How would a Technocratic, leftist economy work

[Comrade Hill]

It seems to me that I've always been leaning towards a dictatorship by the educated people, rather than a democracy where the uneducated people vote.

Under some technocratic governments, money would be measures by energy consumption.

[RED DAVE]

It seems to me that I've always been leaning towards a dictatorship by the educated people, rather than a democracy where the uneducated people vote.Then what are you doing here at revleft where we believe in radical democracy?


Under some technocratic governments, money would be measures by energy consumption.Technocracy is an elitist, cultish belief system. You'll love it.

RED DAVE

[Who?]

It seems to me that I've always been leaning towards a dictatorship by the educated people, rather than a democracy where the uneducated people vote.


Why not attempt to educate the masses instead?

I don't know if this is the site for you to be brutally honest. You seem like you don't have any real interest in working class liberation.

[Communist]

Thread moved to OI.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It seems to me that I've always been leaning towards a dictatorship by the educated people, rather than a democracy where the uneducated people vote.

Why not give everyone a decent education, therefore providing the basis for everyone having an equal stake in society's productive output, measured in energy?


Under some technocratic governments, money would be measures by energy consumption.

How does this follow from the first part of your post?

[Comrade Hill]

Jesus Christ I didn't know! Im still learning.

I am still a left winger so don't shoot me down like that.

Forget the technocratic government thing. I dont like fascism so please do not get me confused with a fascist. Mods please delete this thread

[Susurrus]

Contradiction in terms.

[Comrade Hill]

Okay so I am enemies with you guys now because of this.

Please. Delete this topic. I don't want to see anymore.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Hey, as lond as you arent trying to defend some form of non-class based political dictatorship then you should be fine in a while.

[CommunityBeliever]

Dear comrade Donovan, please ignore the reactionary flamer RED DAVE (view public profile -> user lists -> add to ignore list).


It seems to me that I've always been leaning towards a dictatorship by the educated people, rather than a democracy where the uneducated people vote. Since the beginning of civilisation, the ruling elites have had the best education well the oppressed masses, which were initially represented by chattel slaves and later by wage slaves, have been denied a comparable education. In the process the elites created an *anti-materialist* idealist framework (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism) to justify their exploitative condition.

To have a dictatorship of an educated elite that continues the scarcity of services like education essentially just a continuation of the status quo. On the other hand, I think we should eliminate the scarcity of education so that there is no set of "uneducated people." Technocracy comes into play in that scientists, engineers, and other professionals will have authority in the fields that they *specialise* in.


Under some technocratic governments, money would be measures by energy consumption. Consider the internet. People can access basically everything they want or need on it without the need for money, and saboteurs that commit "cybercrimes" like the Denial-of-service attack (DDOS) are dealt with physically, just like other criminals.

Energy consumption can be dealt with in a similar manner, by using a global energy smart-grid - the enernet - that addresses everyone's energy needs without the need for money, using Kardashev-1 energy technologies like nuclear fusion. Saboteurs that abuse this system can be dealt with physically.

cA811EPzwLI
Considering this, "money" never has to come into the equation as we can address everyone's energy/information needs with a free internet/enernet network similar to Tesla's world system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_Tower). On the other hand, like other technocrats I generally agree that we should begin to utilise energy economics.


Contradiction in terms. The only thing that is a contradiction in terms is "technocapitalism." Capitalism is not compatible with technocracy and technological development.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It's cool man restrictions happen.
Just go here http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-restriction-v-t140025/index.html and ask for why exactly you have been restricted. If you do not agree with what you have been restricted for (for example being restricted for holding a certain belief when you do not actually hold it in the first place) then say so.

[ComradeMan]

It seems to me that I've always been leaning towards a dictatorship by the educated people, rather than a democracy where the uneducated people vote.

Under some technocratic governments, money would be measures by energy consumption.

Heil Heil Fuehrer!!!

FFS... this is just so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

[Tim Cornelis]

Heil Heil Fuehrer!!!

FFS... this is just so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

Begin somewhere at least. OP sounds quite new to leftism (and possibly young) so don't give him a hard time.


Mods please delete this thread

You shouldn't crawl back every time someone disagrees with you. Carefully explain why you advocate something (which you didn't do now) and exchange ideas, maybe you change your mind (or vice versa). You also shouldn't conform to the norms of your peers as you seemingly did, just because your ideas are met with contempt - if you will - does not mean you should not advocate it, make up your own mind.


It seems to me that I've always been leaning towards a dictatorship by the educated people, rather than a democracy where the uneducated people vote.

I've been there. But it's non-sensical. Why should "dumb" people not be able to decide about their own life? And what is dumb or intelligent? IQ above 130? If only the smartest of smartest should rule, then--if pushed to its logical consequence--only the smartest should rule, namely a Korean guy with an IQ of 220. He should be the absolute ruler of the world then.

The person who knows what's best for him is always the person himself, whether he is Einstein or low educated. People should be in control of their own lives and their environment, regardless of intelligence. For example, if such a "democracy for the smart" was implement you may end up not having a say in your own affairs and how you live your life. But why? You know what's best for you and what you want better than anyone else does.

The Zapatistas, EZLN, have established a participatory democracy representing 500,000 people and it works, even though the area is populated almost exclusively by uneducated peasants.

[MarxSchmarx]

It seems to me that I've always been leaning towards a dictatorship by the educated people, rather than a democracy where the uneducated people vote.

Let me guess, you are, or will be, among the "educated people"?

[Comrade Hill]

Begin somewhere at least. OP sounds quite new to leftism (and possibly young) so don't give him a hard time.



You shouldn't crawl back every time someone disagrees with you. Carefully explain why you advocate something (which you didn't do now) and exchange ideas, maybe you change your mind (or vice versa). You also shouldn't conform to the norms of your peers as you seemingly did, just because your ideas are met with contempt - if you will - does not mean you should not advocate it, make up your own mind.



I've been there. But it's non-sensical. Why should "dumb" people not be able to decide about their own life? And what is dumb or intelligent? IQ above 130? If only the smartest of smartest should rule, then--if pushed to its logical consequence--only the smartest should rule, namely a Korean guy with an IQ of 220. He should be the absolute ruler of the world then.

The person who knows what's best for him is always the person himself, whether he is Einstein or low educated. People should be in control of their own lives and their environment, regardless of intelligence. For example, if such a "democracy for the smart" was implement you may end up not having a say in your own affairs and how you live your life. But why? You know what's best for you and what you want better than anyone else does.

The Zapatistas, EZLN, have established a participatory democracy representing 500,000 people and it works, even though the area is populated almost exclusively by uneducated peasants.

I change my mind. I don't want a technocratic government. I realize that it's just another institution of rich people controlling other people's decisions. I didn't see that before. I don't want it. So I demand at once that you stop trying to feed food to the problem. I am not going to sit here and try and defend something that I don't support. STOP IT!

It now seems like I've lost the trust of the people in this forum and I am now restricted to the Opposing Ideologies.

This is total bs. I do not deserve this.

[Tim Cornelis]

I change my mind. I don't want a technocratic government. I realize that it's just another institution of rich people controlling other people's decisions. I didn't see that before. I don't want it. So I demand at once that you stop trying to feed food to the problem. I am not going to sit here and try and defend something that I don't support. STOP IT!

It now seems like I've lost the trust of the people in this forum and I am now restricted to the Opposing Ideologies.

This is total bs. I do not deserve this.

Relax, I was merely respectfully explaining why the system you described is undesirable. I even defended you and said people shouln't give you a hard time. It's just a discussion, that's what you do on a forum. Don't get your knicks in a twist. You should be able to maturely engage in conversation and take a hit. And if you don't support a technocracy anymore, which I argued against, you could've/should've simply said "I don't support it anymore" without the drama ;)

cheers

[CommunityBeliever]

I change my mind. I don't want a technocratic government. I realize that it's just another institution of rich people controlling other people's decisions.I support technocracy, but in the context of anarcho-communist technocracy (ACT) rather than "educated rich people control things."

[Comrade Hill]

I support technocracy, but in the context of anarcho-communist technocracy (ACT) rather than "educated rich people control things."

Yeah that's what I meant.

I didnt want a rich controlling class ruling over the people but I wanted to have a community controlled by regular people, who could be experts or scientists.

I don't know I'm confused. I should probably read up on how a technocratic government and how communism works before i start advocating for things.

All I know is that I'm definitely on the left of the spectrum and I support having an economy controlled by working people.

[Susurrus]

I support technocracy, but in the context of anarcho-communist technocracy (ACT) rather than "educated rich people control things."

"Educated people control things" is the definition of technocracy...

[CommunityBeliever]

"Educated people control things" is the definition of technocracy...

And I think educated people should control things, at least to some extent and in their *respective fields.* However, what I was attempting to convey is that I don't want a separate educated ruling class. See anarcho-communist technocracy (ACT) for what I mean.

[EvilRedGuy]

Why is this person restricted, he seem to be a nice left-wing individual. Why is he still restricted? Information or unrestrict him.

[Susurrus]

And I think educated people should control things, at least to some extent and in their *respective fields.*

That's not technocracy. That's Marxism.


The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society—the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society—this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not abolished. It dies out.