Is technocracy bourgeois?

[PigmerikanMao]

Do you think technocracy and technocratic ideas for governance should be considered bourgeois? :huh:

[Marsella]

To define something as bourgeoisie means it must support capitalism, that it supports wage exploitation (i.e. you are paid less than what you actually earn (oops create I mean create :P )).

It is not a silly moral word we slander anything we disagree with. Although that is how it is frequently used i.e. 'you're just a petty-bourgeoisie ****.'

As for technocracy, I don't know enough about it, but from what I do know, it seems to advocate management based on skill and intellect, versus the amount of capital you hold. That seems its governance ideas.

As for its economic stance, then it appears to advocate a sort of planning system.

I am probably wrong on both accounts, so it would probably be best for a technocrat to explain, briefly, their system and how it is not bourgeoisie.

[RevSkeptic]

Technocracy means going back to the way that society should function with production being concerned with pride in work and an psychological dedication to it, but with our current technology.

First and foremost, if you don't have pride in work then you're going to treat it as something to be done and over with as quickly as possible because it's something dreadful. In exchanged for continuously doing something that is dreadful, your only logical incentive would be to negotiate for as high of a wage as possible so you'll get to buy more in the time off not doing something that dreadful which ends with consumerism being the substitute for the psychological damage of alienating work. Consumerism means planned obsolescence, ecology destroying disposable items, consumer fads and the marketing of frivolous items of questionable utility because you will continuously want to buy new toys with your negotiated higher wage (assuming you even have a job) because of that hole in your psychology in leading a meaningless existence of "work" and "time off".

But the monetary system must die if everybody becomes a craftsman that works only a few hours at artistic, technical and scientific pursuits because the majority of craftsmen have implemented automation into assembly lines and other forms of repetitive production because how are you going to pay for all that comes out of the automatic factory without money earned from work? Money must be made obsolete and be replaced with a true resource based economy and cost accounting system.

[lombas]

Technocracy - I don't support it, I love it.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/4/40/180px-Calendrier-republicain-debucourt2.jpg

French Republican Calendar

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:02 am
Do you think technocracy and technocratic ideas for governance should be considered bourgeois? :huh:
I think you should be banned for sheer stupidity.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:02 am
Do you think technocracy and technocratic ideas for governance should be considered bourgeois? :huh:
Not necessarily. But laughter is bourgeois.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+December 03, 2007 11:43 am--> (PRC-UTE @ December 03, 2007 11:43 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 03:02 am
Do you think technocracy and technocratic ideas for governance should be considered bourgeois? :huh:
Not necessarily. But laughter is bourgeois. [/b]
So is having oral sex.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+December 03, 2007 09:18 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ December 03, 2007 09:18 pm)
Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 03, 2007 11:43 am

[email protected] 03, 2007 03:02 am
Do you think technocracy and technocratic ideas for governance should be considered bourgeois? :huh:
Not necessarily. But laughter is bourgeois.
So is having oral sex. [/b]
Wow, this thread has degenerated quite quickly.

Revleft:

From technocracy to oral sex in a matter of minutes!

[Led Zeppelin]

I was itching to move this to Chit-Chat.....but Learning it is.

[Jazzratt]

If you mean "does technocracy serve bourgeois class interest?" the answer would, of course, be hell no.

[Q]

Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm) is an interesting read where Technocracy is mentioned. Puts it into perspective.

Short answer: no, technocracy isn't bourgeois.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Haraldur+December 03, 2007 10:52 am--> (Haraldur @ December 03, 2007 10:52 am)
[email protected]cember 03, 2007 04:02 am
Do you think technocracy and technocratic ideas for governance should be considered bourgeois? :huh:
I think you should be banned for sheer stupidity. [/b]
There's a reason we have a learning forum- if you don't like it, don't post in it.

[PigmerikanMao]

To everyone who hasn't insulted me, coughHaraldurcough, thank you for providing good points- this has been most helpful.

[Dimentio]

The problem with technocracy as an ideology, and the benefit as I'll see it in the same time - paradoxically - is that technocracy, unlike most other ideologies, is not based on a subjective notion on what the human being ought to be like (moralistic, as in conservatism, hedonistic, as in liberalism, or altruistic, as in socialism), but rather focused on removing the inefficient hindrances for the productive forces to liberate the human being from the slavery of work itself.

Of course, there comes more to it, but technocracy is mainly a tool to be applied, and not an end in itself. It could be combined really with any sort of leftist ideology which is'nt technophobic.

http://en.technocracynet.eu

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:45 pm
The problem with technocracy as an ideology, and the benefit as I'll see it in the same time - paradoxically - is that technocracy, unlike most other ideologies, is not based on a subjective notion on what the human being ought to be like (moralistic, as in conservatism, hedonistic, as in liberalism, or altruistic, as in socialism), but rather focused on removing the inefficient hindrances for the productive forces to liberate the human being from the slavery of work itself.




Sounds like the general theme behind Karl Marx's definition of Communism. More free time.

One interesting book that explores the technological capiabilities of our current means of production is '200 Phaores, 5 Billion Slaves'' by Adrian Peacock.

'Technology is now so advanced that the working week could occupy minutes rather than hours, supplying every material need and leaving us to pose as physical Hercules or intellectual Einsteins.'

[Dros]

I have met certain technocrats who believe engineers should totally run society. In that sense a very limited group of "technocrats" could be percieved as advocating a class system but that is it. Generally, the answer is no.

[Dr Mindbender]

beourgioise interests are anti-technocratic. The reason being the workers have to be kept in a state of manual labour in order for them to preserve their class based hegemony.

Not everyone can be surgeons or rocket scientists or office managers cause there wouldnt be anyone for the technically skilled clique to boss around anymore.

[mimseycal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:16 am
Money must be made obsolete and be replaced with a true resource based economy and cost accounting system.
How would this differ in any real sense from the monetary system that we have now?

[Q]

Originally posted by mimseycal+December 07, 2007 04:34 am--> (mimseycal @ December 07, 2007 04:34 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 10:16 am
Money must be made obsolete and be replaced with a true resource based economy and cost accounting system.
How would this differ in any real sense from the monetary system that we have now? [/b]
It is based on the amount of energy put in, as opposed to the amount of labour. I'm not sure why it would be better though and would like to have a KISS explaination of that concept.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Q-collective+December 07, 2007 03:36 pm--> (Q-collective @ December 07, 2007 03:36 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:34 am

[email protected] 03, 2007 10:16 am
Money must be made obsolete and be replaced with a true resource based economy and cost accounting system.
How would this differ in any real sense from the monetary system that we have now?
It is based on the amount of energy put in, as opposed to the amount of labour. I'm not sure why it would be better though and would like to have a KISS explaination of that concept. [/b]
Energy Accounting (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=103)