Marxism and technocracy

[Dimentio]

Some people have claimed that technocracy is not leftism since it does not uphold the labor theory of value or dialectal materialism. But that would also account for various forms of anarchism and syndicalism as well. Moreover, technocracy and marxism deals with two completely different subjects. Technocracy is a theory that deals with how resources in a post-capitalist society could be distributed in a sustainable way, while marxism is a theory which deals with class struggle. Namely, one could say that technocracy deals with resources while marxism deals with people.

Hence, it is possible to be both a marxist, and a technocrat at the same time.

[CornetJoyce]

Both deal with imaginary people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:46 am
Both deal with imaginary people.
Maybe you could contribute something useful instead of spamming.

[funkmasterswede]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:00 am
Some people have claimed that technocracy is not leftism since it does not uphold the labor theory of value or dialectal materialism. But that would also account for various forms of anarchism and syndicalism as well. Moreover, technocracy and marxism deals with two completely different subjects. Technocracy is a theory that deals with how resources in a post-capitalist society could be distributed in a sustainable way, while marxism is a theory which deals with class struggle. Namely, one could say that technocracy deals with resources while marxism deals with people.

Hence, it is possible to be both a marxist, and a technocrat at the same time.
Technocracy, to me, is contrary to the ideals of the left in general. The idea of the emancipation of labour from capital, is one that has very democratic roots. And even if we solely look at the issue of resource allocation as the sphere for a technocratic bureaucracy it is contradictory to the meaning of a revolution be it physical or social from the people. What is the point of Marxism? To stop the divide between wage labour and capital. Marxism, in its actual form states that the proleteriat should directly control the means of production but state apparatuses should be employed to help. Technocracy is completely contradictory to this ideal. If the allocation of resources becomes a decision of elite bureaucrats, acting in the "common good" as seen through their perspective, how can we maintain that this is a dictatorship of the proleteriat. Power must be derived from below.

At this point you are entering a situation of oligarchy, much like Marxism-Leninism. And since, I believe Marxism-Leninism is very misguided and contrary to the goals of a socialist society, I feel the same about technocracy.

Also, not all decisions are technical in nature, many of them are political. These bureaucrats will not be automotons that calculate and act to create the most sustainable and best possible resource allocation. Everyone acts on socially constituted knowledge. If you are a Marxist, it would be quite contradictory to propose rationalist sentiment by viewing that these bureaucrats could act without bias, given the social experiences they have. That seems to be almost anti-materialist.

No individual, no matter how educated can objectively calculate the common good. Knowledge is fragmented and one individual with collected knowledge would be no more efficient in resource allocation, then a collection of individuals with fragmented knowledg voting and compromising.

[Dimentio]

The engineers in a technate won't plan what a consumer should consume. It is not a planned economy in that sense. The citizens would govern what should be produced hrough the use of their energy certifikates. The engineers has as their function to ensure that the process would work finely. Moreover, the engineers are not deciding over social issues, which are taken care of direct democratically.

It is just the infrastructure which is administrated according to skill. Not social or political issues. Not even legislation. Those aspects would be taken care of by a direct democratic system.

There is also no money (or even trade) in a technate.

It seems that a lot of people criticise something completely different when they are attacking technocracy.

[Hiero]

My question has to do with practice.

What excactly do Technocrats do? Do they support working class movements, democractic movements, national liberation, indigenous liberation, gender liberation? If the Unions, or the anti war call a day of action do the Technocrats participate? Or are they just a talk shop/philosophy group.

To be honest, I have never heard of Technocrats playing any major role in the pratical movement of the proleteriat and oppressed.

[rouchambeau]

Does technocracy support or endorse exchange?

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:14 pm
Does technocracy support or endorse exchange?
Exchange how? If you mean an exchange of goods and services, then no, not necessarily (how the hell do you spell necessarily?). Since everything, to some extent, is free, then exchange isn't mandated. But it's all theory, so an economy, of which exchange is a big part, could work.

[coda]

You technocrats have always piqued my 'red flag'. However, I'll give you a fair chance and spend the next few days reading your website before I give a thorough critique or your ideology.

I can tell you a couple of things that makes me wary of it straight off --

The given name "Technocracy" and "technocrats" really rankles my scales. sounds like Technology is the be all end all of the society and everything else is below and beholden to that. Not good


Secondly, you guys seem to have it completely worked out already, -- "certifikates" etc. a lot like Michael Albert's Participatory Economics. Great and it always looks good hypothetically. But, more importantly where do the workers have input in regard to how society will be organized? This is a Proletarian Revolution we are going for here.

So, What I do like. One thing:

the idea of sustainable communities. I am something of a bioregional anarchist syndicalist so that very much appeals to me, dependent on how resources are distributed and sustained. I mean, really, one could sustain communities with slave labor. so "sustainable communities" actually means nothing.

I'll read and be back.

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:12 am
My question has to do with practice.

What excactly do Technocrats do? Do they support working class movements, democractic movements, national liberation, indigenous liberation, gender liberation? If the Unions, or the anti war call a day of action do the Technocrats participate? Or are they just a talk shop/philosophy group.

To be honest, I have never heard of Technocrats playing any major role in the pratical movement of the proleteriat and oppressed.

I don't really think they do anything. They have some quarterly report they send out to their members; beyond that, I have no idea. But I really don't think they care much about what the revolution is, or how it is obtained, as long as it is socialist. From there, they give their 2 cents on how best to allocate recourses and use technology for the welfare of society.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:14 pm
Does technocracy support or endorse exchange?
No?

On the contrary, we are going to abolish money and trade. Instead, our system will be a distributionist one in some form, emphasising automatisation and hence liberation from labor.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:12 am
My question has to do with practice.

What excactly do Technocrats do? Do they support working class movements, democractic movements, national liberation, indigenous liberation, gender liberation? If the Unions, or the anti war call a day of action do the Technocrats participate? Or are they just a talk shop/philosophy group.

To be honest, I have never heard of Technocrats playing any major role in the pratical movement of the proleteriat and oppressed.
Our theory is not historically inclined towards struggle for minorities (or against them for that matter). The human being is not at the centre, historically, for the technocratic ideology (if we could speak of such a thing). That does not mean that we are reactionary, but that our focus lies at how the production and distribution of the infrastructure most efficiently could guarantee a high and equal standard of life for the longest possible period of time. The realisation of the technocratic programme and it's effects look a lot like ideal communism (i.e free and equal access to the productive forces, total social liberty, social security, no political or corporate seat of power).

NET is actually building a system of ethics which will outline how we could include other kinds of interests than the purely material ones upon our design. Those are: User Influence, Gender Equality, A system of autonomous communes forming federal units based on voluntary means, and so on.

I think that specialisation is great. We technocrats focus on research. Others have to fight for women's liberation, within groups suited towards that.

[Entrails Konfetti]

What do the engineers of a technate do?
See, I'm pretty iffy about Technocracy because it seems like it supposes the maintainance of the division of labour-- where class society emerged.
Also, it seems like it supposes the duty of updating machines at workplaces to make life easier will be in the hands of the technate.
In post revolutionary society the proletariat will have more knowledge of the infrastructure, and the machines at the workplaces by having to take up more duties, however they will probably not be experts on math theories in such a society which could lead to engineers of the technate having the advantage over everyone else.

[Dimentio]

When we are talking about engineers, we mean the entire labor force. There will be some mandatory labor for everyone in working-age, so that we additionally could lower labor time by utilising labor power which otherwise (in a price system say) would go idle due to automatisation. That way, we could reduce labor to about 16 hours a week. One precondition is that our entire personnel base is sufficiently trained to operate the infrastructure.

The economy is directed by the energy certifikates and what people decide to use their energy quota upon, not by experts. The people working are only deciding how it should be done.

Everyone in a technate has the same relation to the productive power. Namely that they have equal access to using it. There are no hierarchies affecting the relation to productive forces.