The Real Technocracy

[Rising_Dragon]

Hello,

you all seem like a group of rather respectful fellows, unlike neoliberals whom seize terms and twist them for their own purposes. Giving the rising media coverage of the word 'Technocrat', I believe some clarification is needed.

To clarify, this thread is made in the science section of the forum because Technocracy has nothing to do with neoliberalism and a lot with science. A Technocracy without science is not a Technocracy, as I will explain later.

----

The 1990s brough with them a wave of technological advancements that accompanied the geopolitical changes that ocurred in the world. Countries collapsed, computers came into vogue, the increasing automation, and unfortunately, neoliberalism gained the momentum necesary to pervert an old word only few had ever heard of: Technocracy.

You probably have heard about this word. Science-fiction novels depic technocrats as evil, fascistic dictators who either control the population through technology or even go as far as worshipping it; in other cases, you have heard about people of dubious reputation being labelled 'technocrats' (and here is to be noted, a lot of people from Gorbachev's Politburo colleagues to prominent neoliberals have been given that denomination). It is needless to say none of the people or fictional characters are honestly worth of the usage of the word.

But who is really a 'technocrat'? What is the meaning of the word? Put simply: A Technocrat is someone who supports the Technate, a technical organizational model of society (or technical societal organization).

You are possibly right now imagining once again the science-fiction inspired dictatorship by a 'scientific tyrant'; but far from it, Technocracy does not even support the usage of money or the regular political systems.

Designed in the 1930s by a group compossed of engineer, scientists, and various others named the Technical Alliance (later Technocracy Incorporated) under the tutelage of great minds such as Howard Scott's and M. King Hubbert's, Technocracy proposes a method of societal organization based under technical guidelines. This does not means that engineers or scientists will "rule over" society; rather, that scientists and engineers will be able to work for and improve society without the constraints of the classical economical system (which Technocrats refer to as the 'Price System').

To put a more conscise example: An hospital within the classical system is, essentially, an enterprise; it's goal is ultimately to please stockholders and enterpreurs. Providing the necesary healthcare is a secondary goal, and when done, it is done at the minimun cost for the enterprise as it is possible. So is the doctor, not only experienced in his field of trade but also a businessman with services to sell. His equipment, his operating crew, and his modus operandi, must by necesity be ones that bring profit to the hospital owner(s). It does not matters what could be done to improve a patient's quality of life; if the patient has not paid for it, then such thing is not debatable. It will simply not be carried out, no matter how benefical such a small interference would be necesary to product a long-lasting positive effect on the patient's life.
Therein would be a major difference with a technocratic hospital: The doctor would not be there because he has a diploma from Harvard nor because he is handsomely rewarded. He would be there because he desires to help people - and his equipment, operating crew, and results would reflect that. His equipment would not be limited by budgetary constraints; he would be provided with the best technologically possible equipment. Nor would any of his hospital ever have to turn down a patient because said patient lacks insurance of any sort. Healthcare would, truely, be the best possible within our lifetimes.

Another example that could be provided would be with the production and transportation of goods and services. Under the present system, both are limited and propelled by the movement of capital (that is, money or debt tokens). It does not actually matters that we have the technology to solve all of Africa's problems; there is simply no money to be made by providing Africa with such technology at this time. It does not matter either that a great majority of diseases and unhealthy situations in Africa are well withint treatable parameters. Again, what is there to gain? Not much, and this is shown when the only healthcare readily available in some parts of Africa are volunteer organizations, opearing under marginall budgets and equpment. One could mention public hospitals; but they are not very abundant and, were they exist, they are serverely underfunded, leading to the aforementioned problems and our next point.

Money is a tool for oligarchism and the status quo; it serves no good in a Technocracy. And once again, a Technocracy with money is simply not a Technocracy. In a Technate, money would be abandoned in favour of Energy Accounting. Everyone would receive the same 'income' to an Energy Account (which would be similar to a bank account), and this 'income' would be dependant on the total surplus energy available in the system, after all basic needs (healthcare, electric grid, water, etc.) have been taken care of and this surplus distributed equally among all citizens. Energy Accounts would not be tradeable nor accumulable; a person will simply not be able to 'profit' at all, all the while accumulation is rendered obsolete due the limited lifetime of the Energy Accounts. While everyone will continue to receive such energy incomes on a regular basis such as a year, it should be noted that the amount of energy available in modern human systems is so great that consumption of the entire individual surplus is simply impossible.

Some will wonder how will this work with the present legal system. As a matter of fact, it will not. The concept of private property - in fact, property rights althogether - will have to necesarily be abandoned for the Technate to be in place. Ultimately, property rights exist to preserve the status quo and profits, none of which would be desirable nor capable of existing in a Technocracy. While this will be striken by some as 'extreme', the simple truth is that property rights hold no scientific basis, ie.: There is no 'ownership' in nature and natural resources are not as expansive as to make it rational to squander it among a few hands whose only interest is profit with complete disregard about the actual availability of these [ultimately finite] resources. Likewise, legalism will have to be abandoned in favour of societal organization based on cooperation and not mere control/regulation.

A society in a Technocracy would be much different than current 'civilized' societies. Work would actually be undesirable in a Technocracy; and in fact, technology would be employed to such a point that all repetitive work would likely be automated. Non-automated work could be simply solved by cooperative work of all society. Unlike modern jobs, these 'jobs' would require only a tiny fraction of time, say a few hours per week before someone else takes over. The rest of jobs would be distributed in Sequences, that allow the trained individuals (doctors, technicians, engineers, phycisists, etc.) to allocate and operate assets and resources at the best possible efficiency, quality, and quantity, not to mention the lowered energic cost thanks to technical advances.

Having covered all essentials, and established that the word 'Technocracy' means a lot more (and is a lot different) from that which you usually heard in the profit-oriented media, there is only one last item to remark: Incentives. Why should anyone partake in a Technocracy? Well, for one, there are no extrinsic rewards to be gained in a Technocracy; only the 'profit' that is gained from a well done work. The same kind of feeling that a doctor perceives after saving a patient or an artist perceives after completing one of his beloved works.

In short: Technocracy is irreconciliable with the present system, and is inherently incompatible with the status quo. The status quo promotes scarcity and trade; Technocracy, knowledge and abundance.

---

So, that is it. I hope you have enjoyed the read. And thank you for helping combat the profit-media disinformation. If you want to know more about the Technocracy, Google "Technocracy Technate" and have access to the Technate design itself (it is completely free and in various formats, as the original Technocrats would like it to be).

[Lynx]

You can also search this forum for more threads on technocracy.

[rylasasin]

Actually I would recommend AGAINST searching Google for "Technocracy Technate", as most of those sites are run by a rather unpleasant fellow named "Skip Sievert" (or Tbonepickens or whatever BS name he uses nowadays) who was kicked out of TechInc for various reasons and subscribes to a very warped, fundamentalist variation of Technocracy (basically, Scott Howard personality cult worship, Believing that anything made by TechInc after the 30s is invalid, etc), and is generally not a very nice person to talk to about anything. (He was here once... Just search for "Skip Sievert" and you'll see what I mean.)

Technocracy Inc's own websites are much better choices.

[ckaihatsu]

Hi -- I've run into the 'energy accounting' argument before, and I think it's problematic to base a system of valuations on anything other than the force that actually creates social value -- labor.





In a Technate, money would be abandoned in favour of Energy Accounting. Everyone would receive the same 'income' to an Energy Account (which would be similar to a bank account), and this 'income' would be dependant on the total surplus energy available in the system, after all basic needs (healthcare, electric grid, water, etc.) have been taken care of and this surplus distributed equally among all citizens. Energy Accounts would not be tradeable nor accumulable; a person will simply not be able to 'profit' at all, all the while accumulation is rendered obsolete due the limited lifetime of the Energy Accounts. While everyone will continue to receive such energy incomes on a regular basis such as a year, it should be noted that the amount of energy available in modern human systems is so great that consumption of the entire individual surplus is simply impossible.


This approach is all fine and well, and would certainly encourage the overthrow of capitalism, since it would be a political prerequisite, but I'm noting that much would be out of the hands of the people themselves. It sounds like a plan for 'dividends for all', but doesn't describe how the decision-making over basic needs would be handled, or for other kinds of production.

If decisions over production are taken out of the hands of laborers then the plan is effectively *substitutionist*, no matter how well designed and engineered it may be.

I'll also note that there's no procedure provided for the allocation of energy resources for mass *public works* projects, particularly those that may be more exploratory and controversial. There's no reason to think that a society's energy usage would be, or should be, a fixed thing, so the need for flexibility in ongoing assessments of it requires some kind of accountability to the public and decision-making *from* it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hi -- I've run into the 'energy accounting' argument before, and I think it's problematic to base a system of valuations on anything other than the force that actually creates social value -- labor.

Labour and energy are both necessary to create use-value. But unlike labour, energy cannot manage itself.

[ckaihatsu]

Labour and energy are both necessary to create use-value. But unlike labour, energy cannot manage itself.


Definitely. Are you indicating something in particular by mentioning that, or hinting at a certain argument, maybe...?

[MarxSchmarx]

I think the OP's claims are incredibly misleading. The term "technocrat" doesn't mean "evil, fascistic dictators who either control the population through technology or even go as far as worshipping it" nor "people with dubious reputations".

Rather, it refers simply to those who are in charge of making decisions at the state (and occasionally large corporation) level who almost invariably have their prior careers in economics with every so often somebody with an engineering background. Their areas of expertise involved analyzing the implications of the decisions others made or could make, rather than actually deciding anything themselves. A technocrat, in the popular mind, is someone who has these credentials and is unaccustomed to making decisions that finds themselves in a position of doing so. In common discourse, they are neither the "scientific tyrants" nor really the heirs of an obscure mid 20th century movement that is only marginally more curious than the Volapüks.

[ckaihatsu]

[Technocracy] refers simply to those who are in charge of making decisions at the state (and occasionally large corporation) level who almost invariably have their prior careers in economics with every so often somebody with an engineering background. Their areas of expertise


This is a misguided political instinct, though -- the point of overthrowing capitalism should not be to then reintroduce a different strain of specialization, but rather to *commonize* the entire process of decision-making so that it is a commonplace, everyday thing, for everyone.

I'll even add that such alternative processes already exist, waiting to be implemented if so chosen, once a revolutionary upheaval ends the rule of capital for good.





Their areas of expertise involved analyzing the implications of the decisions others made or could make, rather than actually deciding anything themselves. A technocrat, in the popular mind, is someone who has these credentials and is unaccustomed to making decisions that finds themselves in a position of doing so. In common discourse, they are neither the "scientific tyrants" nor really the heirs of an obscure mid 20th century movement that is only marginally more curious than the Volapüks.


You're providing apologetics for the system of capitalist state bureaucracy here -- if such positions are not about *direct* political decision-making, then they are playing the role of a *buffer*, supporting those who *do* make those decisions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think the OP's claims are incredibly misleading. The term "technocrat" doesn't mean "evil, fascistic dictators who either control the population through technology or even go as far as worshipping it" nor "people with dubious reputations".

I don't think the OP was saying that. My understanding is that the OP was pointing out that a popular conception of technocracy was that of rule by an oligarchical class of technical bureaucrats, whose policies are prone to scientism and/or instrumentalism.

That is a concept distinct from the kind of Technocracy the OP appears to be advocating.


Rather, it refers simply to those who are in charge of making decisions at the state (and occasionally large corporation) level who almost invariably have their prior careers in economics with every so often somebody with an engineering background. Their areas of expertise involved analyzing the implications of the decisions others made or could make, rather than actually deciding anything themselves.

Well, that sounds like the sort of thing the European Central Bank is doing, as I last heard the word "technocrat" being used in mainstream media in relation to that practice.


A technocrat, in the popular mind, is someone who has these credentials and is unaccustomed to making decisions that finds themselves in a position of doing so. In common discourse, they are neither the "scientific tyrants" nor really the heirs of an obscure mid 20th century movement that is only marginally more curious than the Volapüks.

I don't think anyone was claiming that anybody were the heirs of anything.

[Rising_Dragon]

Actually I would recommend AGAINST searching Google for "Technocracy Technate", as most of those sites are run by a rather unpleasant fellow named "Skip Sievert" (or Tbonepickens or whatever BS name he uses nowadays) who was kicked out of TechInc for various reasons and subscribes to a very warped, fundamentalist variation of Technocracy (basically, Scott Howard personality cult worship, Believing that anything made by TechInc after the 30s is invalid, etc), and is generally not a very nice person to talk to about anything. (He was here once... Just search for "Skip Sievert" and you'll see what I mean.)

Technocracy Inc's own websites are much better choices. Oh, sure. I apologize for his behavior... That kind of aproach gives the rest of us technocrats a bad reputation. And I agree, Technocracy Incorporated's website is the best choice. They are the true legacy of the Technocractic Movement.
I think the OP's claims are incredibly misleading. The term "technocrat" doesn't mean "evil, fascistic dictators who either control the population through technology or even go as far as worshipping it" nor "people with dubious reputations".

Rather, it refers simply to those who are in charge of making decisions at the state (and occasionally large corporation) level who almost invariably have their prior careers in economics with every so often somebody with an engineering background. Their areas of expertise involved analyzing the implications of the decisions others made or could make, rather than actually deciding anything themselves. A technocrat, in the popular mind, is someone who has these credentials and is unaccustomed to making decisions that finds themselves in a position of doing so. In common discourse, they are neither the "scientific tyrants" nor really the heirs of an obscure mid 20th century movement that is only marginally more curious than the Volapüks.
I must thank ckaihatsu and ÑóẊîöʼn for taking the time to make points that I would otherwise have made. In light of this, I will proceed to address other posts.
Hi -- I've run into the 'energy accounting' argument before, and I think it's problematic to base a system of valuations on anything other than the force that actually creates social value -- labor.
The goal of Technocracy is to replace manual labor via technological means. Of course, the system is designed so that the labor required is the minimun possible. That does not means there will not be any labor at all (machines are not intelligent, ergo they do not self-maintain) but rather that labor is so minimal that volunteer work and instrinsic motivation are enought to cover it.

And when all else fails, Ron Miller puts it better than I could:
DpkUUf0P7oc

This approach is all fine and well, and would certainly encourage the overthrow of capitalism, since it would be a political prerequisite, but I'm noting that much would be out of the hands of the people themselves. It sounds like a plan for 'dividends for all', but doesn't describe how the decision-making over basic needs would be handled, or for other kinds of production.

If decisions over production are taken out of the hands of laborers then the plan is effectively *substitutionist*, no matter how well designed and engineered it may be.

I'll also note that there's no procedure provided for the allocation of energy resources for mass *public works* projects, particularly those that may be more exploratory and controversial. There's no reason to think that a society's energy usage would be, or should be, a fixed thing, so the need for flexibility in ongoing assessments of it requires some kind of accountability to the public and decision-making *from* it.
Since the ultimate goal of Technocracy is to eliminate labor, it makes sense that people who operate the mechanism are not "labourers" in the traditional sense of the word.

However, this does not means that the decision-making is inefficient or at the interest of a few. Rather, decision making lies in those who are the most skilled to make the choices related to the task at hand; ie.: doctors regarding hospitals, engineers regarding the operation, etc... They are the most capable in their field, thus the most capable for the operation of assets related to that field. Hence 'technocrat' (roughly translated from greek as 'skilled').

As for the public works:
vuf8t-VwG


Labour and energy are both necessary to create use-value. But unlike labour, energy cannot manage itself.
It is still much better to account for the energy cost of goods and services (which is objective) rather than use prices (which are subjective).


Well, that sounds like the sort of thing the European Central Bank is doing, as I last heard the word "technocrat" being used in mainstream media in relation to that practice.
This is why I made the post. This disinformation is what is spreading among the mainstream, and unfortunately most common folk buy into it. People of dubious alignment such as Mitt Romney and Gorbachev have been called 'Technocrats' for various reasons. It is needless to say, none of them even have the slightest idea of what an actual technocrat (or a Technocracy) is.

[Strannik]

It seems to me that while technocrats have some useful concepts and ideas, their ultimate goal is different from that of marxists. First of all, for marxists, labour is not just manual or factory labour but any human activity that creates "value". To eliminate labour is to eliminate surplus value - technocratic economy would then be a steady-state economy. A society without labour cannot adapt and evolve in constantly changing material "Actuality".

So that's my criticism - technocracy can establish a certain level of material wealth, but people's society's needs and preferences are constantly changing. Capitalism has market to take this into account, communism general planning and free associations of producers.

That being said, I'm not against the idea of energy accounting, if it makes bookkeeping over resources easier. :)

[ckaihatsu]

The goal of Technocracy is to replace manual labor via technological means. Of course, the system is designed so that the labor required is the minimun possible. That does not means there will not be any labor at all (machines are not intelligent, ergo they do not self-maintain) but rather that labor is so minimal that volunteer work and instrinsic motivation are enought to cover it.


This is a fine motivation, of course, and one that is, itself, congruent with revolutionary leftism.

I've even toyed with the idea of having machines that *could* self-maintain, perhaps as a group arranged in a circle so that each maintains the next, etc.





Since the ultimate goal of Technocracy is to eliminate labor, it makes sense that people who operate the mechanism are not "labourers" in the traditional sense of the word.


'Labor', regardless of the material productivity available, is still labor if it is not primarily for oneself.





However, this does not means that the decision-making is inefficient or at the interest of a few. Rather, decision making lies in those who are the most skilled to make the choices related to the task at hand; ie.: doctors regarding hospitals, engineers regarding the operation, etc... They are the most capable in their field, thus the most capable for the operation of assets related to that field. Hence 'technocrat' (roughly translated from greek as 'skilled').


I can only repeat myself here, and also note that the specialist approach to production makes a fetish of knowledge -- why should it be seen as compartmentalized in individuals instead of something that is freely accessed and used where appropriate -- ?





[T]he point of overthrowing capitalism should not be to then reintroduce a different strain of specialization, but rather to *commonize* the entire process of decision-making so that it is a commonplace, everyday thing, for everyone.

I'll even add that such alternative processes already exist, waiting to be implemented if so chosen, once a revolutionary upheaval ends the rule of capital for good.





It is still much better to account for the energy cost of goods and services (which is objective) rather than use prices (which are subjective).


I appreciate that *some* kind of approach takes actual material conditions into consideration and accounts for them, but 'energy supplies' does not cover *all* material requirements. There would have to be some system of procedures for the general oversight of mass industrial implements and all of the associated supply chains -- this is the Marxist 'means of mass production'.

To claim that such oversight and logistical administration would have to be 'specialized' out of the hands of the workers themselves is just too much, if that's what you're saying.





[T]here's no procedure provided for the allocation of energy resources for mass *public works* projects, particularly those that may be more exploratory and controversial. There's no reason to think that a society's energy usage would be, or should be, a fixed thing, so the need for flexibility in ongoing assessments of it requires some kind of accountability to the public and decision-making *from* it.

[Rising_Dragon]

This is a fine motivation, of course, and one that is, itself, congruent with revolutionary leftism.

I've even toyed with the idea of having machines that *could* self-maintain, perhaps as a group arranged in a circle so that each maintains the next, etc.
Even if such a thing is not possible now, it should be possible once artificial intelligences come into being.

'Labor', regardless of the material productivity available, is still labor if it is not primarily for oneself.
Manual labor is not the same as machine "labor". Machines operate at a much greater efficiency, productivity, and overall capacity than manual labor. Hence why we ought to replace manual labor via technological means.

In a Technocracy, also, there is no private property. This means that any manual labor ever required will be to the benefit of the community as a whole, not single individuals.

I can only repeat myself here, and also note that the specialist approach to production makes a fetish of knowledge -- why should it be seen as compartmentalized in individuals instead of something that is freely accessed and used where appropriate -- ?
Everyone should have open access to knowledge, specially to the production methods (I certainly for example want to know what I am eating).

However, to actually take care of the production mechanism itself, ensure the appropiate resources are available, production is not over nor below the consumer demand, etc. -- are different things althogether. With machinery becoming the engines of factories rather than workers, we ought to place the mainteinance and operation of those machines in the hands of people who are capable.

This does not means people who are not engineers will not have the ability to decide what is produced or not. All the contrary, another of Technocracy's goals is to provide a far better consumer satisfaction than any market to ever exist could (as, for the first time in human history, consumption would actually be based on human needs and wants instead of profit).

To claim that such oversight and logistical administration would have to be 'specialized' out of the hands of the workers themselves is just too much, if that's what you're saying.
What I am saying is moreso that such would be a necesity, because if we want to remove manual labor necesarily the worker (and the burgueois) have to head into the drain of history.

This does not means that the absolute administration of the physical aparatus (what is produced, for example) is left to a group of individuals. Rather, it means that the operation of such aparatus is in the hands of the most capable people.

It seems to me that while technocrats have some useful concepts and ideas, their ultimate goal is different from that of marxists. First of all, for marxists, labour is not just manual or factory labour but any human activity that creates "value". To eliminate labour is to eliminate surplus value - technocratic economy would then be a steady-state economy. A society without labour cannot adapt and evolve in constantly changing material "Actuality".

So that's my criticism - technocracy can establish a certain level of material wealth, but people's society's needs and preferences are constantly changing. Capitalism has market to take this into account, communism general planning and free associations of producers.
A society without human labor is highly desirable as it would be a society without the suffering of work.

If you are reffering however to production, that is actually easy to shift. If we are not limited by profit demands, but we actually want to provide consumers with the best possible goods, then that necesarily means we need to listen to consumer trends. In Technocracy such a thing is not only possible: It is a prerequisite for it to be a Technocracy.

That being said, I'm not against the idea of energy accounting, if it makes bookkeeping over resources easier. :)
Accounting will necesarily have to be automated.

[ckaihatsu]

Even if such a thing is not possible now, it should be possible once artificial intelligences come into being.


Agreed, if by 'artificial intelligence' you mean 'expert systems'.





Manual labor is not the same as machine "labor". Machines operate at a much greater efficiency, productivity, and overall capacity than manual labor. Hence why we ought to replace manual labor via technological means.


Yes, agreed.





In a Technocracy, also, there is no private property. This means that any manual labor ever required will be to the benefit of the community as a whole, not single individuals.


Yes, that would necessarily be the case if all such labor furthered automation.





Everyone should have open access to knowledge, specially to the production methods (I certainly for example want to know what I am eating).

However, to actually take care of the production mechanism itself, ensure the appropiate resources are available, production is not over nor below the consumer demand, etc. -- are different things althogether. With machinery becoming the engines of factories rather than workers, we ought to place the mainteinance and operation of those machines in the hands of people who are capable.


Yes, of course, that almost goes without saying -- but it also makes the technocratic plan, per se, *superfluous*, if all of the above holds true.

In other words human labor that advances automation can be self-organized by those who perform the labor and also those who have a stake in it (the broader public, as consumers). Such liberated labor would have an interest in running things as capably as possible, and so would want to *increase* the general ability to do those tasks to as many people as possible -- to build the base.

This approach sounds *opposite* to what you're suggesting, in that only a special layer of technocrats would be designated for the critical tasks that increase automation.





This does not means people who are not engineers will not have the ability to decide what is produced or not. All the contrary, another of Technocracy's goals is to provide a far better consumer satisfaction than any market to ever exist could (as, for the first time in human history, consumption would actually be based on human needs and wants instead of profit).


Okay.





What I am saying is moreso that such would be a necesity, because if we want to remove manual labor necesarily the worker (and the burgueois) have to head into the drain of history.


Okay.





This does not means that the absolute administration of the physical aparatus (what is produced, for example) is left to a group of individuals. Rather, it means that the operation of such aparatus is in the hands of the most capable people.


This approach leaves many supporting issues unaddressed, though -- how would the standards for the definition of 'capable' be reached -- ? If those who serve to administrate over the machinery are *representative* of the larger population's wishes, by what process are they selected by the public as a whole -- ? Would this proposed meritocracy be derived from the public itself or would the technocrats be somehow more-separate from the general population -- ?





A society without human labor is highly desirable as it would be a society without the suffering of work.


Yes, mostly in the sense of *manual* labor, but there would always be the ongoing *political* responsibility and work of putting in efforts to determine production on a mass scale, at very least.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is still much better to account for the energy cost of goods and services (which is objective) rather than use prices (which are subjective).

I'm not proposing any kind of price system. I'm proposing that any efficient system that intends to provide abundance in an egalitarian manner must have a consideration for the labour required to produce goods and services for use. Otherwise it will be at best incomplete and at worst may result in alienated labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation).


This is why I made the post. This disinformation is what is spreading among the mainstream, and unfortunately most common folk buy into it. People of dubious alignment such as Mitt Romney and Gorbachev have been called 'Technocrats' for various reasons. It is needless to say, none of them even have the slightest idea of what an actual technocrat (or a Technocracy) is.

That's pretty bad, but at least the socio-political zeitgeist hasn't made "technocrat" as much of a dirty word as "socialism". Technocracy is relatively unburdened by history.

[Rising_Dragon]

My apologies for the late reply -- I was ill.

@ckaihatsu: I believe at this point we ought to clear up to avoid confusion. Technocracy at it's base is democratic in that sense already -- medics run medical facilities, engineers run refineries, etc. However, what does it take for it to be a 'Technocracy'? The technical management aspect. Coordination between various entities of the same type is necesary if it is ocurr. The technical aproach is the best effective way for this to take place. Namely, peers nominate a person to a higher position and those above pick from these nominees. This continues all the way to the top. This ensures democracy but also capability.

@ÑóẊîöʼn: Of course. However so long as work is done via initiative versus incentive, it will be a better work.

[ckaihatsu]

My apologies for the late reply -- I was ill.


No prob.





@ckaihatsu: I believe at this point we ought to clear up to avoid confusion. Technocracy at it's base is democratic in that sense already -- medics run medical facilities, engineers run refineries, etc. However, what does it take for it to be a 'Technocracy'? The technical management aspect. Coordination between various entities of the same type is necesary if it is ocurr. The technical aproach is the best effective way for this to take place. Namely, peers nominate a person to a higher position and those above pick from these nominees. This continues all the way to the top. This ensures democracy but also capability.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review


Yes, I understand what peer review is, but the *larger* question is whether that would provide the best *political* accountability, as for a democratic process by and for mass labor.

I'm noticing right away that you're envisioning the technocratic method as functioning within the confines of various professional fields, much as they are arranged today. From a *political* standpoint this would be artificial and unnecessary, since professionalization itself would be unnecessary. A liberated production process would have no interest in 'professional' boundaries or individualistic careerism, and would instead cut against such compartmentalization to encourage the highest-level parallel cooperation among the most-interested and most-capable thinkers and doers.

Only this kind of configuration would enable democracy to the fullest extents of productivity and production since there would be no professional-technocratic factionalism on the basis of any kind of discipline / field or on the basis of 'turf'.





[H]uman labor that advances automation can be self-organized by those who perform the labor and also those who have a stake in it (the broader public, as consumers). Such liberated labor would have an interest in running things as capably as possible, and so would want to *increase* the general ability to do those tasks to as many people as possible -- to build the base.




[T]he point of overthrowing capitalism should not be to then reintroduce a different strain of specialization, but rather to *commonize* the entire process of decision-making so that it is a commonplace, everyday thing, for everyone.

[Rising_Dragon]

Well, we need to ensure that objective needs do not become part of politics, then. Politics is opinion. Science is fact. Technocracy rejects political positions to objective problems ergo we need to avoid politicizing stuff as much as possible, ensuring such a thing happens only and when there is no scientific solution possible, or such a solution is socially objectionable.

With that in mind, with initiative being the major engine for work as oppossed to incentives, I doubt people will form cliqués to 'obtain benefits' -- there would be, in effect, no benefits to obtain, besides maybe self-impossed (and thus personal) achievements.

Another thing to consider is, just because we no longer need money does not means we no longer need engineers or doctors. Talk about the specifications of a machine all you want; it's operation, design and production are all complicated processes. They require people who are specialized in this field. This does not means of course 'having a degree', as much of the modern media emphatizes, but rather to have actual understanding of the equipment one is to operate.

Now let me ask you this question: If I am an engineer and I volunteer myself for the task of operating a machine, why should I have to listen to, say, a doctor as to how I should operate it? Certainly I must consult with my fellow engineers and technicians; they are after all of a similar capability as my own and they are partaking on the operation of the device as I am. But what does the doctor known? Nothing. Conversely, what does the engineer know about medical prodecures? Nothing.

The goal of Technocracy is to avoid that kind of needless politicization by following the chain of industrial production. Until the point that the technical production chain ends and the financial superstructure begins, we see that the system is actually very efficient. It is only the financial superstructure above it that limits it's potential.

Of course, everyone should have the chance to be provided with the best education and field experience as possible. If the aforementioned doctor wanted to learn engineering, or the engineer wanted to learn medicine; why should they be restrained? All the oppossite, all the more power to them. But until they have learned their desired knowledge, their aspects of such are very limited. Placing the doctor in an engineering job, unless he had learned the needed knowledge first, would be inefficient if not even dangerous for himself and others. Same if the engineer wanted to try a hand at medicine without having acquired essential knowledge first.

Saying there would be no 'professions' in the legalistic sense, I completely agree with. If you know how a car works and how to fix and operate it, why you should be barred from fixing cars if you like doing so? There is simply no reason. Most architects today do not know a thing about the materials they work with. Yet the buildings they build have a physical basis. They should, by necesity, learn to understand that each material has it's own properties and the building they design must necesarily reflect the purpose it is begin constructed for. But as long as the architect has a degree, who cares? Such is one problem with the classical system.

But, I repeat myself one last time. Lack of legalism does not imply lack of knowledge. I believe everyone should have a say as to how our technology is used for. I want my fellow people to have all the benefits of peaceful nuclear power (regardless of it being fission or fusion), yet I do not want nuclear weapons. This affects all of society and is by necesity a public affair. But once the decision is taken -- ie.: The use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes only -- who is to design the reactors, the power grids, the parts, etc.? Definetly not myself, for I have no such knowledge. Allowing me to partake in such a design would lead me to either consulting scientists proper (thus wasting the scientists' time they could be using constructing the components) or a reactor explosion, ending many lives and causing physical destruction for nothing.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, we need to ensure that objective needs do not become part of politics, then. Politics is opinion. Science is fact. Technocracy rejects political positions to objective problems ergo we need to avoid politicizing stuff as much as possible, ensuring such a thing happens only and when there is no scientific solution possible, or such a solution is socially objectionable.


'Politicization' in our present-day context unfortunately has a connotation of being messy, unwieldy, complicated, and chaotic -- but I'll suggest that this is because of myriad *private* interests that are all *in competition* with each other.

Consider that, once past private property, politicization would simply mean 'turning it over to the public interest and participation'.

Also, please note that there is no objective science to 'humanity' or 'how one should live their life' -- the subjective factor is inescapable, and should actually *drive* the more-technical scientific process:





The ironic paradox [...] is that science, since it is inert (a body of knowledge and know-how), can provide guidance only once a certain *initiative* has been consciously decided-on -- it will always beg the *human* question, since no other life or force employs it.

And, once a person or society has reached a certain level of comfort and convenience the *technical* realm is no longer helpful and the *human* question must be addressed: * What's worth doing...? *





With that in mind, with initiative being the major engine for work as oppossed to incentives, I doubt people will form cliqués to 'obtain benefits' -- there would be, in effect, no benefits to obtain, besides maybe self-impossed (and thus personal) achievements.


Yes, but the *least* amount of collaboration over any larger-scale productivity, like mass production, would then necessitate a political process of discussion and decision-making, especially over who would benefit from that production.





Another thing to consider is, just because we no longer need money does not means we no longer need engineers or doctors. Talk about the specifications of a machine all you want; it's operation, design and production are all complicated processes. They require people who are specialized in this field. This does not means of course 'having a degree', as much of the modern media emphatizes, but rather to have actual understanding of the equipment one is to operate.


Certainly, but I'll suggest again that the impulse here shouldn't be to put up walls and reinforce the *compartmentalization* of the disciplines but rather to *commonize* currently specialized fields so that everyone *would* be at least literate in all areas of science, etc.

Also:





Now Art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic. There is a very wide difference. If a man of science were told that the results of his experiments, and the conclusions that he arrived at, should be of such a character that they would not upset the received popular notions on the subject, or disturb popular prejudice, or hurt the sensibilities of people who knew nothing about science; if a philosopher were told that he had a perfect right to speculate in the highest spheres of thought, provided that he arrived at the same conclusions as were held by those who had never thought in any sphere at all--well, nowadays the man of science and the philosopher would be considerably amused. Yet it is really a very few years since both philosophy and science were subjected to brutal popular control, to authority--in fact the authority of either the general ignorance of the community, or the terror and greed for power of an ecclesiastical or governmental class. Of course, we have to a very great extent got rid of any attempt on the part of the community, or the Church, or the Government, to interfere with the individualism of speculative thought, but the attempt to interfere with the individualism of imaginative art still lingers. In fact, it does more than linger; it is aggressive, offensive, and brutalising.




The Soul of Man under Socialism by Oscar Wilde

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1017





Now let me ask you this question: If I am an engineer and I volunteer myself for the task of operating a machine, why should I have to listen to, say, a doctor as to how I should operate it? Certainly I must consult with my fellow engineers and technicians; they are after all of a similar capability as my own and they are partaking on the operation of the device as I am. But what does the doctor known? Nothing. Conversely, what does the engineer know about medical prodecures? Nothing.


Yeah, you're arguing from the principle of 'turf' here -- it's understandable, and even valid, but your abstract construction of an example here is obviously defensive and, well, turf-building.





The goal of Technocracy is to avoid that kind of needless politicization by following the chain of industrial production. Until the point that the technical production chain ends and the financial superstructure begins, we see that the system is actually very efficient. It is only the financial superstructure above it that limits it's potential.


The only reason why the financial superstructure feels like a 'ceiling' at the moment is because it's society's ultimate method of management for the time being. It serves as the de facto expression of societal consumer will, through the market mechanism. Aside from its inherent messiness and chaos it's objectionable because it's the larger society's non-scientific imposition into the clear-cut technical domain -- which you're objecting to.

But science *shouldn't* ever be 'pure' -- it should serve as the tool that it is, for the sake of actual people. Whether finance or some other method is used, the public -- humanity -- *should* have an input into what the sciences do, and in as participatory (constructively) a way as possible.





Of course, everyone should have the chance to be provided with the best education and field experience as possible. If the aforementioned doctor wanted to learn engineering, or the engineer wanted to learn medicine; why should they be restrained? All the oppossite, all the more power to them. But until they have learned their desired knowledge, their aspects of such are very limited. Placing the doctor in an engineering job, unless he had learned the needed knowledge first, would be inefficient if not even dangerous for himself and others. Same if the engineer wanted to try a hand at medicine without having acquired essential knowledge first.


Sure.





Saying there would be no 'professions' in the legalistic sense, I completely agree with. If you know how a car works and how to fix and operate it, why you should be barred from fixing cars if you like doing so? There is simply no reason. Most architects today do not know a thing about the materials they work with. Yet the buildings they build have a physical basis. They should, by necesity, learn to understand that each material has it's own properties and the building they design must necesarily reflect the purpose it is begin constructed for. But as long as the architect has a degree, who cares? Such is one problem with the classical system.


Okay.





But, I repeat myself one last time. Lack of legalism does not imply lack of knowledge. I believe everyone should have a say as to how our technology is used for. I want my fellow people to have all the benefits of peaceful nuclear power (regardless of it being fission or fusion), yet I do not want nuclear weapons. This affects all of society and is by necesity a public affair. But once the decision is taken -- ie.: The use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes only -- who is to design the reactors, the power grids, the parts, etc.? Definetly not myself, for I have no such knowledge. Allowing me to partake in such a design would lead me to either consulting scientists proper (thus wasting the scientists' time they could be using constructing the components) or a reactor explosion, ending many lives and causing physical destruction for nothing.


Certainly -- I appreciate your openness here.


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0

http://postimage.org/image/6psghrjot/

[Rising_Dragon]

(My apologies for late reply once again, been busy)


'Politicization' in our present-day context unfortunately has a connotation of being messy, unwieldy, complicated, and chaotic -- but I'll suggest that this is because of myriad *private* interests that are all *in competition* with each other.

Consider that, once past private property, politicization would simply mean 'turning it over to the public interest and participation'.
True enough. But, there is no need to waste time discussing purely technical matters. We can discuss social issues all day long, but science is clear as to how one should proceed with facts.

Also, please note that there is no objective science to 'humanity' or 'how one should live their life' -- the subjective factor is inescapable, and should actually *drive* the more-technical scientific process:
Of course. But it should be noted that in the current system individual freedom of thought and creativity is supressed. In a system build upon science, necesarily creativity and freedom of thought will have to be supported.

Yes, but the *least* amount of collaboration over any larger-scale productivity, like mass production, would then necessitate a political process of discussion and decision-making, especially over who would benefit from that production.
Sure, but it should be noted that generally speaking, the entire community should benefit from technocratic projects.

Certainly, but I'll suggest again that the impulse here shouldn't be to put up walls and reinforce the *compartmentalization* of the disciplines but rather to *commonize* currently specialized fields so that everyone *would* be at least literate in all areas of science, etc.

Also:
One of the current flaws of the modern schooling system -- at least in my country -- is that it tries to equalize everyone, rather than providing equal opportunities for everyone. This is because each human is inherently distinct from his/her neighbour. To be precise, everyone should learn how to write. Everyone should learn how to do basic math. Everyone should learn basic history. However as time goes by, each person will become more and more aware of his/her own interests and potential.

Of course when projects are being planned or discussed the scientific reasons have to be explained clearly and loud, but there is no reason as to why 'everyone should be scientist'. Forcing this will lead to subpar results at all levels.

Yeah, you're arguing from the principle of 'turf' here -- it's understandable, and even valid, but your abstract construction of an example here is obviously defensive and, well, turf-building.
I concur, but the goal was precisely to illustrate how the two people in the example lack knowledge of each others' specialty. Certainly knowledge should be free, open and readily available for everyone. But when it comes to perform duties, those who actually took time to learn should have more say than those who did not.

The only reason why the financial superstructure feels like a 'ceiling' at the moment is because it's society's ultimate method of management for the time being. It serves as the de facto expression of societal consumer will, through the market mechanism. Aside from its inherent messiness and chaos it's objectionable because it's the larger society's non-scientific imposition into the clear-cut technical domain -- which you're objecting to.

But science *shouldn't* ever be 'pure' -- it should serve as the tool that it is, for the sake of actual people. Whether finance or some other method is used, the public -- humanity -- *should* have an input into what the sciences do, and in as participatory (constructively) a way as possible.
Oh, of course. Science for the sake of science is not science, it is a redundant abstraction. Science at it's very begginings originated from curiosity, a very human drive, and such type of drives is what powers it.

Now what I am saying, is that we could let science become unhindered by needless restrictions. Profit is against science, and often works against it. Do you know how many environmental problems could be solved by science? All of them. How much everybody's life could improve if we used technology for the common good? Vastly. Yet, profit stands in the way, always putting a lid on what technology is used for. Common interests are secondary at best, ignored most often.

Certainly -- I appreciate your openness here.


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0
And I thank you for being respectful despite my sometimes exaggerated remarks.

That chart is nicely done as well.

[ckaihatsu]

(My apologies for late reply once again, been busy)


No prob.





True enough. But, there is no need to waste time discussing purely technical matters. We can discuss social issues all day long, but science is clear as to how one should proceed with facts.


I'm sorry, but this is, essentially, a pro-ivory-tower argument -- why the reticence about opening up "technical matters" to public viewing and consideration?

I could understand there might be prevailing *procedures* for admittance to such circles of discussion that are ultimately binding, such as those being labor-related -- these might have schooling requirements, etc.

What you're calling, for, though, is a *prohibition* on general public oversight over technical matters, and that's just not necessary.





Of course. But it should be noted that in the current system individual freedom of thought and creativity is supressed. In a system build upon science, necesarily creativity and freedom of thought will have to be supported.


Okay.





Sure, but it should be noted that generally speaking, the entire community should benefit from technocratic projects.


Yes -- I just meant to note that as soon as *any* mechanical leverage is used as part of a productive process, the artisan / worker is able to produce far past the point of self-sufficiency -- the labor, and machinery used, then necessarily become subject to social concerns and a social political consciousness, with de facto (or better) interventions possible.





One of the current flaws of the modern schooling system -- at least in my country -- is that it tries to equalize everyone, rather than providing equal opportunities for everyone. This is because each human is inherently distinct from his/her neighbour. To be precise, everyone should learn how to write. Everyone should learn how to do basic math. Everyone should learn basic history. However as time goes by, each person will become more and more aware of his/her own interests and potential.

Of course when projects are being planned or discussed the scientific reasons have to be explained clearly and loud, but there is no reason as to why 'everyone should be scientist'. Forcing this will lead to subpar results at all levels.


Okay.





I concur, but the goal was precisely to illustrate how the two people in the example lack knowledge of each others' specialty. Certainly knowledge should be free, open and readily available for everyone. But when it comes to perform duties, those who actually took time to learn should have more say than those who did not.


Oh, your concern here is really about authoritarianism. Understandable.





Oh, of course. Science for the sake of science is not science, it is a redundant abstraction. Science at it's very begginings originated from curiosity, a very human drive, and such type of drives is what powers it.

Now what I am saying, is that we could let science become unhindered by needless restrictions. Profit is against science, and often works against it. Do you know how many environmental problems could be solved by science? All of them. How much everybody's life could improve if we used technology for the common good? Vastly. Yet, profit stands in the way, always putting a lid on what technology is used for. Common interests are secondary at best, ignored most often.


Yes, agreed, and well-put.





And I thank you for being respectful despite my sometimes exaggerated remarks.

That chart is nicely done as well.


Not at all -- it's been a pleasure. Thank you.