Q
4th December 2007, 07:18
I know there are a few threads about technocracy running now already, but I seek an answer to a specific question, so I started a new one.
Now, the early Soviet Union was one full of troubles: it had a civil war in which the forefront of the working class fought heroicly, but also died at an alarming pace. This caused a rather unique class tension in the Soviet society in that farmers were enmasse recruited to work in the factories in the cities but did obviously not have a proletarian tradition and had in general a lower standard in education (if any).
This is why I think it was Trotsky who proposed a military like structure for the industrial working class, in which engineers and an educated few had control over vast industrial areas.
Now the reason why I started this topic is a claim that was made in several other topics about technocracy, I'll quote one:
Originally posted by drosera99
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.
It wasn't intended this way, but could one argue that the early Soviet Union was in fact a technocracy?
And this leads me to another question: Soviet democracy is a layered democratic system in which every layer has a specific function: big disasters are handled nationally, building highways regionally, that sort of thing. One could argue that people with knowledge about building highways are generally elected in a regional board about building them and one with knowledge about macro-economy would be elected in a national board for central economic planning. So, isn't a socialistic society technocratic by definition?
Now, the early Soviet Union was one full of troubles: it had a civil war in which the forefront of the working class fought heroicly, but also died at an alarming pace. This caused a rather unique class tension in the Soviet society in that farmers were enmasse recruited to work in the factories in the cities but did obviously not have a proletarian tradition and had in general a lower standard in education (if any).
This is why I think it was Trotsky who proposed a military like structure for the industrial working class, in which engineers and an educated few had control over vast industrial areas.
Now the reason why I started this topic is a claim that was made in several other topics about technocracy, I'll quote one:
Originally posted by drosera99
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.
It wasn't intended this way, but could one argue that the early Soviet Union was in fact a technocracy?
And this leads me to another question: Soviet democracy is a layered democratic system in which every layer has a specific function: big disasters are handled nationally, building highways regionally, that sort of thing. One could argue that people with knowledge about building highways are generally elected in a regional board about building them and one with knowledge about macro-economy would be elected in a national board for central economic planning. So, isn't a socialistic society technocratic by definition?