The European Union

[Sentinel]

I was 14 years old when Sweden voted on joining the EU (1995). I took part in the demonstrations against it. The No to EU was one of the first political movements I was part of. On the other side stood both the right and the strong, pseudoleft social democrat party. The Yes side won with a tiny marginal, and here we are. :(

The worst thing about EU, and I happen to believe it's main purpose, is to take the power farther away from the workers of the nations in the Union. Ordinary people simply don't have a clue of what reactionary crap is being discussed in Brussels, until the new doctrines and directives strike us, like a slap in the face. :angry:

"What should be done"? How should we try to oppose this crap?
European comrades: What are the opinions on EU in your countries?

[commiecrusader]

I don't think the EU is worth much and I would agree with you that it distances power from the workers even more than having a government does. I'm from England. Unfortunately, here, most anti-EU movements are perceived as conservative, because most of them are, regrettably.

The best thing I ever saw bout the EU was some graffiti in Slovenia which said 'The EU is capitalism under the mask of democracy' or something like that, my Slovenian is next to non-existent. This was in massive writing on the wall of a highstreet. I just thought it summed it up perfectly.

[Sentinel]

I can only admire the Norwegians. They said NO with a huge majority, and remain now in control of their impressive oil resources.
One of my fondest memories from Swedish politics is from our recent vote on the European Currency:
Our Social democrat Prime Minister, Göran Persson, who had been one of the leaders of Yes to the euro, and had silenced the opposition of those against it within his party, at the press conference after the poll.
When the crushing NO was announced, he was almost too angry to form coherent sentences. :D

[Scars]

I think that the EU could be put to productive ends, but as a capitalist institution it simply intergrates foreign capitalist exploitation into each individual country. This, of course, is bad for the workers and in addition makes getting rid of capitalism even harder.

I agree with the principle, a united Europe wouldn't be a bad thing, but the practice really lets it down.

[Cult of Reason]

I agree in principle in a united Europe, but that is where my support ends.

I do have a little belief that a united Europe might mean that the likelihood of a Europe-wide revolution (which would certainly be necessary if a technate was to constructed in Europe), whether for Technocracy or not, or Europe-wide demonstrations calling for a referendum on Technocracy, would be increased.

[Sentinel]

Haraldur, what is technocracy? I saw you discussing it in the Lounge. It sounded interesting but I didn't quite grasp it.. You sure sounded like you knew what you were talking about. Could you perhaps start a thread on it in Learning? One for beginners. Describe the basics and so! Then we can ask about it.
I'm really curious about it.

[bolshevik butcher]

It's just another capitalist institution. Although I'm nto a europhbe as such. I would be all for a united socialist states of Europe. However the EU is an openly capitalist institution. Its members have to be pro free market.

[Cult of Reason]

Could you perhaps start a thread on it in Learning?

I have been meaning to, but I have refrained because I thought it might be a bit arrogant of me to post a thread there with the aim of educating others (rather than myself) while being so new, especially since I had stated that I came here to learn more about Anarchism and non-Stalinist Communism.

However, due to links to interesting pages people have given, and reading through past posts on this forum, I am at least firmly set that I am an Anarchist. However, I have not, so far, been able to find a thread with "energy theory of value" in the title.

I will start a thread.


One for beginners. Describe the basics and so!

Oh, no. How will I handle this? I suppose I will just have to hope people are patient, as it is a very complicated subject. And also to hope they understand this: there is an analogy that teaching about Technocracy is like explaining the design of an internal combustion engine to someone who has no idea of their existance: specifically, that it has to be explained reasonably fully (though not necessarily in detail), usually, before there is understanding (although people can obviously fill in the gaps in some areas). However, that might not be such a problem here, since most people here are advocates of ideologies that are radically different to what we have now anyway, and so will be used to things seeming unbelieveable at first.


I'm really curious about it.

That is good to hear.

I will cease hijacking this thread now.

[Sentinel]

Haraldur:

Ok.. I see your point, but I don't think people would find it arrogant, though.
Everything that exists is worthy of discussion (well everything intelligent anyway).

You were speaking of a "technate" in Europe, as an alternative for EU. Could you try to describe how such a thing would work?

I started this tread, and asked in the opening post what we should do about the situation in Europe. If you believe a technate could be the answer, I'm most curious why. You aren't hijacking the thread comrade. :)

Clenched Fist: Yep, The EU is about capitalism. United Socialist States of Europe - that would be the beginning of the collapse of capitalism worldwide, almost equal to a revolution in the US. Let's hope that we live to see it! :)
As an internationalist I would love such a thing.

[Cult of Reason]

You were speaking of a "technate" in Europe, as an alternative for EU. Could you try to describe how such a thing would work?

I will have to give a very simplistic answer, as I am currently in the middle of starting the new thread you requested:

A technate not a state. It is difficult to describe quickly, but it can be seen as a system of infrastructure that supplies an abundance of goods and service to ALL residents of the area it lies in. This results in absolute income equality. It is the sole "owner" (not that ownership exists in a technocratic society) of the means of production. Additionally, this production is automated as much as possible so as to reduce human involvement to an absolute minimum, and so result in shorter working hours. In the '30s, the North American Technocrats estimated that if a technate were established in North America at that time, the average person would have to do only 4 hours of work a day for four days in a week in order to keep the technate functioning. Taking into account 78 days of consecutive holiday (it need not be all in one, though), that is a total of about 660 anual work-hours. Imagine what the hours would be like today?

Technical decisions, such as how to mass produce a particular computer part, are taken by the functional sequences of the technate administration. Non-technical decisions, such as how many of that particular computer part are to be produced, are decided through a form of direct democracy: the technate only produces stuff that people want, in real time. Other non-technical decisions, such as whether the technate should give aid to certain areas of the third world after a disaster, are also decided through direct democracy: everyone in the technate could have some sort of PDA or similar with which they can vote in technate-wide referendums.

[commiecrusader]

That sounds like science fiction, but I would entirely advocate that as a step on the progression to true Communism if it was possible. Would it ever be possible to dissolve the technate administration after a while? Or is it more akin to a mechanically automated socialism? If it's impossible to dissolve the technate administration, then I think this isn't that good. Also, how is the technate administration chosen?

This whole Technocracy idea is very interesting.

[Cult of Reason]

Would it ever be possible to dissolve the technate administration after a while?

No, they are an essential part. They are the ones who deisgn future goods, for a start. They are responsible for smoothness of service, etc. etc. etc.. However, do keep in mind (I think I have mentioned this, I am not sure), that everyone is part of the "administration".


Or is it more akin to a mechanically automated socialism?

You could say that. Noone has any coercive "power". Noone can order you to do things, noone has to be obeyed. It is merely a system of production and distribution, not one of governance.


Also, how is the technate administration chosen?

Hmmm... that depends on how narrow or broad your question is. Do you mean as a whole, or those in positions of greatest responsibility (like the director of healthcare, for example)?