A question for DaCuBaN

[Guest1]

I've wondered what your beliefs are, and you keep mentioning technocracy. Could you give us an explanation of what you mean and what kind of society you envision? Would you consider yourself a Marxist? An Anarchist? A Communist? A Socialist of any kind?

[DaCuBaN]

I've wondered what your beliefs are
Me too ;)


Would you consider yourself a Marxist? An Anarchist? A Communist? A Socialist of any kind?
I'm neither an anarchist nor a communist, that much I know for sure. It may be my own failing, but I find it utterly implausable to have a 'stateless' society. Neither do I believe that revolution is necessary to solve the problems in this world, nor do I see the 'class struggle' as the key element of the problem. For years I called myself a socialist and the idea of communism is appealing to me, but when I started reading up on Technocracy it interested me greatly.


Could you give us an explanation of what you mean and what kind of society you envision?
I call myself a 'technocrat' but in all honesty, it's somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I'll cover this when I get a minute, but it's 11:10 here and I'm supposed to be working :D For now I'll tease you with this:


Although elements of both socialist and democratic systems might be found in Technocracy's design, this should not be taken as Technocracy being similar to either. While it is both easy and common to want to group Technocracy together with more familiar political and economic systems, this would be a mistake. The simple reason for this is because Technocracy is far too different from any other social system ever devised.
It cannot be grouped with other political systems because Technocracy does not involve politics. Technocracy is about the scientific control of technology, not a philosophical method of controlling people. Likewise, Technocracy cannot be grouped with other economic systems because Technocracy relies on the existence of an established, technological abundance, whereas all other systems, i.e. "Price Systems", all rely on the existence of a natural state of scarcity. Therefore, we find that Technocracy is not, and cannot be easily compared to, either a socialist or democratic system.
Incidentally, if one were to pick these systems apart for their good and bad points, it would be likely that one would find the best elements of these other systems existing in a Technocratic society, with all the problems of those same systems being absent. This, however, is another discussion.

[Guest1]

Hehe, I thought that was it, I've read something about this technocracy but I wasn't sure if I was just mixing it up with something else.

Is this the one where engineers are basically the ones responsible, and technology provides everything?

As for scarcity, I haven't met a single Socialist who doesn't believe that that is a social construct created by Capitalism. Also, "price systems"? Since when has Communism been a "price system"?

It's a strange source you've got there.

I think you should read into Anarcho-Syndicalism if you seek an understanding of why a stateless society, and an organized technological society are not mutually exclusive

[DaCuBaN]

It's a strange source you've got there.


It certainly is! :D

As far as it branding all others as 'price systems' is concerned, you must remember it was originally written back in the 1940's in NYC - when most americans believed that USSR=Communism. We know that communism is yet to be realised, and hence this is somewhat of a false accusation, I agree. It's by no means the only place that the ideas here fail, but the same applies to any ideology.


I think you should read into Anarcho-Syndicalism if you seek an understanding of why a stateless society, and an organized technological society are not mutually exclusive

Oddly enough, when I first starting replying I pondered of making a comparison to syndicalism - it doesn't abandon the idea of trade, but it does totally redefine it. Here:


Technocracy defines a Price System as any system whatsoever that effects the distribution of its goods and services on a basis of commodity evaluation and that employs any form of debt tokens or money.
By this definition, every major society in the world today employs some form of Price System whether they call it capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism or by any other label. Whatever their form, all were geared to conditions of natural scarcity and hence are unsuitable for distributing abundance.

As you can see, it speaks of current systems, see my above comments.


Technocracy proposes: first, a carefully planned production adjusted so as to maintain as high a physical standard of living for the people of [the technate] as is compatible with the limitations of non-replaceable natural resources; second, a carefully planned distribution based upon the total amount of energy consumed in production. This two-fold plan would give to each individual an equal and substantial income.

This is the most fascinating aspect of it - it abandons both the LTV and classical economics, and plumps for calculating cost/wealth on the basis of how much energy it takes to produce items.

It's the most feasible monetary replacement I've seen to date.


When sufficient technology has been installed in a society that it is capable of providing an abundance to its citizens, then the rules of the game change. That is, technology behaves in a way that is different than people do. Currently we are trying to control technology by using the antiquated methodologies of people control, i.e. politics and money. Since technology behaves differently, and because it is doing over 98% of the work in our society, the situation has become dangerous. Greater emphasis should be placed on the proper control of technology because of its great power. What then are the requirements of a society that is operating so much technological power?

1) Register on a continuous 24-hour-per-day basis the total net conversion of energy,
which would determine (a) the availability of energy for continental plant
construction and maintenance, (b) the amount of physical wealth available in the form
of consumable goods and services for the consumption by the total population
during the balanced load period.
2) By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a
balanced load.
3) Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption.
4) Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services,
where produced and where used.
5) Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and
description of the individual.
6) Allow citizens the widest latitude of choice in consuming their individual share of
Continental physical wealth.
7) Distribute goods and services to every member of the population.

On the basis of these requirements, it should be noted that on each of these counts, money fails to meet our requirements as our medium of distribution!


I'll get to more soon, and I'll do some more reading on anarcho-syndicalism. Any recommendations?

[DaCuBaN]

I missed this bit:


Is this the one where engineers are basically the ones responsible, and technology provides everything?

Essentially yes, but this is where I come to loggerheads with the ideal. I'm a great believer in direct democracy, and the idea of demarchy is similarly attractive - hence my own ideal would be to use them all.

I propose a comprehensive register of citizens outlining interests, qualifications and so on. Positions in the various sequences (basically, think syndicalist unions with complete power over their relative industry) will be appointed through all these methods. A list of possible candidates based on interests and qualifications would be compiled (quite a simple task with modern computing) and the posts could be filled either through a vote from all sequence members, or through a demarchic 'call-up' system. I'm leaning toward the former.

As you can see, it's not about engineers running the world. It's about people who actually know what they are doing running the various sequences of the technate, with a proportional representation (similarly appointed through fitness-to-purpose and either demarchy or democracy) in the Continental Congress.

This is the traditional layout of a technocratic society - note firsltly the similarity to a circuit diagram, and then that all the sequences are wired in parallel.
http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/admin-chart.gif

My beef is at the top - I wouldn&#39;t have a director <_<

[DaCuBaN]

This is also very relevant to my beliefs:


In examining the operational requirements of a high energy society in question 5.1.3, we find money to be entirely inadequate for the distribution of an abundance. Taking this one step further, if this was actually tried, one could easily see the chaos that would result. Since abundance would mean an oversupply of goods and services, then prices would drop to near zero. This would mean profits would become insufficient to allow companies to continue to operate, even though from a strictly physical viewpoint, there is nothing to stop them. The entire social mechanism would break down, and no one would get anything, even though it was all actually available.
What is needed then, is an entirely new system of distribution. This mechanism would need to be in accordance with the physical requirements dictated by today&#39;s large technological apparatus. It would need to provide every every citizen of the continent with a high standard of living, and do so regardless of the type or amount of work they do. The reason for this is simple; if people were paid according to how much work they do, since machines are doing over 98% of the work, they would get paid very little. There would also develop a disparity between those who worked in labor and those who performed more cerebral jobs, who are no less deserving of a high income.
In addition this system would need to be free of the characteristics of money that make for fluctuations and instability in an economy. These characteristics include transferability, inconsistent value, and the ability to save. Each of these can cause fluctuations that are entirely unnecessary. A single, non-transferable, and personalized currency based upon the physical factors that went into the building and transportation of the good or service and was cancelled out upon use would provide for an accurate accounting of the totality of production and distribution. Thus, with these requirements, production could be geared to consumption, thus eliminating waste and shortages, while also providing the widest possible latitude of choice for individual consumption.
The method thus designed based on these requirements is called Energy Accounting.


Money used today is a method of exchange. It is used to represent debt, and can be exchanged with or by anyone for any good or service imaginable, including those that are less than socially acceptable. Suppose we illustrate this by showing an example of how money is inadequate to distribute an abundance.
Suppose, for instance, that we attempted to distribute by means of money the goods and services produced. Suppose that it were decided that 200 billion dollars worth of goods and services were to be produced in a given year, and suppose further that during that time 200 billion dollars were distributed to the population with which to purchase these goods and services. Immediately the properties of money would create trouble. Due to the fact that money is not a physical measure of goods and services, there is no assurance that prices would not change during the year, and that 200 billion dollars at the end of the year would be adequate to purchase the goods and services it was supposed to purchase. Due to the fact that money can be saved, there is no assurance that the 200 billion dollars issued for use in a given year would be used in that year, and if it were not used this would immediately begin to curtail production and to start oscillations. Due to the fact that money is negotiable and that certain human beings, by hook or crook, have a facility for getting it away from other human beings, this would defeat the requirement that distribution must reach all human beings. A further consequence of the negotiability of money is that it can be used very effectively for purposes of bribery. Hence the most successful accumulators of money would be able eventually not only to disrupt the flow line but also to buy a controlling interest in the social mechanism itself, which brings us right back to where we started from. Due to the fact that money is a species of debt, and hence cumulative, the amount would have to be continuously increased, which in conjunction with its property of being negotiable, would lead inevitably to concentration of control in a few hands and to general disruption of the distribution system that was supposed to be maintained.
Thus, money in any form whatsoever is completely inadequate as a medium of distribution in an economy of abundance. Any social system employing commodity evaluation (commodity valuations are the basis of all money) is a Price System. Hence it is not possible to maintain an adequate distribution system in an economy of abundance with a Price System control.
A method of distribution, on the other hand, eliminates these problems. It would be individually issued, and non-transferable. This not only guarantees an individual&#39;s income and protects them from the predations of fiscally wily individuals, but also eliminates the political power it can exercise over others. In other words, it becomes far more difficult to actually "buy someone off." Because a method of distribution would be cancelled after use, or if not used cancelled after a certain time period, it could thus be used as an accurate method of measuring the exact amounts of things consumed. It could also be given the ability to keep track of what types of goods and services are consumed, thereby allowing production to match consumption. A person&#39;s purchase of a product or service would also serve as an instant "vote" for that product or service


Energy Accounting is a method of Distribution based on the only measurable factor common to all products and services, and that is Energy. In an Energy Accounting system, all the energy used in the production, conversion, and transportation of goods and services would be accurately accounted for. This would be done by the relevant personnel in each Functional Sequence.
Primarily, Energy Accounting provides the accurate measurement of consumption, as well as production. This would be done with a device relevant to the available technology of the time. Technocracy&#39;s first proposed device was called the Energy Certificate. It would be distributed to all citizens and have the features of both a blank cheque and a traveller&#39;s cheque. It would be a document that would identify the user, with spaces to record information concerning the purchase, including what was purchased, the time and date, and what distribution center it was purchased from. This information would be immediately tabulated and sent to the Distribution Sequence , which could then use the information to determine what products were needed and where. Today, it is more likely that some sort of smart-card would be used. It could contain a microchip that could record all the relevant information, and also make the card far more difficult to tamper with.
What this would allow is for the Continental Control to know exactly how much of what items are being consumed and where. This information would allow production to be geared to consumption, and that the appropriate amounts of goods be delivered to the areas where they are desired. Since the energy it takes to produce and transport an item does not change, cost of items, measured in terms of energy, would not fluctuate, except in cases where a more efficient method of production was discovered, in which case the cost would only go down


Via Energy Accounting thusly, the cost of goods will be stated in terms of energy units and costs would never rise. The available net energy units allocated to people would be deposited automatically into their own accounts as energy credits for them to &#39;spend.&#39; There would be no tokens (cash) rather like a using a `debit card&#39; that always worked. Once &#39;spent&#39; by the individual these energy credits which represent amounts equal to the energy used to produce the item would then be used for replacement of the item just purchased by the spender.
Note the effect of this; people will thereby direct the Technate&#39;s administration as to what to make and do next. In a Technate the collective will of its citizens direct the country.

[Guest1]

Well actually, I personally am an Anarcho-Communist with heavy Syndicalist leanings. I personally believe we don&#39;t need money, but I like Syndicalism&#39;s ability to cope with large and complex societies. However, almost none of Anarchism&#39;s various forms are mutually exclusive, so a blend of Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism is probably how I envision society would come to be.

I&#39;ll have to get back to you on the rest later. Peace.

[DaCuBaN]

It propogates the abolition of private property:


Yes, except for personal belongings. But why let that worry you? You don&#39;t own the telephone line service to your house, but that doesn&#39;t keep you from using it whenever you wish, except for the cost of those expensive long-distance calls that is a Price System interference to the most efficient use of such equipment.
More people are finding that owning a car or house is more of a detriment than a benefit, considering taxes and maintenance. They look with some envy at apartment dwellers who live as comfortably as they without the usual concerns of house owners; and when it is possible to do so, many of the house owners join the ranks of the apartment dwellers.
Private ownership is a Price System hang-up that will be gladly abandoned by most people when they experience the considerable advantages of being able to use goods and services whenever desired without the bother of owning them.

On human nature:

What is in the minds of most people when they speak of "human nature" is human behavior. Human behavior, like all other animal behavior, is the result of the reaction of environment upon the inherited mechanism of the individual. Technocracy proposes to regulate this environment in such a manner that the resulting human behavior will be the most desirable; or, to put it another way, Technocracy proposes to change the rules of the game under which human nature operates. Given a decent set of rules, there is every reason to believe that human nature will effect a veritable Renaissance

On efficiency:

Load factor is the ratio between the extent of actual usage of equipment and the total time that it could be used. Thus, if equipment is running only 12 hours per day for six months of a year, it is operating at just 25 percent of its load factor for that period -- an inexcusably low figure but not at all uncommon in today&#39;s Price System society. The private automobile, for example, operates at a load factor no higher than five percent.
The extreme inefficiency of present low load factors is a major reason for many current difficulties, most of which could be overcome by scrapping much equipment and raising the operating load factors on the remainder to the highest possible degree. Rather than suffering loss from such action, the public would experience a considerable gain in services rendered. We could, for example, get just as much service from one-tenth of the existing number of cars on the road if we boosted the load factor on that one-tenth from the present five percent to only fifty percent of potential

As I said, I&#39;m not really a technocrat. For one thing I&#39;m in the UK, and hence the ideas laid out aren&#39;t even relevant to me. However, I see this as both an excellent replacement for the socialist stage en route to communism (if that&#39;s your thing) and a society in it&#39;s own right.


I&#39;ll have to get back to you on the rest later. Peace.

Et tu :)

[wet blanket]

I read a bit about this... one of the guys was really trying to sell this idea at the infoshop forums.

It seems to me like it&#39;s a flavor of syndicalism with a heavy emphasis on developing technology to eliminate the scarcity problem.

[Guest1]

I personally think, however, that it&#39;s got too heavy an emphasis on technology. It seems to be a very cold system, turning political concerns into concerns of efficiency.

The reason I don&#39;t like it personally is cause efficiency is only one of the reasons we need to fight Capitalism and the state. It&#39;s a very small reason, and not that crucial when compared to some of the other reasons. Such as the theft of the fruits of our labour.

Which brings me to the next point, while it doesn&#39;t matter to me that it dismisses the LTV, it does bother me that it makes no mention of the injustices workers suffer in this society. Even Social Democrats will still talk about that a bit.

Society is not just a question of efficiency, we are not statistics and numbers. But we could be. Massive databanks with people&#39;s interests recorded? Lists of characteristics and skills? Computer-chosen "candidates" for top positions?

Doesn&#39;t sound too smart to me to give such responsibility to governments that are already bureaucratic enough as it is, without computer networks keeping comprehensive records of everyone. It won&#39;t lead to Communism, far from it, it doesn&#39;t sound too far from the direction Russia was heading in. Definitely not a society I would wanna live in either.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I did a little research myself after this theory began popping up again after many years of silence and I have concluded that technocracy was nothing more than tech nerds attempting to "rule the world" in the only way they know how, with their intellect.

I guess too many years of being poked at for dressing up in armour while sitting in their mother&#39;s basement all weekend playing D&D.

Or maybe it&#39;s attempted payback for the only time they had a chance to kiss a girl; fucking that up by talking about their new fighter/magic user character all night while insisting on being called "Bac&#39;nor of the Northands" after their favourite 26th level Barbarian.

Next time when you butter your bread try not pretending that the butter knife was a +5 sword that does triple damage to giants and golems; chicks just don&#39;t dig it.

Just like D&D and pretty much every "evil plan" hatched by people who can&#39;t do the robot, technocracy is nothing more than fantasy.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2004, 03:36 AM
I did a little research myself after this theory began popping up again after many years of silence and I have concluded that technocracy was nothing more than tech nerds attempting to "rule the world" in the only way they know how, with their intellect.

I guess too many years of being poked at for dressing up in armour while sitting in their mother&#39;s basement all weekend playing D&D.

Or maybe it&#39;s attempted payback for the only time they had a chance to kiss a girl; fucking that up by talking about their new fighter/magic user character all night while insisting on being called "Bac&#39;nor of the Northands" after their favourite 26th level Barbarian.

Next time when you butter your bread try not pretending that the butter knife was a +5 sword that does triple damage to giants and golems; chicks just don&#39;t dig it.

Just like D&D and pretty much every "evil plan" hatched by people who can&#39;t do the robot, technocracy is nothing more than fantasy.
What are you, 13 years old?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

&#39;Technocracy&#39; may be workable in North America, but can it be applied to Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East or worldwide? More to the point, is it possible to provide, in a technocracy-style society, 6 billion men, women and children, old, young, sick and healthy with an optimum lifestyle?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 1 2004, 04:53 AM
What are you, 13 years old?
Let me guess, I hit too close to home for you? :lol:

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2004, 01:36 PM
I did a little research myself after this theory began popping up again after many years of silence and I have concluded that technocracy was nothing more than tech nerds attempting to "rule the world" in the only way they know how, with their intellect.

I guess too many years of being poked at for dressing up in armour while sitting in their mother&#39;s basement all weekend playing D&D.

Or maybe it&#39;s attempted payback for the only time they had a chance to kiss a girl; fucking that up by talking about their new fighter/magic user character all night while insisting on being called "Bac&#39;nor of the Northands" after their favourite 26th level Barbarian.

Next time when you butter your bread try not pretending that the butter knife was a +5 sword that does triple damage to giants and golems; chicks just don&#39;t dig it.

Just like D&D and pretty much every "evil plan" hatched by people who can&#39;t do the robot, technocracy is nothing more than fantasy.
Were you looking in to Cuban&#39;s variety of technocracy, or the sort where nerds run the show?

They seem fairly different, and your criticisms only seem applicable to the "those with most knowledge = gods" one.

[DaCuBaN]

I&#39;ve always wanted to play dungeons and dragons to be honest.... :lol:


What are you, 13 years old?

It often seems that way, yes. Unfortunately it&#39;s more like in inversion of those numbes...


&#39;Technocracy&#39; may be workable in North America, but can it be applied to Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East or worldwide? More to the point, is it possible to provide, in a technocracy-style society, 6 billion men, women and children, old, young, sick and healthy with an optimum lifestyle?

Quite astute - the theory has never been applied to concerns outwith the North American Continent. It states in many places of the FAQ that both larger and smaller blocks would almost certainly be destined to failure, and &#39;global technocracy&#39; is unlikely nay impossible. However, there are sufficient materials scattered around the globe that technates could be initiated in Greater Europe, North America, South America, Eurasia, Asia, Africa and so on. Technocracy was essentially a business plan for how to run the north american continent, and some of it was eloquently constructed. Similarly, it focuses on providing for the technate from within the technate - outside trade is essentially moot. Whilst this seems quite selfish, could you imagine if the US stopped sticking it&#39;s nose in everywhere?


that it&#39;s got too heavy an emphasis on technology. It seems to be a very cold system, turning political concerns into concerns of efficiency.

It also gives everyone the same wage (irregardless of your position) plus universal healthcare, education, and so on. It seems cold simply because it&#39;s a plan, not an ideology.


efficiency is only one of the reasons we need to fight Capitalism and the state. It&#39;s a very small reason, and not that crucial when compared to some of the other reasons. Such as the theft of the fruits of our labour.


I quite agree - efficiency is just what I believe to be the nub of the problem. If we sort that one out, the rest is sure to follow. Like many theories, it requires altruism on the part of the individual - the moment egoism takes hold, the whole thing falls down.


it does bother me that it makes no mention of the injustices workers suffer in this society. Even Social Democrats will still talk about that a bit.


Here:


The elimination of:
Industrial waste, poverty, homelessness, pollution, waste of natural resources, most crime, huge income disparity, political and financial control over others, corruption, overloading peak periods of the day, disparity in availability of health care and education, economic instability, discrimination, taxes, debt, insecurity, inefficient and haphazard transportation, profit and greed motives.

The creation of conditions such as:
Free and quality education for all, free and quality health care, a high income and standard of living for everyone, inexpensive and top quality housing, clean air and water, economic security, equality for all humans, work for less than 20 hours per week at a job you enjoy and are properly trained for, 78 days consecutive vacation, cheap communications, freedom and income to pursue personal hobbies and interests.


Efficiency is the key to it all: If we sort out societal efficiency, the rest will follow.


Massive databanks with people&#39;s interests recorded? Lists of characteristics and skills? Computer-chosen "candidates" for top positions?

Doesn&#39;t sound too smart to me to give such responsibility to governments that are already bureaucratic enough as it is, without computer networks keeping comprehensive records of everyone.

Technocracy isn&#39;t trying to take over the world y&#39;know ;) It wishes people to adopt the ideas it lays out - it&#39;s a research organisation and not a political party or somesuch. The reason why it seems &#39;cold&#39; and sometimes &#39;frightening&#39; is because it cares not for what you do with your life. All it asks is that you work, the rest is up to you. You may or may not be aware that Italy have electronic ID cards now, and the UK are instituting them - the databases exist&#33;

[rahul]

i used to be a communist but turned as anarchist&#33;

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2004, 06:11 AM
Let me guess, I hit too close to home for you? :lol:
Not really, it was just a little confusing and ridiculously off topic given the nature of the discussion.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:10 AM
Were you looking in to Cuban&#39;s variety of technocracy, or the sort where nerds run the show?

They seem fairly different, and your criticisms only seem applicable to the "those with most knowledge = gods" one.
Dacuban&#39;s "variety" of technocracy is nothing more then information copied and psted from of of their websites with the exception of the "removal" of the "director" or "supreme dungeon master" if you will.

My criticisms are applied directly or indirectly to anyone who actually thinks "technocracy" is somehting tangible that could actually be introduced as a socio-economic platform.

It reeks of social elitism.

Sure, much like any other socio-economic system designed to "change society for the better" technocracy makes very fantastic claims that it can solve the world&#39;s problems be abolishing money, stamping out poverty and hunger, providing free housing, transportation, education, etc but fails to produce neither any solid theory to support the claim nor any actual theory of how this new system will replace the old one.

Most importantly is the idea of "who" precisely would "run the show". This very important detail is for the most part ignored as technocrats feel that "they alone" are the only ones smart enough to "rule the masses".

We can easily see how, in the event this system ever came to be, two very large class distictions would eventually emerge; those "in the know" and those who are not "in the know.

In other words, those who control production and those that rely on production.

It is safe to say that behind all the "social reforms" designed to give this theory some "fluff", there exists nothing more than a small group of people who suffer from closet megalomania.

Considering the past track record of those that have absolute control of the means of production with absolutely no accountability to the people, I fail to see how this system will produce results that are acceptable for any individual who claims to be a "leftist".

Any system of government that is "summed up" with a chart and some scribble that looks as if it were drawn on a cocktail napkin by a drunkard (more fact than fiction more than likely) has little or no practical use in society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sure, much like any other socio-economic system designed to "change society for the better" technocracy makes very fantastic claims that it can solve the world&#39;s problems be abolishing money, stamping out poverty and hunger, providing free housing, transportation, education, etc but fails to produce neither any solid theory to support the claim nor any actual theory of how this new system will replace the old one.

The same could be said for Marxism.


Most importantly is the idea of "who" precisely would "run the show". This very important detail is for the most part ignored as technocrats feel that "they alone" are the only ones smart enough to "rule the masses".

The same could also be said for Marxist-Leninism.

[wet blanket]

I must agree that this does create a class divide between the &#39;directors&#39;, or intellectual elite, who control the means of production(not necessarily own it, like cappies, but close enough) and the labor.

[DaCuBaN]

It reeks of social elitism.

The original technocratic model does indeed - I quite agree. You&#39;ll notice this is why I keep speaking of demarchy and direct democracy. Under my own &#39;version&#39; the Continental Control would all be elected from the members of each sequence control (being voted upon by the entire populous), who in turn are voted in by the members of their relative sequence. If you work, then you are a member of a sequence, and thus have polticial power.




We can easily see how, in the event this system ever came to be, two very large class distictions would eventually emerge; those "in the know" and those who are not "in the know.


With the above in mind, I fail to see it.


Any system of government that is "summed up" with a chart and some scribble that looks as if it were drawn on a cocktail napkin by a drunkard (more fact than fiction more than likely) has little or no practical use in society.

There&#39;s a section in that FAQ marked &#39;further reading&#39; - I advise you check it out. The chart in question is photocopied from the main recommended title written back in the 40&#39;s.

Basically though, what you&#39;re saying is that because Technocracy has laid down some form of structure from which to take key, it&#39;s implausable.

Wonderful logic :rolleyes:

[DaCuBaN]

[Technocracy] fails to produce neither any solid theory to support the claim [that it will solve social ills] nor any actual theory of how this new system will replace the old one

Well...


From the beginning, the members of the Technical Alliance wanted to create an analysis that was thoroughly factual in nature. They considered nothing philosophical, moral, or religious in their findings. This way, any person could objectively verify the validity of their findings.
Thus, science was chosen as their vehicle of research. In order to better understand the value of this, it is important to know upon what principles science itself is based.
Science uses three tools for its work. These are facts, definitions, and postulates. Facts are related to the real world and are based on observations made by humans. When several of these observations agree with each other, they may be considered fact. If ever a fact fails to stand up to more observations, it loses its status as a fact.
Definitions are wholly arbitrary in nature. They can be easily disputed since they rely on an agreement upon a definition. An example may be whether or not to call a certain distance a meter. If others agree, then it is defined as a meter. This in no way has any bearing on the distance&#39;s actual nature, but is useful for communication.
Postulates are like facts in that they are not normally disputed, but are like definitions in that they are not verifiable and are arbitrary. For example, if I was discussing with you about the effects of someone&#39;s wedding, then it would be postulated that they were married. The person in question may or may not be actually married, but for the purpose of the discussion it is necessary to assume so for the moment because otherwise the conversation could not continue.
Technocracy also uses these tools. It is important that you understand the difference between them as Technocracy may postulate one thing, define another, and state that yet another is a fact, and it is important to know which is which.


The Technical Alliance studied such things as industrial output, man-hours of labor, and kilowatt-hours of energy used in all industries. What they found was a trend consistent to all these industries. In each case, they found production increasing at a rate never observed before, and that the man-hours per unit of production were in decline. The result of these two trends was an increase in man-hours of labor at first, but then a decline after 1919. This is illustrated in Technocracy&#39;s Three Curve Chart. What this meant was fewer people working, and hence less consuming power in the way of wages. This is what caused the demand to decrease while dramatically increased production caused supply to increase sharply, thus resulting in the Great Depression.
They also determined that these trends were irreversible, that people would continue to be replaced by the more efficient, cheaper, and harder working machines, and they were right. Even today jobs are lost as computers take over many of the functions once believed impossible for machines to perform, and huge lay-offs and cutbacks are the result

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/curves.gif

This is just the FAQ of course, had you bothered you&#39;re arse:


The best way to become familiar with Technocracy for most people is to read the book Technocracy: Technological Social Design (often referred to as the TTSD). This book is a short study course that takes the reader systematically trough Technocracy&#39;s research and blueprint for society. This is the best way the casual reader can gain an understanding of the "big picture" concerning our continent, its problems, and the solutions to them.
More serious students may wish to read the Technocracy Study Course. This book is a topic-by-topic examination of Technocracy&#39;s research and synthesis. While somewhat out of date (last printing in 1947), it is the best reference for understanding the real "why" of Technocracy. In addition it can also be used as a study guide to get a better understanding of the science and methodology used by Technocracy. This would allow the student to experience Technocracy&#39;s research first hand, and thus allow him/her to prove to themselves the true validity of Technocracy&#39;s conclusions.


Again we can see that we have more baseless accusations.


It is safe to say that behind all the "social reforms" designed to give this theory some "fluff", there exists nothing more than a small group of people who suffer from closet megalomania.

This is almost ironic coming from our resident stalinist :lol:

Interesting concept though: You say it makes no mention of how it would bring it&#39;s society into practice, yet you are certain it&#39;s a form of reformism...

Come on now my baby-eating buddy, consistency please&#33;

[Guest1]

I&#39;m afraid it&#39;s too rigid to be a reasonable social model. It attempts to make scientific analyses of abstract ideas and fails. It is, despite its proponents&#39; claims, utopian in language and distopian in result. Marxism came to be not just as a response to Capitalism&#39;s injustices, but as a response to Utopian Socialism&#39;s failures as well. In this case, Technocracy shares much with the predecessors Marx criticized.

It takes itself very seriously and tries to paint itself as somehow being "above" the worldly nature of other political theories. Well, yes, it is. That is what makes it so utopian, is that it does not take into account the world we live in and the dynamics of human interaction. It does not allow a free-flowing human advancement, opting instead to separate society into multiple castes with modern 21st century sounding names. It then makes this caste system more palatable by assuring us that people will be put into the proper caste based on a computer analysis of their characteristics and genetic information.

Very pecular indeed.

It proposes a bureaucracy so pervasive that even with a map and without the dishonesty and self-preserving lies that come with bureaucracy, we can&#39;t understand it. Imagine the poor souls living in it, how are they to have a say int heir society if it is even more confusing and apathy-inducing than the current one?

Then you, DaCuBaN, suggest that it can be made more democratic by having elections at every level from the level before.

Well... the highest levels of government would be at what, 6, 7 degrees of separation from the general populace? The thing with democracy is, the further you are from those representing you, the less they represent you. It becomes very elitist at that point, why do you think the US refuses to get rid of "electoral colleges"?

As for the idea of measuring everything by kilo-watt hours... why? You say yourself that scarcity is a societal construct, so why do you need to complicate things by measuring and assigning values to products based on energy expenditure? Wouldn&#39;t be easier to simply convert to renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro power?

So in reality, this system doesn&#39;t abolish wages or currency, it simply creates a more efficient way of measuring and controlling them. Especially since the average populace will have its preconceived notions that caring about politics is for nerds reinforced.

I can&#39;t see this society coming into play, and if it were to, we will be set back hundreds of years in our fight to end injustice.

[redstar2000]

In a "Technate", would there still be private corporations producing for profit?

Would there still be a "free market"?

Would people still work for wages ("energy-certificates")? In other words, if you were unable to work or to find suitable work, would you be "shit out of luck"?

Would either demarchy or representative democracy mean anything if the only candidates were engineers or other high-tech folks with advanced degrees?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

The same could be said for Marxism

What are you talking about? Marxism has a library of established theory to support it&#39;s claims.

Have you ever researched technocracy? If you ever bother to prior to opening your mouth you would have found that technocracy&#39;s "support library" is a couple of web pages of information.

Good grief man, think before you speak.

Just look at the sheere absurndess of what Dacuban has most recently posted; if gave us quite a laugh indeed.

What&#39;s even more sad is that this kid actually considers it "supportive material". :lol:

I&#39;ve seen better theoretical support analysis from children at a science faire in a backwoods podung Lousiana town.

This silly fad came about in the 30&#39;s and was supposed to be the "answer to the great depression", when the predictions of massive economic disaster that will last for an eternity under capitalism that the technocratic cooks were so fond of amounted to nothing, the fad simply faded into obscurity.

The only people interested in this nonsense are those that have no actual grasp of social and economic policies and trends; either now or in the future.


This is almost ironic coming from our resident stalinist

Here comes the last line of defense for the poor soul....Rabbit on about "Stalinism".

What a joke, you don&#39;t even know what "Stalinism" is.


P.S.

I implore everyone to read about the Technocratic "Energy Certificate"; I am sure you will find it as applicable to real life as an Issac Asimov novel, just a lot less realistic. :lol:

[apathy maybe]

Technocracy is (as the name suggests) rule by technology (or more accuratly those who control it). Nice theory if you don&#39;t mind not having any say. An enlightened absolutist, who rules with absolute power, but will keep the peasents in check. But the peasents just happen to include everyone but the elite.

I swear that HG Wells wrote a book on this subject, found it
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/wel...45th/index.html (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/wells/hg/w45th/index.html) - the book
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000023.html - an interesting blog
http://www.technocracyinc.org/briefs/b50.html - the first bit looks interesting.

As to Issac Asimov, he was a great writer, but not a communist. And many of his books are very realistic (if you allow for the development of technology to a large extent).

And to D&D, I would love to play this. I never have (though I played something similer, it wasn&#39;t wonderful) and have only meet one person whom I knew played it (he&#39;s married too).&#092;

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Energy Certificate
The total amount of certificates which will be issued will represent the total amount of net energy converted in the making of goods and the provision of services. All operating, replacement, maintenance, and expansion costs (in energy) of the Continental complex, all costs of commercial services and provisions (such as local transportation, public health, and minimum housing space for for each individual) are deducted before the net energy is arrived at.

The conversion of human energy does not enter into this calculation since it amounts to below 2 percent of the total consumed energy. The individual&#39;s share is not based upon his contribution of work of effort to the total operations of the area. There is no theory of labor `value&#39;--or of any other `value&#39;.

:lol:

[James]

I think it is quite clear that dacuban is simply a confused imperialist



















;)

[Guest1]

*BUMP*

I would like you to respond to my post DaCuBaN, I&#39;m curious to hear what you have to say.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Aug 2 2004, 10:03 PM--> (Che y Marijuana &#064; Aug 2 2004, 10:03 PM) I&#39;m afraid it&#39;s too rigid to be a reasonable social model. It attempts to make scientific analyses of abstract ideas and fails. [/b]

I&#39;m not certain as to how you determined this...


Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 2 2004, 10:03 PM
It is, despite its proponents&#39; claims, utopian in language and distopian in result. Marxism came to be not just as a response to Capitalism&#39;s injustices, but as a response to Utopian Socialism&#39;s failures as well. In this case, Technocracy shares much with the predecessors Marx criticized

If we take it in the same context as socialism, then I guess so. However...


Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 2 2004, 10:03 PM
It takes itself very seriously and tries to paint itself as somehow being "above" the worldly nature of other political theories. Well, yes, it is. That is what makes it so utopian, is that it does not take into account the world we live in and the dynamics of human interaction.

Exactly. It requires that you (for want of a better word) detach yourself from your reality and try to look at the bigger picture. The whole system simply ignores the human equation.


Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 2 2004, 10:03 PM
It does not allow a free-flowing human advancement, opting instead to separate society into multiple castes with modern 21st century sounding names. It then makes this caste system more palatable by assuring us that people will be put into the proper caste based on a computer analysis of their characteristics and genetic information.

I&#39;m not entirely sure what you mean by &#39;human advancement&#39; - Could you clarify please?
As to &#39;casting&#39; I would disagree. Your education would be somewhat organic in that as your desires and strengths are realised you would be channeled toward the according vocations, penultimating in your advancement into the relevant sequence and access to political power.


Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 2 2004, 10:03 PM
It proposes a bureaucracy so pervasive that even with a map and without the dishonesty and self-preserving lies that come with bureaucracy, we can&#39;t understand it. Imagine the poor souls living in it, how are they to have a say in their society if it is even more confusing and apathy-inducing than the current one?

:lol:
My mind is cast to Terry Gilliam&#39;s "Brazil" - believe me I do not envisage such a society ;) I&#39;ve highlighted the part that I feel is the heart of the matter.

This is merely a problem with such a structured state, due to the apparent desire of man to cover his own arse when he screws up. This is one of the reasons I&#39;m torn between democracy and demarchy: no popularity contest means no popularity seeking. This would surely diminish some of the self preservation lying.


Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 2 2004, 10:03 PM
[You] suggest that it can be made more democratic by having elections at every level from the level before. Well... the highest levels of government would be at what, 6, 7 degrees of separation from the general populace? The thing with democracy is, the further you are from those representing you, the less they represent you. It becomes very elitist at that point, why do you think the US refuses to get rid of "electoral colleges"?

As I said, I&#39;m still torn between demarchy and democracy on this matter - but elections in a ladder structure seem highly unappealing to me. You would join a sequence via your educational achievements, and each sequence would either have their directors appointed via demarchy, or would be voted in by all sequence members. The Continental Control would be elected in the same fashion from (or by if democratic) the members of all sequences.

Considering that technates are generally envisaged to be between 200 and 500 million person blocks and that all persons are a member of one sequence or another this seems like quite a flat system.


Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 2 2004, 10:03 PM

As for the idea of measuring everything by kilo-watt hours... why? You say yourself that scarcity is a societal construct, so why do you need to complicate things by measuring and assigning values to products based on energy expenditure? Wouldn&#39;t be easier to simply convert to renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro power?

Well yes, but that couldn&#39;t happen overnight - This is one reason why I&#39;ve suggested this might be palatable to communists envisaging the transgression phase. In my own view however this wouldn&#39;t change a thing - The sum of our wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass (etc) power generation would still exist - there would still be an upper limit to how much energy can be produced, how much is spent in the creation of necessities and hence how much is equally distributed amongst the populous.


Che y [email protected] 2 2004, 10:03 PM
So in reality, this system doesn&#39;t abolish wages or currency, it simply creates a more efficient way of measuring and controlling them. Especially since the average populace will have its preconceived notions that caring about politics is for nerds reinforced.

I can&#39;t see this society coming into play, and if it were to, we will be set back hundreds of years in our fight to end injustice.

It abolishes the abstract construct of currency, yes. It doesn&#39;t abolish wages - what it does do is distribute equally these &#39;wages&#39; - People are rewarded with only prestige for &#39;harder work&#39;, or rather brown-nosing.

[DaCuBaN]

when the predictions of massive economic disaster that will last for an eternity under capitalism that the technocratic cooks were so fond of amounted to nothing, the fad simply faded into obscurity.

They did continue... they were shifted to other parts of the globe&#33; Look around at the world and try to think: How did the US turnaround the economic trend?

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 3 2004, 12:59 AM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Aug 3 2004, 12:59 AM) In a "Technate", would there still be private corporations producing for profit?

[/b]
Most certainly not&#33; A substantial part of my own ideas are based on my opposition to material gain.


Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 12:59 AM
Would there still be a "free market"?

In a sense: you would have a specific quantity of resource to expend, what you spend it on is up to you. There would however be a limit to what you can buy


Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 12:59 AM
Would people still work for wages ("energy-certificates")? In other words, if you were unable to work or to find suitable work, would you be "shit out of luck"?
No, you recieve your &#39;wage&#39; irregardless of your employment status. The unemployed would, after leaving their sequence attend another educational establishment to determine which sequence into which they would best fit and accordingly be reassigned after sufficient training. Dealing with people who simply cannot (or will not) hold down a position in a sequence of course is a different problem, and one for which I have no answers. Such individuals could effectively cripple the apparatus, and I intensely dislike any of the possible solutions that come to mind.


[email protected] 3 2004, 12:59 AM

Would either demarchy or representative democracy mean anything if the only candidates were engineers or other high-tech folks with advanced degrees?


I&#39;ve covered this in my post to CyM, but again I must say that using my demarchic model the pool for top posts would be the entire technate population, and for the posts of sequence director it would be from every member of the relevant technate. I can&#39;t see why a bricklayer is going to care who runs the agricultural sequence, but I&#39;d (hope) it matters to him who runs his own sequence.

As to it being purely techies? It&#39;s a common misconception.

[Osman Ghazi]

I guess too many years of being poked at for dressing up in armour while sitting in their mother&#39;s basement all weekend playing D&D.

Or maybe it&#39;s attempted payback for the only time they had a chance to kiss a girl; fucking that up by talking about their new fighter/magic user character all night while insisting on being called "Bac&#39;nor of the Northands" after their favourite 26th level Barbarian.

Next time when you butter your bread try not pretending that the butter knife was a +5 sword that does triple damage to giants and golems; chicks just don&#39;t dig it.

Just like D&D and pretty much every "evil plan" hatched by people who can&#39;t do the robot, technocracy is nothing more than fantasy.


Man, D&D sure has gotten itself a bad name around here. I guess I can claim to be one of (or maybe even the only?) D&Der around here.I&#39;d just like to point out that a 26th level character really is an accomplishment. I mean, 20th level is supposed to be &#39;game over&#39;, in that the only challenges left are world-destroying monsters or gods.

Well, that said, you guys can get back to your serious political discussion.

P.S. My &#39;dungeon master&#39; friend has sex at least 2 or 3 times a day so I don&#39;t know about the verity of RAF&#39;s D&D = no sex claim.