The Fundamentals of Technocracy

[Cult of Reason]

I have been asked to provide more information on Technocracy, so I hope you find this interesting, comrades.

I hope to start with a little background and one or two fundamentals in this post. I will, of course, give more information in later posts, as well as answer any questions.

First a couple of links:

www.technocracy.org is the official website of Technocracy Incorporated, which is the North American organisation, which originated in 1919 (I might be one or two years out) as the Technical Alliance. Its contents is mostly articles, in no particular order, which are either official briefs or articles from Technocratic magazines in North America (I know almost nothing about the magazines, not living in North America, so it is pointless asking me about them). The result of this is that it is not best suited for people wanting an introduction. However, it does contain an FAQ, which is here (http://technocracy.org/?p=/FAQ/&TC=f423b375d82d4820c9c2e5e6f16c41f4). You will notice that two .pdf versions are available to download (in fact, I was heavily involved in putting the .pdfs together. I am never going to proof read again).

However, www.technocracy.ca is the site I would recommend. It contains a beginner's page, and many articles by the webmaster, Bill DesJardins, who is known on the forums there as Kolzene. On the forum you can introduce yourself and you can sign up on a thread about student applications, which will grant you access, after a few days, to almost all the forum. You will find me there to greet you.

On a side note: I must apologise to the forum member known, both here and at technocracy.ca, as NoXion. We regret that your introduction thread was hijacked by a group we call the Frolovites (after the user Interrupt_00h, who is called Vladimir Frolov). They have ideas similar to the National Bolsheviks, and no doubt some link to them. We had a serious problem with them some months back, and it is not completely resolved. I hope your opinion of us is not based on Frolovite words.

The Network of European Technocrats, of which I am a founding member, is not yet a year old, and does not yet have a website. It does, however, have a forum at http://spazz.mine.nu/forum3/

A little background:

In 1919 an engineer name Howard Scott founded a group called the Technical Alliance at Columbia University, the members can be seen here (http://technocracy.org/?p=/FAQ/section3/f3). Nikola Tesla also showed interest, and was a friend of Scott. Information on it can be found here (http://technocracy.org/?p=/FAQ/section3/f1). NET will hopefully start conducting its own Energy Survey in 2007. We are not so lucky as Howard Scott was, and we have to start without knowing such people.

What are the goals of Technocracy?

The goals of Technocracy, as I understand them, are:

The highest possible standard of living for all people in the technate, for the longest possible time (hence equality and no damage to the environment if it can be helped),
Reduce the amount of work people have to do,
Providing maximum choice of goods and services,
Absolute freedom,
Provide social programs, such as free education and healthcare, free of charge.

What are the benefits of living in a technate?


The Benefits of Technocracy

What We Lose What We Gain
Scarcity Based Economy Abundance of Goods and Services
Fluctuating Costs Stable Distribution System
Uncertainty of Income Security from Birth to Death
Near endless work and toil for a living Plentiful Free Time for Personal Life
Opinion based legislation Administration by Scientific Planning/Democracy
Limited Education System Full, Quality Education for All
Waste by Duplication Planned Balance of Production
Limited Health Care Access Full Health Care a Basic Right
Extreme Variance of Income Income on Equal Basis
Technological Disemployment Machines reduce work needed, not jobs
Transferable Currency Non-transferable Currency
Conspicuous Consumption Strict protection of resources
Transportation Haphazard and wasteful Simplified, Economical Transport
Unplanned Housing Safe, comfortable, Modern Housing
Pollution Rampant Conservation a Priority
Commodities Priced in Exchange Energy Cost Base of Distribution
Poverty and Homelessness Widespread All Citizens Assured of Needs
"Democratic" government Absolute or near absolute freedom*


* This depends on certain details: like, are there organised security forces or armies? I think that such things are unnecessary, and so there would be absolute freedom.

Let us now concentrate for the moment on the non-transferable "currency":

Since I am lazy by nature, I would rather link you to some articles already written on the subject. If you find them lacking in any way, please ask me questions (I explain things better that way, anyway) as I am too tired to look through them at the moment:

http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=m...&artid=6&page=1 (http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=6&page=1)
http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/certificate.htm

I hope you find this of interest, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have (as long as I can answer them, obviously).

[Sentinel]

I'm amazed!

This sounds not only very rational, realistic and intelligent, but even very communist.

I'm going to read all I can get my hands on about this subject. I'll also try to visit the forum sometime in the future. Thank you very much indeed, comrade!

One question: how does technocracy regard other leftist movements, and vice versa,
what do they tend to think about it?

Other comrades on revleft: what are your opinions and experiences regarding this movement?

[commiecrusader]

This sounds like a really good idea so far. The only aspect I'm unsure of is abolishing police and armed forces. It would seem to me that was a foolish course of action, and would be much better to arm and train the entire population. Other than that, a very interesting idea.

[Cult of Reason]

I'm going to read all I can get my hands on about this subject. I'll also try to visit the forum sometime in the future. Thank you very much indeed, comrade!


It is my pleasure. :D


how does technocracy regard other leftist movements, and vice versa,
what do they tend to think about it?


Well, that is a complicated question. NET, the European movement, generally does not care much. It contains myself (with Anarchistic tendencies), it contains a couple of ecology students, it contains a former member of the Yugoslav Communist Party (a research librarian from Vojvodina), a few scientists and even some people who did not believe in radical change before. (By the way, The Sentinal, where in Seden are you? Most of NET resides in Umea).

As for what others think of NET, we are currently so small as to be off the radar.

I do not know much about the North Americans, but I do know that when they started they would not allow any Communists (I assume members of the Communist Party) to be members. I do not know whether that was due to anti-Stalinism or for PR, or both. I do not know whether they allow members who are members of the Communist Party now, however.

As for what others thought about them, I really cannot tell you. I do know, however, that in Hungary the IWW released a pamphlet discussing it that was quite enthusiastic.


The only aspect I'm unsure of is abolishing police and armed forces. It would seem to me that was a foolish course of action, and would be much better to arm and train the entire population.

Well, the abolition of army and police is just my opinion, as I do not think them necessary. Instead I support free access to arms, and voluntary free training. I do however see a need for one or two groups to be voluntarily mobilised constantly, and for there to be a stockpile of nukes for deterrence (which, if a technate is in North America or Europe, would be very likely). However, the official opinion of the North American organisation (NET does not yet have an official opinion on much) is that some form of army and police should exist.

[Ian]

Whats the catch?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:51 PM
Whats the catch?
Its not a classless society. From what I've read, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, there will always be an administration that ensures that this society runs as planned.

My other problems with technocracy is that it is too hardware focused and utopian. Technology plays a massive role in determining the relations of production but I've always felt that the focus of communist movements should remain squarely on the worker.

[Severian]

Past thread on technocracy. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41743&hl=technocracy)

Briefly: It's a utopian blueprint for society, which proposes to place the means of production udner the control of an elite of technical experts.

[Sentinel]

It sounds good to me, but should of course be "spiced up" with some communism if applied in reality. The technical experts and scientists controlling the means of production should ultimately be subordinate to the will of the people. As long as this
is the case, I really don't see it colliding with the ideals of communism..

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 17 2006, 03:42 PM
It sounds good to me, but should of course be "spiced up" with some communism if applied in reality. The technical experts and scientists controlling the means of production should ultimately be subordinate to the will of the people. As long as this
is the case, I really don't see it colliding with the ideals of communism..
In communism it is the workers and the workers alone that control the means of production. These "experts" would just be another ruling class.

[Sentinel]

But, ComradeOm, should we still not have the most qualified people carrying out the orders of the people, in practice?

Like I said, the technical experts should be subordinate to the workers government
how that now would look like.

And the administration of other aspects of the society than the production,
should not be in the their hands.

This would not yet be communism since it obviosly involves a state of some kind.
But I believe a technate could be used in a transition period perhaps.

Happy birthday, comrade, btw. :)

[ComradeOm]

The driving ideal behind communism is that the workers should control the means of production. These means determine the makeup of society. Some people may gravitate to certain jobs, that is only to be expected, but it is the workers that will run the show. This technocracy is, as its name suggests, a society in which the means of production are controlled by technocrats – the elite administration.

Now I don’t profess to have any knowledge of what communism will look like but we do know that it will be classless. As such there is no room for the elite caste that technocracy requires. The same can be said of socialism – the aim is to disperse the means of production amongst the workers, not entrust them to a group of technocrats.

There's some interesting criticism offered in that thread that Severian linked to.


Originally posted by The [email protected] 17 2006, 05:15 PM
Happy birthday, comrade, btw. :)
Cheers :)

[Sentinel]

I don't support this idea uncritically, I rather think it has some good points, and
provides some useful methods for a future socialist state-in-transition hoping to one day build communism.

It abolishes money as we know it, for instance. :o

I don't support the idea of a techno-elite ruling as sovereigns, rather:


Originally posted by Serpent
The technate does only administrate technology, not the lives of human beings. And a technologically advanced society needs to have a worker specialisation in order to get optimum effects of the usage of technology.

I'm merely suggesting that a socialist, not yet communist, state-in-transition could
perhaps use the technate or some modified form of it, for it's purposes.

The technical experts in my vision would be servants of the people, not in charge.

[Sentinel]

I had a peek in the technocracy.ca forum. Kolzene's answer to TheKwas in this thread:

http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=P...5d408f9b1717441 (http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1289&sid=bf7f9499a35b31e935d408f9b1717441)

is worth reading for people interested in how Technocracy relates to Communism/Anarchism.



Originally posted by Kolzene
A good analogy of this would be to think of a cruise liner. The passengers (people) themselves decide things such as how to spend their time, what games to play, what they would like to eat, and collectively, where the boat is going. However, in terms of how to get there, this is the decision of the engineer and technician. They decide what is the best fuel to use, what engine would be the most resource-efficient, and otherwise making sure that the needs and desires of the passengers are met, to the full capacity that the ship is capable of.



Through the mechanism of Energy Accounting, it is the population that decides what gets produced in terms of goods and services.


Very interesting stuff! I'll continue investigating the principles of technocracy with great interest.

[BuyOurEverything]

It seems somewhat irrelevant to me. I mean, I could see a post-revolutionary communist society looking somewhat like that, but, how do technocrats propose to get there? Where's your base? It seems to me to just be a utopian ideology supported by people that are 'interested' in it or 'think it would be nice.' I mean, are poor and oppressed people the world over supposed to overthrow the government and install a computer?

[Sentinel]

Not counting myself as a technocrat at least yet, I'd say we could get there with
a revolution.


Originally posted by BuyOurEverything
I mean, are poor and oppressed people the world over supposed to overthrow the government and install a computer?

I think the technocrats would more likely hire the worlds most prominent scientists for
the job, than Eniac ;)

[which doctor]

I think it will take too long to achieve that state. We must revolt before that time comes, not wait until then. I suppose you could say that Technocracy will come a little bit after a commuist society.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by technocracy.ca


The Scientific Answer

Technocracy's Energy Certificate is the only instrument of distribution which can be used in this Continent's emerging era of abundance--the progress of which is being speeded up by automation. This Energy Certificate provides the accounting means whereby each individual North American can express his individual preference as to what he wants of the products North America is capable of producing. That is its function--to record the demand for goods and services and, thereby, to determine the amount to be produced. By applying one specific technological measuring device, production and consumption can be balanced and the first specification for social harmony is immediately achievable.

Vote With Meaning

The only real vote is purchasing power. What we buy we vote for. With an abundance of purchasing power we can vote as often as we like, every day of the year, and always win our vote.

The Energy Certificate eliminates both the basis and the need of all social work and charity. It would reduce crime to but a small fraction of what exists today.

If you don't like the war, the poverty, the misery, the waste, the crime, the disease, and the corruption which the Price System spawns, why do you stick with it?

This system seems like a good alternative to capitalism to me.

[red team]

Originally posted by The Sentinel+Jan 17 2006, 10:02 PM--> (The Sentinel @ Jan 17 2006, 10:02 PM)Not counting myself as a technocrat at least yet, I'd say we could get there with
a revolution.


BuyOurEverything
I mean, are poor and oppressed people the world over supposed to overthrow the government and install a computer?

I think the technocrats would more likely hire the worlds most prominent scientists for
the job, than Eniac ;)[/b]

Technocracy is too far ahead of its time to be of any practical purpose. In order for anything like this social system to have any chance of functioning all manual work of any significance would have to be made obsolete by automation.

Technocracy can't happen if manual work is still the existing production method for at least three reasons:

1. Energy accounting is impractical and inhumane if applied to people working in manual labor.
If manual labor is still in existence then it's sort of like advocating the Taylorist assembly-line
method of mass production society-wide. This "works" in that it will manage to produce the
material wealth that everybody in society needs, but its too heartless and crude. Howard Scott
the founder of Technocracy himself was very much opposed to Taylorism.

2. The energy output and corresponding productive potential of machines is by far greater
than anything that could be achieved using groups of people working manually. Really think
about this for moment and it will make sense to you. A machine if programmed correctly to
perform some action precisely will always performed that action precisely without tiring or
stopping provided that it is fed with enough energy to do the job. The same thing can't be said
to be true with humans.

3. Technocracy by its nature requires a technologically advanced society where all manual labor
of any significance is made obsolete by automation. If that is the case then the educational
level of the majority of the "work force" will have to be raised to the level of having every
worker be competent technicians so that the machines used for producing the material wealth
of society can be effectively produced and maintained. If the production techniques of society is
still largely dependent on manual work as it is now then there won't be enough surplus
wealth generated to support putting a large enough segment of the population through
technical training so they can be the required technical workers for such a technocratic society.

In any case Technocracy as a functioning social system is too far ahead of its time to be effectively made to work. Its like explaining Communism to someone living in the Feudal era when the industrial revolution haven't even started. Its futile because nobody in that society would be able to realize that machines would be able to make feudal society and is social relations obsolete let alone the attempt at an egalitarian rationing of industrial work. Same thing with Technocracy, not many people now can really imagine a society where all manual work is made obsolete by advanced automation technology because we are not there yet and workers are still ingrained in their thinking of manual labor being valuable in any significant way in creating material wealth far into the future. When Technocracy and hence full automation finally comes along, doing maual labor for a living would make as much sense to people then as going out into the forest and killing dinner would make to people now. Technocracy is at least two social revolutions ahead of its time.

Cybernetic Socialism: http://www.dominic.lopez.net/cyber.html


Red Team

[Sentinel]

Red Team:

The Cybernetic Socialism page is really outstanding! I think automation may indeed
become the one thing that makes capitalist system collapse in it's impossibility.

When the workingclass loses the capacity to make a living in the future automated hightech society, they will finally realize the parasitic nature of capitalism, and overthrow it! Wow!

[Delirium]

This reeks of authoritarianism, conformism, and elitism.

[Sentinel]

I missed this:


Originally posted by Haraldur
By the way, The Sentinel, where in Sweden are you? Most of NET resides in Umeå

I live in Stockholm. Any technocrats here? As I said, I'm very curious about your movement, even though I'm still not ready to embrace the ideas wholeheartedly. ;)