Technocracy: some issues-

[ComradeMan]

"Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer), scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist), health professionals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_professional) and other technical experts are in control of decision making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making) in their respective fields. 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. In a technocracy decision makers would be selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_capital) they hold."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

I was thinking- how is that "democratic" or fair? Knowledge/education does not necessarily equate with wise judgement or fairness nor does it eliminate personal interest, greed or vested interests.

Would technocracy not just substitute one form of oligarchy for another one? Would it not be just like a 21st century tech version of Plato's philosopher kings (loosely)?

[Dimentio]

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75:holons-and-a-holonic-society&catid=27:engineering&Itemid=95

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:technocracy-government-over-machines&catid=35:social&Itemid=95

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167:confederalism-democracy-and-technocracy&catid=35:social&Itemid=95

It is not supposed to be a government over people. It is supposed to be a technical administration over resources, which would be under control of the people.

If you belong to the category who is thinking that your fridge or your washing machine is repressing you, it would appear as pretty repressive.

[Che a chara]

The way I understand it is that those who have a specialised field work together in that field, and use their time and resources in only that field in order to enhance their product with their knowledge and experience. Though it can be perceived as being somewhat elitist and in favour of the division of labour, it's not a role of worker exploitation or control.

[Roman_von_Ungern]

Oh, look, a furry talking out of his ass.

[Dimentio]

The way I understand it is that those who have a specialised field work together in that field, and use their time and resources in only that field in order to enhance their product with their knowledge and experience. Though it can be perceived as being somewhat elitist and in favour of the division of labour, it's not a role of worker exploitation or control.

Division of labour is largely a product of increased technological capabilities of society.

Societies without "DoL" would either be primitive tribal societies where everyone are working with basic survival, or societies so technologically advanced that human beings would literally not need to do any work at all.

[ComradeMan]

But this is all well and good...

What is technocracy's position on property rights? Who "owns" property? And what is the definition of ownership?

[Che a chara]

Division of labour is largely a product of increased technological capabilities of society.

Societies without "DoL" would either be primitive tribal societies where everyone are working with basic survival, or societies so technologically advanced that human beings would literally not need to do any work at all.

Do you not proscribe to the alienative theory ? bang goes hunting in the morning, fishing in the afternoon, rearing cattle in the evening and criticising after dinner :lol:

[ComradeMan]

Do you not proscribe to the alienative theory ? bang goes hunting in the morning, fishing in the afternoon, rearing cattle in the evening and criticising after dinner :lol:

If there's no fishing I'm out.....:cool:

[Dimentio]

But this is all well and good...

What is technocracies position on property rights? Who "owns" property? And what is the definition of ownership?

The goal is that a continuous calculation of the Earth's carrying capacity is made. That capacity is divided between all human beings. People allocate their share to what they want produced for themselves, and production is adapted after that.

In short, all human beings own a share of the total production capacity, but no one is owning any single factory, road or means of production.

[Dimentio]

Do you not proscribe to the alienative theory ? bang goes hunting in the morning, fishing in the afternoon, rearing cattle in the evening and criticising after dinner :lol:

That is not possible to achieve in an industrial-level society, since it is not possible to uphold complex chains of distribution in that manner.

[Thug Lessons]

Division of labour is largely a product of increased technological capabilities of society.

Societies without "DoL" would either be primitive tribal societies where everyone are working with basic survival, or societies so technologically advanced that human beings would literally not need to do any work at all.

The problem is not that any sort of division of labor exists. When Marx talked about the negative effects of the division of labor in capitalist societies he didn't contrast what he saw with primitive tribes, but with pre-capitalist artisans. What had happened was that the labor process had become divided to such an extreme degree that all the creative labor was restricted to a small set of individuals while the vast majority of workers were assigned increasingly specialized, repetitive tasks, and that's a problem that technocracy would repeat.

[Dimentio]

The problem is not that any sort of division of labor exists. When Marx talked about the negative effects of the division of labor in capitalist societies he didn't contrast what he saw with primitive tribes, but with pre-capitalist artisans. What had happened was that the labor process had become divided to such an extreme degree that all the creative labor was restricted to a small set of individuals while the vast majority of workers were assigned increasingly specialized, repetitive tasks, and that's a problem that technocracy would repeat.

Not really. The repetitive tasks are being phased out, and are already being phased out today. Most work within a technate is conducted in project groups called "holons", where the people working with them would get the freedom to define how they want to reach the goals.

So... no.

[Thug Lessons]

Not really. The repetitive tasks are being phased out, and are already being phased out today. Most work within a technate is conducted in project groups called "holons", where the people working with them would get the freedom to define how they want to reach the goals.

So... no.

Who's advocating this particular form of technocracy? The kind I'm familiar with is an early 20th century theory that advocates administration and control by technical experts.

[Roman_von_Ungern]

Also, robots are doing most repetitive chores today.

[Dimentio]

Who's advocating this particular form of technocracy? The kind I'm familiar with is an early 20th century theory that advocates administration and control by technical experts.

www.eoslife.eu

[Demogorgon]

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75:holons-and-a-holonic-society&catid=27:engineering&Itemid=95

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:technocracy-government-over-machines&catid=35:social&Itemid=95

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167:confederalism-democracy-and-technocracy&catid=35:social&Itemid=95

It is not supposed to be a government over people. It is supposed to be a technical administration over resources, which would be under control of the people.

If you belong to the category who is thinking that your fridge or your washing machine is repressing you, it would appear as pretty repressive.
"Technical administration" amounts to control. And control over the production process is the basis for general control over society.

The economic question breaks down simply into what to produce, how to produce it and how to distribute it. Under capitalism the first and third are determined by the public in general on an extremely unequal basis. The second is determined by the capitalists. So we can sum up the problem in capitalism as being inequality in determining what to make and how to distribute it and lack of control over the production process.

Technocracy seeks to solve the first problem by giving everyone equal "purchasing power. I do not believe its proposal would work, but let's leave that to one side for the moment and focus on the problem of what it intends to do about the problem that people do not determine how things are made. It doesn't really solve it. The actual production process is not run by those on the ground but rather by a body delegated with the task. The basis for political power is not directly in the hands of the people.

[ComradeMan]

"Technical administration" amounts to control. And control over the production process is the basis for general control over society.

Yeah... that phrase sounds very "open" to interpretation...

[Le Libérer]

www.eoslife.eu (http://www.eoslife.eu)
Anyone who subscribes to this particular brand of technocracy should be caged. :rolleyes: rs2ks words not mine after I read from this website,


The second stepping stone takes the form of larger companies. The first stepping stones will probably remain at the level of hobby companies; generating some income but hardly enough work or money for employing people although some might transform from a hobby company to one that can employ people. The second set of companies should have enough business to employ people and generate larger income. and

Ownership[1] is by its very nature exclusive. It means that you, granted by society or by your own strength (given if you live in an area plagued by social chaos) holds a physical object, a bit of land or a privilegie, and that you have the right to interfere and punish people who also are trying to use that property.The key and unique revolutionary role of the working class in the overthrow of capitalism, this group doesnt do that. For socialism or communism to happen you must have capitalism/revolution/socialsm or communism. Not oh we are going to work beside Capitalism by forming our own companies then push them out of the way when we overthrow them. Who the hell you trying to fool?

rs2k, when I read to him from this site said,
"there have been many to advocate for revolution if they are the ones to make the profits or have the control, I call that trickery and hardly revoltionary at all."

[RED DAVE]

Who's advocating this particular form of technocracy?There's a whole bunch of ne-Technocrats around here. Right now, there's a thread going on as the the wisdom of restructing the subjectg, like social democracy or liberalism.


The kind I'm familiar with is an early 20th century theory that advocates administration and control by technical experts.The new kind is the same, although they pretty it up.

Here's the thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/eos-tendency-t152965/index.html

RED DAVE

[Le Libérer]

There's a whole bunch of ne-Technocrats around here. Right now, there's a thread going on as the the wisdom of restructing the subjectg, like social democracy or liberalism.

The new kind is the same, although they pretty it up.

Here's the thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/eos-tendency-t152965/index.html

RED DAVE
RED DAVE only members of the committed users forum can read that. If you want to quote from yourself in that thread, its okay, but quoting others isnt allowed.

[RED DAVE]

Here is the home page of the European brand of Technocracy.

http://www.eoslife.eu/

If you want a hoot, use the internal search engine for "socialism" or "proletarian."

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

"Technical administration" amounts to control. And control over the production process is the basis for general control over society.

The economic question breaks down simply into what to produce, how to produce it and how to distribute it. Under capitalism the first and third are determined by the public in general on an extremely unequal basis. The second is determined by the capitalists. So we can sum up the problem in capitalism as being inequality in determining what to make and how to distribute it and lack of control over the production process.

Technocracy seeks to solve the first problem by giving everyone equal "purchasing power. I do not believe its proposal would work, but let's leave that to one side for the moment and focus on the problem of what it intends to do about the problem that people do not determine how things are made. It doesn't really solve it. The actual production process is not run by those on the ground but rather by a body delegated with the task. The basis for political power is not directly in the hands of the people.

The actual production process is run by bodies, that is correct. The bodies are in this case holons, bottom-up organisations consisting of people who work with a task because it is interesting to them. Decisions are made as locally as possible. The central level is only dealing with things that only could be solved on the central level.

So... no.

[Dimentio]

COTR:

I have already explained the two quotes for you COTR, three times.

The companies in question are not profit-driven capitalist firms, but cooperatives driven on a not-for-profit basis.

The second quote is a fucking description of how it works today. If I write that the current system is living off the exploitation of people, is that a descriptive or assertive statement?

[Le Libérer]

COTR:

I have already explained the two quotes for you COTR, three times.

The companies in question are not profit-driven capitalist firms, but cooperatives driven on a not-for-profit basis.

The second quote is a fucking description of how it works today. If I write that the current system is living off the exploitation of people, is that a descriptive or assertive statement?
And your explanation was in a closed group, the committed users forum, not here where those participating cannot see your fucking explantion.

And your fucking discription is anti-revolutionary as is all the members, except yourself, right?

I want to make it clear, the jury was out as far as I was concerned regarding technocracy, but I find EOS a variation of technocracy as I perceived it. If you dont want the EOS to be examined, dont keep posting it on this board.

[Thug Lessons]

Here is the home page of the European brand of Technocracy.

http://www.eoslife.eu/

If you want a hoot, use the internal search engine for "socialism" or "proletarian."

RED DAVE

I browsed that page for a while when Demento posted it earlier. There's one page where they claim that companies under technocracy are "not profitable, (though they do produce a profit)" and another where they voice support for "rule by skill" but try to explain why this isn't really undemocratic. It's not all bad but a lot of it is really kooky shit, barely coherent.

[RGacky3]

"not profitable, (though they do produce a profit)"

Although I am not a technocrat, that statement is perfectly plausable, a non-profit company could easily take in a surplus, the non-profit vrs for-profit distinction has to do with structure and incentive, if a non profit has surplus every single quarter, it does'nt change the fact that its non-profit.

[Dimentio]

I browsed that page for a while when Demento posted it earlier. There's one page where they claim that companies under technocracy are "not profitable, (though they do produce a profit)" and another where they voice support for "rule by skill" but try to explain why this isn't really undemocratic. It's not all bad but a lot of it is really kooky shit, barely coherent.

The holons are non-profit operations, that is correct. What is wrong with that?

As for the "Rule by skill" article, the main problem seems to be that the original source for the images have been removed or something. I also don't see why it is repressive or undemocratic having a person knowing how to do surgeries perform one for example.

[Thug Lessons]

Although I am not a technocrat, that statement is perfectly plausable, a non-profit company could easily take in a surplus, the non-profit vrs for-profit distinction has to do with structure and incentive, if a non profit has surplus every single quarter, it does'nt change the fact that its non-profit.

I assume they were getting at something like that, but the way it's phrased is contradictory. "Non-profitable" always means "doesn't make a profit".

[Dimentio]

I assume they were getting at something like that, but the way it's phrased is contradictory. "Non-profitable" always means "doesn't make a profit".

Dr. Wallace is a dyslectic. We really need to correct some articles.

[Le Libérer]

Although I am not a technocrat, that statement is perfectly plausable, a non-profit company could easily take in a surplus, the non-profit vrs for-profit distinction has to do with structure and incentive, if a non profit has surplus every single quarter, it does'nt change the fact that its non-profit.
If a nonprofit is making a surplus its not a non profit. Nonprofit disperse all funds usually before they get reimbursed by their grant makers. There are 2 different kinds of nonprofits government and corporate foundations and with either if you have a surpluss and use those funds for anything except the specialized criteria of the grant you will be penalizd.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Dimentio]

And your explanation was in a closed group, the committed users forum, not here where those participating cannot see your fucking explantion.

And your fucking discription is anti-revolutionary as is all the members, except yourself, right?

I want to make it clear, the jury was out as far as I was concerned regarding technocracy, but I find EOS a variation of technocracy as I perceived it. If you dont want the EOS to be examined, dont keep posting it on this board.

Yes, but why do you persist in ignoring my posts and repeat the same arguments over and over again?

I cannot see how it is anti-something. The article "ownership" and "usership" is not about the entire system, but is a short article examining the difference between the two terms. It's purpose is not to describe the entire current, or future, system.

[Dimentio]

If a nonprofit is making a surplus its not a non profit. Nonprofit disperse all funds usually before they get reimbursed by their grant makers. There are 2 different kinds of nonprofits government and corporate foundations and with either if you have a surpluss and use those funds for anything except the specialized criteria of the grant you will be penalizd.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

According to Swedish laws, non-profits could make as much surplus they want as long as the purpose is to be a non-profit operation (and of course that everything is transparent).

[Demogorgon]

The actual production process is run by bodies, that is correct. The bodies are in this case holons, bottom-up organisations consisting of people who work with a task because it is interesting to them. Decisions are made as locally as possible. The central level is only dealing with things that only could be solved on the central level.

So... no.
This is all rather vague as you fail to describe the power relationship, that is to say in the event of conflict, which part prevails. If the centre can directly or indirectly prevail in at least some cases then it becomes an extremely powerful institution both economically and politically. And as you have described it it is not democratic.

It is all very well to describe it as merely "governing machines" as opposed to people, but when people are dependent on those machines (not to mention machines need operators so deciding what a machine does ipso facto involves getting people to make it so) then control over machines amounts to control over the people.

Your system seeks to place technology at the centre of economic activity and in doing so make control of technology control of political power.

To make a simple point again, in economics there are considered to be four key resources needed for the production process: Land, Labour, Capital and Technology. Feudalism prioritised land, capitalism-as the name suggests-prioritises capital, your system prioritises technology. For those of us who want to put Labour at the centre and hence make it the wellspring of political power, that is just repeating the same old problem. If we ignore the practical difficulties with Technocracy, that is the main problem.

[RGacky3]

"Non-profitable" always means "doesn't make a profit".

Depends how you define profit, if you mean surplus then no, if you mean positive return on investment then yeah.


If a nonprofit is making a surplus its not a non profit. Nonprofit disperse all funds usually before they get reimbursed by their grant makers. There are 2 different kinds of nonprofits government and corporate foundations and with either if you have a surpluss and use those funds for anything except the specialized criteria of the grant you will be penalizd.


Those surpluses can be re-invested in the company, or can be saved up in a fund, or whatever, they are still surpluses.

Or Take state companies for example, like the Norwegian State Oil company (for the most part non-profit), the surplus (which is pretty huge) goes into a national oil fund, but its still considered non profit in the sense that it does not have profit obligations to shareholders.

[Thug Lessons]

As for the "Rule by skill" article, the main problem seems to be that the original source for the images have been removed or something. I also don't see why it is repressive or undemocratic having a person knowing how to do surgeries perform one for example.

It's tempting to think that way, but I'm not impressed by what happens when you put too much power in these people's hands. It's inherently elitist, and a lot of problems flow from that. Like how, in response the specific example you give here, we tend to underestimate the fallibility of doctors because of their technical expertise, but if it was statistically ranked medical error would be one of the leading causes of death in the US.


Dr. Wallace is a dyslectic. We really need to correct some articles.

Apparently he ain't the only one. :D


Depends how you define profit, if you mean surplus then no, if you mean positive return on investment then yeah.

Well assuming we're using a consistent definition, it still makes no sense say "this non-profitable business makes a profit". The only way what you're saying would be relevant here is if the definition of profit changed mid-sentence.

[Le Libérer]

Yes, but why do you persist in ignoring my posts and repeat the same arguments over and over again? I explained why. What s posted in the CU stays in the CU, as does the mod and admin forrums. If you want cut and paste your responses to me, but I wont be guilty of breaking the rules of this board to prove your point.


I cannot see how it is anti-something. The article "ownership" and "usership" is not about the entire system, but is a short article examining the difference between the two terms. It's purpose is not to describe the entire current, or future, system.

Tell us about how the EOS is likened to United Fruit.
And answer my question, is it not true that all the members of EOS are reacttionary Capitalists, except for yourself of course.

[Dimentio]

This is all rather vague as you fail to describe the power relationship, that is to say in the event of conflict, which part prevails. If the centre can directly or indirectly prevail in at least some cases then it becomes an extremely powerful institution both economically and politically. And as you have described it it is not democratic.

If a holon doesn't like the way the technate is run it could.

A) criticise it openly
B) re-call persons and demand investigations
C) leave the technate


It is all very well to describe it as merely "governing machines" as opposed to people, but when people are dependent on those machines (not to mention machines need operators so deciding what a machine does ipso facto involves getting people to make it so) then control over machines amounts to control over the people.

Yes, that is why production should be made as close to those affected by it as possible. Every community and region should have the ability to sustain it's own needs in terms of food and utilities at least.



Your system seeks to place technology at the centre of economic activity and in doing so make control of technology control of political power.

And the control of technology is de-centralised down to the closest possible levels. Every holon is autonomous, but part of the same system. It is not a matter of hierarchical orders from above and obedience from below. The goals are regulated by the "constitution", and the sequences are there just to check what the holons are doing and holding up a system of information-sharing throughout the technate.

Those controlling the technology are those who are working with it within the holons, in short the majority of the working people of the technate. Labour rights and similar issues are basically for every holon to decide (and a typical holon would probably be in size from 15 to 150 people).


To make a simple point again, in economics there are considered to be four key resources needed for the production process: Land, Labour, Capital and Technology. Feudalism prioritised land, capitalism-as the name suggests-prioritises capital, your system prioritises technology. For those of us who want to put Labour at the centre and hence make it the wellspring of political power, that is just repeating the same old problem. If we ignore the practical difficulties with Technocracy, that is the main problem.

The thing is that labour is increasingly fused together with technology today. There are car factories where machines are doing all the physical work. Today, there are even computers which are designing machines. In first world countries, the growing parts of the economy are the parts of the economy with telephone salesmen, shop assistants, hair cutters, consultants, cleaners and people who change jobs every month or two.

[Dimentio]

Tell us about how the EOS is likened to United Fruit.
And answer my question, is it not true that all the members of EOS are reacttionary Capitalists, except for yourself of course.

There are no capitalists within EOS, and EOS doesn't aim to start capitalist firms. We aim to start a network of cooperatives.

If we say that such a network of cooperatives get hold of a nation-state, it would not seek to alter the constitution of that nation-state, except in the areas which are contradicting the aims of the network. If we say that the people later on are voting in a government which aims to "privatise" the network back into the hands of the capitalists, it would be impossible, since the network would own itself, and the government would then violate the very principles it is claiming to defend (it could try to violate them nevertheless).

So, public property in the hands of the technate would be more sure to stay public than public property in the hands of the state. We would not control anything through legislation or through government decisions, but simply by directly controlling the resources through grassroots networks.

[Dimentio]

Well assuming we're using a consistent definition, it still makes no sense say "this non-profitable business makes a profit". The only way what you're saying would be relevant here is if the definition of profit changed mid-sentence.

The author is dyslectic. He did mean "not-for-profit".

[RGacky3]

Well assuming we're using a consistent definition, it still makes no sense say "this non-profitable business makes a profit". The only way what you're saying would be relevant here is if the definition of profit changed mid-sentence.

Not-for-profit, I figured you knew thats what he was talking about.

[ComradeMan]

How would this "scientific dicatorship" or "dictatorship of skilled work" and by skilled we probably mean at quite a sophisticated technological level, deal with the huge amounts of unskilled labour in the world? What about poorer areas of the world where people are not going to be able to be part of the "technate"?

[RED DAVE]

I also don't see why it is repressive or undemocratic having a person knowing how to do surgeries perform one for example.That's not the problem, and you know it.

Technocrracy holds that the adminstration of the economy is a question of skill not class politics: the people who have the skill, bureaucrats, not workers, should run the economy in the future.

There is no question that Technocracy, no matter how its twists and turns, does not believe in an economy run the by the working class, nor does it believe in the working class as a unique agent of revolutionary change.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

If we say that such a network of cooperatives get hold of a nation-stateAnd how would they do that?

What would be the role of the working class in "get[ting] hold of a nation-state"?

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

That's not the problem, and you know it.

Technocrracy holds that the adminstration of the economy is a question of skill not class politics: the people who have the skill, bureaucrats, not workers, should run the economy in the future.

There is no question that Technocracy, no matter how its twists and turns, does not believe in an economy run the by the working class, nor does it believe in the working class as a unique agent of revolutionary change.

RED DAVE

No.

The holons would run the economy. They are small, autonomous units composed of people who are responsible for the fields they have skills in. They decide themselves how they want to organise themselves, how they want to conduct production and what rules they would have internally. It would be completely de-centralised.

In some areas, there would be a higher degree of centralisation, for example in infrastructure. But issues should be handled at the most local level possible.


And how would they do that?

What would be the role of the working class in "get[ting] hold of a nation-state"?

Step I. Produce things

Step II. Get land, resources through buying them. Invite grassroots groups to join the process.

Step III. Repeat.

Step IV. Political means.

[Dimentio]

How would this "scientific dicatorship" or "dictatorship of skilled work" and by skilled we probably mean at quite a sophisticated technological level, deal with the huge amounts of unskilled labour in the world? What about poorer areas of the world where people are not going to be able to be part of the "technate"?

It is not a "dictatorship of the skilled". If it is a dictatorship, it is a dictatorship of "the Earth's carrying capacity". Those managing the holons do not have a say in what laws society should have in their function as workers in a holon, but in their functions as citizens.

The Earth has the capacity to feed, house and clothe all it's inhabitants. It has always been a part of our goals and values to ensure that all human beings could be fed, clothed, housed, have access to utilities, healthcare and education. That is especially important in the Third World.

Even if a person is not a member of a holon, that person should have the right to access the resources of the technate.

[Demogorgon]

If a holon doesn't like the way the technate is run it could.

A) criticise it openly
B) re-call persons and demand investigations
C) leave the technate

Ability to criticise doesn't really amount to control and "recall" has limited power as well. The problem is that who is part of the technate is limited.

And as for leaving, people are reluctant to follow through on such a drastic prospect and as you tell us further down a "holon" consists of only a small number of people. It would hardly be viable for them to leave. And how would a holon operating right in the middle of a major city opt out? It could hardly go its own way in such an economically interdependent environment.


Yes, that is why production should be made as close to those affected by it as possible. Every community and region should have the ability to sustain it's own needs in terms of food and utilities at least.

This sounds tempting but it actually can be very wasteful to do that too much. If one area is very suited producing food and another very good at producing electricity, it makes sense for each to provide for each other. Also of course interdependence helps keep things peaceful. That's why Germany and France don't go to war anymore.


And the control of technology is de-centralised down to the closest possible levels. Every holon is autonomous, but part of the same system. It is not a matter of hierarchical orders from above and obedience from below. The goals are regulated by the "constitution", and the sequences are there just to check what the holons are doing and holding up a system of information-sharing throughout the technate.

Those controlling the technology are those who are working with it within the holons, in short the majority of the working people of the technate. Labour rights and similar issues are basically for every holon to decide (and a typical holon would probably be in size from 15 to 150 people).
Well any organisation of that size is not an autonomous unit and is highly dependent on whatever structure exists above it. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just has to be recognised how important the higher organisation is and that it must be democratic. I don't think you appreciate this enough.

Also have you really thought through how having such a key part of your system based on small numbers of people will work in a world where we live in cities of millions of people?


The thing is that labour is increasingly fused together with technology today. There are car factories where machines are doing all the physical work. Today, there are even computers which are designing machines. In first world countries, the growing parts of the economy are the parts of the economy with telephone salesmen, shop assistants, hair cutters, consultants, cleaners and people who change jobs every month or two.
We get to the key issue here, whether technology should be prioritised over labour, though your answer is vague. To put it in perspective, we know that society needs all four of the resources I mentioned in order to function, we also know that in different economic systems, different resources are dominant. Socialists seek to make labour dominant, and it appears to me technocrats wish technology to be dominant. Now certainly some people would stand to benefit greatly from the source of power moving from control of capital to control of technology and I fully understand why they would wish this to be the case. But it is not the working class that benefits. The dominance of technology might be better for us than the dominance of capital (though obviously that is pure speculation) just as the dominance of capital was largely better than the dominance of land, but that is still dominance of something other than labour.

I know exactly why those heavily involved in technology wish for technology to dominate. What I want to know is why others should prefer it.

[RGacky3]

Step II. Get land, resources through buying them. Invite grassroots groups to join the process.


Really? Because the working class has so much disposable income on their hands, and as if the Capitalist class will just sell it to them at reasonable prices. You do know that Capitalists control the market right?

Market solutions to Market problems are not solutions.

[Demogorgon]

That's not the problem, and you know it.

Technocrracy holds that the adminstration of the economy is a question of skill not class politics: the people who have the skill, bureaucrats, not workers, should run the economy in the future.
RED DAVE
I should point out here that empirical evidence shows that at both the micro level (with the example I know being the running of the work place) and the macro level (the setting of municipal budgets being the best known example here) having ordinary people make the decisions leads to results that exceed more conventional means of decision making.

That is to say worker run workplaces outperform normal capitalist ones and when municipal budgets are set by participatory budgeting they almost invariably benefit the people more than when they are not. The claim that "experts" need to make decisions rather than the people certainly suits those that would keep power out of the hands of the people but it isn't actually true.

[Dimentio]

And as for leaving, people are reluctant to follow through on such a drastic prospect and as you tell us further down a "holon" consists of only a small number of people. It would hardly be viable for them to leave. And how would a holon operating right in the middle of a major city opt out? It could hardly go its own way in such an economically interdependent environment.

The more global echelons of the technate are all elected, just like the leaders for each holon are elected by their members. The only limit on the global level is that those elected should have sufficient knowledge of what they are supposed to do. The global level would also be dependent on the local levels, since it would consist of all of them.


This sounds tempting but it actually can be very wasteful to do that too much. If one area is very suited producing food and another very good at producing electricity, it makes sense for each to provide for each other. Also of course interdependence helps keep things peaceful. That's why Germany and France don't go to war anymore.

Yes, but it is up to these two areas to organise that. In the same time, it is also wasteful to for example maximise food production in the Netherlands, destroying all semblance of natural ecosystems. We want optimal production, not maximal production. Optimal production is basically constrained by the carrying capacity and what people actually are asking for to consume in terms of products and services).


Well any organisation of that size is not an autonomous unit and is highly dependent on whatever structure exists above it. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just has to be recognised how important the higher organisation is and that it must be democratic. I don't think you appreciate this enough.

Also have you really thought through how having such a key part of your system based on small numbers of people will work in a world where we live in cities of millions of people?

All people in positions aking to administrative positions are elected by the members of the holons. They just need to have the right qualifications.


We get to the key issue here, whether technology should be prioritised over labour, though your answer is vague. To put it in perspective, we know that society needs all four of the resources I mentioned in order to function, we also know that in different economic systems, different resources are dominant. Socialists seek to make labour dominant, and it appears to me technocrats wish technology to be dominant. Now certainly some people would stand to benefit greatly from the source of power moving from control of capital to control of technology and I fully understand why they would wish this to be the case. But it is not the working class that benefits. The dominance of technology might be better for us than the dominance of capital (though obviously that is pure speculation) just as the dominance of capital was largely better than the dominance of land, but that is still dominance of something other than labour.

I know exactly why those heavily involved in technology wish for technology to dominate. What I want to know is why others should prefer it.

Technology is a great liberator of human beings, if the system was rational and not corrupted by the fact that most resources are put under the control of extreme minorities.

Your assumption would be relevant if the system I proposed would be highly centralised and with non-electable figures at the helm. Right now, it feels very much like a strawmen criticism.


Really? Because the working class has so much disposable income on their hands, and as if the Capitalist class will just sell it to them at reasonable prices. You do know that Capitalists control the market right?

Market solutions to Market problems are not solutions.

We are not asking the working class to give us money. We are aiming to earn money ourselves to the projects.

[Demogorgon]

The more global echelons of the technate are all elected, just like the leaders for each holon are elected by their members. The only limit on the global level is that those elected should have sufficient knowledge of what they are supposed to do. The global level would also be dependent on the local levels, since it would consist of all of them.
[...]

All people in positions aking to administrative positions are elected by the members of the holons. They just need to have the right qualifications.
You seek to erect new barriers to the democratic process that do not normally exist under capitalism. How can it be progress to create a brand new impediment to the expression of the people's will?

I have already demonstrated. that the democratic process deals with economic matters effectively at both the micro and macro levels. Placing power in the hands of the perceived "expert" would only be justifiable if it could be shown that that would be for the common good. Yet that is not the case.


Technology is a great liberator of human beings, if the system was rational and not corrupted by the fact that most resources are put under the control of extreme minorities.Technology is a good thing, but it does not follow that it should be the source of power.

Like I say, I know perfectly well that some people would benefit greatly from the ascension of technology to the summit of economic importance and I fully understand why people heavily involved in the technological sector would greatly desire it to happen. I ask why wider society should not wish all resources-technology included-to be subservient to labour.


Your assumption would be relevant if the system I proposed would be highly centralised and with non-electable figures at the helm. Right now, it feels very much like a strawmen criticism.

I didn't say you did. What I said was that you place the source of power in something other than labour. I don't think you appreciate how crucial this is. It is natural for people who will greatly benefit from something to believe that it is for the good of all that it would happen and as such those heavily involved with technology will naturally believe that placing themselves at the centre of the economy will be good for all, but I wish to know why people not so involved should wish for this.

[RED DAVE]

All people in positions aking to administrative positions are elected by the members of the holons. They just need to have the right qualifications.You can't get away from it because you don't want to.

Hiding behind this 'right qualifications' shit is the same garbage that Techcnoracy has been shoveling since the late 1920s: there is an elite of people who have "the right qualifications" to run the world, and they should run it. In the beginning Techncoracy was for a dictatorship of the engineers. They cover their crap a little better now, but the odor is still quite detecable.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

You seek to erect new barriers to the democratic process that do not normally exist under capitalism. How can it be progress to create a brand new impediment to the expression of the people's will?

I have already demonstrated. that the democratic process deals with economic matters effectively at both the micro and macro levels. Placing power in the hands of the perceived "expert" would only be justifiable if it could be shown that that would be for the common good. Yet that is not the case.

The technate doesn't deal with laws, it deals with actual management of resources and the continuous calculation and distribution of the carrying capacity of the Earth. Yes, those who are responsible should be accountable, but they should have the qualifications so they are able to be accountable.

As for institutions having the responsibility for social issues, such institutions would be regulated by the people themselves with zero interference from the technate.


I didn't say you did. What I said was that you place the source of power in something other than labour. I don't think you appreciate how crucial this is. It is natural for people who will greatly benefit from something to believe that it is for the good of all that it would happen and as such those heavily involved with technology will naturally believe that placing themselves at the centre of the economy will be good for all, but I wish to know why people not so involved should wish for this.

Your assumption is wrong, since the technate is not about technology controlling people, but people controlling technology.

I think the main reason that the idea is attractive is that people today are forced to compete against technology. What we want to do is to make technology a servant of all of humanity, not just a select few. It would also mean other benefits, like for example shorter labour hours, giving human beings more time to be human beings.


Technology is a good thing, but it does not follow that it should be the source of power.

If power is de-centralised so no single node could control the entire system, I don't see any reason to fear power in itself. I would also argue that what we are proposing is a system where the people are in control of the technology, through the holons which comprise a majority of the working people living within the area of the technate.

In those self-managed firms you talk about, I assume that those who are working within them have experience in what they are doing, right? I also assume that they know a lot more than for example the college economists above them what should be done.

[Dimentio]

You can't get away from it because you don't want to.

Hiding behind this 'right qualifications' shit is the same garbage that Techcnoracy has been shoveling since the late 1920s: there is an elite of people who have "the right qualifications" to run the world, and they should run it. In the beginning Techncoracy was for a dictatorship of the engineers. They cover their crap a little better now, but the odor is still quite detecable.

RED DAVE

So you have nothing against for example allowing a veterinarian to perform a heart surgery on you?

It is not about an elite ruling people. It is not even about an elite, since education would be accessible for everyone for free. It is to ensure that those who are elected are able to perform what the people have elected them to perform. Remember, all positions within a technate are - surprise - technical.

[RED DAVE]

The technate doesn't deal with laws, it deals with actual management of resources and the continuous calculation and distribution of the carrying capacity of the Earth.Here we go. What this is is the standard bullshit that management of resources is a technical issue: typpical thinking of an engineer. In fact, management of resources is a completely political issue both in deciding how resources are to be allocated and once that decision is made how they are to be used practically.


Yes, those who are responsible should be accountable, but they should have the qualifications so they are able to be accountable.And we're dancing the qualifications polka. You will see this every time in Technocracy. There is no concern for democracy but for the rule of those who are somehow "qualified." And this is supposed to be compatible with socialism.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Another important point: Technocracy has no politics. There are constant movements all across the world for national liberation, labor struggles, antiwar movements, the fight against racism, etc., none of which Technocracy sees fit to comment on on their website.

Now the standard answer is the EOS is educational not political, but that's bullshit. The absence of observable politics, which goes back to Technocracy's origins, conceals its real politics: it would rather dither around with coops than get involved with real struggles against the ruling class. A few weeks ago, in Madison, virtually every Left group worth its salt was out there. Somehow I didn't see any Technocrats supporting the teachers, nor were there any reports about their actions. Nor was there even an analysis of the situation by a prominent Technocrat posted here. People on the streets in Egypt sent greetings to Wisconsin. Did EOS do so?

I appreciate the fact that this discussion is taking place under "Other Ideologies" because that's what Technocracy is.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Here we go. What this is is the standard bullshit that management of resources is a technical issue: typpical thinking of an engineer. In fact, management of resources is a completely political issue both in deciding how resources are to be allocated and once that decision is made how they are to be used practically.

The allocation is determined by the people individually through the use of their individual quotas of the total carrying capacity. They decide where the resources should be allocated and what they should be used to produce. The holons responsible for the production are only deciding how the production is going to be made.


And we're dancing the qualifications polka. You will see this every time in Technocracy. There is no concern for democracy but for the rule of those who are somehow "qualified." And this is supposed to be compatible with socialism.

The holons must be able to fulfill the goals, and those responsible within must know what they are doing so they are accountable. If you are getting shoes where the soles are falling apart, or poisoned food, or bad medicine, someone needs to be held accountable and be able to explain why that happened.

[Dimentio]

Another important point: Technocracy has no politics. There are constant movements all across the world for national liberation, labor struggles, antiwar movements, the fight against racism, etc., none of which Technocracy sees fit to comment on on their website.

Now the standard answer is the EOS is educational not political, but that's bullshit. The absence of observable politics, which goes back to Technocracy's origins, conceals its real politics: it would rather dither around with coops than get involved with politics.

I appreciate the fact that this discussion is taking place under "Other Ideologies" because that's what Technocracy is.

RED DAVE

Then you must be raging mad every time an OI;er here is discussing Communism.

[RED DAVE]

Then you must be raging mad every time an OI;er here is discussing Communism.Communism, communism, socialism, anarchism, Maoist, Stalinism, etc., are not considered "Other Ideologies." No matter how fucked up I think some of them are, on paper at east they believe in the leading role of the working class in the transformation from capitalism to socialism.

You don't. Where were your people in Wisconsin? Any Technocrats out there in the demos? Did EOS release a statement supporting the unionized civil servants? People in the streets in Egypt took time to send greetings and statements of support.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Communism, communism, socialism, anarchism, Maoist, Stalinism, etc., are not considered "Other Ideologies." No matter how fucked up I think some of them are, on paper at east they believe in the leading role of the working class in the transformation from capitalism to socialism.

They are generally discussed here too.

This forum is not for "other ideologies", it's for users who are restricted and cannot post in other parts of the board.

[RED DAVE]

They are generally discussed here too.

This forum is not for "other ideologies", it's for users who are restricted and cannot post in other parts of the board.I stand corrected oh mighty mod/admin. :D

In the meantime, how about an answer to these two questions;

(1) Does Techncracy believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?

RED DAVE

[Le Libérer]

Dr. Wallace is a dyslectic. We really need to correct some articles.
Boy is that an understatement.


Isnt your primary goal to succeed, not to be ideologically pure and that the technate is basically envisioned like a multi-national corporation? Now you are denying that and saying its a not for profit venture.

You have said in past threads you don't want to reform capitalism, you want to have it abolished. My problem with EOS is they are professing to remove revolution from the senario by owning means of production (even though workers may enjoy a small percentage of the profits at some point, while the EOS is competing with Capitalism with "if we cant beat em join them" until...
Its the workers responsible revolution, not the technates business entities. Workers are the experts, we dont need the EOS's co-control of production. And from what I've read, revolution isnt a factor at all with the EOS.

[Dimentio]

(1) Does Techncracy believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?

We aren't a political movement, but a social and scientific movement. Our purpose is not to be a political party in some kind of vanguard role, but rather to sow the seeds to increase the likelihood for dramatic changes in the future.

I personally believe that some kind of overthrow looks increasingly inevitable as the window of opportunity to conducting a change is shrinking rapidly with the ecological murder of the planet - it is estimated that the collapse would be inevitable by 2070, which isn't so much of a time window. I don't however believe that EOS would lead that, but I know that we will support all measures aimed at creating a more equitable access to the means of production, as long as these measures actually are viable.

EOS itself doesn't have any opinions on this issue, since that would take away the attention from what we are doing, namely testing if our theories are viable through experimentation on a small scale.

[Dimentio]

Isnt your primary goal to succeed, not to be ideologically pure and that the technate is basically envisioned like a multi-national corporation? Now you are denying that and saying its a not for profit venture.

To succeed in attaining our goals yes, not to be wealthy. And yes, Mondragon is a multi-national corporation too, in the same way that the technate would be if successful.


You have said in past threads you don't want to reform capitalism, you want to have it abolished. My problem with EOS is they are professing to remove revolution from the senario by owning means of production (even though workers may enjoy a small percentage of the profits at some point, while the EOS is competing with Capitalism with "if we cant beat em join them" until...

We don't want to remove revolution from the scenario, we want to secure that any kind of substantial change would have a higher likelihood for success. For the moment, it is of less concern how the change is occurring than that it is occurring, since we do not have the luxury of unlimited time. But the masses would be less likely to do anything if there isn't an alternative, all they usually are doing when the process isn't hijacked by "vanguard parties" is to opt for reforms of the current system, until a collapse is inevitable.


Its the workers responsible revolution, not the technates business entities. Workers are the experts, we dont need the EOS's co-control of production. And from what I've read, revolution isnt a factor at all with the EOS.

We aren't asking for anyone's support or donations. We will take care of that bit ourselves. :)

[Dimentio]

Its the workers responsible revolution, not the technates business entities. Workers are the experts, we dont need the EOS's co-control of production. And from what I've read, revolution isnt a factor at all with the EOS.

No one would be forced to join the technate. If you want to have a collectively owned factory without technate interference or aid, then go on.

[RED DAVE]

Actually,


Forum for opposing ideologies and beliefs to be discussed; only forum where right-wingers, capitalists, preachers, primitivists, and other restricted members can post. *No Fascists*So this is a perfect place for Technocracy.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

(1) Does Techncracy [sic] believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?
We aren't a political movement, but a social and scientific movement.Bullshit. You are a political movement. What you do is you conceal your politics under the guise of being "a social and scientific movement."


Our purpose is not to be a political party in some kind of vanguard role, but rather to sow the seeds to increase the likelihood for dramatic changes in the future.Whatever that means.


I personally believe that some kind of overthrow looks increasingly inevitable as the window of opportunity to conducting a change is shrinking rapidly with the ecological murder of the planet - it is estimated that the collapse would be inevitable by 2070, which isn't so much of a time window. I don't however believe that EOS would lead that, but I know that we will support all measures aimed at creating a more equitable access to the means of production, as long as these measures actually are viable.


EOS itself doesn't have any opinions on this issue, since that would take away the attention from what we are doing, namely testing if our theories are viable through experimentation on a small scale.So, you have evaded the questions above. So, again.

(1) Does Technocracy believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?

How about a straighforward "yes" or "no" to these questions?

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Actually,

So this is a perfect place for Technocracy.

RED DAVE

Read more carefully. It is a place where people who are right-wingers are restricted to, not a place where their ideologies are discussed.

[Dimentio]

So, you have evaded the questions above. So, again.

(1) Does Technocracy believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?

How about a straighforward "yes" or "no" to these questions?

I have not evaded them, as I said, when we have our meetings, we generally discuss things which have to do with the design and the babycrawl steps to implement it to test if it works, not any ideas for an overthrowal of the system.

[RED DAVE]

Read more carefully. It is a place where people who are right-wingers are restricted to, not a place where their ideologies are discussed.No, you read more carefully.


Forum for opposing ideologies and beliefs to be discussed; only forum where right-wingers, capitalists, preachers, primitivists, and other restricted members can post. *No Fascists*(italics added)

It clearly refers to Opposing Ideologies being a place for "opposing ideologies and beliefs" in addition to "restricted members." The use of the semicolon is a substitute for the word "and."

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

(italics added)

It clearly refers to Opposing Ideologies being a place for "opposing ideologies and beliefs" in addition to "restricted members."Evidently, capitalism and fascism is frequently discussed in the History and Politics forums too. :)

[Technocrat]

I was thinking- how is that "democratic" or fair? Knowledge/education does not necessarily equate with wise judgement or fairness nor does it eliminate personal interest, greed or vested interests.

It's basically just describing a meritocracy where education would be freely available to anyone. In other words, whether or not a person was given a position would be determined by the qualifications of the individual, whether or not they kept the position would be determined by demonstrated performance. Peer accountability and accountability to the rest of society are essential to the successful execution of the idea. A meritocracy is in contrast to a patronage system, which says basically "to the victor goes the spoils."


Would technocracy not just substitute one form of oligarchy for another one? Would it not be just like a 21st century tech version of Plato's philosopher kings (loosely)?Doesn't Plato pretty much describe a proto-communism in The Republic? I saw what Plato described in the Republic as being very similar to communism in many respects.

No, I don't think what Technocracy is describing is an Oligarchy since political power would be disbursed rather than concentrated as I explained above. Political power is distinct from decision-making ability. Political power determines what should happen, decision-making ability determines how it will happen. In other words, social goals would be determined by society at large and how these goals are accomplished would be determined by those in society who society has deemed most capable of making those decisions. It's really no different from socialism in that respect.

[RED DAVE]

It's basically just describing a meritocracy where education would be freely available to anyone. In other words, whether or not a person was given a position would be determined by the qualifications of the individual, whether or not they kept the position would be determined by demonstrated performance. Peer accountability and accountability to the rest of society are essential to the successful execution of the idea. A meritocracy is in contrast to a patronage system, which says basically "to the victor goes the spoils."Haven't learned a fucking thing in a year of so. Technocracy is an elitist system which is incompatible with socialism.


Doesn't Plato pretty much describe a proto-communism in The Republic? I saw what Plato described in the Republic as being very similar to communism in many respects.Plat describes a thoroughgoing elitist system in which, among other things, artistic production is prohibited as it is disruptive to the dictatorial order. If you want to discuss Plato, it is suggested that you read him first.


No, I don't think what Technocracy is describing is an Oligarchy since political power would be disbursed rather than concentrated as I explained above.Large-scale decisions would still have to be made. And, of course, you have never dealt with the class nature of political change or the class nature of your so-called holons or technate.


Political power is distinct from decision-making ability.And here we have the fundamental bullshit. The ability to make a decision is power, no matter what kind of decision that is.


Political power determines what should happen, decision-making ability determines how it will happen. In other words, social goals would be determined by society at large and how these goals are accomplished would be determined by those in society who society has deemed most capable of making those decisions. It's really no different from socialism in that respect.It is completely different from socialism. For instance:

(1) Technocracy has no mechanism for achieving its society, and to the extent that it is discussed, it's some kind of bullshit about building coops to compete with capitalism.

(2) Technocracy has no concept of capitalism as a class society engaged in the production of commodities for sale.

(3) Technocracy still clings to the nonsense about decision making being the provenance of decision makers, which completely excludes the notion of democracy, especially revolutionary democracy.

(4) Technocracy has no politics. It does not express itself about issues of class conflict, imperialist war, racism, etc.


Evidently, capitalism and fascism is frequently discussed in the History and Politics forums too. :)Any time you want to discuss Technocracy as a historical phenomenon or the day-to-day politics of Technocracy i'm sure no one will object. We could use a little more humor around here. Last time you discussed Technocracy and racism, you said that you had set up a group at a Swedish university that meets every other Thursday night. I'm sure Swedish fascists and the KKK are trembling in their boots and nightshirts over this.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Haven't learned a fucking thing in a year of so. Technocracy is an elitist system which is incompatible with socialism.

Hello to you too, Red Dave.


Plat describes a thoroughgoing elitist system in which, among other things, artistic production is prohibited as it is disruptive to the dictatorial order. If you want to discuss Plato, it is suggested that you read him first.I have actually read all of the Republic and most of the other dialogues.


Large-scale decisions would still have to be made. And, of course, you have never dealt with the class nature of political change or the class nature of your so-called holons or technate. According to you...


And here we have the fundamental bullshit. The ability to make a decision is power, no matter what kind of decision that is.I wasn't saying that it wasn't power. The distinction I was making was between two types of decisions. Let's say a community decides that a bridge should be built. That's decision A. They then have to build the bridge. The engineers that are selected by society for the job have to draw up the plans and figure out how to execute the goals that have been given them by society. That is decision B. So the distinction is between what should be done and how it should be done. Political power is concerned with what should be done.


(1) Technocracy has no mechanism for achieving its society, and to the extent that it is discussed, it's some kind of bullshit about building coops to compete with capitalism.Technocracy never made any claims to a revolutionary theory, which is why it is "compatible with socialism." What you're doing is like criticizing a hammer for not turning a screw.


(2) Technocracy has no concept of capitalism as a class society engaged in the production of commodities for sale.Actually, I think they had a pretty good understanding of this and did write extensively about the oppression of the lower class by the upper class. There are lots of old papers for you to read but I know you've never cared to, and never will care to read any of them.


(3) Technocracy still clings to the nonsense about decision making being the provenance of decision makers, which completely excludes the notion of democracy, especially revolutionary democracy.What a load of bullshit this is. I have explained this several times:

A) a complex, industrial society has a great variety of tasks that must be performed in order for it to function
B) all of these tasks added together require more training in order to perform them proficiently than could possibly be acquired in a single person's lifetime
C) specialization is necessary; meaning people train for a particular task and perform it.

A and B therefore C.

Again, you're just failing to recognize any distinction between a political decision (what should be done) versus a technical decision (how to do it).


(4) Technocracy has no politics. It does not express itself about issues of class conflict, imperialist war, racism, etc.

DRED DAVESure it does - there are articles about class conflict, war, education, etc. They were also probably one of the first American organizations to write articles about ecological sustainability, an issue which your politics completely ignores.

Good to see you're doing well, old chap!

[ComradeMan]

This word "meritocracy"---- who decides what is meritworthy?


Read more carefully. It is a place where people who are right-wingers are restricted to, not a place where their ideologies are discussed.

I didn't realise I was a rightwinger? Or Gacky? Or Havet? Or quite a lot of people here- even Bud I suppose is not really a "rightwinger"....

[Technocrat]

This word "meritocracy"---- who decides what is meritworthy?

There are two ways merit can be demonstrated. The first is by actual demonstrated performance. A guy who does his job successfully for years, has no complaints from the people that he serves, is said to do his job well. That represent a form of merit. Another form can be found in tests, exams, education, etc. that society has deemed relevant to the task at hand. Just as in the first form of merit, this form is also determined by experience, albeit in a different way: the tests, education, etc that over time were shown to be good predictors of a person's ability to perform a task well would be the tests, education, etc. that society would use to gauge whether or not an individual was qualified for a particular task. But these tests, education could and would change over time to reflect new knowledge. So, a person who has the knowledge, skills, etc that society has deemed are good predictors of an individual's ability to perform a particular task would have merit in regards to that particular task.

Meritocracy is opposed to a patronage system. As such, it is a feature of socialism as well.

[Dimentio]

Doesn't Plato pretty much describe a proto-communism in The Republic? I saw what Plato described in the Republic as being very similar to communism in many respects.

No, Plato was a pure totalitarian, who wanted to return to the time before politanism (the dynamic Greek culture).

There are some differences between what we in EOS (http://eoslife.eu) attempts to form and what you in Tech.Inc (http://technocracyinc.org) have pursued too. :)

[Technocrat]

No, Plato was a pure totalitarian, who wanted to return to the time before politanism (the dynamic Greek culture).

There are some differences between what we in EOS (http://eoslife.eu) attempts to form and what you in Tech.Inc (http://technocracyinc.org) have pursued too. :)

Well, having read the Republic I'd have to strongly disagree with that interpretation. Plato describes a society where all possessions are owned in common and nothing is owned individually.

Book 6 of the Republic:
"...they must live in common houses and meet at common meals, None of them will have anything specially his or her own; they will be together, and will be brought up together..."

This might also be of use:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/#4.2

[Dimentio]

Well, having read the Republic I'd have to strongly disagree with that interpretation. Plato describes a society where all possessions are owned in common and nothing is owned individually

Yes, he also once stated that the chiefs should decide how the "younger" should eat, sit, sleep, and walk. It was a regimented society that was his ideal.

[Technocrat]

Yes, he also once stated that the chiefs should decide how the "younger" should eat, sit, sleep, and walk. It was a regimented society that was his ideal.

From (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/#4.2):


a mixed interpretation seems to be called for. In the Republic, the good of the city and the good of the individual are independently specifiable, and the citizens' own maximal good coincides with the maximal good of the city. Since Plato believes that this coincidence is realized only through propagandistic means in the ideal city, then the propaganda is paternalistically targeted at the citizens' own good but not exclusively at the citizens' own good. On this view, if the citizens do not see themselves as parts of the city serving the city, neither the city nor they will be maximally happy. This does not leave Kallipolis' aims beyond reproach, for one might well be skeptical of the good of unity, of Plato's assumption that individuals reap their own maximal good when the city is most unified, or of the Republic's claims about how this unity (and these individual goods) might be achieved. But it is not obvious that the rulers of Kallipolis have inherently totalitarian and objectionable aims.
Kallipolis has more clearly totalitarian features. First, totalitarian regimes concentrate political power in one bloc and offer the ruled no alternative. The ideal city of Plato's Republic is plainly totalitarian in this respect.
But the concentration of political power in Kallipolis differs in at least two ways from the concentration in actual totalitarian states. First, Socrates insists that in the ideal city, all the citizens will agree about who should rule. This agreement is the city's moderation (430d-432a), caused by the city's justice (433b, cf. 351d).

[ComradeMan]

"...they must live in common houses and meet at common meals, None of them will have anything specially his or her own; they will be together, and will be brought up together..."


Indeed but he also proposes rule by a few in that the philosophers are to become kings, or that the current rulers must be philosophers. So we end up with Niccolò Machiavelli's benevolent dictators in a sense.

Book IV:-
"I said: 'Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils,—nor the human race, as I believe,—and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm#2H_4_0008

Discussing the "communism" of Plato is problematic, however Plato does not propose the creation of a classless society. His ascetic philosopher kings, kings by merit- are still kings and they remain at the top of a hierarchy protected by "guardians" and a "bourgeoisie" of merchants with the "mass" at the bottom.


So, a person who has the knowledge, skills, etc that society has deemed are good predictors of an individual's ability to perform a particular task would have merit in regards to that particular task.

Meritocracy is opposed to a patronage system. As such, it is a feature of socialism as well.

Once again, it sounds good- but fundamentally deeming what is meritworthy and not is subjective. What happens to the person not deemed to be of value in the technate? What place is there for a poet or an artist or a musician? It's not that I have a problem with a person being chosen for a job on the grounds of merit- but the word "meritocracy" is loaded- it imples rule by those with merit and not (necessarily) rule by everyone on an equal basis in a truly democratic sense. What if those who decide what is meritworthy are wrong? Or do we accept the "philsopher kings" or in a technate the "scientist kings" as being infallible? In which case we have scientific medieval popes.

[Demogorgon]

The technate doesn't deal with laws, it deals with actual management of resources and the continuous calculation and distribution of the carrying capacity of the Earth. Yes, those who are responsible should be accountable, but they should have the qualifications so they are able to be accountable.

As for institutions having the responsibility for social issues, such institutions would be regulated by the people themselves with zero interference from the technate.

We get back to a fundamental mistake you are making which is to assume that politics and economics can be separate matters. To be sure, you can have different people in charge of different aspects of running society, but do not assume that they can operate autonomously as they will have considerable impact upon one another. By having such a crucial aspect of running society restricted to a certain group you vest huge power in that group.

Incidentally you have not defined what amounts to "qualified" yet.


Your assumption is wrong, since the technate is not about technology controlling people, but people controlling technology.I do not mean robots ruling over humans, I mean technology being the most important of the economic resources and as a result power being vested in those controlling technology.


I think the main reason that the idea is attractive is that people today are forced to compete against technology. What we want to do is to make technology a servant of all of humanity, not just a select few. It would also mean other benefits, like for example shorter labour hours, giving human beings more time to be human beings.

I sincerely doubt you will achieve that. Placing technology at the centre of the process is a dangerous game indeed. Put simply, you are not investing economic control in Labour and hence are at risk of Labour being dominated.

As for the shorter Labour Hours example, it would be a mistake to assume that improved technology delivers that. We are seeing vastly improved technology just now but also longer labour hours. This is because technology increases the productivity of labour and increased productivity can be rewarded with either increased consumption or increased leisure (or somewhere in between naturally). People naturally want to take some of their reward in leisure as you recognise, but in order to achieve that they need to make the decision collectively. In places where labour is too weak they don't get any increased leisure at all because capitalism naturally wants to pursue profit which means more consumption.

You attempt to deal with this by placing control of the trade off somewhere else, somewhere that will probably not be as prone to prioritising consumption as capitalists, but will still not be the people making the decisions. Historical experience shows the decision for increased leisure has to be made collectively by labour, but you have not factored in a strong labour movement.


If power is de-centralised so no single node could control the entire system, I don't see any reason to fear power in itself. I would also argue that what we are proposing is a system where the people are in control of the technology, through the holons which comprise a majority of the working people living within the area of the technate.Decentralising power can have its advantages, but it also carries disadvantages as it can build in conservatism.

Moreover you are failing to invest power truly in the people. Requiring "qualification" to fully take part in the decision making process ensures that.


In those self-managed firms you talk about, I assume that those who are working within them have experience in what they are doing, right? I also assume that they know a lot more than for example the college economists above them what should be done.
If by experience you mean, they work there, then yes. They may not have prior experience of management though which is its own distinct skill, but people very rapidly pick it up as soon as they are empowered.

For an even better example though, look at my macro example. When municipal budgets are set by participatory budgeting they tend to benefit the people much more than otherwise. That seems to me good evidence against having "experts" having to perform such tasks.

Incidentally is anyone remotely surprised that Technocrat has a fondness for Plato's philosopher kings model of a totalitarian society?

[Dimentio]

We get back to a fundamental mistake you are making which is to assume that politics and economics can be separate matters. To be sure, you can have different people in charge of different aspects of running society, but do not assume that they can operate autonomously as they will have considerable impact upon one another. By having such a crucial aspect of running society restricted to a certain group you vest huge power in that group.

Incidentally you have not defined what amounts to "qualified" yet.

Who are qualified is dependent on the holon, but I would guess that it would be that a bakery for instance is knowing how to handle food in a safe manner. Some qualifications only require some simple tests or courses, while others might demand three to five years of education.


As for the shorter Labour Hours example, it would be a mistake to assume that improved technology delivers that. We are seeing vastly improved technology just now but also longer labour hours. This is because technology increases the productivity of labour and increased productivity can be rewarded with either increased consumption or increased leisure (or somewhere in between naturally). People naturally want to take some of their reward in leisure as you recognise, but in order to achieve that they need to make the decision collectively. In places where labour is too weak they don't get any increased leisure at all because capitalism naturally wants to pursue profit which means more consumption.

Uh...

We want to abolish Capitalism, you know that right? We also want to minimise and optimalise production. We hold no illusions that capitalism doesn't want to maximise profits.


You attempt to deal with this by placing control of the trade off somewhere else, somewhere that will probably not be as prone to prioritising consumption as capitalists, but will still not be the people making the decisions. Historical experience shows the decision for increased leisure has to be made collectively by labour, but you have not factored in a strong labour movement.

It is not supposed to be a planned economy. People would allocate their share of the carrying capacity to what they want produced for themselves. In short, people would control the production process.


If by experience you mean, they work there, then yes. They may not have prior experience of management though which is its own distinct skill, but people very rapidly pick it up as soon as they are empowered.

I haven't talked about managers. One important part of our design is that everyone involved should have experience in useful tasks and know about the full implications of their responsibility. Within Capitalism, we constantly are seeing companies cringing out products which are killing people on Third World markets, like Nestlé in the Philippines, because the need for constantly expanding markets.


For an even better example though, look at my macro example. When municipal budgets are set by participatory budgeting they tend to benefit the people much more than otherwise. That seems to me good evidence against having "experts" having to perform such tasks.

But people are deciding what should be prioritised through the resource allocation system. They are not doing it collectively, but they are deciding it. Those who have the qualifications are only responsible for carrying through that process, not making any decisions on how people should live their lives.

[ComradeMan]

"The following outlines the key areas that the theory needs to cover philosophically and scientifically before it can be said to be a complete theory:
Infrastructure (The essence of the original energy survey)
Ownership vs. Usership (How to define each in the social realm, how to quantify them and measure their influence on behaviour)
Measures and mediums of distribution (Mainly measuring the influence of that which allows individuals and groups access to wider wealth, money, energy credits. Energy credits are just a measure of distribution, whereas money is also a medium and a measure)
Separation of economics and politics (inc. technical administration in the economic part. A small expansion on that would be to highlight the need for a separate administration of matters of distribution and matters of social and cultural natures)
Urbanates, holons and distributed fixed residential infrastructure and communities (Separate from infrastructure as it is fixed, concerns the movement and storage of people and includes communities and how they interact)
Abundance and scarcity (How to define and measure them, how the two interact)
Psychology and people (Everything from motivation and learning, passive vs. active roles in each, social and cultural aspects, economic...)
Technology (What is available, how it has been implemented, what is sufficient? e.g. continental hydrology may be considered part of technology/infrastructure but is not currently implemented)

Personnel (What is sufficient, how personnel can move around the European continent, how to measure their input, etc.)
Geography, geology and natural resources (What is sufficient, what is available now, and so forth) "
Source:-
http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=125

Issues/critique from a leftist perspective might include:-

2- a big problem if there is no basic line of no private ownership

3- energy credits- despite some semantics what's the difference between money and energy credits? Furthermore "money" is still counted in the ideas- so what would the point be of having energy credits?

4- politics and economics cannot be separated- as Demogorgon also pointed out above- in fact 9/10 of politics is concerned with economics. :lol:

5- "concerns the movement and storage of people and includes communities and how they interact" :crying:- in my opinion that is either one of the worst choices of words I have come across or downright ominous.

6- basically says "we don't have a plan/idea".

7- ditto

9- more "control" ideas :crying:.

Furthermore I don't really see anything much "revolutionary" in these ideas. There seems to be a big void in any area that touches on social issues and an erroneous, in my opinion, belief that politics and economics can be separated as some kind of non-overlapping magisteria.

In addition to this if technocracy does not have a plan for key social areas and the creation of a truly democratic and classless society and furthermore sees itself as more of an instrument of administration then what kind of political ideology/philosophy is it?

I found this gem, strangely exactly one year ago to the day-

"The engineers must rule. Who else could rule in a machine age -- the Golden Philosopher King? All the political philosophies from Plato to Marx must be shot on to the scrap heap. We tend to think of technocracy as a crank cult of the thirties. This is tragic stupidity. A decade or two is nothing in the march of events. And there have never been enough cranks in the world.

Of course, in adopting technocracy, in adapting it to our needs we must dissociate it from its present advocates. Its original theory is weak. And in practice it has gone the way of all human organisations. It has swung into line behind American nationalism. It would organise the material resources of the North American continent, and not a global abundance.
Source: Technocracy.net: The Politics of Things (embedded link not working)" but also at http://www.takver.com/history/aia/aia00024.htm
http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=133410&highlight=technocracy

[RED DAVE]

(1) Does Technocracy believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?

How about a straighforward "yes" or "no" to these questions?
I have not evaded them, as I said, when we have our meetings, we generally discuss things which have to do with the design and the babycrawl steps to implement it to test if it works, not any ideas for an overthrowal of the system.Translation:

(1) Does Technocracy believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

No.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?

No.

Reasonable conclusion: Technocracy is not a revolutionary tendency.

RED DAVE

[Le Libérer]

Translation:

(1) Does Technocracy believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

No.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?

No.

Reasonable conclusion: Technocracy is not a revolutionary tendency.

RED DAVE

When self-righteous technocrats act so superior because of their technological prowess are actually put to some hard-questioning it seems that they fail.

It's clear that technocracy is not particularly leftist nor is it in anyway "revolutionary". They seem to be just the flipside of anarcho-primitivists. All that bullshit scientific terminology for their "mentalitate" or their "tech-know" of their "societate" etc. They also seem very similar to futurists- well-loved by the fascists.

Just think about the consequences of their ideas- they basically create a classless society by abolishing the working class and replacing us "workerates" with robots! Well they can stick that idea up their holons. :lol:

Thank the masses real workers would never go for such a thing. And if technates were in power and workers could "choose" to leave imagine how cut off from food, work, housing, and anything else needed to exist they would be.

Trickery.

This whole thing reminds me of that cult in the 90s, Heavens Gate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)), who put their nikes at the end of their beds when they drank the poison awaiting the mother ship. :) I'm sorry but I just cant get that image out of my head when envisioning the EOS. :D

[Dimentio]

Just think about the consequences of their ideas- they basically create a classless society by abolishing the working class and replacing us "workerates" with robots! Well they can stick that idea up their holons. :lol:

Don't people deserve something better than pulling levers or changing the diapers of old people for almost nothing in return?

[Dimentio]

energy credits- despite some semantics what's the difference between money and energy credits? Furthermore "money" is still counted in the ideas- so what would the point be of having energy credits?

Energy credits cannot be saved, bartered or given away. They are destroyed when used, since they represent production capacity.

As for Hooton's article, EOS is a broad movement and we could publish old articles which are for historical use too.


Urbanates, holons and distributed fixed residential infrastructure and communities (Separate from infrastructure as it is fixed, concerns the movement and storage of people and includes communities and how they interact)Since when do people not need housing?



Translation:

(1) Does Technocracy believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

No.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?

No.

EOS as an organisation neither believe or doesn't believe in those two precepts. EOS is concerned with whether or not the model we have proposed is going to work on a limited scale to see if it could be implemented on a larger scale. EOS doesn't care who is the revolutionary subject, because EOS is not intending to lead a revolution. We are not intending to stop anyone else from pursuing their political paths.

[Queercommie Girl]

EOS as an organisation neither believe or doesn't believe in those two precepts. EOS is concerned with whether or not the model we have proposed is going to work on a limited scale to see if it could be implemented on a larger scale. EOS doesn't care who is the revolutionary subject, because EOS is not intending to lead a revolution. We are not intending to stop anyone else from pursuing their political paths.


Yes, I think this is a significant point. Dimentio's brand of "technocracy" is not on the same level as Marxism-Leninism. It's not really a political tendency that is in competition with Marxism-Leninism.

Obviously the content of EOS technocracy is not completely compatible with Marxism-Leninism, but nevertheless there is insufficient grounds to restrict such ideas. After all, there are many non-revolutionary and non-Marxist ideas that are tolerated on Revleft to a significant extent, such as feminism, pacifism, etc.

EOS cannot be treated as a political ideology on the same level as Marxism-Leninism. Despite the fact that it is certainly not completely compatible with Marxism-Leninism, there are enough points of commonality for it to not be an actual threat to Marxism.

We don't want to create a world in which every single strand of thought must be directly "revolutionary" or otherwise we throw it into the gulags. We should to a significant extent encourage the freedom of thought. It is a basic right in socialist democracy.

[ComradeMan]

Energy credits cannot be saved, bartered or given away. They are destroyed when used, since they represent production capacity..

Sorry- how does that work? What about the energy credits I don't use? I can still save those energy credits, couldn't I?


Since when do people not need housing?..

Well you might like to ask Bud as he works in real estate whether "storage" and "housing" are synonyms.


EOS as an organisation neither believe or doesn't believe in those two precepts. EOS is concerned with whether or not the model we have proposed is going to work on a limited scale to see if it could be implemented on a larger scale. EOS doesn't care who is the revolutionary subject, because EOS is not intending to lead a revolution. We are not intending to stop anyone else from pursuing their political paths.

So what you have basically said is that the organisation you support is neither revolutionary nor intrinsically leftist. Saying you neither believe nor disbelieve in something is a bit of an easy way out of the argument- it's also a little ironic to push a "revolutionary indifferent" organisation at.... err..... RevLeft? :confused:

[Dimentio]

Sorry- how does that work? What about the energy credits I don't use? I can still save those energy credits, couldn't I?

If we say that there is a factory making shoes, and it has the capacity to produce 90 shoes for period A, and 100 shoes for period B, it doesn't mean that you could let it stay idle for period A and produce 190 shoes for period B.

So... no. You cannot save. But the credits are replenished for every new consumers cycle.


Well you might like to ask Bud as he works in real estate whether "storage" and "housing" are synonyms.

Remember that we have a dyslectic development engineer.


So what you have basically said is that the organisation you support is neither revolutionary nor intrinsically leftist. Saying you neither believe nor disbelieve in something is a bit of an easy way out of the argument- it's also a little ironic to push a "revolutionary indifferent" organisation at.... err..... RevLeft?

Maybe I am here not as a representative of EOS, but as a forum member? Think about it.

I do not usually start threads about EOS, I only respond when someone is attacking EOS or have questions about it. I do not go around and write about nothing else but EOS, and I most frequently discuss in other topics.

[Le Libérer]

Yes, I think this is a significant point. Dimentio's brand of "technocracy" is not on the same level as Marxism-Leninism. It's not really a political tendency that is in competition with Marxism-Leninism.
How on Earth can you arrive at that point? You cannot separate economics from politics. You can dance around it, use cool words to discribe workers and ownership, but you cannot escape simple truths when you break it down.



Quote:
Translation:

(1) Does Technocracy believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

No.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?

No.
EOS as an organisation neither believe or doesn't believe in those two precepts. EOS is concerned with whether or not the model we have proposed is going to work on a limited scale to see if it could be implemented on a larger scale.


Basically the EOS does not give a fuck about revolution and to be honest the failure to answer those valid leftist points proves just that.

[El Chuncho]

To be fair, many people will disagree on what is revolution or not, and what should be restricted or not. I mean a few years back Marxist-Leninist ''Stalinists'' were restricted, right? Likewise, some believe that Anarchists are a bit too capitalist and thus should be restricted. Me? I think the OI is too full and too many groups are restricted. That is just my opinion, and I like debating with people with vastly different beliefs from time to time.

[Queercommie Girl]

How on Earth can you arrive at that point? You cannot separate economics from politics. You can dance around it, use cool words to discribe workers and ownership, but you cannot escape simple truths when you break it down.

Basically the EOS does not give a fuck about revolution and to be honest the failure to answer those valid leftist points proves just that.

I didn't say EOS is revolutionary socialism. My point is simply that "technocracy" (generally) should not be restricted.

Do you propose we restrict the mentioning of every single strand of thought that is not explicitly revolutionary on RevLeft?

As long as they are not anti-revolutionary socialist, they shouldn't be restricted.

[Queercommie Girl]

So what you have basically said is that the organisation you support is neither revolutionary nor intrinsically leftist. Saying you neither believe nor disbelieve in something is a bit of an easy way out of the argument- it's also a little ironic to push a "revolutionary indifferent" organisation at.... err..... RevLeft? :confused:


Yeah, revolutionary Marxism is not the only thing in the lives of most people, you know. People have non-Marxist interests too.

[El Chuncho]

Indeed, I am a staunch M-L, but I have hobbies and interests too like Eastern Philosophy, painting and reading. Politics might be a big part of my life but that doesn't mean I have to forget any things of beauty and joy in the world.

Likewise, I support some groups that are not quite ''revolutionary'' as well as being a believer in revolutionary communism. I support environmentalism, which doesn't have much to do with socialist politics, which is why some environmentalists are right-wingers or centrists.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, revolutionary Marxism is not the only thing in the lives of most people, you know. People have non-Marxist interests too.

Yeah, not all revolutionaries here are Marxists either.... :rolleyes:

But proposing something which basically flies in the face of left principles- i.e. "the philosopher kings of science" does create an issue, doesn't it?

[deadmeat1471]

"Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer), scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist), health professionals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_professional) and other technical experts are in control of decision making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making) in their respective fields. 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. In a technocracy decision makers would be selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_capital) they hold."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

I was thinking- how is that "democratic" or fair? Knowledge/education does not necessarily equate with wise judgement or fairness nor does it eliminate personal interest, greed or vested interests.

Would technocracy not just substitute one form of oligarchy for another one? Would it not be just like a 21st century tech version of Plato's philosopher kings (loosely)?

How is that different from any other government?
Democracies are ruled by the wealthy, Dictatorships by the powerful, technocracy by the educated.
Of those choices I would chose the educated to rule a society. Also I believe technocracy would have great methods of educating the people to a high standard. Democracy educated only a select few and dictators actively discourage education.


(1) Does Technocracy believe in a unique role of the working class, as a class in itself and for itself, in the overthrow of capitalism? If so, please describe this role.

No.

(2) Does Technocracy believe in the rule of the working class in the immediate period after the overthrow of capitalism?

No.

Reasonable conclusion: Technocracy is not a revolutionary tendency.

Utterly retarded. Just because an idea doesn't exactly copy a socialist revolution doesn't mean it isn't a revolution of a different sort.
It is in fact a technocratic revolution.
Your statements are ones of socialist revolution.

I do not understand the logic here at all.

[ComradeMan]

How is that different from any other government?
Democracies are ruled by the wealthy, Dictatorships by the powerful, technocracy by the educated.
Of those choices I would chose the educated to rule a society. Also I believe technocracy would have great methods of educating the people to a high standard. Democracy educated only a select few and dictators actively discourage education.

That is foolish- what makes the educated have any more right than the uneducated? Since when did being educated make a person trustworthy, reliable or moral? Many of those dictators and tyrants of history were quite well-educated or guided by an educated circle... :rolleyes: The whole fucking point that people can't seem to get through is the idea of no one group ruling society at all- rather society being ruled equally and justly by society...!

[deadmeat1471]

That is foolish- what makes the educated have any more right than the uneducated? Since when did being educated make a person trustworthy, reliable or moral? Many of those dictators and tyrants of history were quite well-educated or guided by an educated circle... :rolleyes: The whole fucking point that people can't seem to get through is the idea of no one group ruling society at all- rather society being ruled equally and justly by society...!

If people are offered education equally, being educated makes one pre-eminantly more qualified than an uneducated person. An uneducated person does not want to, and therefore cannot understand the intricacies of government and therefore provide a proper government for the whole of society to live in.
This is fact. As a uneducated person cannot give a lecture on theoretical physics.
Morality is not the issue, qualification is. One can be educated and moral or educated and immoral.
As one can be uneducated and moral or uneducated and immoral.
Between the two, Educated and moral are the clear superior result.

'rather society being ruled equally and justly by society...!'

This is foolish. This is anarchy. Anarchy is a childish rebellious fantasy that people can get along without government.

[ComradeMan]

Utterly retarded. Just because an idea doesn't exactly copy a socialist revolution doesn't mean it isn't a revolution of a different sort.
It is in fact a technocratic revolution.
Your statements are ones of socialist revolution.

I do not understand the logic here at all.

Firstly- don't use the word "retarded"- it's offensive.

Secondly- socialist revolution- last time I looked this was RevLeft.


If people are offered education equally, being educated makes one pre-eminantly more qualified than an uneducated person. An uneducated person does not want to, and therefore cannot understand the intricacies of government and therefore provide a proper government for the whole of society to live in..

Intellectual fascist here I see. Being educated does not give you any more rights than anyone else, as being rich, white, privileged or anything else shouldn't either. An uneducated person "does not want to"- Who are you? A secret follower of Margaret Thatcher? :lol:



This is fact. As a uneducated person cannot give a lecture on theoretical physics.
Morality is not the issue, qualification is. One can be educated and moral or educated and immoral. As one can be uneducated and moral or uneducated and immoral. Between the two, Educated and moral are the clear superior result. .


And your point? If power is shared equally then there is no problem. No one group should have power concentrated in their hands.


'rather society being ruled equally and justly by society...!'

This is foolish. This is anarchy. Anarchy is a childish rebellious fantasy that people can get along without government.

No- this is communist democracy.

No fuck off you counter-revolutionary troll.

[Le Libérer]

I didn't say EOS is revolutionary socialism. My point is simply that "technocracy" (generally) should not be restricted. Not anywhere did I suggest restricting technocrats. I have been a member of the technocacy group since the day Sentinel started it. I learned everything I know about technocracy from the socialist technocrats on this board.

What I did do, is open dialog about how revolutionary /or not the EOS is. Subsiquently another thread was started here in OI on technocracy. It was Dimentio who linked everyone to his group and discussion started here. But had I wanted to restrict technocrats or even member of the EOS, I would have made a restriction poll on members of that group 2 weeks ago when I was linked to their website.


Do you propose we restrict the mentioning of every single strand of thought that is not explicitly revolutionary on RevLeft? I propose we take them case by case, examine them, discuss them and as a group decide.

[PhoenixAsh]

An uneducated person does not want to, and therefore cannot understand the intricacies of government and therefore provide a proper government for the whole of society to live in.
This is fact.

Wait...what? 0_o

Doesn't want to? I am sorry...did I read that correctly? This is right up there with people who are poor make a choice not to be rich.

Also...it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how to govern or how government works.



As a uneducated person cannot give a lecture on theoretical physics.I know a lot of educated people who can not do that either. In fact...I bet the fast majority of educated people can not give a lecture about theoretical physics.



Morality is not the issue, qualification is. One can be educated and moral or educated and immoral.Yes...and it appears you can also be educated and dumb as fuck.




As one can be uneducated and moral or uneducated and immoral.
Between the two, Educated and moral are the clear superior result.


'rather society being ruled equally and justly by society...!'

This is foolish. This is anarchy. Anarchy is a childish rebellious fantasy that people can get along without government.Well...lucky fo us there are these superiorly edumacated peoples whose is gonna tell us poor unedumacated fellowes is goin to run our lives...otherwise we would just sit here and twiddle our thumbs not nowing whut to do...duhhr

...because apparently we are to fucking dumb to understand how life works...

[RED DAVE]

How is that different from any other government?
Democracies are ruled by the wealthy, Dictatorships by the powerful, technocracy by the educated.And socialism is ruled by the working class.


Of those choices I would chose the educated to rule a society.Well, since the bourgeoisie is, in general, more "educated" that the working class, capitalism should suit you just fine.


Also I believe technocracy would have great methods of educating the people to a high standard. Democracy educated only a select few and dictators actively discourage education.Tell you what: why don't you open a School for Technocracy. Advertise on the Internet. Let us know how you do.


Utterly retarded. Just because an idea doesn't exactly copy a socialist revolution doesn't mean it isn't a revolution of a different sort.There are revolutions of different sorts, including fascist revolutions. We don't support them.


It is in fact a technocratic revolution.Which doesn't belong on this website.


Your statements are ones of socialist revolution.I should hope so.

RED DAVE

[Agent Ducky]

If you belong to the category who is thinking that your fridge or your washing machine is repressing you, it would appear as pretty repressive.

I think that we're the ones repressing our fridges and washing machines...

[coda]

<<Likewise, some believe that Anarchists are a bit too capitalist and thus should be restricted.>>

the Anarchists you find on this site are strictly fervently Communist Anarchists.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yeah, not all revolutionaries here are Marxists either.... :rolleyes:


How is this observation relevant in any way? I was commenting on the fact that the majority of people are interested in more than just pure politics.



But proposing something which basically flies in the face of left principles- i.e. "the philosopher kings of science" does create an issue, doesn't it?

Technocracy doesn't promote the rule of the "philosopher kings", that's Platonism.

And no I don't think technocracy is really anti-socialist, even though it's not equivalent to socialism either. The world is not just "black and white". "You are either with us, or you are against us" is a line followed by Bush-like neo-cons, not socialists.

[RED DAVE]

And no I don't think technocracy is really anti-socialist, even though it's not equivalent to socialism either. The world is not just "black and white". "You are either with us, or you are against us" is a line followed by Bush-like neo-cons, not socialists.Considering:

(a) the antisocialist history of Technocracy;

(b) the lack of any role for the working class under Technocracy;

(c) the lack of any observable left-wing politics emanating from Technocracy;

(d) the rejection of socialism and the unique role of the working class on the EOS website,

what the fuck are you talking about? What kind of bureaucratic elitism notions lead you to think that Technocracy is anything but a petit-bourgeois utopia? It was firmly rejected by revolutionary currents in the USA 80 years ago. Why it's still around on RevLeft is beyond me.

RED DAVE

[Viet Minh]

I'm not going to continue the debate on technocracy with Dimentio gone, but just to briefly pick up on the point of education in politics. David Cameron was educated at Eton (the finest school in the UK according to many) and Oxfrod University (again the highest ranked for many years) and yet he is a dumb fucking idiot, to use the parlance of our times. Why? Because he hasnt done a proper days work in his life, and yet seems to feel perfectly entitled to dictate major cuts to fundamental services here there and everywhere (for example a refuge for victims of domestic violence) whilst the taxpayer foots the bill for this lavish royal wedding. :mad:

The key is experience, someone who has been a teacher for 30 years is better qualified to be minister of education than someone who has all the phd's under the sun imo, anything they need to learn they can learn as they need to.

[ComradeMan]

How is this observation relevant in any way? I was commenting on the fact that the majority of people are interested in more than just pure politics..

Except that this was a discussion pertinent to the socio-political and economic questions around technocracy-- ergo----


Technocracy doesn't promote the rule of the "philosopher kings", that's Platonism...

No- but the analogy with a learned elite is there- perhaps if you read through the thread you would come to see why.


And no I don't think technocracy is really anti-socialist, even though it's not equivalent to socialism either. The world is not just "black and white". "You are either with us, or you are against us" is a line followed by Bush-like neo-cons, not socialists.

What are you talking about? This is/was not about are you with us or against us type questions but rather questioning whether some ideas expressed by technocrats and one particular group that was mentioned are in any way compatible with revolutionary leftist ideals.The rest of your post clearly shows you have never really looked into technocracy and some of its spin-offs- transhumanism and all that weird borg shit.

[Queercommie Girl]

Considering:

(a) the antisocialist history of Technocracy;


Not all strands of technocracy are "anti-socialist".



(b) the lack of any role for the working class under Technocracy;


Not true. Engineers are still workers, albeit elite workers. Class character is determined by "ownership of means of production, control of means of production, income level". Education level is irrelevant. You can't say engineers and lecturers are not working class simply because they have a higher education level.

Technocracy is somewhat elitist, but not intrinsically anti-working class.



(c) the lack of any observable left-wing politics emanating from Technocracy;


Again, not true for every technocratic tendency.



(d) the rejection of socialism and the unique role of the working class on the EOS website,


And no-one is saying EOS is the same as revolutionary socialism. But are we going to restrict everything that's not explicitly revolutionary here?



what the fuck are you talking about? What kind of bureaucratic elitism notions lead you to think that Technocracy is anything but a petit-bourgeois utopia? It was firmly rejected by revolutionary currents in the USA 80 years ago. Why it's still around on RevLeft is beyond me.


I'm not a technocrat as I said, however I disagree with your suggestion that technocracy should be restricted. That's my basic point essentially. Socialism supports the freedom of thought, not the Stalinist thought police. I don't see why you are so obsessed over it. Even regarding Caesarean Socialism, which is a much more problematic tendency, I don't see you getting so passionate.

Technocracy is basically "rule by engineers", and engineers on the whole are neither bureaucrats nor petit-bourgeois. Your class characterisation is not objective and economic, and thus useless. Cultural class determination is irrelevant.

[Queercommie Girl]

Except that this was a discussion pertinent to the socio-political and economic questions around technocracy-- ergo----


Also, I don't see why non-Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries are necessarily better than non-revolutionary reformists. From a Marxist-Leninist perspective both are equally wrong. It's not just about having a "revolution" to overthrow the status quo, it's about having the right kind of "revolution".

As I said many times, I'm not a technocrat. But I explicitly oppose Red Dave's notion that technocracy should be restricted.

If technocracy is restricted, then left communism and anarchism should be restricted too, I don't see how technocracy is worse than anarchism, from a Marxist-Leninist perspective.



No- but the analogy with a learned elite is there- perhaps if you read through the thread you would come to see why.
Marxist class analysis is solely based on economics, not education level. That is to say, one's class is determined by 1) ownership of means of production; 2) control of means of production; 3) income level. A worker who is smarter than Einstein but earns the same wage as a toilet cleaner is just as much "working class" as an uneducated toilet cleaner. How much knowledge one has has nothing to do with one's class character. Cultural class determination is BS.

Just like a footballer earning a worker's wage is just as much a worker as any other. The fact that he is so much better at football doesn't mean anything.

Also, the majority of technocracy tendencies do not support a dictatorship of expert-rule, because they also support mass democracy. Therefore it's fundamentally different from a Plato's Republic, which is literally a dictatorship.



What are you talking about? This is/was not about are you with us or against us type questions but rather questioning whether some ideas expressed by technocrats and one particular group that was mentioned are in any way compatible with revolutionary leftist ideals.
I don't mind debating certain aspects of technocracy, and I'm not a technocrat. However, my essential point is simply that I explicitly disagree with Red Dave's notion that technocracy should be restricted. (You do know the particular axe that Red Dave is trying to grind, don't you?)

So don't jump to conclusions about my points. I'm a supporter of the freedom of thought. I think neither technocracy nor religious socialism should be restricted in general. Red Dave is obsessed with anti-technocracy, just like the militant atheists here are obsessed with anti-religion.

Being a religious person yourself, you wouldn't like it if religious socialism in general is restricted, would you? I think you should "treat others like how you would like to be treated yourself".



The rest of your post clearly shows you have never really looked into technocracy and some of its spin-offs- transhumanism and all that weird borg shit.
So something is reactionary just because it's "weird"? That's BS. If it's not an economics-based analysis, then I have no time for it. Personally I have no interest in "cultural criticism".

I know more about technocracy than you do. It's funny you mentioned the Borg, and it's true that some strands of technocracy and transhumanism are reactionary, but I won't write-off transhumanism completely. I believe in the dialectical fusion between advanced technology and environmental naturalism.

Transhumanism could for instance make transgenderism completely real. That is to say, potentially one could really completely change their gender in the most concrete sense, even down to the genetic level. This is of direct interest to a trans person like me, because I thought about literally giving birth before, and such things won't be possible without some kind of "tranhumanist" (in the most broad sense) technology. It could even make it possible to abolish biological gender differentiation completely. How is that "weird", "reactionary" or "borg-like" at all? Unless you think transgenderism is "weird", I don't see how this particular application of transhumanism is "weird" at all.

So really whether or not the technology of transhumanism is reactionary or progressive depends only on its concrete technological application in society. It's not intrinsically wrong. It's not even like technocracy which is actually a political programme to some extent. Transhumanism is just a potential technology, nothing more. Whether or not a particular kind of technology is reactionary is solely determined by how it's used.

BTW, I think transhumanism in general makes much more sense and is much less "weird" than religious fundies who interpret the bible literally.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not going to continue the debate on technocracy with Dimentio gone, but just to briefly pick up on the point of education in politics. David Cameron was educated at Eton (the finest school in the UK according to many) and Oxfrod University (again the highest ranked for many years) and yet he is a dumb fucking idiot, to use the parlance of our times. Why? Because he hasnt done a proper days work in his life, and yet seems to feel perfectly entitled to dictate major cuts to fundamental services here there and everywhere (for example a refuge for victims of domestic violence) whilst the taxpayer foots the bill for this lavish royal wedding. :mad:

The key is experience, someone who has been a teacher for 30 years is better qualified to be minister of education than someone who has all the phd's under the sun imo, anything they need to learn they can learn as they need to.

I generally agree, but having said this, I must stress that according to Marxism-Leninism, class character is not determined by "education level", but only by economic factors.

Class is not social or cultural, it's only economic and political. Just because one is highly educated, does not make one "not working class" at all, if one occupies the same economic position in society as other workers.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not anywhere did I suggest restricting technocrats. I have been a member of the technocacy group since the day Sentinel started it. I learned everything I know about technocracy from the socialist technocrats on this board.

What I did do, is open dialog about how revolutionary /or not the EOS is. Subsiquently another thread was started here in OI on technocracy. It was Dimentio who linked everyone to his group and discussion started here. But had I wanted to restrict technocrats or even member of the EOS, I would have made a restriction poll on members of that group 2 weeks ago when I was linked to their website.

I propose we take them case by case, examine them, discuss them and as a group decide.

Ok, that's fair enough. I don't mind criticism of technocracy at all. I'm not a technocrat and I have my own criticisms of technocracy - mainly the over-emphasis on "efficiency" in technocracy and the economic inequality (not inequality of skill, which I don't really care about as long as it doesn't translate into concrete economic inequality) it could potentially bring.

What I explicitly oppose is Red Dave's constant whining in every thread about restricting technocracy. He seems to think that it is a bigger threat to socialism than capitalism itself is. It's almost as if he has a special axe to grind against anyone who is academically and technically more knowledgable and skilled than he is.

[ComradeMan]

Also, I don't see why non-Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries are necessarily better than non-revolutionary reformists. From a Marxist-Leninist perspective both are equally wrong. It's not just about having a "revolution" to overthrow the status quo, it's about having the right kind of "revolution"..

Because they are revolutionary and the others are non-revolutionary.


Being a religious person yourself, you wouldn't like it if religious socialism in general is restricted, would you? I think you should "treat others like how you would like to be treated yourself"."..

Well- the religion section happens to be in OI.... :rolleyes:

Transhumanism is Hitler's dream come true....

[Queercommie Girl]

Because they are revolutionary and the others are non-revolutionary.


You are missing the point. Marxism-Leninism doesn't primarily judge an ideology by whether or not it is "revolutionary", but by how correct its lines are relative to Marxism-Leninism. The wrong kind of "revolution" is just as bad as reformism.



Well- the religion section happens to be in OI.... :rolleyes:


There are many religious socialists on RevLeft. Not all religions are restricted, only fundamentalist, evangelical, anti-socialist, sexist and queerphobic religions are restricted.

Religious socialism is not generally restricted here.

Even you were certainly not restricted just because you were "religious".

The same should apply to technocracy. Certain types may need to be restricted, but not technocracy in general.



Transhumanism is Hitler's dream come true....


Not really. It depends on how it's used. Transhumanism is just a technology, nothing more. It's not a political ideology. Technology is always a double-edged sword. Transhumanism is no more "intrinsically reactionary" than the wheel or bronze metallurgy are.

Would you say the use of genetic technology by transgendered people is also "reactionary"? :rolleyes:

[Viet Minh]

I generally agree, but having said this, I must stress that according to Marxism-Leninism, class character is not determined by "education level", but only by economic factors.

Class is not social or cultural, it's only economic and political. Just because one is highly educated, does not make one "not working class" at all, if one occupies the same economic position in society as other workers.

Yes thats true, I'm not down on education, its the most important aspecty in any free country. At the moment though its subject to wealth, ie tuition fees, private schooling, even student loans. Also I wonder if education is given greater due than experience, I know personal experience means shit but my dad has worked at a care place for people with disabilties for over 30 years, but someone can walk in with a uni degree and tell him how to do his job.

[synthesis]

What I explicitly oppose is Red Dave's constant whining in every thread about restricting technocracy. He seems to think that it is a bigger threat to socialism than capitalism itself is. It's almost as if he has a special axe to grind against anyone who is academically and technically more knowledgable and skilled than he is.

I find this to be in very bad taste.

[Queercommie Girl]

I find this to be in very bad taste.

Well, he sure is obsessed about anti-technocracy. I just don't see the point. I'm thinking about possible reasons for it. Though he did say his dad was actually an engineer too.

In principle I'm against both the discrimination skilled workers and white collar workers have towards unskilled workers and blue collar workers and also the "reverse discrimination" by some sections of unskilled workers towards skilled workers.

I mean just because one is an intellectual worker who is heavily short-sighted and wears huge glasses, is physically not very fit, not really into sports, and don't like drinking, doesn't mean they are "less working class" at all.

I'm actually relatively lenient towards him, since he has made some good points on other issues. Other members here, like Q, have literally called him the "troll Dave". (That's something I certainly wouldn't say)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2083416&postcount=2

[ComradeMan]

You are missing the point. Marxism-Leninism doesn't primarily judge an ideology by whether or not it is "revolutionary", but by how correct its lines are relative to Marxism-Leninism. The wrong kind of "revolution" is just as bad as reformism.

Well- this is not an exlusively Marxist-Leninist forum to start with but at the same there is a broad, albeit awkward, consensus on the ends, if not the means. If certain technocratic organisations/groups express that they are indifferent to principles of revolution then they can hardly be said to be revolutionary. Indeed, fascism in the Italian sense could be said to be revolutionary too and indeed it would not be welcome here- but that's not what the problem is really, is it? The problem is with certain groups/schools of thought that are not in line with socialist ideas.


There are many religious socialists on RevLeft. Not all religions are restricted, only fundamentalist, evangelical, anti-socialist, sexist and queerphobic religions are restricted.Religious socialism is not generally restricted here..

No but preaching is. Therefore if someone is actively promoting a group/organisation or ideology that is neither revolutionary nor leftists it's tantamount to preaching- which is restrictionable at RevLeft.


The same should apply to technocracy. Certain types may need to be restricted, but not technocracy in general...

Which types?


Not really. It depends on how it's used. Transhumanism is just a technology, nothing more. It's not a political ideology. Technology is always a double-edged sword. Transhumanism is no more "intrinsically reactionary" than the wheel or bronze metallurgy are....

Yeah- let's create a transhuman master race. :thumbup1: It's fine for science fiction.


Would you say the use of genetic technology by transgendered people is also "reactionary"? :rolleyes:

Why do you have to bing transgender issues into things all the time? Also- genetic technology, medical science and scientific advancement are not synonymous to transhumanism in the same way that Darwin cannot be held responsible for the Nazi eugenics.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yeah- let's create a transhuman master race. :thumbup1: It's fine for science fiction.


And why do you think transhumanism necessarily imply "creating a master race"? :rolleyes:

Does the technology of iron metallurgy necessarily imply making iron swords to slaughter and enslave people through military conquest?



Why do you have to bing transgender issues into things all the time?


Because I'm trans. Also, I'm not bringing it into things "all the time", only when it's applicable.

And what's wrong with mentioning trans issues here anyway?



Also- genetic technology, medical science and scientific advancement are not synonymous to transhumanism in the same way that Darwin cannot be held responsible for the Nazi eugenics.

Yeah, and transhumanism in the broad sense is far more than what you think it is. Who says transhumanism necessarily implies Nazi-style eugenics?

[Queercommie Girl]

Well- this is not an exlusively Marxist-Leninist forum to start with but at the same there is a broad, albeit awkward, consensus on the ends, if not the means. If certain technocratic organisations/groups express that they are indifferent to principles of revolution then they can hardly be said to be revolutionary. Indeed, fascism in the Italian sense could be said to be revolutionary too and indeed it would not be welcome here- but that's not what the problem is really, is it? The problem is with certain groups/schools of thought that are not in line with socialist ideas.


In the broad sense, I don't consider genuine and sincere reformist socialists to be "non-socialist". Marxism-Leninism believes in "transitional programmes" and co-operation with reformists in many contexts. I'm not an ultra-leftist.



No but preaching is. Therefore if someone is actively promoting a group/organisation or ideology that is neither revolutionary nor leftists it's tantamount to preaching- which is restrictionable at RevLeft.


But no-one is doing that here. Dimentio, who has left now, never "preached" EOS.



Which types?


E.g. Fascist Technocracy, like the types you mentioned. Technocracy that puts abstract "efficiency" before concrete human welfare.

[ComradeMan]

In the broad sense, I don't consider genuine and sincere reformist socialists to be "non-socialist". Marxism-Leninism believes in "transitional programmes" and co-operation with reformists in many contexts. I'm not an ultra-leftist..

Why do you keep saying Marxism-Leninism? Not everyone here is an ML you know?


But no-one is doing that here. Dimentio, who has left now, never "preached" EOS...

Look, I have nothing against Dimentio as a person and I hope he has a long and happy life. On the other hand, he had a group listed as his organisation and he did promote the said group and that group just happened to be not particularly leftist and totally indifferent to revolutionary ideals.


E.g. Fascist Technocracy, like the types you mentioned. Technocracy that puts abstract "efficiency" before concrete human welfare.

You can't get away from the fact that technocracy by its own definition is rule by a certain group according to skill- not necessarily educational level as has been asserted here by some- that is in itself de facto tantamount to saying rule by a selected few, i.e. an elite- hence the loose analogy with Plato's philosopher kings. Such elitism is not really democratic nor is it the proletarian ideal, is it?

[Queercommie Girl]

Why do you keep saying Marxism-Leninism? Not everyone here is an ML you know?


But I am, and the only thing I can do is to give my own perspective. For me, technocracy is not necessarily more "wrong" than anarchism is. Personally I don't necessarily feel anarchism is "closer" to ML than technocracy just because it's more "revolutionary". That's my opinion.



Look, I have nothing against Dimentio as a person and I hope he has a long and happy life. On the other hand, he had a group listed as his organisation and he did promote the said group and that group just happened to be not particularly leftist and totally indifferent to revolutionary ideals.


No he didn't "promote" anything. He merely answered a few questions when others enquired about EOS.



You can't get away from the fact that technocracy by its own definition is rule by a certain group according to skill- not necessarily educational level as has been asserted here by some- that is in itself de facto tantamount to saying rule by a selected few, i.e. an elite- hence the loose analogy with Plato's philosopher kings. Such elitism is not really democratic nor is it the proletarian ideal, is it?

Technocracy is not direct democracy, but it's not a dictatorship in the Platonic sense either. Skilled people have certain privileges under technocracy, but in principle everyone can be skilled in something, and the skilled cannot dictate things, since the application of science and technology in society is always determined by mass democracy. In many types of technocracy, being more skilled does not translate into economic privileges either, though I could see how it could be difficult to maintain economic equality in a technocratic society, which is one of my own criticisms against technocracy. (As I said, I'm not a technocrat, you are not talking with Dimentio II here...)

[ComradeMan]

But I am, and the only thing I can do is to give my own perspective. For me, technocracy is not necessarily more "wrong" than anarchism is. Personally I don't necessarily feel anarchism is "closer" to ML than technocracy just because it's more "revolutionary". That's my opinion.

But both anarchism, in a broad sense, and ML as well as the other -isms have some common goals, i.e. in creating a classless society and let's not forget that pure communism is indeed anarchism- it's just that no one can agree on how to achieve it. Technocracy on the other hand does not set out to create a classless societ and seems indifferent to revolutionary ideels along with the fact that the intrinsic elitism implied in technocracy can easily be seen as counter-revolutionary. We swap medieval- "theo-aristocracy" for 21st century "scientocracy"- the cardinals become the physicists. ;)


No he didn't "promote" anything. He merely answered a few questions when others enquired about EOS..

That's not exactly true but I am unwilling to comment further.


Technocracy is not direct democracy, but it's not a dictatorship in the Platonic sense either. Skilled people have certain privileges under technocracy, but in principle everyone can be skilled in something, and the skilled cannot dictate things, since the application of science and technology in society is always determined by mass democracy. In many types of technocracy, being more skilled does not translate into economic privileges either, though I could see how it could be difficult to maintain economic equality in a technocratic society, which is one of my own criticisms against technocracy. (As I said, I'm not a technocrat, you are not talking with Dimentio II here...)

privileges - falls down on one word.

[Queercommie Girl]

But both anarchism, in a broad sense, and ML as well as the other -isms have some common goals, i.e. in creating a classless society and let's not forget that pure communism is indeed anarchism- it's just that no one can agree on how to achieve it.


I wouldn't just simply declare things like this without further qualification.



Technocracy on the other hand does not set out to create a classless societ and seems indifferent to revolutionary ideels along with the fact that the intrinsic elitism implied in technocracy can easily be seen as counter-revolutionary.


There are utopian socialist versions of technocracy too.



We swap medieval- "theo-aristocracy" for 21st century "scientocracy"- the cardinals become the physicists. ;)


But technocracy is not an "aristocratic system", it's purely meritocratic.

Also, objectively physics is closer to the way the universe really is than any theology, so it has more objective value.



privileges - falls down on one word.


"Privileges" based on genuine meritocracy are still much better than "privileges" based on the aristocracy and the ownership of capital. (Which is what we have now) Technocracy may not be Marxist, but it's clearly far superior to capitalism.

I also think it's utopian to think humanity will one day have a social system that is absolutely egalitarian. There would always be competition in the human world. Would you say that a woman who has more boyfriends because she is more attractive also has "privileges" and therefore is "un-socialist"? "Social privileges" have always existed and always will, they existed in pre-class tribal societies, and they will exist in post-capitalist communist societies too. I don't mind these as long as they don't translate into economic or political privileges. But direct worker's democracy is generally required to ensure this. This is where most types of technocracy are found lacking.

[ComradeMan]

Meritocracy is a flawed concept- but it does sound good I'll admit that.

As for anarchism/marxism etc- do they not seek to create a classless society? No common goals?

[Queercommie Girl]

Meritocracy is a flawed concept- but it does sound good I'll admit that.


It's still much less flawed than either aristocracy or capitalism.

I didn't say communism is equivalent to a meritocracy. In fact, pure meritocracy is a problem without direct worker's democracy.



As for anarchism/marxism etc- do they not seek to create a classless society? No common goals?


The same goes for utopian socialist versions of technocracy. From a ML perspective, anarchism is utopian socialist too, because without a vanguardist party, socialism will never be realised in practice.

[ComradeMan]

It's still much less flawed than either aristocracy or capitalism..

Far less flawed still means flawed and I am not sure about the analogy. In aristocratic systems a meritocracy functioned in terms of the most meritworthy princes and in capitalism the most meritworthy hedge fund managers. Merit itself is subjective. If I were a medieval Pope then I would find most meritworthy the princes who followed my line of thought and unmeritworthy others- Henry VIII? LOL!!!

However I would argue that neither aristocracy nor capitalism were flawed in the sense that they were natural evolutions of the social order. What is flawed however is refusing or grasping onto these states of being when their natural "evolutionary" place in the historical continuum has become obsolete.

[Queercommie Girl]

Far less flawed still means flawed and I am not sure about the analogy. In aristocratic systems a meritocracy functioned in terms of the most meritworthy princes and in capitalism the most meritworthy hedge fund managers. Merit itself is subjective. If I were a medieval Pope then I would find most meritworthy the princes who followed my line of thought and unmeritworthy others- Henry VIII? LOL!!!


There is a difference in class basis.

In feudal aristocracy "meritocracy" is reserved only for the feudal landlord class.

In capitalism "meritocracy" is reserved only for the bourgeois.

In progressive versions of technocracy, "meritocracy" is open to all. Everyone has the right to a good education and become skilled.

There is also a difference in content.

In feudalism, "meritocracy" is measured by theology; In capitalism today, "meritocracy" is measured by financial opportunism; In progressive technocracy, "meritocracy" is measured by concrete science and technology and how well these are applied for the benefit of society.



However I would argue that neither aristocracy or capitalism were flawed in the sense of they were natural evolutions of the social order. What is flawed however is refusing or grasping onto these states of being when their natural "evolutionary" place in the historical continuum has become obsolete.


I'm not so sure. Early capitalism was relatively progressive compared with feudalism, early feudalism was relatively progressive compared with slavery, but intrinsically neither have ever been "progressive" in themselves.

[ComradeMan]

There is a difference in class basis.

In feudal aristocracy "meritocracy" is reserved only for the feudal landlord class..

That's not true. People were raised from humble origins for good service to their prince just as others fell from grace.


In capitalism "meritocracy" is reserved only for the bourgeois...

Plenty of non "bourgeoisie" have become good capitalists. Many, probably the majority, of revolutionary leaders were in actual fact bourgeois.


In progressive versions of technocracy, "meritocracy" is open to all. Everyone has the right to a good education and become skilled....

Just as most people, in the West at least, have the possibility to study hard and become hedge fund managers. Interestingly many of the big name capitalists were drop outs from school. The other problem is that "skilled" in a technocratic system implies scientifically skilled- what place then for the artisan?


In feudalism, "meritocracy" is measured by theology; In capitalism today, "meritocracy" is measured by financial opportunism; In progressive technocracy, "meritocracy" is measured by concrete science and technology and how well these are applied for the benefit of society.....

No it wasn't. Merit was measured in terms of martial prowess, merchant skill and innovation. In a capitalist society it's only natural that capitalist martial prowess is meritworthy. In a technocratic society merit would indeed be measured by technical ability- but what of those who have no technical ability? Not everyone is born to be a scientist or an engineer- just like not everyone is born to be a hedge fund manager...:rolleyes:


I'm not so sure. Early capitalism was relatively progressive compared with feudalism, early feudalism was relatively progressive compared with slavery, but intrinsically neither have ever been "progressive" in themselves.

Nothing is progressive in itself then by your definition. An achieved communism would not be progressive if it stagnated and refused to evolve and develop. Something is only progressive if it facilitates progression, i.e. moving forward.

[Technocrat]

The other problem is that "skilled" in a technocratic system implies scientifically skilled- what place then for the artisan?

Where are you getting that from? All professions require skill, including art.

I'm going to assume that you agree that art is a profession that requires skill.

The domain of artists in a technocratic society would be art.

Let each group of people be in charge of the task which they have trained for and an optimal social outcome results.

If we give domain over a task to those who have not trained for that task, how could anything other than a less-than-optimal social outcome result?

So, all technocracy is talking about is letting those who have trained for something be allowed to do that thing without interference from those who have not trained for it. This doesn't mean that the community is ignored, as all professions in a technocratic society by definition involve rendering a service to the community. What it means is that career politicians would no longer be able to tell someone else in another profession what to do on the basis that it benefits their political career. In other words, everyone would work for the community instead of for special interests. Sounds pretty compatible with socialism to me.

In a technocratic society, things like art, philosophy, etc would flourish because people would no longer be tied down by the need for money. If you eliminate the "profit" motive, things which were formerly discouraged by the profit motive, such as art, would flourish. The "starving artist" is evidence that people will do certain things because they are intrinsically rewarding, despite the social obstacles. If we remove the social obstacles to doing those things which are intrinsically rewarding (and yield social benefit) then those activities would increase.

[RED DAVE]

So, all technocracy is talking about is letting those who have trained for something be allowed to do that thing without interference from those who have not trained for it. This doesn't mean that the community is ignored, as all professions in a technocratic society by definition involve rendering a service to the community. What it means is that career politicians would no longer be able to tell someone else in another profession what to do on the basis that it benefits their political career. In other words, everyone would work for the community instead of for special interests. Sounds pretty compatible with socialism to me.

In a technocratic society, things like art, philosophy, etc would flourish because people would no longer be tied down by the need for money. If you eliminate the "profit" motive, things which were formerly discouraged by the profit motive, such as art, would flourish. The "starving artist" is evidence that people will do certain things because they are intrinsically rewarding, despite the social obstacles. If we remove the social obstacles to doing those things which are intrinsically rewarding (and yield social benefit) then those activities would increase.And you are still making the same fundamental mistakes you made a year or so ago, except you no longer repeat the Technocracy dogma that selection of "those who have trained" should not be subject election. We beat that one out of you.

Two issues are obvious which Technocracy ignores. First of all: who decides who is competent? The previous answer in Technocracy, which was built-in dictatorship, was: "those who have trained" will select those who would be their peers. If the judgment of competency is no longer elitist, but is subject to working class democracy, then the issue of competence becomes trivial. Hopefully, people will choose those who are competent. If not, there will be fuck-ups.

Secondly, comes the issue of the independence of technical decisions, especially decisions about running the economy, from democratic control. Dimentio, for instance, continued to posit that the so-called technate would run the economy independent of politics, which is pure bullshit. Economic decisions are not technical, they are political. In fact, only on the most trivial level, are any decisions not political.

So, either Technocracy, dumping its entire history, becomes a simple concern over good people making good decisions, or it's something else. If it's a simple concern, then it has no point: everyone wants good people making good decisions.

So what is the point?

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

That's not true. People were raised from humble origins for good service to their prince just as others fell from grace.


People can rise up from the peasantry to the landlord class in feudalism, sure, but to have real power one would have to be a landlord (a big landlord for all practical purposes), not a peasant or serf.



Plenty of non "bourgeoisie" have become good capitalists. Many, probably the majority, of revolutionary leaders were in actual fact bourgeois.
The same goes for capitalist society. A capitalist can come from working class origins, but a worker will never have genuine economic and political power.

Whereas in a technocracy, in the economic sense the skilled engineers etc are still technically workers, since they don't own the means of production like capitalists and landlords do.

That's the essential class difference.



Interestingly many of the big name capitalists were drop outs from school.
For me this actually demonstrates that big capitalists often don't have genuine knowledge or skill, they got where they are primarily due to their opportunism.



The other problem is that "skilled" in a technocratic system implies scientifically skilled- what place then for the artisan?
That's not what technocracy actually means.



No it wasn't. Merit was measured in terms of martial prowess, merchant skill and innovation.
In feudalism merit was primarily measured by how much land you owned.



In a technocratic society merit would indeed be measured by technical ability- but what of those who have no technical ability?
Why do you always assume that the majority of the people will always be relatively unskilled and uneducated? :rolleyes:



Not everyone is born to be a scientist or an engineer- just like not everyone is born to be a hedge fund manager...:rolleyes:
I'd say that scientists, engineers and doctors contribute far more to humanity than hedge fund managers and other financial parasites who have caused our current economic crisis in the first place.

Another reason why technocracy is superior and more progressive compared with capitalism.

And it's ridiculous to put scientists, engineers and doctors into the same category as hedge fund managers.



Nothing is progressive in itself then by your definition. An achieved communism would not be progressive if it stagnated and refused to evolve and develop. Something is only progressive if it facilitates progression, i.e. moving forward.You are completely missing the central point of Marxism - class analysis.

It's true that technically no form of class society is intrinsically "progressive", the same does not apply for communism, because it is a classless society.

If a communist society "evolves" class differentiation again, then it would be much worse than a stagnant communist society.

Marxism does not primarily judge "progress" in terms of "stagnation", but in terms of class relations.

Your idea of "progress" is basically teleological, treating it completely linearly. I judge "progress" primarily by productive relation, not productive force. I don't say capitalism is more progressive than feudalism because it's more productive, I say it's more progressive because under capitalism there is more democracy, more human rights, and workers under capitalism have more political and economic power than peasants under feudalism.

If you primarily measure "progress" in terms of productivity, one could say that the Foxconn suicides are justifiable since these are the unavoidable product of China's capitalist progress, which is indeed what a few Dengists argue. Indeed, judging solely in terms of productivity the Borg Collective would be a very advanced form of society. The Borg has superior military and industrial powers compared with the Federation. The Borg should be the ideal society that we all aim for.

For someone who is supposedly anti-technocratic, your view of "progress" is actually a very "technocratic" one.

To believe in "abstract progress" without a class consciousness will generally lead to fascism, which puts abstract productive efficiency above concrete human welfare.

[ComradeMan]

People can rise up from the peasantry to the landlord class in feudalism, sure, but to have real power one would have to be a landlord (a big landlord for all practical purposes), not a peasant or serf..

So if the low-born could and did rise to be the land-owning class then they could achieve power. :confused:


The same goes for capitalist society. A capitalist can come from working class origins, but a worker will never have genuine economic and political power...

Just like private in the military is not a general... your point?


Whereas in a technocracy, in the economic sense the skilled engineers etc are still technically workers, since they don't own the means of production like capitalists and landlords do....

That's hardly applicable to this example. You could say that the Queen of England is a worker, she works and she does not own the means of her work.


For me this actually demonstrates that big capitalists often don't have genuine knowledge or skill, they got where they are primarily due to their opportunism.

Nonsense. Unless you are good at your job- albeit within a capitalist context- you are not going to become a top CEO are you?


That's not what technocracy actually means.

Well what does it mean? It seems no one can give the same definition.

τεχνη - κράτος "techne kratos"- rule/government of the skilled.


In feudalism merit was primarily measured by how much land you owned..

Not necessarily. Leonardo da Vinci was not a great landowner nor was Michelangelo.


Why do you always assume that the majority of the people will always be relatively unskilled and uneducated? :rolleyes:.

I don't, but you are moving away from the idea that the skilled within technocracy implies techno-scientific. And still you fail to answer why the unskilled/uneducated, be it majority or minority, have fewer rights in decision making about society than the "skilled"?


I'd say that scientists, engineers and doctors contribute far more to humanity than hedge fund managers and other financial parasites who have caused our current economic crisis in the first place..

Yes, atomic weapons, neutron bombs, thalidomide, DDT, agent-orange and prostituting themselves to government/capitalistic and militaristic interests in order to get money for research are all meritworthy indeed.

I'm not against science per se or scientists either but I don't think there is any moral highground to be taken here either.


Another reason why technocracy is superior and more progressive compared with capitalism.

I don't think it is- you swap one form of elitism for another.


And it's ridiculous to put scientists, engineers and doctors into the same category as hedge fund managers..

Where did I do that? It's called making use of analogy.


You are completely missing the central point of Marxism - class analysis...

No, technocracy does that in that it has no theories of or does not seem to care about class analysis whatsoever.


Marxism does not primarily judge "progress" in terms of "stagnation", but in terms of class relations....

You're misunderstanding the idea of stagnation- okay, let's say trying to remain static- as things are with no change. Marxism/Communism etc are about change in class relations- not just an analysis of the said relations.


The Borg should be the ideal society that we all aim for..

:laugh:

Apart from the inherent scariness of that comment- it shows the best that technocrats have got to offer is basically science fiction. At that point I'd rather be a Jedi.

[Queercommie Girl]

So if the low-born could and did rise to be the land-owning class then they could achieve power. :confused:


That's not the point. The point is that under feudalism, one would only have concrete power if one is actually a relatively large landlord, generally speaking.

Also, in feudalism rising up from the lowest layers of society is generally very difficult indeed. In this sense capitalism is superior because it allows for more social mobility.

But in both feudalism and capitalism, only the propertied classes (landlords and capitalists) can acquire concrete economic and political power, not peasants or workers.



Just like private in the military is not a general... your point?
No it's not "just like". You have no conception of Marxist analysis. Inequality isn't just a matter of the existence of a power differential, but actually the nature of that power differential matters too. In an army the power differential is not based on property ownership and the ownership of the means of production, in feudalism and capitalism it is.



That's hardly applicable to this example. You could say that the Queen of England is a worker, she works and she does not own the means of her work.
The Queen does not really work as such. And she is not a worker because her family (the Royal Family) owns massive amounts of wealth and land. The House of Windsor is the biggest landlord in the country.

You obviously have no understanding of even the most elementary concepts of Marxism, talking with you is a waste of time.



Nonsense. Unless you are good at your job- albeit within a capitalist context- you are not going to become a top CEO are you?
"Being good at your job" in this sense simply implies the ability to be opportunistic to a significant extent.

The context matters obviously, in a Nazi context those who killed the largest number of Jews are also considered to be "good at their jobs".



Well what does it mean? It seems no one can give the same definition.

τεχνη - κράτος "techne kratos"- rule/government of the skilled.
That's what it means generally. But you are setting up a strawman when you claim that the definition of "being skilled" in technocracy only includes certain technical fields in the narrow sense. No-one has actually claimed that, and people have claimed the opposite - that artists, philosophers etc are also considered to be "skilled".



Not necessarily. Leonardo da Vinci was not a great landowner nor was Michelangelo.
People like da Vinci may be famous, but they hardly have great concrete political or economic power like the ruling feudal aristocracy did. Also, how many da Vincis have there been? Generally speaking those with knowledge and talent are not the ruling layer in a feudal society.



I don't, but you are moving away from the idea that the skilled within technocracy implies techno-scientific. And still you fail to answer why the unskilled/uneducated, be it majority or minority, have fewer rights in decision making about society than the "skilled"?
I'm not a technocrat, nor am I trying to apologise for technocracy here explicitly.

Don't consider me a "Dimentio II". I think the lack of direct worker's democracy in technocracy is indeed a problem.



Yes, atomic weapons, neutron bombs, thalidomide, DDT, agent-orange and prostituting themselves to government/capitalistic and militaristic interests in order to get money for research are all meritworthy indeed.

I'm not against science per se or scientists either but I don't think there is any moral high ground to be taken here either.
I think there is a "moral high ground" compared with parasitic financial capitalists.

You are ignoring quantity. How many scientists, engineers and doctors are in such reactionary fields? Certainly a small minority. The vast majority of these professionals make positive contributions to society.



I don't think it is- you swap one form of elitism for another.
Did I ever explicitly advocate technocracy? I'm only saying that objectively "technocratic elitism" is still superior to capitalist elitism, just like capitalist elitism is superior to feudal elitism.



Where did I do that? It's called making use of analogy.
It's a poor analogy.



No, technocracy does that in that it has no theories of or does not seem to care about class analysis whatsoever.
I'm not a technocrat. And you are wrong, because there are actually utopian socialist versions of technocracy too.



You're misunderstanding the idea of stagnation- okay, let's say trying to remain static- as things are with no change. Marxism/Communism etc are about change in class relations- not just an analysis of the said relations.
If that's what you meant, then fine, fair enough. My point is that Marxism is primarily interested in class relations, not productive advance in the abstract sense.



:laugh:

Apart from the inherent scariness of that comment- it shows the best that technocrats have got to offer is basically science fiction. At that point I'd rather be a Jedi.You are an idiot, or perhaps someone who can't read English.

Do you really think I was actually advocating becoming the Borg? LOL :laugh::laugh:

I was being sarcastic, you moron. My point is that if one only cares about "linear productive progress", and not human class relations, then the Borg Collective would be an ideal society.

[Ele'ill]

But it looks like you just gassed out.

[Ele'ill]

:laugh:
Barbari! Sembra che non capiscano una minchia!

Translated- Barbarians! It seems that they do not realize a n. prick, dick, cock (vulgar regional)

[RED DAVE]

I think the lack of direct worker's democracy in technocracy is indeed a problem.
But yes I agree the lack of worker's democracy in the Stalinist system is a fundamental problem.Iseul, you seem to have a BIG problem with the role of workers democracy under socialism. Workers democracy IS socialism. When it isn't there, we don't have a "problem." Some other class is running the show.

RED DAVE

[El Chuncho]

Wow, so much hostility over technocracy. ComradeMan, Iseul isn't a technocrat, a counter-revolutionary or a fascist and doesn't deserve to be called an idiot, and Iseul, ComradeMan is not a piece or shit or drunken scum. Shall we just shake hands and move on from this technocracy thing?

;)

[Le Libérer]

Wow, so much hostility over technocracy. ComradeMan, Iseul isn't a technocrat, a counter-revolutionary or a fascist and doesn't deserve to be called an idiot, and Iseul, ComradeMan is not a piece or shit or drunken scum. Shall we just shake hands and move on from this technocracy thing?

;)

And I have split the verbal attacks from this thread.
Ya'll play nice.

"Nice verbal warning"

[Technocrat]

So, either Technocracy, dumping its entire history, becomes a simple concern over good people making good decisions, or it's something else. If it's a simple concern, then it has no point: everyone wants good people making good decisions.

So what is the point?

RED DAVE

That is the point, and it's an important one. Here's why:

We have defined Technocracy as good people making good decisions. That is all it ever was intended to be. Look at the etymology of the word and it means "rule by skill."

The reason this is important is because Technocracy is necessary to any functioning communist or socialist system. You can have something that appears to be communism or socialism, but have an ineffective and unresponsive bureaucracy run everything so that the system ultimately doesn't work - this is the very situation that existed with the USSR with the soviet bureaucracy. So, Technocracy is that aspect of socialism or communism that would make either work correctly in the first place.

For that reason, Technocracy is not only compatible with Socialism or Communism, but is essential for its success.

[Technocrat]

And you are still making the same fundamental mistakes you made a year or so ago, except you no longer repeat the Technocracy dogma that selection of "those who have trained" should not be subject election. We beat that one out of you.

Uh, no? I've always maintained that selection of anyone for any position would be a democratic process, although one guided by the actual merit of the eligible candidates.


Two issues are obvious which Technocracy ignores. First of all: who decides who is competent? The previous answer in Technocracy, which was built-in dictatorship, was: "those who have trained" will select those who would be their peers. If the judgment of competency is no longer elitist, but is subject to working class democracy, then the issue of competence becomes trivial. Hopefully, people will choose those who are competent. If not, there will be fuck-ups.Uh, yeah - if someone has trained for a position that requires 12 years of training, they should have more say over who gets that position than someone who knows nothing about the position or its requirements. This isn't elitist, it's just a basic fact of how society works. You personally do not have all the expertise that is required to judge the competency of everyone else in society. To assume otherwise is not just false, it's arrogance. What everyone in society is capable of doing is determining when a person has failed to perform their job. Failure can be readily ascertained by any individual, judging the competency of an individual prior to that individual actually working that position is another matter entirely. For that you need people with actual job experience, as only they know what constitutes "competent" or not when there is no direct evidence (i.e. current job performance) available on which such a judgment could be made. So basically, everyone would be responsible for reviewing a person's job performance and "firing" an individual if it became necessary. But "hiring" could only be done fairly by those who are familiar with the job requirements. Since those doing the "hiring" are themselves subject to immediate recall, I don't see how there is ANYTHING undemocratic about this system, except in your bizzaro fundamentalist trotskyist imaginings.


Secondly, comes the issue of the independence of technical decisions, especially decisions about running the economy, from democratic control. Dimentio, for instance, continued to posit that the so-called technate would run the economy independent of politics, which is pure bullshit. Economic decisions are not technical, they are political. In fact, only on the most trivial level, are any decisions not political.No, this is a distinction which you continue to fail to understand.

A community votes to build a bridge. This is a political decision.

How the bridge is built is a technical decision - the engineers responsible for building the bridge would make these decisions.

A political decision determines WHAT should be done, a technical decision is concerned with HOW it should be done.

[Dr Mindbender]

Uh, yeah - if someone has trained for a position that requires 12 years of training, they should have more say over who gets that position than someone who knows nothing about the position or its requirements. This isn't elitist, it's just a basic fact of how society works. You personally do not have all the expertise that is required to judge the competency of everyone else in society. To assume otherwise is not just false, it's arrogance. What everyone in society is capable of doing is determining when a person has failed to perform their job. Failure can be readily ascertained by any individual, judging the competency of an individual prior to that individual actually working that position is another matter entirely. For that you need people with actual job experience, as only they know what constitutes "competent" or not when there is no direct evidence (i.e. current job performance) available on which such a judgment could be made. So basically, everyone would be responsible for reviewing a person's job performance and "firing" an individual if it became necessary. But "hiring" could only be done fairly by those who are familiar with the job requirements. Since those doing the "hiring" are themselves subject to immediate recall, I don't see how there is ANYTHING undemocratic about this system, except in your bizzaro fundamentalist trotskyist imaginings.
.

Furthermore i'd like to think in a society which had all but done away with work which is alienating, repetitive or made redundant by the disolution of scarcity planning the need to fire people would also be redundant because they would not be co-erced into innappropriate amd burdening jobs.

[Technocrat]

Furthermore i'd like to think in a society which had all but done away with work which is alienating, repetitive or made redundant by the disolution of scarcity planning the need to fire people would also be redundant because they would not be co-erced into innappropriate amd burdening jobs.

I agree - if the amount of effort that goes into operating society is distributed equally among everyone, and if resources are all distributed equally, the natural result would be that almost all jobs were taken by people qualified to do them, and firing people would only be necessary in extremely rare cases, such as insanity. If all jobs were of equal difficulty and one's job had no bearing on their per-capita resource use, there would be no reason for someone to try to coerce their way into a particular job, and no reason for someone else to coerce someone else into performing a particular job.

Distributing individual work effort and resource use equally among all members of society eliminates the "free rider problem," which capitalists argue is one of the reasons the free market has to exist.

In many hunter-gatherer societies, resources are distributed more or less equally and since there are relatively few tasks to be performed in comparison with an industrial society, everyone in the society is capable of performing all of the roles in the society. In such societies there is almost no concept of ownership or a hierarchy of leadership.

Things change somewhat once you increase the complexity of society. Increasing complexity means that the number of roles that have to be performed is multiplied such that an individual is no longer capable of performing all of the roles in the society, making specialization necessary. Specialization, however, does not necessarily entail unequal distribution of work effort.

[Technocrat]

To respond to the objection regarding the term "meritocracy":

The objection to meritocracy is that one cannot define what merit is (or rather WHO gets to define it), but I have defined merit on an empirical basis, so that what constitutes merit in regards to a *particular role* is:

1. having the knowledge, skills, training, etc. that has been shown over time to correlate with success in a given role. This can also include tests/exams.

2. having success in performing the role. This means that one's actual performance at a given role partially constitutes the merit they have in relation to that role. In comparison to 1, 2 carries greater weight when determining an individual's merit.

Both 1 and 2 have an empirical basis in that both consist of verifiable observations.

The alternative to a meritocracy is a patronage system. A patronage system is where positions/rewards are distributed according to loyalty. In other words, a patronage system is the exact opposite of what is called for under socialism or communism.

[Sadena Meti]

Jumping in on the topic at page 8 (but I did do a search):

Would it be fair to say that Huxley's Brave New World was more or less a Technocracy? They had a caste system to be sure, but it was run by scientists and the like. They had World Controllers whose credentials were not described though.

[Technocrat]

Jumping in on the topic at page 8 (but I did do a search):

Would it be fair to say that Huxley's Brave New World was more or less a Technocracy? They had a caste system to be sure, but it was run by scientists and the like. They had World Controllers whose credentials were not described though.

It's use of eugenics and test-tube babies makes the political system in Brave New World a caste system.

Huxley's Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_%28novel%29)is much closer to Technocracy. Check it out if you haven't yet; it is basically Huxley's vision of a functional society as contrasted to the dystopic Brave New World.

[Sadena Meti]

It's use of eugenics and test-tube babies makes the political system in Brave New World a caste system.

Huxley's Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_%28novel%29)is much closer to Technocracy.

Yet with a monarchy.

[Technocrat]

Yet with a monarchy.

I meant in regards to society's relationship with technology and how work and resources are distributed.

The "political system" in a Technocracy would be communist and democratic.

Resources would be shared equally be everyone (communism), political decisions would be made by all those affected in society (democracy), and technical decisions would be made by those qualified to make them (technocracy).

In a technocracy, technology would not be pursued for its own sake, but only to enhance the health and nutrition of people. This is also a feature of the society in Island, which is why I was reminded of it.

[RED DAVE]

But "hiring" could only be done fairly by those who are familiar with the job requirements.Still don't get it do you? Once the workplace becomes democratic, then the issue of competency becomes trivial. You still think that technical requirements for a job are not political. The very decision to put the most competent people in a job is itself political. If it weren't, we'd have the most competent people running things now.


A community votes to build a bridge. This is a political decision.'kay.


How the bridge is built is a technical decision - the engineers responsible for building the bridge would make these decisions.(1) How the bridge will be built is not a technical decision. The technical aspects are trivial. What you are trying to do, with your belief system, is desperately to hold onto the social distinctions that separate engineers from workers. These distinctions were established over a hundred years ago, when the bourgeoisie bean to remove technique from the working class and vest it in another "class" so as to reduce working class power over work.


A political decision determines WHAT should be done, a technical decision is concerned with HOW it should be done.In practice, the two are never completely separate, and to the extent that they are separate, technical decisions are trivial.

Try again, or, better yet, try to become a socialist.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

Still don't get it do you? Once the workplace becomes democratic, then the issue of competency becomes trivial. You still think that technical requirements for a job are not political. The very decision to put the most competent people in a job is itself political. If it weren't, we'd have the most competent people running things now.

I don't disagree with that - the decision to put the most competent person in a job is political. The process whereby this is accomplished would have to be adopted as a political decision.


(1) How the bridge will be built is not a technical decision. The technical aspects are trivial. How are the technical aspects trivial? I've already addressed this argument with the following:


Things change somewhat once you increase the complexity of society. Increasing complexity means that the number of roles that have to be performed is multiplied such that an individual is no longer capable of performing all of the roles in the society, making specialization necessary. Specialization, however, does not necessarily entail unequal distribution of work effort.

So, let's say that the technical aspects are trivial. Are you some kind of nietzschean superman, capable of doing anything? If I need brain surgery you're ready to do that? Or to fly a plane, or design a nuclear reactor if necessary? It is obvious that in a complex society, specialization is necessary. If specialization exists, the technical decisions are not trivial because they cannot be made by anybody. They have to be made by the people qualified to make such decisions, i.e., those who have the requisite education and training to make such decisions.


What you are trying to do, with your belief system, is desperately to hold onto the social distinctions that separate engineers from workers. These distinctions were established over a hundred years ago, when the bourgeoisie bean to remove technique from the working class and vest it in another "class" so as to reduce working class power over work.Okay, whatever you say.


In practice, the two are never completely separate, and to the extent that they are separate, technical decisions are trivial.
You have yet to demonstrate that they are trivial. You saying that something is a certain way is not sufficient proof of such, and you acting as if it is only reveals you for the arrogant bastard that you are.

[Queercommie Girl]

Jumping in on the topic at page 8 (but I did do a search):

Would it be fair to say that Huxley's Brave New World was more or less a Technocracy? They had a caste system to be sure, but it was run by scientists and the like. They had World Controllers whose credentials were not described though.

There are many different types of "technocracy", different people have very different ideas about it. Some versions of "technocracy" are very progressive, others are very reactionary.

It's simply useless to talk about "technocracy" in any kind of hand-waving, broad and general sense, without going into the specific content of a particular "technocratic" system.

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul, you seem to have a BIG problem with the role of workers democracy under socialism. Workers democracy IS socialism. When it isn't there, we don't have a "problem." Some other class is running the show.

RED DAVE

And for you "worker's democracy" is just like a magical word, or an "universal medicine" that can magically remove all of society's ills and problems.

[RED DAVE]

I think the lack of direct worker's democracy in technocracy is indeed a problem.
But yes I agree the lack of worker's democracy in the Stalinist system is a fundamental problem.
Iseul, you seem to have a BIG problem with the role of workers democracy under socialism. Workers democracy IS socialism. When it isn't there, we don't have a "problem." Some other class is running the show.
And for you "worker's democracy" is just like a magical word, or an "universal medicine" that can magically remove all of society's ills and problems.Workers democracy is socialism. It is the only way that the working class can deal with "society's ills and problems." If you have another way for the working class to run society please let us know what it is.

Technocracy and Stalinism are not problematic. They are both the antithesis of workers democracy. Technocracy, as has been shown over and over again, is a petit-bourgeois uptopian fantasy. Stalinism is the rule of the bureaucracy over the working class. Neither of them has anything to do with socialism, communism or any of the good stuff.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

Technocracy, as has been shown over and over again, is a petit-bourgeois uptopian fantasy.


Yeah, and your idea that all technical tasks are just child's play is not utopian? :rolleyes:

And you still haven't shown how exactly certain workers become "petit-bourgeois" simply because they possess more technical skills in various fields.

"Worker's democracy" is key to socialism, but it's a quantitative thing, not a simplistic "black-and-white" qualitative one. It's not just something "you either have or you don't". Worker's democracy is a complicated matter, one needs to examine its specific content, rather than just talking about it in a simplistic "hand-waving" manner.

And just because political deformation exists, doesn't mean worker's democracy is completely lacking either. There are different degrees of deformation. It's utopian to think one can just easily create an absolutist and "perfect" system of worker's democracy.

Also, technically "worker's rule" is still possible without generalised complete worker's democracy, albeit in a deformed manner, since the working class consists of multiple layers. So a section of the working class could still have relatively more power compared with other sections.

[ComradeMan]

Workers democracy is socialism. It is the only way that the working class can deal with "society's ills and problems." If you have another way for the working class to run society please let us know what it is.

Technocracy and Stalinism are not problematic. They are both the antithesis of workers democracy. Technocracy, as has been shown over and over again, is a petit-bourgeois uptopian fantasy. Stalinism is the rule of the bureaucracy over the working class. Neither of them has anything to do with socialism, communism or any of the good stuff.

RED DAVE


I have to agree with RD here- I also find it curious that a certain user Iseul leaves neg rep comments and flames attacking people for being, I quote, "lumpenised scum"- it seems we have some issues with hierarchies here.

[Queercommie Girl]

I also find it curious that a certain user Iseul leaves neg rep comments


Using neg rep is a member's general right on RevLeft.



and flames attacking people for being, I quote,


You are the one who started the flaming with explicit swear words:

@Iseul- Seeing as you feel free to throw ad homimems into a discussion in which you cannot present anything that actually represents any historical reality or analysis and that your empty statements have no bearing on anything other than intellectual mastubation and a complete alienation of humanity- also because I have downed a bottle of chianti already and don't give a fuck- all I have to say is that you....

are an idiot.

Fuck you, fuck your Borg society and fuck the science fiction bullshit you are coming out with.

Your technocracy is anti-working class pseudo-fascism and I denounce you wholeheartedly as a counter-revolutionary enemy of the proletariat.

This is despite the fact that I have never actually claimed to be a "technocrat".



"lumpenised scum"- it seems we have some issues with hierarchies here.

Marx himself used the term "lumpen" many times. It's not a swear word.

P.S. Do keep note that you are actually a restricted member and there are actually a few technocrats in the admin team on RevLeft. Do you really wish to risk further alienating yourself here?

[ComradeMan]

....
P.S. Do keep note that you are actually a restricted member and there are actually a few technocrats in the admin team on RevLeft. Do you really wish to risk further alienating yourself here?

I'm not sure whether you should paste threads that have been trashed to be honest, but you were the one who started throwing insults into the discussion so don't cry when people tell you to fuck off.

Now, you can't actually present anything based on a solid class basis- it's just because you like the idea that anyone who disagrees is de facto a moron? Sounds like intellectual fascism to me. :lol:

Keep going to those Trekkie conventions.... :rolleyes:

As for your last comment- well, we are a real little aparatchick, aren't we? :lol:

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not sure whether you should paste threads that have been trashed to be honest, but you were the one who started throwing insults into the discussion so don't cry when people tell you to fuck off.


Your post was the first one that was trashed by the way, which shows who started the rounds of insults.

I'm pasting it to show that you are the one who started the flaming.

Talking about "crying", note that I'm not the one who is actually whining constantly about "other people's insults" all the time. :rolleyes: I don't really care if some noob like you insult me in whatever way. Actually you are the one who started whining about other people's supposed "insults" against you just because you don't agree with their opinions.



Now, you can't actually present anything based on a solid class basis- it's just because you like the idea that anyone who disagrees is de facto a moron? Sounds like intellectual fascism to me. :lol:
"Intellectual fascism" isn't a Marxist term, it's something you have invented.

I don't call people morons just because they disagree with me, I call people morons when they can't grasp what I actually mean in a post and deliberately try to misrepresent me.

Talking about class analysis, keep in mind you are the one who is spilling out non-sense like the "queen of Britain is also a worker". :rolleyes:



Keep going to those Trekkie conventions.... :rolleyes:
Seriously, do you have a problem with people who like science fiction? You must have a really unhealthy and reactionary hatred of science in general or something?

I am a Star Trek fan and a general science fiction fan, I've never been to a convention yet, but what does my personal cultural preferences have to do with anything?

Science fiction is much better than the superstitious religious nonsense that you get spiritually drunk on all the time, loser fool.



As for your last comment- well, we are a real little aparatchick, aren't we? :lol:Oh, so you think the admin on Revleft is like a "Stalinist" bureaucracy? Are you delusional? There are many anarchists in the admin team.

[Jazzratt]

P.S. Do keep note that you are actually a restricted member and there are actually a few technocrats in the admin team on RevLeft. Indeed there are a couple of us.

Comrademan: You've already been reprimanded and had your posts trashed. If you don't want to face further, harsher, sanctions I'd suggest you cool the fuck down. If you insist on farting out more of your nonsense in spite of this warning I will throw infractions at you like they were fucking confetti - do I make myself absolutely clear?

[ComradeMan]

Indeed there are a couple of us.

Comrademan: You've already been reprimanded and had your posts trashed. If you don't want to face further, harsher, sanctions I'd suggest you cool the fuck down. If you insist on farting out more of your nonsense in spite of this warning I will throw infractions at you like they were fucking confetti - do I make myself absolutely clear?

No, it's not really very clear- could you explain why? I think if you look through you'll see who started throwing insults around first...
:lol:

But quite frankly I couldn't care less really either way.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, it's not really very clear- could you explain why? I think if you look through you'll see who started throwing insults around first...
:lol:


Your post was the first one that was trashed. (Look in the trash can)



But quite frankly I couldn't care less really either way.
Then why did you start whining about "my insults against you" in the first place? Now I don't mind your views on technocracy by themselves, but why do you have to turn an objective political critique into a series of inane personal insults? You don't see other technocracy-skeptics like Red Dave doing the same, do you? That's why I can continue to debate with him, but I will ignore you.

If you really don't care, then simply stop posting on this issue again, either here in this thread or on my profile.

[ComradeMan]

...

Can you show how technocracy past and present has been/is a revolutionary leftist movement or concept?

[Queercommie Girl]

Can you show how technocracy past and present has been/is a revolutionary leftist movement or concept?

There are quite a lot of revolutionary socialist technocrats on RevLeft right now.

There have been reactionary instances of technocracy in the past, I don't deny that, but we don't really have any such people on RevLeft.

Many great scientific minds have also been socialists in history, such as Albert Einstein, arguably the greatest physicist the world has ever seen, who wrote the article Why Socialism:

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

[ComradeMan]

Very good, now show me how technocracy is revolutionary and leftist. Many great scientists have also not been leftists. Because some technocrats sympathise with the left does not mean technocracy is leftist.

What's the balance of reactionary to non-reactionary technocracy?

:laugh:

[RED DAVE]

Technocracy, as has been shown over and over again, is a petit-bourgeois uptopian fantasy.
Yeah, and your idea that all technical tasks are just child's play is not utopian? :rolleyes:You are consciously and deliberately misquoting me in order to distort my view. Stop it.

What I have said is that technical decisions, as compared to political decisions, are trivial. Not child's play. My point is one that I have made with regard to Technocracy many times: Technocracy fetishizes technique and fails to understand the relationship between running an economy, which, by and large, involves political decisions, and the techniques involves, which involve accounting, record-keeping, etc. What modern-day Technocracy is doing is retaining the mystification of technique which was created by original Technocracy 80 years ago. The point of that was to argue for the dictatorial rule of the engineers.


And you still haven't shown how exactly certain workers become "petit-bourgeois" simply because they possess more technical skills in various fields.And you still don't understand the issue. Workers do not become petit-bourgeois when they possess more skills. Workers become petit-bourgeois when they stand in a different relationship to the means of production. A low-level manager or an engineer are in a different relationship to the means of production than a production worker.


"Worker's democracy" is key to socialism, but it's a quantitative thing, not a simplistic "black-and-white" qualitative one.Here come the bullshit. No, Comrade, workers democracy is qualitative. It means that the workers control production.


It's not just something "you either have or you don't".Actually, it's precisely that. There can be a struggle over control of production; that's class struggle. But, in the end, one class or another controls production. This is Marxism 101.


Worker's democracy is a complicated matter, one needs to examine its specific content, rather than just talking about it in a simplistic "hand-waving" manner.This is why ou end up with a sneaky affection for stalinism.


And just because political deformation exists, doesn't mean worker's democracy is completely lacking either.We are not dealing with "political deformation." We are dealing with which class controls production. This is a concrete question involving actual power and actual decision-making.


There are different degrees of deformation. It's utopian to think one can just easily create an absolutist and "perfect" system of worker's democracy.All you are doing is mystifying a relatively simple issue: Who controls production? We are not dealing with absolutes or perfection or its absence. We are dealing with power, which class has it; and which class doesn't.


Also, technically "worker's rule" is still possible without generalised complete worker's democracy, albeit in a deformed manner, since the working class consists of multiple layers. So a section of the working class could still have relatively more power compared with other sections.I would be embarrassed to write stuff like this. The working class rules as a class, democratically. It does not rule like the bourgeoisie, where possession or more less money or power is possible. You do not understand workers democracy, which enables the workers to control the economy from the workplace on up. Under this system, layers of the working class do not have relatively more power over other members of the working class.

Yes, for example, transport workers have more relative power over the economy than other members of the working class, but they do not have more power over other workers.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

blah blah blah
RED DAVE

You just keep posting the same stupid shit without acknowledging any distinction between technical decisions and political decisions.

If technical decisions were trivial, as you say, then it would not matter who performed brain surgery, who designed nuclear reactors or bridges, who flew an airplane, etc.

Obviously, it matters a great deal who does any of these tasks because only a few people are trained to do them. Even if you "democratized the workplace," this would still hold true because specialization is an inevitable consequence of social complexity.

[Queercommie Girl]

You are consciously and deliberately misquoting me in order to distort my view. Stop it.

What I have said is that technical decisions, as compared to political decisions, are trivial. Not child's play.


No I'm not misrepresenting you at all. "Child's play" is just another way of saying "trivial", which is what you are trying to say.



My point is one that I have made with regard to Technocracy many times: Technocracy fetishizes technique and fails to understand the relationship between running an economy, which, by and large, involves political decisions, and the techniques involves, which involve accounting, record-keeping, etc. What modern-day Technocracy is doing is retaining the mystification of technique which was created by original Technocracy 80 years ago. The point of that was to argue for the dictatorial rule of the engineers.


But you are attacking a strawman: no-one here as far as I know is promoting the "dictatorship of the engineers". What is promoted is simply that the most qualified people (in any field) should be allowed to do the job at which they are good at. There is no claim of the monopolisation of political and economic power at all.



And you still don't understand the issue. Workers do not become petit-bourgeois when they possess more skills. Workers become petit-bourgeois when they stand in a different relationship to the means of production. A low-level manager or an engineer are in a different relationship to the means of production than a production worker.


A manager is in a different relationship to the means of production, an engineer is not. An engineer has no ownership or control of the means of production, and doesn't even earn significantly more than the lowest paid worker. So effectively an engineer is just like any worker, just more skilled.

Also, socialist technocracy, as far as I know, does not actually promote making certain "skilled workers" possess a different relationship to the means of production compared with the mass of workers. Again, you are hitting a strawman.



Here come the bullshit. No, Comrade, workers democracy is qualitative. It means that the workers control production.


It is a mistake to ignore quantity solely in favour of quality. You are trying to say that either there is no "worker's democracy" at all, or if there is "worker's democracy", then there must be complete "worker's democracy". It's either all or nothing. That's ridiculous. Hypothetically two different socialist states could well have differing levels of worker's democracy. You are just considering "worker's democracy" in an abstract sense without commenting on or considering how it actually operates in detail in a specific sense.



Actually, it's precisely that. There can be a struggle over control of production; that's class struggle. But, in the end, one class or another controls production. This is Marxism 101.


And your mistake is in assuming that skilled workers are a "different class" compared with the mass of ordinary workers, or that socialist technocracy promotes the "dictatorship of skilled workers", which it doesn't.



This is why you end up with a sneaky affection for stalinism.


I reject all "hand-waving" definitions of political concepts, whether "technocracy" or "worker's democracy". Just because the same name is used doesn't mean it's the same thing. The specific content must be examined in detail.



We are not dealing with "political deformation." We are dealing with which class controls production. This is a concrete question involving actual power and actual decision-making.


You consider USSR under Stalin to be "state-capitalist", I consider it to be a deformed worker's state. So Stalinism is indeed a matter of political deformation.

But we are not talking about Stalinism here, we are talking about technocracy.



All you are doing is mystifying a relatively simple issue: Who controls production? We are not dealing with absolutes or perfection or its absence. We are dealing with power, which class has it; and which class doesn't.


Any reason you actually believe that under socialist technocracy, the working class no longer holds political power?



I would be embarrassed to write stuff like this. The working class rules as a class, democratically. It does not rule like the bourgeoisie, where possession or more less money or power is possible. You do not understand workers democracy, which enables the workers to control the economy from the workplace on up. Under this system, layers of the working class do not have relatively more power over other members of the working class.


Which is an utopian view of the working class. The working class does not consist of "saints", indeed, some workers actually have rather reactionary views. The working class is not "a single slab of concrete", and obviously power differential could exist among different sections of workers, not just separated by profession or skill, but also by race, culture, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and gender identity.

What you are claiming is that once socialism is established, there would be no further scope for internal conflicts within the working class. I reject this, which is why even under socialism, continued revolution based on mass democracy under the dictatorship of the proletariat is still necessary. Communism will never arrive in a single day.

[Queercommie Girl]

Very good, now show me how technocracy is revolutionary and leftist. Many great scientists have also not been leftists. Because some technocrats sympathise with the left does not mean technocracy is leftist.

What's the balance of reactionary to non-reactionary technocracy?

:laugh:

And your point is...?

No-one is saying every scientist or technocrat is progressive. Obviously not.

But then you are applying a starkly hypocritical standard to technocracy/science and religious socialism/religion. There are many examples of very reactionary types of religions, including some that are truly vicious, like some right-wing Christians and Muslims who call for the literal execution of all gay people. Even some left-wing religious people (left-wing in the economic sense) can have some reactionary social ideas about homosexuality etc. Yet you always get defensive whenever I merely bring up these examples, and accuse me for being "anti-religion" in general.

But you seem to completely reject technocracy just because some types of technocracy are reactionary. So why don't you similarly completely reject religious socialism just because some types of it are reactionary?

And you don't seem to realise that making fun of people just because they like science fiction is as bad as making fun of people just because they are interested in some kind of new age religious mysticism or some form of religious meditation. You were trying to use "go and read your science fiction books" and "go to Trekkie Conventions" against me as a form of insult. How is that any different from someone using "go and read your bible/qu'ran" and "go to your stupid church" as an insult? You are a hypocrite. Why don't you take out the plank in your own eyes first?

[Sentinel]

I have been a member of the technocracy group since the day Sentinel started it.I assume you are talking about the Human Progress Group. I'd like to clarify for those who aren't aware that I've never been a technocrat, and that the HPG isn't a technocracy group per se, but rather a group for pro-technology, anti-primitivist comrades on Revleft (which explains people like me and COTR being members).

It has always been favoured by technocrats though. But it has also contained and probably still contains people from the entire spectrum of the left here; from stalinists, to trotskyists, to anarchists.

[Queercommie Girl]

I assume you are talking about the Human Progress Group. I'd like to clarify for those uniformed that I've never been a technocrat, and that the HPG isn't a technocracy group per se, but rather a group for pro-technology, anti-primitivist comrades on Revleft (which explains people like me and COTR being members).

It has always been favoured by technocrats though -- but it has also contained and probably still contains people from the entire spectrum of the left here; from stalinists, to trotskyists, to anarchists.

Yes, I think it's close to my own position on these issues: influenced by some technocratic ideas, but not explicitly "technocratic".

[Sentinel]

I wouldn't say that I'm influenced by technocracy in my political thought. I do consider energy accounting in theory an interesting alternative to currency, but only in an in a distant future post-capitalist world. That's the extent of my support for technocracy.

I'm in the HPG group, as I agree with it's principles; atheism, anthropocentrism, and support for science and technological progress. Being a technocrat isn't a prequisite for membership.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm in the HPG group, as I agree with it's principles; atheism, anthropocentrism, and support for science and technological progress. Being a technocrat isn't a prequisite for membership.

I'm in the HPG group too.

I think I may be closer to technocracy than you are, but I see what you mean.

Another thing is that I believe in the dialectical fusion of advanced technology and environmental naturalism. Some people see technocracy and environmentalism as opposed to each other fundamentally, but I certainly don't. I believe in technological growth for humanity that is also sustainable.