Questions about Technocracy.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I know I have misconceptions on the movement, I can't understand its publications very well.

Let me begin with two basic questions:

So the core of social accounting is a body of technocrats?

Why do all types of energy need to be accounted?

[jake williams]

But what's important is whether or not they make us hover shoes.

[Entrails Konfetti]

You just topped me, there!

[Dimentio]

I know I have misconceptions on the movement, I can't understand its publications very well.

Let me begin with two basic questions:

So the core of social accounting is a body of technocrats?

Why do all types of energy need to be accounted?

1. I do not even understand what you are meaning with "social accounting"? If you mean government and decision-making, then hell no. The technate is not responsible for legislation or administration of people, but only the administration of the infrastructure, which is taken care of by the people who are the experts in their fields.

2. We do not account energy. We account the gross production capacity in terms of energy.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Say I'm working in making brakes for cars, and to avoid monotony, I do different tasks each day, or whatever time period. Lets say the group of workers in my field meet, we want machines in our field to do whatever plans we draw up. Lets say the resources are available, can we just make these machines?

Also, what is a technocrat?
Alright, lets just make it easier. What's your most comprehensive work on technocracy?

Can a proletarian revolution be a technocractic revolution? Is technocracy a revolutionary ideology, or a guide for society?

[Black Dagger]

How does one become an 'expert' in a field? Are they appointed by someone?

[Bright Banana Beard]

It is the "dictatorship of the experts"?

[Jazzratt]

How does one become an 'expert' in a field? Are they appointed by someone?

Traditionally people have become experts in fields by studying them.


It is the "dictatorship of the experts"?

Sort of but not. There is an all powerful "state" of technicians and experts but they do not and necessarily cannot rule over people. Their dictatorships is over things, over machines and so on but in the wider society, aside from perhaps a little respect (like that already given to engineers, teachers and the like), they are no different to anyone else.


Say I'm working in making brakes for cars, and to avoid monotony, I do different tasks each day, or whatever time period. Lets say the group of workers in my field meet, we want machines in our field to do whatever plans we draw up. Lets say the resources are available, can we just make these machines?

Assuming you have the capability to make these machines, and the resources have been accounted for then yes you can make the machine.


Also, what is a technocrat?

I don't quite understand this, you obviously mean beyond "a supporter of technocracy" right?


Alright, lets just make it easier. What's your most comprehensive work on technocracy?

Depends who you ask, but most of us start from the basis of the study guide (there's a link in Haraldur's sig I believe and I'm sure Serpent can post one), although it should be noted that very few technocrats, and none that post unhindered on RevLeft follow this to the letter. I'd also reccommend reading the Hooton essay in my sig for an anarchist perspective.


Can a proletarian revolution be a technocractic revolution? Is technocracy a revolutionary ideology, or a guide for society?

Again this depends on who you ask, but a lot (most?) of us will say it is a guide for a post-capitalist society, a hypothetical method of distributing abandunce.

[Black Dagger]

Traditionally people have become experts in fields by studying them.

Except traditionally society is not run like a technate, so the status of 'experts' is very different in this context.

Unless you're suggesting that technocratic 'experts' are self-identifying? Otherwise there must be a process by which a persons status as an 'expert in a field' is affirmed.

[Jazzratt]

Except traditionally society is not run like a technate, so the status of 'experts' is very different in this context.

I imagine it would still be quite a challenge to become an expert in a field without studying. It's not like "expert" is some mystical higher caste into which no one is allowed entry.


Unless you're suggesting that technocratic 'experts' are self-identifying? Otherwise there must be a process by which a persons status as an 'expert in a field' is affirmed.

I imagine they would have to be recognised by others in the field as experts, or to have demonstrated an aptitude for their field during training (depending on what kind of expert they are, I imagine an expert in, say, physics would be judged by the former whereas an expert in, say, bricklaying would be judged by the latter.). It's silly to have someone self-identify as an expert, because they may well be a crank that knows sweet fuck all about their field.


You mean the means of production?

The technicians, engineers and experts will have the biggest say in what the designing, placing and automation of the means of production, as these all require specialised knowledge (especially design and automation), but I think of worker control as meaning their deciding precisely how these things are used, whether more should be built and so on. I've argued a similar point with someone else and the example I used was making a new building - the community as a whole decides where it is going to be, how best to build it and who will build it and so on, the experts (in the form of architects, structural engineers and building experts) would then design it to be the most efficient and useful form of the building that has been requested. [This of course is simply my opinion and it may be that other technocrats disagree].

[Entrails Konfetti]

The technicians, engineers and experts will have the biggest say in what the designing, placing and automation of the means of production, as these all require specialised knowledge (especially design and automation), but I think of worker control as meaning their deciding precisely how these things are used, whether more should be built and so on. I've argued a similar point with someone else and the example I used was making a new building - the community as a whole decides where it is going to be, how best to build it and who will build it and so on, the experts (in the form of architects, structural engineers and building experts) would then design it to be the most efficient and useful form of the building that has been requested. [This of course is simply my opinion and it may be that other technocrats disagree].

Well that's just your opinion, and it sounds like you're going by the Bakunist conception of authority outlined in God and The State. You make it sound as though not everyone in your movement is as libertarian as that.

Furthermore, with a proletarian revolution, most workers will have to learn and take on other tasks within their workplace. And I'm pretty sure that we will want to learn and do more empowering things than just do monotonous, menial labour. One of the principles of the revolution is to end the division of labour.

[Jazzratt]

Well that's just your opinion, and it sounds like you're going by the Bakunist conception of authority outlined in God and The State. You make it sound as though not everyone in your movement is as libertarian as that.

The technocratic movement is not monolithic. Some of it isn't even leftist (the original American model, for example, advocated strong centralisation and clear hierarchies.)


Furthermore, with a proletarian revolution, most workers will have to learn and take on other tasks within their workplace. And I'm pretty sure that we will want to learn and do more empowering things than just do monotonous, menial labour. One of the principles of the revolution is to end the division of labour.

Well, yes and Technocratic education will (hopefully) be designed with this in mind. This is also inevitable if the more menial tasks are automated - simply put if someone wishes to work then they will need to be given something more interesting to do than repetitive and monotonous tasks. That said there will still be those with advanced levels of expertise in certain areas is unavoidable but this is not an unacceptable division of labour because no one can be an expert in everything.