Technocracy is an Opposing Ideology

[RED DAVE]

Stop this trollish "discussion", technocracy will not be considered OI, end of story.Oh really? Why? Because you say so.


Why this gets a big thing lately, it passed abortion discussions, and is close to dialectics...In any way, if technocracy is OI or not, is surely not to be discussed(please, feel sorry of us, and quit the stupid discussion btw) in revleft history.To get on with a formal discussion:

(A) Your remarks have a bumptious, bureaucratic tone. I have seen this stance again and again with regard to Technocracy. Why? Either it is or it isn't a revolutionary ideology and either it should or should not be in OI. Why the stalinist attitude?

(B) Why won't Technocracy be considered OI? It is clearly not a revolutionary ideology in the sense that revolutionary is considered here.

(C) Are you going to be the judge of that "gets a big thing"?

(D) I'm starting a discussion here in OI.

So let's get down to it. It is clear that, based on ideology, history and, most important, current practice, Technocracy, either as espoused in its North American vesion by Technocrat, or its European version by Dimentio, is not a revolutionary ideology. It has no relation to the revolt of the working class, which is the motor of revolution in our times, most clearly in the West.

It's origins are in the crackpot elitism of a self-styled engineer in the1920s and 1930s. It has always been counterposed to various forms of leftism.

Why is it being treated as a revolutionary ideology and not as an "Opposing Ideology" is beyond me. There is no reason to treat it as anything buy an OI.

I understand that certain comrades adhere to this belief system. The point is to demonstrate that whatever their beliefs are subjectively, their underlying ideology is objectively nonrevolutionary. Discussion of purges are a red herring. No one is talking about purges. What I am talking about is identifying a particular ideology and demonstrating that it is nonrevolutionary through and through, in ideology, history and practice.

[B]RED DAVE[P/B]

[Pawn Power]

Oh really? Why? Because you say so.



(B) Why won't Technocracy be considered OI? It is clearly not a revolutionary ideology in the sense that revolutionary is considered here.



Because there is a critical mass of technocrats on the forum who would (and have) not allow that to happen.

It is not too surprising though that an obscure internet-based "ideology," predominately adhered to by Western males who have a fetishistic appreciation of technology would converge and find a home on an internet forum that had (has?) some semblance of democratic user control.

Another good question is why do we have the science forum.

[Bud Struggle]

If you Communist worked half as hard welcoming people into becoming Communists as you do trying to exclude them you might just get somewhere in this world.

Here's a great blog from Kun Fana from a couple of years ago that you just might want to read and learn from:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=2773#comment2773

[Dimentio]

Oh really? Why? Because you say so.

To get on with a formal discussion:

(A) Your remarks have a bumptious, bureaucratic tone. I have seen this stance again and again with regard to Technocracy. Why? Either it is or it isn't a revolutionary ideology and either it should or should not be in OI. Why the stalinist attitude?

(B) Why won't Technocracy be considered OI? It is clearly not a revolutionary ideology in the sense that revolutionary is considered here.

(C) Are you going to be the judge of that "gets a big thing"?

(D) I'm starting a discussion here in OI.

So let's get down to it. It is clear that, based on ideology, history and, most important, current practice, Technocracy, either as espoused in its North American vesion by Technocrat, or its European version by Dimentio, is not a revolutionary ideology. It has no relation to the revolt of the working class, which is the motor of revolution in our times, most clearly in the West.

It's origins are in the crackpot elitism of a self-styled engineer in the1920s and 1930s. It has always been counterposed to various forms of leftism.

Why is it being treated as a revolutionary ideology and not as an "Opposing Ideology" is beyond me. There is no reason to treat it as anything buy an OI.

I understand that certain comrades adhere to this belief system. The point is to demonstrate that whatever their beliefs are subjectively, their underlying ideology is objectively nonrevolutionary. Discussion of purges are a red herring. No one is talking about purges. What I am talking about is identifying a particular ideology and demonstrating that it is nonrevolutionary through and through, in ideology, history and practice.

red dave

Your fixation with technocracy is really quite amusing. You remind me of a dog who is barking against cars in your salivating reactions to a group of users who have done you no harm and to a cluster of ideas which could greatly enrich the cause of a post-capitalist world.

Excluding all ideas not originating in Marx, is an act tantamount to the Taleban bulla against flowers (as flowers could distract people from loving Allah).

Amongst the most radically freedom-loving and independent-minded people here are the technocrats, which within themselves uphold diversity as a virtue and the love for the pursuit of knowledge above ideological purity.

EOS, which is the most vibrant and dynamic technocratic community right now, is not a political party - but a research and activism network which is structured in order to build the foundations for a future transition and research the feasibility of a technocratic society. We are following the empirical instead of the metaphysical tradition, and are thus disposed against ideological puritanism of any creed.

Neither are we fixated on "technology", since technology could hardly in itself bring human liberation if not society is adapted after the full capacity of our technological base. What we in EOS mostly are focusing on are these following areas: Energy accounting, Proto-technate establishment, Diversity, the creation of a goal orientated social community and research into various matters.

Neither have we said that a political revolution of some sort isn't necessary, we have only emphasised that we are not a political organisation, nor are we striving to replace political organisations. It is perfectly possible to be a member of a political party or another association and still be a member of EOS.

Openness, tolerance and love for truth must guide the future, not the old dogmas and ideological puritanism of yesterday.

[#FF0000]

Frankly I think anybody who considers themselves a revolutionary socialist should be allowed on the main boards.

[revolution inaction]

what i don't get red dave is while technocacy may well be reactionary, (and i think it is), do you make such a fuss about it when the much more reactionary ideologies of stalism and trotskism are allowed on this site, and are a much bigger threat in the real world.

[RED DAVE]

Your fixation with technocracy is really quite amusing.Your fascination with an elitist ideology is really quite disturbing.


You remind me of a dog who is barking against cars in your salivating reactions to a group of users who have done you no harm and to a cluster of ideas which could greatly enrich the cause of a post-capitalist world.I see no indication that your elitism, which has more relation to fascism than socialism, will enrich anything. Your movement's unwillingness and inability to confront issues in the world relegates you, at best, to being a latter-day bunch of proudhonistes.


Excluding all ideas not originating in Marx, is an act tantamount to the Taleban bulla against flowers (as flowers could distract people from loving Allah).Using elitist ideas under the guise of socialism is tantamount to undermining the socialist cause. I can trade quips with you all night.


Amongst the most radically freedom-loving and independent-minded people here are the technocrats, which within themselves uphold diversity as a virtue and the love for the pursuit of knowledge above ideological purity.So go elsewhere with your elitism and enjoy your petit-bourgeois notions of freedom.


EOS, which is the most vibrant and dynamic technocratic community right now, is not a political party - but a research and activism network which is structured in order to build the foundations for a future transition and research the feasibility of a technocratic society. We are following the empirical instead of the metaphysical tradition, and are thus disposed against ideological puritanism of any creed.You sound like a liberal version of the RAND Corporation. Your so-called empiricism is an excuse for refusing to engage in any kind of political struggle. Your fantasies have nothing to do with the socialist future as they are disconnected from the real needs of the working class.


Neither are we fixated on "technology", since technology could hardly in itself bring human liberation if not society is adapted after the full capacity of our technological base. What we in EOS mostly are focusing on are these following areas: Energy accounting, Proto-technate establishment, Diversity, the creation of a goal orientated social community and research into various matters.All of this can be done by a liberal corporation. Good luck. But this has nothing to do with revolution.


Neither have we said that a political revolution of some sort isn't necessaryThat's really big of you.


we have only emphasised that we are not a political organisationYou are a political organization. Your nonpolitics is politics; the politics of abstention.


nor are we striving to replace political organisations. It is perfectly possible to be a member of a political party or another association and still be a member of EOS.I'm sure that lots of petit-bourgois radicals will use your nonsense as a cover for doing nothing, which is what you do.


Openness, tolerance and love for truth must guide the future, not the old dogmas and ideological puritanism of yesterday.When you join the class struggle and the mass struggles, let us know.

Of course, you have attempted to duck the obvious: that Technocracy is not and never will be a revolutionary ideology and, therefore, belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

How about addressing that.

RED DAVE

[StoneFrog]

I'm guessing you want all the pacifists to be OI aswell? You know since they have "no relation to the revolt of the working class"?

[x371322]

Red Dave is funny. Of all the real threats in the world today... from capitalism, and fascism, to poverty and crime, people are losing their homes, and he's spending all his time on teh interwebz battling the evil forces of technocracy. Way to show yourself for the true revolutionary you are... unlike the rest of us petit-bourgois liberal nobodies. To hell with working together to meet common goals, like abolishing capitalism. We need to be spending more time online, throwing insults, purging forums, and general trolling, to further divide the left.

[RED DAVE]

Red Dave is funny. Of all the real threats in the world today... from capitalism, and fascism, to poverty and crime, people are losing their homes, and he's spending all his time on teh interwebz battling the evil forces of technocracy. Way to show yourself for the true revolutionary you are... unlike the rest of us petit-bourgois liberal nobodies. To hell with working together to meet common goals, like abolishing capitalism. We need to be spending more time online, throwing insults, purging forums, and general trolling, to further divide the left.As to being a true revolutionary, I'm an antiwar organizer, a union organizer, a left-wing writer and a partner of my wife in her career as a jazz, blues and rock n' roll singer. (I also have two full-time jobs.)

Analyzing and exposing Technocracy is a hobby of mine. It takes about 20 minutes a week.

Of course you haven't addressed the obvious fact that Technocracy is a nonrevolutionary ideology.

RED DAVE

[x371322]

Of course you haven't addressed the obvious fact that Techncracy is a nonrevolutionary ideology.

Yeah. It's sooo obvious. You're the only one on this website, you and wolfman larson, who seem to see this obvious fact. That should tell ya something dave. Mind explaining why you're so god damned enlightened when everyone else on here is apparently too dense to see the truth as you see it.

The only elitist I see in this thread is you.

[Dimentio]

Your fascination with an elitist ideology is really quite disturbing.

I see no indication that your elitism, which has more relation to fascism than socialism, will enrich anything. Your movement's unwillingness and inability to confront issues in the world relegates you, at best, to being a latter-day bunch of proudhonistes.

Using elitist ideas under the guise of socialism is tantamount to undermining the socialist cause. I can trade quips with you all night.

So go elsewhere with your elitism and enjoy your petit-bourgeois notions of freedom.

You sound like a liberal version of the RAND Corporation. Your so-called empiricism is an excuse for refusing to engage in any kind of political struggle. Your fantasies have nothing to do with the socialist future as they are disconnected from the real needs of the working class.

All of this can be done by a liberal corporation. Good luck. But this has nothing to do with revolution.

That's really big of you.

You are a political organization. Your nonpolitics is politics; the politics of abstention.

I'm sure that lots of petit-bourgois radicals will use your nonsense as a cover for doing nothing, which is what you do.

When you join the class struggle and the mass struggles, let us know.

Of course, you have attempted to duck the obvious: that Technocracy is not and never will be a revolutionary ideology and, therefore, belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

How about addressing that.

red dave

While secularism, humanism and human rights obviously not are Marx-approved ideologies since they don't share any concept of revolution, would that render for example people who primarily are activists in human rights organisations or other commendable causes into the OI section of the board?

Or what about people who are members of reformist trade unions?

EOS is a small movement - for now - and we need to choose what we are doing. I could assure you that we, with our at the moment limited capacity, actually are doing pretty much stuff, not only on the internet but also in the real world.

And, that EOS is a non-political organisation shouldn't disturb you, at least not more than if we had been a political organisation since that would have brought us into direct competition with you, whatever party you are representing. Abstention do neither mean that the members of EOS aren't active in other organisations.

I find your hate quite amusing. You should look up so you don't catch fire soon.

Mind explaining how EOS is an "elitist" organisation?

We have elections to our board, the board is controlled by guidelines, the member groups could initiate their own projects as long as said projects aren't violating our goals or values. Any sequence representative could be re-called by members of said sequence. We have regular elections, and bi-weekly meetings which we are reporting on. We even used to record our meetings, and would, technology willing, do that again when skype stops wreaking havoc on us.

Andrew for example is an engineer, but he doesn't have authority over anything within the organisation beyond his own sphere of responsibility.

How would you do with engineers in your new order? Give them pink hats and lower income than workers? Put them into cages and poke them with sticks? Whip them?

[Ele'ill]

Yeah. It's sooo obvious. You're the only one on this website, you and wolfman larson, who seem to see this obvious fact. That should tell ya something dave. Mind explaining why you're so god damned enlightened when everyone else on here is apparently too dense to see the truth as you see it.

The only elitist I see in this thread is you.


Wait a second, I'm against technocracy too.


They would take away my beads and fish-bone knives.


Just kidding- it's because technocracy doesn't address where they'd get their resources from and how the resource grab would be any more sustainable than it is now. (I'm saying it isn't sustainable now and it won't be then)

[Dimentio]

Wait a second, I'm against technocracy too.

They would take away my beads and fish-bone knives.

Just kidding- it's because technocracy doesn't address where they'd get their resources from and how the resource grab would be any more sustainable than it is now. (I'm saying it isn't sustainable now and it won't be then)

The resources must come from the nature. The main difference is that we would have the tools to see how much we are taking, so that we don't deplete more than the planet could generate within the timeframe of a year.

To not get resources at all from nature would mean human mass deaths, something which we want to avoid at all costs. Biocentrism is useless unless it is used to elevate the human being and allowing her to prosper for generations.

If you want to live a primitivist lifestyle or within the framework of a primitivist community, that is perfectly alright. We're not lifestyle fetischists. What we are against is the destruction of the capacity to feed the population of the planet and provide them with medicine, heating and everything else.

[Nolan]

what i don't get red dave is while technocacy may well be reactionary, (and i think it is), do you make such a fuss about it when the much more reactionary ideologies of stalism and trotskism are allowed on this site, and are a much bigger threat in the real world.


STALLISM:

http://joshandjosh.typepad.com/josh_josh_are_rich_and_fa/images/2008/02/20/larry_craig_stall_on_left.jpeg

[Ele'ill]

The resources must come from the nature. The main difference is that we would have the tools to see how much we are taking, so that we don't deplete more than the planet could generate within the timeframe of a year.

To not get resources at all from nature would mean human mass deaths, something which we want to avoid at all costs. Biocentrism is useless unless it is used to elevate the human being and allowing her to prosper for generations.

If you want to live a primitivist lifestyle or within the framework of a primitivist community, that is perfectly alright. We're not lifestyle fetischists. What we are against is the destruction of the capacity to feed the population of the planet and provide them with medicine, heating and everything else.


Yeah, I'm not interested in turning this thread into a debate just yet- I think what you propose sounds alright but I doubt it's possible- any debate against this type of thing should be done on a specific example by example basis.

I agree that everything uses nature so I'm not suggesting that we don't- It has to be sustainable- please no more disasters.

[x371322]

Wait a second, I'm against technocracy too.


They would take away my beads and fish-bone knives.


Just kidding- it's because technocracy doesn't address where they'd get their resources from and how the resource grab would be any more sustainable than it is now. (I'm saying it isn't sustainable now and it won't be then)

Yeah but you're not being a prick about it. I have no problem at all with anyone who happens to be against technocracy, or who have legitimate qualms with it. That's your opinion, and it's cool, I respect that. It's just that Red Dave and his "ilk" (as he likes to say), seem to have a major superiority complex. They hijack threads that have little or nothing to do with Technocracy, just to bash Technocracy. They're obsessed.

No matter how you feel about technocracy, at the end of the day, I'm still a revolutionary socialist and that should be enough to be a part of this forum. I don't think that's too much to ask.

[RED DAVE]

No matter how you feel about technocracy, at the end of the day, I'm still a revolutionary socialist and that should be enough to be a part of this forum. I don't think that's too much to ask.No problem with you as a revolutionary socialist.

Still waiting for any evident that Technocracy is a revolutionary ideology. So far, I've seen exactly zero.

RED DAVE

[AK]

Red Dave is funny. Of all the real threats in the world today... from capitalism, and fascism, to poverty and crime, people are losing their homes, and he's spending all his time on teh interwebz battling the evil forces of technocracy. Way to show yourself for the true revolutionary you are... unlike the rest of us petit-bourgois liberal nobodies. To hell with working together to meet common goals, like abolishing capitalism. We need to be spending more time online, throwing insults, purging forums, and general trolling, to further divide the left.
Red Dave just doesn't want to see a new ruling class emerge and let Technocracy (read: in contrast with democracy) defame the movement.

[Dimentio]

No problem with you as a revolutionary socialist.

Still waiting for any evident that Technocracy is a revolutionary ideology. So far, I've seen exactly zero.

red dave

Technocracy is only a part of EOS. In terms of our ideology, we are developing a more all-encompassing ideology which simply is named "the Ideology"

[RED DAVE]

Technocracy is only a part of EOS. In terms of our ideology, we are developing a more all-encompassing ideology which simply is named "the Ideology"Here is what "the Ideology" has to say about revolution (from the EOS website):


Firstly, we need to have a large support base, an own infrastructure, people who are properly trained and educated to perform the necessary tasks of keeping the society running and a broad notability in society. Such an organisation cannot be achieved by individualistic means, but must be organised and fine-tuned by experimenting.Translation: the working class is incapable of running society. What is needed is an elite who are "properly trained and educated."

Next paragraph:


The transition would, realistically, take several decades, due to the massive industrial and infrastructural overhaul which is needed in order to achieve a sustainable civilisation. Thus, we in EOS are focusing on creating the scientific and physical foundation for a change, in short transitionary models which would allow us to have as smooth a development as possible. That does not mean that we are against what could be described as a revolutionary transformation of society, but that we would do everything in our power to make such a necessary transformation possible and as painless as it could possibly be given the circumstances.http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=175:the-phoenix-model-a-criticism-of-the-transitionism-of-the-zeitgeist-movement&catid=27:engineering&Itemid=95

So what is needed is the input of Technocracy, which will guide us all through "massive industrial and infrastructural overhaul." Of course this just might involve a "revolutionary transformation of society," but we won't talk about that or be involved in it. We'll just wait "several decades," let the workers do the dirty work, and then we'll step in.


Technocracy literally means "rule of skill". In the definition of technocracy which is espoused by the technocratic movement, this will mean that all of the infrastructure will be administrated by a technate consisting of professionals in their areas. That might not sound so exciting, but it espouses an important division which might be interpreted as revolutionary compared to the current order. That division is the separation of the technical and social spheres of society.http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=110%3Ais-technocracy-totalitarian&catid=35%3Asocial&Itemid=95&limitstart=1

The elitism of this remark needs no comment, except to point out that "the separation of the technical and social spheres of society" is exactly what a Marxist revolution is about overcoming. These elitists would magnify that separation and set it in stone.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Real translation: The workers need to be trained enough to be able to manage and run the new society. When we talk about professionals, we mean all kinds of professionals and especially in particular workers. Everyone needs to be trained.

Real translation: We don't wait several decades, we need to work under several decades. Waiting implies something passive, but if we wait nothing would happen. Realistically, setting the foundations for a new civilisation would take decades. It shouldn't take too long though, since there's a very real risk for an ecological collapse in the later half of the 21st century.

Real translation: All workers are professionals, or do you claim that it doesn't need any competence or skill to be a worker? Our goal is that society should manage the infrastructure and production, not people. People should manage themselves, and we shouldn't care about how they're living their lives as long as they have an equal access to the fruits and means of production and don't hurt one another.

You are grasping strawmen.

[RED DAVE]

Real translation: The workers need to be trained enough to be able to manage and run the new society. When we talk about professionals, we mean all kinds of professionals and especially in particular workers. Everyone needs to be trained.The workers' training in running society is accomplished by the fact that they already run it. The productive relationships are the relationships between groups of workers. The further task, of running it directly, will be accomplished in the process of revolutionary overthrow, when the workers set up their own institutions of government. There is nothing in the processes Technocracy is setting up or alleging setting up, that has anything to do with socialism


Real translation: We don't wait several decades, we need to work under several decades. Waiting implies something passive, but if we wait nothing would happen. Realistically, setting the foundations for a new civilisation would take decades. It shouldn't take too long though, since there's a very real risk for an ecological collapse in the later half of the 21st century. Demonstrating of course that you have no concept of what "a new civilization" will be based on. It will be based on workers control of production. The foundations for socialism already exist in the cooperative relationships that workers develop on the job.


Real translation: All workers are professionals, or do you claim that it doesn't need any competence or skill to be a worker?You are playing fast and loose with the term "professional," which is typical of you. The "professional" in capitalist society, the doctor, lawyer, manager, even your sacred engineers, is a member of the petit-bougeoisie. Of course it requires competence to be a workers, but the training for that competence and its use has nothing to do with the elitism of Technocracy which, consciously and deliberately advocates "separation of the technical and social spheres of society," when, in fact, under socialism, these sphere will be united.


Our goalYour goal. How about the goals of the working class?


is that society should manage the infrastructure and production, not people.Uhh, dude, hate to tell you this but last time I looked, society was composed of people.


People should manage themselves, and we shouldn't care about how they're living their lives as long as they have an equal access to the fruits and means of production and don't hurt one another.But dude, how do the means of production get run? Who runs this? The workers run it now, but the bourgeoisie controls it.

What socialism does is eliminate the separation between operation and control or decision making. What you want to do is take control or decision making away from the working class and invest it in a trained elite instead of in the working class.

Meanwhile, you haven't given us the slightest evidence that Technocracy or "the ideology" is revolutionary. What does your movement have to do with the accretion of working class power, moving towards the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism? Nothing.

RED DAVE

[Jazzratt]

No.