In defence of Technocracy. [Archive]

View Full Version : In defence of Technocracy.

Pages : [1] 2

Dr Mindbender

6th April 2010, 22:16

The technocracy movement has come under attack numerous times and of late from certain factions on this forum.

It has been criticised as being associated as a bourgeoisie theory, and at worst, connected with fascism. These connections are tenuous at best and laughable, pretty much stemming from the fact that members of Technocracy inc. used to wear uniforms. So what? Does this make the soviet union fascist?

The idea that technocracy is elitist has been laid at the fact that it seeks to abolish menial labour from the human hand. How is this not a progressive movement? Menial toll is an unpleasant experience and communism seeks to maximise human happiness. Therefore to me, it seems that communism and technocracy compliment each other perfectly.

Let us be realistic for a moment. What child ever said they wanted to be a factory worker, repeatedly performing mundane tasks? The idea that not all workers can take advantage of their talents, skills and pursue their interests is reactionary defeatism and cynicism that i am calling out technocracy's critics on now.

bcbm

6th April 2010, 22:22

Dr Mindbender

6th April 2010, 22:23

well there's a strawman if i ever saw one!

Please dont participate in the thread unless you have a tangible or structured rebuttle to offer.

Thanks.

bcbm

6th April 2010, 22:31

how does one offer a tangible and structured rebuttal to nonsense? nobody here has expressed opposition to technocracy because they want to see humans engaged in drudgery. :rolleyes:

Dr Mindbender

6th April 2010, 22:36

how does one offer a tangible and structured rebuttal to nonsense? nobody here has expressed opposition to technocracy because they want to see humans engaged in drudgery. :rolleyes:

No, but they have expressed the sentiment that it is an elitist and even fascist system. I want the attention of those who have made these claims and put a stop to this ignorance.

bcbm

6th April 2010, 22:37

you might want to start by actually addressing their actual arguments instead of suggesting that they have a fetish for manual labor, then. there's a whole 23 page thread full of them.

Dr Mindbender

6th April 2010, 22:43

you might want to start by actually addressing their actual arguments instead of suggesting that they have a fetish for manual labor, then. there's a whole 23 page thread full of them.

Both Technocrat and Dimentio have addressed them in full but still they rattle on. That thread has been spammed to irrelevance with cut n paste jobs on Howard Scott and Technocracy incorporated.

I think it's better to take the debate with a fresh perspective.

bcbm

6th April 2010, 22:44

I think it's better to take the debate with a fresh perspective.

i'm not sure making shit up qualifies as a fresh perspective on the debate.

Dr Mindbender

6th April 2010, 22:48

i'm not sure making shit up qualifies as a fresh perspective on the debate.

Now theres a strawman if i ever saw one.

bcbm

6th April 2010, 22:50

Dr Mindbender

6th April 2010, 22:53

okay, find me someone arguing that technocracy is elitist because they want human beings to be engaged in menial labor. or that believes not all workers can take advantage of their talents, skills and pursue their interests. go!

I dont need to. If people arent against the idea of unnecessary innefficient human menial labour being automated what other agenda could they have for opposing technocracy?

bcbm

6th April 2010, 23:00

I dont need to. If people arent against the idea of unnecessary innefficient human menial labour being automated what other agenda could they have for opposing technocracy?

i'm pretty sure this is a logical fallacy of some sort. as mentioned previously, 23 pages of other reasons have been laid out and not a one of them has involved wanting menial labor to continue.

Dimentio

6th April 2010, 23:16

This thread has all the potential to be a new Mao Zedong/Dialectics thread (taken straight from Monty Python's argument school).

bcbm

6th April 2010, 23:36

one can only hope

Meridian

6th April 2010, 23:49

The idea that technocracy is elitist has been laid at the fact that it seeks to abolish menial labour from the human hand.
Who has said that?

I would offer that the technocracy plan is 'elitist', or would actually lead to a new class system, because it disallows workers self management; instead relying on a class of management over production (at least specialized production). I see no need for this, and have an alternative: Communism. People themselves should govern production, by planning production based on their desires and by executing production based on what they want to do. Of course, all technological advancements are extremely helpful aids in that they decrease amount of human labor needed. But that's not a theory, thus no one would dispute that.

Technocrats are too concerned with 'sustainability'. All ideologies would offer what they'd call 'sustainability', which is the problem. Fascism may offer a 'sustainable' system, that doesn't make it fair.

Dimentio

6th April 2010, 23:58

Who has said that?

I would offer that the technocracy plan is 'elitist', or would actually lead to a new class system, because it disallows workers self management; instead relying on a class of management over production (at least specialized production). I see no need for this, and have an alternative: Communism. People themselves should govern production, by planning production based on their desires and by executing production based on what they want to do. Of course, all technological advancements are extremely helpful aids in that they decrease amount of human labor needed. But that's not a theory, thus no one would dispute that.

Technocrats are too concerned with 'sustainability'. All ideologies would offer what they'd call 'sustainability', which is the problem. Fascism may offer a 'sustainable' system, that doesn't make it fair.

Sustainability has a meaning, namely that we manage resources in a manner which aren't depleting the planet's regeneration capacity, while at the same time guaranteeing a high quality of life for all people, for so long time as possible.

As for elitism. Your proposal is exactly what we strive to achieve. The main difference is that we have a more detailed proposal for how to conduct management in a high-technological society without alienating people. All people would - through energy accounting - be given equal access to the fruits of production.

We say that you receive 500 EC in your energy certifikate. You then allocate that to what you want to be produced for your own need. There is no one deciding what you should consume in the technate apart from yourself.

Almost all the workers in the technate would be engineers or scientists, and members of autonomous holons where all individuals have a say. What is deciding how things should be conducted is not the opinion of anyone, but could only be decided by scientific facts.

Technocracy is basically rule by science, not rule by opinion. It is certainly not the rule of individuals, since all decisions need to be open source. No one is automatically infallible for being a doctor. All people's opinions should be given the same treatment, no matter if they are working as child care personnel or rocket scientists.

Dr Mindbender

7th April 2010, 00:09

i'm pretty sure this is a logical fallacy of some sort. as mentioned previously, 23 pages of other reasons have been laid out and not a one of them has involved wanting menial labor to continue.

Any plan that falls short of wanting to follow the path to a fully fledged high energy society (as outlined by the technocracy movement) will necessitate the continuation of human menial labour.

Traditional marxism or any other contemporary school of traditional communist thought has not intself any such agenda of transferring to a high energy society. That is not to say that technocracy is anti communist. What it does mean though that technocracy is necessary for the survival of communism because only technocracy has the impotus and methodology to truly end heirarchic society of the skilled vs the unskilled.

Meridian

7th April 2010, 00:15

Almost all the workers in the technate would be engineers or scientists, and members of autonomous holons where all individuals have a say. What is deciding how things should be conducted is not the opinion of anyone, but could only be decided by scientific facts.
And by "how things should be conducted", you mean what is to be produced? And by "scientific facts" here, you mean demand? Otherwise, I would not understand the sentence, as 'scientific facts' clearly can not decide anything.

Technocracy is basically rule by science, not rule by opinion. It is certainly not the rule of individuals, since all decisions need to be open source. No one is automatically infallible for being a doctor. All people's opinions should be given the same treatment, no matter if they are working as child care personnel or rocket scientists.
Define closer what you mean by "science" here.

Demogorgon

7th April 2010, 00:27

I'm not massively keen on getting into all of this again but the accusation of fascism was based on the parallels between Technocracy Incorporated's arguments and Mussolini's rhetoric. More to the point though it was thrown particularly at the member Technocrat because he was preaching hierarchy and using arguments that looked suspiciously like class collaboration.

As I have said before my principle objection to technocracy in general is that energy accounting is not a feasible means of calculating economic activity. When it came to the stuff the above mentioned member was giving us though, stronger terms needed to be used.

black magick hustla

7th April 2010, 01:23

i think there is nothing wrong to dream about a future technological utopia. men have always tried to reach the stars, whether utopian socialists, technological utopians, Owen, Simons, etcetera -. their gift to humanity was exactly this idea of trying to reach the stars and i might say i embrace such a dream. i mean after all, above the pavement, there are the stars. my problem with technocracy is that i can't say i am convinced by this grand blueprints made by a handful of people. i don't think it works that way. what are you going to do? after we are able to get rid of this miserable world are you guys just going to run at people and tell them "hey we have a great idea! look at our blueprints!". in difference to most people here, i am not arguing from a democratist standpoint. i don't care (and i suspect most people too) about arguing vigurously in the workplace about the vicicitudes of production. i'd rather eat acid or drink or write in my free time.

black magick hustla

7th April 2010, 01:31

Meridian

7th April 2010, 01:48

in difference to most people here, i am not arguing from a democratist standpoint. i don't care (and i suspect most people too) about arguing vigurously in the workplace about the vicicitudes of production.
But, production could be democratic without any sort of arguing. Production could be based on individual contribution of wants/needs. It could be an automatic/electronic thing, for local production, and/or import of other local area's production. The society would not need any management class.

Besides this (rather critical) point, I am positive towards the creative/constructive spirit of the (european) technocracy project. But, as you say, it needs to be a much broader movement, based around the class of people that need economical/political change (the proletarians). I am also skeptical of the treatment of scientific facts/holy truths/objectivity... but that is another discussion.

bcbm

7th April 2010, 03:05

Any plan that falls short of wanting to follow the path to a fully fledged high energy society (as outlined by the technocracy movement) will necessitate the continuation of human menial labour.

i think it is more than a little presumptuous to suggest your ideology is the only solution to the problems we face.

What it does mean though that technocracy is necessary for the survival of communism because only technocracy has the impotus and methodology to truly end heirarchic society of the skilled vs the unskilled.

but your fellow technocrat argues that communism is impossible and that hierarchy is necessary. which is it?

black magick hustla

7th April 2010, 03:23

But, production could be democratic without any sort of arguing. Production could be based on individual contribution of wants/needs. It could be an automatic/electronic thing, for local production, and/or import of other local area's production. The society would not need any management class.

Besides this (rather critical) point, I am positive towards the creative/constructive spirit of the (european) technocracy project. But, as you say, it needs to be a much broader movement, based around the class of people that need economical/political change (the proletarians). I am also skeptical of the treatment of scientific facts/holy truths/objectivity... but that is another discussion.

i am also skeptical of the treatment of "scientific facts" as holy because after all, they are interpreted by men. besides, science says nothing about how the world ought to be. it simply states how it is and within it there are no political programs. scientists can either help the liberation of humanity or turn the world into a sewer.

however, automatization is not here, and i dont think automatization is a precondition for communism. obviously most people should have an input on productiion etcetera but you cannot turn the normal person into an engineer, and an english teacher at the same time.

OldMoney

7th April 2010, 07:10

The idea that technocracy is elitist has been laid at the fact that it seeks to abolish menial labour from the human hand. How is this not a progressive movement? Menial toll is an unpleasant experience and communism seeks to maximise human happiness. Therefore to me, it seems that communism and technocracy compliment each other perfectly.Let us be realistic for a moment. What child ever said they wanted to be a factory worker, repeatedly performing mundane tasks?

So your arguing that A. Technocracy is not elitist B. "communism and technocracy compliment each other perfectly". Technocrats have the notion that all non skilled tecnical work is mundane, like working in a factory right? Elitist says What? What will happen to the proletariat who enjoy such menial tasks when the hiearchy of the upper chaste running the system is voted in based on popularity and technical skill? With such effeciency and technical prowese elliminating the need for menial labour, is it going to be efficient to keep a surplus of idle people? I dont know brother, you tell me how these Technocracy and Communism compliment eachother at all ok.

With that being said I dont deney the right of skilled technical workers to be appart of communist revolution. The fact is that as our technology increases so will the ammount of skilled workers and I am happy to call them a part of the proletariat if they sick of being exploited by thier wage slave masters.

OldMoney

7th April 2010, 07:21

Oh Yeah, Id also like to give mad props to my comrades who stuck it to the technocrats inthe other thread. With special thanks to Wolf and Dave for thier vigilante stand against this sytem. Good work :)

Dimentio

7th April 2010, 09:57

Dr Mindbender

7th April 2010, 13:26

i think it is more than a little presumptuous to suggest your ideology is the only solution to the problems we face.
Do you know of another movement that calls for the transfer of a proportional switchover since 1800 of 2% to 98% of total work by extraneous means? If you know of one please let me know.

but your fellow technocrat argues that communism is impossible and that hierarchy is necessary. which is it?

Heirarchy is not, I repeat not necessary. In a society where menial labour by people is viewed as barbaric and as contemptious as slavery in the conventional sense then heirarchy becomes wholly irrelevant.

I'm not sure that technocrat entirely sings from the same hymn book as EOS. At times i think the anti-technocracy lobby take him out of context and others he is perhaps somewhat of a loose cannon. He means well though.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

7th April 2010, 13:59

So your arguing that A. Technocracy is not elitist B. "communism and technocracy compliment each other perfectly". Technocrats have the notion that all non skilled tecnical work is mundane, like working in a factory right? Elitist says What?

If you want to mindlessly drudge through repetitive tasks, I don't think anyone will stop you. Only that under a technocratic system, you won't have to do that in order to survive.

What will happen to the proletariat who enjoy such menial tasks when the hiearchy of the upper chaste running the system is voted in based on popularity and technical skill?

There won't be a "proletariat" because nobody will be working for money.

With such effeciency and technical prowese elliminating the need for menial labour, is it going to be efficient to keep a surplus of idle people?

There won't be a surplus of "idle people". For a start, there are many, many ways of filling one's time that does not involve engaging in what we commonly call these days "work".

If the pursuit of scientific and technical knowledge doesn't catch your fancy, then there are a vast range of cultural and artistic activities that you could undertake. The humanities also offer choices. If outdoor work is your thing, then society will still have a need for forestry workers and natural park wardens.

Just use your imagination, and don't let contemporary capitalist ideas of "work" tie you into a straitjacket.

I dont know brother, you tell me how these Technocracy and Communism compliment eachother at all ok.

Because "brother", technocracy has the goals of providing the largest amount of people with the highest standard of living with the minimal expenditure of labour, materials and energy, based on a system of distribution that does not involve money.

but your fellow technocrat argues that communism is impossible and that hierarchy is necessary. which is it?

I agree and disagree, since there are really two issues here;

"Communism is impossible" - nobody can honestly say this, at least for advanced technological societies. There are tantalising hints from events such as the Paris Commune, which suggests that communism is at least temporarily possible. In my estimation this makes communism worth pursuing.

"Hierarchy is necessary" - I really think this is context-dependant. Arbitrary hierarchy that encompasses the whole of society and is based on wealth or power is demonstrably oppressive and sub-optimal, but hierarchy confined within a certain domain, such as within an Engineering Guild, is justified and useful. The Chief Engineer is the go-to person for a major construction project, but beyond that he has the same amount of power as the rest of us.

Furthermore, I wish to add that technocrats are not carbon copies of each other, and are free to disagree with each other or hold different opinions; there is no "party line" to toe. Many critics of technocracy seem to forget this, and assume that one technocrat speaks for all. This just isn't so.

Dr Mindbender

7th April 2010, 14:22

So your arguing that A. Technocracy is not elitist B. "communism and technocracy compliment each other perfectly". Technocrats have the notion that all non skilled tecnical work is mundane, like working in a factory right?
Its not only mundane, it's inefficient. The human brain is the most complex device in the world. What is the point of letting it vegitate when it could be achieving so much more?

In the 1800's in Britain children used to be sent up chimneys to clean them and work in orphanage workhouses. Many countries still practice this barbarism. We abolished this on the auspice that children should be educated not in labour, but learning is a lifelong process. If we can abolish such labour for children, why stop there? Why not go on to abolish all human labour? Reduction in the amount of menial work is a hallmark of progression. For the most part, people hate menial work. It is degrading, co-ercive and largely those in it do so for want of avoiding unemployment.

Elitist says What? What will happen to the proletariat who enjoy such menial tasks when the hiearchy
I'd like to think that these people would take advantage of the university and college courses which will no doubt be available freely and at point of demand but like Noxion says if anyone wants to engage repetitive menial tasks no one will stop them. The only difference is they wont have to do so in the context of a baking hot factory with a supervisor breathing down their neck.

If sweat fetishists and nostalgists want to set up a menial workers club where they can go and stand by a production line for 8 hours then power to them, just dont expect me to be forced to do the same thing.

My main concern is the happiness of the vast majority of people trapped in co-ercive jobs that'd rather be doing other things.

of the upper chaste running the system is voted in based on popularity and technical skill?
I'm sorry where did you read that technocracy favours rule of the popular?

I think you're confusing technocracy with bourgeoisie democracy and parliamentarism.

Secondly, there is no 'upper chaste' because technocracy eradicates the conditioning for a heirarchic society.

With such effeciency and technical prowese elliminating the need for menial labour, is it going to be efficient to keep a surplus of idle people?
Like i and Noxion have said, there will be educational places, as well as arts and humanities jobs available en masse.

There will be absolutely no need for anyone to be idle.

Oh Yeah, Id also like to give mad props to my comrades who stuck it to the technocrats inthe other thread. With special thanks to Wolf and Dave for thier vigilante stand against this sytem. Good work

Please don't spam the thread with your obnoxious 'shout outs' please.

mykittyhasaboner

7th April 2010, 14:26

Dr Mindbender

7th April 2010, 14:37

Do technocrats or Technocracy Inc, or NET have a political/transitional program? What are their positions/ideas about smashing capitalism and establishing a new society? I can agree with a lot of the ideas put forth by technocrats but I don't see their ideas about defeating capitalism and constructing a socialist--communist society.

Or are technocrats composed of a diverse spectrum of political positions, some of which do not propose revolutionary transformation at all...?

My experience is that technocrats refer to the 'price system' when they refer to capitalism, but for the most part they are one and the same thing. The price system is what technocrats want to abolish.

What the price system does is attach arbitrary values to items, promoting scarcity. It then validates this scarcity by creating debt or 'debt tokens'. However the price system is a tenent of most contemporary political systems, not excluding socialism.

Meridian

7th April 2010, 15:24

My experience is that technocrats refer to the 'price system' when they refer to capitalism, but for the most part they are one and the same thing. The price system is what technocrats want to abolish.

What the price system does is attach arbitrary values to items, promoting scarcity. It then validates this scarcity by creating debt or 'debt tokens'. However the price system is a tenent of most contemporary political systems, not excluding socialism.
Is not this blatant dismissal of the works of a certain K. Marx? Perhaps you should look into the theory that the price system is inherently connected to the class system, and in the interest of a certain group of people: the upper class. To highlight only the monetary aspect of Capitalism seems a bit negligent. The problem today, many would claim, is not mainly the price system, but the fact that 5% of the people own 90% of the stuff. I, of course, agree that the price system does need to be overthrown as well, however I disagree that classes should not be addressed. It seems a very a-social and a-historical way of looking at economics, probably connected to the reactionary idea of the epistemological supremacy of 'natural science' over 'social science'.

However, besides this I agree with many of the proposals of European Technocracy (which now apparently calls itself the European Organisation for Sustainability; a terrible name in my opinion, as I disagree that 'sustainability' is a particularly meaningful term outside bourgeois economics).

Dimentio

7th April 2010, 15:37

Do technocrats or Technocracy Inc, or NET have a political/transitional program? What are their positions/ideas about smashing capitalism and establishing a new society? I can agree with a lot of the ideas put forth by technocrats but I don't see their ideas about defeating capitalism and constructing a socialist--communist society.

Or are technocrats composed of a diverse spectrum of political positions, some of which do not propose revolutionary transformation at all...?

NET/EOS have a long-term transitional proposal. The first step involves experimentation and the establishment of a proto-technate which would be autonomous.

Technocracy Incorporated has a variation of the - in my opinion - absolutely idiotic "phoenix syndrome", the delusion that when capitalism collapses by itself, Tech Inc would ride in and save the day.

mykittyhasaboner

7th April 2010, 16:02

My experience is that technocrats refer to the 'price system' when they refer to capitalism, but for the most part they are one and the same thing. The price system is what technocrats want to abolish.

So then in that case, I would guess that technocracy does not have that much to offer in the political sphere of the struggle, but do certainly have developed ideas about potential development involving some of the plans and ideas like energy accounting etc. Would you agree?

What the price system does is attach arbitrary values to items, promoting scarcity. It then validates this scarcity by creating debt or 'debt tokens'. However the price system is a tenent of most contemporary political systems, not excluding socialism.Indeed. The price system in general though is a very adaptable thing in itself, imo. Socialism does not involve abolishing the price system, yet it's price system, this goes without saying, is fundamentally different than the price system of a capitalist economy. For this reason I find that the function of technocratic economics aren't really feasible or useful until a given society is advanced enough and has abolished capitalism (though not necessarily having abolished division of labor and state institutions all together though).

This is why I'm questioning the actual political and historical context that technocrats sort of envision their ideas put into material practice. Obviously you and the rest of the technocrats who post here are socialists, but as we know very well that doesn't mean the same thing to all of us in a lot of cases.

NET/EOS have a long-term transitional proposal. The first step involves experimentation and the establishment of a proto-technate which would be autonomous.

What do you mean by autonomous? Is this a socialist society were talking about? Obviously if the proto-technate were to be put through it's first stages of experimentation then were talking about a society where division of labor and even a state persists no?

I guess my main question is do technocrats assume that a form of technocratic economics or government can be developed first from within a price system (namely a socialist price system), and essentially transitioning from a price system to a system based on energy accounting or "to each according to need".

Technocracy Incorporated has a variation of the - in my opinion - absolutely idiotic "phoenix syndrome", the delusion that when capitalism collapses by itself, Tech Inc would ride in and save the day.:lol:

Btw, I'm sorry if my questions seem dumb or whatever but the only example even close to technocratic forms of government and management we have seen is in the former Soviet Union, which was still operating within the boundaries of a price system. This is why I have a lot of questions...because I have no actual experiences to look at.

Dimentio

7th April 2010, 17:41

The proto-technate is an embedded system. It is co-existing on the same territory as a state, and on the same territory where a capitalist (or another) system is in existence. The proto-technate is composed of "holons", which are project groups which could be communities or cooperatives. Internally, the proto-technate should produce its own food, its own electricity, its own heating. It would also produce a lot of things requested by the outside world. These things would be exchanged by interface companies which are existing in the membrane between the technate and the non-technate world. For the revenue, the technate would buy up more land, which would be transformed into technate-operated territory, as well as more companies, which would transformed into interface cooperatives.

Internally, the system is entirely moneyless, using energy accounting as a mean to allocate resources. That means that a cooperative which is producing for example robotic lawnmovers would get its electricity for free from a cooperative which is producing electricity, etc.

The goal is not only to get a system like that up'n'running, but also to constantly having it expanding. It would not only exist in one land. Different segments of the same proto-technate could exist in Canada, Mexico, Sweden, Russia and Tanzania.

bcbm

8th April 2010, 02:55

Do you know of another movement that calls for the transfer of a proportional switchover since 1800 of 2% to 98% of total work by extraneous means? If you know of one please let me know.

as far as i know, the goal of almost all communists and anarchists is to eliminate all unnecessary labor through the best means available.

Heirarchy is not, I repeat not necessary.you're preaching to the choir. i'm telling you to get your story straight with your fellow technocrats who think it is, especially if you're going to claim to have the one, true solution.

In a society where menial labour by people is viewed as barbaric and as contemptious as slavery in the conventional sense then heirarchy becomes wholly irrelevant.my manager at work performs almost entirely the same duties as i do, but they're ultimately still my manager. eliminating one form of labor is not the same as eliminating hierarchy.

I'm not sure that technocrat entirely sings from the same hymn book as EOS. At times i think the anti-technocracy lobby take him out of context and others he is perhaps somewhat of a loose cannon. He means well though.all sorts of people have "meant well," which doesn't mean shit when their ideas are still horrible.

Furthermore, I wish to add that technocrats are not carbon copies of each other, and are free to disagree with each other or hold different opinions; there is no "party line" to toe. Many critics of technocracy seem to forget this, and assume that one technocrat speaks for all. This just isn't so.i understand that perfectly. i was pointing out the disagreements in the face of dm saying that technocracy is the only solution- this isn't exactly a helpful proclamation if technocrats can be anything from hierarchal, racist proto-fascists to egalitarian minded communists.

black magick hustla

8th April 2010, 03:08

Not at all. What we are doing in the European movement is to build the foundations for energy accounting today.

that is utopian socialism. you cant have a handful of people crafting an economic system with the hopes people will be "converted". you folks have from energy accounting, to technates and urbanates. i mean that seems pretty blueprinty to me

Technocrat

8th April 2010, 04:18

People themselves should govern production, by planning production based on their desires and by executing production based on what they want to do.

This is same argument used by economists to justify capitalism. They argue that people are rational utility maximizers, that they will make rational choices in their consumption and other decisions, and that this will allow the market to reach equilibrium. The assumption that people are rational utility maximizers is called rational man and has been falsified for over 60 years. People are not rational utility maximizers.

If people are not rational utility maximizers, then people will not voluntarily do what is in their own best interest. The only way to protect a resource - in this case, the planet earth - is through mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. This is something that has been used for thousands of years, even by egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies.

Technocrats are too concerned with 'sustainability'. All ideologies would offer what they'd call 'sustainability', which is the problem. Fascism may offer a 'sustainable' system, that doesn't make it fair.The word sustainability has different uses in different contexts, such as in economics where it is used interchangeably with the word "profitable". In Technocracy however, the word sustainability is used to mean: "To provide every person with as much as they can physically consume, with the lowest possible input of resources, energy, and labor."

Technocrat

8th April 2010, 04:23

People here are confusing "pecking order" with "hierarchy". They are not synonymous. Pecking orders are not fixed - they change depending on the situation. They are a mutually agreed upon cooperative strategy to reduce the number of conflicts within the group (which waste time and energy).

"Hierarchy is necessary" - I really think this is context-dependant. Arbitrary hierarchy that encompasses the whole of society and is based on wealth or power is demonstrably oppressive and sub-optimal, but hierarchy confined within a certain domain, such as within an Engineering Guild, is justified and useful. The Chief Engineer is the go-to person for a major construction project, but beyond that he has the same amount of power as the rest of us."

Pretty much says it all right there.

Technocrat

8th April 2010, 04:29

NET/EOS have a long-term transitional proposal. The first step involves experimentation and the establishment of a proto-technate which would be autonomous.

Technocracy Incorporated has a variation of the - in my opinion - absolutely idiotic "phoenix syndrome", the delusion that when capitalism collapses by itself, Tech Inc would ride in and save the day.

Well, they did have pretty good success during the Great Depression.

I think there are some problems with NET's plan. If you don't have abundance, and you don't have the automation, then you will have people doing jobs with varying levels of difficulty and receiving the same rationed amount of goods. This is very different from Technocracy, where all jobs would be of relatively equal difficulty due to automation, and everyone would be able to consume as much of whatever they could actually consume.

Now, I'm not saying that a community like NET proposes wouldn't have advantages over the current market system. An experimental community could be used to show people that a planned economy works better - more efficiently - than a money-based one. But I don't think it can be used to model what society would be like in a full blown Technate, where people don't have to work very hard and can consume as much of whatever they want.

which doctor

8th April 2010, 04:29

Technocrats are the 21st century equivalent of the Owenites.

Dimentio

8th April 2010, 11:47

that is utopian socialism. you cant have a handful of people crafting an economic system with the hopes people will be "converted". you folks have from energy accounting, to technates and urbanates. i mean that seems pretty blueprinty to me

People won't be converted out of any idealistic reason. When we have communities up'n'running, they would join them up because of a better social contract offered to them there. Moreover, the blueprint isn't detailed, its supposed to evolce organically.

Dimentio

8th April 2010, 11:48

Well, they did have pretty good success during the Great Depression.

I think there are some problems with NET's plan. If you don't have abundance, and you don't have the automation, then you will have people doing jobs with varying levels of difficulty and receiving the same rationed amount of goods. This is very different from Technocracy, where all jobs would be of relatively equal difficulty due to automation, and everyone would be able to consume as much of whatever they could actually consume.

Now, I'm not saying that a community like NET proposes wouldn't have advantages over the current market system. An experimental community could be used to show people that a planned economy works better - more efficiently - than a money-based one. But I don't think it can be used to model what society would be like in a full blown Technate, where people don't have to work very hard and can consume as much of whatever they want.

We cannot fix relative abundance instantly, but we could fix automatisation, as long as we have access to free electricity and food so we could put the revenue into other areas.

RED DAVE

8th April 2010, 12:34

Dimentio

8th April 2010, 12:49

In hopes of clarifying this discussion, I would like to pose a series of questions to people who are, in one way or another, connected to Technocracy.

Q1 - It seems obvious that there are two different factions of Technocracy: North American and European. What is the current relationship between these two factions?

RED DAVE

The two factions are mostly ignoring one another and continuing with their own business independent from one another. There are hardly any attempts at denunciation from either side, except from a some confused rookies and trolls. According to Technocracy Incorporated, NET/EOS probably isn't a proper technocratic organisation, but we don't care about that. We'll let them play in their pond, and they allow us to play in their one. On the individual level, there could be friendly relationships and a transmission of ideas, but the CHQ of Tech. Inc and the Board of Directors of NET/EOS have not established any contacts whatsoever with one another.

NET/EOS has cooperation with a North American technocratic group named Sector X, and is discussing cooperation with the Zeitgeist splinter groups RBEF and RBOSE.

RED DAVE

8th April 2010, 13:04

Q2 - What are the differences between North American Technocracy and European Technocracy with regard to respective belief systems?

RED DAVE

Dimentio

8th April 2010, 16:24

Q2 - What are the differences between North American Technocracy and European Technocracy with regard to respective belief systems?

RED DAVE

There are several differences, both in methodology and in terms of the design itself. The North American model is based largely on taylorism and centralised managerial structures reminiscent of a Ford motorcar factory and the Soviet Union. Emphasis is put on the engineer as a sort of vanguard for the people, at least in the visions of Thorstein Veblen and Howard Scott. The North American technocratic movement claims abundance is absolute if everyone could be given the same access to utilities, food, electricity and so on.

The European technocratic movement is proposing a de-centralised model, where the technate is composed of semi-autonomous holons which are interconnected through functional sequences. The sequences are a hierarchy but could only provide guidance and information, while the holons - as organisational groups - are the real agents of the technate. All decisions should be based on the most local level possible. Instead of the engineer, we are putting the process of engineering at the centre. In short, instead of a ruling clique, we would have a ruling set of principles and goals which would be unalterable and limit and define the technate and its various operations.

Moreover, the North American technocratic movement was highly isolationist, confined largely to the USA and Canada, while we are striving for a global technate.

Another difference is that the North American technocratic movement largely ignored social sciences, while we acknowledge that a lot of issues and social problems cannot be solved by technical means, hence we would like the technate to co-exist with a global confederation of autonomous, direct democratic communes which would be responsible for legislation, while the technate would be confined to the control of infrastructure, exctraction, production processes, distribution and recycling.

A third difference is the process of transitionalism. The North American movement had no real plans on how to conduct a transition, building on the idea that when capitalism is failing, the people would choose the technocrats to build up the North American Technate, and it would rise like some form of phoenix from the ashes.

We believe that a transitional process is needed, and that the technate itself must be the agent of its conception.

If you had paid any attention to actually reading our articles, you would have understood these differences by now.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

RED DAVE

8th April 2010, 17:00

Q3 - What social movements have either the North American or European groups actively been involved in since WWII? (Yes, I know the European group is much younger.) For example, have any groups been actively involved in the struggles against McCarthyism, for civil rights in the USA, American labor struggles, against the War in Vietnam, against the US intervention in NIcaragua, against the US invasion of Panama, the Gulf War, US intervention in Kosovo, the current US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

I am talking about active intervention, not the issuing of public statements.

By the way, (1) I would appreciate it if Technocrat or anyone else allied with the North American movement would comment on these questions. (2) I am asking people involved in Technocracy to answer not because I haven't consulted the various websites, but because I don't want to be accused of misquoting.

RED DAVE

Dimentio

8th April 2010, 18:07

I cannot answer for the North American movement, but we have cooperated with a foreign policy organisation which have a lot of left-wing members at the local university. Apart from that, we have mostly focused on setting up our own movement. We have decided to avoid cooperating with movements which are larger than our own except in areas where we share an interest, out of the legitimate fear that our movement would be swallowed.

ckaihatsu

9th April 2010, 00:52

Yeah, see, this is problematic because a *collectivized* social order could altogether *transcend* the whole one-person leadership thing, including *all* forms of representative decision-making, like parliamentarism. This is especially the case in our *current* state of technology where each person's *individual* political will can easily be logistically discerned, issue-by-issue, with the aggregate of human need / consumer preference easily pooled into a verbatim mass demand, without any go-betweens or personification whatsoever.

I don't think this is true. Groupthink suggests that the larger the crowd is, the more emotionally manipulative you have to be to control the crowd. This means that the messages that get through to the group are the ones that are the most emotionally manipulative. This only gets worse the larger the group becomes. This leads to faulty decision making. We see this everyday in our current system of "democracy." This is why the republicans have been so successful - they are very good at marketing (emotional manipulation).

Well here you're falling prey to the common problem of current-versus-*planned*. Even *if* the bourgeois social science framework you're referencing is accurate, it *doesn't* mean that it should be our *straightjacket*. What makes a revolutionary a revolutionary is that we're more *willful* than those who would allow the status quo to continue as it is.

Are you more interested in merely *noting* some of the worse group dynamics that we've seen among people, or would you rather be *pro-active* and take a part in *overcoming* some of these pitfalls?

Really, your *emphasis* -- and therefore, much of your political line -- is *so* focused on regurgitating negative historical social situations / dynamics that you're effectively *prescribing* the same. We're *not* supposed to be *academics* here -- we're supposed to be *revolutionaries*.

You've agreed that a formal system of job positions is not required, yet you're clinging steadfastly to this "natural hierarchy" stuff -- it's quite antiquated.

I've agreed that formal job positions are not required for every task, but they would still be desirable for some tasks (such as those requiring a great deal of training).

Or, liberated from the constraints of formal salaries and careers, it would not be difficult to imagine that people would simply *cooperate* at *all* steps in their learning / working processes, so that *no one* would have cause to complain about being "gyped" of their efforts, either for training or in a work role.

*This* is why you're catching accusations of being elitist -- do party-ers complain that they spent too much time practicing dance moves??? No, of course not, because it's what they *want* to do, and they're *free* to do it. There are no complaints that some person "contributed" "too much" or "too little" to a party, because in the end it's a *cooperative* effort -- there may be some work roles involved, but it's all done mutually, for the good of the party.

Talk of "transcending" pecking order is nonsense with no grounding in science - as I said already, these observations of human behavior have been made in a wide range of cultures and socioeconomic systems, and these behaviors have also been observed in lower level animals and animals closely related to us. This suggests that these behaviors are NOT culturally-specific but rather ingrained in our biology. It is impossible to "transcend" one's biology.

Moreover, the reason why revolutionary leftists would even *take offense* to it is because it's worded in such a way as to *assert* this as a *desired* political principle. It's like the difference between noting that the sun is always in the sky during the day, and advancing the worship of the sun as a necessary ritual for survival.

No, it's more like noting that the sun is in the sky during the day, and then advocating the idea that the sun will be in the sky the next day.

Yeah, I agree with your analogy here, and it *bolsters* my previous point -- you're focusing too much on description of *nature*-based phenomena. Politics *isn't* "natural" or "biological" -- it's *intentional*. It's about implementing what we as conscious determiners *want* to see happen -- not how we would "behave" under "natural" conditions.

Would there be any point in "advocating the idea that the sun will be in the sky the next day" -- ??? Is this something worth doing??? Would you consider it to be *political*, along with all of the other nature-based stuff you've been emphasizing?

Here's *another* internal conflict -- you're *agreeing* that a purely reductionistic approach (to economics, society) is problematic, but then you're *clinging* to it and using that ground as a base with which to criticize *emergent*, or *collective* social groupings -- majority rule.

That's not what I'm doing. Majority rule and economic theory depend on the same false premise - homo economicus. If the premise of a theory is false this means that the theory itself is false. People are not rational utility maximizers. Never have been and never will be.

So are we political and revolutionary in order to be "rational utility maximizers" -- ??? Sure, to some extent, but I think what should come first should be * the revolution *. It may not be clean, it may not be pretty, but it needs to happen, first and foremost, so that we can get to a more rational collective state of society. If it takes revealing that most people in the world are disgusted with capitalism and would support its overthrow, then we *need* to be open to "majority rule" (of the working class).

Meridian

9th April 2010, 01:01

This is same argument used by economists to justify capitalism. They argue that people are rational utility maximizers, that they will make rational choices in their consumption and other decisions, and that this will allow the market to reach equilibrium. The assumption that people are rational utility maximizers is called rational man and has been falsified for over 60 years. People are not rational utility maximizers.
No, it is called democratic production. It is exactly what capitalists are against. I did not claim anything about the "rationality" of the decisions of local production groups. The goal should not be "rationality", though. It is far too weak a term to even be employed in this context.

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 01:06

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 01:11

No, it is called democratic production. It is exactly what capitalists are against. I did not claim anything about the "rationality" of the decisions of local production groups. The goal should not be "rationality", though. It is far too weak a term to even be employed in this context.

Capitalists use the argument of rational man to say that the market will reach equilibrium and will efficiently meet human needs. This has been shown to be false for decades.

Even if you are not claiming anything about the rationality of certain groups, the argument is still the same: that people will inherently do what is in their own best interest if left to their own devices. This is the essence of rational man. Also, I didn't say the goal should be rationality - obviously, I was saying that this description of human behavior is false.

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 01:38

Well here you're falling prey to the common problem of current-versus-*planned*. Even *if* the bourgeois social science framework you're referencing is accurate, it *doesn't* mean that it should be our *straightjacket*. What makes a revolutionary a revolutionary is that we're more *willful* than those who would allow the status quo to continue as it is.

Are you more interested in merely *noting* some of the worse group dynamics that we've seen among people, or would you rather be *pro-active* and take a part in *overcoming* some of these pitfalls?

Culture is determined by biology. This means that we cannot "transcend" certain behaviors any more than we can fly by trying to flap our arms. This view will probably get me branded as a heretic, but it is supported by current science.

http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/CultureIsBiology.pdf

This isn't a bad thing - if anything, it fully supports the cause of the left because the view of human behavior emerging from the social sciences suggests that people are not naturally inclined toward Capitalism.

Really, your *emphasis* -- and therefore, much of your political line -- is *so* focused on regurgitating negative historical social situations / dynamics that you're effectively *prescribing* the same. We're *not* supposed to be *academics* here -- we're supposed to be *revolutionaries*.If the principles of the revolution are not scientifically sound, then it will fail. This is my concern. "Scientifically sound" here also means that which would be supported by people, since anything that doesn't have the support of the people wouldn't work.

Or, liberated from the constraints of formal salaries and careers, it would not be difficult to imagine that people would simply *cooperate* at *all* steps in their learning / working processes, so that *no one* would have cause to complain about being "gyped" of their efforts, either for training or in a work role.Yes, this makes sense.

*This* is why you're catching accusations of being elitist -- do party-ers complain that they spent too much time practicing dance moves??? No, of course not, because it's what they *want* to do, and they're *free* to do it. There are no complaints that some person "contributed" "too much" or "too little" to a party, because in the end it's a *cooperative* effort -- there may be some work roles involved, but it's all done mutually, for the good of the party.Yeah, but you really can't compare something like a party which is intrinsically rewarding in itself to something like the aggregate of all work that is done by society, which may not all be fun (and not intrinsically rewarding). This is why each person should receive free access to everything produced by society, and each person should contribute an equal share of time and effort to the work of society, on par with their abilities. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

Yeah, I agree with your analogy here, and it *bolsters* my previous point -- you're focusing too much on description of *nature*-based phenomena. Politics *isn't* "natural" or "biological" -- it's *intentional*. It's about implementing what we as conscious determiners *want* to see happen -- not how we would "behave" under "natural" conditions.Chris, I think you're trying to separate culture from biology too much. All these things that appear to be separate processes are in reality one single process.

Would there be any point in "advocating the idea that the sun will be in the sky the next day" -- ??? Is this something worth doing??? Would you consider it to be *political*, along with all of the other nature-based stuff you've been emphasizing?A better question would be: "would it be worth it to advocate the idea that the sun won't be in the sky the next day?" but now we're getting kinda abstract.

So are we political and revolutionary in order to be "rational utility maximizers" -- ??? Sure, to some extent, but I think what should come first should be * the revolution *. It may not be clean, it may not be pretty, but it needs to happen, first and foremost, so that we can get to a more rational collective state of society. If it takes revealing that most people in the world are disgusted with capitalism and would support its overthrow, then we *need* to be open to "majority rule" (of the working class).I agree that a revolution needs to happen first. I've also said that for Technocracy to work it would need to be voted in by majority rule (by a majority vote of all citizens).

bcbm

9th April 2010, 02:05

Culture is determined by biology. This means that we cannot "transcend" certain behaviors any more than we can fly by trying to flap our arms. This view will probably get me branded as a heretic, but it is supported by current science.

http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/R...eIsBiology.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/CultureIsBiology.pdf)uh, the article you link argues against the idea you're trying to promote. on the first page.

Dean

9th April 2010, 02:15

Both Technocrat and Dimentio have addressed them in full but still they rattle on. That thread has been spammed to irrelevance with cut n paste jobs on Howard Scott and Technocracy incorporated.

I think it's better to take the debate with a fresh perspective.

I've never seen them addressed. In particular, the notion that a privileged class - that of the engineers - has full control over the means of production is absurd.

In contemporary capitalism, we already see this happening to a degree. There are industries wherein production requires very little labor, and workers are actually compensated well because the company can afford to provide good benefits to have a better working labor force.

But this doesn't empower the entire proletarian class, and if we really do a achieve a state of a diminished, but empowered working class, that will not be a communist state, because only their interests will be represented.

The criticisms are clear and have been issued frequently. I've never seen any decent response to them though.

Please don't assert your own prejudices about us - your defense can't be that "we demand toil." That seems to indicate that you don't believe a decentralized, widespread form of economic and political control is possible.

All of society must have their interests equitably represented in the prevalent mode of production. This won't work with a diminished working class with total control over the means of production.

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 03:05

uh, the article you link argues against the idea you're trying to promote. on the first page.

No, it doesn't. What idea do you think I'm trying to promote?

Cultural imperatives are built into our genes. Not only can
culture act proximally to constrain behavior via institutions, skills, values, and so forth, but by
constraining behavior in similar ways over hundreds of millennia it is a major source of ultimate causes of
human "nature."

Culture is taught by motivated human teachers,
acquired by motivated learners, and stored and manipulated in human brains. Culture is an evolving
product of populations of human brains. Humans are adapted to learn and manage culture by the way
natural selection has arranged our brains. Human social learners in turn arrange features of their brains as
they learn from others and the environment.

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 03:07

I've never seen them addressed. In particular, the notion that a privileged class - that of the engineers - has full control over the means of production is absurd.

This isn't an accurate description of Technocracy.

All of society must have their interests equitably represented in the prevalent mode of production. This won't work with a diminished working class with total control over the means of production.The goal of Technocracy is to give each person as much as they are physically capable of consuming of whatever they want, with the lowest possible input of human labor, energy, and resources.

So, it is the goal of Technocracy to fulfill the interests of all people - ie the common interest.

But this doesn't empower the entire proletarian class, and if we really do a achieve a state of a diminished, but empowered working class, that will not be a communist state, because only their interests will be represented.There won't be a proletarian class or a working class in Technocracy, because the mundane menial work would be automated to the degree possible. Everyone would be given free education and everyone would be a professional of some sort, and everyone would share in any of the "dirty work" that couldn't be automated. Work hours would be reduced to the bare minimum required to produce the goods and services that people require. Those who were unable to work due to disability would suffer no penalty. It would be a classless society.

bcbm

9th April 2010, 03:18

No, it doesn't. What idea do you think I'm trying to promote?

you are saying that culture is determined by biology while the article suggests the two influence each other in ways we don't fully understand yet but also rejects an innatist approach. one of their main arguments is that culture alters our biology, which doesn't seem to mesh with your statement that we cannot "transcend certain behaviors."

RED DAVE

9th April 2010, 04:31

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 07:05

you are saying that culture is determined by biology while the article suggests the two influence each other in ways we don't fully understand yet but also rejects an innatist approach. one of their main arguments is that culture alters our biology, which doesn't seem to mesh with your statement that we cannot "transcend certain behaviors."

Culture and biology aren't two distinct processes. Perhaps this paper will make things clearer (sorry for the long post but I had to copy and paste this from a members-only site):

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

Steve Moxon / Culture Is Biology: Why we cannot 'transcend' our genes -- or ourselves
Culture (whether human or of other species) is the manifestation of evolved psychology; and given that this is the product of the brain, a genetically encoded structure, then culture is biology. This is not merely to say that culture grows out of biology, but that culture is part of biology; with all our behaviour within our cultures feeding back to reinforce biology -- optimising and making it more efficient. Such feedback necessarily takes place, or why would our facility to create culture have evolved? [Human culture hardly resembles a Gouldian 'spandrel'.] The relationship between any organism and its social system necessarily is a 'hall-of-mirrors' precluding novel trajectory, and not just in the short-term (as I will duly explain).
Human culture is often, even usually regarded as being 'above' biology because of extra-genetic modes of cross-generational transmission of cultural product, but an additional mode of transmission is of little consequence unless what is being transmitted is truly novel. For the above-mentioned reasons, it is not.
We can see, then, that Edward O Wilson understated the reality when long ago he pointed out that culture is always "held on a leash" [1] from biology, never escaping it. Yet Daniel Dennett, the philosopher who has most concerned himself with evolution, sees an actually weaker tie; substituting for Wilson's leash an infinitely elastic cord. He believes, as in the title of his book-length exposition, that Freedom Evolves. [2] Certainly the facility to cognise and behave flexibly evolves; and given that this is instrumental to everything on which it is built, then it serves to make the human organism more efficient in interacting with its environment; not least with conspecifics. Consequently, biology and the genome encoding it, far from being usurped actually are still better expressed. In a non-trivial sense, therefore, we become ever more the slaves of our biology and our genes, just as we are provided with the illusion of being progressively freer of them. This fits within the overall trajectory of evolution::of a progressive increase in reproductive efficiency (which readily can be seen as the key contrast between humans and lowly classes such as bacteria).

As a philosopher, Dennett should know all too well that increasing flexibility of cognition and behaviour is the only meaningful sense of freedom that an individual organism can experience. Instead, he makes the leap to join Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker in putting forward the line that somehow through our culture and our higher cognition we can (and do) 'transcend our genes' (my paraphrase) and thereby our biology. Indeed, it amounts to a claim that somehow we 'transcend' ourselves, which self-evidently is nonsensical.
I's a bizarre position for arguably our three most eminent evolutionary thinkers to adopt. This is especially true of Steven Pinker, who, as the author of the book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, [3] should be more keenly aware than anyone of the fallacy of placing humanity above nature. However, it is the usual view, notably shared by those who espouse any of the various ideologies of our culture. According to the philosopher, John Gray, [4] the various humanist ideologies in lauding mankind all betray how we are unwittingly saddled with the residue of Christian thinking; no parallel, he argues, being evident outside of Western culture. The 'promised land' of Christian teleology, Gray sees as having secularised into an unacknowledged supposed causal agent pulling us towards some sort of utopia; in the process problematising 'free will'. Gray singles out the philosopher of our illustrious trio:
"Dennett ... has spent much of his career labouring to show how scientific materialism can be reconciled with a form of free will – a project that would scarcely occur to someone from a culture not moulded by Christianity."

The Dawkins/Pinker/Dennett axis is backwards, resting on the notion of 'emergence'; that the philosopher Mark Bedau [5] sees as unnecessarily opening up a great explanatory gulf with lower-level processes ('emergence' likely being another case of problematising by philosophers). Their position, as I will outline, falls foul of systems-biology, the most basic understanding of the concept and theory of information, and contemporary evolution theory itself.

Steven Pinker memorably quipped that "If my genes don't like it, they can go jump in the lake".[6] He was alluding to his decision not to spread his genes by reproducing. I challenged him on this from the floor at a symposium at the LSE in London. Surely an eminent evolutionary psychologist must well know that in this regard human motivation – that of the human male, clearly -- is a proxy one of desiring sex, not desiring to reproduce per se; and that the use of modern contraceptive technology actually facilitates sexual activity? Doesn't making professor, never mind such an eminent one, considerably increase appeal to women, both as a marriage and an extra-pair sex partner?
The Harvard professor has never said anything about eschewing sex, and the highly competitive behaviour of males with others of their own sex is (as Professor Roy Baumeister has outlined [7]) the key sex difference. Males compete for status in order to be selected by females, and therefore such competition is the principal instrumental behaviour to what Pinker claims he has in himself usurped – but which in any case he has not, having merely confused reproduction with sex.
I didn't get an answer. Just a very long empty stare into the aisle between the two halves of the audience seating until the chairman moved on the discussion. Steven Pinker surely realises that far from adopting what he took to be a culturally derived imperative to replace how he would otherwise behave, instead he has been subject all along to the inter-related set of motivations we all share irrespective of the culture in which we happen to live. Does he imagine he can import into his brain a novel motivation? From where in the environment would this come from other than the mirror of evolved social psychology that is our culture; that is hardly likely, therefore, to throw up something new? And how does the professor envisage the motivational-set within his brain reacting other than by subsuming any such hypothetical import to further its own ends?

The failure of understanding by Pinker here goes deep, resting on a false schematic of the brain. And inasmuch as this reveals general truths about system and level that are applicable to the relationship between the organism and culture, then it is illuminating here to outline.
The author of How the Mind Works reveals a Cartesian dualist position in that very title, and evidently believes that he can control the rest of his 'mind' – I will use the more appropriate term, 'brain' -- through certain higher-cognitive neural processing in his cerebral cortex. The truth is that the brain has evolved successive layers that function instrumentally to the layers below them, with the whole behaving as one system driven (in terms of initiating alertness) from the brainstem. There is no control centre.
The cerebral cortex facilitates complex integration of neural processing, incorporating sensory data from interacting with the environment, serving to modify behaviour so that it becomes more complex and indirect, the better to ensure the completion of motivation-behaviour loops. This does not mean that there is a locus of control within the cerebral cortex. Indeed, if we insist on any such identification, we would have to point to the afore-mentioned brainstem along with some other phylogenetically ancient structures associated with basic emotions; emotions being a visceral translation of basic motivation. Motivation does not arise in the cerebral cortex. Here arises merely neural integration that may contribute to the brain acting according to one or more key motivations over one or more others.
Our motivations, in functioning as a suite, at any one point in time feature one or more to the fore. If we are not being self-goaded to behave directly to bring about sexual intercourse and consequent reproduction, then we are being self-goaded to behave in some way instrumental to this eventuality. There is no 'debating chamber' within the brain where some brain within the brain weighs up competing demands, as we imagine our conscious 'mind' to be. What we call consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the integration of neural processing: the brain as a whole experiencing, after a delay, facets of its own working.
This simplest schematic of the brain showing the necessary relationship of parts to the whole as a system, and one that ultimately is 'bottom-up' rather than 'top-down', is a contemporary systems-biology approach. [8] The causation is not circular as might be supposed – 'developmental systems theory' posits circularity, but the theory fails through confounding development and evolution. [9] We falsely intuit downward-causation for obvious reasons, and have less trouble seeing upward-causation when we move away away from the 'conscious mind' and culture to the sub-organismic 'major evolutionary transitions'.
Just as the application of a simple systems-biology perspective gives us a better overall view of how the brain works, it similarly improves our understanding of individual organisms vis-a-vis their social systems and cultural products.

Richard Dawkins takes a similar line to Pinker, famously writing that "we alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish-replicators" [10]. Dawkins would consider himself merely the 'vehicle' for his genes, yet here he imagines he can drive off on some novel trajectory without genes being at root the navigation. From his own gene-centric theory, Dawkins would argue that the 'vehicle' (or 'interactor', as some term it) is not primary because it is not the 'replicator'. The counter to this view is, of course, that the 'vehicle'/'interactor' is the entity that is 'visible' to selection. And the chicken-and-egg issue of gene/organism is clouded by the recent systems-biology understanding of the gene as the gene-protein-cell complex. [11] But the gene-centric perspective is all-conquering in 'population genetics'.
This is the way we need to look at the gene. Not in a simplistic abstract model of isolated genetic change at a snapshot in time within an infinite-sized gene pool, but collectively within the reality of the finite-sized, usually small reproductive group over time. This really does bring the social group into biology: through selection acting across different time-scales enabling the evolution of 'policing' mechanisms against 'selfish' traits, in what is termed 'lineage selection'.
Leonard Nunney writes [12]:
"Lineage selection does not alter the fitness relationships of the traits; instead, it exploits variation in the genetic architecture of lineages to minimize the occurrence of the trait that is advantageous in the short term but disadvantageous in the long term. ... Lineage selection reduces the likelihood of cheating over the long term provided lineages that give rise to cheats at a low frequency are more successful over the long term than are lineages that give rise to cheats at a high frequency."
The evolving of 'policing' of 'selfish' traits in this manner potentially could become so complete that all selection at the level of the individual ceases, and selection changes from within- to between-group, [13] so that we get group-selection as it is properly defined [14], as happened to create the 'major evolutionary transitions'. [15] But as for the particular 'particle'-'collective' relationship of organisms to the social group, this is extremely rare. It is thought that only eusocial insect species – and only one or two even of these -- could fit the bill. In social systems, almost always selection operates on the organismic level to produce adaptation that is considered to be at most a 'cross-level by-product' [16]. There is no 'super-organism' in higher-animals.
So it is that in studying even complex multi-tiered nested sociality in higher animals, Dawn Kitchen & Craig Packer [17] conclude:
"Finally, we could find no compelling evidence that a vertebrate social system ever exceeds the sum of its parts ... The most elaborate social systems ... only require an ability to recognise a large number of individuals (rather than any form of group-level cognition)". ... we see no reason to invoke anything beyond a simple set of individual decision rules".
They see no such thing as 'group mind'. Its absence is very apparent in computer modelling of dominance hierarchy formation, [18] which occurs by self-organisation given nothing more than the shared neural capacity of individuals to process what are known as 'winner' and/or 'loser' effects – the biasing of likelihood to contest in future based on the outcome of previous contests.
The upshot is that in higher animals generally, not just for humans, there is no supra-individual entity, let alone an autonomous one. The notion that culture is 'above' biology looks terminally ill from whichever angle you look.

The sort of paucity of understanding exhibited by Dawkins/Pinker/Dennett reaches its apotheosis in 'niche-construction': [19] the recent theory that culture is a niche we create that becomes the major locus of selection pressure on the human genome – and, supposedly, a new form of selection to boot. This is held to explain the considerable recent evolution of human genes, [20] much of which is expressed within the brain. But rather than being the result of selection pressure from any human-created 'niche', this is likely the result of sexual selection. It is axiomatic in biology that rapid selection is caused by sexual rather than natural selection, and human higher cognition surely is under inexorable selection pressure to further integrate in the service of producing art and good conversation for courtship purposes. This is the basis of Geoffrey Miller's 'mating intelligence' theory: [21] that integrated higher-cognition is the perfect basis of signalling male mate-value given the susceptibility of the highly complex inter-related genetic coding involved to produce non-optimal or dysfunctionality (as in schizophrenia [22]).
'Niche-construction' theory is also a profound failure to comprehend basic information theory, as Tom Dickins has outlined. [23] The brain receives as input only that which it has been specifically prepared to look for. Inasmuch as it responds to environmental variability, this is contingent according to presets that have evolved in anticipation. The brain imposes models on the environment to suit its purposes; it is not the case that the environment somehow imposes itself on the brain.
Furthermore, Dickins shows that 'niche-construction' theory is nothing less than a failure to understand the rudiments of contemporary evolution theory itself, in its positing a new form of selection that is in fact simply a re-statement of natural selection. And Dawkins points out [24] – with the full backing of the European Science Foundation [25] -- that the theory is simply a re-statement of his long-held notion of 'the extended phenotype'. [26]
The emptiness of 'niche construction' theory is shown by its inapplicability. Attempts to find support for it in contradicting the tenet of 'adaptive lag' (the oft cited point that the human genome has not had sufficient time to significantly evolve since the Pleistocene) end in the sole regularly cited adaptation of the very minor physiological change that extends lactose tolerance from infancy into adulthood. No adaptation that in any way significantly changes human psychology has even been suggested. Evidently the scaling up of social group size has not required any psychological adaptation that was not already present. [This is hardly unexpected given that the key ability to form nested hierarchy is phylogenetically quite ancient, being exhibited by Cetaceans.]
'Niche-construction' theory is not only a mess of theoretical wrong-headedness, but it is in dire need of a reason as to why it was ever formulated.
Any view, such as 'niche-construction', of the supposed primacy of culture, contradicts the mature 'bottom-up' system understanding provided by systems-biology, in merely assuming downward-causation on no basis other than the implicit acceptance of Durkheim's groundless assertion that there are irreducible 'social facts', when all the evidence converges on culture being part of biology.

There is perhaps too much of a tendency within science to seek consensus at the expense of the bold 'kite-flying' needed to spur and make real progress. We can see this in the often stifling peer review process, and even at symposia to celebrate the extension of the Darwinian revolution to the social sciences. Given our Western ideological bent that Gray identifies – which is the root of the dead hand of the post-modern [sic] imperative not to 'privilege', that appears to extend to scientific paradigm – it is natural that we should feel churlish not to attempt to build bridges with social scientists recoiling from the impending subsummation of their disciplines under biology. (We've seen the war in university anthropology departments as ascendant biology has riven them into biological and cultural halves.) But biological/ evolutionary approaches can't be in bed with the old 'top-down' paradigms of the social sciences, amounting as they do to little more than repositories of tired ideology. They are expressions of some of the very distortions of cognition and behaviour that form evidence for adaptation that biological/ evolutionary models cite.
To a future of a lead from biology / evolution theory in all disciplines involved in the study of culture that currently work 'top-down', we might all raise our glasses, toasting 'bottoms-up!'

REFERENCES
[1] Wilson EO (1978) On Human Nature. Penguin
[2] Dennett DC (2003) Freedom Evolves. Penguin
[3] Pinker S (2003) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Penguin
[4] Gray J (2007) Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia. Allen Lane
[5] Bedau MA & Humphreys P (2008) Emergence: Contemporary Readings in Philosophy and Science. MIT Press
[6] Pinker S (1997) How the Mind Works. WW Norton & Co
[7] Baumeister RF (2007) Is there anything good about men? American Psychological Association, invited address. www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/%7Ebaumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm)
[8] Noble D (2008) The Music of Life: Biology Beyond Genes. Oxford University Press
[9] Pradeu T (2009) Organism in Developmental Systems Theory (DST)'PhilSci Archive http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004523/
[10] Dawkins R (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press
[11] Noble D (2008) Genes and causation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 366
[12] Nunney L (1999) Lineage selection: natural selection for long-term benefit. In Keller, ed
(1999) Levels of Selection in Evolution. Princeton University Press
[13] Gardner A & Grafen A (2009) Capturing the superorganism: A formal theory of group adaptation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology
[14] Okasha S (2008) Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Oxford University Press
[15] Maynard Smith J & Szathmary E (1995) The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford University Press
[16] Okasha ibid
[17] Kitchen DM & Packer C (1999) Complexity in vertebrate societies. In Keller (see next reference)
[18] Hemelrijk CK (2000) Social phenomena emerging by self-organisation in a competitive virtual world ('DomWorld'). University of Zurich. Published online at http://www.ifi.uzh.ch/ailab/projects/collective/hemelrijkCELE2000.pdf
[19] Laland KN, Kendal JR & Brown GR (2007) The niche construction perspective: Implications for evolution and human behaviour. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 5
[20] Laland KN (2009) Personal communication.
[21] Geher G, Miller GF & Murphy J (2007) Introduction: The origins and nature of mating intelligence. In Geher & Miller (eds) Mating Intelligence: Sex, Relationships, and the Mind's Reproductive System. Psychology Press
[22] Shaner N, Miller G & Minitz J (2006) Mental Disorders as Catastrophic Failures of Mating Intelligence. In Geher & Miller (eds) Mating Intelligence: Sex, Relationships, and the Mind's Reproductive System. Psychology Press
[23] Dickins TE & Dickins JA (2008) Mother nature's tolerant ways: Why non-genetic inheritance has nothing to do with evolution New Ideas in Psychology 26; Dickins TE (2005) On the Aims of Evolutionary Theory. A book review of Odling-Smee JJ, Laland KN. & Feldman MW (2003) Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Evolutionary Psychology 2005 3 human-nature.com/ep
[24] Dawkins R (2004) Extended Phenotype – But Not Too Extended. A Reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka. Biology & Philosophy v19n3
[25] European Science Foundation (2008) The New Role of the Extended Phenotype in Evolutionary Biology. An ESF Explanatory Workshop, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2-5 November.
[26] Dawkins R (1989) The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene. Oxford Paperbacks

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 07:08

Q4 - Marxists analyze capitalism in terms of its mode of production: the exploitation of the working class through the forcible extraction of surplus value. Technocracy refers to capitalism not in terms of a production but as a "price system." Why is this?

RED DAVE

A price system is any system which uses money.

Technocrats argue that it is the operating characteristics of a price system which make it fundamentally unsustainable and incapable of meeting everyone's needs.

punisa

9th April 2010, 08:51

Dimentio

9th April 2010, 09:13

Q4 - Marxists analyze capitalism in terms of its mode of production: the exploitation of the working class through the forcible extraction of surplus value. Technocracy refers to capitalism not in terms of a production but as a "price system." Why is this?

RED DAVE

Because technocracy do not focus on human beings as it doesn't intend to govern human beings or even to be a comprehensive ideology which encompasses all of human life. It desires simply to establish a superior and more efficient system of management which would avoid the resource bottlenecks of the current socioeconomic system.

bcbm

9th April 2010, 11:00

Culture and biology aren't two distinct processes. Perhaps this paper will make things clearer (sorry for the long post but I had to copy and paste this from a members-only site):

what are you trying to say specifically about human cultures and behaviors? what tendencies cannot be "overcome" to you?

Dimentio

9th April 2010, 11:23

what are you trying to say specifically about human cultures and behaviors? what tendencies cannot be "overcome" to you?

The most amazing thing is that those are his personal views. Technocracy Inc has a hell-bently behaviouralist look on human behaviour...

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

9th April 2010, 16:49

Technocracy is really popular these days I see, threads and similar ideas appear all over the place.

Technocracy is also one of those cute ideas which more I learn - more I dislike it.
At least as an alternative theory to revolutionary communism and similar.

Who says it's an "alternative"? Technocrat may not be sold on communism, but that's his view, not something inherent to technocracy.

I'm not even arguing its feasibility - what I am saying is that the future it describes is not something I would jump for joy about.

It does indeed consider many manual jobs - "dirty jobs".
It is NOT the job that is dirty - it is the system in which it is performed.
The element of exploitation, wage slavery and alienation from the final product - this is what makes these jobs dirty.

There would still be manual jobs, as I pointed out earlier - but nobody would have to work for a wage, everyone living in a technate would have a guaranteed standard of living, and most if not all workplaces would be within easy reach of home.

Having said that - I hold that in post-revolutionary period there should be MORE manual jobs then today.
We have millions of people today working in some of the worst possible professions available - salesmen, accountants, bankers, brokers, office workers etc.

True, but how many people do you think would seriously swap a desk for a shovel? I believe Mao tried that approach, but it ended up merely as a way to punish "wayward" intellectuals. Not something I think we should emulate.

Technocracy speaks about how it will bring happiness to people, that is why I tailor this post more towards the overall "feeling" of a future system, rather then focusing on factual elements (I'll come to those later).

The happiness comes from a much greater flexibility in one's potential occupation - with work for everyone who wants it instead of soul-destroying job-hunting in a seller's market as is the case today, the workload of society will be spread out much more than it is today.

Co-operative manual work is the best given work there is - almost anyone can do it and you are heavily involved in seeing the *basic* process in making something.
Be it industrial work, be it agrarian or just simple construction of a house - everything involves group manual work which I consider the very essence of a communist society.

I think "best given work" is something that people should make their own minds up about - if one wants to help out in the local orchard or vegetable garden, that's great, but the amount of manual work across society will be concomitant with the amount of people who actually wants to get their hands dirty.

This is in no "fetish" for manual work, this is what I see as the future.
Technocracy has a very vivid imagination of the future, doesn't it?
So hear me (us) out as well.

I'm listening, but I don't think manual labour, as opposed to mental labour, should be the centre around which society. Human intelligence is one of the most powerful forces on planet Earth, and if that is harnessed to the full then everyone will benefit.

According to technocrats - sure you can *always* do your manual work in our system, even if living in shiny white cities where robots perform virtually all the needed work.

We don't need robots everywhere for a technocratic system to function - technocracy is about organisation of technology as it is about its use. Human beings are part of that organisation.

Yes you can - if you want to look a little bit "nutty".

Are base-jumpers, mountain-climbers and paintballers generally considered "nutty"? There's no reason why something that is hard work yet nonetheless done for its intrinsic pleasure should be looked down upon.

There is no way people would care about manual work if the technicians already made it obsolete.

People still do rigorous physical activity even they don't have to do it to put food on the table - in fact people right now spend their hard-earned money to wear themselves out in various physical activities. I think you underestimate the human thirst not to feel useless.

They would more likely live a very "star trek" life evolving into fat blobs with the serious lack of emotions.

That's a very negative outlook on human motivations. Sure, we like to make our lives easier, but even among people who don't have to work for a living, they don't all simply vegetate on soft furnishings all day.

We both (communists and technocrats in this case) propose our unique systems where the type of work you do is not mandatory.
In communism - nobody will stop you from being an IT technician.
In technocracy - nobody will stop you from building stuff manually.

But let's not be hypocrites about this - we both wish to endorse a certain type of work, while still leaving individual choices intact.

I will admit that, having done both manual and mental work, I prefer the latter. But I see no reason to stop people from choosing manual occupation if that's what they desire - there would still be plenty of ways of filling one's time that way in a technocracy, even if it was going for full-bore automation. At least until the advent of human-equivalent AI, but that's another (http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html) topic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1226) entirely.

On the bright side,
technocrats are very innovative and will surely come in handy after the revolution.
We have no reason to degrade our progress in any way. I'd love to have a clean super-fast and safe methods of transportation.
Same goes for medicine, food production and many other elements.
All these innovations and advancements will be incorporated into the new communist society.

Well, it's good to know that at least someone is assuming good faith.

But here is the catch many seem to miss - although technocratic ideas will surely provide useful, it will not be the one that will create a change and throw down capitalism.
This is and will surely remain the job for communists, not technocrats.

Well, I agree that technocratic ideas alone aren't enough, because of their comparitively limited scope. But I believe that technocracy has much to teach the revolutionary left; of course, whether people will listen is up to them.

Technocracy is innovative - not revolutionary.
To even mention it side-by-side is absurd to some point.
Technocrats will have a big responsibility to do when the time comes, there is no doubts about it.
But before jumping to realisation of many neat projects, you'll have to wait for this time-line to be concluded:
1) further degradation of the capitalist system
2) workers revolution
3) period of transitional socialism
4) communism

Well, (1) seems inevitable, (2) is something we should work towards anyway, (3) I don't agree with with (I think as short a period of "scarcity communism" as possible should be our goal instead) and (4) is a more desireable possibility than many others, but the devil is in the cliche.

RED DAVE

9th April 2010, 16:55

Dimentio

9th April 2010, 17:57

Q5 - According to Marxism, the state is "the executive committee of the ruling class." By this we mean: (1) the current state has a class nature; it is not neutral; it's purpose is to regulate capitalism. How does Technocracy relate to the existing states in North America and Europe?

RED DAVE

I don't know how the North American movement today is viewing the state. They viewed is as "inadequate" back in the 30's though. The contemporary European movement is viewing the state primarily as a tool for the financial-plutocratic establishment.

RED DAVE

9th April 2010, 18:30

Q6 - Does Technocracy envision the replacement of the current forms of government or is it compatible with present forms?

RED DAVE

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 19:45

Having said that - I hold that in post-revolutionary period there should be MORE manual jobs then today.
We have millions of people today working in some of the worst possible professions available - salesmen, accountants, bankers, brokers, office workers etc.

Those jobs would be eliminated in a Technate, but I don't think people should do manual jobs unless they want to. Everyone in a Technate would be given free access to education and most of the routine mundane work would be automated, so it is expected that most people would enter into a professional field of some sort (science, engineering, art, teaching, etc).

According to technocrats - sure you can *always* do your manual work in our system, even if living in shiny white cities where robots perform virtually all the needed work.
Yes you can - if you want to look a little bit "nutty".
There is no way people would care about manual work if the technicians already made it obsolete.
They would more likely live a very "star trek" life evolving into fat blobs with the serious lack of emotions.I disagree that people would become "fat blobs" - that's the same argument capitalists use against communism - "people would lose all motivation". With free education for everyone and freedom from unnecessary toil, people would have the capacity to develop to their full potential.

If someone wanted to establish a farming commune, they would be free to do so. After all, if people living on a commune are self-reliant when it comes to resources, then they aren't using anything from the Technate anyway. So they would just be left alone.

Technocracy also proposes relocating people into ecodensity megastructures called urbanates, and eliminating the urban sprawl which covers the countryside. This, coupled with more free time, would greatly increase the opportunities for outdoor recreation.

On the bright side,
technocrats are very innovative and will surely come in handy after the revolution.
We have no reason to degrade our progress in any way. I'd love to have a clean super-fast and safe methods of transportation.
Same goes for medicine, food production and many other elements.
All these innovations and advancements will be incorporated into the new communist society. I appreciate that. That's why I think the two theories are complimentary.

But here is the catch many seem to miss - although technocratic ideas will surely provide useful, it will not be the one that will create a change and throw down capitalism.
This is and will surely remain the job for communists, not technocrats.I agree with this - Technocracy, Inc. has never had an assumption to power theory, which they readily admit. They did have a plan for using emergency wartime powers to build the Technate, but their efforts have always been mainly focused on determining the scientific validity of a post-scarcity society.

Technocracy is innovative - not revolutionary.
To even mention it side-by-side is absurd to some point.
Technocrats will have a big responsibility to do when the time comes, there is no doubts about it.
But before jumping to realisation of many neat projects, you'll have to wait for this time-line to be concluded:
1) further degradation of the capitalist system
2) workers revolution
3) period of transitional socialism
4) communismIn Technocracy, it would be:
1) further degradation of the capitalist system
2) workers revolution
3) period of transition (short period of rationing while the Technate is built)
4) technocracy

So it isn't all that different from what you describe.

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 19:47

Q6 - Does Technocracy envision the replacement of the current forms of government or is it compatible with present forms?

RED DAVE

It is not compatible with current forms of government. When the Technate is established, the state governments of its member nations will be dissolved. This is the American system. In the European system they propose that the Technate should have authority over matters relating to production, and each of the member nations will retain their existing governments whose authority will be reduced to matters not immediately relating to production.

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 19:51

what are you trying to say specifically about human cultures and behaviors? what tendencies cannot be "overcome" to you?

The tendencies that lead large groups of people in a majority rule system to make decisions based on emotional cues rather than intellectual ones. This is why a simple majority is not sufficient (sometimes), because large groups are too easily swayed by emotional cues. This means that whoever is the most emotionally manipulative is the one who is heard. With a 2/3rd vote it is much harder to sway a crowd with emotional manipulation (propaganda).

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 19:52

The most amazing thing is that those are his personal views. Technocracy Inc has a hell-bently behaviouralist look on human behaviour...

Dimentio, please read the paper before you claim that my science is outdated. It wasn't a paper on behaviorism.

Dimentio

9th April 2010, 19:58

Q6 - Does Technocracy envision the replacement of the current forms of government or is it compatible with present forms?

RED DAVE

As it has been stated by the European technocratic movement, our primary focus is to change the economic base of society. For it to happen, massive political change must occur in society in general. We in the EM believe that the ideal form of "state" to cooperate within the same territory as a technate would be a confederacy or a group of confederacies where direct democracy is applied. But if the people want to keep their constitutional monarchies or their republican parliaments, then they might do so for so long time they want to. The content has to change, as well as the division of power, but the formal structures could stay the same as long as they aren't in the way for progressive change.

Dimentio

9th April 2010, 19:59

Dimentio, read the paper before you claim that my science is outdated. It wasn't a paper on behaviorism.

I did not claim you did a work on behaviouralism. What I claimed was that Tech Inc is relying heavily on a pavlovian analysis of human behaviour.

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 20:01

I did not claim you did a work on behaviouralism. What I claimed was that Tech Inc is relying heavily on a pavlovian analysis of human behaviour.

That was the science they had available to them that was already well understood at the time.

Current science only continues to support Technocracy's case, though I admit more needs to be done in the way of updating the literature to reflect current findings.

Also, it wasn't my paper - just wanted to clear that up.

RED DAVE

9th April 2010, 20:28

Dimentio

9th April 2010, 21:00

As I understand it, the fundamental promotional principle of Technocracy is "nomination from below; appointment from above." Is this correct. If so, please explain why you think this is superior to direct democracy.

RED DAVE

I don't think its superior to direct democracy. What I think though is that the labour necessary to maintain the technate cannot be regulated by direct democracy due to the fact that human preferences are individual (and hence regulated by energy accounting) and the process of which way to repair a machine is not a subject to debate.

Direct democracy would be existent in the social sector of society, the confederacy of communes so to speak. In the technical sector, the technate, we in the European movement are envisioning a model of Open Source, where all the groups (holons) of humans who are working in some projects would consist of several different kinds of experts. These groups would of course choose the candidates of people they want to include in the groups, but the candidates must (for obvious reasons) have the right qualifications for doing a proper job.

Moreover, they would be restricted by A) technical regulations and B) proscribed self-monitoring. For example, a team which is building a bridge must take photo-copies depicting all the stages of their work, what parts were used, and so on. All information provided by all teams should be available to the users of the technate, and anyone has the right to come with a proposal how to improve it. But the proposal must be technically feasible in order to come under consideration.

If we say that (and this is just an example, pardon me, I don't think people are idiots) a majority of people suddenly would think it would be an awesome idea to build a bridge out of Swiss cheese, or a railroad out of pure iron, it cannot be accepted because of lethal consequences.

Direct democracy is for the social, legislative sector. Energy accounting is for the sector of consumption. Technocracy is for the sector of infrastructure, production, distribution and recycling.

The North Americans of course do have different proposals.

RED DAVE

9th April 2010, 21:20

Q8 - On another thread, I asked Techocrat if using the principles of Technocracy, he could help people in these three political circumstances with strategy or tactics:

(1) A group of workers trying to organize a union;

(2) A group of students trying to organize an antiwar organization;

(3) A group of African American college students who want a Black Studies Program in their school.

He admitted that Technocracy had nothing in its arsenal to help them: that it concentrated on its plan for the technate.

Can you help these people using your version of Technocracy?

RED DAVE

Dimentio

9th April 2010, 21:23

Wolf Larson

9th April 2010, 21:40

Is democracy not a fundamental part of socialism? Yes. Yes it is. Democracy as in WORKER CONTROL of the means of production not control from the top down by the petty bourgeois. Also, how many of you have actually read Marx/Engels let alone the Anarchists? What did Marx and Engels have to say about "enlightened" rule from above? Technocracy, just as Social Democrats, does not advocate revolution, doesn't want to alarm the bourgeoisie and seeks to install a rule from above elite class of which Marx had to say .....in anger directed towards such movements:

"We can not cooperate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the middle and upper classes".

RED DAVE

9th April 2010, 22:15

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 22:32

Direct democracy is for the social, legislative sector. Energy accounting is for the sector of consumption. Technocracy is for the sector of infrastructure, production, distribution and recycling.

The North Americans of course do have different proposals.

The proposals are different in some ways but I think your statement there does a good job of summarizing the intent behind both the American and European systems.

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 22:36

Q7 - As I understand it, the fundamental promotional principle of Technocracy is "nomination from below; appointment from above." Is this correct. If so, please explain why you think this is superior to direct democracy.

RED DAVE

See the post I made immediately prior to this question:

The tendencies that lead large groups of people in a majority rule system to make decisions based on emotional cues rather than intellectual ones. This is why a simple majority is not sufficient (sometimes), because large groups are too easily swayed by emotional cues. This means that whoever is the most emotionally manipulative is the one who is heard. With a 2/3rd vote it is much harder to sway a crowd with emotional manipulation (propaganda).

Technocracy proposes a 2/3rd vote to remove someone. For promotion it proposes a majority vote using multiple runoff voting among those who are to be promoted, and a majority vote using multiple runoff voting among those who occupy the position immediately above the position to be filled (if such a position even exists).

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 22:38

Technocrat

9th April 2010, 22:43

Is it necessary for the workers to vote among themselves to determine what their needs are and the best way of meeting them?

The Marxist concept of use values means that for everything that is consumed, there is a concrete, objective way in which that thing meets human needs or desires.

Since consumption is in fact objective, we can use science to determine the best way of providing for everyone's consumption using the least amount of resources, energy, and labor.

Not only can the common interest be determined using science, science is the only way to determine the common interest. "Politics" would be replaced with "peer review" in a Technate (for matters relating to production, which is all the Technate is concerned with).

Wolf Larson

9th April 2010, 22:52

See the post I made immediately prior to this question:

Or perhaps we can look at your ill informed comment saying Democracy is what gave rise to Hitler.

Dimentio

9th April 2010, 23:03

Q8 - You misunderstood my question. I didn't mean what kind of solidarity action the Technocracy group would take. I meant: what would you advise these groups to do in terms of strategy and tactics?

(1) A group of workers trying to organize a union;

(2) A group of students trying to organize an antiwar organization;

(3) A group of African American college students who want a Black Studies Program in their school.

RED DAVE

As I earlier stated, unlike other currents here, we do not indulge ourselves in creating an ideology which should answer all the questions in life. Moreover, different kinds of situations require different remedies, and I do not believe that a call for a technate (or that 2012 no-money-world-strike) would really improve the life immediately for groups who are under repression.

Technocracy do not seek to deliver answers to all kinds of problems, only those which concern the inherent unsustainability of capitalism. To try to advice single-issue groups and create programmes for them would be presumptuous at best and at worst hurt the goals of these said groups. That doesn't say we cannot cooperate with such groups or partake in their campaigns. It would be dishonest of us to claim that we somehow should replace such groups.

RED DAVE

9th April 2010, 23:16

Q9 - What would be the role of unions under the technate?

RED DAVE

Dimentio

9th April 2010, 23:39

Q9 - What would the role of unions under the technate?

RED DAVE

If anyone wants to start a club in the European technate, he or she could either choose to do it in the form of a holon, an independent club or a confederational club. I guess a union could be formed under any of these circumstances. As our goal is transparency, it is great if members of holons could form groups to oversee that for example no bullying is occurring or that no one is sabotaging the equipment of an individual worker to make him or her ostracised or fired.

But unions would most likely not demand equal wages, since there isn't a wage system under a technate. Everyone is receiving an equal energy credit income, which cannot be hoarded, bartered or saved over a specific consumption period. Hence, the functions of a union would most likely be restricted to defending the rights of holon members in large holons and look so no one is inflicting any harm on the people working there.

I can honestly not see a strike erupting over the equal wage issue, since money doesn't exist under a technate.

Its of course up to the people to found any kind of associations they want. It is not up to the technate to ban associations under our system, but rather the social sector (in the case of for example neonazi organisations).

Wolf Larson

10th April 2010, 00:10

Ending the Bureaucratic Technocracy in China

"China is ruled by a Technocracy today and as many experts have pointed out Technocracy is a system of governance which is ruled by "experts". It is based on the assumption that the elite can rule on behalf of the people and preform societies tasks more efficiently. What are deemed to be the best technical and managerial solutions are more important than what is perceived as common sense by the average persons. They claim a domination on modernization process based by the “application of instrumentally rational techniques". Technocracy is inherently elitist and authoritarian in nature, and its political legitimacy is based on scientism and pragmatism. However, Chinese politics was quite different and can be characterized as predominantly equity-oriented before 1978....

"These influential experts together with a new generation of scholar officials have played a pivotal role in shaping China's reform strategies. This paper will take a closer look at the role the Technocrats....it is apparent the culture of mediocrity is prevailing in every aspect of Chinese society today and will continue to permeate deeper into all levels of overall government structure. Yet the relentless pursuit of efficiency by Technocrats who possess either a scientific and or an engineering background has produced many unintended consequences. Among those, inequality, immorality, insecurity, alienation, rootlessness and ruthlessness are manifested everywhere.....

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/3/4/2/pages153422/p153422-1.php

RED DAVE

10th April 2010, 00:33

Technocrat

10th April 2010, 01:07

Technocrat

10th April 2010, 01:13

Q10 - One person liated with Technocracy has said that doctors, managers and engineers are members of the working class, which is a concept that is diametrically opposed to that of Marxism. Could there be a some discussion or reiteration of this?

RED DAVE

Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) defined the working class or proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat) as individuals who sell their labor power for wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage) and who do not own the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production). He argued that they were responsible for creating the wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth) of a society. He asserted that the working class physically build bridges, craft furniture, fix cars, grow food, and nurse children, but do not own land, or factories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factories). A sub-section of the proletariat, the lumpenproletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat) (rag-proletariat), are the extremely poor and unemployed, such as day laborers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_laborer) and homeless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless) people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class)
How does this definition not include doctors, engineers, scientists etc. who all have to sell their services and do not necessarily own land or factories?

Wolf Larson

10th April 2010, 01:42

This is a different use of the word "Technocracy" and is not related to what we are talking about in this thread.

China uses money. Therefore it is a price system, not a Technocracy as we are describing. Please don't spam the thread with irrelevant copy and paste jobs.

You seem to be lacking in the critical thinking department for a kid who claims intellectual superiority so often. This is an empirical model [one of many] showing what happens when a detached "enlightened" elite dictates policy from above. Of course your fantasy land has never been fully implemented and it never will be. What his piece shows is how rule from above by a technocratic elite effects society- again, it's empirical data showing how rule from above by a Technocratic elite effects the social construct. This is just one more valid criticism you will ignore and brush off without even reading or understanding the parallel consistencies. If you'd like we can read t together page by page and analyze why his criticisms of Technocratic rule in China are relevant to your fantasy system of rule from above by a dictatorship of engineers.

I'd also like to point out the parallels with Fabian socialism and have a conversation with the so called "Marxist" moderators discussing what Marx/Engels thought of such systems.

Technocrat

10th April 2010, 02:10

You seem to be lacking in the critical thinking department for a kid who claims intellectual superiority so often. This is an empirical model [one of many] showing what happens when a detached "enlightened" elite dictates policy from above. Of course your fantasy land has never been fully implemented and it never will be. What his piece shows is how rule from above by a technocratic elite effects society- again, it's empirical data showing how rule from above by a Technocratic elite effects the social construct. This is just one more valid criticism you will ignore and brush off without even reading or understanding the parallel consistencies. If you'd like we can read t together page by page and analyze why his criticisms of Technocratic rule in China are relevant to your fantasy system of rule from above by a dictatorship of engineers.

I'd also like to point out the parallels with Fabian socialism and have a conversation with the so called "Marxist" moderators discussing what Marx/Engels thought of such systems.

I've told you why it's irrelevant, because Technocracy as we are describing is not a system of "rule from above by engineers" as you keep parroting endlessly.

RED DAVE

10th April 2010, 02:35

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

Next downward in the sequence comes the Continental Control, composed of the Directors of the Armed Forces, Foreign Relations, Continental Research, Social Relations and Area Control, and also of each of the Functional Sequences. This superstructure has the last word in any matters pertaining to the social system of the North American Continent. It not only makes whatever decisions pertaining to the whole social mechanism that have to be made, but it also has to execute them, each Director in his own Sequence.

This latter necessity, by way of contrast with present political legislative bodies, offers a serious curb upon foolish decisions.

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

The only exception to this procedure of appointment from above occurs in the case of the Continental Director due to the fact that there is no one higher. The Continental Director is chosen from among the members of the Continental Control by the Continental Control. Due to the fact that this Control is composed of only some 100 or so members, all of whom know each other well, there is no one better fitted to make this choice than they.(p. 228)

Q11 - If the above is accurate, would it be correct to say that in order the replace the Continental Director, a vote of 2/3 of the entire North American Technate would be required?

RED DAVE

Technocrat

10th April 2010, 03:01

(p. 228)

Q11 - If the above is accurate, would it be correct to say that in order the replace the Continental Director, a vote of 2/3 of the entire North American Technate would be required?

RED DAVE

The Continental Director would be removed by a 2/3rd vote from the Continental Control, who themselves can be removed by a 2/3rd vote from the workers in their respective industries. Therefore if the worker's demands aren't met they can vote out the Continental Control and establish an entirely new one, with a new Director.

RED DAVE

10th April 2010, 06:10

Dimentio

10th April 2010, 10:19

Q12 - Will organized political parties be permitted in the technate? Will people be allowed to run for positions, organize campaigns, develop criticism of the existing leaders and publish them?

RED DAVE

See my answers about clubs, free associations and unions. The same things are applying for political parties. It is not the sphere of the European technate to decide what kinds of organisations people are organising in. The technate is a service which is performing a task for a group of users (the entire population), it is not a state.

As for the North Americans, its different again.

RED DAVE

10th April 2010, 13:53

Q13 - What is the organizational structure of the North American and European Technocracy organizations?

RED DAVE

Dimentio

10th April 2010, 14:21

Q13 - What is the organizational structure of the North American and European Technocracy organizations?

RED DAVE

The European Technocratic Movement, NET/EOS, is comprised of four sequences represented by two directors each which are selected on the basis of their general area of expertise. One of these directors is the chairman of the organisation. The sequence in question needs to verify its director before the director could be established in his or her position. There is a general election each five years.

The organisation is also composed of self-established autonomous groups, so-called holons, which have written under a contract to help the central organisation carry out its goals. They have the right to try to reach the goals as they see fit. The goals in themselves are unalterable. Our aim for this year is to write a technate constitution which would be practically unalterable, to prevent the movement from being corrupted.

On the regional scale, we have a skelettel system with groups, areas, zones and sectors, comprising different geographical zones of Europe and northern Eurasia.

Everything should also be transparent:

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=143

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

10th April 2010, 14:45

Dimentio

10th April 2010, 14:53

Technocrat

10th April 2010, 18:14

Q12 - Will organized political parties be permitted in the technate? Will people be allowed to run for positions, organize campaigns, develop criticism of the existing leaders and publish them?

RED DAVE

I don't think parties would exist since a political party is a group based around an ideology - but people could certainly run for positions, organize campaigns, and develop criticisms of the existing leadership and publish them. There would be total transparency at all times - nothing would be done in secret. Clubs like Dimentio described could still exist but these are different from political parties.

Technocrat

10th April 2010, 18:16

@ Technocrat:

I'm a little uneasy about the Continental Director. What is his/her role exactly? Don't you think the management of a Continent's technical affairs is a little too complicated for one human individual? What can a single Director do that can't be done by a multi-person Directorate?

This is my main concern with the North American design; I'm not convinced that a pyramidal organisation is the optimal solution. I've had in mind a federal and/or quasi-cellular organisational layout that, like biological organisms, is inherently malleable and adaptable, but with the same basic layout in each viable variation.

The Continental Director would act like a "speaker of the house" for the Continental Control. He basically just makes sure that the agreed upon agenda is being followed - hence the name "Director". The real planning would be done by the Continental Control, which is comprised of the heads of each of the Functional Sequences (Industries).

The NA design is a Federate system like you describe. The existing state governments of the member nations would be dissolved.

NET's system is confederate when it comes to political matters, but federate when it comes to control of the physical infrastructure and resources. This might make more sense for Europe since it has many different cultures, whereas America is relatively homogeneous culturally.

Wolf Larson

11th April 2010, 22:09

This simple video is for you Technocrat. The FACT that you blamed democracy for Hitler just shows the lack of empirical/historical knowledge you have as the base for your Technocratic views:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSIGzvZJfwk

Wolf Larson

11th April 2010, 22:12

Wolf Larson

11th April 2010, 22:12

An old and common argument AGAINST socialism is that the majority - the proletariat/working class, is incapable of ruling collectively. Opponents of socialism say we need educated, intelligent experts to run society. There are countless historical examples which can be cited of representatives, industrialists and bureaucrats with non existent abilities who have been placed in positions of power based on a subjective level of expertize, leading capability and ties to common workers. Look at Howard Hughes, just one of many examples, as Paul Foot wrote:

" He started his life as a playboy and ended it it as a lunatic. He had no ability at all. Yet through a mixture of good luck and ability to read a balance sheet Hughes became the boss of a gigantic financial and industrial empire. He was able, almost alone, to nominate the President of the United States , Richard Nixon, who also had no ability or skill of any kind. Howard Hughes designed an airplane which crashed directed a film which was a monumental failure. He couldn't do anything which mattered. Yet he made the decisions."

The Technocrats say workers don't have the ability to rule. That we must all depend on "experts" to shape our new society from the top down. Often it is the workers own hard won firsthand knowledge that engineers and managers use to figure out how to improve production. Not to deny the genius of an Einstein or Newton or the pivotal role technology will play in a socialist society of abundance and equality but if "science is understood as the fundamental sense of knowledge of nature it should be surprising to find that it originated with the people closest to nature; hunter gathers, peasants, farmers, minors, sailors, healers, blacksmiths and others forced by the conditions of their lives to wrest the means of their survival from an encounter with nature on a daily basis". [peoples History of Science- Clifford Connor]

What that quote tells us is given the opportunity, everyone is capable of learning the scientific/mathematical skills necessary to play a direct role in running society, just as pre-class society knowledge of terrain, plants, and animals or tool making was shared by the group and not treated as a monopoly of a minority. Experts and scientists will still be needed for a short time even in a socialist system until the education system was improved so that the majority received education that today is reserved for the petty bourgeoisie/bourgeoisie/privileged few. This is why I brought up the Bell Curve in the prior debate over Technocracy. The people who advocate Technocracy don't think the people have the potential or ability to rise above from this capitalist education system which churns out a ruling elite via the hierarchical/scarcity paradigm. Perhaps for a time workers would have to exercise democratic control over the bookkeepers, engineers and managers, a task the elitist Technocrats oppose. Over time with societies vast resources diverted into equal education the distinctions between manual and mental labor would break down and the majority would be capable of doing many different jobs from manual, to scientific and or labor. The aim of revolutionary socialism is to abolish class society NOT to simply facilitate material abundance under the rule of an elite bureaucratic class [only Stalinists think this way]. If workers were to take control of the means of production through their own direct application of democracy mistakes would indeed be made. Mistakes would be made either way but at least the mistakes made under worker democracy would be the mistakes of collective rather than the mistakes of some detached technocratic elite.

Socialist uprisings in many times around the world have been based in the early soviet principles. the workers councils in Germany [1918] the factory councils in Italy [1920] the workers councils in Hungary[1956] the cordones in Chile [1973] the workers 'shoras' of the Iranian revolution [11979]- the factory committees in Poland [1980] all of which created mass movements of democratic struggle embracing the whole class and basing themselves on workplaces as centers of workers power. Marx himself heaped scorn on socialists who saw their role as getting "educated" men elected in order to represent workers interest from above.

Marx said:

"We can not cooperate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes".

Not only have I seen "socialists" on this forum stand in complete opposition to what revolutionary socialism stands for but have also openly declared no need for revolution. I'm going to briefly explain, in my next post, why capitalism can only be abolished via revolution and why "socialists" who stand in opposition of democracy & revolution should be considered reactionary or revisionists at the least.

ckaihatsu

12th April 2010, 07:09

I don't think this is true. Groupthink suggests that the larger the crowd is, the more emotionally manipulative you have to be to control the crowd. This means that the messages that get through to the group are the ones that are the most emotionally manipulative. This only gets worse the larger the group becomes. This leads to faulty decision making. We see this everyday in our current system of "democracy." This is why the republicans have been so successful - they are very good at marketing (emotional manipulation).

Really, your *emphasis* -- and therefore, much of your political line -- is *so* focused on regurgitating negative historical social situations / dynamics that you're effectively *prescribing* the same. We're *not* supposed to be *academics* here -- we're supposed to be *revolutionaries*.

If the principles of the revolution are not scientifically sound, then it will fail. This is my concern. "Scientifically sound" here also means that which would be supported by people, since anything that doesn't have the support of the people wouldn't work.

This concern with a *scientific* basis for political (revolutionary) action is an important one to have, but not *all* science is *applicable* here. We could describe a revolutionary movement as leading to an increase in the use of the color red, and it would be a scientifically sound statement, but it wouldn't be very *useful* in the service of revolution.

Likewise your emphasis on the problems of bourgeois democracy -- "groupthink", "emotionally manipulative", "faulty decision-making" -- is *not* a *progressive* critique as long as you're falling back onto the science of nature and behaviorism. These models of social activity that are based on the study of *genetics* is like trying to learn about apples by studying oranges.

"the man who is in the position to give orders to other men must be the type who, in an uncontrolled situation, would spontaneously assume that position among his fellows. There must be as far as possible no inversion of the natural 'peck-rights' among the men."

Moreover, the reason why revolutionary leftists would even *take offense* to it is because it's worded in such a way as to *assert* this as a *desired* political principle. It's like the difference between noting that the sun is always in the sky during the day, and advancing the worship of the sun as a necessary ritual for survival.

No, it's more like noting that the sun is in the sky during the day, and then advocating the idea that the sun will be in the sky the next day.

Yeah, I agree with your analogy here, and it *bolsters* my previous point -- you're focusing too much on description of *nature*-based phenomena. Politics *isn't* "natural" or "biological" -- it's *intentional*. It's about implementing what we as conscious determiners *want* to see happen -- not how we would "behave" under "natural" conditions.

Would there be any point in "advocating the idea that the sun will be in the sky the next day" -- ??? Is this something worth doing??? Would you consider it to be *political*, along with all of the other nature-based stuff you've been emphasizing?

A better question would be: "would it be worth it to advocate the idea that the sun won't be in the sky the next day?" but now we're getting kinda abstract.

No, *you're* getting abstract -- the *original* point was about 'natural pecking order', a seriously *flawed* scientific basis for the implementation of intentionally *political* and *social* practices, including socialist revolution.

'Natural pecking order' is *not* even worth *stating* here, much less arguing for, because it *is* akin to mixing the study of nature right into the political arena -- it's apples and oranges.

Chris, I think you're trying to separate culture from biology too much. All these things that appear to be separate processes are in reality one single process.

No, now you're falling prey to the mistake of *over-generalization* -- it's *not* helpful to go all Eastern and say something vague like "everything is oneness" -- culture *is* separate from biology because of our individual conscious minds. We can *interpret*, even artistically, which is vastly different (transcends) any kind of crude, sex-selected biological behaviorism.

ckaihatsu

12th April 2010, 07:10

Culture is determined by biology. This means that we cannot "transcend" certain behaviors any more than we can fly by trying to flap our arms. This view will probably get me branded as a heretic, but it is supported by current science.

I have to take up this issue of "biologically determined culture", which is the *particular* science-based stance you're taking.

This topic isn't merely one of political fashion, as you seem to be implying with the "heretic" remark -- rather, it's about how we *interpret* the results of science to arrive at an *accurate*, appropriate description of societal / social dynamics that is scientifically sound.

What follows are some select excerpts from what you posted that I think sums up your "hard-wired culture" thesis here:

Steve Moxon / Culture Is Biology: Why we cannot 'transcend' our genes -- or ourselves

In a non-trivial sense, therefore, we become ever more the slaves of our biology and our genes, just as we are provided with the illusion of being progressively freer of them. This fits within the overall trajectory of evolution: f a progressive increase in reproductive efficiency (which readily can be seen as the key contrast between humans and lowly classes such as bacteria).

The Harvard professor [Steven Pinker] has never said anything about eschewing sex, and the highly competitive behaviour of males with others of their own sex is (as Professor Roy Baumeister has outlined [7]) the key sex difference. Males compete for status in order to be selected by females, and therefore such competition is the principal instrumental behaviour to what Pinker claims he has in himself usurped – but which in any case he has not, having merely confused reproduction with sex.

This does not mean that there is a locus of control within the cerebral cortex. Indeed, if we insist on any such identification, we would have to point to the afore-mentioned brainstem along with some other phylogenetically ancient structures associated with basic emotions; emotions being a visceral translation of basic motivation. Motivation does not arise in the cerebral cortex. Here arises merely neural integration that may contribute to the brain acting according to one or more key motivations over one or more others.

Our motivations, in functioning as a suite, at any one point in time feature one or more to the fore. If we are not being self-goaded to behave directly to bring about sexual intercourse and consequent reproduction, then we are being self-goaded to behave in some way instrumental to this eventuality. There is no 'debating chamber' within the brain where some brain within the brain weighs up competing demands, as we imagine our conscious 'mind' to be. What we call consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the integration of neural processing: the brain as a whole experiencing, after a delay, facets of its own working.

[15] But as for the particular 'particle'-'collective' relationship of organisms to the social group, this is extremely rare. It is thought that only eusocial insect species – and only one or two even of these -- could fit the bill. In social systems, almost always selection operates on the organismic level to produce adaptation that is considered to be at most a 'cross-level by-product' [16]. There is no 'super-organism' in higher-animals.

"Finally, we could find no compelling evidence that a vertebrate social system ever exceeds the sum of its parts ... The most elaborate social systems ... only require an ability to recognise a large number of individuals (rather than any form of group-level cognition)". ... we see no reason to invoke anything beyond a simple set of individual decision rules".
They see no such thing as 'group mind'. Its absence is very apparent in computer modelling of dominance hierarchy formation, [18] which occurs by self-organisation given nothing more than the shared neural capacity of individuals to process what are known as 'winner' and/or 'loser' effects – the biasing of likelihood to contest in future based on the outcome of previous contests.
The upshot is that in higher animals generally, not just for humans, there is no supra-individual entity, let alone an autonomous one. The notion that culture is 'above' biology looks terminally ill from whichever angle you look.

It is axiomatic in biology that rapid selection is caused by sexual rather than natural selection, and human higher cognition surely is under inexorable selection pressure to further integrate in the service of producing art and good conversation for courtship purposes.

To a future of a lead from biology / evolution theory in all disciplines involved in the study of culture that currently work 'top-down', we might all raise our glasses, toasting 'bottoms-up!'

In brief, this *entire* approach to explaining social phenomena is absolutely one of *behaviorism*. It *denies* that we can explain human culture in terms other than those which are tied to sexual selection and natural selection over generations.

By *this* logic even our free-time individuality is annihilated, in favor of explaining *all* art, literature, leisure, competition, science, and technology in terms of making us (males) look more desirable as sexual partners in the eyes of those (women) we're trying to attract.

Richerson, "Culture is Part of Human Biology -- Why the Superorganic Concept Serves the Human Sciences Badly"
Culture is as much part of human biology as bipedal locomotion, and cultural and genetic influences on human behavior are thoroughly intertwined.

The *only* loophole to this *bizarre*, problematic line of thinking you have is to refine the precise relationship of causality between the components of biology and culture:

[- I -] That biology and culture are absolutely separate, independent systems with no effect on each other in either direction

[- II -] That biology has *some* kind of effect on culture, even if as general as how our bipedal locomotion enables differences in culture by the moving of our geographical location.

[- III -] That biology has an *overwhelmingly* deterministic effect on culture, to the point where all of our cultural artifacts can be seen as mere extensions of our genetically preprogrammed motivations.

[- IV -] That *culture* has some kind of effect on biology, wherein our historically situated decisions en masse will decisively alter our genetic makeup, as in losing skin color pigment due to thousands of years away from significant exposure to the sun.

[- V -] That culture has an *overwhelmingly* deterministic effect on biology, to the point that our genetic makeup is simply a reflection of the ongoing popularity contest writ large.

[- VI -] That there is *some* kind of complex, deterministic interrelation of factors between culture and biology.

ckaihatsu

12th April 2010, 07:53

As it has been stated by the European technocratic movement, our primary focus is to change the economic base of society. For it to happen, massive political change must occur in society in general.

Dimentio,

Your political stance, as stated here, falls short of being revolutionary. While you recognize the objective *need* for revolution you seem to think, here, that a technocratic planning mechanism could be put into place under forms of government / society that are *less* than proletarian-revolutionary.

We in the EM believe that the ideal form of "state" to cooperate within the same territory as a technate would be a confederacy or a group of confederacies where direct democracy is applied. But if the people want to keep their constitutional monarchies or their republican parliaments, then they might do so for so long time they want to. The content has to change, as well as the division of power, but the formal structures could stay the same as long as they aren't in the way for progressive change.

Invincible Summer

12th April 2010, 08:05

So what exactly is Anarchist-Communist Technocracy? How is it different/similar to "normal" Technocracy?

Dimentio

12th April 2010, 09:41

Dimentio,

Your political stance, as stated here, falls short of being revolutionary. While you recognize the objective *need* for revolution you seem to think, here, that a technocratic planning mechanism could be put into place under forms of government / society that are *less* than proletarian-revolutionary.

Not under it. Besides it.

I don't think a revolution or transformation of any kind is possible to achieve anything other than a repeat of the old system if not traces of the future are already existent within our contemporary time. Most bourgeois revolutions in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries just led to short-lived theocratic dictatorships because the capitalist economy - which for hundreds of years co-existed with the feudal economy - wasn't enough developed in its productive means to usher in a transformation of power.

Before we could have any transition of political power, there needs to be a transition of the productive means, not the other way around.

Hyacinth

12th April 2010, 09:46

The one and only virtue of technocracy is that it advocates the abolition of market-based mechanisms in economic coordination and planning. Beyond that all other various ideas associated with it (the specific structure of administrative and political organization, energy accounting, etc.) have little merit.

Energy accounting is an insufficient basis for the planning of an economy, which is best done via calculation in-kind, for which we already have sufficient computing capacity to preform on a scale required for a modern economy. It similarly fares poorly as a mechanism for distribution insofar as either it is arbitrary (and we could use any other credit system of our choosing, labour-credits included), or energy (under conditions of relative abundance thereof) is something that we wouldn't particularly care to economize (whereas labour is something that we always want to economize), thus pricing everything in energy (i.e., keeping track of consumption via energy credits) wouldn't give planners the most relevant information.

With the exception of that I do think that the picture of a future society pained by technocracy (i.e., one of abundance, abolition of markets, the use of perishable credits to track consumption of non-abundant goods, etc.) does come close to what fully developed socialism would be like.

Dimentio

12th April 2010, 09:51

There is an old misconception that energy is about electricity, or that energy credits would take electricity to produce. Energy Accounting is simply accounting for all labour that is occurring, whether its done by humans or machines.

The difference with computer planning is that energy accounting isn't a planned economy. It is a user-driven economy, where the personal taste of all the users on an individual basis forms up the total production output of products and services. That is why I personally favour it before any form of centralised planning. The only area where central planning is needed is in infrastructure and the production of vital products, not in the consumer sector.

Hyacinth

12th April 2010, 10:08

The difference with computer planning is that energy accounting isn't a planned economy. It is a user-driven economy, where the personal taste of all the users on an individual basis forms up the total production output of products and services. That is why I personally favour it before any form of centralised planning. The only area where central planning is needed is in infrastructure and the production of vital products, not in the consumer sector.
Who said anything about central planning of such a sort? You might need coordination at a very general level in a socialist economy, but the output targets of a plan aren't determined by the planners (unlike in the Soviet state-capitalist models) but rather either via democratic or cybernetic mechanisms. In the case of democratic mechanisms, they can be used to set very general social targets for the economy as a whole, and in the case of cybernetic mechanisms to ensure that within the constraints placed by the democratic mechanisms that consumer preferences are satisfied.

Strictly speaking in the case of abundance we don't even need a credit system at all, we can just keep track of consumption directly. A person can walk into a distribution center (or order a product online), scan it, and it would be registered in the system, informing the planning/coordination system that such-and-such a product has been requisitioned, and instructing producers to make a replacement in the case of sufficient demand. Credits only really become necessary for products that need to be rationed, i.e., in instances where there is scarcity.

Hyacinth

12th April 2010, 10:09

There is an old misconception that energy is about electricity, or that energy credits would take electricity to produce. Energy Accounting is simply accounting for all labour that is occurring, whether its done by humans or machines.
And what planned economy wouldn't account for this? And why should we simply account for labour and capital and not everything else that goes into production?

ckaihatsu

12th April 2010, 10:30

Before we could have any transition of political power, there needs to be a transition of the productive means, not the other way around.

Your point here is well-taken, but where we are *now* is *not* a matter of lacking *productivity* -- labor productivity has been rapidly *increasing* throughout the past 20 years, roughly, leaving us with the exaggerated *exploitation* of an ultra-efficient, individually disposable global workforce.

Unless there's some kind of *specific* paradigm shift in technology / productivity you're looking for here, on par with the industrial revolution, I think the times are *overripe* for a transition of political power to the world's proletariat.

Dimentio

12th April 2010, 10:50

And what planned economy wouldn't account for this? And why should we simply account for labour and capital and not everything else that goes into production?

Because in a state of relative abundance, where everyone has equal access to the means of production, the only thing which is limiting the potential of the system is time itself. Hence, as long as we have resource diversity, an educated workforce and an advanced infrastructure, we just need to account for the cost in terms of energy usage in extracting the resources, make them into products, deliver them and then recycling them, as well for the extra energy cost to deal with environmental problems caused by any steps in this process.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th April 2010, 13:44

Many "socialists" [here on RevLeft including some moderators] are not advocating worker control of the means of production and combined political system. Is not the broader revolutionary socialist movement's aim to abolish class society, create equality, abundance and [a combined] worker controlled means of production and political system [to combine the workplace and decision making process under the control of the proletariat]. Can socialism and direct work place democracy be separated and if they are what do you think the consequences would be? What have the consequences been in the past?

Technocrats don't want a re-run of the USSR; unlike Marxist-Leninists we're not interested in historical re-enactment.

"Socialism is impossible without democracy because: (1) the proletariat [the working class] cannot perform the socialist revolution unless it prepares for it by the struggle for democracy; (2) victorious socialism cannot consolidate its victory and bring humanity to the withering away of the state without implementing full democracy."

-Lenin-

I find it hilariously ironic that you quote the very person whose "democratic" centralism turned out to be not very democratic at all.

Here are a couple short videos of socialists discussing direct democracy, please check them out and by all means read as much as you can on the topic of democracy from both a Marxist and Anarchist perspective

Not all decisions are made on the basis of technical expertise, so there's no reason why a technocratic society can't be heavily democratic - even within technical domains, democratic and quasi-democratic decision-making can be utilised.

Another thing you seem to fail to realise is that most goals in a technocratic society would be decided by the population as a whole, but the means to achieve such goals will be decided by those most qualified.

An old and common argument AGAINST socialism is that the majority - the proletariat/working class, is incapable of ruling collectively. Opponents of socialism say we need educated, intelligent experts to run society.

Actually, they say we need professional politicians or an elite political class that is "fit to rule" - they may claim that such people are "experts" as well as being intelligent and educated, but an examination of their proposals as well as what actually happens when their ideas are put into practice will show that this isn't the case.

There are countless historical examples which can be cited of representatives, industrialists and bureaucrats with non existent abilities who have been placed in positions of power based on a subjective level of expertize, leading capability and ties to common workers.

That's because of the massively distorting effects of the Price System, which means that being born to rich and powerful parents, having the "right" social connections as well as being wealthy and influential oneself is more important than whatever if any expertise one has. You're comparing apples and potatoes.

The Technocrats say workers don't have the ability to rule.

Really? My position is that in an advanced technological society no single individual can learn all the details about how to run the technical aspects of a society consisting of millions, possibly billions of people.

That we must all depend on "experts" to shape our new society from the top down.

Technical and infrastructural components of society must be planned in order to run smoothly and efficiently, and the planners must know what they're doing. Why have it any other way? In the matter of boots, defer to the bootmaker.

Often it is the workers own hard won firsthand knowledge that engineers and managers use to figure out how to improve production. Not to deny the genius of an Einstein or Newton or the pivotal role technology will play in a socialist society of abundance and equality but if "science is understood as the fundamental sense of knowledge of nature it should be surprising to find that it originated with the people closest to nature; hunter gathers, peasants, farmers, minors, sailors, healers, blacksmiths and others forced by the conditions of their lives to wrest the means of their survival from an encounter with nature on a daily basis". [peoples History of Science- Clifford Connor]

Aside from all that mystical bollocks about certain people being "closer to nature", you're right. Farmers are (or at least can be) agricultural experts, so they are the most qualified to decide how farms should be run.

Not all "experts" are white-coated scientists and engineers like you seem to be implying.

What that quote tells us is given the opportunity, everyone is capable of learning the scientific/mathematical skills necessary to play a direct role in running society, just as pre-class society knowledge of terrain, plants, and animals or tool making was shared by the group and not treated as a monopoly of a minority.

And with top-quality education available for all who want it, that's what will happen. A farmer can't tell a nuclear engineer how to do his job or vice versa, but if the former has concerns about a nearby nuclear power plant, it's the job of the latter to address those concerns, rather than to ignore them or make a pretence at doing something, which is what happens at the moment, if the nuclear engineer of today even has a say in the matter.

Experts and scientists will still be needed for a short time even in a socialist system until the education system was improved so that the majority received education that today is reserved for the petty bourgeoisie/bourgeoisie/privileged few. This is why I brought up the Bell Curve in the prior debate over Technocracy. The people who advocate Technocracy don't think the people have the potential or ability to rise above from this capitalist education system which churns out a ruling elite via the hierarchical/scarcity paradigm.

I believe we do, actually. Certainly I think everyone of normal intelligence can and should recieve the best quality education - everyone should be able to become an expert in a field of their choice.

Perhaps for a time workers would have to exercise democratic control over the bookkeepers, engineers and managers, a task the elitist Technocrats oppose.

There won't be "bookkeepers" in a technocratic society because there would be no books to keep. I don't think managers should exist either; certainly at least, nothing like the managers we have today. Why would we need them? Technical experts know what they are doing, and people in general are perfectly capable of managing themselves given the right conditions and education, which the technocratic system aims to provide.

Over time with societies vast resources diverted into equal education the distinctions between manual and mental labor would break down and the majority would be capable of doing many different jobs from manual, to scientific and or labor.

Do you intend to enhance human intelligence and memory? Because that's the only way that one could get people to learn even a fraction of human civilisation's vast stores of knowledge and expertise. Of course this is not to say that people will not be able to have more than one career, in fact by reducing the work hours required in one particular occupation Technocracy makes this so much more easier. But even being a whizz at four or five jobs is merely scratching the surface.

The aim of revolutionary socialism is to abolish class society NOT to simply facilitate material abundance under the rule of an elite bureaucratic class [only Stalinists think this way]. If workers were to take control of the means of production through their own direct application of democracy mistakes would indeed be made. Mistakes would be made either way but at least the mistakes made under worker democracy would be the mistakes of collective rather than the mistakes of some detached technocratic elite.

It's clear you have an idea of what technocracy is in your head, and think that's what actual technocracy advocates want. This isn't so, for reasons I have explained in this post.

Socialist uprisings in many times around the world have been based in the early soviet principles. the workers councils in Germany [1918] the factory councils in Italy [1920] the workers councils in Hungary[1956] the cordones in Chile [1973] the workers 'shoras' of the Iranian revolution [11979]- the factory committees in Poland [1980] all of which created mass movements of democratic struggle embracing the whole class and basing themselves on workplaces as centers of workers power. Marx himself heaped scorn on socialists who saw their role as getting "educated" men elected in order to represent workers interest from above.

Good grief, I certainly have no stomach for reformism. Whatever gave you that silly idea?

Marx said:

"We can not cooperate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes".

If you're going to quote Marx, at least quote something relevant. Marx wasn't talking about technocracy.

Not only have I seen "socialists" on this forum stand in complete opposition to what revolutionary socialism stands for but have also openly declared no need for revolution.

Well done, you've discovered that not all socialists are revolutionary. This is news to you? Also, some quotes would be nice.

I'm going to briefly explain, in my next post, why capitalism can only be abolished via revolution and why "socialists" who stand in opposition of democracy & revolution should be considered reactionary or revisionists at the least.

You're welcome to do so, although I must say I'm distinctly unimpressed with your hectoring bloviations so far.

Jazzratt

12th April 2010, 13:51

So what exactly is Anarchist-Communist Technocracy? How is it different/similar to "normal" Technocracy?

Anarchist-communist technocrats view technocracy as less of a system in and of itself but more of a way of structuring a post revolutionary society. We reject the idea that captialsim, indeed the price system generally, will disappear without a revolution enacted by the working class. Most ACTechs are members of other anarchist organisations who simply believe that technocracy is the most logical way of structuring a post-revolutionary society.

RED DAVE

12th April 2010, 16:56

Q14 - What might be the role of Technocracy organizations in a working class revolutionary situation? I mean immediately before, during and after the seizure of power.

RED DAVE

Technocrat

12th April 2010, 18:06

Energy accounting is an insufficient basis for the planning of an economy, which is best done via calculation in-kind, for which we already have sufficient computing capacity to preform on a scale required for a modern economy. It similarly fares poorly as a mechanism for distribution insofar as either it is arbitrary (and we could use any other credit system of our choosing, labour-credits included), or energy (under conditions of relative abundance thereof) is something that we wouldn't particularly care to economize (whereas labour is something that we always want to economize), thus pricing everything in energy (i.e., keeping track of consumption via energy credits) wouldn't give planners the most relevant information.

With the exception of that I do think that the picture of a future society pained by technocracy (i.e., one of abundance, abolition of markets, the use of perishable credits to track consumption of non-abundant goods, etc.) does come close to what fully developed socialism would be like.

This has been explained several times. Here we go again:

Energy is but one resource that would have to be tracked in ANY non-monetary, resource-based method of planning. Thus, it is an essential and integral part of any resource-based system!

You need to understand when the idea of Energy Accounting was developed - the 1930s. This was before computers, and before the internet.

Energy Accounting's usefulness is as a common resource used in all processes - this includes both goods and services. Thus if you look at the energy consumption in any given sector, or even any particular good or service, you have an exact measurement of the changes in demand.

Energy Accounting becomes superfluous when you introduce computers and the internet into the picture. A real-time linked inventory system becomes possible, with a direct tally of everything that is consumed. Energy Accounting becomes a detail that is handled automatically by this system.

Energy Accounting has nothing to do with "purchasable credits for non-abundant goods" - nothing would be "non-abundant" in a Technate - that is the basic premise of the idea.

I'm just getting a little frustrated at having to repeat myself so many times.

Technocrat

12th April 2010, 18:30

This concern with a *scientific* basis for political (revolutionary) action is an important one to have, but not *all* science is *applicable* here. We could describe a revolutionary movement as leading to an increase in the use of the color red, and it would be a scientifically sound statement, but it wouldn't be very *useful* in the service of revolution.

I'm not suggesting anything like that. What I'm saying is that if we have a set of explicitly stated goals, then the only way to determine the ideal way of reaching those goals is with science.

Likewise your emphasis on the problems of bourgeois democracy -- "groupthink", "emotionally manipulative", "faulty decision-making" -- is *not* a *progressive* critique as long as you're falling back onto the science of nature and behaviorism. These models of social activity that are based on the study of *genetics* is like trying to learn about apples by studying oranges.Historically it is the far right who have been the romantic, anti-science group (the ideological roots of Nazism are in Romanticism, both Hitler and Reagan were fans of the 'paranormal' and 'supernatural'). The left uses science because science supports the cause of the left. You seem to believe in some higher, transcendent state of human consciousness that if only we could get to, everything would be great. I'm saying people are products of their environment and talk of "transcendence" is utter nonsense.

No, *you're* getting abstract -- the *original* point was about 'natural pecking order', a seriously *flawed* scientific basis for the implementation of intentionally *political* and *social* practices, including socialist revolution.You are still using the word pecking order incorrectly, even though I've explained it several times! Pecking orders are a mutually agreed upon cooperative strategy that exists in both humans and throughout the animal kingdom - their purpose is to reduce the amount of energy and time wasted on conflict - conflict which could destroy the group itself. The fact that they've been observed in humans across different cultures and socioeconomic systems (even egalitarian hunter gatherers), as well as in other primates and lower level animals, means that this isn't something we can "transcend". Even if we could, it wouldn't be desirable. You are using the word pecking order to mean something different from what I'm saying, just as some on here continue to use the word technocracy to mean something different from what I'm saying. The definition of pecking order that I'm using is in no way incompatible with Marxism.

"Hierarchy is necessary" - I really think this is context-dependant. Arbitrary hierarchy that encompasses the whole of society and is based on wealth or power is demonstrably oppressive and sub-optimal, but hierarchy confined within a certain domain, such as within an Engineering Guild, is justified and useful. The Chief Engineer is the go-to person for a major construction project, but beyond that he has the same amount of power as the rest of us."

No, now you're falling prey to the mistake of *over-generalization* -- it's *not* helpful to go all Eastern and say something vague like "everything is oneness" -- culture *is* separate from biology because of our individual conscious minds. We can *interpret*, even artistically, which is vastly different (transcends) any kind of crude, sex-selected biological behaviorism. This isn't eastern mysticism. Biology and culture are not distinct processes - that was the point of the paper. The distinction exists only in your mind (and the minds of others), just as elaborate taxonomies and geographical divisions would. Artistic intepretation does not transcend biology. Nothing we do as humans transcends our biology. If you do something, there were corresponding physical events in your body that made it possible. These physical events are the result of our biology. Culture affects human behavior by causing actual biological changes to occur within the body, but culture itself is a product of biology. Biology had to come first (obviously, since biology predates culture).

Technocrat

12th April 2010, 20:19

By *this* logic even our free-time individuality is annihilated, in favor of explaining *all* art, literature, leisure, competition, science, and technology in terms of making us (males) look more desirable as sexual partners in the eyes of those (women) we're trying to attract.

This is addressed in the paper:

Steven Pinker memorably quipped that "If my genes don't like it, they can go jump in the lake".[6] He was alluding to his decision not to spread his genes by reproducing. I challenged him on this from the floor at a symposium at the LSE in London. Surely an eminent evolutionary psychologist must well know that in this regard human motivation – that of the human male, clearly -- is a proxy one of desiring sex, not desiring to reproduce per se; and that the use of modern contraceptive technology actually facilitates sexual activity? Doesn't making professor, never mind such an eminent one, considerably increase appeal to women, both as a marriage and an extra-pair sex partner?
The Harvard professor has never said anything about eschewing sex, and the highly competitive behaviour of males with others of their own sex is (as Professor Roy Baumeister has outlined [7]) the key sex difference. Males compete for status in order to be selected by females, and therefore such competition is the principal instrumental behaviour to what Pinker claims he has in himself usurped – but which in any case he has not, having merely confused reproduction with sex.
I didn't get an answer. Just a very long empty stare into the aisle between the two halves of the audience seating until the chairman moved on the discussion. Steven Pinker surely realises that far from adopting what he took to be a culturally derived imperative to replace how he would otherwise behave, instead he has been subject all along to the inter-related set of motivations we all share irrespective of the culture in which we happen to live. Does he imagine he can import into his brain a novel motivation? From where in the environment would this come from other than the mirror of evolved social psychology that is our culture; that is hardly likely, therefore, to throw up something new? And how does the professor envisage the motivational-set within his brain reacting other than by subsuming any such hypothetical import to further its own ends?
The *only* loophole to this *bizarre*, problematic line of thinking you have is to refine the precise relationship of causality between the components of biology and culture:

[- I -] That biology and culture are absolutely separate, independent systems with no effect on each other in either direction

[- II -] That biology has *some* kind of effect on culture, even if as general as how our bipedal locomotion enables differences in culture by the moving of our geographical location.

[- III -] That biology has an *overwhelmingly* deterministic effect on culture, to the point where all of our cultural artifacts can be seen as mere extensions of our genetically preprogrammed motivations.

[- IV -] That *culture* has some kind of effect on biology, wherein our historically situated decisions en masse will decisively alter our genetic makeup, as in losing skin color pigment due to thousands of years away from significant exposure to the sun.

[- V -] That culture has an *overwhelmingly* deterministic effect on biology, to the point that our genetic makeup is simply a reflection of the ongoing popularity contest writ large.

[- VI -] That there is *some* kind of complex, deterministic interrelation of factors between culture and biology.

This is from the first paper. The second paper explains this: culture reinforces biology.

Culture is a part of biology. Durkheim was wrong about irreducible social facts.

This is getting off-topic, though. We should keep the discussion about Technocracy's design.

Communist

12th April 2010, 20:48

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Free Market Socialism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1718631#post1718631) 12th April 2010 03:40 Jazzratt (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=12069) Shut the fuck up you fucking fuck

Keep this between you and whoever it is you're having a problem with. Any more posts like this will result in infractions.

.

RED DAVE

12th April 2010, 21:12

ckaihatsu

12th April 2010, 21:21

---

There is an old misconception that energy is about electricity, or that energy credits would take electricity to produce. Energy Accounting is simply accounting for all labour that is occurring, whether its done by humans or machines.

And what planned economy wouldn't account for this? And why should we simply account for labour and capital and not everything else that goes into production?

energy accounting is a necessary part of any resource-based (ie non-monetary) system of distribution! Energy Accounting has literally nothing to do with compensation. Does this make more sense now?

Well, to be clearer you could *broaden* it to *resource* accounting, since energy is just *one kind* of resource among many others. In your presentation of it it seems as though you would have energy serve as a *key index measurement* for the entire economy -- rather, labor-hour-based, difficulty/hazard-factored labor credits would be better for this.

In a resource-based system, all resources are accounted for. This is done already and has been done since the time of the Ancient Egyptians - records are kept of raw materials and the consumption of raw materials by various sectors of the economy. In a Technate, this is all greatly simplified by making use of computers and the internet. The Soviets were actually working on a similar system called DISPLAN (or something), but they couldn't implement it before the bureaucracy decided to bring back capitalism.

The energy cost of something is the energy used to extract the raw materials (in joules, kilowatts, calories, or whatever), assemble the raw materials into the final product, and ship the product to the store shelves.

Energy is just one out of many resources that would be accounted for in a Resource-based system. Since energy is the only common resource among all products and services, it can be used as a way of measuring the consumption of those services. This is also why Energy Accounting is somewhat superfluous - with a computer controlled network of Resource Accounting, you would automatically have a record of how much of each product and service was consumed, as a direct count. This is why I suggest that EA is more like a planning detail and why lately I've been trying to avoid it in favor of explaining that Technocracy is a resource-based system. When we consider the fact that all resources have to be accounted for in today's system already, it becomes apparent that the use of money, asides from being unsustainable, also adds an entire additional level of complexity to resource management that is unnecessary. Economists like to argue that money makes resource management easier, when it's obvious that it's just the opposite!

ckaihatsu

12th April 2010, 21:57

Likewise your emphasis on the problems of bourgeois democracy -- "groupthink", "emotionally manipulative", "faulty decision-making" -- is *not* a *progressive* critique as long as you're falling back onto the science of nature and behaviorism. These models of social activity that are based on the study of *genetics* is like trying to learn about apples by studying oranges.

Historically it is the far right who have been the romantic, anti-science group (the ideological roots of Nazism are in Romanticism, both Hitler and Reagan were fans of the 'paranormal' and 'supernatural'). The left uses science because science supports the cause of the left. You seem to believe in some higher, transcendent state of human consciousness that if only we could get to, everything would be great. I'm saying people are products of their environment and talk of "transcendence" is utter nonsense.

You're missing the point, Technocrat -- not all science is *applicable* to a given situation -- *that's* my point. Your *only* response to un-democratic bourgeois "democracy" is to fall back on a "natural pecking order" system of post-capitalist "job positions". You defend this policy by saying it's justified by the science of biology -- a field that is *distant*, at best, from the mass-intentional arena of society and politics.

*Don't* attempt to put words in my mouth or characterize my position as anything a-scientific. People are *not* merely "products of their environment" -- we *transcend* our beginnings through *conscious* actions that may or may not affect the larger society and politics.

No, *you're* getting abstract -- the *original* point was about 'natural pecking order', a seriously *flawed* scientific basis for the implementation of intentionally *political* and *social* practices, including socialist revolution.

You are still using the word pecking order incorrectly, even though I've explained it several times! Pecking orders are a mutually agreed upon cooperative strategy that exists in both humans and throughout the animal kingdom - their purpose is to reduce the amount of energy and time wasted on conflict - conflict which could destroy the group itself. The fact that they've been observed in humans across different cultures and socioeconomic systems (even egalitarian hunter gatherers), as well as in other primates and lower level animals, means that this isn't something we can "transcend". Even if we could, it wouldn't be desirable. You are using the word pecking order to mean something different from what I'm saying, just as some on here continue to use the word technocracy to mean something different from what I'm saying. The definition of pecking order that I'm using is in no way incompatible with Marxism.

There is *no need* to fall back to a less-than-intentional, a priori hierarchy of work abilities -- our arrangement of work skills does *not* have to be abstractly structured according to *any* kind of organizational chart, even a "natural pecking order" one, when we could easily self-organize according to the mass-demand goals at hand, in a *pooled*, *collective* way to fulfill discrete tasks.

Given our mass, many-to-many forms of realtime communication technologies available it would be logistically *easy* to "transcend" the skills of all involved, by tapping *everyone*'s abilities at once, with discussions (like this one) leading to the *emergence* of an appropriate workflow and fulfillment of the challenges at hand.

This isn't eastern mysticism. Biology and culture are not distinct processes - that was the point of the paper. The distinction exists only in your mind (and the minds of others), just as elaborate taxonomies and geographical divisions would. Artistic intepretation does not transcend biology. Nothing we do as humans transcends our biology. If you do something, there were corresponding physical events in your body that made it possible. These physical events are the result of our biology. Culture affects human behavior by causing actual biological changes to occur within the body, but culture itself is a product of biology. Biology had to come first (obviously, since biology predates culture).

No, biology is the *substrate*, *not* the *underlying mechanics*, of culture (including society and politics).

Technocrat

12th April 2010, 22:31

You're missing the point, Technocrat -- not all science is *applicable* to a given situation -- *that's* my point. Your *only* response to un-democratic bourgeois "democracy" is to fall back on a "natural pecking order" system of post-capitalist "job positions". You defend this policy by saying it's justified by the science of biology -- a field that is *distant*, at best, from the mass-intentional arena of society and politics.

Again, you're equating formalized job positions with pecking order - the two are not synonymous.

Originally Posted by Noxion
"Hierarchy is necessary" - I really think this is context-dependant. Arbitrary hierarchy that encompasses the whole of society and is based on wealth or power is demonstrably oppressive and sub-optimal, but hierarchy confined within a certain domain, such as within an Engineering Guild, is justified and useful. The Chief Engineer is the go-to person for a major construction project, but beyond that he has the same amount of power as the rest of us."
*Don't* attempt to put words in my mouth or characterize my position as anything a-scientific. People are *not* merely "products of their environment" -- we *transcend* our beginnings through *conscious* actions that may or may not affect the larger society and politics.Our conscious actions are motivated by unconscious motivations - psych 101. These unconscious motivations are determined by our biology. Culture reinforces biology.

There is *no need* to fall back to a less-than-intentional, a priori hierarchy of work abilities -- our arrangement of work skills does *not* have to be abstractly structured according to *any* kind of organizational chart, even a "natural pecking order" one, when we could easily self-organize according to the mass-demand goals at hand, in a *pooled*, *collective* way to fulfill discrete tasks.I never said that the hierarchy would be "a priori". What I'm saying is that pecking order is inevitable among a group of people that self-organize, given that they have different abilities and different talents. Remember that pecking orders are not fixed and may change depending on the situation (such as the task being performed).

Given our mass, many-to-many forms of realtime communication technologies available it would be logistically *easy* to "transcend" the skills of all involved, by tapping *everyone*'s abilities at once, with discussions (like this one) leading to the *emergence* of an appropriate workflow and fulfillment of the challenges at hand.The work that needs to be done can be determined by looking at consumer demand. We already agree on this.

Allocating labor is more or less automatic with Technocracy, while choice of labor would still be voluntary.

If we know what jobs are necessary and their associated fields of training then we know precisely how many students to admit into a particular field of training. This ensures that all necessary work is done and that everyone still gets to pick their field (decide what they want to do). Remember this is just for running the essential tasks of the Technate. People would still have plenty of free time to dedicate to other pursuits.

No, biology is the *substrate*, *not* the *underlying mechanics*, of culture (including society and politics).Isn't this almost splitting hairs? Cultural imperatives are biologically derived responses to the environment. This means that cultural imperatives work to strengthen biological imperatives.

Technocrat

12th April 2010, 22:43

Q15 - Is it accurate in Technocracy to say that a person rising a level "above" is: (1) nominated from "below," presumably by democratic election; (2) selected from "above" by democratic election; cannot be removed from "below," except by a 2/3 majority of those "below"?

RED DAVE

1) yes

2) yes, except in the cast where there is no higher position, then a democratic election by those below the position to be filled and those in the position to be filled would be sufficient for promotion

Dimentio

12th April 2010, 23:08

Your point here is well-taken, but where we are *now* is *not* a matter of lacking *productivity* -- labor productivity has been rapidly *increasing* throughout the past 20 years, roughly, leaving us with the exaggerated *exploitation* of an ultra-efficient, individually disposable global workforce.

Unless there's some kind of *specific* paradigm shift in technology / productivity you're looking for here, on par with the industrial revolution, I think the times are *overripe* for a transition of political power to the world's proletariat.

It is not about labour productivity. It is about control. Before even assuming power, the economy needs to be more worker-controlled, because it would give the working class experience of excerting governance. The only result of a revolution without that would be the delivery of power into a small caste of bureaucrats which then would devolve into a new form of bourgeoisie (or aristocracy if its bad enough).

RED DAVE

12th April 2010, 23:08

Q16 - This is a personal question to Dimentio and Technocrat: What kind of concrete political experience do you have that leads you to believe that Technocracy is compatible with socialism?

RED DAVE

Dimentio

12th April 2010, 23:14

Q16 - This is a personal question to Dimentio and Technocrat: What kind of concrete political experience do you have that leads you to believe that Technocracy is compatible with socialism?

RED DAVE

Why should energy accounting be incompatible with socialism?

On a general note, I think it is very compatible and I even dare to say that I believe that without our proposals, every socialist programme that is attempted to be enacted would not be long-term durable due to the inherent instability of the price system. Moreover, it would put power on the factory floor, give the people control over the means of production through the EA system and abolish the state.

RED DAVE

12th April 2010, 23:40

Q16 (rephrased) - This is a personal question to Dimentio and Technocrat: What kind of concrete political experience do you have? What mass movements, unions, political organizations, parties, have you belonged to?

RED DAVE

Dimentio

13th April 2010, 00:05

ckaihatsu

13th April 2010, 08:14

No, biology is the *substrate*, *not* the *underlying mechanics*, of culture (including society and politics).

Isn't this almost splitting hairs? Cultural imperatives are biologically derived responses to the environment. This means that cultural imperatives work to strengthen biological imperatives.

Our conscious actions are motivated by unconscious motivations - psych 101. These unconscious motivations are determined by our biology. Culture reinforces biology.

I think *this* is the core, or crux, of your problematic approach to biology and culture / society / politics.

You're too attached to a *direct*, *linear* cause-and-effect linkage between basic biological imperatives, and more discretionary, individualistic motivations like taste, style, consumer preference, and artistic endeavors. For those who have the free time and the means to such luxuries these distinctions of choice are *hardly* "unconscious", or "imperatives", cultural or otherwise -- they are actually the *showcase* of *conscious*, *intentional* civilizational achievement, regardless of one's own opinion of the substance of it.

If our cultural expressions were merely limited to fulfilling basic biological imperatives our cultural artifacts would be *far* simpler and more utilitarian.

The reason why this *isn't* a trivial matter is because we shouldn't *ever* be tempted to *renounce* our personhood by reverting to biological-based explanations for our behavior. Society, such as it is, empowers us to some degrees of literacy, numeracy, and so on -- these societal developments allow us to *transcend* our basic biological makeup by *leveraging* past human inquiries and achievements.

Again, you're equating formalized job positions with pecking order - the two are not synonymous.

There is *no need* to fall back to a less-than-intentional, a priori hierarchy of work abilities -- our arrangement of work skills does *not* have to be abstractly structured according to *any* kind of organizational chart, even a "natural pecking order" one, when we could easily self-organize according to the mass-demand goals at hand, in a *pooled*, *collective* way to fulfill discrete tasks.

I never said that the hierarchy would be "a priori". What I'm saying is that pecking order is inevitable among a group of people that self-organize, given that they have different abilities and different talents. Remember that pecking orders are not fixed and may change depending on the situation (such as the task being performed).

Okay, you've stated as much previously, as reproduced here:

'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...!

Okay, we're not in disagreement here - you're splitting hairs. "Work roles" it is then.

So I guess my *remaining* question is this: Why the *emphasis* on this 'natural pecking order' stuff??? You're okay with a conception of pooled work roles that collectivize labor effort to fulfill mass demand -- why do you continue to include lower-level, *biological* concepts in your treatment of a *societal* system of planned production? It just seems unnecessary more than anything else....

Dimentio

13th April 2010, 09:33

ckaihatsu

13th April 2010, 09:43

Pecking orders tend to only emerge in groups larger than around 100 people. Human beings are still essentially group-living hunters and gatherers in terms of what our mind has evolved to comprehend. That could be one reason why hierarchies tend to emerge in larger societies.

This is *also* a troubling statement to read, coming from someone who is otherwise fairly cohesive around a revolutionary line.

"What our mind has evolved to comprehend" is *also* a biological-determinist kind of statement, something we would expect to come from Technocrat. *All* societal dynamics raise our cognitive and functional abilities *far* beyond whatever "natural state" we can identify.

You should know better as to *why* hierarchies emerge in human societies that have developed a surplus...(!)

Dimentio

13th April 2010, 10:11

This is *also* a troubling statement to read, coming from someone who is otherwise fairly cohesive around a revolutionary line.

"What our mind has evolved to comprehend" is *also* a biological-determinist kind of statement, something we would expect to come from Technocrat. *All* societal dynamics raise our cognitive and functional abilities *far* beyond whatever "natural state" we can identify.

You should know better as to *why* hierarchies emerge in human societies that have developed a surplus...(!)

I think recent science shows that human beings are in reality adapted to live in small, egalitarian societies. Hardly surprising. I haven't claimed that other factors have had their role in the creation of a class society, neither have I defended the class society.

A problem which people often have in debates is that they confuse "is" and "ought to be".

I do not claim that biological determinism is correct nor incorrect, but I wonder whether or not it would negate any kind of progressive ideology? As current research is showing, human beings are partially influenced by genetic traits, but its the form of society which is determining how those traits are expressed.

The blank slate might be an attractive idea, but is not supported by science.

RED DAVE

13th April 2010, 11:13

Technocrat

13th April 2010, 11:21

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th April 2010, 15:15

Technocrat, I noticed you quoted a paragraph from my earlier post twice, but it's not clear to me why you did so. Not bothered, just curious.

Dimentio

13th April 2010, 15:26

Q17 - Why is it the case that during its entire history, Technocracy has never been involved in any revolutionary activity and, in fact, Marxists have decisively rejected it since its inception?

RED DAVE

Mostly because Technocracy has existed in just one country, the USA, and has been organised as an educational - not political - organisation. I don't know if marxists in general reject us. I think its on an individual-case basis really. Besides, even if all marxists rejected technocracy, I would gladly continue to stand for the proposals of EOS. Their validity are not a matter on what group dislikes us or not, but should be judged on themselves.

I don't see why we would "subject ourselves" to "the authority" of marxists. It seems like you are thinking a bit highly about yourself.

RED DAVE

13th April 2010, 17:06

Dimentio

13th April 2010, 18:13

Q18 - What action does Technocracy taken in it's 80-90-year history against the existing ills of capitalism such as racism, denial of civil liberties, McCarthyism, lynching, etc.? What actions is it taking now?

RED DAVE

We in the European Movement are actively trying to build up the foundations for the kind of society we want to see in the future. As earlier stated, we don't - unlike some marxists - wish to hijack other movements or form front organisations, but to focus our work on building up a cure against all those ills. We acknowledge and are ready to aid organisations which are fighting all kinds of injustices.

As for the history of Technocracy Incorporated, I don't see why it is of any relevancy when discussing other technocratic movements like EOS or TVP.

Technocrat

13th April 2010, 18:58

Technocrat, I noticed you quoted a paragraph from my earlier post twice, but it's not clear to me why you did so. Not bothered, just curious.

People are getting confused as to what is meant by 'pecking order', and I think your description of hierarchy does a good job of explaining it.

Technocrat

13th April 2010, 19:29

I think *this* is the core, or crux, of your problematic approach to biology and culture / society / politics.

You're too attached to a *direct*, *linear* cause-and-effect linkage between basic biological imperatives, and more discretionary, individualistic motivations like taste, style, consumer preference, and artistic endeavors. For those who have the free time and the means to such luxuries these distinctions of choice are *hardly* "unconscious", or "imperatives", cultural or otherwise -- they are actually the *showcase* of *conscious*, *intentional* civilizational achievement, regardless of one's own opinion of the substance of it.

The science doesn't support what you're saying. Cultural imperatives are derived from biological imperatives which means that they work to strengthen biological imperatives. Which imperatives are activated is determined by the environment. Basic Psychology tells us that our conscious motivations are really after the fact explanations invented by our conscious mind (really brain), after our subconscious mind (brain) has already decided what to do. It decides what to do based on biology. Culture works by altering our biology, but culture is a product of biology. Therefore culture strengthens biology.

The reason why this *isn't* a trivial matter is because we shouldn't *ever* be tempted to *renounce* our personhood by reverting to biological-based explanations for our behavior. Society, such as it is, empowers us to some degrees of literacy, numeracy, and so on -- these societal developments allow us to *transcend* our basic biological makeup by *leveraging* past human inquiries and achievements.

No, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about - leveraging past human inquiries and achievements would increase one's chances of success at acquiring resources and a mate (regardless of if this was the conscious motivation or not). This is an example of culture working to strengthen biological imperatives.

So I guess my *remaining* question is this: Why the *emphasis* on this 'natural pecking order' stuff??? You're okay with a conception of pooled work roles that collectivize labor effort to fulfill mass demand -- why do you continue to include lower-level, *biological* concepts in your treatment of a *societal* system of planned production? It just seems unnecessary more than anything else....

Briefly: Males compete with other males in a dominance hierarchy to gain status in order to attract females. This is hard-wired. A social order that depends on eliminating this aspect of human behavior is not viable.

This male competition doesn't have to be a bad thing. In a Technocracy, everyone would be on the same level, materially. No one would have a higher "income" than anyone else. The only way to gain 'status' would be by excelling at one's job. This would work out for the good of society, as all jobs would be functionally vital positions (ie production of goods/services stops if they stop working).

Technocrat

13th April 2010, 19:46

I thought this was relevant:

"...Among rhesus monkeys, the alpha males show a despotic style of dominance. The dominant individual asserts in every way his priority over subordinates. For example, the dominant individual never shares food with subordinates; and he never tolerates resistance from his subordinates. But among chimpanzees, the alpha males show a more egalitarian style of dominance. The dominant individual often acts to help and protect subordinates, and he will share his food. Subordinate individuals can form coalitions with one another to resist the unacceptable behavior of a dominant individual. Moreover, dominant chimpanzees often break up fights within the group in an apparently impartial way. Frans de Waal sees this egalitarian style of chimpanzee dominance as a move towards a society where leadership is based on the principle of primus inter pares, "first among equals."

Christopher Boehm has elaborated this idea in his book Hierarchy in the Forest. Combining evidence from primatology and anthropology, Boehm argues for a complex view of human political psychology rooted in a political nature that we share with other primates. Like other primates, human beings show a tripartite political nature: some individuals are naturally inclined to dominance, others are naturally inclined to submission, and yet the subordinates are naturally inclined to resent their exploitation by dominants. The political history of primates shows us no clear case of a primate society without any hierarchy at all. Even human foraging groups, commonly regarded by anthropologists as radically egalitarian, show some hierarchical structure, even if informal and episodic, because any human society requires central coordination from dominant leaders, even if only occasionally. But what makes foraging societies look so egalitarian is that those individuals who act as leaders are restrained by the resentful suspicions of their subordinates. Those leaders who become too arrogant or bullying are cut down to size by ridicule, gossip, ostracism, or—in the most extreme cases—assassination. Boehm can see precursors of this in chimpanzees. Some chimpanzees become dominants. Most are subordinates. But even the subordinates can occasionally express their resentment of dominants. Human foraging groups develop that resentment of dominance into an egalitarian ethos in which hierarchy is tolerated only within the limits enforced by subordinates fearful of being exploited."
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.785/article_detail.asp

Dimentio

13th April 2010, 20:08

Technocrat

13th April 2010, 20:28

Culture is not biologically driven. Human beings on an individual basis are partially run by biological impulses, but human societies are more run by internal divisions of influence and externalities (environment).

Did you read the paper?

Durkheim was wrong about "irreducible social facts".

So it is that in studying even complex multi-tiered nested sociality in higher animals, Dawn Kitchen & Craig Packer [17] conclude:
"Finally, we could find no compelling evidence that a vertebrate social system ever exceeds the sum of its parts ... The most elaborate social systems ... only require an ability to recognise a large number of individuals (rather than any form of group-level cognition)". ... we see no reason to invoke anything beyond a simple set of individual decision rules".
They see no such thing as 'group mind'. Its absence is very apparent in computer modelling of dominance hierarchy formation, [18] which occurs by self-organisation given nothing more than the shared neural capacity of individuals to process what are known as 'winner' and/or 'loser' effects – the biasing of likelihood to contest in future based on the outcome of previous contests.
The upshot is that in higher animals generally, not just for humans, there is no supra-individual entity, let alone an autonomous one. The notion that culture is 'above' biology looks terminally ill from whichever angle you look.

ckaihatsu

13th April 2010, 21:16

As current research is showing, human beings are partially influenced by genetic traits, but its the form of society which is determining how those traits are expressed.

The blank slate might be an attractive idea, but is not supported by science.

Okay, I'm in agreement with this framework as you've stated it.

I do not claim that biological determinism is correct nor incorrect, but I wonder whether or not it would negate any kind of progressive ideology?

The reason why I've been arguing this point with Technocrat is because falling back onto a *mainly* biological determinist viewpoint has the very real *potential* of *distracting* from a more-progressive ideology like Marxism.

If one insists on using *biology* as a framework for explaining and guiding human culture (including society and politics) it can *inhibit* us from being more autonomous, conscious, and creative in intentional and progressive ways.

Dimentio

13th April 2010, 21:22

If you read chapter TSC of Technocracy Incorporated's "Holy Scripture" (the TSC), they are advocating strict behaviouralism.

ckaihatsu

13th April 2010, 21:28

No, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about - leveraging past human inquiries and achievements would increase one's chances of success at acquiring resources and a mate (regardless of if this was the conscious motivation or not). This is an example of culture working to strengthen biological imperatives.

Briefly: Males compete with other males in a dominance hierarchy to gain status in order to attract females. This is hard-wired. A social order that depends on eliminating this aspect of human behavior is not viable.

This male competition doesn't have to be a bad thing. In a Technocracy, everyone would be on the same level, materially. No one would have a higher "income" than anyone else. The only way to gain 'status' would be by excelling at one's job. This would work out for the good of society, as all jobs would be functionally vital positions (ie production of goods/services stops if they stop working).

I guess we're getting into more *existential* and possibly personal circles of discussion here -- I don't think it's worth belaboring the point since we're in agreement on the overall political and societal stuff.

I just find your perspective on human motivation to be rather crude, that's all -- I like to think of societal development as being more than just a fancy way of advancing human procreation.

Technocrat

14th April 2010, 01:10

I guess we're getting into more *existential* and possibly personal circles of discussion here -- I don't think it's worth belaboring the point since we're in agreement on the overall political and societal stuff.

I just find your perspective on human motivation to be rather crude, that's all -- I like to think of societal development as being more than just a fancy way of advancing human procreation.

I also think we agree on the overall societal stuff.

Science may lead us to conclusions that we don't like. Like the impossibility of faster than light travel according to the theory of relativity (bummer for sci-fi fans), or that current science suggests that the universe will become a sea of protons so dispersed that they can't even form a single atom, much less a planet (this will be so long from now that humans don't need to worry about it, but it's disturbing to those who believe that life will always continue in some way).

Doesn't being a successful artist, scientist, professor, philosopher, politician, etc considerably increase a male's attractiveness to females? Even if the successful male isn't always consciously motivated by sex (and really, how often does the successful male abstain from sex?), the fact that females are attracted to power and success means that males are evolved to compete in a dominance hierarchy to impress females (success being an indicator of good genes).

ckaihatsu

14th April 2010, 05:17

(Just for the record, here's a model of proposed particulars for the actual operation of the dynamics discussed on this thread.)

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

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.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

14th April 2010, 16:03

Doesn't being a successful artist, scientist, professor, philosopher, politician, etc considerably increase a male's attractiveness to females? Even if the successful male isn't always consciously motivated by sex (and really, how often does the successful male abstain from sex?), the fact that females are attracted to power and success means that males are evolved to compete in a dominance hierarchy to impress females (success being an indicator of good genes).

I think it's worth mentioning at this point that human desires are easily subverted for other purposes or directed towards other activities, whether through accident, design or circumstance. This is a by-product of evolution being a blind, anascopic process which works by rules of thumb rather than according to strict design goals.

In fact, one could argue that culture is the process of directing human urges towards more abstract matters.

RED DAVE

14th April 2010, 16:07

If one insists on using *biology* as a framework for explaining and guiding human culture (including society and politics) it can *inhibit* us from being more autonomous, conscious, and creative in intentional and progressive ways.Let's remember that human biology permits everything from headhunting to the most sublime love and art. To base politics on biology is bullshit.

I find it delightful that Technocracy, which is basically a souvenir from the 1920s and 1930s, and has had no practical, ongoing application, ever, uses psychology from that era.

RED DAVE

Dimentio

14th April 2010, 16:28

Let's remember that human biology permits everything from headhunting to the most sublime love and art. To base politics on biology is bullshit.

I find it delightful that Technocracy, which is basically a souvenir from the 1920s and 1930s, and has had no practical, ongoing application, ever, uses psychology from that era.

RED DAVE

You forgot that the European Technocratic movement is using modern science.

*cough cough*

RED DAVE

14th April 2010, 17:21

I find it delightful that Technocracy, which is basically a souvenir from the 1920s and 1930s, and has had no practical, ongoing application, ever, uses psychology from that era.
You forgot that the European Technocratic movement is using modern science.And you have forgotten that in order to make sure that you are not resting on the same elitist bullshit that Technocrat's work rests on, you need to be examining your roots and any possible to connections to them mercilessly.

What would happen if it turned out that your whole notion of energy accounting and your concept of organizational structure was based on false psychology? Since you have no practice; you don't engage in day-to-day politics; you have no way of testing your ideas.

RED DAVE

Dimentio

14th April 2010, 17:24

Testing our ideas is exactly what we aim to do, through the proto-technate. That is also the entire aim for our movement. We very well know that our organisation isn't at all elitist. I know it for certain, since I am one of its founders.

Energy accounting could hardly be described as a "notion". It is a model for how to organise production and distribution.

Technocrat

17th April 2010, 22:59

You forgot that the European Technocratic movement is using modern science.

*cough cough*

Yes, and he's also forgetting that modern science supports Technocracy's claims regarding human behavior. I've provided links to several studies and currently accepted sociological and psychological theories as evidence.

Technocrat

17th April 2010, 23:06

I think it's worth mentioning at this point that human desires are easily subverted for other purposes or directed towards other activities, whether through accident, design or circumstance. This is a by-product of evolution being a blind, anascopic process which works by rules of thumb rather than according to strict design goals.

This is true, but the adaptations that survive are those which increase the organism's chances of passing on its genes.

In the case of Technocracy, the desire for status and power would be directed in such a way that it would work out for the benefit of society. The only 'status' one would be able to obtain in such a society would be the recognition one receives from excelling at one's job (much like a communist society).

In fact, one could argue that culture is the process of directing human urges towards more abstract matters.True, but the "abstract matters" are really by-products of biology. Even religion could be interpreted in this context as a way to gain power and status (thus increasing the chances of reproduction) - even if that is not the conscious motivation of the participants. We cannot 'transcend' our biology any more than we can fly by flapping our arms. Any theoretical society which is based on human beings 'transcending' their biology is an obvious non-starter.

Just like with biology, the cultural adaptations that survive are those which increase the organism's chances of surviving and reproducing.

ckaihatsu

18th April 2010, 17:27

[T]he adaptations that survive are those which increase the organism's chances of passing on its genes.

Don't you *&^#%[email protected]! realize that you're defining the tip-top *ceiling* of biology here??? Even the *worst* destructiveness of capitalism has still left us with a world society that *far* surpasses -- and thus transcends -- the base dynamics of natural selection that rest on basic biological imperatives like survival and reproduction.

In other words, practically *everyone* survives -- what is left, then, for natural selection to "decide" -- ???!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Genetically it's just a bunch of arbitrary combinations going on according to the whims of lust and love -- the hard-scrabble calculations of finding a physically robust mate for producing offspring that will survive past childhood to be able to sexually reproduce is a thing of looooooong ago.

In the case of Technocracy, the desire for status and power would be directed in such a way that it would work out for the benefit of society.

And *this* line is not only disgusting but *insulting* as well -- the social conditions that support living a healthy life have quite solidly surpassed the royal court, too -- do you *really* think that the average person in the present time is such an unwitting slave to the means of mere genetic reproducibility???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only 'status' one would be able to obtain in such a society would be the recognition one receives from excelling at one's job (much like a communist society).

Holy shit!!!!!!! Now you're sounding like a dyed-in-the-wool Stalinist...!!! In one posting you've evolved your take on the human condition from being driven by genetic selection to being driven by the king's favor, to one of a conservative, nose-to-the-grindstone work identity.

Just like with biology, the cultural adaptations that survive are those which increase the organism's chances of surviving and reproducing.

No!! Cultural dynamics are *not* "just like" biological and genetic dynamics!! Culture is determined by societal development and gross material productive capabilities and is bounded by the overall mode of production including the class division. Does *this* sound anything like *&^#%[email protected]! biology and genetics to you???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dimentio

18th April 2010, 18:08

Communist

18th April 2010, 23:11

.
Another thread just like this one has been started in OI here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-technocracy-t133410/index.html). There doesn't seem to be any need for two threads on the exact same thing going on at the same time with no doubt the same participants (except some new, OI folks there to add to the discussion), so I'm thinking about closing this one.
Any worthwhile objections?
.

Technocrat

19th April 2010, 00:50

Don't you *&^#%[email protected]! realize that you're defining the tip-top *ceiling* of biology here??? Even the *worst* destructiveness of capitalism has still left us with a world society that *far* surpasses -- and thus transcends -- the base dynamics of natural selection that rest on basic biological imperatives like survival and reproduction.

In other words, practically *everyone* survives -- what is left, then, for natural selection to "decide" -- ???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're over-complicating things, Chris. You can't ignore biology just because you want to, like so many social and behavioral theorists are inclined to do. Biology is based on things we can observe. If your theory isn't compatible with biology then it's time to change your theory.

Something as abstract as artistic creativity is an indicator that the genes for overall success are present. A skilled guitar player (male) has a brain that is capable of performing a complex task, which indicates to any observant females that the male has good genes (genes which produce a brain capable of complex, skilled tasks).

And no, not everyone survives. Those cultures that aren't sustainable die out - history is full of examples of cultures which no longer exist because they developed unsustainable practices.

Genetically it's just a bunch of arbitrary combinations going on according to the whims of lust and love -- the hard-scrabble calculations of finding a physically robust mate for producing offspring that will survive past childhood to be able to sexually reproduce is a thing of looooooong ago.

And *this* line is not only disgusting but *insulting* as well -- the social conditions that support living a healthy life have quite solidly surpassed the royal court, too -- do you *really* think that the average person in the present time is such an unwitting slave to the means of mere genetic reproducibility???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Let me ask you: where would a person's motivation come from besides 1) their biology or 2) their culture which is the self-reflected mirror of their biology? And if a person's motivation can only come from these two places then what is the result of that motivation other than to strengthen the biological imperatives that give rise to the motivation in the first place?

Can you think of any scenario where someone's behavior isn't motivated by their biology? A real-world example? Can you come up with an example of human behavior that isn't ultimately motivated by either a) gaining resources or b) gaining status?

Holy shit!!!!!!! Now you're sounding like a dyed-in-the-wool Stalinist...!!! In one posting you've evolved your take on the human condition from being driven by genetic selection to being driven by the king's favor, to one of a conservative, nose-to-the-grindstone work identity. No, again you keep equating "work" with "work identity". What I said about "status" could equally apply to the "status" one receives from any kind of success - a skilled artist, musician, or philosopher is just as "successful" as a more formalized work role - and this "success" is an indicator of the genes needed for creating healthy offspring (see above or read the paper I linked to).

No!! Cultural dynamics are *not* "just like" biological and genetic dynamics!! Culture is determined by societal development and gross material productive capabilities and is bounded by the overall mode of production including the class division. Does *this* sound anything like *&^#%[email protected]! biology and genetics to you???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!So you are going to be willfully ignorant of biology. If you are going to just ignore biology, fine - just say so, and we'll know that your ideas are ignorant of science (and therefore, likely incompatible with it). Biology is based on things we can observe. Like I said, if your theory doesn't fit with biology, then it's time to change your theory.

Technocrat

19th April 2010, 00:56

Not that I want to sound off topicish here, but ckaihatsu's recent rant was wonderful. It evoked beautiful memories about how much I loved the Gaston Lagaffe comics. Was a character there who always sprouted curse-words of that kind.

As for biology or similar. No, to think that group dynamics in complex societies run by advanced species like humans are determined by biology is a terribly simplified and at the top of everything boring definition. It is more correct to say that the economic base is determining how society is going to look.

There is no such thing as an "irreducible social fact" as you keep claiming. It is a completely groundless assertion.

Dimentio, you have failed to address the following (repeatedly):

So it is that in studying even complex multi-tiered nested sociality in higher animals, Dawn Kitchen & Craig Packer [17] conclude:
"Finally, we could find no compelling evidence that a vertebrate social system ever exceeds the sum of its parts ... The most elaborate social systems ... only require an ability to recognise a large number of individuals (rather than any form of group-level cognition)". ... we see no reason to invoke anything beyond a simple set of individual decision rules".
They see no such thing as 'group mind'. Its absence is very apparent in computer modelling of dominance hierarchy formation, [18] which occurs by self-organisation given nothing more than the shared neural capacity of individuals to process what are known as 'winner' and/or 'loser' effects – the biasing of likelihood to contest in future based on the outcome of previous contests.
The upshot is that in higher animals generally, not just for humans, there is no supra-individual entity, let alone an autonomous one. The notion that culture is 'above' biology looks terminally ill from whichever angle you look.

Communist

19th April 2010, 05:51

.
Forget the last post I made, this thread is to remain open.
.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

19th April 2010, 09:42

This is true, but the adaptations that survive are those which increase the organism's chances of passing on its genes.

True, but not all genes have an effect on fitness either way; it's entirely possible for behaviours to arise that have no net effect on fitness, or even for fitness-effecting behaviours to have effects in ways other than "intended".

In the case of Technocracy, the desire for status and power would be directed in such a way that it would work out for the benefit of society. The only 'status' one would be able to obtain in such a society would be the recognition one receives from excelling at one's job (much like a communist society).

Here I find myself in agreement, at least with the thesis that even if the will to achieve status and power are determined genetically, then we are still not stuck in the bourgeouis-capitalist straitjacket of Price System mismanagement.

True, but the "abstract matters" are really by-products of biology. Even religion could be interpreted in this context as a way to gain power and status (thus increasing the chances of reproduction) - even if that is not the conscious motivation of the participants. We cannot 'transcend' our biology any more than we can fly by flapping our arms. Any theoretical society which is based on human beings 'transcending' their biology is an obvious non-starter.

Here I must disagree. We may not be able to fly by flapping our arms, but we don't rely on our bodies alone to do so; we use the considerably more powerful facilities of the human mind to overcome our biological limitations. It is only recently that we have had the potential to turn our tools on the problem of human mental limitations. As a Transhumanist I believe it is imperative that we realise that potential as soon as possible.

Just like with biology, the cultural adaptations that survive are those which increase the organism's chances of surviving and reproducing.

I don't think this is the case; cultures operate on the level of populations, meaning that it so happens that "cultural adaptations" which are detrimental to individual organisms can survive. For example, suicide attacks.

Dimentio

19th April 2010, 10:09

Culture is of course not above biology, but culture is evolved pretty far from ideology. If culture was a product of biology, all cultures within the human race would be identical since all human beings have more or less identical genes. It is clear to me that on the macro-scale, specialisation, differing geography and environments as well as class stuctures hold a much larger influence over culture than biology.

Moreover, cultural biologism is the argument evoked by fascists and conservatives to try to explain why progressive ideals are impossible, instead parading a misanthropic view on human beings as fundamentally egoistic and in need of the enlightened leadership of an aristocratic elite.

For the European technocratic movement, such a notion is unacceptable, since we want to liberate humans from elites and want governance to be exerted above machinery, not humans. Technocracy would not be logically consistent if it advocated the rule over human beings or that human beings are biologically predisposed to a particular range of behaviours.

RED DAVE

19th April 2010, 13:15

In the case of Technocracy, the desire for status and power would be directed in such a way that it would work out for the benefit of society.Q19 - Please define "benefit of society"?

RED DAVE

The Vegan Marxist

19th April 2010, 14:52

Q19 - Please define "benefit of society"?

RED DAVE

I think it would be better if you explained what you think we may be referring to with "benefit of society". That way we can point out what is right & what is wrong, while keeping in mind what you're saying.

RED DAVE

19th April 2010, 15:00

Q19 - Please define "benefit of society"?
I think it would be better if you explained what you think we may be referring to with "benefit of society". That way we can point out what is right & what is wrong, while keeping in mind what you're saying.Q19 - Please define "benefit of society"?

RED DAVE

Dimentio

19th April 2010, 17:22

Q19 - Please define "benefit of society"?

RED DAVE

I don't know what he means, but I guess he means that people would be motivated by the acclaim for their work (not unlike Che Guevara's proposals for Cuba). I more think that a great motivator would be that people simply work with what they'll find funny.

Technocrat

19th April 2010, 17:53

Culture is of course not above biology, but culture is evolved pretty far from ideology. If culture was a product of biology, all cultures within the human race would be identical since all human beings have more or less identical genes.

Not true - the environment determines which cultural imperatives are expressed.

It is clear to me that on the macro-scale, specialisation, differing geography and environments as well as class stuctures hold a much larger influence over culture than biology.

Of course environment influences culture - but culture itself originates from biology, not from the environment. To suggest that culture originates in the environment is to fall back on Durkheim's groundless assertion regarding "irreducible social facts".

Moreover, cultural biologism is the argument evoked by fascists and conservatives to try to explain why progressive ideals are impossible, instead parading a misanthropic view on human beings as fundamentally egoistic and in need of the enlightened leadership of an aristocratic elite.

I'm talking about sociobiology, something quite different from the "cultural biologism" of fascists.

Fascists also used a warped version of Darwin's natural selection theory to come up with the theory of Social Darwinism. Just because a few fascists came up with the theory of Social Darwinism doesn't mean that the theory of natural selection is false. Likewise with sociobiology.

For the European technocratic movement, such a notion is unacceptable, since we want to liberate humans from elites and want governance to be exerted above machinery, not humans.

There's no disagreement, here.

Technocracy would not be logically consistent if it advocated the rule over human beings or that human beings are biologically predisposed to a particular range of behaviours.

How so? I'd say Technocracy pretty much depends on the idea that human beings are predisposed to a particular range of behaviors:

Technocracy doesn't seek to control people's behavior through a system of laws and regulations that need punishments to back them up.

Instead, Technocracy would engineer the environment to result in the desired behavior. The ability to do this depends on our ability to predict what human behavior will be like in certain situations. This isn't so difficult as one might think: if you want people to cross a river at a particular point and not at another, then build a bridge at that point and don't build a bridge at the other.

Technocrat

19th April 2010, 17:58

I don't know what he means, but I guess he means that people would be motivated by the acclaim for their work (not unlike Che Guevara's proposals for Cuba). I more think that a great motivator would be that people simply work with what they'll find funny.

Intrinsic reward (the good feeling one gets from doing something one enjoys or from doing a good job) would be a significant motivator, as Dimentio says above.

The drive to one-up one's fellow males in a dominance hierarchy is not going to disappear because someone thinks it's unfair. In a Technocracy, the only way this dominance hierarchy could be expressed would be as I explained - status and recognition would be given to those who excelled. This is a form of external reward. Studies show that social status can be an even more powerful motivator than material reward (money). Since the only jobs which would exist in a Technate are those jobs essential to production, if someone excelled at their job it would benefit everyone.

Technocrat

19th April 2010, 18:07

True, but not all genes have an effect on fitness either way; it's entirely possible for behaviours to arise that have no net effect on fitness, or even for fitness-effecting behaviours to have effects in ways other than "intended".

Yes, you can get some oddball adaptions that have no effect either way on fitness, but over time the non-viable adaptations die out, resulting in greater fitness for the species as a whole.

Here I find myself in agreement, at least with the thesis that even if the will to achieve status and power are determined genetically, then we are still not stuck in the bourgeouis-capitalist straitjacket of Price System mismanagement.This is why I think sociobiology supports Technocracy and the left in general.

Here I must disagree. We may not be able to fly by flapping our arms, but we don't rely on our bodies alone to do so; we use the considerably more powerful facilities of the human mind to overcome our biological limitations. It is only recently that we have had the potential to turn our tools on the problem of human mental limitations. As a Transhumanist I believe it is imperative that we realise that potential as soon as possible.My only point there was that we can't transcend our biology. This doesn't mean that we can't make significant progress. It's my view that humanity is still in its adolescence.

I don't think this is the case; cultures operate on the level of populations, meaning that it so happens that "cultural adaptations" which are detrimental to individual organisms can survive. For example, suicide attacks.Yes, I should have rephrased that to say that the cultural adaptations which survive (long term) are those which improve the population's chances of survival. And we still don't know if suicide attacks are a viable cultural adaptation (in the long run).

Dimentio

19th April 2010, 21:31

Technocrat

19th April 2010, 22:45

Suicide attacks exist within most pack- or hive-living species. A lot of animals are also ready to sacrifice themselves in order to save their offspring. In fact, the more social a specie is, the more likely an individual would be willing to sacrifice its own life for its community.

I was talking more about suicide attacks as a cultural institution (terrorism) - I don't think that's sustainable.

It makes sense for one member to sacrifice themselves to save the group if the situation is desperate, but that's quite different.

Dimentio

19th April 2010, 23:13

I was talking more about suicide attacks as a cultural institution (terrorism) - I don't think that's sustainable.

It makes sense for one member to sacrifice themselves to save the group if the situation is desperate, but that's quite different.

Suicide attacks (in mainly muslim nations) are not a sign of any cultural attachment, but of extreme military weakness. Some groups though have started with suicide against civilians for some bizarrely unknown reason.

ckaihatsu

19th April 2010, 23:33

Let me ask you: where would a person's motivation come from besides 1) their biology or 2) their culture which is the self-reflected mirror of their biology? And if a person's motivation can only come from these two places then what is the result of that motivation other than to strengthen the biological imperatives that give rise to the motivation in the first place?

This is asinine. Acting to fulfill motivations from biological imperatives is *very* different from acting to fulfill motivations derived from culture (including society and politics).

Can you think of any scenario where someone's behavior isn't motivated by their biology? A real-world example? Can you come up with an example of human behavior that isn't ultimately motivated by either a) gaining resources or b) gaining status?

Yeah -- problem-solving. Some people, believe or not, actually find it *intrinsically* interesting and rewarding to overcome challenges -- intellectual, emotional (interpersonal), and/or physical.

Your line on all of this biological stuff may as well be *ideological* because it's so separated from the *real*, culture-based social world.

Technocrat

20th April 2010, 00:56

This is asinine. Acting to fulfill motivations from biological imperatives is *very* different from acting to fulfill motivations derived from culture (including society and politics).

What's the difference? You've ignored the entire point of the paper I cited which is that cultural imperatives work to strengthen biological imperatives. Where does culture come from? Biology came first, unless you are going to side with Durkheim's groundless assertion regarding irreducible social facts.

Yeah -- problem-solving. Some people, believe or not, actually find it *intrinsically* interesting and rewarding to overcome challenges -- intellectual, emotional (interpersonal), and/or physical.Just because someone finds it intrinsically motivating to overcome challenges doesn't mean that they aren't motivated by their biology.

Your line on all of this biological stuff may as well be *ideological* because it's so separated from the *real*, culture-based social world.No, your line is ideological because it ignores science - biology.

RED DAVE

20th April 2010, 02:26

The drive to one-up one's fellow males in a dominance hierarchy is not going to disappear because someone thinks it's unfair.Q20- What is the evidence that dominance hierarchies are biologically determined?

RED DAVE

ckaihatsu

20th April 2010, 12:09

Just because someone finds it intrinsically motivating to overcome challenges doesn't mean that they aren't motivated by their biology.

Your *contention* is that cultural behaviors express underlying biological motivations.

Can you come up with an example of human behavior that isn't ultimately motivated by either a) gaining resources or b) gaining status?

Why do some people live very *experiential* lives? Some have come to eschewing much, if not all, of how the world turns in order to favor experiencing the story of their own life, and of those around them, in the most unfiltered and unadulterating ways. In strictly *biological* terms this would be an utter waste if they don't produce any children during their lifetimes, live simply and self-sufficiently, and don't involve themselves in concerns outside of their own lives.

No, your line is ideological because it ignores science - biology.

Where does culture come from?

Culture is determined by societal development and gross material productive capabilities and is bounded by the overall mode of production including the class division.

Technocrat

20th April 2010, 17:30

Q20- What is the evidence that dominance hierarchies are biologically determined?

RED DAVE

Dominance hierarchies are not 'biologically determined'. What is determined biologically is that there will be a dominance hierarchy. You are confusing the two.

Technocrat

20th April 2010, 17:39

Why do some people live very *experiential* lives? Some have come to eschewing much, if not all, of how the world turns in order to favor experiencing the story of their own life, and of those around them, in the most unfiltered and unadulterating ways. In strictly *biological* terms this would be an utter waste if they don't produce any children during their lifetimes, live simply and self-sufficiently, and don't involve themselves in concerns outside of their own lives.

If you accept first year psychology, you know that people's conscious motivations are really after-the-fact explanations that we come up with to explain actions that occur on a subconscious level. What a person thinks is motivating them and what is actually motivating them are very different things. Just because someone retreats from the world and doesn't have any children doesn't mean that they aren't still following biological imperatives.

ckaihatsu

20th April 2010, 23:42

You're *misapplying* and *overextending* principles of psychology here -- you're so intent on ascribing human behavior to "underlying" biological drives that you *have* turned this biological-psychological thing into a whole ideology of its own.

The danger here is that if people really come to believe that they are merely expressing underlying unconscious motivations throughout their lifetimes then they have effectively been *stripped* of their *conscious* agency in their own lives, and in society.

It's bad enough that we have societal institutions that exist to prop up bourgeois rule all over the world -- we *don't* need some will-sapping ideology from you in addition to the regular bullshit.

RED DAVE

21st April 2010, 01:43

Q21 - What is your source for the following?

[T]hat people's conscious motivations are really after-the-fact explanations that we come up with to explain actions that occur on a subconscious level.RED DAVE

Jazzratt

21st April 2010, 12:15

Q21 - What is your source for the following?

RED DAVE

Q1 - When are you going to finally reveal the point behind your interminable game of 20 questions? I know that you're neither sympathetic nor unbiasedly curious about the tendency so you must be trying some kind of wider point. Perhaps if you stopped harassing the other posters in this thread with endless questions and made some kind of point it would be better for all of us.

RED DAVE

21st April 2010, 15:02

Q1 - When are you going to finally reveal the point behind your interminable game of 20 questions? I know that you're neither sympathetic nor unbiasedly curious about the tendency so you must be trying some kind of wider point. Perhaps if you stopped harassing the other posters in this thread with endless questions and made some kind of point it would be better for all of us.Perhaps if you looked at the questions, you might find the answer to your question.

And asking pointed questions about a nonrevolutionary belief system is far from harassment, Comrade. I find your perenptory attitude, especially as a mod, to be disturbing. I also find it disturbing that you have a soft spot for this obviously reactionary ideology.

RED DAVE

Technocrat

21st April 2010, 23:32

The danger here is that if people really come to believe that they are merely expressing underlying unconscious motivations throughout their lifetimes then they have effectively been *stripped* of their *conscious* agency in their own lives, and in society.

Only if you choose to look at it that way.

ckaihatsu

22nd April 2010, 01:33

Only if you choose to look at it that way.

No, this *whole* biological-psychological determinism thing you have going here isn't merely a matter of how "you choose to look at it" -- if it *was* a trivial matter then I wouldn't bother responding. But what's going on is that you're deciding to use the *wrong tools*. It's like someone saying that we're all "gravity-determined", and that in the end we're just obeying the dictates of gravity.

The problem with *all* of this is that you're *too reductionistic* -- yes, we're influenced by chemicals, and gravity, and psychology, but what's at stake with *societal* structures like Marxism is the overall *politics* of it, and *that* level of dynamics *transcends* and *surpasses* the more-micro levels that you favor so much.

Technocrat

27th April 2010, 00:04

...and *that* level of dynamics *transcends* and *surpasses* the more-micro levels that you favor so much.

No, it doesn't. Culture does not transcend biology - that's the entire point of the paper and other evidence I've provided you with and which you have chosen to ignore.

If culture transcended biology it would be possible for a lasting cultural institution to go against biological imperatives. However, no lasting cultural institution violates biological imperatives. Rather, biological imperatives are strengthened by the cultural institutions which survive.

ckaihatsu

27th April 2010, 00:25

No, it doesn't. Culture does not transcend biology - that's the entire point of the paper and other evidence I've provided you with and which you have chosen to ignore.

Look, I'm not going to oblige you by doing whatever "background reading" you *wish* I would.... Either make your points here, in your *own* words, or else don't expect a response.

If culture transcended biology it would be possible for a lasting cultural institution to go against biological imperatives. However, no lasting cultural institution violates biological imperatives. Rather, biological imperatives are strengthened by the cultural institutions which survive.

Okay, name a cultural institution that *primarily* serves biological imperatives, by its charter / definition / construction. (Keep in mind that formal cultural institutions are *not required* for the fulfillment of biological imperatives.)

RED DAVE

27th April 2010, 00:41

No, it doesn't. Culture does not transcend biology - that's the entire point of the paper and other evidence I've provided you with and which you have chosen to ignore.The point is not whether or not culture can transcend biology. The point is that what can be derived from biology in terms of culture is vast. A humanitarian like Jonas Salk and a mass murderer like Hitler are both acting under the sway of the same biology.

If culture transcended biology it would be possible for a lasting cultural institution to go against biological imperatives.There are no biological imperatives for cultures. There are cultures, for example, that have consciously and deliberately decided to destroy themselves.

However, no lasting cultural institution violates biological imperatives.I love the way you snuck in that term "imperatives." It's such bullshit.

Rather, biological imperatives are strengthened by the cultural institutions which survive.What you are basically saying is that present-day cultures are closer to biological imperatives than, say, hunter-gatherer cultures of 100,000 years ago. I think you will have a very hard time proving that.

This is all pretty silly undergraduate barking, in any event.

RED DAVE

Technocrat

27th April 2010, 02:03

The point is not whether or not culture can transcend biology. The point is that what can be derived from biology in terms of culture is vast. A humanitarian like Jonas Salk and a mass murderer like Hitler are both acting under the sway of the same biology.

Hitler wasn't around for very long, was he? This brings me to my next point:

There are no biological imperatives for cultures. There are cultures, for example, that have consciously and deliberately decided to destroy themselves. That's what I've been saying all along - the cultural institutions which survive are those that contribute to the long term survival of the group, therefore they act to enforce biological imperatives (which are to survive and reproduce).

What you are basically saying is that present-day cultures are closer to biological imperatives than, say, hunter-gatherer cultures of 100,000 years ago. I think you will have a very hard time proving that.
That's a misinterpretation.

Technocrat

27th April 2010, 02:05

Okay, name a cultural institution that *primarily* serves biological imperatives, by its charter / definition / construction. (Keep in mind that formal cultural institutions are *not required* for the fulfillment of biological imperatives.)

Just because an institution doesn't serve biological imperatives by it's charter doesn't mean that it isn't fulfilling biological imperatives - and if it wasn't fulfilling biological imperatives it wouldn't be around for very long.

ckaihatsu

27th April 2010, 02:50

Let's review what we're talking about here:

biological imperatives (Wikipedia)

Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_imperative

Just because an institution doesn't serve biological imperatives by it's charter doesn't mean that it isn't fulfilling biological imperatives - and if it wasn't fulfilling biological imperatives it wouldn't be around for very long.

Hey, certainly I'll admit that there's *overlap* here in what we're discussing -- I won't so far as to say that biology and culture are *mutually exclusive*. Certainly some cultural practices, like sanitation, will greatly *improve* people's chances of survival and longevity.

[T]he cultural institutions which survive are those that contribute to the long term survival of the group, therefore they act to enforce biological imperatives (which are to survive and reproduce).

But *some* cultural practices, like nation-based warfare, are *counter* to people's basic needs for healthy living.

In *both* cases -- sanitation (helpful) and imperialism (destructive) -- the cultural practice / institution could be missing and people would *still* find ways to fulfill their biological imperatives -- albeit in simpler and more labor-intensive / time-consuming ways. That's why there's *no* *direct correlation* between biology and culture -- biology only gives rise to cultural practices to the extent that it can "afford" to, as with a natural environment of plenty or a societal environment of surplus production.

We could say that culture picks up where biology leaves off -- this would be a better picture of the relationship between the two.

Culture is determined by societal development and gross material productive capabilities and is bounded by the overall mode of production including the class division.

But you *still* can't defend your position that *all behavior* is *motivated* by base biological drives. We covered this already:

Can you think of any scenario where someone's behavior isn't motivated by their biology? A real-world example? Can you come up with an example of human behavior that isn't ultimately motivated by either a) gaining resources or b) gaining status?

Yeah -- problem-solving. Some people, believe or not, actually find it *intrinsically* interesting and rewarding to overcome challenges -- intellectual, emotional (interpersonal), and/or physical.

Your line on all of this biological stuff may as well be *ideological* because it's so separated from the *real*, culture-based social world.

Technocrat

27th April 2010, 03:38

But *some* cultural practices, like nation-based warfare, are *counter* to people's basic needs for healthy living.

In *both* cases -- sanitation (helpful) and imperialism (destructive) -- the cultural practice / institution could be missing and people would *still* find ways to fulfill their biological imperatives -- albeit in simpler and more labor-intensive / time-consuming ways. That's why there's *no* *direct correlation* between biology and culture -- biology only gives rise to cultural practices to the extent that it can "afford" to, as with a natural environment of plenty or a societal environment of surplus production.

An analogy could be drawn with evolution itself: just as with evolution, adaptations may arise that don't contribute to the long term survival of the group. They may work for a time but then inevitably die out.

Regarding your point on problem solving - doesn't a male's ability to solve problems increase his attractiveness as a potential mate to females? Why would females have evolved to find this attractive?

ckaihatsu

27th April 2010, 04:00

An analogy could be drawn with evolution itself: just as with evolution, adaptations may arise that don't contribute to the long term survival of the group. They may work for a time but then inevitably die out.

Okay, I'll agree with culture : biology :: mutations : evolution.

"Culture is to biology as mutations are to evolution."

Regarding your point on problem solving - doesn't a male's ability to solve problems increase his attractiveness as a potential mate to females? Why would females have evolved to find this attractive?

Well, sure, this *could* be the case in some instances, but my larger point remains that *some* problem-solving is for the sake of one's own enjoyment, with no greater ripple effects resulting.

Hyacinth

27th April 2010, 05:10

Energy is but one resource that would have to be tracked in ANY non-monetary, resource-based method of planning. Thus, it is an essential and integral part of any resource-based system!

You need to understand when the idea of Energy Accounting was developed - the 1930s. This was before computers, and before the internet.

Energy Accounting's usefulness is as a common resource used in all processes - this includes both goods and services. Thus if you look at the energy consumption in any given sector, or even any particular good or service, you have an exact measurement of the changes in demand.

Energy Accounting becomes superfluous when you introduce computers and the internet into the picture. A real-time linked inventory system becomes possible, with a direct tally of everything that is consumed. Energy Accounting becomes a detail that is handled automatically by this system.

Sorry for the delay in reply, I've been busy with things IRL.

We don't disagree then, except that I'm unsure of what exactly remains distinctly technocratic about such a proposal, as there are contemporary socialists who advocate such an economic system based on calculation in kind.

Or, just for clarification, is it that what is distinctive about technocracy isn't merely the non-market planned economy, but moreover the specific proposal for how society should be organized politically as well?

RED DAVE

27th April 2010, 18:00

Or, just for clarification, is it that what is distinctive about technocracy isn't merely the non-market planned economy, but moreover the specific proposal for how society should be organized politically as well?Although they deny it, the underlying political premise of Technocracy is top-down control of the econome and, therefore, of the political apparatus.

RED DAVE

Technocrat

27th April 2010, 18:08

Sorry for the delay in reply, I've been busy with things IRL.

We don't disagree then, except that I'm unsure of what exactly remains distinctly technocratic about such a proposal, as there are contemporary socialists who advocate such an economic system based on calculation in kind.

Or, just for clarification, is it that what is distinctive about technocracy isn't merely the non-market planned economy, but moreover the specific proposal for how society should be organized politically as well?

Ignore Red Dave's trolling.

Technocracy doesn't seek political control - it is a method for managing the physical resources and infrastructure only. Technocracy is unique in how it suggests these resources should be managed. Energy Accounting could just be seen as a primitive form of Resource Accounting that they developed before computers were widely available. I think the most important thing distinguishing Technocracy from other Socialist systems is the emphasis on sustainability (ecological and social). I recognize that Socialists have addressed these topics also, but their focus tends to be more on class conflict than sustainability.

RED DAVE

27th April 2010, 18:15

Ignore Red Dave's trolling.Translation: with my dogmatic belief system based on its shitty history, nonexistent political practice and the fact that I have, personally, little or no political experience, I can't answer his points.

Technocracy doesn't seek political control - it is a method for managing the physical resources and infrastructure only.Managing the "physical resources and infrastructure," by which you mean controlling it, is political control.

Technocracy is uniqueLike any other antique that has somehow survived.

in how it suggests these resources should be managed. Energy Accounting could just be seen as a primitive form of Resource Accounting that they developed before computers were widely available.If all Technocracy was was an early system of accounting, there would be no problem at all. What Technocracy is is a system of control by one group: technicians, managers and engineers. If it weren't such, we wouldn't hear this bullshit about 2/3 majorities, and arguments about pecking order and natural systems of command. It would not insist that certain decisions be taken out of the hands of the workers, which it consistently insists on.

RED DAVE

Technocrat

27th April 2010, 18:51

a bunch of bullshit
RED DAVE

Sad for someone as old as yourself to have such an ego. It must be really important for you to be right given the amount of time and effort you've invested into this. I've adequately addressed your points and all you can come back with is ad hominem nonsense and straw men - in other words, your typical bullshit. I don't have time for this anymore, but you can continue entertaining yourself with these petty online debates if you want - you appear to have nothing better to do. I leave in confidence, knowing that I've addressed everything you've said, and anyone with half a brain can see that. I might drop in from time to time just to check in on you - it's rather entertaining to see a senior citizen acting like a teenager.

RED DAVE

27th April 2010, 20:01

Sad for someone as old as yourself to have such an ego.Sorry kiddo, but you need to draw a distinction between accomplishment and ego, between face and mask. You are far too young and inexperienced in politics to make a judgment like that. But then humility was never Howard Scott's strong suit, either and look at how little he accomplished.

It must be really important for you to be right given the amount of time and effort you've invested into this. I've adequately addressed your points and all you can come back with is ad hominem nonsense and straw men - in other words, your typical bullshit.Nonsense. You have never addressed adequately the hisotry of your movement, its contempt for democracy, its antisocialist nature or even the fact that you yourself can't deal with its dominat organization in North America. Technocracy began long before you. It has a history. If you want to graft yourself onto that tree, you need to deal with it, which you don't.

I don't have time for this anymore, but you can continue entertaining yourself with these petty online debates if you want - you appear to have nothing better to do.Well considering that you engage in no political activity whatsoever, I would think that you have all the time in the world.

I leave in confidence, knowing that I've addressed everything you've said, and anyone with half a brain can see that. I might drop in from time to time just to check in on you - it's rather entertaining to see a senior citizen acting like a teenager.Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

RED DAVE

Dimentio

27th April 2010, 21:42

Although they deny it, the underlying political premise of Technocracy is top-down control of the econome and, therefore, of the political apparatus.

RED DAVE

The European model is utilising a bottom-up approach, while it is true that the North American model is centralist. As far as I'll know, the command economy which is supported by marxist-leninists like stalinists and trotskyists has more in common with the North American technate than it has with the European holonic model.

Technocrat

27th April 2010, 22:02

I've addressed all of this shit before:

What Technocracy is is a system of control by one group: technicians, managers and engineers.

The workers would be technicians, managers, and engineers. Engineers, technicians, and managers would be the workers. Therefore there is no separate group controlling another group.

If it weren't such, we wouldn't hear this bullshit about 2/3 majorities, and arguments about pecking order and natural systems of command. It would not insist that certain decisions be taken out of the hands of the workers, which it consistently insists on.Workers left to their own devices would establish a pecking order. A simple majority vote to take away someone's job is dysfunctional and unfair (not to mention unnecessary when every position is functionally vital). You have never addressed either of these statements, you just keep endlessly parroting the same dogma. In fact, you've never addressed the real issues, you've just evaded everything with straw men, red herrings, and ad hominem bullshit - which means you have no real argument.

ckaihatsu

28th April 2010, 01:47

Workers left to their own devices would establish a pecking order. A simple majority vote to take away someone's job is dysfunctional and unfair (not to mention unnecessary when every position is functionally vital).

From my time here at RevLeft I've come to refine my understanding and position on *how* communism *should* be implemented. In brief, I find that both formal job positions *and* direct material recompense for labor effort would *both* be incompatible with the ideals of communism.

By eliminating *not only* the abstraction of labor effort into capitalist-controlled currency, but *also* eliminating the abstraction of labor hours into material recompense we can arrive at a model that *most accurately* reflects the ideals of communism. The model I advocate rewards labor effort with future labor *requisitioning* / *organizing* power, through the use of labor credits for the same, *separate* from individual consumer consumption, mass (fulfillment) demands, supply of materials (collectivized assets and resources), and collective policy-making.

(In this way one would *always* have recourse to individually proportionate, recognized political demands -- as for the basics of life and livelihood -- no matter what one's work history or work status happened to be.)

RED DAVE

28th April 2010, 04:29

I've addressed all of this shit before:

The workers would be technicians, managers, and engineers. Engineers, technicians, and managers would be the workers. Therefore there is no separate group controlling another group.Uhh, when one individual is elevated, even by election, there is always a possible problem, which you are trying to avoid by either making that elevation "natural" with this pecking order bullshit, or you are magnifying it with this 2/3 bullshit.

Workers left to their own devices would establish a pecking order.You, of course, know this for sure by your vast experience on the job and in the labor movement. What you are showing here is that you trust technocrats managers and engineers, but you mistrust workers. And you have the nerve to call yourself a revolutionary. What you should call yourself, kid, is a stand-up comic.

A simple majority vote to take away someone's job is dysfunctional and unfair (not to mention unnecessary when every position is functionally vital).You are willing elevate someone by a simple majority of those "above," (heaven forbid they should actually be elected by those below, but you're unwilling to demote them by a majority of those "below." That's pretty fucking elitist, but that's what you're about.

You have never addressed either of these statements, you just keep endlessly parroting the same dogma. In fact, you've never addressed the real issues, you've just evaded everything with straw men, red herrings, and ad hominem bullshit - which means you have no real argument.Kiss my ass kiddo. Why don't you go out and teake your Technocracy ideology and use it some practical organizational and political experience and learn some history while you're at it?

Let us know what happens.

RED DAVE

Dimentio

28th April 2010, 09:12

RED DAVE

28th April 2010, 16:04

I don't see it as people are elevated, but there needs to be team-playing between the organs which administrate the central system and those which administrate parts of the system. The sequences would probably be needed as nodes of information, but most work could be organised within holarchic system, not hierarchic.Once again, you are ignoring the fundamental fact that workers democracy is the central point of socialism, not "team playing," etc. This is a class structure, not a universal one. Socialism is the class rule of the working class and, as such, working class democracy is its the basis, not all this jargonistic bullshit dragged in from Howard Scott's feverish brain.

As for RED DAVE's accusations against Technocrat. I believe that if Technocrat instead had organised anti-racist demos under the moniker of Technocracy, partaken in union activities and so on, RED DAVE would instead have attacked him for being dishonest and trying to infiltrate progressive groups in a form of front organisation.Easiest way in the world to prove this is for Technocrat and/or yourself to engage in antiracist demos and union activities. But since he hasn't, doesn't and probably won't, nor do you, you are just blowing smoke out your ass.

Technocrat has no accountability visavi RED DAVE, and should not need to be held responsible before RED DAVE.Both of you, as participants on a revolutionary website, have "accountability" vis-a-vis revolutionary activities and theory. As far as I can tell, neither of you have ever engaged in such or know much about revolutionary theory.

And it is demonstrably true that Technocracy, in all its flavors, has never engaged as a movement in any such activities. It is well-known that during the 1930s, Technocracy definitely had a fascist style, and the Canadian government actually banned Technocracy at the beginning of WWII. This was not because they were afraid of Technocracy's revolutionary tendencies but because they were concerned about possible fascist connections. (The ban was later rescinded.)

RED DAVE

Dimentio

28th April 2010, 20:41

The fascists originally stole their aesthetics from the socialists by the way ;)

Tune in for the autumn.

Was about to make a longer entry now, but has had a tough day in terms of posters activity and a meeting with other associations about taxation rules, so I'll skip it for now. See you later, DAVE. ;)

Technocrat

28th April 2010, 22:09

blah, blah blah

Given that everything Red Dave has ever said indicates that he has no idea what he's talking about, and demonstrates a belligerent unwillingness to try to understand, I don't feel a response to this crap is even worth my effort.

RED DAVE

29th April 2010, 03:02

Given that everything Red Dave has ever said indicates that he has no idea what he's talking about, and demonstrates a belligerent unwillingness to try to understand, I don't feel a response to this crap is even worth my effort.Your problem is that others and I understand your crack-pot ideology all too well It was exposed in the 1930s and has remained a footnote to history ever since.

Does the following, from the Technocracy Study Course sound like socialism to anyone?

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

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

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

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

The tenure of office of every individual continues until retirement or death, unless ended by transfer to another position. The Continental Director is subject to recall on the basis of preferred charges by a two-thirds decision of the Continental Control. Aside from this, he continues in office until the normal age of retirement.

Similarly in matters of general policy he is the chief executive in fact as well as in title. His decisions can be vetoed only by two-thirds majority of the Continental Control.(emph. added)

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

RED DAVE

The Gallant Gallstone

29th April 2010, 03:09

I always thought of Technocracy as a "Revolution by Middle Management" but I'll confess that my understanding of it is sketchy at best.

RED DAVE

29th April 2010, 03:33

I always thought of Technocracy as a "Revolution by Middle Management" but I'll confess that my understanding of it is sketchy at best.But your general impression is correct. Where did you first learn about Technocrapcy?

RED DAVE

The Gallant Gallstone

29th April 2010, 04:01

But your general impression is correct. Where did you first learn about Technocrapcy?

RED DAVE

One of my former co-workers in California was (presumably still is) an enthusiast.

ckaihatsu

29th April 2010, 08:14

This structure seems to be more a description of the *current* system of power positions rather than something hypothetical...! (And we didn't even have to go over to Wikileaks...!)

= D

Dimentio

29th April 2010, 13:56

RED DAVE

29th April 2010, 14:57

The hierarchical design of the North American was one of the first things we Europeans ditched. We are more proposing a holarchic system, made of a network of autonomous units which are a part of a wider structure. Granted, we have sequences, but their goal is just to monitor that the holons are doing what they're supposed to be doing.(1) Why did you ditch it?

(2) What is a "holon"? It would help if you didn't use the idiosyncratic and tainted language invented by Scott & C.

(3) What is a "holarchic" system? Ditto the above.

RED DAVE

Dimentio

29th April 2010, 15:05

(1) Why did you ditch it?

(2) What is a "holon"? It would help if you didn't use the idiosyncratic and tainted language invented by Scott & C.

(3) What is a "holarchic" system? Ditto the above.

RED DAVE

1. Because it is inefficient, redundant and very open to the opportunity for the technate to degenerate into just another authoritarian regime. We want a liberating structure, which would allow all human beings access to the command over technology and not keep the repressive structures of fordist capitalism.

2. Scott did not have anything to do with that term.

It was/is Andrew Wallace who coined the term. A holon is a term for an entity which could be studied both as an entity in its own right as well as a part of a wider entity (compare a cell in a body).

In terms of the European technate, the technate in itself is a holon, but its components, all the way from powerplant construction facilities to grocery stands, would be composed of holons of varying size.

These holons in their turn would be divided into smaller holons. Holons on all levels are interacting with one another and set up project plans, but have the freedom to determine the means to reach the overall operative goals.

Most of the terminology used by EOS is a product of Andrew Wallace and Jure Sah.

3. A completely integrated system with no single point of command. A problem with the NAT is that if you decapitate the Board of Directors, the entire structure could go tumbling down. In terms of the ET, each single holon, on all levels, should be able to survive and continue to react even if vital functions of the technate are removed.

In short, their model is mechanistic, while our model is organic. Of course, that doesn't mean that we condemn them, or even care particularily much about Technocracy Incorporated. Our attitude towards them is mostly "Live and let live".

Technocrat

29th April 2010, 17:52

I always thought of Technocracy as a "Revolution by Middle Management" but I'll confess that my understanding of it is sketchy at best.

Not exactly - everyone would be given training to occupy a functionally vital job and the work that could be automated or eliminated through improved efficiency would be. So class distinctions like "middle management" wouldn't exist. This is an inaccurate assessment. Managers and supervisors would have a greatly reduced role in the Technate - in fact managers would probably not be necessary in many situations or it could be a rotating position.

Technocrat

29th April 2010, 17:57

1. Because it is inefficient, redundant and very open to the opportunity for the technate to degenerate into just another authoritarian regime. We want a liberating structure, which would allow all human beings access to the command over technology and not keep the repressive structures of fordist capitalism.

What is the evidence for this? Or are we to take it as self-evident?

3. A completely integrated system with no single point of command. A problem with the NAT is that if you decapitate the Board of Directors, the entire structure could go tumbling down. In terms of the ET, each single holon, on all levels, should be able to survive and continue to react even if vital functions of the technate are removed.There would be plenty of qualified people in the lower ranks if you "decapitated the board of directors". That's sort of the point - you have everyone with the same level of education competing for limited positions, so you always have enough people "on reserve" if someone higher up fails to perform their duties for whatever reason.

In short, their model is mechanistic, while our model is organic. Of course, that doesn't mean that we condemn them, or even care particularily much about Technocracy Incorporated. Our attitude towards them is mostly "Live and let live".I think some kind of intermediary step needs to be taken to get to Technocracy, so I agree with NET on that at least. I just think that the model for North America needs to be a federal system - we settled the debate between federalism and confederalism in America during the Civil War.

The hierarchical design of the North American was one of the first things we Europeans ditched. We are more proposing a holarchic system, made of a network of autonomous units which are a part of a wider structure. Granted, we have sequences, but their goal is just to monitor that the holons are doing what they're supposed to be doing.This kind of cellular structure is replicated in the North American design, but through a different method. Each of the Area Controls would be responsible for their own planning, but their directives would come from the Continental Control. So the Area Controls execute the directives of the Continental Control. In the European model the holons come up with their own directives but they have to fit with the directives of the functional sequences. I don't see a huge difference, here. I think the biggest difference is that NET's plan is a confederate system, while the NA plan is federate (regarding political matters).

Dimentio

29th April 2010, 18:26

The main difference is that the Area controls are always of the same form and always permanent. They also have legislative and military power, whereas the holons only exist to take care of technical issues, resource management, infrastructure and not to meddle in people's lives.

The European Confederation would be an entirely different sphere of responsibility from the European technate.

The holons would also largely be self-created. If you see something you want to be solved, you could call for people of various skills to form a holon.

RED DAVE

29th April 2010, 18:53

This kind of cellular structure is replicated in the North American design, but through a different method. Each of the Area Controls would be responsible for their own planning, but their directives would come from the Continental Control. So the Area Controls execute the directives of the Continental Control. In the European model the holons come up with their own directives but they have to fit with the directives of the functional sequences. I don't see a huge difference, here. I think the biggest difference is that NET's plan is a confederate system, while the NA plan is federate (regarding political matters).What does this have to do with revolution and/or socialism?

RED DAVE

Dr Mindbender

30th April 2010, 01:57

But your general impression is correct. Where did you first learn about Technocrapcy?

RED DAVE

Did it ever enter your thought processes that perhaps middle management, under the guise of capitalist planning felt they posessed a carte blanche to patronise workers out of the sphere of technical employment and skilled work?

I mantain that your general cynicism is far more reactionary than any form of planning postulated by the technocrats.

RED DAVE

30th April 2010, 03:52

[RED DAVE, D]id it ever enter your thought processes that perhaps middle management, under the guise of capitalist planning felt they posessed a carte blanche to patronise workers out of the sphere of technical employment and skilled work?Of course it has. That has been part of the general process of capitalism development.

I mantain that your general cynicism is far more reactionary than any form of planning postulated by the technocrats.I maintain, based on the statement above, that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

RED DAVE

Dr Mindbender

30th April 2010, 13:07

Of course it has. That has been part of the general process of capitalism development.
On the premise that the objective of technocracy is to remove the cronyist relationship between the petit bourgeoisie and the field of skilled labour how can it be labelled a 'reactionary' ideology? If anyones perspective is reactionary its yours, because you seek to perpetuate the bourgeoisie fantasy that skilled work is somehow not within the grasp of the average prole. Otherwise you wouldnt be continuing your rants with charges of elitism on our part.

I maintain, based on the statement above, that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

RED DAVE
Thats very nice. I'd be incredibly interested to see if you can provide a substantiated argument to back that up as a sustitute to strawmen and ad hominem.

Technocrat

30th April 2010, 18:13

Thats very nice. I'd be incredibly interested to see if you can provide a substantiated argument to back that up as a sustitute to strawmen and ad hominem.

Good luck with that.

Dr Mindbender

30th April 2010, 18:22

tbh i think RED DAVE lost any remaining iota of credibility when he posted his belief that the Icelandic volcano is somehow symptomatic of divine justice.

:lol:

RED DAVE

1st May 2010, 05:04

On the premise that the objective of technocracy is to remove the cronyist relationship between the petit bourgeoisie and the field of skilled labour how can it be labelled a 'reactionary' ideology?(1) What is the "cronyist relationship between the petit bourgeoisie and the field of skilled labour"?

(2) Where in Technocratic literature is such a premise stated?

(3) What is your feeling about the cronyist relationship between the petit bourgeoisie and the command of capital over labor? It seems to me that Technocracy is the perpetuation of that command behind its bizarre jargon.

If anyones perspective is reactionary its yours, because you seek to perpetuate the bourgeoisie fantasy that skilled work is somehow not within the grasp of the average prole.Quite the contrary: that's Technocracy's fantasy. Espousing the principle of "nomination from above; selection from above" you are elitist to the core.

And, by the way, can you show me one action by Technocracy as a movement against elitism and authoritarianism? What Technocracy against McCarthyism? Was it involved in the Berkeley Free Speech fights? It is against the Taft-Hartley law?

Otherwise you wouldnt be continuing your rants with charges of elitism on our part.Your history, theory and practice are elitist. If you're a follower of the North American Flavor, you have its unsavory flirtation with fascism to deal with. If you're of the European flavor, you have not demonstrated that you have eliminated the history of your movement.

RED DAVE

Dimentio

1st May 2010, 11:55

Capitalism is mostly about uneven access to the means of production. All technocratic movements want to establish a system where all human beings have equal access to the means of production. How is that a perpetuation of capitalism?

RED DAVE

1st May 2010, 17:01

Capitalism is mostly about uneven access to the means of production.Capitalism is not "mostly about uneven access to the means of production." Where did you get that? Did you make it up yourself? Jeez, Dimentio, capitalism is about the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. It's not about "uneven access"; it's about one class owning the means of production and controlling the use of surplus value and another class operating the means of production and having the surplus value that it creates expropriated.

You sound like a liberal: What we need is equal access of all to the means of production. Bullshit! What we need is the expropriation of the capitalist class and its replacement by the working class, which Technocracy has nothing to say about.

All technocratic movements want to establish a system where all human beings have equal access to the means of production. How is that a perpetuation of capitalism?First of all, it is obvious from the North American flavor that that's bullshit in and of itself. When the "power elite" self-selects directly and the workers only have the power of nomination and removal by 2/3 majority, that's not equal access. The fact that you are still fraternal with that group, instead of cutting yourself off from it, shows that their system is akin to yours.

Second, you do not favor either revolutionary overthrow of capitalism or workers control, which arises during the process of revolution. You either have (a) a doomsday scenario of the collapse of capitalism and its replacement by Technocracy, (b) the replacement of capitalism by a network of Technocracy-governed enterprises, or (c) you think the working class should buy a chuck of capitalism and compete against it usiing Technocratic enterprises. All of this is the fantasy and has nothing to do with the working class as an actual historic agent.

The origins of Technocracy lie in the belief that the working class cannot govern itself. Technobrat is explicit about this with his crap about pecking orders and the emotionalism of the workers. You, with your focus on an accounting system rather than on class power relationships, are demonstrating the same belief in a softer, gentler way. If he's the stalinist of Technocracy, you're the social democrat.

The fact that you have no method of actively intervening in real-world struggles: revolutionary struggles, labor struggles, mass movements, antiracist struggles, etc., shows that your anticapitalism is window dressing for "doing your own thing.

RED DAVE

Dimentio

1st May 2010, 17:07

Technocrat

1st May 2010, 19:47

First of all, it is obvious from the North American flavor that that's bullshit in and of itself. When the "power elite" self-selects directly and the workers only have the power of nomination and removal by 2/3 majority, that's not equal access. The fact that you are still fraternal with that group, instead of cutting yourself off from it, shows that their system is akin to yours.

You clearly have no idea what the power elite means. I suggest you go read the definition right now before you continue with this idiotic nonsense.

Second, you do not favor either revolutionary overthrow of capitalism or workers control, which arises during the process of revolution. You either have (a) a doomsday scenario of the collapse of capitalism and its replacement by Technocracy, (b) the replacement of capitalism by a network of Technocracy-governed enterprises, or (c) you think the working class should buy a chuck of capitalism and compete against it usiing Technocratic enterprises. All of this is the fantasy and has nothing to do with the working class as an actual historic agent.What do you advocate for? Whatever it is, you haven't accomplished it within 50 years as a socialist, so clearly you're a failure.

The origins of Technocracy lie in the belief that the working class cannot govern itself. Technobrat is explicit about this with his crap about pecking orders and the emotionalism of the workers. You, with your focus on an accounting system rather than on class power relationships, are demonstrating the same belief in a softer, gentler way. If he's the stalinist of Technocracy, you're the social democrat.Red Dave has never adequately addressed my points about pecking order, he just continues to parrot his tired ideological bullshit all day long.

The fact that you have no method of actively intervening in real-world struggles: revolutionary struggles, labor struggles, mass movements, antiracist struggles, etc., shows that your anticapitalism is window dressing for "doing your own thing.

RED DAVEWe have already been over why this is, but you conveniently ignore it just like you conveniently ignore everything else we've told you. Technocracy is not an ideology and therefore does not offer any grand plan for guiding people's thoughts, feelings, and actions.

Honestly, why are we continuing to respond to this guy? He thinks the volcano in Iceland is symptomatic of divine retribution.

Technocrat

1st May 2010, 19:51

I agree that the 2/3 rule is bizarre as well as self-nomination by hierarchic groups. That could and would bread the foundations for a return to a price system. That is why the European movement explicitly supports a 50% recall vote for all operatives within the technate, as well as open documentation available to all citizens of the technate.

Have you any peer-reviewed studies backing up your claims or is this just based on the speculation of NET? We know from history that simple majorities are subject to emotional manipulation. Everyone in a Technate occupies a functionally vital position and there is no possibility of corruption because everyone receives the same income. So what reason is there to remove someone? The only conceivable reason to remove someone would be if they failed to perform their job. However, with a simple majority it would be possible for an ambitious individual to launch a smear campaign against someone and get himself nominated. How is this fair or desirable? I do agree that government activity should be fully transparent.

Technocrat

1st May 2010, 19:53

RED DAVE

1st May 2010, 20:04

I agree that the 2/3 rule is bizarre as well as self-nomination by hierarchic groups.The question is: Why did Scott and his people dream up such as piece of shit? And why does Technobrat, your colleague, still adhere to it?

That could and would bread the foundations for a return to a price system.Problem: Your continued reference to capitalism as a "price system"? Capitalism uses prices, true. but so did every other economic system in history. What is peculiar to capitalism is not its use of prices. What typifies capitalism is production for profit, not for consumption and the extraction of surplus value from the working class by the capitalist class? Your adherence to this notion of a "price system" makes it impossible for you to engage the central struggle of capitalism: the class struggle.

That is why the European movement explicitly supports a 50% recall vote for all operatives within the technate, as well as open documentation available to all citizens of the technate.Why don't you give up this bullshit and advocate workers control of industry?

The technate would own all the means of production, and the people would own and direct the technate. The only role for experts within the various organs of the technate, is to see that the processes are conducted in such a manner that the people would have what the people are asking for, through the utilisation of energy accounting.But as soon as you start playing around with the notion of "experts" being the ones who oversee the system, as you clearly do, you are playing with elitism. There is no role for a special group of experts under socialism. Of course there will be expertise, but to fetishize this simple fact means that you are still concerned with the possible concretizing of class differences and not in a good way.

RED DAVE

Technocrat

1st May 2010, 20:27

The question is: Why did Scott and his people dream up such as piece of shit? And why does Technobrat, your colleague, still adhere to it?

For clearly stated reasons which you have not addressed (other than to respond with your typical ad-hominem, straw man crap)

Problem: Your continued reference to capitalism as a "price system"? Capitalism uses prices, true. but so did every other economic system in history. What is peculiar to capitalism is not its use of prices. What typifies capitalism is production for profit, not for consumption and the extraction of surplus value from the working class by the capitalist class? Your adherence to this notion of a "price system" makes it impossible for you to engage the central struggle of capitalism: the class struggle.This has been explained. It is this particular feature of economic systems - that they have prices - which is unsustainable. Your continued ignorance of this makes it impossible for you to engage the issue of sustainability in any meaningful way.

But as soon as you start playing around with the notion of "experts" being the ones who oversee the system, as you clearly do, you are playing with elitism. There is no role for a special group of experts under socialism. Of course there will be expertise, but to fetishize this simple fact means that you are still concerned with the possible concretizing of class differences and not in a good way.

RED DAVESo there will be expertise, but no experts. Sorry old coot, but that makes absolutely no fucking sense.

Those with the expertise are experts. You cannot have expertise without there being experts. This is so obvious I can't believe I even have to say it.

In Technocracy, those with expertise (experts) would apply their expertise to the field it was relevant to. Red Dave seems to think this is elitism. The alternative is to have all educated people rounded up and shot like Pol Pot did - then we can have a society where everyone is equal and free from the oppression of those evil, educated 'elites'.

Dimentio

1st May 2010, 21:00

Have you any peer-reviewed studies backing up your claims or is this just based on the speculation of NET? We know from history that simple majorities are subject to emotional manipulation. Everyone in a Technate occupies a functionally vital position and there is no possibility of corruption because everyone receives the same income. So what reason is there to remove someone? The only conceivable reason to remove someone would be if they failed to perform their job. However, with a simple majority it would be possible for an ambitious individual to launch a smear campaign against someone and get himself nominated. How is this fair or desirable? I do agree that government activity should be fully transparent.

The reason to remove someone could be because that individual is suspected of trying to sabotage the work of one of his or her peers in order to get rid of a competitor to get a position which the individual in questions deems have more "status". For example.

RED DAVE

1st May 2010, 21:16

Red Dave, I supposed the only fair situation to you would be if blue collar workers like plumbers, janitors, and firemen were to make big decisions like planning of continental infrastructure.You really are an arrogant, ignorant elitist!

Yes, the "plumbers, janitors, and firemen" and the sewing machine operators, teachers and assembly-line operators will, collectively, plan and lead the new society. Directly opposite to your elitism, Lenin said, "Any cook should be able to run the country."

The engineers would be hanged. Would that suit you? Your version of socialism looks a lot like Pol Pot's regime.Why don't you take a flying fuck at the Moon, infant? Go away; learn something; come back in a year or two when you know something about socialism other than what you read in Human Events.

RED DAVE

Dimentio

1st May 2010, 21:36

You really are an arrogant, ignorant elitist!

Yes, the "plumbers, janitors, and firemen" and the sewing machine operators, teachers and assembly-line operators will, collectively, plan and lead the new society. Directly opposite to your elitism, Lenin said, "Any cook should be able to run the country."

Why don't you take a flying fuck at the Moon, infant? Go away; learn something; come back in a year or two when you know something about socialism other than what you read in Human Events.

RED DAVE

It is obvious that all people has to partake in the planning of infrastructure, services and techniques, but that the decisions must be based on science foremost and popular will secondly, in order to ensure that the final recipients - that be the people - would enjoy as flawless services as possible.

A surgeon as a daycare teacher might be a bad idea, as well as a daycare teacher as a surgeon. Of course, the daycare teacher should have influence over his area of expertise, while the surgeon should have expertise on her area of expertise. In an advanced society, we would always have a high degree of specialisation, which probably would make collective decision-making by all people over all issues very chaotic and open for all kinds of abuses.

As we've seen lately, a lot of people are ready to believe in for example alternative (new age) medicine because it is giving them hope or pitting them against the medical establishment. That doesn't make new age medicine correct. Of course, the medical establishment is influenced and basically run by money as it looks today, but it won't work like that in a technate.

If all human beings wanted to take part in all decisions and determine to collectively vote on what kind of shoes should be produced or what flavour marmelade should have, then I certainly not see what would hinder them. The question is, does people really want that kind of influence. Experience from cooperatives (like the Swedish retail firm Coop) is that only about 10% of those who are members of the cooperative are bothering to show up. People chose to prioritise other things.

Of course, human beings - as a general rule - are social beings. But they are social beings in the terms of small groups. Hence, for example holons would give each and every citizen of the technate a lot more feeling of autonomy and influence than partaking in all the issues on a continental or global level.

:)

Technocrat

1st May 2010, 21:58

The reason to remove someone could be because that individual is suspected of trying to sabotage the work of one of his or her peers in order to get rid of a competitor to get a position which the individual in questions deems have more "status". For example.

That's why government transparency is proposed to remedy this.

Technocrat

1st May 2010, 22:04

Yes, the "plumbers, janitors, and firemen" and the sewing machine operators, teachers and assembly-line operators will, collectively, plan and lead the new society. Directly opposite to your elitism, Lenin said, "Any cook should be able to run the country."

I think anyone here can see that it is you who have been displaying an arrogant, ignorant attitude throughout the thread.

The quote by Lenin doesn't mean that the cook 'runs the country' without the knowledge required to do so. It means that the cook should have equal opportunity to become one of the people responsible for 'running the country' - at which point they cease to be 'cook', since this would entail the acquisition of additional knowledge and skills beyond what a cook normally possesses.

How could it be any other way? How could a cook just start running a country without the knowledge and skills required to do so? And once they acquire those additional knowledge and skills, how can they still be called a cook?

Dimentio

1st May 2010, 22:14

I think anyone here can see that it is you who have been displaying an arrogant, ignorant attitude throughout the thread.

The quote by Lenin doesn't mean that the cook 'runs the country' without the knowledge required to do so. It means that the cook should have equal opportunity to become one of the people responsible for 'running the country' - at which point they cease to be 'cook', since this would entail the acquisition of additional knowledge and skills beyond what a cook normally possesses.

How could it be any other way? How could a cook just start running a country without the knowledge and skills required to do so? And once they acquire those additional knowledge and skills, how can they still be called a cook?

Hint one: Lenin meant that there should be collective government and some form of direct, participatory democracy.

Hint two: Lenin screwed the people over that. Stalin permanented the screw-up.