Technocracy and Utopianism

[Zanthorus]

I'd like to reply to a couple of Dimentio's points in the Anarchism vs Technocracy thread, which was just closed:


We are not producing an analysis on the social functioning of society, but on its resource allocation. That is because that we, as scientists, primarily do not work with the social aspects of society, but with its resource usage and the forms of management.

I think this is a bit weak, how do you think resources actually get distributed and managed? Through human beings linked together in certain social relationships, is the obvious answer. Your claim that Marxism does not deal with the question of resource allocation is false, for Marxists the distribution of resources is tied up with the distribution of the means of production and the correspondent mode of production:


Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm


That means that we look on sustainability, and not so much on who is exploited.

Well, the question of sustainability is tied up with the human relation to nature, the metabolic interaction between these two aspects, and this relation to nature is tied up with the way in which human beings relate to each other. The question of human exploitation of earths resources becomes, in the last analysis, a question of the exploitation of human beings:


It is not the unity of living and active humanity with the natural, inorganic conditions of their metabolic exchange with nature, and hence their appropriation of nature, which requires explanation or is the result of a historic process, but rather the separation between these inorganic conditions of human existence and this active existence, a separation which is completely posited only in the relation of wage labour and capital.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch09.htm#p471


whereas marxism has little to say on how to actually organise any functioning system of the future (as evidenced by the performance of socialist states).

Actually Marx has a good deal to say on organising any future system. I hate to just link people to articles instead of arguing on my own terms, but it's sort of difficult when Chattopadhyay does things so nicely:

http://libcom.org/library/communist-manifesto-post-capital-paresh-chattopadhyay

I believe it was Bordiga who in fact once said that Marx's entire output was a description of Communism. In a good deal of senses, this statement is quite true.


We are not utopian. Utopians generally concern themselves just with building communities and then hope to affect people that way. We concern ourselves with testing out our models, to ensure that we could see where flaws are arising and we could remedy them.

Robert Owen conducted experiments, that did not make him not a Utopian. Utopian socialism is socialism which doesn't base itself on the comprehension of the workers' struggle against capital, and instead holds up fantastic visions of the future to the world. This seems to me to be precisely what Technocracy does.

[Amphictyonis]

Although I don't agree with most everything Lenin or Stalin did when it comes to purging the engineers we should ask why they did it. Lenin, at one point or anotherm said it was the engineers, not the communists, who were running Russia.

I think "Technocracy" is essentially a movement which would do the same. Workers should have control of the means of production, not some party or select group of engineers.

[RED DAVE]

Just a quick note: The bizarre assertion of Technocracy is that a political movement with no relationship to the social forces that are going to overthrow capitalism, nevertheless hold the key to the socialist mode of production!

If socialism is to be established by the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the working class, Technocracy is totally out of it. From its inception to this day, there is no role for the working class in the Technocracy system, either in it description of capitalism as a price system or in its utopian vision of technocratic management of the means of production.

If you want to know what the current belief system is of Technocacy, check out their European website:

http://www.eoslife.eu/

Use the search engine for words like "socialism" and "working class." The results are interesting.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Just a quick note: The bizarre assertion of Technocracy is that a political movement with no relationship to the social forces that are going to overthrow capitalism, nevertheless hold the key to the socialist mode of production!

If socialism is to be established by the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the working class, Technocracy is totally out of it. From its inception to this day, there is no role for the working class in the Technocracy system, either in it description of capitalism as a price system or in its utopian vision of technocratic management of the means of production.

If you want to know what the current belief system is of Technocacy, check out their European website:

http://www.eoslife.eu/

Use the search engine for words like "socialism" and "working class." The results are interesting.

RED DAVE

"Their" European website, as if EOS somehow is the European filial of Technocracy Incorporated :lol:

You are worse than Skip Sievert. :D

As for our relation to socialist movements, it is self-evident that we aren't from the marxist tradition - and we are not ashamed to admit it. Marxist tactics could be utilised under certain circumstances, and we are pragmatic enough to borrow ideas and tactics from other movements when we see an opportunity for the use of those tactics. We do not "uphold Howard Scott", but have just taken a few of his ideas and developed them further.

As for utopianism, we do think that capitalism is going to fall down on its own, but that the result won't be any progressive one but a collapse of the globalised system of trade and exchange and a beginning of a new dark age. We want to be able to stop that degeneration. The main target which needs to be abolished is exponential growth, which is meaning both overproduction and scarcity at the same time due to the absurdities of capitalism.

[Zanthorus]

As for utopianism, we do think that capitalism is going to fall down on its own,

And believing that capitalism will fall of it's own accord has nothing to do with the charges of utopianism. Utopian Socialism is socialism that doesn't base itself on the comphrension of the workers' struggle against capitalism.

[Dimentio]

And believing that capitalism will fall of it's own accord has nothing to do with the charges of utopianism. Utopian Socialism is socialism that doesn't base itself on the comphrension of the workers' struggle against capitalism.

Okay, well then by all accords, we are utopians, even though a struggle against the current system is essential at the later stages. To just stand in a corner with a newspaper and scream "DOWN WITH CAPITALISM" when you have a party of like 50 individuals is just a waste of oxygen, and would only serve to make you feel better.

Also, to demand that the state should provide for the people is the high-point of self-defeating actions, since the people in general are loyal to whomever is giving them bread and entertainment.

[RED DAVE]

"Their" European website, as if EOS somehow is the European filial of Technocracy Incorporated EOS is, I believe the website of the tendency of Technocracy that you support. As such, there are no positive references on this website to socialism of the role of the working class in the transition to a new society, unless they're very well hidden.


As for our relation to socialist movements, it is self-evident that we aren't from the marxist tradition - and we are not ashamed to admit it.But you have never engaged in a critical analysis of your own tradition: specifically, some very negative ideas derived from Technocracy Inc. such capitalism as a price system and political abstentionism.


Marxist tactics could be utilised under certain circumstances, and we are pragmatic enough to borrow ideas and tactics from other movements when we see an opportunity for the use of those tactics.Translation: you have no systematic relationship to revolution.


We do not "uphold Howard Scott", but have just taken a few of his ideas and developed them further.But you have never evaluated many of your core positions.


As for utopianism, we do think that capitalism is going to fall down on its own, but that the result won't be any progressive one but a collapse of the globalised system of trade and exchange and a beginning of a new dark age.So you have no concept of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat. No concept of the establishment of socialism as a replaceement of capitalism/ Why the fuck are you here on this website?


We want to be able to stop that degeneration. The main target which needs to be abolished is exponential growth, which is meaning both overproduction and scarcity at the same time due to the absurdities of capitalism.How are you different from any liveral group that advocates ZPG? You poltical strategy is to set up a network of nonprofits and try to compete with capitalism.

You are as utopian as any group set up by Robert Owen and his descendants. Why don't you stop pretending that you're revolutionaries?

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Hahaha... it is completely idiotic to strive for a "systematic relationship" to anything, like if the world was some kind of turn-based strategy game with only a few parameters. It is better to be prepared, but also to be prepared to change.

We are different in the manner that we (EOS) intend to interact with the public, giving them very real (material) incitaments to support us, for example by giving food to homeless people or establish tenements with lower costs for those who are active supporters for us, etc...

If you want to, you could start a thread about banning or restricting me and all technocrats here :laugh:

[RED DAVE]

Hahaha... it is completely idiotic to strive for a "systematic relationship" to anything, like if the world was some kind of turn-based strategy game with only a few parameters. It is better to be prepared, but also to be prepared to change.What is your motive in trying to obscure a simple notion?

The Left is a fairly well-defined entity, which Technocracy, in the past and present, has always stood outside of. So what are you complaining about? A "systematic relationship" means that you address yourself, systematically, to the issues that are raised within the left: small stuff such as socialism, the labor movement, racism, war, etc., which Technocracy has never done.


We are different in the manner that we (EOS) intend to interact with the public, giving them very real (material) incitaments to support us, for example by giving food to homeless people or establish tenements with lower costs for those who are active supporters for us, etc...What makes you different from any liberal group engaged in community action projects, which does the same thing? All of this was done, by radical groups and by the ruling class during the Sixties. Guess who ended up out in the cold?


If you want to, you could start a thread about banning or restricting me and all technocrats here :laugh:I'm not interested in banning or restricting you or the other Technocrats. :laugh:

But I believe that by your own words and program, you have shown that Technocracy is neither revolutionary nor left, unless you want to consider liberalism, social democracy or utopianism to be revolutionary or left.

Since this discussion concerns utopian socialism, I suggest that comrades participating in this discussion read the following:

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, by Frederick Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm)

RED DAVE

[Zanthorus]

Okay, well then by all accords, we are utopians, even though a struggle against the current system is essential at the later stages.

I still don't think you quite understand what is meant by Utopian Socialism, as evidenced by this:


To just stand in a corner with a newspaper and scream "DOWN WITH CAPITALISM" when you have a party of like 50 individuals is just a waste of oxygen, and would only serve to make you feel better.

The actions of small leftists sects have little to do with the working class movement against capitalist.


Also, to demand that the state should provide for the people is the high-point of self-defeating actions,

I'm not sure where I advocated this.

[Dimentio]

I still don't think you quite understand what is meant by Utopian Socialism, as evidenced by this:



The actions of small leftists sects have little to do with the working class movement against capitalist.



I'm not sure where I advocated this.

Firstly, the working class in Europe and the United States generally seem complacent with the current order of things. When they protest, they usually protest for the reintroduction of privilegies withdrawn or watered out by the state. In the United States, a large chunk of the working class is supporting the Republican Party, a party which is directly against any form of progressivism.

Secondly, we are actually launching an anti-racism campaign in two weeks. ^^

[RED DAVE]

Firstly, the working class in Europe and the United States generally seem complacent with the current order of things.Nonsense. Look, for example, at Greece.


When they protest, they usually protest for the reintroduction of privilegies withdrawn or watered out by the state.Uhh, Comrade, wage levels, retirement, medical benefits, etc., were all won by the working class in bitter struggles. They are not privileges. They are the wherewithal of life.


In the United States, a large chunk of the working class is supporting the Republican Party, a party which is directly against any form of progressivism.So what else is new? Does this justify your antipolitical stance?


Secondly, we are actually launching an anti-racism campaign in two weeks. ^^Details please. In what country? Which established organizations are you in touch with? What is your program and your strategy? And please don't be coy about it.

RED DAVE

[Zanthorus]

Firstly, the working class in Europe and the United States generally seem complacent with the current order of things. When they protest, they usually protest for the reintroduction of privilegies withdrawn or watered out by the state. In the United States, a large chunk of the working class is supporting the Republican Party, a party which is directly against any form of progressivism.

I don't see the relevance. It is not that the working-class is driven at all points to be subjectively revolutionary, but that it is first of all a class at the heart of capitalism. Capital and Wage-Labour are synonymous, you cannot have one without the other, and where one exists you will always find the other. Capitalism as a system can only be abolished as the act of the wage-labouring classes, re-appropriating the powers that appear to alien to them within capitalism as their own social powers. The only other alternative is the destruction of human civilisation through some kind of catastrophe. The fact that the working-class is not subjectively revolutionary at all points only marks out the necessity for the Communist Party comprised of all the elements of the class which comprehends it's historic mission and brings the memories and lessons of previous struggles back to the class when this historical memory is eradicated during periods of counter-revolution.

[Dimentio]

Details please. In what country? Which established organizations are you in touch with? What is your program and your strategy? And please don't be coy about it.

RED DAVE

Sometimes after the 7th of October, I will publish information about it here. ;)

[Dimentio]

I don't see the relevance. It is not that the working-class is driven at all points to be subjectively revolutionary, but that it is first of all a class at the heart of capitalism. Capital and Wage-Labour are synonymous, you cannot have one without the other, and where one exists you will always find the other. Capitalism as a system can only be abolished as the act of the wage-labouring classes, re-appropriating the powers that appear to alien to them within capitalism as their own social powers. The only other alternative is the destruction of human civilisation through some kind of catastrophe. The fact that the working-class is not subjectively revolutionary at all points only marks out the necessity for the Communist Party comprised of all the elements of the class which comprehends it's historic mission and brings the memories and lessons of previous struggles back to the class when this historical memory is eradicated during periods of counter-revolution.

The three local communist parties consist mainly of students, unemployed and academics, and a very little amount of workers in the public sector. From what I'm judging, anti-sovietism is the main reason for people from abstaining to even conceptualise communism.

[Weezer]

I'll just leave this here. (http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=110:is-technocracy-totalitarian&catid=35:social&Itemid=95")

[RED DAVE]

I don't see the relevance. It is not that the working-class is driven at all points to be subjectively revolutionary, but that it is first of all a class at the heart of capitalism. Capital and Wage-Labour are synonymous, you cannot have one without the other, and where one exists you will always find the other. Capitalism as a system can only be abolished as the act of the wage-labouring classes, re-appropriating the powers that appear to alien to them within capitalism as their own social powers. The only other alternative is the destruction of human civilisation through some kind of catastrophe. The fact that the working-class is not subjectively revolutionary at all points only marks out the necessity for the Communist Party comprised of all the elements of the class which comprehends it's historic mission and brings the memories and lessons of previous struggles back to the class when this historical memory is eradicated during periods of counter-revolution.
The three local communist parties consist mainly of students, unemployed and academics, and a very little amount of workers in the public sector. From what I'm judging, anti-sovietism is the main reason for people from abstaining to even conceptualise communism.You have not answered Zanthorus's points about the working class. The issue is not the subjective level of class consciousness at any given point, but the objective position of the working class at the beating heart of capitalism: production.

Your notion of capitalism as a price system (inherited from the period of Howard Scott) makes it impossible for you to recognize the central contradiction of the system: that the means of production (technology) is in conflict with the mode of production (capitalist exploitation of labor). In the long run and the short run, revolutionaries base their hope for the future of mankind in the resolution of this conflict by the working class.

And this is where your obsession with technique is exposed for what it is: an obscuring of this contradiction. What's wrong with capitalism is not that the people who don't have the technical knowledge to run society are making decisions. What's wrong with capitalism is that it is based on production for sale not for use.

The working class, which is the class actually engaged in production, distribution, transportation, communication, etc., will eliminate this conflict by eliminating production for profit. Technique is a only tiny portion of this, and for Technocracy to constantly stress it shows that the object of your concern is not the power of the working class but the power of the technocrats: engineers, lower managers, architects, scientists, etc.

RED DAVE

[Zanthorus]

The three local communist parties consist mainly of students, unemployed and academics, and a very little amount of workers in the public sector. From what I'm judging, anti-sovietism is the main reason for people from abstaining to even conceptualise communism.

RED DAVE is correct, you've just dodged my points about the working-class as an objectively revolutionary class. As for the class composition of the organisations close to you calling themselves Communist, I don't necessarily doubt this. But the Communist Party is not just an organisation calling itself as such, the Party is the historical experience of the working class and the program based on that experience, which was first formulated in 1848. Organisations calling themselves the 'Communist Party' may cede to the counter-revolution, the number of people who uphold Communist positions may as a result of counter-revolution cede into only a handful of militants. Nevertheless, the party continues to exist as a body of theory and a school of action. This was the sense in which Marx spoke of the party: "I have tried to dispel the misunderstanding arising out of the impression that by ‘party’ I meant a ‘League’ that expired eight years ago, or an editorial board that was disbanded twelve years ago. By party, I meant the party in the broad historical sense." (Marx To Ferdinand Freiligrath in London, 29th February 1860)

Anti-sovietism is a big hindrance to the existence of the party at present, nevertheless, capitalism continues it's barbarous slide towards destruction, currently it is stepping up it's attacks on the working-class and imposing austerity regimes in Europe under the pretences of 'national unity'. Communism has known many other counter-revolutions and has overcome them. During the period when the 1848 revolutions were dying down the only people on earth who upheld properly Communist positions were Marx, Engels and a few of their followers among the German emigre's in England. Nevertheless, the course of history advanced, Communism gained world renown through the mass parties of the second international and saw it's first concrete triumph in the Red October.

[Rêve Rouge]

The working class, which is the class actually engaged in production, distribution, transportation, communication, etc., will eliminate this conflict by eliminating production for profit. Technique is a only tiny portion of this, and for Technocracy to constantly stress it shows that the object of your concern is not the power of the working class but the power of the technocrats: engineers, lower managers, architects, scientists, etc.

Well I dunno about lower managers, but aren't engineers, architects, and scientists part of the working class? They use the power of labour to create, design, and discover things.

And isn't Technocracy just basically giving workers autonomy over their respective field of work? For example, a computer engineer should be given the power to work with other computer engineers and other relevant workers in order to design a good working computer for the rest of society. Just as say a monorail architect should work alongside with a monorail pilot and other relevant workers in order to design a safe and efficient monorail.

The way I see it, Technocracy is just a way of reorganizing society into a more collaborative one, where people are interdependent.

[Dimentio]

RED DAVE is correct, you've just dodged my points about the working-class as an objectively revolutionary class. As for the class composition of the organisations close to you calling themselves Communist, I don't necessarily doubt this. But the Communist Party is not just an organisation calling itself as such, the Party is the historical experience of the working class and the program based on that experience, which was first formulated in 1848. Organisations calling themselves the 'Communist Party' may cede to the counter-revolution, the number of people who uphold Communist positions may as a result of counter-revolution cede into only a handful of militants. Nevertheless, the party continues to exist as a body of theory and a school of action. This was the sense in which Marx spoke of the party: "I have tried to dispel the misunderstanding arising out of the impression that by ‘party’ I meant a ‘League’ that expired eight years ago, or an editorial board that was disbanded twelve years ago. By party, I meant the party in the broad historical sense." (Marx To Ferdinand Freiligrath in London, 29th February 1860)

Anti-sovietism is a big hindrance to the existence of the party at present, nevertheless, capitalism continues it's barbarous slide towards destruction, currently it is stepping up it's attacks on the working-class and imposing austerity regimes in Europe under the pretences of 'national unity'. Communism has known many other counter-revolutions and has overcome them. During the period when the 1848 revolutions were dying down the only people on earth who upheld properly Communist positions were Marx, Engels and a few of their followers among the German emigre's in England. Nevertheless, the course of history advanced, Communism gained world renown through the mass parties of the second international and saw it's first concrete triumph in the Red October.

I haven't dodged anything. You are talking about some working class which is an idealised image of the real working class. Of course, they could react violently against some features of the reforms brought upon society by capitalists and politicians during the current economic crisis, but more often, they don't want to change society, but keep it in a state where they have their rights protected.

Every successful socialist revolution has been characterised by not being played out according to Marx's rule-book.

The Russian revolution brought a social-democratic government to power, and the Bolshevik takeover shared some characteristics with an improvised putsch during a confused time, and it could be argued that the army was the segment which made it possible.

The Chinese revolution was really a military conquest of most of China apart from Taiwan. Mao himself once stated that he couldn't take power over China without military aid from the USSR.

The Cuban revolution was a classical romantic guerilla adventure.

Most socialist revolutions happened in pre-industrial countries with a small or no working class.

Either, classes need to be redefined as a concept, or something else is wrong.

[Dimentio]

Well I dunno about lower managers, but aren't engineers, architects, and scientists part of the working class? They use the power of labour to create, design, and discover things.

And isn't Technocracy just basically giving workers autonomy over their respective field of work? For example, a computer engineer should be given the power to work with other computer engineers and other relevant workers in order to design a good working computer for the rest of society. Just as say a monorail architect should work alongside with a monorail pilot and other relevant workers in order to design a safe and efficient monorail.

The way I see it, Technocracy is just a way of reorganizing society into a more collaborative one, where people are interdependent.

Exactly, that is the model which EOS is proposing

[Zanthorus]

I haven't dodged anything.

Yes, you have. You are still doing it in fact.


You are talking about some working class which is an idealised image of the real working class. Of course, they could react violently against some features of the reforms brought upon society by capitalists and politicians during the current economic crisis, but more often, they don't want to change society, but keep it in a state where they have their rights protected.

And again, it is not a question of the subjective beliefs of any specific member of the working-class, or even the subjective beliefs of the working-class as a whole. It is a question of what is the working-class. The working-class of the capitalist epoch is the class which is dependent on wage-labour for it's livelihood, it is the natural corrolary to the existence of capitalism. A post-capitalist and post-capital society can only be brought about the proletariat abolishing itself as a class and thereby abolishing capital. It cannot be done in any other way, unless you think the destruction of civilisation is a viable alternative. If the proletariat is naturally conservative and will never make a revolution, then the latter will in fact be the route which capitalism forces us down. Of course, this contention is hard to refute since it is such a sweeping generalisation. However, here is a counter-example from an event I have been studying quite recently, the British General Strike of 1926:


South Wales had thrown up radical and Marxist leaders since the turn of the century. The mining community of Maerdy in the Rhondda valley was so famous as the centre of Communist activity that it was known as Little Moscow.

[...]

From their dissapointed demands for nationalisation in 1919 until their defeat at the end of 1926, miners in particular saw themselves not only as victims of an unjust system of ownerhsip that produced poverty wages and intolerable living conditions, but in the vanguard of a class struggle that with courage, determination and solidarity might transform Britain's politics.


Every successful socialist revolution

Except such a thing has never occured, or would we not be here posting on this board.

[Dimentio]

Yes, you have. You are still doing it in fact.

And again, it is not a question of the subjective beliefs of any specific member of the working-class, or even the subjective beliefs of the working-class as a whole. It is a question of what is the working-class. The working-class of the capitalist epoch is the class which is dependent on wage-labour for it's livelihood, it is the natural corrolary to the existence of capitalism. A post-capitalist and post-capital society can only be brought about the proletariat abolishing itself as a class and thereby abolishing capital. It cannot be done in any other way, unless you think the destruction of civilisation is a viable alternative. If the proletariat is naturally conservative and will never make a revolution, then the latter will in fact be the route which capitalism forces us down. Of course, this contention is hard to refute since it is such a sweeping generalisation. However, here is a counter-example from an event I have been studying quite recently, the British General Strike of 1926:

Except such a thing has never occured, or would we not be here posting on this board.

I do not believe in "false conciousness". The reason why people seldom do revolutions is because they calculate that they want to win as many concessions as possible from the ruling class without having to sacrifice too much security.

The reason why the French and American revolutions were successful was because A) the bourgeoisie had started to emerge as an economically powerful bloc, B) the enlightenment age rationalism had become the ideology of the very representatives of its antithesis, the absolutist monarchies.

A) was much more important than B), but B) was still important and explains why the power of the French monarchy instantly crumbled. The same could also explain the collapse of the USSR, namely that the Nomenclatura had ceased to believe in its own ideology.

In fact, there is a silent collapse of the capitalist ideological hegemony occurring right now, caused by the environmental meltdown. By 2040 I estimate, the elite itself will talk about the need to abolish capitalism, but would be unable to do anything.

[RED DAVE]

The working class, which is the class actually engaged in production, distribution, transportation, communication, etc., will eliminate this conflict by eliminating production for profit. Technique is a only tiny portion of this, and for Technocracy to constantly stress it shows that the object of your concern is not the power of the working class but the power of the technocrats: engineers, lower managers, architects, scientists, etc
Well I dunno about lower managers, but aren't engineers, architects, and scientists part of the working class? They use the power of labour to create, design, and discover things.No, they are not. The working class is the class that actually performs the labor that produces, distributes, etc., commodities. Engineers, architects, scientists and lower managers are members of the petit-bourgeoisie.


And isn't Technocracy just basically giving workers autonomy over their respective field of work? For example, a computer engineer should be given the power to work with other computer engineers and other relevant workers in order to design a good working computer for the rest of society. Just as say a monorail architect should work alongside with a monorail pilot and other relevant workers in order to design a safe and efficient monorail.One more time, there is a world of difference between Technocracy and socialism. The fundamental difference lies in workers democracy. Technocracy has some fantasy that the big problem in capitalism is technique, instead of alienated labor. The original Technocracy system was explicitly authoritarian. The modified system of EOS still has nothing to do with workers revolution or workers control of production.


The way I see it, Technocracy is just a way of reorganizing society into a more collaborative one, where people are interdependent.Nice dream, but the fundamental issue of social change is: which class overthrows capitalism and which class will control production under socialism. Technocracy believes that society will collapse of its own, and, somehow, Technocracy is emerge from the wreckage.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

[W]e (EOS) intend to interact with the public, giving them very real (material) incitaments to support us, for example by giving food to homeless people or establish tenements with lower costs for those who are active supporters for us, etc...


Translation: As capitalism continues its downslide into a civilizational collapse, bringing about a new Dark Ages, Technocracy will be there in a franchised fiefdom kind of way, bringing a cultish clientelism to the masses. The stuff you need and want will be fairly available and easy to get, but you'll have to be at least as cool as Obama to have any chance of being "in".

(Note: This is also the plotline of about 4,382,091 techno-post-apocalyptic movies out there -- Akira, Tekken, etc.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The stuff you need and want will be fairly available and easy to get, but you'll have to be at least as cool as Obama to have any chance of being "in".

What on Earth does this mean?

[ckaihatsu]

What on Earth does this mean?


If you have to ask, you're *definitely* not "in"....


x D


(It just speaks to the social-objectification of one's personality....)

[Rêve Rouge]

No, they are not. The working class is the class that actually performs the labor that produces, distributes, etc., commodities. Engineers, architects, scientists and lower managers are members of the petit-bourgeoisie.

Interesting thought...So in a world of socialism, would these engineers, architects, and scientists be casted out of society?

[RED DAVE]

No, they are not. The working class is the class that actually performs the labor that produces, distributes, etc., commodities. Engineers, architects, scientists and lower managers are members of the petit-bourgeoisie.
Interesting thought...So in a world of socialism, would these engineers, architects, and scientists be casted out of society?No, Comrade, they will not be cast out. One of the prime notions of socialism is the elimination of the distinction between physical and mental labor. What will most likely happen is that their specializations will gradually be integrated into the working class as a whole.

The problem with Technocracy is that it believes that the distinction between, say, the engineers and the workers, is somehow "normal" and they seek to preserve it. The purpose of their fetishism of technique is to keep the special privileges of engineers, architects, scientists, lower managers, etc. Why else would they keep on hammering about this nonissue?

here is a quote from the European Organization for Sustainability, the more "liberal" of the two branches of Technocracy. You can see very clearly that the elitism that they have inherited from their past is alive and well.


Our society has a complex nature. It takes many years to learn and understand just a small part of it. In our system the management and operation of each technical area of society comes under the control of the people with the skill and expertise to make competent decision in that area.http://www.eoslife.eu/#Design

Statements like this are about as far away from workers democracy as you can get. The premise of socialism is that the working class as a whole has the skill to run society.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Translation: As capitalism continues its downslide into a civilizational collapse, bringing about a new Dark Ages, Technocracy will be there in a franchised fiefdom kind of way, bringing a cultish clientelism to the masses. The stuff you need and want will be fairly available and easy to get, but you'll have to be at least as cool as Obama to have any chance of being "in".

(Note: This is also the plotline of about 4,382,091 techno-post-apocalyptic movies out there -- Akira, Tekken, etc.)

We don't want clientelism, we are a humanitarian movement which wants to help people to take the command over their own existence, organise themselves and help them be able to transform society.

[Zanthorus]

I do not believe in "false conciousness".

Neither do I, but then again, my post never mentioned anything about 'false consciousness'. The point I'm trying to get across to you is that the working-class is the class best placed to eliminate capitalism through it's actions. It is therefore worth engaging in workers' struggles and trying to push them forward, even if the working-class is embued with 'reactionary' ideas at present. So far you have just evaded this point.

[RED DAVE]

We don't want clientelism, we are a humanitarian movement which wants to help people to take the command over their own existence, organise themselves and help them be able to transform society.What you are talking about, when you talk about building housing, etc., is social work. The bourgeosie does it much better; trust me.

Actually, when you stated above that you will advance your cause, "for example by giving food to homeless people or establish tenements with lower costs for those who are active supporters for us," you are behaving in an insidious way. What you are trying to do is "buy" people into your movement.

The way to "help" (that word says volumes about your politics) people is to introduce them to revolutionary politics, tactics, strategy. Which Technocracy will never do.

RED DAVE

[Rêve Rouge]

No, Comrade, they will not be cast out. One of the prime notions of socialism is the elimination of the distinction between physical and mental labor. What will most likely happen is that their specializations will gradually be integrated into the working class as a whole.

The problem with Technocracy is that it believes that the distinction between, say, the engineers and the workers, is somehow "normal" and they seek to preserve it. The purpose of their fetishism of technique is to keep the special privileges of engineers, architects, scientists, lower managers, etc. Why else would they keep on hammering about this nonissue?

Statements like this are about as far away from workers democracy as you can get. The premise of socialism is that the working class as a whole has the skill to run society.

RED DAVE

Hmm fair enough. I'll have to look into more about Technocracy vs the streams of socialism. It's just that Dimentio says one thing, and then you say the other. So it leaves me a little confused on who's right.

[x371322]

Hmm fair enough. I'll have to look into more about Technocracy vs the streams of socialism. It's just that Dimentio says one thing, and then you say the other. So it leaves me a little confused on who's right.

Consider this: When it comes to learning about technocracy, would you rather believe the actual technocrat? Or the guy trying to discredit Technocrats? RED DAVE thinks he knows more about Technocracy than the actual technocrats around here. He doesn't. He's a good guy, and he knows his shit. I just think he's got something personal against technocrats for some reason. Take a look at one of his previous comments;



One of the prime notions of socialism is the elimination of the distinction between physical and mental labor. What will most likely happen is that their specializations will gradually be integrated into the working class as a whole. (this is actually a position upheld by technocrats)


He goes on to say that Technocrats wish to keep engineers and scientists separate from the working class. He lies. He intentionally misrepresents our positions so he can tear down a strawman. We have stated countless times on this forum, that everyone, would be among the engineers and scientists (or mental laborers, as Dave put it) by the time we reach such a technologically advanced level of society. There would be no more class distinctions. All physical labor will eventually be automated, and all that's left for people to do will be mental labor. As a result, humans will have a lot more free time on our hands, to do the things we actually want to do.

[ckaihatsu]

Here -- in the hopes of clarifying some of this, here's a particularly representative statement from a recent thread of related discussion:








[T]echnocracy by itself has no "theory to power". The class position of technocracy is based on the politics of those individuals or organisations that advocate it.




[T]he concepts of worker's democracy and technical skill are [not] mutually exclusive.


The technocratic lack of a "theory to power" *does* have political implications in the present.

By forfeiting a revolutionary politics one (or an organization) is subject to whatever momentum *does* prevail, for good or ill. In terms of activity technocracy promotes a grassroots type of volunteerism, or redundancy of social effort, in the domain of labor and economics.

Any turn to volunteerism is letting the bourgeoisie off-the-hook, politically, because contemporary society is *not* lacking for any kind of *capacity* of housing, or infrastructure, or productive capacity, or for labor. Instead of scrambling about like ants after a thunderstorm we would be far better off getting the existing powers-that-be to sweat a little and *at least* re-orient society's abilities to address outstanding social needs:





A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

Chapter 15: Self-Help in Hard Times

[...]

The stock market crash of 1929, which marked the beginning of the Great Depression of the United States, came directly from wild speculation which collapsed and brought the whole economy down with it. But, as John Galbraith says in his study of that event (The Great Crash), behind that speculation was the fact that "the economy was fundamentally unsound." He points to very unhealthy corporate and banking structures, an unsound foreign trade, much economic misinformation, and the "bad distribution of income" (the highest 5 percent of the population received about one-third of all personal income).

A socialist critic would go further and say that the capitalist system was by its nature unsound: a system driven by the one overriding motive of corporate profit and therefore unstable, unpredictable, and blind to human needs. The result of all that: permanent depression for many of its people, and periodic crises for almost everybody. Capitalism, despite its attempts at self-reform, its organization for better control, was still in 1929 a sick and undependable system.

After the crash, the economy was stunned, barely moving. Over five thousand banks closed and huge numbers of businesses, unable to get money, closed too. Those that continued laid off employees and cut the wages of those who remained, again and again. Industrial production fell by 50 percent, and by 1933 perhaps 15 million (no one knew exactly)- one-fourth or one-third of the labor force-were out of work. The Ford Motor Company, which in the spring of 1929 had employed 128,000 workers, was down to 37,000 by August of 1931. By the end of 1930, almost half the 280,000 textile mill workers in New England were out of work.

[...]

There were millions of tons of food around, but it was not profitable to transport it, to sell it. Warehouses were full of clothing, but people could not afford it. There were lots of houses, but they stayed empty because people couldn't pay the rent, had been evicted, and now lived in shacks in quickly formed "Hoovervilles" built on garbage dumps.

[...]

The hard, hard times, the inaction of the government in helping, the action of the government in dispersing war veterans-all had their effect on the election of November 1932. Democratic party candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated Herbert Hoover overwhelmingly, took office in the spring of 1933, and began a program of reform legislation which became famous as the "New Deal." When a small veterans' march on Washington took place early in his administration, he greeted them and provided coffee; they met with one of his aides and went home. It was a sign of Roosevelt's approach.

The Roosevelt reforms went far beyond previous legislation. They had to meet two pressing needs: to reorganize capitalism in such a way to overcome the crisis and stabilize the system; also, to head off the alarming growth of spontaneous rebellion in the early years of the Roosevelt administration- organization of tenants and the unemployed, movements of self-help, general strikes in several cities.

[...]

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnselhel15.html

[Quail]

No, Comrade, they will not be cast out. One of the prime notions of socialism is the elimination of the distinction between physical and mental labor. What will most likely happen is that their specializations will gradually be integrated into the working class as a whole.

The problem with Technocracy is that it believes that the distinction between, say, the engineers and the workers, is somehow "normal" and they seek to preserve it. The purpose of their fetishism of technique is to keep the special privileges of engineers, architects, scientists, lower managers, etc. Why else would they keep on hammering about this nonissue?


Just a quick comment (this thread makes me dizzy with all the circles...) but an awful lot of jobs that people don't like will very likely be taken over by machines, leaving only fulfilling work for people to do. I think it's highly unlikely that everyone is going to have the knowledge and skills to be an expert at everything and be able to do any work competently.

Also, a lot of people posting in this thread are anarchists and communists, as well as technocrats, so I'm assuming that they have a good grasp of class insight (I'm sure there's a proper term for that but my brain isn't functioning too well atm).

[Dimentio]

What you are talking about, when you talk about building housing, etc., is social work. The bourgeosie does it much better; trust me.

Actually, when you stated above that you will advance your cause, "for example by giving food to homeless people or establish tenements with lower costs for those who are active supporters for us," you are behaving in an insidious way. What you are trying to do is "buy" people into your movement.

The way to "help" (that word says volumes about your politics) people is to introduce them to revolutionary politics, tactics, strategy. Which Technocracy will never do.

RED DAVE

We will help to advance people much, much more than parties who are telling them to move around like a flock of sheep and shout slogans in order to bring a group of ideologists and bureaucrats into power.

In the 21st century, the control over resources and technology and the knowledge about how to utilise them is essential. We don't want brainless clients since we aren't working to get their votes (which clientelism is ultimately about) but to organise them within a social contest. First when we have a mass movement, we could contend for the future of humanity.

We won't do that by telling people about our plans, because we suffer the same problems as you guys, namely believability. First when we have shown that we are able to improve the lives of people will people follow us.

[Amphictyonis]

We will help to advance people much, much more than parties who are telling them to move around like a flock of sheep and shout slogans in order to bring a group of ideologists and bureaucrats into power.

In the 21st century, the control over resources and technology and the knowledge about how to utilise them is essential. We don't want brainless clients since we aren't working to get their votes (which clientelism is ultimately about) but to organise them within a social contest. First when we have a mass movement, we could contend for the future of humanity.

We won't do that by telling people about our plans, because we suffer the same problems as you guys, namely believability. First when we have shown that we are able to improve the lives of people will people follow us.

believability?

[Dimentio]

believability?

Means how believable the public deems you to be.

Like, you want to vote for a radical left party, but you doubt them to enter the parliament, so you vote for a reformist party instead because they are more believable in the sense that they could enter parliament.

That is just one example. Could be applied on any kinds of relationships where groups are competing for the loyalty of individuals or other groups.

[Amphictyonis]

Means how believable the public deems you to be.

Like, you want to vote for a radical left party, but you doubt them to enter the parliament, so you vote for a reformist party instead because they are more believable in the sense that they could enter parliament.

That is just one example. Could be applied on any kinds of relationships where groups are competing for the loyalty of individuals or other groups.

Would you say the public (workers) have more so, historically, supported socialism or technocracy? I'm not sure if believability is the problem with socialism any more than the bourgeoisie propaganda strangle hold on the western mind.

Anyway, what is the new Zeitgeist movie going to be about? Does it come out in October?

[CommunityBeliever]

There is no ruling class in technocracy, since everyone has the same relationship to the means of production; everyone is functionally vital and everyone has the same degree of access to the products of society.

Correct me if I am wrong but technocracy by its definition is a rule of technical experts, which means those technical experts will be technocracies ruling class.

The term technocracy derives from the Greek words tekhne meaning skill and kratos meaning power, as in government, or rule. Thus the term technocracy denotes a system of government where those who have knowledge, expertise or skills compose the governing body.

Those who have knowledge, expertise, or skills will compose the governing body... Do you really believe in this then?

[Dimentio]

Would you say the public (workers) have more so, historically, supported socialism or technocracy? I'm not sure if believability is the problem with socialism any more than the bourgeoisie propaganda strangle hold on the western mind.

Anyway, what is the new Zeitgeist movie going to be about? Does it come out in October?

Historically yes, but I believe that there doesn't need to be any antagonism between socialism and technocracy.

[Amphictyonis]

Correct me if I am wrong but technocracy by its definition is a rule of technical experts, which means those technical experts will be technocracies ruling class.

The term technocracy derives from the Greek words tekhne meaning skill and kratos meaning power, as in government, or rule. Thus the term technocracy denotes a system of government where those who have knowledge, expertise or skills compose the governing body.

Those who have knowledge, expertise, or skills will compose the governing body... Do you really believe in this then?

A classes society you say?

[Quail]

Correct me if I am wrong but technocracy by its definition is a rule of technical experts, which means those technical experts will be technocracies ruling class.

The term technocracy derives from the Greek words tekhne meaning skill and kratos meaning power, as in government, or rule. Thus the term technocracy denotes a system of government where those who have knowledge, expertise or skills compose the governing body.

Those who have knowledge, expertise, or skills will compose the governing body... Do you really believe in this then?

An anarchist interpretation of technocracy would allow for workers to have autonomy in their own field, and so the workers would be the governing body.

(Correct me if I'm wrong)

[CommunityBeliever]

A classes society you say?

I want a classeless society not one ruled by some "ruling class" like technical experts or capitalists.

[Amphictyonis]

Historically yes, but I believe that there doesn't need to be any antagonism between socialism and liberal democracy.

I think reformism and revolutionary socialism are not compatible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformism

Here's a definition. What makes you different from reformists?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I want a classeless society not one ruled by some "ruling class" like technical experts or capitalists.

Actually, by all accounts you wish to have all humans under the cybernetic thumb of a central controlling AI - this is about as far from a classless society as one can get.


I think reformism and revolutionary socialism are not compatible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformism

Here's a definition. What makes you different from reformists?

Reformists run for government in the mistaken belief that the system can be changed from within into something more friendly. Technocrats on the other hand recognise that an inherently corrupt sociopolitical system has measures in place to prevent that sort of thing happening.

[Dimentio]

Correct me if I am wrong but technocracy by its definition is a rule of technical experts, which means those technical experts will be technocracies ruling class.

The term technocracy derives from the Greek words tekhne meaning skill and kratos meaning power, as in government, or rule. Thus the term technocracy denotes a system of government where those who have knowledge, expertise or skills compose the governing body.

Those who have knowledge, expertise, or skills will compose the governing body... Do you really believe in this then?

We believe that decisions should be made on the basis of facts, not popular opinion. That means that we must have very strict goals to what we should achieve, and that the functionaries must be transparent.

I also do not believe there is a single individual in a social or industrial function who is lacking expertise. Those works we will seek to abolish within the service sector would be jobs where there is no need for expertise.

Instead of having an incompetent boss telling workers what to do, the workers themselves will find the most efficient way of reaching the goals.

[Amphictyonis]

Actually, by all accounts you wish to have all humans under the cybernetic thumb of a central controlling AI - this is about as far from a classless society as one can get.



Reformists run for government in the mistaken belief that the system can be changed from within into something more friendly. Technocrats on the other hand recognise that an inherently corrupt sociopolitical system has measures in place to prevent that sort of thing happening.
Does Technocracy advocate the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie?

[Amphictyonis]

We believe that decisions should be made on the basis of facts, not popular opinion.

So you do not advocate democracy. What was the problem with Stalin? Did he create a democratic environment?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Does Technocracy advocate the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie?

No, but there's no reason why individuals/organisations that advocate technocracy cannot also advocate popular revolution. If that's what it takes, then I'm certainly all for it.

[CommunityBeliever]

We believe that decisions should be made on the basis of facts

That isn't really your position, you don't advocate a factocracy, but a technocracy which is a society with a ruling class of technical experts.

Technical experts are not infallible, or perfectly rational, they are only human and they won't be able to effectively determine what is fact and what is not, the only entity that would be able to do that is an AI which is based on rational algorithms, and I don't see your people calling for an Aicracy.

On the other hand, I have been stating that after we achieve working class rule and communism we should create an Aicracy so we can truly have a rule based on facts.


not popular opinion.

The rule of popular opinion is necessary to determine what most people want so that we can satisfy the most people.


Instead of having an incompetent boss telling workers what to do, the workers themselves will find the most efficient way of reaching the goals.

Sounds good to me, so you are interested in working class rule now? Perhaps a better question is why are you "technocrats" and not communists? And what is your problem with comrade Marx?

[Amphictyonis]

Does Technocracy advocate the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie?



No

Well then, as I said in the thread in the learning section what makes you different from Tolstoy? He was a reformist and thought he could build enclaves free of private property in a "lead by example" sort of way I see you guys professing here. The bourgeoisie will never give up their position in society peacefully. This was one of Marx's main points. This is the entire point of revolutionary socialism so if technocracy, the movement, does not advocate revolution it is reformist.

[Quail]

Well then, as I said in the thread in the learning section what makes you different from Tolstoy? He was a reformist and thought he could build enclaves free of private property in a "lead by example" sort of way I see you guys professing here. The bourgeoisie will never give up their position in society peacefully. This was one of Marx's main points. This is the entire point of revolutionary socialism.

Technocracy as an entire movement might not advocate a revolution, but an anarchist or a communist that wishes to harness the idea of technocracy probably does. It seems like you selectively quoted NoXion's post because
but there's no reason why individuals/organisations that advocate technocracy cannot also advocate popular revolution. If that's what it takes, then I'm certainly all for it.clearly shows a technocrat advocating a revolution. You just quoted the "no" out of context.

[Amphictyonis]

Technocracy as an entire movement might not advocate a revolution, but an anarchist or a communist that wishes to harness the idea of technocracy probably does. It seems like you selectively quoted NoXion's post becauseclearly shows a technocrat advocating a revolution. You just quoted the "no" out of context.

No I quoted the direct answer to my question. It was a yes or no question. Does technocracy, the movement, advocate revolution. No. So then, technocracy the movement is a reformist movement. An anti democratic one at that.

My mouth was peeling from dehydration by the way (from the thread about drinking). I think I had 3 cases of beer in one week.

[Rêve Rouge]

We believe that decisions should be made on the basis of facts, not popular opinion.


So you do not advocate democracy. What was the problem with Stalin? Did he create a democratic environment?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't facts and democracy go hand-in-hand?

For example, if you were to vote on a new law say regarding gay marriage; would you use facts saying that it should be legal because by definition, marriage is the social union/legal contract between two people? Or would you go by popular opinion saying that gay marriage is so-called "blasphemous" due to popular religious beliefs?

Popular opinion is the driving force behind populism, which is the stepping stone towards fascism.

But of course, in a hypothetical socialist society, facts would be integrated into popular opinion. As for the ongoing revolutionary struggle, we as leftists must use facts to educate the ignorant whom are brainwashed by the bourgeoisie's reactionary views. And these views, more or less tend to popular opinion.

[Amphictyonis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't facts and democracy go hand-in-hand?

For example, if you were to vote on a new law say regarding gay marriage; would you use facts saying that it should be legal because by definition, marriage is the social union/legal contract between two people? Or would you go by popular opinion saying that gay marriage is so-called "blasphemous" due to popular religious beliefs?

Popular opinion is the driving force behind populism, which is the stepping stone towards fascism.

But of course, in a hypothetical socialist society, facts would be integrated into popular opinion. As for the ongoing revolutionary struggle, we as leftists must use facts to educate the ignorant whom are brainwashed by the bourgeoisie's reactionary views. And these views, more or less tend to popular opinion.

You're wrong. He was framing democracy as "popular opinion". What he advocates is just what he said- decisions made by the "most intelligent" not that pesky public opinion (direct democracy). Democracy is not the stepping stone towards fascism. All I can say is wow. He is degrading the masses/working classes ability to self manage.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No I quoted the direct answer to my question. It was a yes or no question. Does technocracy, the movement, advocate revolution. No. So then, technocracy the movement is a reformist movement.

Technocracy doesn't advocate reformism either. The world isn't black and white like you seem to think it is.


An anti democratic one at that.

I and others have made posts on how technocracy and democracy can be integrated, I suggest you read them. That is, if you're interested in actually learning about the positions of technocrats on this site, instead of asking loaded questions in order to confirm your own ideological prejudices.

[Amphictyonis]

Technocracy doesn't advocate reformism either. The world isn't black and white like you seem to think it is.





I remember you from the Venus project thread. I'll play along. Tell me how you think the Venus project (since you were defending it) can in any way threaten capitalism (if not by a reformist agenda).

[Rêve Rouge]

You're wrong. He was framing democracy as "popular opinion". What he advocates is just what he said- decisions made by the "most intelligent" not that pesky public opinion (direct democracy). Democracy is not the stepping stone towards fascism. All I can say is wow. He is degrading the masses/working classes ability to self manage.

Well I never said Democracy would lead to Fascism. I said Populism would. Populism is driven by popular opinion is it not? Hence the root word "popular".

But back to on topic, I think there needs to be a distinction between workers given the autonomy over their respective work field vs. being ruled under by a class of technical experts. I always thought the former was what Technocracy advocated. Because I know from my workplace that engineers are not autonomous, nor do they manage the workplace. They are still, just like the rest of the workers, under control by a group of managers.

[CommunityBeliever]

I always thought the former was what Technocracy advocated.

If it isn't then tell me what are guys "technocrats" and not communists and Marxists like us?

[Amphictyonis]

Well I never said Democracy would lead to Fascism. I said Populism would. Populism is driven by popular opinion is it not? Hence the root word "popular".

But back to on topic, I think there needs to be a distinction between workers given the autonomy over their respective work field vs. being ruled under by a class of technical experts. I always thought the former was what Technocracy advocated. Because I know from my workplace that engineers are not autonomous, nor do they manage the workplace. They are still, just like the rest of the workers, under control by a group of managers.

Yes, capitalists/owners. Technocracy seeks to cut off that head and put the engineers on top of the body. The "most skilled".
And as far as democracy I would think it obvious he was referring to the inability of workers to self manage, especially if they're not "scientifically/emotionally detached engineers". It would be a sterile environment. A brave new world indeed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I remember you from the Venus project thread. I'll play along. Tell me how you think the Venus project (since you were defending it) can in any way threaten capitalism (if not by a reformist agenda).

At the very least, by providing a detailed vision of a non-capitalist society, it will spread awareness that an alternative is possible, but without the historical baggage of traditional socialist ideologies.

The mere fact that ideas like the Venus Project are gaining ground is an indication that the capitalist price system (including its associated political processes) is increasingly losing credibility to the average person.

[Amphictyonis]

At the very least, by providing a detailed vision of a non-capitalist society, it will spread awareness that an alternative is possible, but without the historical baggage of traditional socialist ideologies.



What did Tolstoy try to do? What is the "historical baggage" ,as you put it, of traditional socialist ideologies?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What did Tolstoy try to do?

Write novels?


What is the "historical baggage" ,as you put it, of traditional socialist ideologies?

I'm assuming you're not daft, so you know the answer to this question already.

[Rêve Rouge]

If it isn't then tell me what are guys "technocrats" and not communists and Marxists like us?

Maybe because Technocracy is more focused on what a post-capitalist society ought to look like, rather than focusing on the methods on how to get there? Whereas Communism/Marxism focuses more or less on the methods on how to move towards a a post-capitalist society. That's why technocrats refer themselves as technocrats because they're more focused on how society ought to be organized.

I dunno, that's the best answer I can give. I myself am not a technocrat. I'm just trying to understand where they're coming from, instead of jumping to conclusions thinking that they're all a bunch of technical bureaucrats. I'm not hostile to technocracy, nor am I in full support of it. I need to truly understand what exactly technocracy is and is not before I can make a stance. And the arguments on this thread seem to be bouncing back and forth due to different interpretations of technocratic organizations like eos or The Venus Project.

[Amphictyonis]

Write novels?



I'm assuming you're not daft, so you know the answer to this question already.

No, he started a bunch of communes with the goal of replacing capitalism without revolution. He also wrote but politically he was a reformist, as in, opposed to revolution. Things such as the Venus Project have been tried before. Capitalism cannot be overtaken from within peacefully.

[CommunityBeliever]

Maybe because Technocracy is more focused on what a post-capitalist society ought to look like, rather than focusing on the methods on how to get there? Whereas Communism/Marxism focuses more or less on the methods on how to move towards a a post-capitalist society. That's why technocrats refer themselves as technocrats because they're more focused on how society ought to be organized.

This isn't true, communists are concerned with how society should be organized, you act as if there isn't any disagreement here.

Technocrats act like they hold copyright over all science and all designs of society, which is really freaking frustrating.


I'm just trying to understand where they're coming from, instead of jumping to conclusions thinking that they're all a bunch of technical bureaucrats.

It is my understanding that they are just a bunch of technical bureaucrats that want themselves to rule because they think the masses are stupid people that need educating.

If they weren't technical bureaucrats they would just call themselves communists and not technocrats.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, he started a bunch of communes with the goal of replacing capitalism without revolution. He also wrote but politically he was a reformist, as in, opposed to revolution. Things such as the Venus Project have been tried before. Capitalism cannot be overtaken from within peacefully.

As far as I'm aware, the Venus Project does not advocate "starting a bunch of communes". Even it did, there's no reason for the strategies to remain unchanged.

[Amphictyonis]

Write novels?



I'm assuming you're not daft, so you know the answer to this question already.

No, he started a bunch of communes with the goal of replacing capitalism without revolution. He also wrote but politically he was a reformist, as in, opposed to revolution. Things such as the Venus Project have been tried before. Capitalism cannot be overtaken from within peacefully.

Anyway, I'm a Marxist critic of both the Bolsheviks and Stalin so don't think I'm condoning Bolshivism here but why do you think Stalin purged the engineers early on and then trained engineers loyal to his party?

What I don't seem to understand is the reason anyone need to advocate technocracy. Why not simply advocate Marxism? (not Bolshevism but modern Marxism which seeks to put the working class in control of the means of sustenance)Hell, even anarchism would do.

Thus far I see two problems with Technocracy- it's lack of revolutionary theory and lack of workers direct democracy/total control over the means of production. We could all come up with various plans to provide material abundance but it doesn't make it a part of the revolutionary socialist tradition such as Marxism and anarchism.

Besides, we're nowhere near automation yet. Marxism would naturally advance to that in time.

[ckaihatsu]

If they weren't technical bureaucrats they would just call themselves communists and not technocrats.


I certainly agree with this defining point -- here's another take, again from a recent, related discussion:








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.

[CommunityBeliever]

What I don't seem to understand is the reason anyone need to advocate technocracy. Why not simply advocate Marxism?!!!?!!?! .

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Anyway, I'm a Marxist critic of both the Bolsheviks and Stalin so don't think I'm condoning Bolshivism here but why do you think Stalin purged the engineers early on and then trained engineers loyal to his party?

I would assume because he perceived them to be a political threat. Whether they actually were is another matter.


What I don't seem to understand is the reason anyone need to advocate technocracy. Why not simply advocate Marxism? (not Bolshevism but modern Marxism which seeks to put the working class in control of the means of sustenance)

Because if Marxism's claim to be scientific is to be taken at all seriously, it is by necessity incomplete. Technocracy fills a gap that Marxists have all too frequently neglected.


Hell, even anarchism would do.

Technocracy is also more incomplete without an anarchist perspective. It reminds us (or at least should remind us) that technical authority should not translate into political authority. Hence why I think a technocratic society should not have police, prisons, or a centralised armed force.


Thus far I see two problems with Technocracy- it's lack of revolutionary theory and lack of workers direct democracy/total control over the means of production. We could all come up with various plans to provide material abundance but it doesn't make it a part of the revolutionary socialist tradition such as Marxism and anarchism.

That is why I am more than just a technocrat.


Besides, we're nowhere near automation yet. Marxism would naturally advance to that in time.

Total automation is not necessary; technocracy is as much if not more about more efficient organisation of workloads as it is about automation.

[Amphictyonis]

1. I would assume because he perceived them to be a political threat. Whether they actually were is another matter.



2.Because if Marxism's claim to be scientific is to be taken at all seriously, it is by necessity incomplete. Technocracy fills a gap that Marxists have all too frequently neglected.



1, It was because Lenin, before he died, was aware the communist party was not in control of the means of production/decision making, it was, in his view, petty bourgeois engineers.

The ideal scenario, under Marxism, would be to have a population of engineers not accountable to the Bolshevik party or in control themselves but completely as one with the people/workers. This is the goal of Marxism so I have to ask again, why advocate technocracy? Specifically.


2. Marxists don't neglect the application of technology to provide material abundance.

3. I'd still like to know what the "historical baggage" of revolutionary socialism is in your opinion.

[ZeroNowhere]

Because if Marxism's claim to be scientific is to be taken at all seriously, it is by necessity incomplete. Technocracy fills a gap that Marxists have all too frequently neglected.
Technocrats have worked out the ending to the chapter on classes in Volume III of Capital?

[Dimentio]

That isn't really your position, you don't advocate a factocracy, but a technocracy which is a society with a ruling class of technical experts.

Technical experts are not infallible, or perfectly rational, they are only human and they won't be able to effectively determine what is fact and what is not, the only entity that would be able to do that is an AI which is based on rational algorithms, and I don't see your people calling for an Aicracy.

On the other hand, I have been stating that after we achieve working class rule and communism we should create an Aicracy so we can truly have a rule based on facts.



The rule of popular opinion is necessary to determine what most people want so that we can satisfy the most people.



Sounds good to me, so you are interested in working class rule now? Perhaps a better question is why are you "technocrats" and not communists? And what is your problem with comrade Marx?

Here we go again...

Where exactly on EOS' website do we advocate unequal distribution of resources or a formal caste system?

Our methodology to determine what most people want is called "energy accounting". It means that people are allocating their personal income quotas to what they want produced for themselves. In short, the technate is not going to plan what is going to produced, but to plan how what the consumers want produced should be produced.

[RED DAVE]

Does Technocracy advocate the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie?
No, but there's no reason why individuals/organisations that advocate technocracy cannot also advocate popular revolution. If that's what it takes, then I'm certainly all for it.Okay, so you've made my point: Technocracy is not a revolutionary ideology and should be relegated to the "Opposing Ideologies" forum.

Individuals who consider themselves revolutionaries and who adhere to Technocracy (for reasons beyond my ken) are cool. But Technocracy, in its European or North American version, is exposed for what it is: a nonrevolutionary ideology.

RED DAVE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Okay, so you've made my point: Technocracy is not a revolutionary ideology and should be relegated to the "Opposing Ideologies" forum.

Individuals who consider themselves revolutionaries and who adhere to Technocracy (for reasons beyond my ken) are cool. But Technocracy, in its European or North American version, is exposed for what it is: a nonrevolutionary ideology.

You might not have noticed, but non-revolutionaries do not get automatically restricted, because it is not synonymous with "supporter of capitalism" or "anti-communist" or any other restriction-worthy position.

[RED DAVE]

You might not have noticed, but non-revolutionaries do not get automatically restricted, because it is not synonymous with "supporter of capitalism" or "anti-communist" or any other restriction-worthy position.Actually, I have noticed. I just wanted my position clear: I do not advocate banning, restricting, etc.

What I am saying is that Technocracy is clearly a nonrevolutionary ideology and threads that discuss it belong in "Opposing Ideologies."

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

Total automation is not necessary; technocracy is as much if not more about more efficient organisation of workloads as it is about automation. [emphasis added]


By *this* definition technocracy is not even *political*, much less revolutionary -- it's some technical-procedure thing that would be secondary to the overall structuring of work and the workplace by the larger working class, in a revolutionary period.