Greetings, comrades!

[Cult of Reason]

Hello, my name is Haraldur {EDIT: other names removed}, and I live in the area surrounding Southampton in the UK. I am Icelandic, from my father, and English, from my mother. I am a sixth form college student (second year) studying Mathematics (and Further Mathematics AS), Physics, Chemistry and Biology, and I will be doing Physics at university.

To introduce myself:

In my most recent taking of the political compass quiz (if it has any reflection at all) had these results:

Economic Left/Right: -10.00 (!)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.08

Unsurprisingly to me, it seemed that it was indicating that I was an Anachist or some other Libertarian Socialist, and I have had a mild interest in Marx for some time (although the only thing I have read so far is the Communist Manifesto). A lot of my world view is strongly influenced by George Orwell's works, in particular Homage to Catalonia, which has led to me being a little obsessive about the Spanish Revolution (I am still unsure, though, whether if I had been there I would have supported the POUM or the CNT-FAI). Due to this, in recent months my favourite film has been Ken Loach's Land and Freedom. A las barricadas, companeros! Viva de la Revolucion! (Pretty much the only Spanish I (think) I know).

The only thing, apart from being an anti-capitalist, atheist, secularist and an anti-clericalist, that I am sure of is that I am anti-authoriarian and anti-Stalinist, which, according to the guidelines, it seems will mean I will not be without company.

I currently think of myself as some type of Anarchist (probably similar to Anarch-Syndicalist), but that is only for environments of scarcity. This is because my main ideology, one that almost everyone has never heard of, is one designed for an environment of abundace: Technocracy, as designed (well, the absolute fundamentals at least) by the Technical Alliance and Technocracy Inc. in North America in the '20s and '30s. More than that, I am one of the founding members of NET, the Network of European Technocrats, which formed last year (although that does by no means mean I am an expert, although I will attempt to answer any questions, if I think I can).

Myself, although it is a gross oversimplification, I like to think of Technocracy as a form of Anarchism where there is centralised organisation and control of technology, and technology only. One Technocratic slogan is: "Advocating control of technology, not people". As that indicates, there is no control over people, and no heirarchy where any "power" in the political sense exists. The system of distribution is one using something called Energy Accounting, where all goods and services that are supplied by the technate (the technological apparatus that does almost all distribution) have an energy value, and what is "bought" and the energy used is recorded in order to have figures for demand in real time. Another thing very important in Technocracy is energy efficiency (replacement of the road system with that of something else, probably trains, I imagine maglevs as they are cool and efficient), and the reason for that is summed up in this slogan: "The aim of Technocracy is to provide the highest possible standard of living to all individuals for the longest possible time". Note that this entails economic equality! Also, for efficiency and the elimination of waste, there is another slogan: "Production for use, not production for profit!"

However, most Technocrats envision there being a magnificently large ballot accross whichever continent it could be carried out, but I am in a minority (I think of one) who think that the likelihood of the establishment allowing such a thing is practically nil, even if there were mass peaceful demonstrations (which most Technocrats think would be sufficient), although there are a few others who think revolution might be necessary if government becomes more authoritarian.

However, I have failed to even dent the surface of what is Technocracy, and if anyone is interested, information can be found primarily at this site: www.technocracy.ca and there are archives of articles at www.technocracy.org

Anyway, my main purpose of being here is to learn more of Anarchism, Communism and other types of revolutionary socialism in order to determine what my secondary or scarcity ideology is (this ideology I would follow if there was a revolution, other than a Technocratic one), rather than to try to make all become Technocrats (although I would be pleased if there was interest, naturally).

I apologise for being so verbose.

[JKP]

Since you saw "Land and Freedom", you may want to watch "Libertarias" next.

Also, you mention you're attending your 2nd year of college? Isn't that early for someone your age?

Regardless, welcome to the forum.

When it comes to anarchism, I'd suggest checking out the Infoshop:
http://www.infoshop.org/

And of course, their excellent FAQ, which should answer most questions that you can think of.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/


I'm not going to debate in this thread, but I will say this: centralization is something to be avoided, and Communism/Anarchism already has most of the goals of technocracy, in particular, super-abundance.

Cheers.

[Vanguard1917]

Welcome to the forum, Haraldur.


Since you saw "Land and Freedom", you may want to watch "Libertarias" next.

I love Ken Loach's 'Land and Freedom'. I haven't seen 'Libertarias'... one to watch.

[Cult of Reason]

Since you saw "Land and Freedom", you may want to watch "Libertarias" next.

I will probably download it. ;)


Also, you mention you're attending your 2nd year of college? Isn't that early for someone your age?

In the UK, Secondary School ends at 16, then there is sixth form College, then University at 18. I am currently in my second year of sixth form college, and I am 17, 18 in March.

Thankyou for the links, I am sure they will be of great interest.


I'm not going to debate in this thread, but I will say this: centralization is something to be avoided, and Communism/Anarchism already has most of the goals of technocracy, in particular, super-abundance.

I see I have already cocked up. I suppose I should wait until I have a feel for the definitions of such words here (yes, I have looked at the stickied topic), even so, all that I said about Technocracy was very simplistic indeed.

Thankyou for your welcomes.

By the way, the image in my signature does not seem to be showing up. Have I made a mistake somewhere?

EDIT: By the way, I am wondering: how popular is the energy theory of value among Anarchists and other socialists?

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:02 PM


By the way, the image in my signature does not seem to be showing up. Have I made a mistake somewhere?

EDIT: By the way, I am wondering: how popular is the energy theory of value among Anarchists and other socialists?
Your image is showing up just fine.

ETV does not form a mainstay of discussion here, but may want to check this thread out:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41472

It's right up your alley.

[VictoryOverWar]

hmm some interesting ideas...hope to see more ideas in the near future....welcome to the site

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Welcome comrade :)

"Land and freedom" was very interesting to watch indeed.
Most people here do not give out their full name (not in a thread anyway) because of nazi-*****asses causing problems sometimes, so you might want to edit your post and remove your last name. You don't have to of course, I'm only suggesting ;)

Hope you stay with us for a long time and add to our debates.

Comrade RedFaction :hammer:

"When you have given everything, you have everything to gain."

[Cult of Reason]

Your image is showing up just fine.

That is odd if other see it but not myself.

Or are you referring to my avatar?


ETV does not form a mainstay of discussion here, but may want to check this thread out:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41472

It's right up your alley.

I am doing so right now.

From the very little about ETV I could read in Wikipedia's article on Anarchist Economics, I think it is not completely different from Technocracy's Energy Accounting (which is why I added Energy Accounting as an example in an edit).


hmm some interesting ideas...hope to see more ideas in the near future....welcome to the site

Thankyou. I hope at some point to have an "introduction" thread for Technocracy or some similar, so people can consider it and comment.


Most people here do not give out their full name (not in a thread anyway) because of nazi-*****asses causing problems sometimes, so you might want to edit your post and remove your last name. You don't have to of course, I'm only suggesting

That I will do.

[Zero]

Ahh, a fellow Technocrat =D. I had hoped to find another out there somewhere so I can keep learning about it. It seems a bit far fetched for right now, but as I am still learning, I suppose I shouldn't be making any judgements quite yet.

I'm still more fond of socialism, but socialism conducted over a Technocratic society would be (as far as my knowledge goes) almost utopian.

[Cult of Reason]

Another Technocrat! From where do you hail? Do you ever visit the forums at technocracy.ca?

[Zero]

Well, to tell the truth the first time I heard about Technocracy was in Civilization 3 :blush: . I haven't checked it out much, but the concept of raising the standards of living for everyone in the entire world through overproduction with optimal efficiency using robots and/or other tech not only sounds to me like the perfect society, but one we will obviously have to embrace in the future if we don't whipe ourselves off the planet first.

But thank you kindly for the links, I think a techno-socialist government would be where its at. :D

But like I said, I'm still learning.

EDIT: I come from west coast USA by the way. :P

[Cult of Reason]

overproduction

Well, that is not exactly the case, as overproduction is waste, and waste is most definitely frowned upon as inefficient. After all, one of the (many) reasons Technocracy was designed was because of the criminal waste of the Price System (shortened as P$, the most visible form being capitalism, but it includes all systems where money, or other debt tokens, are used as a medium of exchange), especially in the environment where there is the capability to produce an abundance of goods and services. In fact (if I remember correctly), North America (Not USA, as that would not fulfil all the requirements for Technocracy, but most. It would have to include Canada and maybe Mexico. Also Technocrats usually talk in terms of continents, such as North America, or very large areas, such as the European Peninsula, rather than countries for that reason*) has had the capability to produce more food, cars, consumer products etc. than people can use since around 1910!

This of course is fatal to the P$, which depends on there being scarcity. A good example is sand in the desert. How could you sell sand to desert people without tricking them etc.? You cannot, as they could just get some without paying you. Likewise, noone (yet...) will attempt to sell you air of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen and 1% Argon and trace gases, as supply is higher than demand is. Technocrats think that that is one of the main reasons for the Wall Street crash and the Great Depression, in fact, in the early '20s, the Technical Alliance predicted that it would happen (in fact, the crash happened 6 months earlier than they predicted).


with optimal efficiency using robots

Indeed, automation of labour is one of the goals of Technocracy. Even now, 98% of all physical production is done by machines in factories, not human hands. See the image below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Technocracy_graph1.jpg

Technocrats call this the Three Curve Chart. As you can see, total industrial employment peaked around the end of WW1 in North America, helped no doubt by deals selling arms to the Allies. After that it declined, as man hours per unit production declined more steeply than physical production increased.

This is one of the reasons that Technocrats reject measurement of production in terms of human labour, as human labour is almost insignificant in comparison to machine labour. So we advocate Energy Accounting.


one we will obviously have to embrace in the future

Many Technocrats, including myself, see the establishment of a technate as not just desirable, but necessary if our standard of living is not to crash, and if mass starvation is to be averted. I will not discuss the reasons here, as I am not knowledgeable enough about Technocracy to have absolute confidence that I would not make an error or omission, and this is a very important topic.


I come from west coast USA by the way

That could be very fortunate for you. The Technocratic organisation in North America, Technocracy Incorporated, is the original one and the most well established (the other other I know of is Network of European Technocrats, NET, but we have yet to exist for a year, while the North Americans have been active since 1919. However, I have read some posts at technocracy.ca (involving a Russian who claimed to have been a scientist in the Soviet military, but has since been revealed to be a radical racist ultra-nationalist (he thinks the NazBols are a bit soft, apparently), although we do not know whether he was like that when he posted about what I am about to mention. This is completely unconfirmed, in other words) about a so-called DISPLAN theory, which apparently was bein designed in the Soviet Union during the '60s and 70's, which was claimed by the aforementioned Russian to be similar to Technocracy.

Anyway, the North American organisation has most of its strength (what is left of it, from hundreds of thousands in the '30s and forties to now a lot less, I do not know whether a few hundred or a few thousand) in western Canada and western USA (I know there are "sections" in Edmonton, Alberta and in Seattle). This means that, with a little effort probably, you could find some Technocrats not too far away who could probably better inform you than me.

EDIT: forgot to add this:

*There are three main requirement before any area or continent can become a technate:

1. Sufficient natural resources for the capability to produce an abundance of goods and services to be acheived.

2. Sufficient automation to process the natural resources and produce an abundance of goods and services.

3. Sufficient skilled people to operate those machines and perform other tasks, such as research, or medicine.

[Zero]

Hmmm, thank you very much, that backed what I had gotten from the 'Beginers Guide to Technocracy'.

I ment overproduction of the North American continate to supply the world (or at least become a large supplier), not just overproducing a good to sell dirt cheap.

However I am an environmentalist, and so far what I've understood is that Technocracy would abolish the concept of 'city', and spread people across the continate equally... how would this be possible without ruining the environment? For example, what about the Redwood Forest in California? (not sure on the size, but I'm pretty sure it stretches for miles) What would happen to it? Would it simply be bulldozed for extra land? Would the wood be used to create products? Would it stay a federal (or "federal" I haven't looked around for technocratic terminology) reserve? Would any reserve stay a reserve?

Speaking of the environment, wouldn't we have to develop and implement serious upgrades to our power producing machines (coal mines, combustion engines, fusion reactors, etc)? We would probably have to lower our emission standards, right (Particle Pollution and Greenhouse Gas)? Would a Socialistic (or actually for means of production Communistic) revolution have to take place for this to even be concitered? To form a perfect society where technology is the means of survival, everyday life, global order, and root means of production, our emission standards would have to be raised almost to a point in which polution wasn't even a factor, to get rid of this polution will cost tons and tons of... well, lets just say money, the responsability of cleaning up polution would rest with big buisness Inc., Big Buisness therefore would rather keep destroying the environment, and destroying the world then spend money to keep the planet alive (http://ts.searching.com/torrent/355404/Global_Dimming_BBC_Documentary_2005_avi). So would a Technocratic revolution be simpler when combined with a Communistic or Socialist revolution? Am I missing a large factor which disprooves everything I have said so far? =P

Thanks in advance for answering my questions. I would really like to continue learning about Technocracy. In my free time (full load 200 level college classes + high school credit) I will attempt to browse both these forums and Technocratic websites. Do you want to continue this over PM? Would you like to keep it here so that others may learn from my questions/give imput? Shall we move it over to the www.technocracy.ca forums? Whatever you want man =).

[Cult of Reason]

Hmmm, thank you very much, that backed what I had gotten from the 'Beginers Guide to Technocracy'.

My pleasure, comrade.


I ment overproduction of the North American continate to supply the world (or at least become a large supplier), not just overproducing a good to sell dirt cheap.

Oh, right.

First a couple of points:

1. You probably know this already, but to make sure noone is in any doubt, the concept of "sale" does not exist in a technate.

2. A technate would not, most likely, engage in any trade (except, possibly, to gain foreign currency that can be distributed to inhabitants of the land area the technate covers for holidays to countries with the P$ (of whatever form) still in place). This is related to why a technate must cover a large land area. If a technate were dependent on trade to acquire certain resources, then there would not be an abundance (I feel I am not explaining this well...), as it would then be affected by the global markets and supply and demand. Someone could ransom the technate for essential resources, or do any other such thing, etc. etc..

If you mean, however, to give stuff away or sell stuff cheaply just for getting foreign currency (as mentioned above), then you must be very cautious. The productive power of a technate would be very high, and such products (disregarding shipping costs) would be cheap. A technate could easily dump its products onto another country (whether for free or not), but it would probably drive the economy of that country down. This is, of course, assuming that the country is using a Price System.

However, a technate would probably send aid when needed (probably in the case of the populus of the technate voting for it in a direct democratic ballot), in the case of famine (actually, I like to think that it would be sent before a famine would start, for several reasons*) or other disaster. However, I think a technate would probably give substantial aid during times without such disasters, probably in the form of giving industrial equipment, building factories, schools etc.. The purpose of this aid is simple: to help an area reach the the three requirements for a technate, and so never have scarcity again:


1. Sufficient natural resources for the capability to produce an abundance of goods and services to be acheived.

2. Sufficient automation to process the natural resources and produce an abundance of goods and services.

3. Sufficient skilled people to operate those machines and perform other tasks, such as research, or medicine.

A Technocratic equivalent to spreading revolution around the world? :lol:

Note: Most of the above, after the couple of points, is speculation.


However I am an environmentalist, and so far what I've understood is that Technocracy would abolish the concept of 'city', and spread people across the continate equally... how would this be possible without ruining the environment? For example, what about the Redwood Forest in California? (not sure on the size, but I'm pretty sure it stretches for miles) What would happen to it? Would it simply be bulldozed for extra land? Would the wood be used to create products? Would it stay a federal (or "federal" I haven't looked around for technocratic terminology) reserve? Would any reserve stay a reserve?

This is an article I think should answer your question well (although, feel free to ask any questions this does not answer and any new ones it brings up):

The Benefits of Urbanates (http://technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=24&page=1)

Here is another one, but it is from 1955, so you should keep in mind that there have been changes in emphasis (a little) since that time, and of course that the P$ has changed since that time, for instance, most Technocrats (including myself) see absolutely no future for the car in the average person's life at all (I do not weep). The former article can be considered an "update" to this one, but it is probably still good if you read this, as it gets into more detail (but it is still speculative):

A Place To Live In (http://technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=25&page=1)

I hope you find these articles interesting.


Speaking of the environment, wouldn't we have to develop and implement serious upgrades to our power producing machines (coal mines, combustion engines, fusion reactors, etc)? We would probably have to lower our emission standards, right (Particle Pollution and Greenhouse Gas)? Would a Socialistic (or actually for means of production Communistic) revolution have to take place for this to even be concitered? To form a perfect society where technology is the means of survival, everyday life, global order, and root means of production, our emission standards would have to be raised almost to a point in which polution wasn't even a factor, to get rid of this polution will cost tons and tons of... well, lets just say money, the responsability of cleaning up polution would rest with big buisness Inc., Big Buisness therefore would rather keep destroying the environment, and destroying the world then spend money to keep the planet alive (http://ts.searching.com/torrent/355404/Global_Dimming_BBC_Documentary_2005_avi). So would a Technocratic revolution be simpler when combined with a Communistic or Socialist revolution? Am I missing a large factor which disprooves everything I have said so far? =P

Technocracy expects to vastly decrease pollution, especially from petroleum use, through a variety of measures that increase general energy efficiency. The elimination of the car as part of normal life is likely (although, of course, if people want to drive cars (probably and hopefully a minority) they can do so, but they should not expect there to be roads to drive on: roads are both massively space wasting and damaging to the environment, and encourage behaviour that is damaging to the environment and hence should be voted against by an educated populace), with the replacements being more efficient: trains (I like to think maglevs. I think they are more efficient, but mostly because it is just such a cool concept) and water trains (these, I think, would have tracks in or on top of water, and would run along a river and canal system called the Continental Hydrology**) and freight transport could be on trains and on massive barges on the Continental Hydrology (water transport is, I think, 1/10 as energy consuming as land transport when on a canal) for bulk goods that do not need to be transported quickly (iron bars, drink cans travelling to a recycling factory, nuclear fuel etc.). In fact, people could also, of course travel on water!

You have also touched on a large and complex subject: that of the transition from the P$ in the form of Capitalism to a final state Technocratic society. I am afraid that I cannot have a useful discussion with you on that, because of its complexity, and because I know so little about it myself. You see, Technocracy's design is not like the blueprints of a house, but more like a school of architecture. The period where all the new infrastructure is built and old removed will be massively complicated, with many many variables, so we cannot design what a technate will look like now, but we can say how it will be designed (high energy efficiency, etc.).

However, I can say a few things. The organisation for changing the lives of hundreds of millions of people will be done by people with no power or authority in the sense we know it. These would be a prototype of the "Continental Control Board", a comittee that organises how technology is fitted into a technate. It would be some among these people and their other associates who would design the Continental Hydrology** mentioned, due to its size and all the factors important to its construction (resources, Urbanates, factories etc.).

Rest assured, they would have no power over anybody, they would not be able to order people to do things as is done today. However, I should stop talking about them now as that gets into another massively big issue, which you should probably have read more about Technocracy before it should be discussed in detail: the organisation and structure of a technate.

You also mentioned revolution, and this is something to be very careful about. There are no concrete plans as to how to get the first stages of a technate set up. Currently the idea is to educate as many people as possible, then they educate other people etc. until the vast majority of the people agree with and understand Technocracy's design. Then there will be calls for a referendum, and due to the massive show by the people that they want a technate, the governments have no choice but to hold a free and completely fair and non-rigged referendum. This, as I see it, is a revolution of sorts (though not a violent one) and is most definitely not reformist. After the inevitable success of the referendum, the governments will be removed, stripped of their power and the building of a technate will begin.

However, I do worry about this. First it assumes that people will be living in a situation (democracy, of one sort or another) where such a referendum could be held, and that the governments will not resist (but what animals do when cornered? Attack!) and that the referendum will be free and fair. It also assumes that no outside force will try to hinder or disrupt things (if such a thing happened in Europe, for example, how would the USA react to the loss of such a market? If such a thing happened in North America, how would China, Russia and India react?).

That is why I have said that the consideration of a violent revolution should be kept open and thought about, for situations where authoritarianism develops, or a referendum is refused, or is rigged. Also that measures should be taken by the people themselves to be prepared for possible interference from outside powers, and so there must be constant vigilance until everything has made it clear that the fledgling technate is not weak, but amazingly strong, willing and able to arm the people against aggression and able to outproduce anyone, and most importantly that if there is an invasion, the people of the technate who would have voted for (or revolted for) a technate in massive numbers would organise themselves to defend what they have (some influence from the Spanish Civil War might be seen here in my thinking).


Thanks in advance for answering my questions. I would really like to continue learning about Technocracy. In my free time (full load 200 level college classes + high school credit) I will attempt to browse both these forums and Technocratic websites. Do you want to continue this over PM? Would you like to keep it here so that others may learn from my questions/give imput? Shall we move it over to the www.technocracy.ca forums? Whatever you want man =).

It is my pleasure, and I mean it. It makes me feel a good Technocrat, because advocacy is important, and it lets me think about the system again, which I always find enjoyable.

If noone minds, I would like to keep this discussion here for the reasons you mentioned.

I hope this has made a few things clear: Technocracy's design is very libertarian (which is why I compare it to Anarchism), and that Technocracy is not so much a social philosophy or ideology as a technology. A technate is not a state, but a system of infrastructure and services and production.

*The reasons I think famine response would be faster in a technate:

I expect that the population in a technate would be very educated and would pay attention to what happens in the world due to their release from dull labour. They would be more likely to know about such famines happening, and, since they could propose that the technate help the impoverished country, there will be a referendum on it (even if just a few people pay attention, they could still propose a referendum, and so catch everyone elses attention), and, since everyone in the technate is with a very high standard living (and so greed and miserliness are eliminates due to abundance) there will be no arguments at expense (which would not exist in the financial sense since there would be no money) or any other such thing.

Also, the fact that people would all have the opportunity to vote in these referendums, political interest and activity should increase.

** The Continental Hydrology is a massive system of rivers connected by canals with dams and other such things all interconnected in one system. If, for whatever reason, 100 tonnes of iron must go from western North America to the east coast, for example (although this would not happen anyway, since there would already be stuff there because of the benefits of katascopic planning), it can be put on a barge (whether automated or under human control) and go along canals and rivers, through locks, over mountains and plains and to its destination without leaving the water or the Continental Hydrology!

If I am not very much mistaken, in this picture there is a map of a possible Continental Hydrology on the left wall. The man sitting behind the desk is Howard Scott, the founder of the Technical Alliance and Technocracy Inc., and Director-in-Chief until his death:

http://www.technocracy.ca/gallery/albums/album05/Gregory_08.jpg

Here is also a picture of Howard Scott (in the centre), but behind him is a map of a possible North American Technate (in fact, it annoys me somewhat that more recent maps have not included Iceland. If a North American Technate was formed with Iceland as part of it I might have been able to get myself in due to my Icelandic citizenship if they got a technate first!):

http://www.technocracy.ca/gallery/albums/album02/DSCN0314.jpg

Thankyou for reading!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Haraldur+--> (Haraldur)You probably know this already, but to make sure noone is in any doubt, the concept of "sale" does not exist in a technate.[/b]
Well, when I first heard of the 'Energy Credit' monitary replacement for a Technocratic continate I had tried to compare it with money, and inevitably failed in my comparison. I kept banging my head around untill I found this:

Originally posted by Technocracy.ca - Eleven Reasons Why Technocracy [email protected] pg3/9
Example 5: Economic Stability

One of the things people fear, especially investors, is market instability. It was forecast by Adam Smith when he wrote his book declaring the benefits of a free-enterprise system. Obviously, the free-market system failed in the face of abundance when the stock market crashed in 1929. Communism didn't last much longer. The only reason our system continues to even run today is that the government and big business have conspired to do everything possible to maintain this economy, which has been described as being on "life support." Anyone who has taken some decent courses in mathematics knows that in any fluctuating formula, if you continually increase the value of the base variables (such as population, energy conversion and consumption, physical production and waste), that the swings will eventually become bigger and bigger, until the downswings become intolerably low, i.e., a crash. This is what happened in 1929, and will, despite all our band-aids to the economy, happen again.
So how can this be avoided? Again, by simplifying things. Take out money, profit, debt, and interest. What you have left is a country full of natural resources, factories, and consumers. What you do is simply take the resources out of the ground, get the people to operate the factories to produce useful products, and then simply distribute these products to the people. Of course, this is a large over-simplification, but it is the basic idea. Obviously questions of who gets what and when inevitably arise, and thus must be accounted for, and they have. Instead of basing things on the intangible idea of 'value', the physical cost of all products and services can be measured. The only common factor they all share that can be measured physically, beyond any doubt or variation, is energy.
So, if we measure how much energy it takes to pull materials out of the ground (or recycling centers), and add that to how much energy it takes to process them and transports them to their respective factories, where more still energy is used up to manufacture the use items, and then deliver them to the distribution centers (stores), what we arrive at is a sum that represents the total energy cost of operation of the entire continent. Then, we can take this number, and divide it by the number of citizens on the continent (man, woman, and child), and the result is each citizen's share of that huge production.
Which I now see why it really shouldn't be refered to as money. Since power plants would be built in response to need/consumption, and the power used while manufacturing the goods would then be used as a form of money, without having the social implications that comes with a paper/metal money system. Therefore we are paying for something that is actively being consumed and reproduced (as well as added too) so therefore no matter what the energy cost of a product is, the demand for it will always be high (as it is new) the price will be low (as there is no need for profit) the quality would be high (as the product will only last untill a better one is created) the price would always fall, and never stop falling untill it is the lowest possible (as there is no need for profit, and the cost would reflect the ammount of energy needed.)

Economicly I see how vastly superior this system is. However there must be a flaw somewhere in this. Utopian societys like this sound good on paper, yet may not be as powerful once implemented. However I haven't found one yet, for which makes me hopeful :D .


Haraldur
If you mean, however, to give stuff away or sell stuff cheaply just for getting foreign currency (as mentioned above), then you must be very cautious. The productive power of a technate would be very high, and such products (disregarding shipping costs) would be cheap. A technate could easily dump its products onto another country (whether for free or not), but it would probably drive the economy of that country down. This is, of course, assuming that the country is using a Price System.

However, a technate would probably send aid when needed (probably in the case of the populus of the technate voting for it in a direct democratic ballot), in the case of famine (actually, I like to think that it would be sent before a famine would start, for several reasons*) or other disaster. However, I think a technate would probably give substantial aid during times without such disasters, probably in the form of giving industrial equipment, building factories, schools etc.. The purpose of this aid is simple: to help an area reach the the three requirements for a technate, and so never have scarcity again...

I agree fully, a Technate could easily generate a surplus of raw meterials, education, technologies, and other factors which contribute to higher standards of living to send abroad (without devistating their local economy). Thus showing the public just how much a Techocracy can change a poverty stricken country into such a highly technological, and efficient place within 50 years (or less).

However my thoughts have been drifting twards the Maglev technology (airtight tubes which use suction, or other means to transfer objects across long distances) and how internationaly that would effect trade. This technology would effectively render all forms of transportation useless, as combustion is dirty, inefficient, dangerous, and impropable (who would drive cars when there aren't any streets?) When compared to Maglev. Sure if we were still living in a age where we were the only Technate in a sea of P$ it would devistate places like the Bahamas which survives on Airplane travel and the big money brought to those places by corporational semi-monopolies (IE, controling an airport, controling therefore who lands, building hotels... etc. However on the positive side, if a Technocracy were to be put in place around the world, and overseas Maglevs were put in place, think of the service available! In an instant you could order fresh Japanese Sushi, and it would be at your personal maglev tube in about an hour! Supermarkets would be irrelevent, as most shopping would easily be done online, and come to you in a matter of hours (minutes/seconds if faster-then-sound travel was achieved with Maglev technology.) Travel would be easy as well, since all that would be needed is a hotel sized Maglev tube, which travels slower (as traveling the speed of sound I imagine isn't the most comfortable way to travel.)

Now that I see this can easily be the future, a whole new spectrum of possibilities has opened up to me. How 2001 a Space Oddesy may have only been a few years off...

[Cult of Reason]

Which I now see why it really shouldn't be refered to as money. Since power plants would be built in response to need/consumption, and the power used while manufacturing the goods would then be used as a form of money, without having the social implications that comes with a paper/metal money system. Therefore we are paying for something that is actively being consumed and reproduced (as well as added too) so therefore no matter what the energy cost of a product is, the demand for it will always be high (as it is new) the price will be low (as there is no need for profit) the quality would be high (as the product will only last untill a better one is created) the price would always fall, and never stop falling untill it is the lowest possible (as there is no need for profit, and the cost would reflect the ammount of energy needed.)

Well done! There is one small addition though. If somethings costs the same in energy or just a little more to last a lot longer, then it will usually be made to be long lasting. I was trying to fine the article on razor blades, but I could not find it. No matter, you will probably find it eventually. After all, people will not necessarily want to replace their things immediately after a new version is made available (and get caught in the scrum), so having it break down just at that time would reduce their freedom of action. Therefore, there will be no built in obsolescence, and things will be designed to last a long time.

On the razor blades example, a perfectly good razor blade can be produced that will remain sharp and usable for three years, and it would cost just the same in energy and materials! Razor blades are one of the favourite examples of waste and built in obsolescence in the Capitalistic P$.


Economicly I see how vastly superior this system is. However there must be a flaw somewhere in this. Utopian societys like this sound good on paper, yet may not be as powerful once implemented. However I haven't found one yet, for which makes me hopeful .

I am hopeful, too. However, I do have one method of reassuring myself: this took 14 years to be developed, during which there was an energy survey of North America, and this was all done at Columbia university by some of the finest minds in North America at the time. I think Nikola Tesla showed interest in it (and he did know Howard Scott personally) but I cannot confirm this.

This link shows who was in the Technical Alliance apart from Howard Scott: http://technocracy.org/?p=/FAQ/section3/f3

Here is another link, but it is NOT by a technocrat (it is by someone who once was but now thinks it does not work. He seems to be a reformist) and contains a few factual errors and several large misunderstandings, but it does give information on who Scott was, if you are interested:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cypher2/radical.htm


However my thoughts have been drifting twards the Maglev technology (airtight tubes which use suction, or other means to transfer objects across long distances) and how internationaly that would effect trade. This technology would effectively render all forms of transportation useless, as combustion is dirty, inefficient, dangerous, and impropable (who would drive cars when there aren't any streets?) When compared to Maglev. Sure if we were still living in a age where we were the only Technate in a sea of P$ it would devistate places like the Bahamas which survives on Airplane travel and the big money brought to those places by corporational semi-monopolies (IE, controling an airport, controling therefore who lands, building hotels... etc. However on the positive side, if a Technocracy were to be put in place around the world, and overseas Maglevs were put in place, think of the service available! In an instant you could order fresh Japanese Sushi, and it would be at your personal maglev tube in about an hour! Supermarkets would be irrelevent, as most shopping would easily be done online, and come to you in a matter of hours (minutes/seconds if faster-then-sound travel was achieved with Maglev technology.) Travel would be easy as well, since all that would be needed is a hotel sized Maglev tube, which travels slower (as traveling the speed of sound I imagine isn't the most comfortable way to travel.)

I thought Maglev was just trains. Thankyou for enlightening me.

Ah, a common question on whether there can be a world technate. Well, most Technocrats would say that it would not be feasible to start such a thing immediately, for several reasons. First of all, you would have to convince 6 billion people, which is probably a bit of a challenge to start off with. Then there is the fact that at the beginning, the seperation of the continents would be very important, so each continent would have to make its own technate regardless.

However, there are proposals that if, say, a North American Technate forms first, and then a European one, that over time they could merge (no idea how long this time would be. 1 year? 10? 50? The reason is that until very recently, Technocracy was only for North America, so such things had not really been thought of, or at least not publically) and form one technate.

Enjoy your reading! If you have more questions, please ask!

[expatriot]

This is really fascinating. I could really see this happening in the future. The drawbacks to this happening sooner rather than later is human resistance to change. Unless there is some kind of revolution or paradigm shift that happens as a result of a natural catastrophe (global warming) or a nuclear war) a technocratic civilization seems so far off in the future. But reading this really gives me hope.

I am new to this forum and really impressed with the level of intelligence of my fellow comrades. I am learning a lot here.

[Cult of Reason]

This is really fascinating. I could really see this happening in the future. The drawbacks to this happening sooner rather than later is human resistance to change. Unless there is some kind of revolution or paradigm shift that happens as a result of a natural catastrophe (global warming) or a nuclear war) a technocratic civilization seems so far off in the future. But reading this really gives me hope.

I am pleased you find this of interest, thankyou.

Yes, it does seem that discontent (whether caused by catastrophes or anything else) usually happens before significant change (whether real or illusury) can happen. That is why, after all, Technocracy Inc. had a membership in the hundreds of thousands in the '30s and '40s (on that note, there are conspiracy theories around that the history of radical groups of the '30s, of which Technocracy was one of the largest, has been deliberately suppressed by those in power, corporations and governments, but who knows? Similarly, Technocrats in Canada had their property stolen and funds seized by the government during a period in WW2. They have yet to be compensated.). However, Technocracy is in the precarious position where if a catastophe was too bad, it would become impossible to implement: the capability to produce an abundance of goods and services must pre-exist the technate. Both your examples would probably make a technate impossible for hundreds of years, or millenia, or (in the case of global warming, if it is bad enough) forever.

It is for that reason that I am currently conceptualising, privately, about some sort of "scarcity equivalent", basically a socio-economic system that is based on the same scientific principles (and a few other principles) as Technocracy and which could easily lead to Technocracy. However, before I am going to attempt that, I am going to make sure that Communism or Anarchism could or could not fill that role.

Of course, I am still most in favour of getting to a technate as quickly as possible, without any significant precursor, in the same way Anarchists seem (or at least this is what I think I know) to advocate going to final state Communism quickly.

I hope you continue to find this of interest!

[which doctor]

You can't put images in your signature on this board. It's supposed to protect the dial-up users who would have to load all those photos.

[Cult of Reason]

Ah, thankyou for informing me.

[More Fire for the People]

Greetings! I would say I am a technorealist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technorealism) as opposed to being a bioconservative or technocrat.
http://technocracy.ca/modules/PNphpBB2/files/networkofeuropeantechnocrats7.png
:ph34r: