimum and that decisions would be made based on the physical factors involved in production.


This is fine for satisfying the overwhelming bulk of human needs -- that's the reason to be a revolutionary, after all. All the rest of the discussion that deals with consumer wants / desires / whims is in the realm of the finer points of discussion -- I don't want to quibble here.

I'll pass on your ecological scare tactics -- I'm *not* on the right, after all.... But I *do* continue to maintain, as a finer point, that an optimal planned economy would be able to accomodate population growth and technological development.

[Dimentio]

Energy accounting is a form of planned economy, only with real time factors operating and extremely de-centralised planning. For all practice, the entire population is partaking in the planning every time an individual is allocating a share of energy credits to something.

[Vanguard1917]

I'll pass on your ecological scare tactics -- I'm *not* on the right, after all.... But I *do* continue to maintain, as a finer point, that an optimal planned economy would be able to accomodate population growth and technological development.

Absolutely. This Technocrat's reactionary nonsense has been debunked on this site several times over. He hates the very existence of people and feels that technical "experts" (like himself, i guess) know what is best for the masses.

Malthusianism is the ideology of the right, not the left.

[Technocrat]

Absolutely. This Technocrat's reactionary nonsense has been debunked on this site several times over. He hates the very existence of people and feels that technical "experts" (like himself, i guess) know what is best for the masses.

Malthusianism is the ideology of the right, not the left.

Has anyone bothered to read the papers I linked to? Or are you just going to make baseless assertions all day?

Most on this site with any understanding of science are familiar with your warped view of things, Vanguard1917.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Of course I agree with this approach as a substantial improvement over the *current*, capital-based system. On a finer point I would question if even *committees* would be needed, or if whether even *that* structure would be too abstracted from the rank-and-file, thus inherently encouraging power-base-building.

As an illustration I wonder whether the common newspaper -- or a few of them to cover various scales, from global to regional to local -- couldn't be the *ultimate* and *sole* vehicle for organizing consumer demands (human needs), *including* the corresponding needs for social work roles (jobs)?

(Under capitalism there is a *chasm* between the two domains, artificially separated into 'capital supply' (goods and services) and 'labor supply' (job-seekers) -- under mass workers' control there could simply be what people want and want to do, and what collectivized assets and resources are available for the same.)

The problem that we are trying to answer here is how to make the system so that all levels do something. Or in other words make each committe and thoses above it do work that is needed and helps the over all cause. Other wise we are paying people to do nothing at all. I think that this is the current finer point that we are debating now.

[Technocrat]

Energy accounting is a form of planned economy, only with real time factors operating and extremely de-centralised planning. For all practice, the entire population is partaking in the planning every time an individual is allocating a share of energy credits to something.

Yes, but you still have to do initial planning by determining the "use values" of all that is consumed. After you do that it works more or less automatically as you describe.

[Technocrat]

The problem that we are trying to answer here is how to make the system so that all levels do something. Or in other words make each committe and thoses above it do work that is needed and helps the over all cause. Other wise we are paying people to do nothing at all. I think that this is the current finer point that we are debating now.

The one difference is that under the system I'm describing, people are not paid anything because they have free access to take whatever they want.

A system is still needed to ensure that "each committee and those above it do work that is needed and helps the over all cause." This is the goal of the system I've been describing. Since everyone has free access to the products of society, everyone must contribute their per capita share of time and effort to the work of society.

[Communist]

.
How long has the Technocracy Inc. website been down? Is it returning? It seems like I tried to visit the site back when the thread in Theory started and it wasn't available then either - months ago.
.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Well, the part I disagree with is where you say that worker committees would act like political committees. This entails some form of governance by opinion.

A technocracy is supposed to be a government based on the physical factors involved in production - not opinions.

This may seem confusing at first, but all matters relating to production are objective matters once the goals have been decided.

When I say politcal committiees I mean those in a communist party. The ones that do things, not the ones in the US who do thing, when the can earn a extra dollor. The ideal of a communist committie is a place were a group of people, can work on physical problems. The committie can teach new members, skills they need in order to help carry out the function of the committie. Much like the trade guilds of old, were they would teach there crafts to new members. Only in this case the guild controls the resources to put there craft to good use.


Actually, the communist position does not differ greatly from the Technocrat position on this matter. Technocracy has long recognized that "poor planning" is often done deliberately in order to increase profits (ie planned obsolescence).

I pretty much agree with what you say regarding elections - as long as the people voting are voting among themselves for promotion to a position that is immediately above them, then it works fine.

Then we disagree on nothing here. One thing I think we should also add, is the technocracy work week thing. I think that It would be a good debate point for this post. Would you like to fill us all in please.

[Technocrat]

Okay, I can appreciate this point -- hopefully the most regular, repetitive routines would be *automated*, leaving *people* in more-political (and "civilization-ally" creative) roles rather than as literal cogs in the machine. It's good that you're open to a system of rotating people through positions so that individuals aren't able to build up cult-like power bases:

Building up a cult-like power base would be partially prevented by the career period of 20 years - from age 25 to 45. It's also prevented by the ability to vote out corrupt individuals.

Rotating certain positions makes sense, it's what I suggest for any "dirty work" that we are unable to automate.


The answer is that these societal institutions can get *out of control* and take on a kind of momentum of their own -- look at nationalism and imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries, for example. (Would you say that workers' lives were demeaned in the process of serving the capitalist state as soldiers?)Of course I would agree that worker's lives were demeaned by serving the capitalist state as soldiers. You know what my political leanings are.

What I'm describing is quite different from the social institutions you are referring to.


I'll pass on your ecological scare tactics -- I'm *not* on the right, after all.... But I *do* continue to maintain, as a finer point, that an optimal planned economy would be able to accomodate population growth and technological development.First of all, when did "ecological scare tactics" become the domain of the right?

Second of all, did you bother to even read the papers I linked to?

Your position that we could accommodate more population growth is presented as an a priori argument, but it is an argument that requires evidence to support it - and you haven't bothered to provide any.

[Technocrat]

.
How long has the Technocracy Inc. website been down? Is it returning? It seems like I tried to visit the site back when the thread in Theory started and it wasn't available then either - months ago.
.

http://www.technocracy.ca has been down for a few months now.

The official site, http://www.technocracy.org is still up.

[Comrade_Stalin]

The one difference is that under the system I'm describing, people are not paid anything because they have free access to take whatever they want.

A system is still needed to ensure that "each committee and those above it do work that is needed and helps the over all cause." This is the goal of the system I've been describing. Since everyone has free access to the products of society, everyone must contribute their per capita share of time and effort to the work of society.

The money thing is just another form of accuounting.

But on the committie thing, I'm talking along the lines, of haveing each section in the building proocess relate to a part of the chain of command.

For example lets say the the enginneer committie commands the mangament committie which commands the worker committie. The enginneer would design products that the mangament committie would be forces ton assemble out of parts madeby the worker committie.

In other words, the assembly line and the chain of command should be one in the same, with the highest point being the plainning committie.

[Technocrat]

When I say politcal committiees I mean those in a communist party. The ones that do things, not the ones in the US who do thing, when the can earn a extra dollor. The ideal of a communist committie is a place were a group of people, can work on physical problems. The committie can teach new members, skills they need in order to help carry out the function of the committie. Much like the trade guilds of old, were they would teach there crafts to new members. Only in this case the guild controls the resources to put there craft to good use.

The "committees" would be almost completely analogous to the "functional sequences" shown on this chart:

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/admin-chart.gif


Then we disagree on nothing here. One thing I think we should also add, is the technocracy work week thing. I think that It would be a good debate point for this post. Would you like to fill us all in please.

Technocracy, Inc. made their original estimates in the 1930s. They looked at each industry and determined how many man hours would be required if only the most efficient production methods available at the time were used. They estimated that 4 hours per week for half of the year, between the ages of 25 and 45, would be sufficient to run all the operations of society.

I think with all the advances in production technology that have occurred over the past 70+ years, that we could get by with even less work today - probably 2 hours per day for half of the year would be sufficient.

[Technocrat]

The money thing is just another form of accuounting.

The problem is that any system which uses money is a market system, and behavioral and social science shows that market systems cannot achieve equilibrium (in other words, they are unsustainable) and are inefficient at meeting human needs.

That's why I've proposed a non-monetary system where people would just take what they needed or have it delivered to them.

Resources are already accounted for - it would just be made easier by a single linked inventory system. Money does not make the allocation of resources any easier - in fact it just adds a whole additional layer of complexity, in addition to being unsustainable.


But on the committie thing, I'm talking along the lines, of haveing each section in the building proocess relate to a part of the chain of command.

For example lets say the the enginneer committie commands the mangament committie which commands the worker committie. The enginneer would design products that the mangament committie would be forces ton assemble out of parts madeby the worker committie.

In other words, the assembly line and the chain of command should be one in the same, with the highest point being the plainning committie.This is the same as the system I'm describing - the "chain of command" and the "assembly line" would be one and the same. This is almost the essence of Technocracy.

[Wolf Larson]

Go back and read my very first post where I already addressed this - apparently you ignored it.

I already said:

Everyone would be a skilled professional of some type because everyone would be given free education.

All the remaining "dirty work" (that couldn't be automated) would be shared equally.

Regardless, differences in ability will still exist. Not great ones like we see today, but differences nonetheless. Go back and read my post where I describe an experiment anyone could perform to verify this. Apparently you ignored this, too.

Your point about the doctor and the sanition worker is both erroneous and superfluous but nonetheless all I've described is a system for placing those people in their respective positions based on the skills and knowledge that they possess. Nothing unfair about it.

You're not advocating consensus you're advocating an elite minority having unbalanced influence over society. The world isn't so complicated so that only a select few "educated" can interpret it. I oppose your theoretical hierarchical social institution and there's no amount of pious theoretical dogma you can spew that will change the effects institutional hierarchy has on the social construct. You also, once again, ignored the entire point of my post and the fact you called me a ideologue in a prior post while you're in the process of selling your ideology is absurd. Being aware of the fact hierarchy within man made social institutions is at the root of humanities problems is not "ideology" or subjective opinion. What is subjective opinion are theories such as the ones found in the Bell Curve- ones you are willingly or unwillingly expounding in this thread. There is no reason mankind cannot share in a basic level of equal intelligence. In a non capitalist society of abundance we would sweep away the intellect paradigm your stuck in.

Workers need no shepherd's or enlightened watchmen/decision makers. You're simply giving an modern Lockean interpretation of the ignorant masses. The technocrat taking the place of white opulent property owner only difference your privileged elite will rule based on "sacred" information rather than property legitimized and protected by a State. Hierarchical institutions of man need to be abolished not preserved and the insincere word games you're playing have made me vomit in my mouth more than once throughout the duration of this thread. Answer my question, what do you think determines aptitude for intelligence?

[ckaihatsu]

The discussion seems to now be around issues of social institutional hierarchies and how this type of structure would *enhance* or *waste* the efforts of a liberated, post-capitalist workforce.

We know that *too much* decentralization and diffuse organization leads to interruptions, drawn-out linkages, delays, and organizational breakdowns. But at the other end of complexity is the rigidity and emergent entity momentum that we see from the ongoing mass reflexive support for the status quo social makeup, whatever it may be.

I'll argue here that with the advent of mass, many-to-many means of realtime communication -- the Internet, cell phones, et al -- we now have the technical *superstructure* for (fairly) easily administering *all kinds* of configurations of workflows across geographical terrain.

I'd say that we could favor more-*de*-centralized *geographical* configurations, so as to retain the closest integration of ground-level liberated labor to actual machinery. At the same time the impromptu, flexible *coordination* of local productive nodes could be very bottom-up and readily aggregated into large-scale supply chains and nonlinear projects in *very* staggered and nonlinear ways, due to the flexibility of the technical superstructure -- networked computers.

A number of worker-controlled public newspapers (or equivalent) should be sufficient to provide the means for an ongoing political culture that would reflect the dynamic reality of the liberated labor's control of the means of mass production worldwide. Notices, news reporting, discussions, and debates could flow freely about the use of collectivized assets on a daily basis, thus eliminating the objective need for standing administrations or committees of any sort.

Closely-watched or fiercely-contended issues might ultimately need to be resolved with prioritization methods in order to reach finality, but most public concerns could be readily handled through open publishing and journalistic approaches, with a workers-production-empowered consensus emerging without too much complication.

[Technocrat]

You're not advocating consensus you're advocating an elite minority having unbalanced influence over society.

Wrong. I'm advocating a form of mutual coercion mutually agreed upon. Go look it up or follow the link I already provided.

I've provided you with scientific papers supporting my positions. You've provided nothing. The Bell Theory has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, except maybe peripherally. Quit being lazy and address the evidence I've provided you with.


Answer my question, what do you think determines aptitude for intelligence?The consensus is that this is determined by genetics and environment, primarily environment.

I'm going to repeat this for the nth time, not for your benefit but for others who may be reading:

In a technate, ALL CITIZENS would be given equal access to education, which would be free. This means everyone would be a professional, but they would still have varying levels of experience.

Giving everyone access to the same education will NOT magically result in some perfect allocation of labor (as you suggest). Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of psychology or sociology would laugh at this idea.

Even if you gave 100 people access to the same education, you would have differences in ability if you assigned them a random task to perform. I've explained an experiment anyone could do to verify this.

The only "hierarchy" I'm referring to is how Comrade Stalin put it:

"The assembly line and the chain of command should be one and the same, with the highest point being the planning committee." This is the essence of Technocracy.

Comrade Stalin was describing how things worked in his vision of communism, which happens to be the same as how things would work in a Technocracy!

Technocracy is NOT incompatible with Communism.

Those on the far right accuse Technocracy of BEING communist. It was investigated for this very reason by the Committee on Anti-American activities after WWII.

[Technocrat]

Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon:
Everyone in a technocracy has free access to the products of society. Everyone in a technate is obligated to contribute their per capita effort and time to the work of society. This is the same as "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need", if you define "need" as whatever the person is physically capable of consuming (this also relates to the Marxist concept of "use values").

The agreement is that everyone contributes their per capita effort and time to the work of society. In return, the citizen is given free access to all goods and services.

The coercion is that if people refuse to work (and do not have a disability that prevents them from working), they have their personal distribution card deactivated and will be unable to acquire any goods or services that the technate produces until they decide to return to work or pursue another career.

Notice that this form of social organization still allows people to establish their own anarcho-primitivist communes in the woods if that is their desire - so long as they produce their own goods and services.

The "hierarchy" I'm talking about is nothing more than the "chain of command" that would establish itself among any group of workers. This is determined by the tasks which have to be performed - the "assembly line".

The Technate is a form of federalized worker's self-management.

[ckaihatsu]

The "hierarchy" I'm talking about is nothing more than the "chain of command" that would establish itself among any group of workers. This is determined by the tasks which have to be performed - the "assembly line".

The Technate is a form of federalized worker's self-management.


I can't help but wonder if a workers' organizational hierarchy would be needed at all -- it seems to me that, given open and collective access to the means of mass production, the *only* issue that would matter is the fundamental one of if human need is being met.

There's nothing to say that an *organizational* hierarchy would be required -- yes, I think *supply chain* ("assembly line") hierarchies would be helpful in accomplishing *mass*, large-scale production (and *complex* types of production), but supply chain *production* hierarchies are not the same as *organizational* hierarchies, like committees.

The provisos here are that (political) organizational hierarchy *will* be needed to defeat the bourgeoisie's organizations, like its state and military, and that workers' committees *might* spontaneously self-develop and coalesce around more-static supply chains of production -- but on this latter point it should be left to the workers to self-organize it in the way that they see fit, *not* that it should be imposed in any kind of preformulated, top-down way.

[Wolf Larson]

Scientific papers supporting your position? How many psychological studies on the effects of hierarchy do I need to post? Your silly "scientific" papers aren't going to nullify history, anarchism or sociology. You have quite an ego on you kid. I can fill this thread up with more than the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments. You know, the two you've chosen to ignore this entire thread and yes indeed I knew you thought genetics determined aptitude for intelligence. Have you read the Bell Curve? Do you even understand why I brought that up?

Roseau's thoughts on democracy have been evolving over the generations passed from thinker to thinker on into direct democracy NOT a representative system with some enlightened class which you're pushing. The illegitimate coercion within your hierarchical structure doesn't come out of the "everyone must work or starve" paradigm but the hierarchical structure itself. You're assuming so much about human behavior without taking reality into account. You sound like a Randroid who see's the capitalist as benign. They think the capitalist has "rational" self interest but history has shown capitalists are anything but rational in the face of greed. The same can be said of man and power. No matter how many checks and balances you think you can put into a hierarchical system history has shown us when an elite class is put above the masses disastrous consequences ensure. History and science have shown what happens. Every time. Do I need to give you both a history lesson and a lesson in sociology? No matter what I say you will hold to your theoretical hierarchical institution. I'd have more luck talking a christian out of believing in Jesus. I know you have good intentions and are anti capitalist but it's you who's holding onto ideology while refusing to take other factors into account.

The reason I brought up The Bell Curve is two fold. First to bring out your hidden elitist position surrounding intelligence and second to reiterate my point in saying capitalism is the cause of the gaps in our respective ability to learn. Not so much capitalism than scarcity/environment. Human beings with nothing live lives of struggle and the culture created out of struggle is different than what the opulent class experiences. Different values, different priorities. In a poor neighborhood it is not common to see children studying into the night as you see in the opulent neighborhoods of middle and upper class suburbanites. One group [the kids living in extreme scarcity] will experience social pressures to live lives focused on image, ego and reputation because that's all they will ever have while the other [the opulent] will more so focus on what their culture holds in high esteem which is education and class status. One child will be born into a home of extreme poverty- to uneducated parents who don't use complicated vocabulary, who cannot or will not help the child study, who are not even home because they must work 16 hours a day to support the child/themselves while the other household will have a more supportive environment conducive to nurturing intelligence. It goes on and on.... my point is - in an environment of basic equality humanity would need no "enlightened" class to make decisions for us. Sure there would be some variances in intelligence in no way am I saying everyone would share the same mind but the level of general intelligence can be raised to such a level that the old elitist ways of setting up our institutions will be void. Everything you're thinking here is based in Lockean philosophy. It's a modern critique of humanity based in the same view the founding fathers held- that the masses dint know any better and needed an enlightened class to make the decisions for them. Locke saw the masses as leet-men. Ignorant and prone to vice. Unworthy of self rule. The founding fathers shared his view which is why they detested direct democracy and that's why we have a representative system now with all manner of frivolous checks and balances and the appearance that the people have a say when in fact we do not.

You may not see humanity in the exact same way as Locke but similar non the less. The system I advocate [if there are to be representatives at all] will be decentralized and each member of the coop will have a chance to represent the workers. There will be no long term positions or consolidated voice, I cant call it consolidated power because the representative would be more of a spokesman carrying out the demands of the workers. In no way do I advocate one man having unequal powers to control or manipulate decisions. I advocate enlightened consensus. If a person is an engineer or a mill worker they will have the same decision making power. Whether the person is working to screw in a bolt on a space craft or is a rocket scientist they will hold the same decision making power. Obviously not concerning the design of the craft but where to explore. There will be no division of labor either where people do the same mundane task over and over. People will be trained to do various jobs and unlike your elitist view of human intelligence under an environment of equality education will not be designed to churn out servants and masters. A transitional period would be necessary but I'm speaking of the future system. Humanity will share in the same basic level of education. Work won't even be that important or time consuming. That's another capitalist/scarcity paradigm. What is important is to abolish hierarchical institutions of man while creating and maintaining EQUALITY in an environment of abundance. You can create abundance in your system, sure, but if you preserve the hierarchical institutions of man the human condition will remain one of strife, domination and violence. Unequal power corrupts social institutions/relations.You advocate unequal power and thus a corrupted social institution.

[Wolf Larson]

[re-post from strategy section] When people talked about mutual coercion being necessary in certain situations it was NOT in favor of an elite intelligentsia holding dominant positions within hierarchical institutions [which you advocate]. Why do you think the US constitution was written if not to legitimize and perpetuate that very paradigm? You should check out Michael Parenti's "The Myth Of The Founding Fathers piece [and some anarchist positions on workers councils]. What have checks and balances done in the US and other so called democratic systems where an elite minority holds unequal influence over the masses? There is no legitimate accountability within hierarchical man made institutions. You aren't advocating workers councils with worker appointed delegates you are advocating a system where an "intelligent" elite appoint an "accountable" decision maker [leader] so the difference between your hierarchical system [leaders] and worker councils [delegates] is found in the fact that the delegate is nothing more than a spokesman when in your technocrat system the so called representative is a hierarchical authority figure who is appointed by so called experts who will dictate the work environment [what when and how]. I've been trying to stress the difference between an appointed spokesman and an appointed authority figure for pages in this lame thread and all I can do is once gain bring up the sociology/psychology experiments and human history concerning the effects of hierarchical institutions which maintain authority figures whether these authority figures are outwardly accountable or not. If you read and understand the Milgram/Standford Prison Experiments you will understand how hierarchical institutions negate the ability to hold the authority figures accountable. Power corrupts both the person with authority AND the peoples judgment below the authority figure. Human nature doesn't really exist as man can go both ways. Human beings aren't evil nor benevolent we act according to the socioeconomic environment. What matters is the stage we set for the roles we act out. If this stage [society] is set up in a hierarchical fashion with a minority population holding more influence/power over the masses through centralized hierarchical institutions then the stage is set for tragedy. You cannot hold concentrated power accountable. Especially if you give them the authority of mind. having some panel of "experts" appointing the ultimate genus to influence decisions is the antithesis of equality and some sick society would be born, a world fixated on subjective measurements of intelligence. These would be the new "big men" which first arose and controlled the surplus goods after the application of agriculture. We need to smash concentrated and illegitimate authority not perpetuate it. The authority must be the people. No one above the people. An educated population needs no "experts" telling them what they should do.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I can't help but wonder if a workers' organizational hierarchy would be needed at all -- it seems to me that, given open and collective access to the means of mass production, the *only* issue that would matter is the fundamental one of if human need is being met.


There's nothing to say that an *organizational* hierarchy would be required -- yes, I think *supply chain* ("assembly line") hierarchies would be helpful in accomplishing *mass*, large-scale production (and *complex* types of production), but supply chain *production* hierarchies are not the same as *organizational* hierarchies, like committees.

The provisos here are that (political) organizational hierarchy *will* be needed to defeat the bourgeoisie's organizations, like its state and military, and that workers' committees *might* spontaneously self-develop and coalesce around more-static supply chains of production -- but on this latter point it should be left to the workers to self-organize it in the way that they see fit, *not* that it should be imposed in any kind of preformulated, top-down way.

We will always need an organizational hierarchy, if we didn't need manger, the capitalist would fire them all, to cut down on cost and bring down wages by increasing the number of unemployed people.

The question that we are trying to answer at the moment is what organizational hierarchy will get us a production hierarchy, where everyone does something, and it enforces the will of the people. We need hierarchy as you put it, otherwise we have “leads to interruptions, drawn-out linkages, delays, and organizational breakdowns”, but will also have other things that you did not list like lack of support between groups.

The problem I see is that everyone cannot learn everything, and the internet is a poor way to learn something. Could you see a person learning how to do a surgery after learning it online? Or how about explain how to design a bridge over a phone. Information does move faster now, but it still has the same problem it did when Marx was alive. One we have neural nets, not swarm logic, and their fore will not react right to the actions of other. Look at how many people make mistakes in relationships, just because they do not understand the person they had married.

[Comrade_Stalin]

The "committees" would be almost completely analogous to the "functional sequences" shown on this chart:


http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/admin-chart.gif



And here other thing that we can agree on, when we write up the "functional sequences" or "committees", we need for them to do a function when they represent, instead of a representative system based on statism (geographic region).



Technocracy, Inc. made their original estimates in the 1930s. They looked at each industry and determined how many man hours would be required if only the most efficient production methods available at the time were used. They estimated that 4 hours per week for half of the year, between the ages of 25 and 45, would be sufficient to run all the operations of society.

I think with all the advances in production technology that have occurred over the past 70+ years, that we could get by with even less work today - probably 2 hours per day for half of the year would be sufficient.

Not what I was talking about, I was talking about that offset work week. You know where like this

Work
Person A M T W Th
Person B T W Th F
Person C W Th F S
Person D Th F S Su
Person E M F S Su
Person F M T S Su
Person G M T W Su

This way their are allway four peopl on staff.

[Technocrat]

blah, blah, blah, blah

I'm not going to respond to you anymore until you stop using straw man arguments.

Go back and re-read my very first post. I am not advocating what you keep saying I am advocating. You are putting words in my mouth (aka a straw man).

Comrade Stalin and others around here are able to understand. What is so different about them?

The difference is that you've picked a fight, apparently as some form of ego-boosting exercise. This precludes you from being able to understand anything I'm saying. If you would just get over yourself you would see that what I'm advocating is not very different from what you describe. Just drop your assumptions already, they have led you astray enough times already.

[Technocrat]

NOT a representative system with some enlightened class which you're pushing.

That's not what I'm pushing. There are no separate classes in the system I've described to you. Since the rest of your argument rests on this false assumption about what I've said, I won't bother to respond to it.


when in your technocrat system the so called representative is a hierarchical authority figure who is appointed by so called experts who will dictate the work environmentHonestly, where the hell are you getting this stuff from?

Technocracy is a form of federalized worker's self-management, in Marxist terms.

[ckaihatsu]

We will always need an organizational hierarchy, if we didn't need manger, the capitalist would fire them all, to cut down on cost and bring down wages by increasing the number of unemployed people.


Whoa, whoa, whoa -- of *course* a *capitalist owner* needs management, because workers are paid-for commodities that must be kept track of and their performance monitored for effectiveness / profitability.

*But* -- in a *post*-capitalist environment would *workers* need management, or any kind of standing administration, even if it came from their own ranks -- ??? I am surmising that all that would really be needed would be ground-level *coordination* -- almost as basic as how co-workers today figure out their own work schedules to cover all the shifts in a workweek -- and then the transparent publishing of that (collective domain) information, for potential additional coordination with the larger society. Not much more recordkeeping would really be involved -- just the normal day-to-day operational "business" data that is conventionally managed under *private* control these days.





The question that we are trying to answer at the moment is what organizational hierarchy will get us a production hierarchy, where everyone does something, and it enforces the will of the people.


The "will of the people" is a bit too *abstract* and *bourgeois* for a revolutionary orientation here. In a collectivized economy we'd just need to track mass material demands on a daily basis -- hardly a logistical hurdle these days.... (The other components would be 'work roles desired', which could exist in a dialectical relationship with mass demand, and 'available assets and resources'. Production hierarchies and asset scheduling can result / emerge from this basis, through simple coordination -- no organizational hierarchies or even standing committees would be needed.)





I wonder whether the common newspaper -- or a few of them to cover various scales, from global to regional to local -- couldn't be the *ultimate* and *sole* vehicle for organizing consumer demands (human needs), *including* the corresponding needs for social work roles (jobs)?




under mass workers' control there could simply be what people want and want to do, and what collectivized assets and resources are available for the same.)





We need hierarchy as you put it, otherwise we have “leads to interruptions, drawn-out linkages, delays, and organizational breakdowns”, but will also have other things that you did not list like lack of support between groups.


Well now with this line you're flirting with revolutionary defeatism -- do you think that workers can self-organize, or don't you?





The problem I see is that everyone cannot learn everything, and the internet is a poor way to learn something. Could you see a person learning how to do a surgery after learning it online? Or how about explain how to design a bridge over a phone. Information does move faster now, but it still has the same problem it did when Marx was alive. One we have neural nets, not swarm logic, and their fore will not react right to the actions of other. Look at how many people make mistakes in relationships, just because they do not understand the person they had married.





An expert system is software that attempts to provide an answer to a problem, or clarify uncertainties where normally one or more human experts would need to be consulted. Expert systems are most common in a specific problem domain, and is a traditional application and/or subfield of artificial intelligence.





Video conferencing between two users was introduced in January 2006 for the Windows and Mac OS X platform clients. Skype 2.0 for Linux, released on March 13, 2008, also features support for video conferencing.[14]

Skype for Windows, starting with version 3.6.0.216, supports "High Quality Video" with quality and features, e.g., full-screen and screen-in-screen modes, similar to those of mid-range videoconferencing systems.[15] Skype audio conferences currently support up to 25 people at a time, including the host.

[Technocrat]

Well now with this line you're flirting with revolutionary defeatism -- do you think that workers can self-organize, or don't you?

That word "organization" kinda implies hierarchy, doesn't it?

Chris, I think the one mistake you continue to make is in underestimating the complexity of a continental, industrial civilization.

The kind of bottom-up organization you are describing works fine if all we are going to do is plow fields. Anything more complex than that requires hierarchy. I've explained this multiple times: if a skill set requires years to acquire (as some skill sets do), then you will have varying levels of ability among a group of people training to acquire that skill set - if for no other reason than that they started their training at different times.

I've said this before: Giving everyone access to the same education will NOT magically result in some perfect allocation of labor. This is just a fantasy.

You got the first part right: we can determine how much work we need and of what types by working backwards from consumer demand.

The second part that you keep missing is this: once we know how much work we need and of what types, labor can be allocated so that everyone's efforts will contribute in a meaningful way to the collective work of society. This would be worker's self-organization. The point is to ensure the lowest possible work hours for everyone and to ensure that no one's work is wasted.

Chris, there is another point I've continually raised which you seem to be missing: do you understand the Marxist concept of "use value?"

The use value of something is the objective way in which it meets human needs or desires.

Since it is objective, we can use science to plan the best way of providing for these needs and desires. The scientific method is apolitical.

[ckaihatsu]

You got the first part right: we can determine how much work we need and of what types by working backwards from consumer demand.

The second part that you keep missing is this: once we know how much work we need and of what types, labor can be allocated so that everyone's efforts will contribute in a meaningful way to the collective work of society.


No, we're in *agreement* on both of these main points.





That word "organization" kinda implies hierarchy, doesn't it?


No, it doesn't -- not at all. Organization can be very *parallel*, as with neurons in the brain, or it can be vertical, as in a totem pole -- there are *many* configurations in between these two examples.





The kind of bottom-up organization you are describing works fine if all we are going to do is plow fields. Anything more complex than that requires hierarchy.


Again, though, there *is* a difference between supply-chain hierarchy and organizational hierarchy -- by focusing on what *work* is needed to fulfill demand we would be able to appropriately provide labor at each step, or node, in the supply chain. The objective need for *organizational* hierarchy is questionable, especially if a liberated labor force could handle fulfilling the required production at each node in the supply chain.





I've explained this multiple times: if a skill set requires years to acquire (as some skill sets do), then you will have varying levels of ability among a group of people training to acquire that skill set - if for no other reason than that they started their training at different times.


You make it sound as if people would be irresponsible and would just jump into the first work role they heard of -- I prefer to think of a liberated workforce as *self-organizing*, meaning that they could *figure out* who can do what the best. If a particular kind of labor was needed then that could be publicized, and if a labor need was dire then perhaps a task group might form and dedicate itself to seeing how the most appropriate people could be brought up-to-speed in a short period of time with education and skills.





I've said this before: Giving everyone access to the same education will NOT magically result in some perfect allocation of labor. This is just a fantasy.


It's strange that you're making the educational process sound like an *impediment* -- at any given moment some students will be more-versed with the material, and some will be less-versed. Some practitioners will have *more* expertise and experience, and some will have less.





Chris, I think the one mistake you continue to make is in underestimating the complexity of a continental, industrial civilization.


Now *you're* sounding defeatist, too -- is this doable in your opinion, or isn't it???

[Comrade_Stalin]

Well now with this line you're flirting with revolutionary defeatism -- do you think that workers can self-organize, or don't you?

Will if I am, then so are you, as part of that post, was from a post that you posted before, about the need for a central command.

I think Technocrat said it bested,


That word "organization" kinda implies hierarchy, doesn't it?

I’m not saying that workers can't self-organize themselves in a hierarchy, only that one is need so they can self-organize in it.


Whoa, whoa, whoa -- of *course* a *capitalist owner* needs management, because workers are paid-for commodities that must be kept track of and their performance monitored for effectiveness / profitability.
*But* -- in a *post*-capitalist environment would *workers* need management, or any kind of standing administration, even if it came from their own ranks -- ??? I am surmising that all that would really be needed would be ground-level *coordination* -- almost as basic as how co-workers today figure out their own work schedules to cover all the shifts in a workweek -- and then the transparent publishing of that (collective domain) information, for potential additional coordination with the larger society. Not much more recordkeeping would really be involved -- just the normal day-to-day operational "business" data that is conventionally managed under *private* control these days.



Workers have management, because they need to be organized, to do anything. That could be building commodities or fighting in a revolution, but in the end they need to be organized. What you make it sound like is that management is some kind of accounting services that keeps track of products. Right now, that is done by computers, so under your logic, the capitalist should fire all the mangers, as they already have a cheaper system.




The "will of the people" is a bit too *abstract* and *bourgeois* for a revolutionary orientation here. In a collectivized economy we'd just need to track mass material demands on a daily basis -- hardly a logistical hurdle these days.... (The other components would be 'work roles desired', which could exist in a dialectical relationship with mass demand, and 'available assets and resources'. Production hierarchies and asset scheduling can result / emerge from this basis, through simple coordination -- no organizational hierarchies or even standing committees would be needed.)



I think, the problem here is that you view leadership positions as nothing more than an accounting service. As if the only point of a captain on a ship is to make sure that everyone is at their assigned positions, so that no one is over pay. As if the captain didn’t do anything other than watch the crew.

Your ideal so far as I can understand, is ship with no captain, as the captain would have administration powers, and everyone in the crew would learn how to do their job over the phone.

[Technocrat]

No, we're in *agreement* on both of these main points.

Good to clear that up, then.


No, it doesn't -- not at all. Organization can be very *parallel*, as with neurons in the brain, or it can be vertical, as in a totem pole -- there are *many* configurations in between these two examples.Chris, my point is that virtually every system in nature is hierarchical in some way - you will be hard pressed to find a biologist or physicist who disagrees. I am NOT using "natural law" as an argument, here.


Again, though, there *is* a difference between supply-chain hierarchy and organizational hierarchy -- by focusing on what *work* is needed to fulfill demand we would be able to appropriately provide labor at each step, or node, in the supply chain. The objective need for *organizational* hierarchy is questionable, especially if a liberated labor force could handle fulfilling the required production at each node in the supply chain.This might work fine for one-time projects, but not for recurring tasks, such as long-term planning.


You make it sound as if people would be irresponsible and would just jump into the first work role they heard of -- I prefer to think of a liberated workforce as *self-organizing*, meaning that they could *figure out* who can do what the best. If a particular kind of labor was needed then that could be publicized, and if a labor need was dire then perhaps a task group might form and dedicate itself to seeing how the most appropriate people could be brought up-to-speed in a short period of time with education and skills.Again, this works fine for one-time projects but I don't see how this would work for long-term planning or for those tasks which require an extensive amount of training to perform. Even if it did work, I don't see why it would be more desirable than the system I've described. You're talking about basically putting out a call for volunteers. This will not magically result in a perfect allocation of labor, or even one that is sufficient to meet the demands of society.


at any given moment some students will be more-versed with the material, and some will be less-versed. Some practitioners will have *more* expertise and experience, and some will have less.This is precisely my point. If this is true, then according to math, science, and english, you have a hierarchy. This hierarchy exists regardless of whether or not it is formalized.

Now, if it is formalized as I've suggested, all you're doing is ensuring that those with more expertise and experience get to use it, so that everyone benefits!


Now *you're* sounding defeatist, too -- is this doable in your opinion, or isn't it???Of course it's doable.

Are you familiar with the Marxist concept of "use value?"

The use value of something is the objective way in which it meets human needs or desires.

Since it is objective, we can use science to plan the best way of providing for these needs and desires. The scientific method is apolitical. This means that planning would be apolitical. This is entirely compatible with Marxist thought.

[RED DAVE]

So, what have we learned about this 1930s engineers' wet dream?

(1) Technocracy will not permit independent unions of the working class.

(2) Technocracy is explicitly not democratic. It's founder derided democracy. People do not get to directly choose their own industrial leaders. Leaders cannot be recalled, except by a 2/3 vote.

(3) No one in the lower ranks participates in the process of choosing anyone more than one level above them. The only way to change such a designation would be to remove 2/3 of the those above, and then remove the offender, by a 2/3 majority. Imsgine how difficult it would be to remove people three, four, five levels above.

(4) Technocracy believes in "natural" leaders (a pecking order).

(5) Technocracy has no solution to any sort-term problem.

(6) Technocracy cannot be used to devise strategy or tactics in any real-world political situation.

(7) Historically, Technocracy does not seem to have spoken out on major issues, such as racism, the Cold War, the rise of the CIO, imperialism, the stolen election of 2000, etc. Claims that is has have not been verified.

(8) Technocracy itself, as a movement, employed a distinctly fascist style. As far as is known, the mvoment igtself was not democratic.

Nice.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

I’m not saying that workers can self-organize themselves in a hierarchy, only that one is need so they can self-organize in it.


No, what's needed is the end to bourgeois rule -- *then* workers can self-organize on collectivized property.





Workers have management, because they need to be organized, to do anything. That could be building commodities or fighting in a revolution, but in the end they need to be organized. What you make it sound like is that management is some kind of accounting services that keeps track of products. Right now, that is done by computers, so under your logic, the capitalist should fire all the mangers, as they already have a cheaper system.


I don't *have* to concern myself with what capitalists should do, and so I won't.

If workers controlled their own labor they would have to keep track of their own labor (scheduling), keep track of asset usage (scheduling), and keep track of resources (inventory). What *else* is there???





I think, the problem here is that you view leadership positions as nothing more than an accounting service. As if the only point of a captain on a ship is to make sure that everyone is at their assigned positions, so that no one is over pay. As if the captain didn’t do anything other than watch the crew.


Well, again, we have to *distinguish* between private-property-based management and that of a liberated labor force working in their own collective interests. What kind of "leadership" would a post-capitalist society need? How about satisfying *all* human need first and foremost? -- this would be a matter of *policy*.

I'm certain that a post-capitalist society could be self-organizing according to mass-demanded *policy*, *not* personified "leadership".





Your ideal so far as I can understand, is ship with no captain, as the captain would have administration powers, and everyone in the crew would learn how to do their job over the phone.


Heh -- funny...!


x D

[ckaihatsu]

Chris, my point is that virtually every system in nature is hierarchical in some way - you will be hard pressed to find a biologist or physicist who disagrees. I am NOT using "natural law" as an argument, here.


(So either natural hierarchies have some pertinence to what we're discussing or else perhaps you shouldn't introduce the fact into the discussion.)





This might work fine for one-time projects, but not for recurring tasks, such as long-term planning.


Perhaps "long-term planning" is a misnomer -- I prefer to be production-run-, project-, and policy-oriented according to mass human need / consumer demand. If a political *policy* like "make sure no one starves" has ongoing mass support then it will lead to widespread collective projects (at supply-chain nodes everywhere) that aim at boosting food production and distribution to where it's most needed.

Once human need for food is satisfied the political winds may shift to something else like "increase the variety of foods available", and then localities can re-focus their supply nodes' priorities to produce a greater *variety* of foods. (Etc.)





Again, this works fine for one-time projects but I don't see how this would work for long-term planning or for those tasks which require an extensive amount of training to perform. Even if it did work, I don't see why it would be more desirable than the system I've described. You're talking about basically putting out a call for volunteers. This will not magically result in a perfect allocation of labor, or even one that is sufficient to meet the demands of society.


Well, if *you* think that *you* can promise a system that would magically result in a perfect allocation of labor, good luck with that.

Meanwhile the way that *workers* could self-organize would be in a way in which their available skills -- whatever and wherever they may be -- would be published and made known, as with the collectivized assets and resources.

This is about the *only* way we can do it because if it's *not* voluntary then it's top-down or authoritarian to some degree, and so then the workers would *not* be in a liberated state any more.





This is precisely my point. If this is true, then according to math, science, and english, you have a hierarchy. This hierarchy exists regardless of whether or not it is formalized.


No, there *is* a huge difference depending on whether something is formalized or not -- if it's *not* formalized then it's basically on the *conceptual*, or *academic* side of things. We can discuss animal hierarchies in nature all we want, but it won't make any difference to how we as *people* organize *society* for *people*.





Now, if it is formalized as I've suggested, all you're doing is ensuring that those with more expertise and experience get to use it, so that everyone benefits!


I agree that people's education and work experience can be *described* and made available to others for the purpose of filling appropriate work roles.

[Comrade_Stalin]

No, what's needed is the end to bourgeois rule -- *then* workers can self-organize on collectivized property.




Sorry, I mean Can’t, not can, it should of read.

I’m not saying that workers can’t self-organize themselves in a hierarchy, only that one is need so they can self-organize in it. I have fixed that problem




I don't *have* to concern myself with what capitalists should do, and so I won't.

If workers controlled their own labor they would have to keep track of their own labor (scheduling), keep track of asset usage (scheduling), and keep track of resources (inventory). What *else* is there???



I am not saying that lower levels of the party should not have administrative power. No I am saying the opposite. That each level should have administrative power. Let the lower committees write the scheduling, but alone the higher committees to do the economic planning.




Heh -- funny...!

x D

Is that a yes or no to the point of view you hold.



Well, again, we have to *distinguish* between private-property-based management and that of a liberated labor force working in their own collective interests. What kind of "leadership" would a post-capitalist society need? How about satisfying *all* human need first and foremost? -- this would be a matter of *policy*.

I'm certain that a post-capitalist society could be self-organizing according to mass-demanded *policy*, *not* personified "leadership".

At this point I am at a lost, if we have the same view but state it in different way that make us think we all have different views, or do we in fact have different view on the way things should be

[ckaihatsu]

I’m not saying that workers can’t self-organize themselves in a hierarchy, only that one is need so they can self-organize in it.


So which comes first, then? The workers’ self-organization or the hierarchy? According to you it would have to be the hierarchy -- but then *who* creates the hierarchy? If it is not developed by the self-organization of the workers themselves then the hierarchy will be *imposed* on workers in a top-down manner.





I am not saying that lower levels of the party should not have administrative power. No I am saying the opposite. That each level should have administrative power. Let the lower committees write the scheduling, but alone the higher committees to do the economic planning.


I think we can do *better* than this -- "economic planning" sounds too Stalinistic for our contemporary abilities. If we're agreed that mass demand can be readily aggregated on an ongoing basis then *what else* needs to be "planned", really?





All of the individualized demand lists, *and* the communist economy as a whole, can be completely dynamic and flowing, through time.

All that would be needed from each person would be a "shopping list" of political demands and consumer preferences. As the simplest solution, a linear list could work just fine -- the math would be to divide 100 by the ranking of each item to come up with larger numbers for higher-ranked items. So the first item (#1) would be given 100 points, #2 would be 100 / 2, or 50 points, the third would be 100 / 3, or 33-1/3 points, and so on.

By compiling the lists over a certain area -- say by zip code, or whatever -- we would have an automatically generated group list, updated daily, reflecting the ongoing political demands and consumer preferences for thousands of people living near each other. Sorting the cumulative list by points would reveal the overall priorities for the population of that area.

(We could even provide some gray area, geographically, by defining border areas of mixed zip codes, if that was needed -- so everyone might have membership in either one area or one area plus a border area of two neighboring zip codes.)


---


I could even advance a different approach to this solution, which would be a relative-weighting system of preferences. In this method everyone would have to limit their "voting" for political demands and consumer preferences to a set number of "votes" -- say, 1000 "votes" or points per person. These 1000 points would have to be distributed over all of the demands and items being demanded. Those that are meant to be more important to someone would be given more points -- if someone was particularly adamant about getting cornflakes, then they might reserve 500 points for cornflakes alone, with the remaining 500 points distributed among all other items.


Prioritization Chart

http://tinyurl.com/2q48sf

[Technocrat]

So, what have we learned about this 1930s engineers' wet dream?

Dave - you get an F for your understanding.


(1) Technocracy will not permit independent unions of the working class.

Wrong. I've already addressed this. This is a completely baseless assertion. Go back and re-read what I've written. Quote and respond rather than relying on your obviously inaccurate assumptions.


(2) Technocracy is explicitly not democratic. It's founder derided democracy. People do not get to directly choose their own industrial leaders. Leaders cannot be recalled, except by a 2/3 vote.

Wrong. Leaders are directly chosen by the workers themselves. What are you not understanding about this?


(3) No one in the lower ranks participates in the process of choosing anyone more than one level above them. The only way to change such a designation would be to remove 2/3 of the those above, and then remove the offender, by a 2/3 majority. Imsgine how difficult it would be to remove people three, four, five levels above.

Wrong. I have already explained this. Leaders can be removed by a 2/3rds vote by anyone who is directly effected by the individual's actions.


(4) Technocracy believes in "natural" leaders (a pecking order).

For good reason - it is supported by sociological and psychological observations. This makes it an objective fact. Your assertions are based on nothing more than subjective philosophy. If I'm wrong, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary.


(5) Technocracy has no solution to any sort-term problem.

That's not a fault since as I've already explained it is a blueprint for achieving long-term goals, not a philosophy for guiding our everyday actions.


(6) Technocracy cannot be used to devise strategy or tactics in any real-world political situation.

See the above.


(7) Historically, Technocracy does not seem to have spoken out on major issues, such as racism, the Cold War, the rise of the CIO, imperialism, the stolen election of 2000, etc. Claims that is has have not been verified.

Just because you haven't taken the time to verify a claim doesn't mean it isn't true. Technocracy publishes a newsletter called Trendevents in which they cover current issues. I've already told you this. So you are just plain wrong (as usual).


(8) Technocracy itself, as a movement, employed a distinctly fascist style. As far as is known, the mvoment igtself was not democratic.

This is an ad hominem attack - you are not addressing the ideas. You are using a common propaganda tactic whereby you associate something with something else on which there is an already established opinion. Those on the far right accuse Technocracy of being communist.

[Technocrat]

(So either natural hierarchies have some pertinence to what we're discussing or else perhaps you shouldn't introduce the fact into the discussion.)

The point is that there is no alternative to hierarchy in the social order. The idea of an ahierarchical society with any degree of technological complexity will forever remain in the realm of theory (or fantasy). I've explained a simple experiment anyone could do to verify this fact. It isn't even worth doing though, because most people with any understanding of science know that this is a fact and recognize it to be trivial.

Even most Marxists recognize this fact and agree that the problem is not hierarchy itself buy the way in which some hierarchies are designed to distribute wealth and power unequally. This is entirely different from a task-oriented hierarchy: the chain of command would be the same as the assembly line itself. There would be no separate group of people telling the assembly line what to do. This is the same as worker's self-management, and it is NOT ahierarchical.


Perhaps "long-term planning" is a misnomer -- I prefer to be production-run-, project-, and policy-oriented according to mass human need / consumer demand. If a political *policy* like "make sure no one starves" has ongoing mass support then it will lead to widespread collective projects (at supply-chain nodes everywhere) that aim at boosting food production and distribution to where it's most needed.You're missing my point about use values. Use values are objective, which makes it possible to create a plan using the scientific method that will be the most efficient way of providing every use value. This makes the issue one of planning, rather than a political matter. It's a political matter to decide to install Technocracy in the first place.


Well, if *you* think that *you* can promise a system that would magically result in a perfect allocation of labor, good luck with that.That is precisely what I've proposed - go back and re-read carefully. If the economy is a steady state economy (as it needs to be for sustainability), we can look at the % of the total population engaged in a particular task, and use that to train the exact number of people needed for each particular task while keeping everyone's work hours equal. Choice of training would be voluntary but availability would be determined by society's need for certain types of work. Nothing horribly complicated about it.


Meanwhile the way that *workers* could self-organize would be in a way in which their available skills -- whatever and wherever they may be -- would be published and made known, as with the collectivized assets and resources. This sounds like a fine idea. Having everyone's qualifications out in the open would help greatly.


This is about the *only* way we can do it because if it's *not* voluntary then it's top-down or authoritarian to some degree, and so then the workers would *not* be in a liberated state any more.As I've explained, top-down and bottom-up are characterizations that don't accurately explain Technocracy, because it has characteristics of both.


No, there *is* a huge difference depending on whether something is formalized or not -- if it's *not* formalized then it's basically on the *conceptual*, or *academic* side of things. We can discuss animal hierarchies in nature all we want, but it won't make any difference to how we as *people* organize *society* for *people*.That's precisely my point: the way people would naturally organize a society for people would not necessarily be ahierarchical.


I agree that people's education and work experience can be *described* and made available to others for the purpose of filling appropriate work roles.Now we're getting somewhere.

Okay, so we've agreed that having everyone's qualifications and experience out in the open will help decide who should fill particular work roles.

Now: who does the actual deciding as to who should fill a particular work role?

To me, "workers self management" means that if you have a group of workers engaged in a particular task, they would be the ones to decide whether or not someone met the qualifications to work with them. This is because they are familiar with the job and it's requirements.

With "direct democracy", it seems like all job placement would be done by majority vote by the masses (correct me if I'm wrong). Leaving the decision up to those who have never worked the job before seems both unfair and disfunctional.

[Technocrat]

So which comes first, then? The workers’ self-organization or the hierarchy? According to you it would have to be the hierarchy -- but then *who* creates the hierarchy? If it is not developed by the self-organization of the workers themselves then the hierarchy will be *imposed* on workers in a top-down manner.

Chris, the hierarchy in Technocracy would be the result of the self-organization of the workers themselves.

This does not necessarily mean that either the worker's self-organization or the hierarchy came first - but then we'd be getting into some quasi-metaphysics which would probably be a waste of time.


I think we can do *better* than this -- "economic planning" sounds too Stalinistic for our contemporary abilities. If we're agreed that mass demand can be readily aggregated on an ongoing basis then *what else* needs to be "planned", really?You have to plan a continental system for meeting mass demand - which is where planning committees come into play.

[RED DAVE]

With "direct democracy", it seems like all job placement would be done by majority vote by the masses (correct me if I'm wrong). Leaving the decision up to those who have never worked the job before seems both unfair and disfunctional.Says it all. Here is Techno.s elitist, ignorant, antiworking class and antisocialist attitude. Of course it "seems" "unfair and disfunctional" to someone coming to industrial organization from the top and not the bottom.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Says it all. Here is Techno.s elitist, ignorant, antiworking class and antisocialist attitude. Of course it "seems" "unfair and disfunctional" to someone coming to industrial organization from the top and not the bottom.

RED DAVE

Let me rephrase it for you then:

Leaving job placement up to individuals outside of the organization in which the job exists is both unfair to the workers who work within the organization and dysfunctional since those outside the organization would be unfamiliar with the job requirements. This is true regardless of what organization you're talking about.

Worker's self management means that these decisions would be left up to the workers who are directly effected by them. Worker's self management is NOT synonymous with control by all of society over a particular group of workers as you keep parroting.

For an idea of how well majority rule works out just look at the American South following reconstruction, or Weimar Germany prior to WWII, or Texas following the Texas Revolution, or countless other historical examples.

[Wolf Larson]

Let me rephrase it for you then:

Leaving job placement up to individuals outside of the organization in which the job exists is both unfair to the workers who work within the organization and dysfunctional since those outside the organization would be unfamiliar with the job requirements. This is true regardless of what organization you're talking about.

Worker's self management means that these decisions would be left up to the workers who are directly effected by them. Worker's self management is NOT synonymous with control by all of society over a particular group of workers as you keep parroting.

For an idea of how well majority rule works out just look at the American South following reconstruction, or Weimar Germany prior to WWII, or Texas following the Texas Revolution, or countless other historical examples.
No need to rephrase anything. We've seen and understood your elitist world view hidden behind word games since the beginning.

[Wolf Larson]

That's not what I'm pushing. There are no separate classes in the system I've described to you. Since the rest of your argument rests on this false assumption about what I've said, I won't bother to respond to it.

Honestly, where the hell are you getting this stuff from?

Technocracy is a form of federalized worker's self-management, in Marxist terms.


At the very top would be the head director of each industry. The directors would form an executive council responsible for overall planning. They would elect a president from among themselves who would set the agenda. From you. ^ Now lets hear your half ass attempt to mangle the English language and reality itself some more. You advocate a hierarchical representative system. Stop denying it.

[ckaihatsu]

Chris, the hierarchy in Technocracy would be the result of the self-organization of the workers themselves.




It's a political matter to decide to install Technocracy in the first place.


This is more to the point, then, Technocrat -- these statements (to me, anyway) shows that you support the *self-determination* of the working class. Since neither of us *are* the working class itself we can only at best *suggest* or *recommend* things that would be to the benefit of the workers' collective decision-making and activity. Workers in a revolutionary period *may* decide to adopt a technocratic model, or my 'communist supply & demand' model, or something else, or a mixture -- certainly it would be larger than either one of us.





You're missing my point about use values. Use values are objective, which makes it possible to create a plan using the scientific method that will be the most efficient way of providing every use value. This makes the issue one of planning, rather than a political matter.


Hey, I'm in *agreement* with you on the scientific part -- I think we're discussing differences in *structural implementation* at this point....





[T]op-down and bottom-up are characterizations that don't accurately explain Technocracy, because it has characteristics of both.


If we're looking at supply and demand in an organic, generic way -- with 'demand' being human need and consumer want, and 'supply' being available, skilled, uncoerced labor with access to collectivized assets and resources -- then we would be talking about matters of *scale* by using the terms 'bottom-up' and 'top-down'.

'Bottom-up' just means that personal (small-scale) preferences for work roles or consumption are sampled at the (small-scale) *individual* level, *not* at any point "higher-up" than the individual. So we can talk about *demand* being measured *this* way -- a 'bottom-up' way, in which large-scale patterns of consumption and preference may be discovered *only* from the aggregation of mass *individual* patterns of consumption and preference.

The 'bottom-up' process is a *necessity* for ascertaining available, skilled, uncoerced labor as well because




if it's *not* voluntary then it's top-down or authoritarian to some degree, and so then the workers would *not* be in a liberated state any more.


In this way we would see an *emergent* dynamic -- a dialectical one -- at the "top", or *aggregated* levels of supply and demand, wherein humanity would become self-aware at *mass*, *collective* scales as never before. This collective mass consciousness, made available to all individuals, would enable us to adjust ourselves at the individual level so as to better serve collectivized society and benefit personally as well.





If the economy is a steady state economy (as it needs to be for sustainability), we can look at the % of the total population engaged in a particular task, and use that to train the exact number of people needed for each particular task while keeping everyone's work hours equal. Choice of training would be voluntary but availability would be determined by society's need for certain types of work. Nothing horribly complicated about it.








Your conception of a planned economy is far too *static* for gaining my support, Technocrat -- a society should be able to assess needs *and* wants / desires, and be flexible enough to *grow* as population size and consumer demands grow. Scarcity (of a type) exists whenever wants / desires / whims are initially thought-up and go without being provided for.





[D]ecisions made on the basis of political authority would be reduced to a minimum and that decisions would be made based on the physical factors involved in production.





I *do* continue to maintain, as a finer point, that an optimal planned economy would be able to accomodate population growth and technological development.





You have to plan a continental system for meeting mass demand - which is where planning committees come into play.








I think we can do *better* than this -- "economic planning" sounds too Stalinistic for our contemporary abilities. If we're agreed that mass demand can be readily aggregated on an ongoing basis then *what else* needs to be "planned", really?




All of the individualized demand lists, *and* the communist economy as a whole, can be completely dynamic and flowing, through time.

All that would be needed from each person would be a "shopping list" of political demands and consumer preferences. As the simplest solution, a linear list could work just fine -- the math would be to divide 100 by the ranking of each item to come up with larger numbers for higher-ranked items. So the first item (#1) would be given 100 points, #2 would be 100 / 2, or 50 points, the third would be 100 / 3, or 33-1/3 points, and so on.

By compiling the lists over a certain area -- say by zip code, or whatever -- we would have an automatically generated group list, updated daily, reflecting the ongoing political demands and consumer preferences for thousands of people living near each other. Sorting the cumulative list by points would reveal the overall priorities for the population of that area.

(We could even provide some gray area, geographically, by defining border areas of mixed zip codes, if that was needed -- so everyone might have membership in either one area or one area plus a border area of two neighboring zip codes.)


---


I could even advance a different approach to this solution, which would be a relative-weighting system of preferences. In this method everyone would have to limit their "voting" for political demands and consumer preferences to a set number of "votes" -- say, 1000 "votes" or points per person. These 1000 points would have to be distributed over all of the demands and items being demanded. Those that are meant to be more important to someone would be given more points -- if someone was particularly adamant about getting cornflakes, then they might reserve 500 points for cornflakes alone, with the remaining 500 points distributed among all other items.


Prioritization Chart

http://tinyurl.com/2q48sf[





the chain of command would be the same as the assembly line itself. There would be no separate group of people telling the assembly line what to do. This is the same as worker's self-management, and it is NOT ahierarchical.


This is a *convenient* formulation -- to say that the *organizational* hierarchy could just piggyback on the *supply-chain* hierarchy -- but they are *not* the same thing, nor are they compatible in that way.

I'll remind you that a supply chain network can be *very* complex and varied, and its structure would *not* automatically suggest a political parallel. Consider the sourcing of raw materials like timber or iron ore -- since they are at the *beginning* of the supply chain all of the resultant supply chain processes have a *material dependence* on those *sources* of raw materials. But does this have any *political* meaning? Of course not -- those workers dealing with raw materials should *not* have any additional *political* power, or disproportionate input, as a result of the critical role their type of labor plays in the overall material supply chain.





Okay, so we've agreed that having everyone's qualifications and experience out in the open will help decide who should fill particular work roles.

Now: who does the actual deciding as to who should fill a particular work role?

To me, "workers self management" means that if you have a group of workers engaged in a particular task, they would be the ones to decide whether or not someone met the qualifications to work with them. This is because they are familiar with the job and it's requirements.

With "direct democracy", it seems like all job placement would be done by majority vote by the masses (correct me if I'm wrong). Leaving the decision up to those who have never worked the job before seems both unfair and disfunctional.


'Work roles' in a future collectivized socialist society would *not* be equivalent to 'job positions' today. This is because the *point* of socialized work roles would be to fulfill matters of mass demand, *not* to *commodify* a person and their work into some kind of poker chip in the capitalists' grand casino game.

Just as we can't know for certain if a future workers' society would adopt the precise technocratic plan *you're* laying out (or any other in particular), we can't *know* for certain what 'work roles' would look like in relation to the mass demands of the day. From our vantage point we're necessarily at a loss for details -- it's the inherent limitation of planning that we *can't* benefit from actual practice (before it's actually done).

I think your sustained concern about the *competency* of individuals filling various work roles is not well founded -- in my estimation there would be news passed along to an area about kinds of things needed to be accomplished, according to mass demand. The *collectivization* of relevant knowledge and skill, to that task or project, would be a better description of the process that could ensue. Just look at what we do here at RevLeft...!

[Meridian]

Ideologies prevent us from taking in new information. Perhaps your problem is that you adhere to an ideology in the first place."Ideology" is sometimes used that way, as 'something one can have'. But that description of the word defies its meaningful use.

Everyone has an ideology, if we consider it a point of view, an understanding of life, a set of beliefs, or something similar. Then every opinion anyone may have in the attempt to describe life or parts of life takes part of an ideology. That includes the scientific theories you purport as 'facts'.

So, ideologies can not prevent us from 'taking in' new information. Ideology is the information we consider. And no one can choose to 'adhere' to ideology -- if they don't have one they take no part of life.

[Technocrat]

From you. ^ Now lets hear your half ass attempt to mangle the English language and reality itself some more. You advocate a hierarchical representative system. Stop denying it.

I never said I wasn't advocating a hierarchical system.

Go take your belligerent attitude somewhere else - I'm sure you'll accomplish a lot with it.

[Technocrat]

This is more to the point, then, Technocrat -- these statements (to me, anyway) shows that you support the *self-determination* of the working class. Since neither of us *are* the working class itself we can only at best *suggest* or *recommend* things that would be to the benefit of the workers' collective decision-making and activity. Workers in a revolutionary period *may* decide to adopt a technocratic model, or my 'communist supply & demand' model, or something else, or a mixture -- certainly it would be larger than either one of us.

Chris, I argue for my particular plan because I think it most closely fits with what we know about human behavior based on evidence from the behavioral and social sciences. I've always said that the adoption of Technocracy would have to be voluntary for it to work in the first place. It requires the informed consent of those living within it.


'Bottom-up' just means that personal (small-scale) preferences for work roles or consumption are sampled at the (small-scale) *individual* level, *not* at any point "higher-up" than the individual.

So we can talk about *demand* being measured *this* way -- a 'bottom-up' way, in which large-scale patterns of consumption and preference may be discovered *only* from the aggregation of mass *individual* patterns of consumption and preference.This makes sense, we are in agreement here.


The 'bottom-up' process is a *necessity* for ascertaining available, skilled, uncoerced labor as well because ...
In this way we would see an *emergent* dynamic -- a dialectical one -- at the "top", or *aggregated* levels of supply and demand, wherein humanity would become self-aware at *mass*, *collective* scales as never before. This collective mass consciousness, made available to all individuals, would enable us to adjust ourselves at the individual level so as to better serve collectivized society and benefit personally as well.Collective mass consciousness does not lead to sustainable behavior - see the tragedy of the commons. You have to use mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon, in order to protect certain resources (and get other things done).

The mutual coercion that everyone would agree to is that everyone would contribute their per capita effort and time to the work of society. The agreement is that so long as a person does this, they have free access to everything society produces ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"). Technocracy is a means toward achieving this end.


This is a *convenient* formulation -- to say that the *organizational* hierarchy could just piggyback on the *supply-chain* hierarchy -- but they are *not* the same thing, nor are they compatible in that way.

I'll remind you that a supply chain network can be *very* complex and varied, and its structure would *not* automatically suggest a political parallel. Consider the sourcing of raw materials like timber or iron ore -- since they are at the *beginning* of the supply chain all of the resultant supply chain processes have a *material dependence* on those *sources* of raw materials. But does this have any *political* meaning? Of course not -- those workers dealing with raw materials should *not* have any additional *political* power, or disproportionate input, as a result of the critical role their type of labor plays in the overall material supply chain.I'm not sure I follow your example, here. We can work backwards from consumer demand to determine what resources are needed. It becomes the responsibility of the workers dealing with raw materials to supply each supply chain with the materials it needs. There would be no political authority determining the supply chains - this would be a simple matter of determining the aggregate of individual demands (as you suggest).


'Work roles' in a future collectivized socialist society would *not* be equivalent to 'job positions' today. This is because the *point* of socialized work roles would be to fulfill matters of mass demand, *not* to *commodify* a person and their work into some kind of poker chip in the capitalists' grand casino game.Okay, we're not in disagreement here - you're splitting hairs. "Work roles" it is then.


Just as we can't know for certain if a future workers' society would adopt the precise technocratic plan *you're* laying out (or any other in particular), we can't *know* for certain what 'work roles' would look like in relation to the mass demands of the day. From our vantage point we're necessarily at a loss for details -- it's the inherent limitation of planning that we *can't* benefit from actual practice (before it's actually done).As I said before, the plan I'm advocating makes the most sense given our understanding of human behavior. It's a cop-out to say that because we can't predict the future, we can't plan for it - and it's the same argument used by conservative libertarians to argue against any form of intrusion into the "free market".


I think your sustained concern about the *competency* of individuals filling various work roles is not well founded -- in my estimation there would be news passed along to an area about kinds of things needed to be accomplished, according to mass demand. The *collectivization* of relevant knowledge and skill, to that task or project, would be a better description of the process that could ensue. Just look at what we do here at RevLeft...!Your position is that if we just published what work was needed that people would sign up for the needed positions in the needed amounts. Sorry, but this doesn't seem to be supported by science.

Do you think people would just choose to work voluntarily if you gave them everything they wanted regardless of whether or not they worked? THAT seems utopian to me.

[Technocrat]

"Ideology" is sometimes used that way, as 'something one can have'. But that description of the word defies its meaningful use.

Everyone has an ideology, if we consider it a point of view, an understanding of life, a set of beliefs, or something similar. Then every opinion anyone may have in the attempt to describe life or parts of life takes part of an ideology. That includes the scientific theories you purport as 'facts'.

So, ideologies can not prevent us from 'taking in' new information. Ideology is the information we consider. And no one can choose to 'adhere' to ideology -- if they don't have one they take no part of life.

You are confused about the scientific method.

The scientific method is objective. Ideologies are subjective. Big difference.

A scientific fact is objective. An opinion is subjective.

This is such a basic fact that no one wants to talk about it because it is trivial.

Ideology can prevent you from taking in new information - go read about confirmation bias.

[ckaihatsu]

the chain of command would be the same as the assembly line itself. There would be no separate group of people telling the assembly line what to do. This is the same as worker's self-management, and it is NOT ahierarchical.





This is a *convenient* formulation -- to say that the *organizational* hierarchy could just piggyback on the *supply-chain* hierarchy -- but they are *not* the same thing, nor are they compatible in that way.

I'll remind you that a supply chain network can be *very* complex and varied, and its structure would *not* automatically suggest a political parallel. Consider the sourcing of raw materials like timber or iron ore -- since they are at the *beginning* of the supply chain all of the resultant supply chain processes have a *material dependence* on those *sources* of raw materials. But does this have any *political* meaning? Of course not -- those workers dealing with raw materials should *not* have any additional *political* power, or disproportionate input, as a result of the critical role their type of labor plays in the overall material supply chain.





I'm not sure I follow your example, here. We can work backwards from consumer demand to determine what resources are needed. It becomes the responsibility of the workers dealing with raw materials to supply each supply chain with the materials it needs. There would be no political authority determining the supply chains - this would be a simple matter of determining the aggregate of individual demands (as you suggest).


Okay, it sounds like we're in basic agreement on the technicalities here, with perhaps *one* aspect remaining:





Collective mass consciousness does not lead to sustainable behavior - see the tragedy of the commons. You have to use mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon, in order to protect certain resources (and get other things done).

The mutual coercion that everyone would agree to is that everyone would contribute their per capita effort and time to the work of society. The agreement is that so long as a person does this, they have free access to everything society produces ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"). Technocracy is a means toward achieving this end.


*This* approach sounds more like what would be needed to *get out of* capitalist / bourgeois class rule, and through into a *socialist* mode of production. There *would* have to be an organized political structure within the proletariat to decisively defeat the bourgeoisie's organization and solidarity.

By comparison, the *following* description (of mine) sounds more like what *could* very well be possible once the bourgeoisie is soundly defeated and displaced from power.





in my estimation there would be news passed along to an area about kinds of things needed to be accomplished, according to mass demand. The *collectivization* of relevant knowledge and skill, to that task or project, would be a better description of the process that could ensue. Just look at what we do here at RevLeft...!


At *that* point -- communism -- impromptu cooperation, or the absence of it, would be entirely acceptable since there would be no external threat against *anyone*. A workers' society would be difficult to "measure" or "rate" in terms of "effectiveness" because there would be no firm perimeters of political power (as we're so used to seeing today) -- either things would get done a certain way, or they wouldn't -- maybe *other* things would get done in some *other* direction, or they might not...(!) But, of course, at least *no one* would be under the slightest privation or duress.