How Can Anarchists Harness Technocracy?

[PoliticalNightmare]

In a manner of which is still democratic?

[Widerstand]

Doesn't Technocracy in essence mean that the people who do something (eg, doctors do medical stuff) decide about it? Isn't that more or less a form of self-management?

Well, I'm pretty uniformed about technocracy, though.

[Ele'ill]

There's already a thread about this that might answer your question.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-technocracy-t136138/index.html

[Jazzratt]

There's already a thread about this that might answer your question.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-technocracy-t136138/index.html Does link go to a totatally different thread for you or something? I don't think boorish twats prattling the same talking points constantly counts as answering this users' question.

---

I think Chammer has the very basic, barest bones of the ideas of technocracy down in his post. This is why I don't think technocratic ideas are at all at odds with worker control of the means of production or democracy. Generally people who believe it isn't are the hidebound ideologues (such as some of the people posting in the thread Mari3l linked to) and people who confuse technocracy the political theory with "technocracy" the political perjorative.

[Ele'ill]

It would be a good place to ask the question first. If no answer is given the user can bump this thread.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In a manner of which is still democratic?

When you say "democratic", what do you mean exactly?

[danyboy27]

When you say "democratic", what do you mean exactly?

My guess is that he scared about technocrats creating some form of elite and rulling over the worker in a stalinist manner.

For most anarchist, technocracy mean giving full power of everything to the scientist without accountability to the people, and without consultation to the people.

if you could clarify perhaps that would clear up some misunderstanding.

[PoliticalNightmare]

if you could clarify perhaps that would clear up some misunderstanding.

Certainly.

Perhaps I phrased my question poorly. I never evisioned technocrats forming an elite, in fact I am quite fond of the idea that experts would have greater say in how their fields of expertise are managed rather than a non-expertise government interfering in matters they know little about (e.g. the British government and their silly NHS 'targets'). However at the same time I am curious whether the technocrats would organised in a hierarchial order according to skill with the most knowledgeable having the largest say in which case would we truly have anarachism (please humour me as I know relatively little in regards to technocracy). Or would the engineers, scientists, technicians, etc. who are still highly skilled but lower down the chain have equal say but simply decide to allow the most highly expertised and respectable among them to deal with the management issues themselves for simplicity sakes? Also how do we know that these particular technocrats wouldn't make decisions that were more desirable to themselves than to society.

Cheers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Certainly.

Perhaps I phrased my question poorly. I never evisioned technocrats forming an elite, in fact I am quite fond of the idea that experts would have greater say in how their fields of expertise are managed rather than a non-expertise government interfering in matters they know little about (e.g. the British government and their silly NHS 'targets'). However at the same time I am curious whether the technocrats would organised in a hierarchial order according to skill with the most knowledgeable having the largest say in which case would we truly have anarachism (please humour me as I know relatively little in regards to technocracy). Or would the engineers, scientists, technicians, etc. who are still highly skilled but lower down the chain have equal say but simply decide to allow the most highly expertised and respectable among them to deal with the management issues themselves for simplicity sakes?

I think this would depend on the individual in question - doubtless there would be formal decision-making mechanisms that take into account the contributions of all personnel involved, but how much they themselves want to get involved is up to them.


Also how do we know that these particular technocrats wouldn't make decisions that were more desirable to themselves than to society.

The idea is that "corruption" and similar behaviours are the result of a productive system that does not provide true economic security - by having the provision of that economic security as one of its primary goals, technocracy hopes to eliminate a major source of corruption.

[Dimentio]

Look into what EOS is proposing, then you see that technocrats do not want to install a rule by scientists over people, but a rule by science over the infrastructure in the service of all people on the planet and for sustainability. Every citizen in the technate would be a scientist, an explorer, a lover of the stars.

www.eoslife.eu

[RED DAVE]

Notice that, as usual, in a thread about Technocracy, no defender of it ever mentions that tired, moldy old social entity the working class.

No matter how much ketchup you put on it, shit ain't hamburger and Technocracy ain't working-class democratic. They may bullshit around about everyone becoming an engineer and all that, but they have nothing at all to say about the achievement of socialism by the working class overthrowing capitalism. And again and again, you'll find them engaging in a fetishism of technique over socialist democracy.

They have a "blueprint" for a new society, ultimately rooted in the 1920's-1930's ideology from whence they came. They have never, in eight decades, ever engaged in any political activities. And they believe that, after the working class has achieved power – with no help from them – they will have the plan for the new world.

Technocracy in 30 seconds, above. Technocracy in one second: elitist bullshit. What this antirevolutionary ideology is doing on a left-wing, revolutionary website is beyond me.

RED DAVE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Notice that, as usual, in a thread about Technocracy, no defender of it ever mentions that tired, moldy old social entity the working class.

That's because the question was about anarchists "harnessing" technocracy - which I took to mean at a point where the working class no longer exists.


No matter how much ketchup you put on it, shit ain't hamburger and Technocracy ain't working-class democratic. They may bullshit around about everyone becoming an engineer and all that, but they have nothing at all to say about the achievement of socialism by the working class overthrowing capitalism.

This is a lie and you know it. I have already explained that in my view as a technocrat, the only way a technocratic society can be established is in the course of an uprising by consciously revolutionary workers.


And again and again, you'll find them engaging in a fetishism of technique over socialist democracy.

Both are equally useful, but in different functions. As I told an enquirer who PMed me:

"I imagine that decision-making will be split into two main areas - democratic and technical. Decisions about subjective, non-technical issues would be made democratically (choose your flavour - I personally would choose some mixture of demarchy and direct democracy) while decisions about objective, technical issues would be made using the same methods that the technical department of any organisation that deals with the development, production and service of technology would use. The reason for this is that machines behave in logical, scientific ways, and therefore any decision-making process involving them has to be the same...

...technocracy is about the administration of things, not people. People may have many different ideas about how to run a society, but when it comes to providing transportation for that society, for example, there will be a single optimal solution that differs depending on that society's circumstances."


They have a "blueprint" for a new society, ultimately rooted in the 1920's-1930's ideology from whence they came. They have never, in eight decades, ever engaged in any political activities. And they believe that, after the working class has achieved power – with no help from them – they will have the plan for the new world.

That's something that present day technocracy organisations should reconsider, then; there's no reason why one cannot engage in political activities while advocating technocracy.

Certainly what I read of EOS's activities tells me that they are doing more than sitting around with their collective thumbs up their arses. The fact that you seem to consider doing something (even if it's just planning for the future)to be as bad as doing nothing speaks volumes about your obstinate sectarianism.


Technocracy in 30 seconds, above. Technocracy in one second: elitist bullshit. What this antirevolutionary ideology is doing on a left-wing, revolutionary website is beyond me.

Because there are just enough people on this site who value ideas based on their merits, not on lies, strawmen and irrelevancies.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

The real question is: Why would we want our future society to replicate the ecocidal industrial mass-production of bourgeois class-rule? And will such an attempt to replicate industrial production in a supposedly libertarian context sincerely lead to the abolition of alienated labor?

Let the dead bury their dead when it comes to the subject of technocracy.

[Skooma Addict]

Anarchism and Technocracy are both utopian and extremely stupid ideas. Combining them both is practically a crime.

[Ele'ill]

Anarchism and Technocracy are both utopian and extremely stupid ideas. Combining them both is practically a crime.

I think anarchism is more a set of ideas used as a guideline for judging the world- as opposed to being a concrete system.

I don't think the two are comparable 'objects'.

[ckaihatsu]

"I imagine that decision-making will be split into two main areas - democratic and technical. Decisions about subjective, non-technical issues would be made democratically (choose your flavour - I personally would choose some mixture of demarchy and direct democracy) while decisions about objective, technical issues would be made using the same methods that the technical department of any organisation that deals with the development, production and service of technology would use. The reason for this is that machines behave in logical, scientific ways, and therefore any decision-making process involving them has to be the same...

...technocracy is about the administration of things, not people. People may have many different ideas about how to run a society, but when it comes to providing transportation for that society, for example, there will be a single optimal solution that differs depending on that society's circumstances."







decisions about objective, technical issues would be made using the same methods that the technical department of any organisation that deals with the development, production and service of technology would use. The reason for this is that machines behave in logical, scientific ways, and therefore any decision-making process involving them has to be the same...


This argument must have been rolling around in the back of my mind because when I awoke today it came to the fore like a zit.

There's *no* reason to imagine that we should retain whatever inter-office structure is currently the norm around an organization's technical departments. Machines may or may not have duty cycles that are their own, and work scheduling is work scheduling. Regardless, there are 24 hours in a day, for all 7 days -- *that's* the determining factor more than anything else.








there will be a single optimal solution that differs depending on that society's circumstances."


Oftentimes there are *several* optimal solutions to a problem.

Consider the problem that we discuss here at RevLeft, if you will -- it may very well be that, depending on how historical events unfold, some societal configurations during and after a workers' revolution will be more beneficial to humanity than others. Among those few that are beneficial a few of *them* might be considered 'optimal', theoretically -- and *in practice* there may *still* be a handful or so ways of dispatching events that would turn out to be 'optimal' or 'successful'.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This argument must have been rolling around in the back of my mind because when I awoke today it came to the fore like a zit.

There's *no* reason to imagine that we should retain whatever inter-office structure is currently the norm around an organization's technical departments. Machines may or may not have duty cycles that are their own, and work scheduling is work scheduling. Regardless, there are 24 hours in a day, for all 7 days -- *that's* the determining factor more than anything else.

Which would most certainly be taken into account as a factor. Good grief, that's one of the most obvious ones!


Oftentimes there are *several* optimal solutions to a problem.

If that's the case, then one of them can be chosen democratically.


Consider the problem that we discuss here at RevLeft, if you will -- it may very well be that, depending on how historical events unfold, some societal configurations during and after a workers' revolution will be more beneficial to humanity than others. Among those few that are beneficial a few of *them* might be considered 'optimal', theoretically -- and *in practice* there may *still* be a handful or so ways of dispatching events that would turn out to be 'optimal' or 'successful'.

Hence the part about how many people have different ideas about how society should be run, since I doubt that such a thing could be objectively determined. But I reckon most revolutionary leftists are in favour of the democratic subset of societal solutions.

[ckaihatsu]

Oftentimes there are *several* optimal solutions to a problem.





If that's the case, then one of them can be chosen democratically.








decisions about objective, technical issues would be made using the same methods that the technical department of any organisation that deals with the development, production and service of technology would use.


So then what's the substantive difference between a (worker-)democratic decision-making process over subjective, non-technical issues, and a (worker-)democratic decision-making process over that which *is* technical -- ???!








The reason for this is that machines behave in logical, scientific ways, and therefore any decision-making process involving them has to be the same...


And why should we entertain the notion that the decision-making process over subjective, non-technical issues would *not* be a logical, scientific process? Just because people have *subjective* wants (as for pleasure) doesn't make them "illogical" -- it's just one variable among many in the decision-making and implementation process.

I'll maintain that there's no need to conceptualize -- much less enact -- different decision-making processes from the non-technical (humanistic) selection process to that of the technical- (machinery) oriented selection process. Of course the matters addressed by each will be distinctly different, but the process would not be *un*-scientific in either case, and so there would be no objective need for a dichotomy of decision-making processes. (Please note my blog entry in which a model that includes both components is described.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So then what's the substantive difference between a (worker-)democratic decision-making process over subjective, non-technical issues, and a (worker-)democratic decision-making process over that which *is* technical -- ???!

You mentioned the possibility of multiple solutions to a single problem. The idea is that technical solutions are arrived at by those with the means to do so, but which of them are implemented are democratically decided because that affects everyone.

On the other hand, non-technical solutions can be both arrived at and decided on by pretty much anyone with a basic but decent education which everyone has access to.


And why should we entertain the notion that the decision-making process over subjective, non-technical issues would *not* be a logical, scientific process? Just because people have *subjective* wants (as for pleasure) doesn't make them "illogical" -- it's just one variable among many in the decision-making and implementation process.

As I understand it, science can tell us what is, but has nothing to say about what should be. Sure, any decision-making process should be logical, but logic depends on its premises. Capitalism operates on different premises than communism.


I'll maintain that there's no need to conceptualize -- much less enact -- different decision-making processes from the non-technical (humanistic) selection process to that of the technical- (machinery) oriented selection process. Of course the matters addressed by each will be distinctly different, but the process would not be *un*-scientific in either case, and so there would be no objective need for a dichotomy of decision-making processes. (Please note my blog entry in which a model that includes both components is described.)

Scientific thinking and knowledge can inform non-technical decisions, but cannot completely formulate them.

[ckaihatsu]

You mentioned the possibility of multiple solutions to a single problem. The idea is that technical solutions are arrived at by those with the means to do so, but which of them are implemented are democratically decided because that affects everyone.


Okay, so let me see if I got this straight -- the general political culture gives rise to a paradigm of current events that publicizes high-priority problems, demands, and situations. Those workers who are in appropriate positions to do so will self-organize to address whatever issues they can, from a technical standpoint. They formulate tentative solutions, developed to varying degrees, that can then be passed along back to the general public for mass consideration and some kind of democratic decision-making on the proposed solutions themselves (on the basis of how well those proposals address outstanding issues).

While I have no political differences with this overall approach, I just don't see why one would need to make a distinction between the mass workers' democratic process, as for the human-needs-based demand side of things, from the mass *technical* workers' democratic process for the actual work done that develops proposed solutions and implements approved ones. Obviously the two segments deal with the consumer (demand) and labor (supply) -- if you will -- aspects of societal production for a collectively administered post-capitalist economy, so there's a *social* differentiation there, but in practice the decision-making process for both could really be one and the same, without needing to cleave the population and decision-making process according to function.

As long as some proper social recognition and recompense is provided to those who are doing the actual work, technical or otherwise, I would think that there would be no complications as to work roles and qualifications. The parallel development of multiple proposed solutions to address a problem could mitigate against individualistic and small-scale discrepancies in work ability.

[RED DAVE]

I imagine that decision-making will be split into two main areas - democratic and technical.And here, logically laid out by you, is the essential flaw of your ideology. There is no reason to believe, other than due your fetishism of technique, that "democratic and technical" decisions are qualitatively different. By separating the two, you continue the alienation of labor that is at the heart of capitalism.

Technocracy, with its focus on alienated technique, retains the notion that knowledge of the process of production should be concentrated in a separate group of people from those who actually perform production. This separation was the goal of Taylorism and the creation of the modern engineer.


Decisions about subjective, non-technical issues would be made democratically (choose your flavour - I personally would choose some mixture of demarchy and direct democracy)Why do you have to invent new phrases when the fact is that they will be made by working class democracy. This fantasy of your, that Technocracy deals with "post-socialist" society, after the working class has liquidated itself as a class, is a screen for the fact that working class democracy is alien to Technocracy.


while decisions about objective, technical issues would be made using the same methods that the technical department of any organisation that deals with the development, production and service of technology would use. The reason for this is that machines behave in logical, scientific ways, and therefore any decision-making process involving them has to be the same...Absolutely wrong: a techies fantasy. Technical decisions are made in the same way as any other decision. In put from "experts" may or may not be required but the decision-making process is the same. This is the Technocracy fantasy: that "technological" decisions are scientific in ways that "subjective" decisions are not, and, therefore, technological decisions should be left to engineers. In a pig's ear!


...technocracy is about the administration of things, not people.And here we have it, Comrades. The reason why Technocracy refers to capitalism as a "price system" and not a "commodities production system," is that it seeks to conceal the fact that commodities, things, are the product of alienated labor. Technocracy seeks to perpetuate alienated labor.


People may have many different ideas about how to run a society, but when it comes to providing transportation for that society, for example, there will be a single optimal solution that differs depending on that society's circumstances."Stuff and nonsense and a very typical Technocratic statement showing exactly why your system is inimical to socialism. All decisions are social decisions and there is no optimal decision according to objective criteria.

RED DAVE


.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}

[ckaihatsu]

And here, logically laid out by you, is the essential flaw of your ideology. There is no reason to believe, other than due your fetishism of technique, that "democratic and technical" decisions are qualitatively different. By separating the two, you continue the alienation of labor that is at the heart of capitalism.


I'd like to briefly add that, from the standpoint of unfulfilled human need (and desire), there are requirements, or demands, made of *both* labor and materials (goods) / machinery. So we can readily use *one* decision-making process for the allocation and distribution of either goods and services, *or* for labor and accompanying machinery to produce the same, or for some combination of the two. In either case a demand is a demand, followed by some steps of refinement of selection according to material conditions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

While I have no political differences with this overall approach, I just don't see why one would need to make a distinction between the mass workers' democratic process, as for the human-needs-based demand side of things, from the mass *technical* workers' democratic process for the actual work done that develops proposed solutions and implements approved ones. Obviously the two segments deal with the consumer (demand) and labor (supply) -- if you will -- aspects of societal production for a collectively administered post-capitalist economy, so there's a *social* differentiation there, but in practice the decision-making process for both could really be one and the same, without needing to cleave the population and decision-making process according to function.

You have to be trained how to think in order to solve certain kinds of problems - moral thinking comes easily to us as social animals, but the same cannot be said for the kinds of thinking technical problems require. Not everyone will want to work in a technical field, even if the training is freely available, but they should still be able to have their say about how technical issues affect them.


And here, logically laid out by you, is the essential flaw of your ideology. There is no reason to believe, other than due your fetishism of technique, that "democratic and technical" decisions are qualitatively different. By separating the two, you continue the alienation of labor that is at the heart of capitalism.

Technocracy, with its focus on alienated technique, retains the notion that knowledge of the process of production should be concentrated in a separate group of people from those who actually perform production. This separation was the goal of Taylorism and the creation of the modern engineer.

It's not a question of knowledge being concentrated - it's the plain and obvious fact that one cannot assimilate a reasonable portion of human knowledge within a natural human lifespan.


Why do you have to invent new phrases when the fact is that they will be made by working class democracy. This fantasy of your, that Technocracy deals with "post-socialist" society, after the working class has liquidated itself as a class, is a screen for the fact that working class democracy is alien to Technocracy.

Could you please make criticisms that are at least remotely related to what you're quoting? Thanks.


Absolutely wrong: a techies fantasy. Technical decisions are made in the same way as any other decision. In put from "experts" may or may not be required but the decision-making process is the same. This is the Technocracy fantasy: that "technological" decisions are scientific in ways that "subjective" decisions are not, and, therefore, technological decisions should be left to engineers. In a pig's ear!

The design efficiency of a transport system isn't decided by plebiscite - it's decided by material factors that can be dealt with in a systematic manner to a high degree of success. So you're wrong.


And here we have it, Comrades. The reason why Technocracy refers to capitalism as a "price system" and not a "commodities production system," is that it seeks to conceal the fact that commodities, things, are the product of alienated labor. Technocracy seeks to perpetuate alienated labor.

Not only are you an idealogue, but you are also a paranoiac who reads motives into other people's words that do not exist.

Labour under capitalism is alienated because workers have little psychological, emotional or social investment in the work they do or the goods they produce. Workers under capitalism don't work because they enjoy it; they work because they have to, either to avoid penury or a life on benefits.


Stuff and nonsense and a very typical Technocratic statement showing exactly why your system is inimical to socialism. All decisions are social decisions and there is no optimal decision according to objective criteria.

So in RED DAVE-land, surgeons can design aircraft, aerospace engineers can run operating theatres, humans can live for 500+ years and memorise a significant sum of human knowledge, up is down, black is white etc etc.

[Dimentio]

Uhm, the technical sphere is consisting of the same people as those who do the democratic decision-making, only that they are making decisions according to different criterias in the technical sphere. RED DAVE hasn't understood - or chosen to misunderstand - how the decision-making process is supposed to be going in the technical sphere. The European technate is following a holarchic model with decentralised, autonomous project groups which are deciding their own ways of reaching results.

Besides, the only way to abolish alienated labour is to minimise labour and automatise as much of it as possible.

To make it simple for RED DAVE, if we say that you are living in a little community and you are sitting in the municipal council together with a doctor in the people's clinic. There, the doctor would have one vote and you one. If you are subjected to surgery and instead feel that you want to be cured with healing crystals, the doctor could refuse to subject you to such a treatment.

[ckaihatsu]

Uhm, the technical sphere is consisting of the same people as those who do the democratic decision-making, only that they are making decisions according to different criterias in the technical sphere.


I guess I've always considered this to be a relatively *minor* point, [or a given], filed under the category of "how workers decide to best do their work". This could include the whole professional culture of conferences and seminars, etc., and schooling, of course. I'll agree that a mass-demand decision-making process shouldn't attempt to micromanage into the particulars of how workers do their work -- enough public oversight can be had on a proposal-by-proposal, or policy, basis.





You have to be trained how to think in order to solve certain kinds of problems - moral thinking comes easily to us as social animals, but the same cannot be said for the kinds of thinking technical problems require. Not everyone will want to work in a technical field, even if the training is freely available, but they should still be able to have their say about how technical issues affect them.


(Btw, I've gained much facility with real-world and technical problems by looking into complexity theory -- I think it helps one break out of conventional linear-type thinking....)

[RED DAVE]

And here, logically laid out by you, is the essential flaw of your ideology. There is no reason to believe, other than due your fetishism of technique, that "democratic and technical" decisions are qualitatively different. By separating the two, you continue the alienation of labor that is at the heart of capitalism.

Technocracy, with its focus on alienated technique, retains the notion that knowledge of the process of production should be concentrated in a separate group of people from those who actually perform production. This separation was the goal of Taylorism and the creation of the modern engineer.
It's not a question of knowledge being concentrated - it's the plain and obvious fact that one cannot assimilate a reasonable portion of human knowledge within a natural human lifespan.It is a plain and obvious fact that prior to the "invention" of the engineer, the working class, as a class, contained collectively, the knowledge of production. The explicit point of Taylorism, borrowed by Technocracy, is to continue that monopoly of knowledge in the engineers.


Why do you have to invent new phrases when the fact is that they will be made by working class democracy. This fantasy of your, that Technocracy deals with "post-socialist" society, after the working class has liquidated itself as a class, is a screen for the fact that working class democracy is alien to Technocracy.
Could you please make criticisms that are at least remotely related to what you're quoting? Thanks.Way to go to duck the issue. Fact is that, at best, you tack working class revolution onto Technocracy because this is a revolutionary Marxist website. But Technocracy is, and always has been, antagonistic to socialism. Look at the elitist bullshit Technocrat posts and the vapid utopianism of Dimentio, and it's obvious what it going on: an antirevolutionary ideology trying to sprout some red feathers.


Absolutely wrong: a techies fantasy. Technical decisions are made in the same way as any other decision. In put from "experts" may or may not be required but the decision-making process is the same. This is the Technocracy fantasy: that "technological" decisions are scientific in ways that "subjective" decisions are not, and, therefore, technological decisions should be left to engineers. In a pig's ear!

The design efficiency of a transport system isn't decided by plebiscite - it's decided by material factors that can be dealt with in a systematic manner to a high degree of success. So you're wrong.You still don't get it. Design efficiency is never a crucial factor, and what you call design efficiency probably conceals social considerations such as comfort, allocation of resources, etc. Fact is that Technocrats think that engineers should make decisions that are, precisely, social in nature.

Take a look sometime at the housing project that Technocrat designed and that, he asserted, we would just have to get used to living it. This is the essence of Technocracy: designers and not workers making decisions.


And here we have it, Comrades. The reason why Technocracy refers to capitalism as a "price system" and not a "commodities production system," is that it seeks to conceal the fact that commodities, things, are the product of alienated labor. Technocracy seeks to perpetuate alienated labor
Not only are you an idealogue, but you are also a paranoiac who reads motives into other people's words that do not exist.No, what I am doing is exposing the hidden assumptions that underlie your system and make it inimical to Marxism. Fabulous that you think that analyzing your belief system is paranoia.


Labour under capitalism is alienated because workers have little psychological, emotional or social investment in the work they do or the goods they produce.And I guess you don't understand the concept of alienated labor.


Workers under capitalism don't work because they enjoy it; they work because they have to, either to avoid penury or a life on benefits.Work is alienated under capitalism not because workers don't enjoy it. Work under capitalism is alienated because workers do not have control over the decisions of production. The production of use values, which is unique to labor, is taken out of the workers control and placed in the control of capital.


Stuff and nonsense and a very typical Technocratic statement showing exactly why your system is inimical to socialism. All decisions are social decisions and there is no optimal decision according to objective criteria.
So in RED DAVE-land, surgeons can design aircraft, aerospace engineers can run operating theatres, humans can live for 500+ years and memorise a significant sum of human knowledge, up is down, black is white etc etc.You completely fail to understand working class democracy, and you are willfully distorting what I'm saying to defend your elitist system.

Again, all decisions are social decisions. There is no such thing as an individual decision: all decisions take place in a social context. In a revolutionary democratic system, socialism, the system is under the control of the working class. The working class may delegate certain design processes to people who have specialized knowledge, but that is the end of it, and final control will always be relegated by the working class to itself.

Your crap about surgeons and aircraft is your way of concealing the fact that you want crucial social decisions made by "experts" and not by the working class.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

In general, people who are debating should refraining from trying to demonise their opponents and claim that they in general want something which they explicitly state that they don't want. I could equally well claim that RED DAVE is wanting to kill all persons with glasses for being intellectuals, or that RED DAVE wants to eat babies.

If we are following the assumption that people are hiding their intentions, we start to believe in conspiratism, in the idea that people are intentionally with-holding information and conspiring in order to take power for the sake of their own nefarious goals.

[RGacky3]

WHen it comes to technocracy, in my opinion its useless, its an idea of how to organize society under full communism and anarchism, which is far far far away, it essencially suffers from the same problem of the utopians that Marx talked about, they were about buidling the perfect society, and not about what really needs to be done, which is revolution, you can't even begin to think of what you can do unless you ahve the power to do it.

[Dimentio]

WHen it comes to technocracy, in my opinion its useless, its an idea of how to organize society under full communism and anarchism, which is far far far away, it essencially suffers from the same problem of the utopians that Marx talked about, they were about buidling the perfect society, and not about what really needs to be done, which is revolution, you can't even begin to think of what you can do unless you ahve the power to do it.

EOS is actually discussing how to do a lot more than to just "wait for the collapse". Waiting for the collapse is the last thing we should do!

[RED DAVE]

In general, people who are debating should refraining from trying to demonise their opponents and claim that they in general want something which they explicitly state that they don't want.I am not trying to demonize you. What I am doing is pointing out that your ideology is:

(1) a descendant of the utopian tradition, not the Marxist tradition, going back to Saint-Simon and containing a strong elitist, nonrevolutionary subtext.

(2) Technocracy, historically, had eschewed any relationship with the Left and, in fact, in the 1930s Harold Scott specifically rejected any relationship between Technocracy and the IWW.

(3) Many of the concepts of Technocracy are left-overs from the earlier period of Technocracy, specifically, the concept of capitalism as a "price system." (Actually, this notion came to Technocracy from Veblen.)

(4) Using the concept of a price system, as opposed to a commodity production system, has always, to this day, enabled Technocracy to avoid the working class as an agent of historical change.

(5) It is obvious that, all of a sudden, the working class appears as the agent of revolutionary change, tacked onto Technocracy ideology under the pressure of polemics on this website.


I could equally well claim that RED DAVE is wanting to kill all persons with glasses for being intellectualsI assume that's some kind of reference to Pol Pot or the like. That's a slander. Go fuck yourself.


or that RED DAVE wants to eat babies.I eat at least once baby a week, but they're not kosher and my rabbi is made at me because of that.


If we are following the assumption that people are hiding their intentions, we start to believe in conspiratism, in the idea that people are intentionally with-holding information and conspiring in order to take power for the sake of their own nefarious goals.No, and it's no accident that you have misunderstood what I am trying to do. I am exposing, as is proper to Marxism, the contradictions in your belief system which make it inimical to revolution.

Regardless of your subjective ideas of yourself, again and again it is obvious that Technocracy is antirevolutionary, and its ideas pervade virtually every post you make.

If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

RED DAVE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

[FONT=arial][SIZE=2][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black] It is a plain and obvious fact that prior to the "invention" of the engineer, the working class, as a class, contained collectively, the knowledge of production. The explicit point of Taylorism, borrowed by Technocracy, is to continue that monopoly of knowledge in the engineers.

Actually, one of the aims of most Technocratic designs is to eliminate as much as possible the kind of boring, unskilled work that Taylorism inevitably produces. In fact that is just the kind of work which is best done by machines, freeing up people to do more interesting work.


Way to go to duck the issue. Fact is that, at best, you tack working class revolution onto Technocracy because this is a revolutionary Marxist website. But Technocracy is, and always has been, antagonistic to socialism. Look at the elitist bullshit Technocrat posts and the vapid utopianism of Dimentio, and it's obvious what it going on: an antirevolutionary ideology trying to sprout some red feathers.

You've made your hostility to technocracy very clear, so why on Earth do you think I'd take your bald assessment of Dimentio or Technocrat's posts with anything other than a very large grain of salt?


You still don't get it. Design efficiency is never a crucial factor, and what you call design efficiency probably conceals social considerations such as comfort, allocation of resources, etc.

If a product or service is uncomfortable to anyone involved in it, it's not efficient. If it unfairly hogs resource allocation, it's not efficient.


Take a look sometime at the housing project that Technocrat designed and that, he asserted, we would just have to get used to living it. This is the essence of Technocracy: designers and not workers making decisions.

I remember that thread; I'd be exasperated too if people were making stupid criticisms and assuming I had some sinister ulterior motives.


No, what I am doing is exposing the hidden assumptions that underlie your system and make it inimical to Marxism. Fabulous that you think that analyzing your belief system is paranoia.

Inimical to your peculiar interpretation of Marxism maybe, but thankfully not all Marxists are as dogmatically stupid as you are.


You completely fail to understand working class democracy, and you are willfully distorting what I'm saying to defend your elitist system.

Again, all decisions are social decisions. There is no such thing as an individual decision: all decisions take place in a social context. In a revolutionary democratic system, socialism, the system is under the control of the working class. The working class may delegate certain design processes to people who have specialized knowledge, but that is the end of it, and final control will always be relegated by the working class to itself.

Your crap about surgeons and aircraft is your way of concealing the fact that you want crucial social decisions made by "experts" and not by the working class.

The working class won't exist in a technocratic society, or hell in any post-capitalist society.

[RED DAVE]

The working class won't exist in a technocratic society, or hell in any post-capitalist society.You have just shown your complete ignorance of Marxism. The first post-capitalist society is socialism: the rule of the working class. it is only in later post-capitalist societies, when the working class has transcended itself, that it disappears.

There is no way that a petit-bourgeois philosophy like Technocracy, rooted in the consciousness of engineers and lower-level managers, which has never had any relationship to the working class, can make useful predictions about post-capitalist society.

Technocracy is a bizarre attempt to deal with change in the absence of the working class.

RED DAVE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You have just shown your complete ignorance of Marxism. The first post-capitalist society is socialism: the rule of the working class. it is only in later post-capitalist societies, when the working class has transcended itself, that it disappears.

If the so-called "working class" isn't selling its labour, then it isn't working class by definition.


There is no way that a petit-bourgeois philosophy like Technocracy, rooted in the consciousness of engineers and lower-level managers, which has never had any relationship to the working class, can make useful predictions about post-capitalist society.

It's not a prediction; it's the idea that we can plan for the future rather than leaving it to chance or appealing to the subjective concept of worker's democracy.

[ckaihatsu]

(Shit, why can't I thank *my own* post -- that one back there at #25 -- ?)


= )

[Dimentio]

RED DAVE, you must really be quite thick. I did not claim that you want to kill people with glasses, I claimed that your statements in general of trying to associate EOS with Technocracy Incorporated - an organisation which doesn't even recognise EOS - is akin to associating your tendency with that of Pol Pot.

[RED DAVE]

If the so-called "working class" isn't selling its labour, then it isn't working class by definition.Sorry old boy but the working class will be still the working class because, by definition, it operates the means of production. Only under capitalism can the working class be defined by its sale of its labor power. As soon as capitalism is liquidated, the working class no longer sells its labor power, but it does "own" and operate the means of production.

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of Marxism.


It's not a prediction; it's the idea that we can plan for the future rather than leaving it to chance or appealing to the subjective concept of worker's democracy.And you do it again: workers democracy, Comrade, is not subjective. It is objective. It means that, concretely the working class, democratically, as a class, operates the means of production. And the basis of planning, under socialism, is workers democracy. Somehow, you think that the plan is the basis for socialism, not workers democracy. This is entirely in keeping with the utopian tradition of which Technocracy is a part.

It not surprising, given the fact that Technocracy is an elitist, antiworking class ideology, that you have no understanding of workers democracy. Your attempts to tack the working class onto your system are exposed every time you address this issue.

RED DAVE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sorry old boy but the working class will be still the working class because, by definition, it operates the means of production. Only under capitalism can the working class be defined by its sale of its labor power. As soon as capitalism is liquidated, the working class no longer sells its labor power, but it does "own" and operate the means of production.

But presumably the ruling classes are liquidated alongside the capitalist price system, so what is there left to distinguish people, class-wise?


And you do it again: workers democracy, Comrade, is not subjective. It is objective. It means that, concretely the working class, democratically, as a class, operates the means of production.

How is this democracy manifested? I bet I can get a different answer from different tendencies, and even then there may be disagreement within them. That's what I meant by "subjective".

That is why I find vague appeals to democracy wrapped in red flags to be singularly unconvincing.


And the basis of planning, under socialism, is workers democracy. Somehow, you think that the plan is the basis for socialism, not workers democracy. This is entirely in keeping with the utopian tradition of which Technocracy is a part.

Technical planning and egalitarian democracy can go hand in hand, as I have repeatedly pointed out but you refuse to acknowledge.


It not surprising, given the fact that Technocracy is an elitist, antiworking class ideology, that you have no understanding of workers democracy. Your attempts to tack the working class onto your system are exposed every time you address this issue.

It's really easy to simply call names and accuse others of insincerity - on the other hand, some members of this site have actually gone to the trouble of making worthwhile criticisms. Needless to say, you are not among them.

[RED DAVE]

Sorry old boy but the working class will be still the working class because, by
definition, it operates the means of production. Only under capitalism can the working class be defined by its sale of its labor power. As soon as capitalism is liquidated, the working class no longer sells its labor power, but it does "own" and operate the means of production.
But presumably the ruling classes are liquidated alongside the capitalist price system, so what is there left to distinguish people, class-wise?What is left to distinguish people is their relationship to the means of production. The working class operates the means of production. Under socialism it will, also own the means of production.
Fabulous that you seem to think that the working class can only be identified in relation to the capitalist class.


And you do it again: workers democracy, Comrade, is not subjective. It is objective. It means that, concretely the working class,
democratically, as a class, operates the means of production.
How is this democracy manifested? I bet I can get a different answer from different tendencies, and even then there may be disagreement within them. That's what I meant by "subjective".This democracy will be manifested, concretely in whatever councils, organizations, institutions, etc., that the working class builds to control the means of production in the course of the struggle to overthrow capitalism.

Fabulous that you mistake the factional differences between left organizations as to the particular forms of working class power with the fact of working class power. But, given the absence of any contact or knowledge by Technocracy, historically or presently, with the working class or with socialism, this comes as no surprise.


That is why I find vague appeals to democracy wrapped in red flags to be singularly unconvincing.No, NoXion, the reason you and your ilk find it unconvincing is that, fundamentally, you don’t believe in working class democracy.


And the basis of planning, under socialism, is workers democracy. Somehow, you think that the plan is the basis for socialism, not workers democracy. This is entirely in keeping with the utopian tradition of which Technocracy is a part.
Technical planning and egalitarian democracy can go hand in hand, as I have repeatedly pointed out but you refuse to acknowledge.Marxists are not, at this stage of history, interested in “egalitarian democracy.” We are interested in “working class democracy,” which for awhile might be a very different things as sectors of the population, especially the former bourgeoisie, until and unless they are part of the working class, will have little input. As to planning, you make a fetish of it, which is the basis for your ideology. Of course there will be planning, democratic planning, which is inimical to Technocracy.


It not surprising, given the fact that Technocracy is an elitist, antiworking class ideology, that you have no understanding of workers democracy. Your attempts to tack the working class onto your system are exposed every time you address this issue.
It's really easy to simply call names and accuse others of insincerity - on the other hand, some members of this site have actually gone to the trouble of making worthwhile criticisms. Needless to say, you are not among them.For you, “worthwhile criticisms” means accepting your cockamamie system as somehow compatible with revolutionary Marxism.

Let us know when Technocracy: organizes unions, participates in organizing of mass movements such as the antiwar movement, etc.

RED DAVE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What is left to distinguish people is their relationship to the means of production. The working class operates the means of production. Under socialism it will, also own the means of production.

Well wouldn't ya know, that's the exact same relationship to the means of production that members of a functioning technocratic society would have.


This democracy will be manifested, concretely in whatever councils, organizations, institutions, etc., that the working class builds to control the means of production in the course of the struggle to overthrow capitalism.

Which doesn't exclude technocratic organisations, nor does it preclude the possibility of technocracy advocates taking part in the forms you mention.


Fabulous that you mistake the factional differences between left organizations as to the particular forms of working class power with the fact of working class power.

I think we all agree on the destination, we just don't agree on the route.


No, NoXion, the reason you and your ilk find it unconvincing is that, fundamentally, you don’t believe in working class democracy.

Don't presume to tell me what I do or do not believe, you irritating prick.


Marxists are not, at this stage of history, interested in “egalitarian democracy.” We are interested in “working class democracy,” which for awhile might be a very different things as sectors of the population, especially the former bourgeoisie, until and unless they are part of the working class, will have little input.

Sounds like you have no confidence in the ability of your precious workers' democracy to sustain itself. Surely if the working class hold the reins of power as a consciously revolutionary force, then they cannot be reasonably expected to be sweet-talked back into slavery by a bunch of dispossessed ex-suits that no longer hold any power over them.

And you call me elitist! :lol:


As to planning, you make a fetish of it, which is the basis for your ideology. Of course there will be planning, democratic planning, which is inimical to Technocracy.

Accusing others of fetishism appears to be the perennial Marxist fetish.

Some aspects of planning can be subject to democratic decision - pre-project consultation, whether to go ahead or not, and regular review sessions are some examples of where the genuine input of the general citizenship is not an added bonus, but essential to success. If people want a new station or line on their local underground rail network, then the task of those responsible is to meet that demand as quickly and efficiently as possible. But the choice of which gauge of rail to use, and many other similar decisions, would be purely an engineering matter.


For you, “worthwhile criticisms” means accepting your cockamamie system as somehow compatible with revolutionary Marxism.

Yep, some people agree less with you and more with me. Shocking, I know.


Let us know when Technocracy: organizes unions, participates in organizing of mass movements such as the antiwar movement, etc.

Isn't that supposed to be your job? Besides, if Technocratic organisations were to do that so sort of thing, I've little doubt that you would be quick on the mark to accuse them of being "fifth columnists" or some other epithet.

[RED DAVE]

Some aspects of planning can be subject to democratic decision - pre-project consultation, whether to go ahead or not, and regular review sessions are some examples of where the genuine input of the general citizenship is not an added bonus, but essential to success. If people want a new station or line on their local underground rail network, then the task of those responsible is to meet that demand as quickly and efficiently as possible. But the choice of which gauge of rail to use, and many other similar decisions, would be purely an engineering matter.And here we have it: you presume to decide, decades before working class revolution, what will be subject to working class decision making and what will not be subject to it.

And this is what Technocracy is about: right now, in 2010, you presume to take certain decisions away from the workers. And where does this notion of reserving some decisions as "purely an engineering matter" come from? Did you guys make it up yourselves? It comes from the elitist theory of Technocracy, going back to Howard Scott and the 1920s and 1930s. Like Scott and the Technocracy of yesteryear, you have decided in advance that certain decisions will be engineering matters and some will not.

According to Scott, basically all economic decisions were engineering matters. Why, if you're a revolutionary, would you be involved with a theory of social power that arrogated economic decision making to the engineers and managers?

Fact is, under socialism, every decision potentially will be subject to democratic decision making. Any decision that can be left to engineers is trivial. And the fact that you keep harping on this, rather than focusing on working class democracy itself, shows your class bias: towards the engineers.

Why else would you care who the fuck makes what kind of decisions unless you had an itch for empowering a nonworking class group? Are you afraid the working class is going to make decisions that your precious engineers won't like?

By the way, my dad, still alive and kicking at 92, is an engineer. He and I discussed Technocracy back in the early Sixties when I first heard about it. He thought Scott was a crackpot, with fascist overtones, who knew very little about engineering.

Again, why are you making a fuss about reserving certain decisions to the engineers? I'm concerned about it because I'm concerned about engineers, especially in the early days of the workers state, attempting to arrogate power to themselves.

To paraphrase Trotsky: "In industrial politics, these methods lead, as we shall yet see, to this: the engineers substitute themselves for the workers, a committee of engineers substitutes for the engineers, and, finally, a "dictator" substitutes himself for the committee of engineers."

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

No one is reserving certain decisions to the engineers in particular in any manner different from how external decisions are reserved for chefs, electricians, assembly programmers and so on.

You cannot get a musician to perform a surgery, can you?

Your particular vision of marxism seems to be built upon the idea of a society where everyone could and would perform any task. That would have been possible as late as the early 19th century, but nowadays most specialised educations take three to five years to complete.

That - if anything - is utopian. Unless you want to abolish modern technology and return to sustenance farming and small towns.:lol:

[RED DAVE]

No one is reserving certain decisions to the engineers in particular in any manner different from how external decisions are reserved for chefs, electricians, assembly programmers and so on.

You cannot get a musician to perform a surgery, can you?If that's true, then what's the whole point of Technocracy? If all we're dealing with is trivial decisions, then the whole point of Technocracy collapses. However, if you read the postings of Technocrat, you will see something quite different. If it's just a mater of 40 turns of a screw or 41, then why does Technocracy exist?

Truth is, that the political past of Technocracy is quite different. It is based on declaring that economic decisions are technical decisions and rule by the engineers and managers. And your underlying concepts preserve this. These include failure to understand the working class as the motor of anticapitalism, conceiving of capitalism as a price system and not a production system and refusal to engage in political activity and your weird-ass notion that the working class needs to build up an economic bulwark against capitalism, which is impossible. This is your legacy from Howard Scott, which you refuse to examine critically.


Your particular vision of marxism seems to be built upon the idea of a society where everyone could and would perform any task.Stuff and nonsense. My "particular vision of marxism" is based on making sure that a bureaucraxy or an elite of managers and engineers doesn't attempt to enforce decisions over the working class.


That would have been possible as late as the early 19th century, but nowadays most specialised educations take three to five years to complete.So the fuck what. Here we see it again: what you are terrified of it that, somehow, some way, some where, someone who isn't 100% qualified according to someone makes a decision.

The working class, as a whole, contains the specialized knowledge to run the economy of the world. It needs to reserve every major economic decision to itself. The input of specialists is trivial compared to the necessity of working class democracy. What are you afraid of? That someone from the shop floor will be equal to an engineer?


That - if anything - is utopian. Unless you want to abolish modern technology and return to sustenance farming and small towns.:lol:Wicker man.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

Fact is, under socialism, every decision potentially will be subject to democratic decision making. Any decision that can be left to engineers is trivial. And the fact that you keep harping on this, rather than focusing on working class democracy itself, shows your class bias: towards the engineers.


I couldn't have said it better here -- Red Dave points to the fact that less-than-revolutionary political stances are *necessarily* focused on nit-picking details, superficialities, and trivialities, instead of on broader, more comprehensive approaches. Less-than-revolutionary politics reveal a consistent shortsightedness in worldview that is *necessarily* a weakness because they're unable to see the forest for the trees. As a result they'll continue to be describing details and inanities while larger, broader dynamics are playing out.

On a yardstick of large-scale to small-scale, less-than-revolutionary perspectives will not be able to tilt their heads back to look far enough upwards. I created an illustration of this "yardstick" here:


History, Macro-Micro -- Precision

http://i45.tinypic.com/149030w.jpg


Note that anyone who fails to acknowledge the existence of overriding determining factors for economic trends (currently capitalist economics) will be *stuck* in the riptide of strictly *economic* dynamics -- and/or smaller-scale dynamics -- continually ignorant of the superseding upper "levels" of technology / technique, mode of production and class struggle.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And here we have it: you presume to decide, decades before working class revolution, what will be subject to working class decision making and what will not be subject to it.

]And this is what Technocracy is about: right now, in 2010, you presume to take certain decisions away from the workers. And where does this notion of reserving some decisions as "purely an engineering matter" come from? Did you guys make it up yourselves? It comes from the elitist theory of Technocracy, going back to Howard Scott and the 1920s and 1930s. Like Scott and the Technocracy of yesteryear, you have decided in advance that certain decisions will be engineering matters and some will not.

You seem to forget that different decisions have varying degree of importance to people in general. Few people other than engineers or railway buffs would care what gauge a rail system is - but the decision of whether or not to go ahead with the construction of a municipal transport system is a decision that affects and should interest the majority of the population, thus it makes sense that they should have meaningful input.

Whether to go ahead or not is perhaps one of the most important decisions - because if a project doesn't have the consent of the population involved, it won't happen!


According to Scott, basically all economic decisions were engineering matters. Why, if you're a revolutionary, would you be involved with a theory of social power that arrogated economic decision making to the engineers and managers?

Because you're wrong; while Tech Inc has had some good ideas, I don't agree with their version of technocracy as a whole.


Fact is, under socialism, every decision potentially will be subject to democratic decision making. Any decision that can be left to engineers is trivial. And the fact that you keep harping on this, rather than focusing on working class democracy itself, shows your class bias: towards the engineers.

Why else would you care who the fuck makes what kind of decisions unless you had an itch for empowering a nonworking class group? Are you afraid the working class is going to make decisions that your precious engineers won't like?

It's simply the case that people who are unqualified will make the wrong decisions on something far more often than people are qualified, even if those unqualified have the best of intentions.


By the way, my dad, still alive and kicking at 92, is an engineer. He and I discussed Technocracy back in the early Sixties when I first heard about it. He thought Scott was a crackpot, with fascist overtones, who knew very little about engineering.

Wowee, anecdotes. A sure-fire replacement for argument, I think not.


Again, why are you making a fuss about reserving certain decisions to the engineers? I'm concerned about it because I'm concerned about engineers, especially in the early days of the workers state, attempting to arrogate power to themselves.

If engineers try to make decisions for others in areas not directly related to engineering, everyone else is well within their rights and powers to tell them to fuck off and ignore them.

Even then, a decision which is unpopular enough, even if it makes engineering sense, simply won't happen. Remember that I agree with the anarchists in that there should not be hierarchical instruments of force such as the police or a centralised army. If some engineers tried pulling that kind of stunt, they would be vastly outnumbered and very likely replaced extremely quickly.


I couldn't have said it better here -- Red Dave points to the fact that less-than-revolutionary political stances are *necessarily* focused on nit-picking details, superficialities, and trivialities, instead of on broader, more comprehensive approaches. Less-than-revolutionary politics reveal a consistent shortsightedness in worldview that is *necessarily* a weakness because they're unable to see the forest for the trees. As a result they'll continue to be describing details and inanities while larger, broader dynamics are playing out.

Taking care of the details does not necessarily mean that one abandons all perspective for the bigger picture. Besides, if that does happen, I'm sure bigger-picture guys such as yourself will be around to complain loudly.

[Dimentio]

Technocrat is not associated with EOS. Your entire strategy against EOS relies on connecting us with Technocracy Incorporated in some way. That is ludicrous.

What I am afraid of is that decisions would the hijacked by populists who would run important key functions of society to the ground, especially as your version of a future society seems to be based on suspicion and contempt for specialists, just for being specialists in their field. I cannot see why anyone would want to be a specialist in your society, since there is no reward in constantly being subjected to suspicion.

Moreover, most industrial workers in the western world nowadays have specialised education regarding their areas. In Sweden, you don't enter manufacturing for example unless you have some college education.

[ckaihatsu]

Taking care of the details does not necessarily mean that one abandons all perspective for the bigger picture. Besides, if that does happen, I'm sure bigger-picture guys such as yourself will be around to complain loudly.


Hey, I appreciate the gesture of support (grin). I *do* hope that people who are newer to politics will come around to more-expansive views of how the world works -- particularly class consciousness.

At the same time I think we all need to distinguish between *politics* and *technical ability* -- they *are* in separate realms, and, while the two can be compared generically using systems theory (complexity theory) I think the reason you're catching so much shit from Red Dave is because your emphasis on technical ability makes for *bad politics*.

As an example, please note in your statement there, above, that -- politically speaking -- you're explicitly allowing for a schism of function between "bigger-picture guys" (people), and detail-oriented people. In political terms this is *bad politics*. As anti-capitalists don't we *all* want *everyone* to be as enabled and politically ready as possible to comprehend, address, and even effect big-picture developments as well as being fluent with technical details -- ? Because if *we're* not ready to handle these complexities it sure as fuck won't be handled by the capitalists and *their* ilk...(!)

(So, by extension, the more *internal* schisms and divisions of function we have among ourselves just makes us more co-*dependent* instead of *co-operating*.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hey, I appreciate the gesture of support (grin). I *do* hope that people who are newer to politics will come around to more-expansive views of how the world works -- particularly class consciousness.

At the same time I think we all need to distinguish between *politics* and *technical ability* -- they *are* in separate realms, and, while the two can be compared generically using systems theory (complexity theory) I think the reason you're catching so much shit from Red Dave is because your emphasis on technical ability makes for *bad politics*.

As an example, please note in your statement there, above, that -- politically speaking -- you're explicitly allowing for a schism of function between "bigger-picture guys" (people), and detail-oriented people. In political terms this is *bad politics*.

Actually, I think this is an inevitable consequence of the variability of human mentality - some people like to look at the big picture, while others think that the details are just as important if not more so. I think the "debate" between holism and reductionism is an example of this in microcosm.

Both sides will claim that too much emphasis is being given to the other, especially outside of science. Personally I think both are important; were it not for big-picture thinking, we would not have had Marxism, and we would have been worse off for it.


As anti-capitalists don't we *all* want *everyone* to be as enabled and politically ready as possible to comprehend, address, and even effect big-picture developments as well as being fluent with technical details -- ? Because if *we're* not ready to handle these complexities it sure as fuck won't be handled by the capitalists and *their* ilk...(!)

Collectively I think the working class does have the potential to establish and maintain a classless society. But on an individual scale, there is simply far too much knowledge for a normal human to assimilate and utilise. Not only that, but there is also the question of interest; not everyone has the drive and dedication to become competent in an advanced technical field. This is not a bad thing in itself, but it does mean that not everyone will become good engineers even if we had resources and institutions in place to make them so.


(So, by extension, the more *internal* schisms and divisions of function we have among ourselves just makes us more co-*dependent* instead of *co-operating*.)

Dependancy does not necessarily mean a great limit on one's autonomy or ability to co-operate. I depend on oxygen to live, but because it is freely and readily available, it does not impede me in my goals and relationships. Similarly, a society that divides its decisions by function, but where the overriding goal is the maintenance of a state of economic classlessness, would likewise maintain its freedom.

[ckaihatsu]

Actually, I think this is an inevitable consequence of the variability of human mentality - some people like to look at the big picture, while others think that the details are just as important if not more so. I think the "debate" between holism and reductionism is an example of this in microcosm.

Both sides will claim that too much emphasis is being given to the other, especially outside of science. Personally I think both are important; were it not for big-picture thinking, we would not have had Marxism, and we would have been worse off for it.


Making generalizations is a critical thinking skill. It has to be *learned* and developed, and there are many pitfalls in making generalizations -- it can't be done casually. Inaccurate or crude generalizations are called 'stereotypes' and are all-too-easily misapplied to the specific from the general. Yet generalizing, or "big-picture thinking" is unavoidable because we use it anytime we use *categories*. Do people generalize about chairs, doors, and cars from their personally limited experience with them? All the time, of course, and *those* generalizations are *easy* -- it's when we get into the domain of *social* characteristics and dynamics that making generalizations gets a lot more tricky. (Wanton generalizing, or judgment-making, over people's behavior is called 'moralizing'.)





Collectively I think the working class does have the potential to establish and maintain a classless society. But on an individual scale, there is simply far too much knowledge for a normal human to assimilate and utilise.




a society that divides its decisions by function, but where the overriding goal is the maintenance of a state of economic classlessness, would likewise maintain its freedom.





The working class, as a whole, contains the specialized knowledge to run the economy of the world.