Questions for Technocrats...

[∞]

1. From what I know you guys do believe in sustainability, right?
2. (Mainly for Anarchist Technocrats) do you really believe that engineers(etc.) should control the means of production?
3. What kind of labor would be needed to sustain such advanced technology?
4. (Not technically a question) It would be nice to give the characteristics of this technological society...
*And I do not want this to become a shitstorm between Wolf and Jazzrat.*

[IllicitPopsicle]

I feel like a picture of something witty with the equally witty phrase "it's a trap!" would go wonderfully in this thread... but I don't wanna get infracted again. :blushing:

[∞]

^I'm being serious here

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1. From what I know you guys do believe in sustainability, right?

That's right. A sustainable society would be able to provide true comfort and stability to its members.


2. (Mainly for Anarchist Technocrats) do you really believe that engineers(etc.) should control the means of production?

Certainly not in the sense that the ruling classes currently control the means of production, no.

The capitalist price system has created a veritable smorgasbord of bullshit jobs, from unskilled service work to anything involving the manipulation of money such as stockbroking. The "real" jobs, in other words, jobs that actually provide a socially useful good or service, are becoming increasingly specialised as technology advances. But paradoxically, the increasing technologisation of society also means that "crossover skills" are becoming more and more useful; for example, the ability to use computers and the internet. Currently it is engineers, scientists, technicians and other skilled trades that maximise the use of relevant technology and organisational skills, but there is no reason why every human being of average or greater aptitude could not be taught such skills with a view to employing them in their chosen field(s). But the capitalist price system has no interest in the full employment of a completely skilled workforce, so it doesn't happen. Technocrats such as myself propose that everyone should have the opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to excel in an intellectually and socially fulfilling role, including but by no means limited to engineering.

Of course, once you've been trained and mentored and are capable of holding things down yourself, what need have you for some dumbshit suit monkey (AKA "boss", "manager", etc) to tell you what to do and who to talk to? You're a scientist/engineer/tree surgeon, so who is best qualified to make decisions regarding science/engineering/tree surgery? You, of course.


3. What kind of labor would be needed to sustain such advanced technology?

Advanced technology requires skill and specialisation, as described above.


4. (Not technically a question) It would be nice to give the characteristics of this technological society...

This is a difficult thing to address, but I reckon there are some intriguing clues. Certainly I like the idea of a society that values skill and intellect over egoism and conspicuous consumption, where its members aspire to be at the bleeding edge of their chosen field, rather than landing a cushy finance job that enables them to hang out in wine bars with their prickish middle class friends. But maybe that's just me.

[RED DAVE]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-technocracy-t136138/index.html?p=1814946#post1814946

RED DAVE

[∞]

That's right. A sustainable society would be able to provide true comfort and stability to its members.



Certainly not in the sense that the ruling classes currently control the means of production, no.

The capitalist price system has created a veritable smorgasbord of bullshit jobs, from unskilled service work to anything involving the manipulation of money such as stockbroking. The "real" jobs, in other words, jobs that actually provide a socially useful good or service, are becoming increasingly specialised as technology advances. But paradoxically, the increasing technologisation of society also means that "crossover skills" are becoming more and more useful; for example, the ability to use computers and the internet. Currently it is engineers, scientists, technicians and other skilled trades that maximise the use of relevant technology and organisational skills, but there is no reason why every human being of average or greater aptitude could not be taught such skills with a view to employing them in their chosen field(s). But the capitalist price system has no interest in the full employment of a completely skilled workforce, so it doesn't happen. Technocrats such as myself propose that everyone should have the opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to excel in an intellectually and socially fulfilling role, including but by no means limited to engineering.

Of course, once you've been trained and mentored and are capable of holding things down yourself, what need have you for some dumbshit suit monkey (AKA "boss", "manager", etc) to tell you what to do and who to talk to? You're a scientist/engineer/tree surgeon, so who is best qualified to make decisions regarding science/engineering/tree surgery? You, of course.



Advanced technology requires skill and specialisation, as described above.



This is a difficult thing to address, but I reckon there are some intriguing clues. Certainly I like the idea of a society that values skill and intellect over egoism and conspicuous consumption, where its members aspire to be at the bleeding edge of their chosen field, rather than landing a cushy finance job that enables them to hang out in wine bars with their prickish middle class friends. But maybe that's just me.

Thank you very much, instead of attacking, I will understand the hypothesis in your answers.

[Dimentio]

1. From what I know you guys do believe in sustainability, right?
2. (Mainly for Anarchist Technocrats) do you really believe that engineers(etc.) should control the means of production?
3. What kind of labor would be needed to sustain such advanced technology?
4. (Not technically a question) It would be nice to give the characteristics of this technological society...
*And I do not want this to become a shitstorm between Wolf and Jazzrat.*

1. Yes, that is correct.

2. No. The people should control the production through energy accounting, but the ways things are produced should be produced through the most efficient ways possible in order to minimise impact on the environment. Therefore, those responsible for carrying out the actual production must have access to sufficient expertise within their field. They don't need to have a degree (its an open issue whether degrees will even exist) but they do need to have acquired the necessary expertise.

3. Education will be very different. Instead of educating yourself before you come to the workplace, it will be a continuous education in order for those responsible to carry out production to acquire and implement new technology on their workplaces. The amount of labour necessary to sustain the system will go down tremendously.

4. The European model of technocracy means a society characterised by autonomous production and innovation groups (holons) which interact in an open-source environment and share common goals. It also means systematic implementation and freedom of science to follow its natural course, meaning that scientists will mostly be given resources to formulate their own projects as long as those are in accordance with the goals of the community. For all people, it will mean more time to spend time with family and friends or cultivate one's interests and participate in society. In short, a society where people have time to be human. Any more detailed description would not suffice, since our society A) isn't supposed to be static but dynamic and B) we could never see what kind of technology we would have access to the day the technate is truly established (though its already existing as an embryo).

www.eoslife.eu

[Revolte_Wolf]

1. From what I know you guys do believe in sustainability, right?
2. (Mainly for Anarchist Technocrats) do you really believe that engineers(etc.) should control the means of production?
3. What kind of labor would be needed to sustain such advanced technology?
4. (Not technically a question) It would be nice to give the characteristics of this technological society...
*And I do not want this to become a shitstorm between Wolf and Jazzrat.*


Something about anarchism and technocracy doesn't add up in my mind, but in all fairness I am still new to the concept of technocracy. Though, I have to say if technocracy has a system where power is still given to specific individuals that could not be given to other individuals, I really don't think it should be anywhere close to the idea of anarchism. Unless of course the people in "power" in a technocracy could be ANYONE and more so EVERYONE, but if that was the case then it wouldn't exist in in the first place, or so it seems. Again my understanding of technocracy is only a day old so, cut me some slack. It just seems like a system that wouldn't work well with anarchists.

[Dimentio]

Something about anarchism and technocracy doesn't add up in my mind, but in all fairness I am still new to the concept of technocracy. Though, I have to say if technocracy has a system where power is still given to specific individuals that could not be given to other individuals, I really don't think it should be anywhere close to the idea of anarchism. Unless of course the people in "power" in a technocracy could be ANYONE and more so EVERYONE, but if that was the case then it wouldn't exist in in the first place, or so it seems. Again my understanding of technocracy is only a day old so, cut me some slack. It just seems like a system that wouldn't work well with anarchists.

As said, check out www.eoslife.eu

[Revolte_Wolf]

As said, check out


I didn't catch that before. I see positives to it and all, but there is still something about it that strikes me as barking up the wrong tree. For some reason it reminds me of early settlers of america (minus the natives and of course, coming to new land). It's definatly an interesting concept though. Seems a little fake to me though, something about it I just don't trust. It's like futurama meets Equilibrium.

My worry is that focusing on the idea that people should be trained to have certain skill and placed in a position above others, in of itself, would lead right back to an authoritarian system. A healthier one perhaps, but one all the same.

[Dimentio]

I didn't catch that before. I see positives to it and all, but there is still something about it that strikes me as barking up the wrong tree. For some reason it reminds me of early settlers of america (minus the natives and of course, coming to new land). It's definatly an interesting concept though. Seems a little fake to me though, something about it I just don't trust. It's like futurama meets Equilibrium.

My worry is that focusing on the idea that people should be trained to have certain skill and placed in a position above others, in of itself, would lead right back to an authoritarian system. A healthier one perhaps, but one all the same.

No individual is put above others in the system proposed by EOS. What you are debating against is not the ideas of EOS, but your image of the ideas of EOS. All humans are equal, but all opinions are not equal. The main way to determine whether an opinion is superior or inferior is not to check out who came up with it, but to test it out and see if it is working on a small scale.

[Revolte_Wolf]

No individual is put above others in the system proposed by EOS. What you are debating against is not the ideas of EOS, but your image of the ideas of EOS. All humans are equal, but all opinions are not equal. The main way to determine whether an opinion is superior or inferior is not to check out who came up with it, but to test it out and see if it is working on a small scale.


I think I may have got myself confused a little bit, I'll have to re read up on everything when I'm awake enough to really understand everything but I still don't trust some aspects of this. It's almost dangerously close to being too dependent on technology, not that I would complain being able to live a better life while some robot does all the hard labor, but what if that all fails somehow and can't be fixed, what happens then, and even worse what happens if that happens after enough years go by in that system and people no longer know how to function in a more primitive environment?

[Dimentio]

I think I may have got myself confused a little bit, I'll have to re read up on everything when I'm awake enough to really understand everything but I still don't trust some aspects of this. It's almost dangerously close to being too dependent on technology, not that I would complain being able to live a better life while some robot does all the hard labor, but what if that all fails somehow and can't be fixed, what happens then, and even worse what happens if that happens after enough years go by in that system and people no longer know how to function in a more primitive environment?

In the European technate people are living in communities. The communities decide what level of interaction with the technate they want to have and what kind of technological development they want, as long as they are striving towards the goal of not hurting the environment and upholding human rights.

[RED DAVE]

Certainly I like the idea of a society that values skill and intellect over egoism and conspicuous consumption, where its members aspire to be at the bleeding edge of their chosen field, rather than landing a cushy finance job that enables them to hang out in wine bars with their prickish middle class friends. But maybe that's just me.Whatever happened to valuing revolutionary solidarity and workers democracy?

In my experience, it's people who fantasize about "skill and intellect" who hang out in the wine bars.

But maybe that's just me.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

In the European technate people are living in communities. The communities decide what level of interaction with the technate they want to have and what kind of technological development they want, as long as they are striving towards the goal of not hurting the environment and upholding human rights.(1) Why are you using the present tense? The European technate doesn't exist.

(2) How would these communities be established? What would be the role of classes in the establishment of these communities?

(3) What would be the role of classes in the immediate period after these communities are established?

(4) How would these communities relate to each other? How would rights be protected within these communities?

RED DAVE

[M-26-7]

I don't want to bash the system of Technocracy...in fact I don't really even understand it. But I will say that I prefer the Marxist/Anarchist view, which is that a new society springs from concrete struggle, rather than from having the future all mapped out to the finest details. It seems infinitely more realistic, as well as desirable. Technocracy reminds me more of Social Credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit) than of socialism, in that the former is a detailed blueprint for a new society/economy, and its adherents believe that if they can just get 51% to agree to it, we can make the switch.

[RED DAVE]

I don't want to bash the system of Technocracy...in fact I don't really even understand it. But I will say that I prefer the Marxist/Anarchist view, which is that a new society springs from concrete struggle, rather than from having the future all mapped out to the finest details. It seems infinitely more realistic, as well as desirable. Technocracy reminds me more of Social Credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit) than of socialism, in that the former is a detailed blueprint for a new society/economy, and its adherents believe that if they can just get 51% to agree to it, we can make the switch.Actually, the Technocracy movement in Canada was definitely politically linked to the Social Credit movement.

Considering that the SoCreds were/are definitely right-wing, this does not speak well for Techncracy.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

So let me ask a question for Technocrats:

How do you see class struggle in the establishment of Technocracy?

RED DAVE

[Q]

Red Dave: I think Trotsky nailed it when he characterised technocracy as an implementation of communism:


Here is where the American soviets can produce real miracles. "Technocracy" can come true only under communism, when the dead hands of private property rights and private profits are lifted from your industrial system. The most daring proposals of the Hoover commission on standardization and rationalization will seem childish compared to the new possibilities let loose by American communism.

Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm)


he programme of “Technocracy,” which flourished in the period of the great crisis of 1929-1932, was founded on the correct premise that economy can be rationalised only through the union of technique at the height of science and government at the service of society. Such a union is possible, provided technique and government are liberated from the slavery of private ownership. That is where the great revolutionary task begins. In order to liberate technique from the cabal of private interests and place the government at the service of society, it is necessary to “expropriate the expropriators.” Only a powerful class, interested in its own liberation and opposed to the monopolistic expropriators, is capable of consummating this task. Only in unison with a proletarian government can the qualified stratum of technicians build a truly scientific and a truly national, i.e., a socialist economy.

It would be best, of course, to achieve this purpose in a peaceful, gradual, democratic way. But the social order that has outlived itself never yields its place to its successor without resistance. If in its day the young forceful democracy proved incapable of forestalling the seizure of wealth and power by the plutocracy, is it possible to expect that a senile and devastated democracy will prove capable of transforming a social order based on the untrammelled rule of sixty families? Theory and history teach that a succession of social regimes presupposes the highest form of the class struggle, i.e., revolution. Even slavery could not be abolished in the United States without a civil war. “Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one.” No one has yet been able to refute Marx on this basic tenet in the sociology of class society. Only a socialist revolution can clear the road to socialism.

Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/marxism.htm)

Technocratic and communist ideas do not bite, but complement and strengthen eachother.

[Jazzratt]

So let me ask a question for Technocrats:

How do you see class struggle in the establishment of Technocracy?

RED DAVE I see it as vital. There can be no meaningful change in the system without the total victory of the working class over the ruling class. While I am a technocrat I am first and foremost an anarchist, for that reason I realise and acknowledge that the centre of any and all revolutionary action must be the working class.

[Dimentio]

(1) Why are you using the present tense? The European technate doesn't exist.

(2) How would these communities be established? What would be the role of classes in the establishment of these communities?

(3) What would be the role of classes in the immediate period after these communities are established?

(4) How would these communities relate to each other? How would rights be protected within these communities?

RED DAVE

1) It does, albeit only in the form of two economic associations networking together, soon to be joined up by a third.

2) Primarily, they would be established by either the members forming them or existing communities or individuals joining the structure.

3) The communities will be established both in the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary period. In order for them to join, they must be non-profit and cooperatively owned and operated.

4) http://wiki.eoslife.eu/index.php/Constitution - If they don't follow the rules and regulations, they will be kicked out of the network and disallowed access to the resources of the network.