Technocracy

[DasFapital]

What are some of your views on Technocracy and its relation to anti-capitalism?

[Rooiakker]

What kind of technocracy?
I mean, we can have some Cyberpunk esque dictatorship of the technologically elite furthering a potentially capitalist social system of control.

We could be talking about some sort of system where programmers make a government AI that oversees human imperfections.

Or some sort of obnoxious dictatorship or nerdy college fraternities.

Technocracy really has a lot of potential outcomes. On one side, you could have the Venus Project, on another side you could have a William Gibson novel.

[Leftsolidarity]

You should read through the old threads on this subject. It seems to be brought up every couple months and it's kinda the same rodeo everytime around. There are some really insightful posts in the old threads.

[tuwix]

What are some of your views on Technocracy and its relation to anti-capitalism?

It depends on who are the technocrats. There are many idiots calling themselves technocrats and quiet interesting people striving to the same goals as radical leftist (stateless society without property).

[Riveraxis]

I think technocracy is a good last-ditch option for not destroying the planet.

It's not something I'd support otherwise.

[LifeIs2Short]

Extreme statism is what it is.

[ckaihatsu]

Extreme statism is what it is.


And/or governance by academia -- or, scholasticism. Society on life support, basically.

[garrus]

From wikipedia:

Technocracy is a form of government in which experts in technology would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers, and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen, and economists.[1] In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.

So even the non-revolutionary technocracy model is far better than the capitalist one.

The revolutionary variant is the above , plus workers' control.

[ckaihatsu]

So even the non-revolutionary technocracy model is far better than the capitalist one.

The revolutionary variant is the above , plus workers' control.


I'll take issue with this conception, and counterpose one that *doesn't* look towards an academia-like specialization of societal technical knowledge and implementations.

I've commented similarly recently, at another thread:





[A] post-capitalist order would *not* require any kind of specialization




I'm positing [...] [the *precluding* of] the need for any kind of voting, for any kind of personage-based political representation / substitutionism, or for any kind of specialization, as into careerist work positions.




[T]he aim would always be to *disseminate*, *generalize*, and *automate* all information, knowledge, and skills as much as possible, so as to politically empower everyone and prevent the formation of specialized, privileged groups and their claims to 'turf' over certain abilities and productive processes.

[garrus]

I'm not sure what you mean.


I'll take issue with this conception, and counterpose one that *doesn't* look towards an academia-like specialization of societal technical knowledge and implementations.

The whole society can't have an academic level specialization of their field of interest, i think that it's simply a matter of lack of time and division of labour.
Still that doesn't mean that this kind of expertise needn't be applied.

After all the appeal to scientific expertise isn't an illegitimate authority relation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

From wikipedia:


So even the non-revolutionary technocracy model is far better than the capitalist one.

The revolutionary variant is the above , plus workers' control.

But scientists and experts don't really have their own class interests, they would probably be considered generally petty bourgois which means they can't really organize society based on their wishes. What it would mean in practice probably is that experts organize society "rationally" but within the logic of capitalism - since the problems of capitalism aren't mis-management, but inherent imbalances and tensions, these can't be reasoned out of existance.

[garrus]

But scientists and experts don't really have their own class interests, they would probably be considered generally petty bourgois which means they can't really organize society based on their wishes. What it would mean in practice probably is that experts organize society "rationally" but within the logic of capitalism - since the problems of capitalism aren't mis-management, but inherent imbalances and tensions, these can't be reasoned out of existance.

They are petty bourgeois only by salary comparisons - they tend to make more than the average worker.Would you characterize a worker making 1.5K euros / month as petty bourgeois?
The results of the research are either claimed by their employers, or published for public scrutiny.

What i mean with non-revolutionary technocratic model, was that actual societal problems that stem from peoples' needs are not economic but technological ones, so a scientist would by definition do a job at solving them.
That is,of course, if that scientist was operating outside a capitalist framework, which doesn't happen in a capitalist society.
The argument was aiming to praise technocracy in itself, not to present technocracy as a / the emancipator from capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

They are petty bourgeois only by salary comparisons - they tend to make more than the average worker.Would you characterize a worker making 1.5K euros / month as petty bourgeois?
The results of the research are either claimed by their employers, or published for public scrutiny.Well yes I would call someone who was making that wage petty bourgeois depending not on how much but how they make their money. Skilled professionals have more to sell than their labor power and although they are subbordinate to their capitalist employers directly or capitalist institutions, they have a degree of control that proletarians do not have - though it's also a grey area and these positions can be more like "management" or become "de-skilled" and the work made more like high-paid skilled workers, rather than tradditional skilled professionals. But at any rate, their class position tends to be "in-between" and that's why in my view this group would have to be oriented to either capitalism or socialism, rather than some other independant option for organizing production. If worker's haven't achieved self-liberation, I don't know how technocracy could be anything other than a different governmental structure for organizing capital accumulation and exploitation.


What i mean with non-revolutionary technocratic model, was that actual societal problems that stem from peoples' needs are not economic but technological ones, so a scientist would by definition do a job at solving them.Well I don't agree that these are technical problems or issues with irrational management or governance. Scientists as it is now can recognize that we can feed the world as it is; they generally agree that fossil fuels are hurting the environment, but they tend to only offer solutions within the system which they will even admit are inadaquate. If they were to organize the whole economy rationally and use social wealth to make the structural changes needed to rebuild the economy but not based on cheap fossil fuels, then I think basically technocracy would be kind of like a form of state-capitalism, but rather than being based on "modernization" of not-fully capitalist societies or economies deformed by imperialist relations, it would be "remodernization" of inefficiencies in capitalist societies.


That is,of course, if that scientist was operating outside a capitalist framework, which doesn't happen in a capitalist society.
The argument was aiming to praise technocracy in itself, not to present technocracy as a / the emancipator from capitalism.Ok, sure. But I guess for me, it's too abstract to say that a potential technocracy would be much better or worse than a parlemenatry capitalist government or state-capitalist governments.

[Comrade #138672]

Aren't Fascists basically "technocrats" in a State Capitalist society?

[garrus]

Well I don't agree that these are technical problems or issues with irrational management or governance. Scientists as it is now can recognize that ...
They aren't, because as it was said before, the shortcomings of needs-fulfilment policies today are rooted in the profit motive.
I think what i really mean is too hypothetical, like "we have these problems in the world today.Nullify all institutions,states and organizations.Now what model should we follow to fulfill those needs efficiently?" - And a technocratic model would be the correct answer.


What's left is a lack of workers control , and a communist/anarchist tendency deals with that.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll take issue with this conception, and counterpose one that *doesn't* look towards an academia-like specialization of societal technical knowledge and implementations.





I'm not sure what you mean.


My understanding of the technocracy professional hierarchy is that it would be academia-like in terms of positions and authority. This would be a recipe for careerism and specialization according to field.





The whole society can't have an academic level specialization of their field of interest,


I'm arguing that it *should*, and *can*, but, more to the point, society should have an academic-level "specialization" (knowledge and capability) over *all* fields. In other words, humanity's abilities should be as broad-based as possible so that *no one* is truly a specialist.





i think that it's simply a matter of lack of time and division of labour.


Division of labor is a social construction, and would vary according to the mode of production at hand -- a communist-type division of labor would be a very flat-level one, in terms of skills, by the definition of 'communism'.

The world's basic human needs can already be fulfilled with current technologies and processes -- without capitalism's wastefulness of human labor there'd be *plenty* of time for everyone to distribute their technical know-how for use on the world's open-source machinery and implements.





Still that doesn't mean that this kind of expertise needn't be applied.


I'm saying that 'expertise' should be de-individuated, and made part of the commons of communism.





After all the appeal to scientific expertise isn't an illegitimate authority relation.


'Appeal' is troubling, and implies a power relation based on technical know-how. It would not be needed.

[ckaihatsu]

They aren't, because as it was said before, the shortcomings of needs-fulfilment policies today are rooted in the profit motive.
I think what i really mean is too hypothetical, like "we have these problems in the world today.Nullify all institutions,states and organizations.Now what model should we follow to fulfill those needs efficiently?" - And a technocratic model would be the correct answer.


What's left is a lack of workers control , and a communist/anarchist tendency deals with that.


Another aspect of this conception that's problematic is the definition / composition of technicians, and workers. What's the overlap there -- ?

Would technicians be considered *workers* as well? Would workers be *excluded* from the tiers of technicians? Would technicians have the same *interests* as workers in general?

I'll posit that, since technocracy is outlined as 'a form of government', it most approaches the form of bureaucratic collectivism, or 'Stalinism', in the best possible sense of the term.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimage.org/cpkm723u5/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/cpkm723u5/)










Technocracy is a form of government in which experts in technology would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers, and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen, and economists.[1] In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.

[garrus]

My understanding of the technocracy professional hierarchy is that it would be academia-like in terms of positions and authority. This would be a recipe for careerism and specialization according to field.

Well careerism maybe, but not necessarily.But that isn't the point.
Specialization yes, and that's not a negative.


I'm arguing that it *should*, and *can*, but, more to the point, society should have an academic-level "specialization" (knowledge and capability) over *all* fields. In other words, humanity's abilities should be as broad-based as possible so that *no one* is truly a specialist.
Yes it should, but it can't.It's simply a matter of time.Specialziation in all fields would require many decades of studies, people would forget stuff they've studied many years ago, and scientific knowledge would pass by them.
A viable thing would be,for example, a deeper basis in all fields (like an semi - undergraduate level) , but not specialization.
(unless you're defining specialization differently than i understand)


I'm saying that 'expertise' should be de-individuated, and made part of the commons of communism.

'Appeal' is troubling, and implies a power relation based on technical know-how. It would not be needed.


That can happen only to a certain level, and you can't afford having non-specialists overseeing important projects.
Scientific truth after all isn't a democracy.For example, you can't have a surgeon , a nurse and two undergrad doctors deciding on the course of action on the patient.

The appeal to scientific expertise is one of the few legitimate appeals that can be made (it is basically an appeal to ... truth).If you accept that the whole body of decision makers about an issue is not equally equipped with the scientific know how , how else are you going to take that decision?



Another aspect of this conception that's problematic is the definition / composition of technicians, and workers. What's the overlap there -- ?
Would technicians be considered *workers* as well? Would workers be *excluded* from the tiers of technicians? Would technicians have the same *interests* as workers in general?
I'll posit that, since technocracy is outlined as 'a form of government', it most approaches the form of bureaucratic collectivism, or 'Stalinism', in the best possible sense of the term.
Didn't you respond your own question in the previous post? Workers themselves should receive the best possible know how , so the line between technicians and workers (technically a technician is a worker after all) would be blurred.

Or are you refering to non-communist technocracy?

[ckaihatsu]

My understanding of the technocracy professional hierarchy is that it would be academia-like in terms of positions and authority. This would be a recipe for careerism and specialization according to field.





Well careerism maybe, but not necessarily.But that isn't the point.
Specialization yes, and that's not a negative.


Yes, specialization *is* a negative, because the dynamic -- by definition -- is *counter* to what communism is all about.

Communism is about an egalitarianism, all the way through to mass control over the means of mass production. Sure, careerism *could* happen, and so could specialization, but the point is that neither should be *encouraged*.





I'm arguing that it *should*, and *can*, but, more to the point, society should have an academic-level "specialization" (knowledge and capability) over *all* fields. In other words, humanity's abilities should be as broad-based as possible so that *no one* is truly a specialist.





Yes it should, but it can't.It's simply a matter of time.Specialziation in all fields would require many decades of studies, people would forget stuff they've studied many years ago, and scientific knowledge would pass by them.
A viable thing would be,for example, a deeper basis in all fields (like an semi - undergraduate level) , but not specialization.
(unless you're defining specialization differently than i understand)


I will concede that not *everyone* is going to become proficient in *all* fields, for the reasons you've stated, but, more realistically, everyone should be knowledgeable enough *about* all fields to lend their political support appropriately over *all* matters, including technical ones.

In the course of political discussions over initiatives and implementations those with *more*-appropriate (detailed) technical knowledge would undoubtedly emerge at the fore of such discussions, but everyone else should at the same time be enabled -- at least as a matter of education -- to *understand* the technical matters at hand and to be able to address them politically.





I'm saying that 'expertise' should be de-individuated, and made part of the commons of communism.

'Appeal' is troubling, and implies a power relation based on technical know-how. It would not be needed.





That can happen only to a certain level, and you can't afford having non-specialists overseeing important projects.
Scientific truth after all isn't a democracy.For example, you can't have a surgeon , a nurse and two undergrad doctors deciding on the course of action on the patient.


The key word here is 'overseeing', which is from the domain of *management*, or managing. You're also having to use a very *specialized* instance of a technical procedure, one that is particular to a person's life, is individually physically exacting, and is time-sensitive. Outside of the procedure of surgery, many more *regular* technical processes are *non*-life-sensitive, *non*-individual-specific, and *non*-time-sensitive.

Since the leaning towards specialization, as you're doing, has a political component, you're effectively running *counter* to the modes of egality, transparency, and broad participation that are the hallmarks of communism.





The appeal to scientific expertise is one of the few legitimate appeals that can be made (it is basically an appeal to ... truth).If you accept that the whole body of decision makers about an issue is not equally equipped with the scientific know how , how else are you going to take that decision?


This is an invoking of *anxiety* over the democratic process itself. Instead of *building* on the bourgeois democratic revolutions that usurped the specialization of (royal) rule over society and its agricultural practices, you're arguing for a *return* to the times of monaticism, here in the age of the Internet.

Moreover, while scientific fields are always *empirically* valid, that's not to say that science as it's practiced is the *only* paradigm of appropriateness available. (The varying options of energy supply and all associated controversy would be an example here.)

I'll counterpose an overall social process of *prioritization*, for *any* given social matter, which I've been actively detailing at this thread of discussion:


Can socialism be non-authoritative, voluntary or libertarian?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-socialism-non-t178949/index.html?p=2599809


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://s6.postimage.org/jy5fntvcd/17_Prioritization_Chart.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/jy5fntvcd/)





Another aspect of this conception that's problematic is the definition / composition of technicians, and workers. What's the overlap there -- ?

Would technicians be considered *workers* as well? Would workers be *excluded* from the tiers of technicians? Would technicians have the same *interests* as workers in general?

I'll posit that, since technocracy is outlined as 'a form of government', it most approaches the form of bureaucratic collectivism, or 'Stalinism', in the best possible sense of the term.





Didn't you respond your own question in the previous post? Workers themselves should receive the best possible know how , so the line between technicians and workers (technically a technician is a worker after all) would be blurred.

Or are you refering to non-communist technocracy?


No, and I'm glad to see this more-leftist bent in your take on the subject of technocracy.

Again, my only concern is the prevailing norm of mass participation, including education, for this particular variant of technocracy that you're espousing.

[garrus]

I will concede that not *everyone* is going to become proficient in *all* fields, for the reasons you've stated, but, more realistically, everyone should be knowledgeable enough *about* all fields to lend their political support appropriately over *all* matters, including technical ones.

In the course of political discussions over initiatives and implementations those with *more*-appropriate (detailed) technical knowledge would undoubtedly emerge at the fore of such discussions, but everyone else should at the same time be enabled -- at least as a matter of education -- to *understand* the technical matters at hand and to be able to address them politically.
Agreed :)



You're also having to use a very *specialized* instance of a technical procedure, one that is particular to a person's life, is individually physically exacting, and is time-sensitive. Outside of the procedure of surgery, many more *regular* technical processes are *non*-life-sensitive, *non*-individual-specific, and *non*-time-sensitive.

I'm just using this as a counter example to the general rule you are trying to universally apply.There are many more specialized instances, from construction of big projects, to space travel and general reasearch.


Since the leaning towards specialization, as you're doing, has a political component, you're effectively running *counter* to the modes of egality, transparency, and broad participation that are the hallmarks of communism.
Politics has nothing to do with it, for it is a scientific and practical matter. You can't force everyone to be specialized in the X field, but you can't afford to value everyone's opinion equally in the X field.You have to take account the level of specialization each proposition's source.

I really think it's common sense.And once more, legitimate authority is called legitimate for a reason.Communism has its hallmarks also for a reason: common ownership of the means of production is aimed at satisfying human needs.
Reliance to scientific specialization does the same think, as it can be applied in production, prevent wasteful projects and optimize pretty much everything. After all humans are different,and you can expect them everyone to become the same , in a communist society. They will have the right , resources and potential to be the same, but they wont.
And that's not a bad thing.


This is an invoking of *anxiety* over the democratic process itself. Instead of *building* on the bourgeois democratic revolutions that usurped the specialization of (royal) rule over society and its agricultural practices, you're arguing for a *return* to the times of monaticism, here in the age of the Internet.
Do you really compare royal rule to scientific specialization?


Moreover, while scientific fields are always *empirically* valid, that's not to say that science as it's practiced is the *only* paradigm of appropriateness available. (The varying options of energy supply and all associated controversy would be an example here.)
I'm not sure i understand the alternative.Could you elaborate?
The energy supply status quo is a product of capitalism , not science.


No, and I'm glad to see this more-leftist bent in your take on the subject of technocracy.
There is no 'bent'. I explicitly talked about the two 'versions' of technocracy, the post-revolution and autocratic-like (the one which you consider exists in both versions) , and i clearly support the first.

[ckaihatsu]

Since the leaning towards specialization, as you're doing, has a political component, you're effectively running *counter* to the modes of egality, transparency, and broad participation that are the hallmarks of communism.





You can't force everyone to be specialized in the X field, but you can't afford to value everyone's opinion equally in the X field.You have to take account the level of specialization each proposition's source.


Yes, and I already conceded this point:





I will concede that not *everyone* is going to become proficient in *all* fields, for the reasons you've stated, but, more realistically, everyone should be knowledgeable enough *about* all fields to lend their political support appropriately over *all* matters, including technical ones.

In the course of political discussions over initiatives and implementations those with *more*-appropriate (detailed) technical knowledge would undoubtedly emerge at the fore of such discussions, but everyone else should at the same time be enabled -- at least as a matter of education -- to *understand* the technical matters at hand and to be able to address them politically.





Reliance to scientific specialization does the same think [satisfying human needs], as it can be applied in production, prevent wasteful projects and optimize pretty much everything. After all humans are different,and you can expect them everyone to become the same , in a communist society. They will have the right , resources and potential to be the same, but they wont.
And that's not a bad thing.


As far as satisfying *basic* human needs goes, I'm in agreement with the use of science, of course. I wouldn't dither or attempt to politicize something scientifically proven that prevented deaths and helped people to live longer with less suffering.

But -- that said, any goals *past* the basics are necessarily going to be subject to controversies and disagreements. (And even approaches to addressing *basic* human needs may not enjoy a lack of controversy, but I'm not making this an argument.)

As you're noting, people are different, and will need and want different things, then as now -- the question then becomes 'Optimize *what* -- ?' Without a communist-type mass political agreement there *is* no 'what'.





Politics has nothing to do with it, for it is a scientific and practical matter.


You're side-stepping the fact that -- even with perfect research and analysis -- there may still be *multiple* feasible options available from which to decide on.





Moreover, while scientific fields are always *empirically* valid, that's not to say that science as it's practiced is the *only* paradigm of appropriateness available. (The varying options of energy supply and all associated controversy would be an example here.)





I'm not sure i understand the alternative.Could you elaborate?
The energy supply status quo is a product of capitalism , not science.


I'm not referring to the energy *status quo*, but rather to the material reality that there is often more than one solution to an issue, or problem. This would remain a fundamental material dynamic no matter what the mode of production is.





The key word here is 'overseeing', which is from the domain of *management*, or managing.




You're also having to use a very *specialized* instance of a technical procedure, one that is particular to a person's life, is individually physically exacting, and is time-sensitive. Outside of the procedure of surgery, many more *regular* technical processes are *non*-life-sensitive, *non*-individual-specific, and *non*-time-sensitive.





I'm just using this as a counter example to the general rule you are trying to universally apply.There are many more specialized instances, from construction of big projects, to space travel and general reasearch.


So, these important societal projects should *definitely* be transparent and open to a mass political process since such endeavors will be affecting many more people than just those who work on them.

Certainly those workers / technicians dealing with the formulation and implementation of such technical-oriented processes will be having different kinds of discussions, at more-technical levels, than the general public, but the inclination and encouragement should be *away* from back rooms and closed doors.





I really think it's common sense.And once more, legitimate authority is called legitimate for a reason.




Communism has its hallmarks also for a reason: common ownership of the means of production is aimed at satisfying human needs.


Again, just because someone thinks of a technical way to feasibly address an unresolved issue, that doesn't automatically confer 'legitimate authority' onto them.





This is an invoking of *anxiety* over the democratic process itself. Instead of *building* on the bourgeois democratic revolutions that usurped the specialization of (royal) rule over society and its agricultural practices, you're arguing for a *return* to the times of monaticism, here in the age of the Internet.





Do you really compare royal rule to scientific specialization?


Yes I do, since the monarchs had supreme authority, as over matters of implementation, including technical ones. Scientific-minded people, since they're involved in material processes that shape the earth and society, could and do assume the same kinds of authority that a sovereign of past ages did.





I'll counterpose an overall social process of *prioritization*, for *any* given social matter


I'll reiterate this point, and note that the foundation of any technical (and political) project should begin in a *communist* kind of way, with wide-open discussions on its social feasbility.





No, and I'm glad to see this more-leftist bent in your take on the subject of technocracy.

Again, my only concern is the prevailing norm of mass participation, including education, for this particular variant of technocracy that you're espousing.





There is no 'bent'. I explicitly talked about the two 'versions' of technocracy, the post-revolution and autocratic-like (the one which you consider exists in both versions) , and i clearly support the first.


That's fine, and I don't doubt your earnestness -- my concern is a general one about the underlying mass political process that either exists, or doesn't, in relation to technical-minded endeavors.