A Conversation with Technocrats

[Ultra-Violence]

Ok ive noticed that alot of peole over here are juming on to the technocrat bandwagon and this scare me a little bit dont get me wrong i think technology is a great thing and makes peoples live generally better. BUT heres the thing what about the enviroment and boidiversity and all that good stuff? are we just goanna say fuck it? or Do i just go it all wrong and some one needs to skool me? please lets discus i realy want to PRESS THE ISSUE!

[Cult of Reason]

Ok ive noticed that alot of peole over here are juming on to the technocrat bandwagon and this scare me a little bit dont get me wrong i think technology is a great thing and makes peoples live generally better. BUT heres the thing what about the enviroment and boidiversity and all that good stuff? are we just goanna say fuck it? or Do i just go it all wrong and some one needs to skool me? please lets discus i realy want to PRESS THE ISSUE!

The central aim of Technocracy is to provide the highest possible standard of living for all for the longest possible time. Effectively, a sustainable society where people receive all their needs. This necessarily entails a focus on ecology and the use of technology and human knowledge to reduce the damage to the environment down to as low a level as possible while not adversely affecting humans.

In fact, the traditional stereotype of Technocracy, rather than a focus on technology, was an obsessiveness with efficiency, particularly of energy. From this comes the advocacy of a Continental Hydrology (a system of canals connecting rivers so that as much as possible of bulk freight can be carried on water, which is by far the most energy efficient option), Urbanates (replacements for cities that are designed as single units from the top-down to be as efficient and convenient as possible), rail transport (more efficient than cars, which are, frankly, a ridiculous way to transport people routinely) and Energy Accounting (a tracking of all energy production and consumption to make the former as similar as possible to the latter, so that less energy has to be used overall and, hence, there is less environmental impact from wind turbines, hydroelectric dams etc. as fewer have to be contstructed).

It is more efficient, and makes more sense, to have the people who decide upon mining policy to be mining experts and the people who operate the mines (of course with influence from those who depend on the mines). It is more efficient, and makes more sense, to replace exchange economics (a Price System), which has been designed for scarcity, with distribution according to need, without the overheads of the financial system. It is more efficient, and makes more sense, to have factories working all day every day than to have peak usage times and time of no activity, which currently results in there being more factories than necessary.

In fact, ironically enough, Technocracy is probably the best chance for the "rewilding" that the primmies love so much to actually take place without human life going to the dogs.

[Herman]

The central aim of Technocracy is to provide the highest possible standard of living for all for the longest possible time. Effectively, a sustainable society where people receive all their needs. This necessarily entails a focus on ecology and the use of technology and human knowledge to reduce the damage to the environment down to as low a level as possible while not adversely affecting humans.

In fact, the traditional stereotype of Technocracy, rather than a focus on technology, was an obsessiveness with efficiency, particularly of energy. From this comes the advocacy of a Continental Hydrology (a system of canals connecting rivers so that as much as possible of bulk freight can be carried on water, which is by far the most energy efficient option), Urbanates (replacements for cities that are designed as single units from the top-down to be as efficient and convenient as possible), rail transport (more efficient than cars, which are, frankly, a ridiculous way to transport people routinely) and Energy Accounting (a tracking of all energy production and consumption to make the former as similar as possible to the latter, so that less energy has to be used overall and, hence, there is less environmental impact from wind turbines, hydroelectric dams etc. as fewer have to be contstructed).

It is more efficient, and makes more sense, to have the people who decide upon mining policy to be mining experts and the people who operate the mines (of course with influence from those who depend on the mines). It is more efficient, and makes more sense, to replace exchange economics (a Price System), which has been designed for scarcity, with distribution according to need, without the overheads of the financial system. It is more efficient, and makes more sense, to have factories working all day every day than to have peak usage times and time of no activity, which currently results in there being more factories than necessary.

In fact, ironically enough, Technocracy is probably the best chance for the "rewilding" that the primmies love so much to actually take place without human life going to the dogs.

You pretty much nailed it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Technocracy takes into account environmental management:

- Recycling will receive immediate focus.
- Environmental issues will not be decided upon by politicians, only people knowledgeable in their field.
- Efficiency will be used as the primary model of production. If a tire wheel requires 4 joules (obviously a low pitch, but I'm simplifying the numbers) to produce and it is said to last 30,000 miles, that is 7,500 miles/joule. If another wheel requires 5 joules for 20,000 miles - it's obviously not as efficient. You save energy and, as a consequence, material. However, under a price system all that measures is profit. Tires are not made to their best standards specifically because they want you to buy more of their product.
- Energy accounting cannot be abused to allow for degradation of energy use. Assuming there are no external variables, if one process produces an item with 2 joules, and the other process takes 5 joules, there's no reason to waste energy. Yes, an item made from 5 joules would put 5 credits into the system, but those credits are going to be split evenly regardless and "purchasing" the item will only remove the credits.
- Reuse and proper management of material produces jobs. Under capitalism there is no incentive to plant trees after running over a forest, for example. It is unprofitable to plant saplings or take care of seeds. Under technocracy a whole field could be used for that purpose.

[piet11111]

and lets not forget that low-tech energy production like coal is insanely polluting while a nuclear fusion reactor would be incredibly clean.

technology would allow us to spare the natural environment ;)

[Dean]

Ok ive noticed that alot of peole over here are juming on to the technocrat bandwagon and this scare me a little bit dont get me wrong i think technology is a great thing and makes peoples live generally better. BUT heres the thing what about the enviroment and boidiversity and all that good stuff? are we just goanna say fuck it? or Do i just go it all wrong and some one needs to skool me? please lets discus i realy want to PRESS THE ISSUE!

Technocracy is a bureaucratic fantasy that people think can replace genuine revolutionary theory and activity (in the more positive forms). I honestly don't know why so many people have jumped on the bandwagon, but the whole concept seems pretty empty when you look at it hard.

[Ultra-Violence]

Well Thanx for the heads up but it just when i hear technocracy i get this image in my head of machines running everything and concrete every where! that kinda of world scare me kinda like the matrix.

Now dean what are the arguements against technocracy and how does it replace revolutionary theory with bueracracy?

[piet11111]

i do not know enough about technocracy but in the HPG is a sticky with some details you might want to read

http://www.revleft.com/vb/energy-accounting-t70366/index.html

the conventional technocratic model does require modification to better fit a communist society.

[Cult of Reason]

Such modification including changes to the organisational structure to make it less "bureaucratic" (assuming that that is what Dean was referring to, although to be honest I do not think he knows what he is talking about), which Anarchist Communist Technocracy tries to do by making the structure federal [/plug].

A proposed ACT organisational plan is here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/technocracy-your-position-t73887/index2.html

though it is a very rough draft.

[Ultra-Violence]

^^^^
Yes u see thats another thing what if for example the people in charge of water supply for example fuck up how do we hold them accountable if their the only ones who will have a say in it? will thier be checks and balances?

[Dean]

Such modification including changes to the organisational structure to make it less "bureaucratic" (assuming that that is what Dean was referring to, although to be honest I do not think he knows what he is talking about), which Anarchist Communist Technocracy tries to do by making the structure federal [/plug].

A proposed ACT organisational plan is here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/technocracy-your-position-t73887/index2.html

though it is a very rough draft.

As is every single draft. Let's face it - technocrats can't come up with anything more than a couple layers of bureaucracy running specific industries (and yes, it is bureaucracy to a T) and a crude, unsustainable concept of exchange which is indeed a currency. And they can only definitively agree upon the former. The only other thing I've seen from this brand of technocrats is a common-sense approach to technology, and sometimes a downright frightening approach to medicine.

It's time to stop this charade - few people, let alone communists don't want technological progress. And the schemes proposed by the activist technocrats are indeed a bureaucratic system - unsurprising, the cold-war thinkers who promoted Game Theory were called technocrats! And that's what this is about - an attempt to create a rigid system which views human wants, needs, labor potential and social activity as numerical, mechanical values to be manipulated by a bureaucracy. I'm sorry, but that is hardly anarchistic, and definitely not communist. It reminds me of the cold, frightening corporate police state which is taking hold in the major industrial powers today.

At its very best, the technocratic movement is a rigid councilist movement which simply rules out the organic human element in its calculations. I don't think those who call themselves technocrats here are bad people, but I have noticed a distinct trend where they refuse to, or are unable to answer to these basic concerns about the movement, and the theoretical element is astoundingly empty. They are way detached from what it means to be human, at least when it comes to theories of social organization.

[AGITprop]

DeanI'm gong to have to agree with you on many of your points. Technocracy has some great ideas, but are basically common sense.

I don't see how Technocracy is ANYWHERE close to Marxism or Anarchism in merit of any shape of form.

I don't know much about Technocracy though, but would like to know what Technocrats think about singularity. If it is possible, it would be the end of the human race. :O

[piet11111]

well its true that the original technocracy is not socialist/communist but that is why it needs to be altered to suit our needs.

those that are self described technocrats on this forum are well aware of this and definitely do not want to create a bureaucratic elite.
(i consider technocracy as one of the more promising frameworks a communist society could be shaped around)

i do believe that the singularity is possible and i also believe that we are smart enough to take measures to protect ourselves that is just common sense to do so.

[Dimentio]

Technocracy is in practice a form of communist ideology. Nobody could deny that it is'nt, if communism is defined by its original meaning. Communism is a form of society where the means of production is collectively owned by the people.

The basic aspect of technocracy is not high-tech, and not some sort of elitism, but the rational administration of the resources, and the issuing of energy certifikates to each and every person. Every person will in practice be assured her equal share of the production capacity surplus made possible by the modern energy economy.

I have provided you with links. Read them. (http://en.technocracynet.eu)

[Dean]

Technocracy is in practice a form of communist ideology. Nobody could deny that it is'nt, if communism is defined by its original meaning. Communism is a form of society where the means of production is collectively owned by the people.
One could say, in such a sense, that Capitalist organization can be viewed as communist, if we ignore the relevance of division of labor and power over economic decision-making, which is clearly segregated in a technocratic society - according to all the blueprints I've seen.


The basic aspect of technocracy is not high-tech, and not some sort of elitism, but the rational administration of the resources, and the issuing of energy certifikates to each and every person. Every person will in practice be assured her equal share of the production capacity surplus made possible by the modern energy economy.That sounds quite like a form of bureaucratic socialism, doesn't it? I think its interesting how so many technocrats have such a fascination with transhumanism and mechanical sciences rather than social and political sciences. Of course, I can't fault you for your intentions - I can only talk about what is put in front of me, which I view to be incredibly naive.


I have provided you with links. Read them. (http://en.technocracynet.eu)I've read plenty about technocracy before - there was a while where I spent a good deal reading Skip Sievert's stuff, because I was so fascinated by the popularity and sci-fi subtleties that technocracy exhibited. But I never found anything deeper, and that really turned me off to it. As hard as I've tried - and believe me, I really did try - I can't see it as anything but an empty ideology of tool-worship, and it will take a fundamentally different approach to make me look at it differently. I'll look at your link when I get a chance - I see the webpage has undergone some changes - but I don't really expect much.



EDIT: I wanted to add the following:



A fourth source of bureaucracy Marxists have commented on inheres in the technologies of mass production, which require many standardized routines and procedures to be performed. Even if mechanization replaces people with machinery, people are still necessary to design, control, supervise and operate the machinery. The technologies chosen may not be the ones that are best for everybody, but which create incomes for a particular class of people or maintain their power. This type of bureaucracy is nowadays often called a technocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29), which owes its power to control over specialized technical knowledge or control over critical information.
In Marx's theory, bureaucracy rarely creates new wealth by itself, but rather controls, co-ordinates and governs the production, distribution and consumption of wealth. The bureaucracy as a social stratum derives its income from the appropriation of part of the social surplus product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_product) of human labor. Wealth is appropriated by the bureaucracy by law through fees, taxes, levies, tributes, licensing etc.
This is what technocracy means to most people, but it is clear that the official Technocrat line is to support a system which not only promotes such centralized decision-making in technological fields, but in all other economic fields as well.

[Dean]

I'll reply to one of these articles right now:
Is Technocracy Totalitarian? (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=110&Itemid=137&limit=1&limitstart=0)


A totalitarian ideology is, as characterised by the philosopher Karl Popper[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Political_philosophy), an ideology which is basing its premises on determinism, namely, that history is predetermined to take its course towards the inevitable utopia or dystopia at the end of the tunnel. Especially marxian communism is characterised by the almost religious faith in the "science" of dialectal materialism. The leninist interpretation of marxism has developed this deterministic idea into an almost theological standpoint, where the working class, unaware of its historical mission to destroy capitalism, must be lead by a "vanguard" of "proletarian intellectuals".

First off, raising Karl Popper up to the level of a social philosopher is dangerous and inappropriate. He was a brilliant scientist, but his method was distinctly oriented toward a very limited view of scientific discovery, which rules out Quantum physics - let alone social sciences - as relevant. Secondly, the Marxist movement is hardly characteristic of totalitarian interests, and I find the suggestion here to be offensive. Deterministic theories and ideologies can be critiqued, sure, but to blanket them with a label of "totalitarian" - as if only purely cold, mechanical arguments are acceptable - is obscene. Human interests and social development cannot be belittled to a system of simplistic, cold values. It is very exemplary about the Technocratic ideology that marxism is considered a primary enemy here.


The Open society is a society where the official value foundation is based around the scientific method[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) , namely, that all hypotheses need to be tested out again, again and again, and where the channels of information are transparent and open for the general population to take part of and to partake in. The scientific method is also called falsificationism since it is never contend with accepting a fact for truth, and always looks forward to testing its postulates.
Again, extremely fluid, organic human issues are characterized as mechanical, test-tube value judgements. You should never trust the numbers above your own human drives, but that is precisely what the technocrats are asking us to do here.


Technocracy literally means "rule of skill". In the definition of technocracy which is espoused by the technocratic movement, this will mean that all of the infrastructure will be administrated by a technate consisting of professionals in their areas. That might not sound so exciting, but it espouses an important division which might be interpreted as revolutionary compared to the current order. That division is the separation of the technical and social spheres of society.
"Trust the professionals." If this is not bureaucracy, it is worse.



In the European technate, the current republics and constitutional monarchies in existence could continue to enjoy their existence even after the socio-economic system has been altered. It is not an issue of the technate what kind of constitutional system the people chose to have in the state, as long as the system:

Recognises that all people have the same rights, duties and privilegies.
Is upholding basic human rights in practice.I'll admit that I like this one. Human rights are integral to any free society.


One alternative is that the current states of Europe are dissolved and replaced with a confederacy of autonomous societies built on direct democracy. This confederacy would exist in parallell with the technate and handle all political issues. Of course, a constitution derived from existing charters and declarations of Human Rights will be put in place to guarantee that no discrimination or repression of any group will occur.
How can you call for meritocracy and then democracy? It is true that both are centrist, but they are certainly very different organizations.

[Dimentio]

Meritocracy will rule within the technical sphere, while the popular sphere will be direct democratic and ruled by some form of decentralised council communism. There is a separation of powers there.

And I do not consider marxism a primary enemy of technocracy. On the contrary, I hold a deep respect of Marx's class theories, but I do not like the vanguardism applied for by Lenin.

As for professionals, that will in reality mean the workers. There will not be the same administrative system as today, as money won't exist in technocracy. All the areas of expertise will be technical. An electrician will be responsible for her field, as a nurse would be responsible for hers.

[Dimentio]

One could say, in such a sense, that Capitalist organization can be viewed as communist, if we ignore the relevance of division of labor and power over economic decision-making, which is clearly segregated in a technocratic society - according to all the blueprints I've seen.

That sounds quite like a form of bureaucratic socialism, doesn't it? I think its interesting how so many technocrats have such a fascination with transhumanism and mechanical sciences rather than social and political sciences. Of course, I can't fault you for your intentions - I can only talk about what is put in front of me, which I view to be incredibly naive.

I've read plenty about technocracy before - there was a while where I spent a good deal reading Skip Sievert's stuff, because I was so fascinated by the popularity and sci-fi subtleties that technocracy exhibited. But I never found anything deeper, and that really turned me off to it. As hard as I've tried - and believe me, I really did try - I can't see it as anything but an empty ideology of tool-worship, and it will take a fundamentally different approach to make me look at it differently. I'll look at your link when I get a chance - I see the webpage has undergone some changes - but I don't really expect much.



EDIT: I wanted to add the following:


This is what technocracy means to most people, but it is clear that the official Technocrat line is to support a system which not only promotes such centralized decision-making in technological fields, but in all other economic fields as well.

You seem to jump over the most important part of technocracy, namely energy accounting and its implications. You talk as if the structure was some kind of price system, only with centralised distribution.

And yes, technocrats use to ignore humanitarian subjects such as linguistics, sociology and gender theory, since our prime concern is emergy distribution. Human beings should not be administrated. Machines should.

In a technate, we will have an official policy to eliminate the need for human labor as much as possible. Why would we do it?

Because it gives us more time to be human!

[Dean]

Meritocracy will rule within the technical sphere, while the popular sphere will be direct democratic and ruled by some form of decentralised council communism. There is a separation of powers there.
I've never seen that in any of the technocrat literature. I see egalitarianism, yes, but only insofar as the products are distributed - not how they are manufactured.


And I do not consider marxism a primary enemy of technocracy. On the contrary, I hold a deep respect of Marx's class theories, but I do not like the vanguardism applied for by Lenin.
How do you resolve the conflict between your line of reasoning and the official technocrat line? Are you "not all that technocratic" or do you believe in a hybrid form, where some communist ideas are promoted while others are rejected (as below)?


As for professionals, that will in reality mean the workers. There will not be the same administrative system as today, as money won't exist in technocracy. All the areas of expertise will be technical. An electrician will be responsible for her field, as a nurse would be responsible for hers.

Why? Should a nurse decide, for me, if I need a morphine drip? Should nuclear engineers solely make the decisions for our nuclear policy? You have to understand that engineers are not in the business of making social economic decisions. They study an extremely limited field, which is good when they are authorities in their own field. But a great number of decisions a nuclear scientist makes are extremely social. The decision to research the nuclear bomb, for instance, is profoundly of social and moral significance. Can we simply assume that a person who is an expert in a limited field should make these decisions? I really don't think so.


You seem to jump over the most important part of technocracy, namely energy accounting and its implications. You talk as if the structure was some kind of price system, only with centralised distribution.
That is a pricing system. It is an egalitarian one, but the concept of earning and spending credits - even if all people have the exact same credits - is a pricing system. Communism is distinctly opposed to a rigid system like this.


And yes, technocrats use to ignore humanitarian subjects such as linguistics, sociology and gender theory, since our prime concern is emergy distribution. Human beings should not be administrated. Machines should.

In a technate, we will have an official policy to eliminate the need for human labor as much as possible. Why would we do it?

Because it gives us more time to be human!
But, what machines do matters to all people. And it is human to labor. This seems to be one of the fundamental flaws in the Technocratic movement. They think that you can have a few people running the economy, but that is neither Marxist nor communist. Reducing the need for labor is not bad, but granting the decision-making power for labor, economic, technical and distribution concerns to professionals, rather than the people themselves is. The problem here is that you ignore the fundamental principle of communism: that man should be reunited with his labor power. You simply cannot have centralized economic controls and have a communist organization of society.

[Dimentio]

I've never seen that in any of the technocrat literature. I see egalitarianism, yes, but only insofar as the products are distributed - not how they are manufactured.

Everyone owns an equal share of the production capacity, only by merits of being users of the services of the technate. As for production, our goal is to minimise labour.


How do you resolve the conflict between your line of reasoning and the official technocrat line? Are you "not all that technocratic" or do you believe in a hybrid form, where some communist ideas are promoted while others are rejected (as below)?N.E.T and Technocracy Incorporated are two different movements. I myself hold a position within N.E.T.


Why? Should a nurse decide, for me, if I need a morphine drip? Should nuclear engineers solely make the decisions for our nuclear policy?1. Yes, the healthcare personnel should have decision power of how a patient should be treated. That is self-evident.

2. Yes, if we have decided that nuclear power plants is the most efficient way to go.

3. All decisions which are made must follow the general guiding line for the technate. "Highest quality of life of largest possible number of people for longest possible span of time".


ou have to understand that engineers are not in the business of making social economic decisions. They study an extremely limited field, which is good when they are authorities in their own field.Good then that social-economic goals are a part of the technocratic framework. I.E "Highest quality of life of largest possible number of people for longest possible span of time".


But a great number of decisions a nuclear scientist makes are extremely social. The decision to research the nuclear bomb, for instance, is profoundly of social and moral significance.Yes, therefore the defence and the judiciary decision-making is left to the Confederacy-sphere instead of the Technate-sphere.



That is a pricing system. It is an egalitarian one, but the concept of earning and spending credits - even if all people have the exact same credits - is a pricing system. Communism is distinctly opposed to a rigid system like this.People don't "earn" energy credits. Energy credits are not exchanged either. When used, they are destroyed. Each user is automatically assigned her share of energy credits to use as she please. The technate is obliged to produce what is requested.


But, what machines do matters to all people. And it is human to labor. This seems to be one of the fundamental flaws in the Technocratic movement. They think that you can have a few people running the economy, but that is neither Marxist nor communist. Reducing the need for labor is not bad, but granting the decision-making power for labor, economic, technical and distribution concerns to professionals, rather than the people themselves is.The professionals are the people in a highly advanced society! Industrial workers in Europe for example needs education surpassing college levels today in order to receive a job.

The service sector will undoubtly shrink and hopefully be eliminated under a Technate though.


The problem here is that you ignore the fundamental principle of communism: that man should be reunited with his labor power. You simply cannot have centralized economic controls and have a communist organization of society.What do you mean with centralised economic control? In energy accounting, you decide what should be produced for yourself, not your community. The technate will produce that for you, and you own a share of equal production capacity which cannot be bartered or sold to anyone, or stolen by anyone.

That is the ideal communist economy, if you ask me.

Even if it is human to labor, that decision should be left to the person herself. No one will stop you from laboring with your own stuff under a technate. If you want to be a blacksmith and make medieval chainmails, that is fine. If you want to bake, that is fine. If you want to draw, that is fine. If you want to sit with a computer game all the day and kill Zergs, that is fine. We technocrats do not care what people are doing on their very long spare-time as long as they are not hurting each-other or the infrastructure.

I think it is a fundamentally libertarian socialist position to not define what the human being "should" be like.

[Dean]

1. Yes, the healthcare personnel should have decision power of how a patient should be treated. That is self-evident.

2. Yes, if we have decided that nuclear power plants is the most efficient way to go.

3. All decisions which are made must follow the general guiding line for the technate. "Highest quality of life of largest possible number of people for longest possible span of time".
Who is to say that such a guide line will be followed, especially when it is so vague? Should I just assume that a nuclear physicist is going to follow this ideal to a T, so that they can make decisions excluding the common populace?

Your stance on healthcare is frightening. In a similar fashion, I could say that a store manager or employee (even if it is just a storehouse) should decide what products I can get. I don't agree with that stance.


Good then that social-economic goals are a part of the technocratic framework. I.E "Highest quality of life of largest possible number of people for longest possible span of time".
Please enlighten me - what compulsion has been engineered into the fundamentals of your system that will actually compel people to use their power in the scope of all peoples' good rather than in the context of alienated power, as it exists?


Yes, therefore the defence and the judiciary decision-making is left to the Confederacy-sphere instead of the Technate-sphere.
So I don't have a right to say how we defend ourselves unless I am specifically involved in the military - industrial complex? We can be completely imperialist, but so long as I am not part of one of the industries which is involved in that imperialism I can't do shit?



People don't "earn" energy credits. Energy credits are not exchanged either. When used, they are destroyed. Each user is automatically assigned her share of energy credits to use as she please. The technate is obliged to produce what is requested.
OK, lets not beat this dead horse. It's not really a big deal anyways.


The professionals are the people in a highly advanced society! Industrial workers in Europe for example needs education surpassing college levels today in order to receive a job.
They're the people in specific fields. Also, should only healthcare professionals - and not mentally disabled people - decide what is best for them? After all, many of them cannot even get a basic education due to their mental handicaps.


What do you mean with centralised economic control? In energy accounting, you decide what should be produced for yourself, not your community. The technate will produce that for you, and you own a share of equal production capacity which cannot be bartered or sold to anyone, or stolen by anyone.

That is the ideal communist economy, if you ask me.
So I have to go through a large bureaucratic system instead of telling my neighbors "I'll mow your lawns, since I know you guys make me food, repair my electricity, etc. etc. without cost so we can sustain ourselves without currency." You're saying that spontaneous labor is not as desirable as labor subjected to a distinct, rigid pricing system and alienated customer base.


Even if it is human to labor, that decision should be left to the person herself. No one will stop you from laboring with your own stuff under a technate. If you want to be a blacksmith and make medieval chainmails, that is fine. If you want to bake, that is fine. If you want to draw, that is fine. If you want to sit with a computer game all the day and kill Zergs, that is fine. We technocrats do not care what people are doing on their very long spare-time as long as they are not hurting each-other or the infrastructure.
This is all fine; of course I don't believe in coercion. I also don't oppose a very large technical industry where people have an abundance of free time. I do oppose the concept that economic decisions are solely delegated to the professional workers - a rigid concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat which is not even supposed to be permanent in Marxist theory. I also oppose the notion that numerically defined labor is considered more valuable than spontaneous labor. That is a fundamental of marxian labor-alienation theory, that labor is, and should be in an ideal society, spontaneous and dictated solely by the laborer.


I think it is a fundamentally libertarian socialist position to not define what the human being "should" be like.
Except that every single theory of social organization requires a concept of human nature and psychological health at its core. A society will fail if it is full of psychologically unhealthy humans, so it must find an organization which fosters productive, unalienated human growth. The sytem you propose includes alienation in labor, economic power, and distinct lines along which labor should be actively divided. That is not just unhealthy for humans, but unhealthy for any society.

Even just describing the bureaucratic nature of technate theory, it fails miserably to show itself any different than idealist liberalism.


N.E.T and Technocracy Incorporated are two different movements. I myself hold a position within N.E.T.
I know the site you linked to was for the NET. Their article was profoundly anti-marxian, and really anti-communist. Do you have a link to any articles you have written yourself, so I can get a real feeling of what you believe rather than the ideas presented above (which you haven't distanced yourself from, though they are reactionary).

[Dimentio]

Who is to say that such a guide line will be followed, especially when it is so vague? Should I just assume that a nuclear physicist is going to follow this ideal to a T, so that they can make decisions excluding the common populace?[quote]

All decisions which are made would be open and transparent, and if the decisions are somewhat overruling personal autonomy, the person responsible for the decision will face a shit-storm. In technocracy, and in N.E.T, all decisions are recorded.

[quote]Your stance on healthcare is frightening. In a similar fashion, I could say that a store manager or employee (even if it is just a storehouse) should decide what products I can get. I don't agree with that stance.

I'm sorry, but healthcare is a special bit. As for production of products and services, the user has the final say on what should be produced, but the producer has the final say on how that should be produced to make it as energy efficient and durable as possible.


Please enlighten me - what compulsion has been engineered into the fundamentals of your system that will actually compel people to use their power in the scope of all peoples' good rather than in the context of alienated power, as it exists?

Under a technocracy, it lies in your interest to cooperate with others. The entire work structure is organised in sequences and groups, and if a group is well-functioning, the status of the persons involved in that group will increase.



So I don't have a right to say how we defend ourselves unless I am specifically involved in the military - industrial complex? We can be completely imperialist, but so long as I am not part of one of the industries which is involved in that imperialism I can't do shit?

I cannot see how imperialism would benefit a technate.


They're the people in specific fields. Also, should only healthcare professionals - and not mentally disabled people - decide what is best for them? After all, many of them cannot even get a basic education due to their mental handicaps.

That is one reason to why we have the guidelines. No human being should suffer because of sadistic personnel, and mental healthcare patients should not be locked in more than the safety of the populace would require in their individual cases, because of the quality of their lives.


So I have to go through a large bureaucratic system instead of telling my neighbors "I'll mow your lawns, since I know you guys make me food, repair my electricity, etc. etc. without cost so we can sustain ourselves without currency." You're saying that spontaneous labor is not as desirable as labor subjected to a distinct, rigid pricing system and alienated customer base.

On the local level, there must be personnel specialised on for example day-care and computer service, but they would in the same time act within a social context that is creating a certain kind of closeness to the other agents.

But that is not an inherent goal of the system we are proposing, but a result.



This is all fine; of course I don't believe in coercion. I also don't oppose a very large technical industry where people have an abundance of free time. I do oppose the concept that economic decisions are solely delegated to the professional workers - a rigid concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat which is not even supposed to be permanent in Marxist theory.

You do not seem to understand energy accounting. A person is allocated an equal share of the total production capacity which she in her turn could allocate as she like.


I also oppose the notion that numerically defined labor is considered more valuable than spontaneous labor. That is a fundamental of marxian labor-alienation theory, that labor is, and should be in an ideal society, spontaneous and dictated solely by the laborer.

The technocratic definition of value is that all such concepts except energy-input in relation to result are moot and subjective. Thermodynamics is the best definition of value since it is mathematic and is not changing over time but remains static as a tool of measurement.



Except that every single theory of social organization requires a concept of human nature and psychological health at its core.

Good that the technate is not a social organisation then, but a technical organisation. The social organisation lies without the scope and authority of the technate.


A society will fail if it is full of psychologically unhealthy humans, so it must find an organization which fosters productive, unalienated human growth.

Leave that to the Subsequence of Human Psychology of the Sequence of Relations.
:lol:

No, N.E.T has actually discussed this issue about human motivation, and supported by psychological research, we have developed a concept of closeness, namely that all decisions should be made as close as possible those who are affected.

It is true that we haven't really employed Marx, but that is partially because the simple fact that Marx was never educated within psycho-therapy.

So, there you got it.


The sytem you propose includes alienation in labor, economic power, and distinct lines along which labor should be actively divided. That is not just unhealthy for humans, but unhealthy for any society.

An advanced society requires division of labor and specialisation. The more advanced a society is, the more specialisation it requires.


Even just describing the bureaucratic nature of technate theory, it fails miserably to show itself any different than idealist liberalism.

We have at least described a possible route to increase motivation and happiness in the workplace, while you seem to mostly have produced metaphysics in this case.


I know the site you linked to was for the NET. Their article was profoundly anti-marxian, and really anti-communist. Do you have a link to any articles you have written yourself, so I can get a real feeling of what you believe rather than the ideas presented above (which you haven't distanced yourself from, though they are reactionary).

I wrote that article myself.

And no, it was not anti-communist but surely it was critical of Marx. In the HPG group, I have started a thread developing that article to show what it was I meant when I wrote it.

How could it be anti-communistic since technocracy is a form of communism, even though it has originated outside of marxist thought?

[bcbm]

An advanced society requires division of labor and specialisation. The more advanced a society is, the more specialisation it requires.

This is a non-response to the issue being raised, that is, whether or not such specialization is a healthy form of human social arrangement.

[Dimentio]

This is a non-response to the issue being raised, that is, whether or not such specialization is a healthy form of human social arrangement.

Maybe not, but work is seldom healthy no matter what form it is in. Luckily, technocracy has as a goal to minimise, and eventually in the long time eliminate labor.

[Dean]

Just so you know Serpent, I'm not ignoring you. I will respond when I get more time tonight or tomorrow.

[Dean]

All decisions which are made would be open and transparent, and if the decisions are somewhat overruling personal autonomy, the person responsible for the decision will face a shit-storm. In technocracy, and in N.E.T, all decisions are recorded.
As are legal decisions in our courts. Even just looking at the public information, we can see that simply having records will not insure a humanist policy. Further, many will consider the below against patients' rights to be exemplary of how such recording is not enough to insure autonomy:

I'm sorry, but healthcare is a special bit. As for production of products and services, the user has the final say on what should be produced, but the producer has the final say on how that should be produced to make it as energy efficient and durable as possible.



Under a technocracy, it lies in your interest to cooperate with others. The entire work structure is organised in sequences and groups, and if a group is well-functioning, the status of the persons involved in that group will increase.
So it is competitive? Sounds more and more like capitalism the more you describe it. Why does getting ahead translate to activity which respects those who have no say according to the power structure?


I cannot see how imperialism would benefit a technate.
And I'm asking you why. I don't doubt that you think imperialism is bad; I doubt that you've really thought of it when you talk about your plans for a future society.


On the local level, there must be personnel specialised on for example day-care and computer service, but they would in the same time act within a social context that is creating a certain kind of closeness to the other agents.
Sure, but not a spontaneous, labor - oriented closeness, but rather a distinct, mechanically defined social structure. Why should I choose such a system over spontaneity?


But that is not an inherent goal of the system we are proposing, but a result.
The social basis for communism is not a goal of your ideology? Alienation is not central to your concerns? I'm not surprised, but I am surprised you'd admit this.


You do not seem to understand energy accounting. A person is allocated an equal share of the total production capacity which she in her turn could allocate as she like.
Correct. As opposed to spontaneous production and consumption.


Good that the technate is not a social organisation then, but a technical organisation. The social organisation lies without the scope and authority of the technate.
Why are you making statements on who has power over the economy, then? Or do you not think that the economy, a human-defined entity which in turn shapes human activity, is social?




Leave that to the Subsequence of Human Psychology of the Sequence of Relations.
:lol:

No, N.E.T has actually discussed this issue about human motivation, and supported by psychological research, we have developed a concept of closeness, namely that all decisions should be made as close as possible those who are affected.

It is true that we haven't really employed Marx, but that is partially because the simple fact that Marx was never educated within psycho-therapy.

So, there you got it.

We have at least described a possible route to increase motivation and happiness in the workplace, while you seem to mostly have produced metaphysics in this case.
Metaphysics are better than a cold, mechanical society dictating how I can associate with my peers. I would prefer that society not be distinctly driven by any prejudices about the human mind, since that is the most fluid, free way of organization. But you can't have any organization without the presumption that it will work with the human mind, which throws you into psychological theory. You can believe you're driven by a completely objective, scientific viewpoint, but that won't change that the whole technate concept is based on purely social theory.




I wrote that article myself.

And no, it was not anti-communist but surely it was critical of Marx. In the HPG group, I have started a thread developing that article to show what it was I meant when I wrote it.

How could it be anti-communistic since technocracy is a form of communism, even though it has originated outside of marxist thought?
Technocracy, as you have described it, shows little in regards to communistic tendancies. It seems, again, like a very bland, bureaucratic socialism.


An advanced society requires division of labor and specialisation. The more advanced a society is, the more specialisation it requires.
I simply don't agree. This is another way in which you are promoting inter-persoanl alienation, however.

[Dimentio]

As are legal decisions in our courts. Even just looking at the public information, we can see that simply having records will not insure a humanist policy. Further, many will consider the below against patients' rights to be exemplary of how such recording is not enough to insure autonomy:

Yet again, healthcare and security issues are the exceptions which should justify the rule.


So it is competitive? Sounds more and more like capitalism the more you describe it. Why does getting ahead translate to activity which respects those who have no say according to the power structure?

Because the users, which are all people living in the technate, decides what they want produced for themselves individually.


And I'm asking you why. I don't doubt that you think imperialism is bad; I doubt that you've really thought of it when you talk about your plans for a future society.

Because a technate per definition does'nt need to hold military control a territory's resources.


Sure, but not a spontaneous, labor - oriented closeness, but rather a distinct, mechanically defined social structure. Why should I choose such a system over spontaneity?

It is hard to spontaneously organise complex factories with several different functions in a spontaneous way without seeing it being degraded to chaos. But if you like to have a more spontaneous working place, why not chose one, like day-care, where you may be spontaneous?


The social basis for communism is not a goal of your ideology? Alienation is not central to your concerns? I'm not surprised, but I am surprised you'd admit this.

We do not define alienation the same way. We technocrats define it that you do not have access to all the resources which potentially you could have, given that everyone would have an equal access. For that access, you might then do what you want.

You define it as some form of qualitative subjective "togetherness" of some kind, which really makes it meaningless to discuss with you about the subject in question.

People are different. Some really like working together spontaneously and happy, smiling like Mao's posters. While others really dislike being together with other people.

I suggest we'll leave that issue to the psycho-analysts.

Technocracy is not here to alter the behavior of people like capitalism, but to offer them an opportunity to define their own lives and to have more time to be human.


Why are you making statements on who has power over the economy, then? Or do you not think that the economy, a human-defined entity which in turn shapes human activity, is social?

In year 1800, that was undoubtly true, given that 97% of the necessary labor to sustain the human economy was man-hours. Today, 97% is machine-hours, and we want to increase that amount, successively eliminating the need for human labor in sector after sector after sector.


Metaphysics are better than a cold, mechanical society dictating how I can associate with my peers. I would prefer that society not be distinctly driven by any prejudices about the human mind, since that is the most fluid, free way of organization.

Well, then why not join an Amish community?


But you can't have any organization without the presumption that it will work with the human mind, which throws you into psychological theory. You can believe you're driven by a completely objective, scientific viewpoint, but that won't change that the whole technate concept is based on purely social theory.

I did not say that we were objective, we use to be rather self-critical, which a quick glimpse on N.E.T;s forum will show for you. But we do at least not use metaphysics to determine social policies.





Technocracy, as you have described it, shows little in regards to communistic tendancies. It seems, again, like a very bland, bureaucratic socialism.

Very little bureaucracy and very much technical management I would say. There is no need for a bureaucracy distributing money in a self-sustaining autarchic system using energy accounting.


I simply don't agree. This is another way in which you are promoting inter-persoanl alienation, however.

I think the one who is proposing social alienation is you, and let me explain why.

You hold that idea dear that people should somewhat change their behavior, and that is your central vision of communism. That everyone should become as you would like them to become.

I do not care how people are, as long as the social ills are eliminated and social progress ensured. They may be as greedy as they like, that won't affect the technate since the technate operates through available technology, and everyone have a guaranteed equal access to the resourcers. It is impossible to barter with energy credits, impossible to save them, impossible to invest them.

If people do change their behavior and become more aware and civilised, that is merely a positive effect of our society, not one of our inherent goals.

We don't give a damn if Jeb smokes pot, if Allen prefers computers before human beings or Christy sits at the TV looking at Alien all the night. As long as everyone has an equal, good opportunity to use their equal share of resources, they might do anything they want, be so social or anti-social as they like.

The reason why you sounds like an anti-communist, is that you seem to hold some idealistic belief in what the human being should be like. That sounds basically religious and reeks of utopianism.

What would happen with children who simply sits for themselves and play lego instead of engaging other people in your version of a communist society? What would happen with people who are anti-social, or have a sick sense of humor? What would happen with people who simply wants to be for themselves?

Marx was not a psycho-analyst.

[Hyacinth]

It seems to be (if I might chime in) that technocracy isn’t, per se, in conflict with communism. Communism, properly speaking, is the movement which seeks the abolition of capitalism and class-society, but which, beyond those general aims, doesn’t have any specific suggestions or doctrines regarding how exactly a non-capitalist classless society is to be structured (the question, I suppose, it something that will only be settled after the revolution).

Technocracy, as I understand it from how its proponents present it here, is not regarded as a theory of revolution or class struggle in opposition to communism, but rather instead as a specific suggestion about how to organize the economic activity under communism (or, post-revolutionary society, to use a more neutral term, to include anarchists here as well).

Given that technocracy is simply a means by which to organize economic activity it isn’t, in itself, either democratic or bureaucratic. It could, as its critics point out, lend itself to the creation of (a perhaps more efficient) USSR v. 2.0, but I don’t see this as an inevitability. Likewise, there seems nothing inherent in technocracy prevent it from being implemented in a democratic manner, where it is used not as a means of controlling people, but as a means of administering things. The more important question, to me at least, seems to be whether it is a *good* way of administering the economy or not.

In defence of technocracy, or similar ideas, though, for those who are concerned that it would allow for the reestablishment of class society, is that modern technology not only permits for a great deal of automation of the production and distribution processes, but also modern computing technology permits for a great deal of automation in the planning process. We can, potentially, minimize human intervention in the administrative process; by that I mean, you could, in a democratic fashion, set the outputs for your economy (vote on, in some fashion or other, what you want produced), and have computers find the most efficient and effective means by which to produce that.

[Dean]

It is hard to spontaneously organise complex factories with several different functions in a spontaneous way without seeing it being degraded to chaos. But if you like to have a more spontaneous working place, why not chose one, like day-care, where you may be spontaneous?
Becasue communism, in reducing the alienation between man and his labor, is directly about spontaneity of work. That doesn't mean it is chaotic or ignorant, just that it is defined solely by the worker, rather than delegated through a system of "credits." In other words, I want a computer with the understanding that the manufacturer was particularly interested in giving all of us access to the commodity, rather than fulfilling a pre-determined, "credit" defined want. I want my neighbors to mow my lawn, make me food, and enjoy my maintenance work outside of the confines of any systematic distribution of my labor or theirs. That is definitely alienating, speaking in the most basic terms of communism.


We do not define alienation the same way. We technocrats define it that you do not have access to all the resources which potentially you could have, given that everyone would have an equal access. For that access, you might then do what you want.
Taht's your problem. You think communism is about equality of possession. That s not the point at all; the point is to do away with the possessive spirit altogether. Systems which indicate a need for limitations on productive and consumptive activity have failed at reorganizing society in such a way that it grants the individual with his own faculties and labor.


You define it as some form of qualitative subjective "togetherness" of some kind, which really makes it meaningless to discuss with you about the subject in question.

People are different. Some really like working together spontaneously and happy, smiling like Mao's posters. While others really dislike being together with other people.

I suggest we'll leave that issue to the psycho-analysts.

Technocracy is not here to alter the behavior of people like capitalism, but to offer them an opportunity to define their own lives and to have more time to be human.
You think that you are objectively calling for the freedom of the human to do what he wants, withotu any presuppositions about what it means to be human. Yet, by defining a system in which humans act and work you are intrinsically making presumptive statements on what humans can do, what organization of humans will be stable, and even waht will make them free. You cannot disassociate yourself from the human element of any theory defining the structure of economy or society, unless you speaak of an economy run, powered and interested in the benefit solely of machines. I'll assume you don't mean that, since you talk about people doing these things.

The fact that you dismiss this issue says loads about the shallowness of your theories.


In year 1800, that was undoubtly true, given that 97% of the necessary labor to sustain the human economy was man-hours. Today, 97% is machine-hours, and we want to increase that amount, successively eliminating the need for human labor in sector after sector after sector.
What it comes down to is that even if man is completely cut out as a necessity for the creation of the commodities in an economy, we are still talking about an organization of economic life which must consider humanity. Only if humans were not even the consumers would it be accurate to ignore how humans would be efffected. But you talk about humans, as well, and so I assume that you mean to tell me this will exist beside human society. If that is the case, we should be concerned about how the human will fit into this fantasy.


Well, then why not join an Amish community?
Do you even know what I was saying? Do you really love mechanics so much that to you, anything human is primitivist? I'm sorry if it is too mystical or uncertain for you, but I do indeed love the intricities and puzzles the human presents. I would have a soceity defined by that before any one of your technical "paradises."


I did not say that we were objective, we use to be rather self-critical, which a quick glimpse on N.E.T;s forum will show for you. But we do at least not use metaphysics to determine social policies.
Yes, you do. Your entire argument about human society sustaining such an economy is distinctly without scientific backing. It is a theory of social psychology - and that is probably the best description I can give you for it. In short, you are saying that an economy will be sustained and prosper if the decision - making for each sector is granted to certain professionals and the people are given a credit system. Taht is a distinctly social - psychological statement. I can't say "I will set up a society or economy in a way X and it will prosper" and pretend that it is somehow scientific. It is a vague, social proposition, which isn't a bad thing, but to pretend that it is scientific is a gross misjudgement. There is nothing scientific about your organizational propositions.


I think the one who is proposing social alienation is you, and let me explain why.

You hold that idea dear that people should somewhat change their behavior, and that is your central vision of communism. That everyone should become as you would like them to become.
Is it not a change in behavior to relegate economic decision - making to a certain set of people, rather than sustaining this system? Or is it just acceptable for you to say how people ought to live and work, and not me?


I do not care how people are, as long as the social ills are eliminated and social progress ensured. They may be as greedy as they like, that won't affect the technate since the technate operates through available technology, and everyone have a guaranteed equal access to the resourcers. It is impossible to barter with energy credits, impossible to save them, impossible to invest them.
What social ills? Doesn't that indicate a concern abut how people act? Or are you still above your own criticism?


If people do change their behavior and become more aware and civilised, that is merely a positive effect of our society, not one of our inherent goals.

We don't give a damn if Jeb smokes pot, if Allen prefers computers before human beings or Christy sits at the TV looking at Alien all the night. As long as everyone has an equal, good opportunity to use their equal share of resources, they might do anything they want, be so social or anti-social as they like.

The reason why you sounds like an anti-communist, is that you seem to hold some idealistic belief in what the human being should be like. That sounds basically religious and reeks of utopianism.

What would happen with children who simply sits for themselves and play lego instead of engaging other people in your version of a communist society? What would happen with people who are anti-social, or have a sick sense of humor? What would happen with people who simply wants to be for themselves?

Marx was not a psycho-analyst.
Despite your long-windedness, the repetition and baseness of your claims is profound. You are basically saying you are nihilistic, uninterested in any distinct goals of society but to "let people do as they will" in the predefined economic organization of a technate. It's really quite laughable to talk about this with you, and witness all your contradictions. Actually it is kind've painful. Please start thinking out your responses more thoroughly, I really don't know if I can't allow myself to keep running in circles.

[Hyacinth]

Sorry to interject, but I can’t help myself.

Because communism, in reducing the alienation between man and his labour, is directly about spontaneity of work. But isn’t this exactly what technocracy seeks to do by increasing leisure time? Not all work is pleasant, especially work that we do not do for ourselves; it isn’t as though garbage collecting will disappear after the revolution, these jobs will still have to be done. If there happens to be a person who enjoys doing it, all the better, but I can’t imagine most people would find that sort of labour fulfilling or enjoyable, even under communism.

The most we can do is to minimize the amount of such alienating and unfulfilling labour by giving people as much leisure time as is technologically possible, thereby permitting them the leisure time to work on things that they truly find enjoyable: art, philosophy, sports, whatever.

You think that you are objectively calling for the freedom of the human to do what he wants, withotu any presuppositions about what it means to be human. Yet, by defining a system in which humans act and work you are intrinsically making presumptive statements on what humans can do, what organization of humans will be stable, and even waht will make them free. You cannot disassociate yourself from the human element of any theory defining the structure of economy or society, unless you speaak of an economy run, powered and interested in the benefit solely of machines. I'll assume you don't mean that, since you talk about people doing these things. You claim that Serpent, and by extension technocracy, I presume, is making presuppositions about human nature in proposing the sort of economic organization that it does. What presuppositions are they making?

The aim of technocracy, as I understand it, is very utilitarian, in the sense that it seeks to most efficiency utilize resources in such a manner as to make available for a population the most goods and services which it can, as well as to minimize the labour time necessary for the production of said goods and services. In short, it tries to give people the maximal number of resources (consistent with everyone having similar resources) to satisfy their desires, whatever they may be (provided, of course, that the harm of another isn’t involved, I presume). How is this suppose to make them less free?

You are basically saying you are nihilistic, uninterested in any distinct goals of society but to "let people do as they will" in the predefined economic organization of a technate. You’re objectifying “society” here as an entity that has a will of its own, rather than treating it as a sum total of all the individuals in it. As Marx said of history, that it "is not like some individual person, which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends,” the same is true of society: is it not an individual person with ends of its own, but rather nothing but the actions of people in pursuit of their ends.

What “distinct goals” can society have apart from the goals of its members?

[Dimentio]

Becasue communism, in reducing the alienation between man and his labor, is directly about spontaneity of work. That doesn't mean it is chaotic or ignorant, just that it is defined solely by the worker, rather than delegated through a system of "credits." In other words, I want a computer with the understanding that the manufacturer was particularly interested in giving all of us access to the commodity, rather than fulfilling a pre-determined, "credit" defined want.

No one defines what shoes you should wear. You decide that.

And you do not get energy credits as a "wage", but are delegated them on the merits of being a user of the technate. The reason why energy accounting is that abundant resources could theoretically be squandered. EA makes that impossible. And the EA share is not defined by the whims of experts, but by mathematics.


I want my neighbors to mow my lawn, make me food, and enjoy my maintenance work outside of the confines of any systematic distribution of my labor or theirs. That is definitely alienating, speaking in the most basic terms of communism.

Yes, you want it. Well, live in a community with like-minded people then!


Taht's your problem. You think communism is about equality of possession. That s not the point at all; the point is to do away with the possessive spirit altogether. Systems which indicate a need for limitations on productive and consumptive activity have failed at reorganizing society in such a way that it grants the individual with his own faculties and labor.

Technocracy grants the individual with more than her own production capacity, namely the productive capacity created by machines. Or are you such a person who wants barter instead?


You think that you are objectively calling for the freedom of the human to do what he wants, withotu any presuppositions about what it means to be human. Yet, by defining a system in which humans act and work you are intrinsically making presumptive statements on what humans can do, what organization of humans will be stable, and even waht will make them free.

16 hours per week > 40 hours per week. And we will reduce human work input successivelly by rationalisations.


You cannot disassociate yourself from the human element of any theory defining the structure of economy or society, unless you speaak of an economy run, powered and interested in the benefit solely of machines. I'll assume you don't mean that, since you talk about people doing these things.

It is important that people have "fun" in order for them to be productive, and we are discussing how we should make the necessary work feel fulfilling. But the point is that people should not have to work, that is the duty och machines.


The fact that you dismiss this issue says loads about the shallowness of your theories.

What, that we do not pay attention to a theory which has not been peer reviewed or unified with any large school of psychology.


What it comes down to is that even if man is completely cut out as a necessity for the creation of the commodities in an economy, we are still talking about an organization of economic life which must consider humanity.

Yes of course, but technocracy as a theory is not focusing on social issues, but on technology and how it could be utilised to give the highest possible quality of life, without the limitations of capitalism.


Only if humans were not even the consumers would it be accurate to ignore how humans would be efffected. But you talk about humans, as well, and so I assume that you mean to tell me this will exist beside human society. If that is the case, we should be concerned about how the human will fit into this fantasy.

Technocracy is indeed a possibility, as all individual aspects of technocracy, energy economics, professionalism, division of technical and social issues have already been tested out.


Do you even know what I was saying? Do you really love mechanics so much that to you, anything human is primitivist? I'm sorry if it is too mystical or uncertain for you, but I do indeed love the intricities and puzzles the human presents. I would have a soceity defined by that before any one of your technical "paradises."

Technocracy is as much of a technical paradise as you wants it to be. You would live in a community with like-minded people, of abut 150-200 people, within larger urbanates. There, all variations are allowed.



Yes, you do. Your entire argument about human society sustaining such an economy is distinctly without scientific backing.

We have not made any assumptions about how the human being works.


It is a theory of social psychology - and that is probably the best description I can give you for it. In short, you are saying that an economy will be sustained and prosper if the decision - making for each sector is granted to certain professionals and the people are given a credit system.

Certainly the machinery will be operated in the most optimal fashion if decision power of how things are going to be operated is assigned to those with sufficient education to not wreck things up.


That is a distinctly social - psychological statement. I can't say "I will set up a society or economy in a way X and it will prosper" and pretend that it is somehow scientific.

Yet again, what we focus on is how the infrastructure theoretically could be operated in the most optimal way to release human beings from the bonds of labor and reduce labor hours significantly.


It is a vague, social proposition, which isn't a bad thing, but to pretend that it is scientific is a gross misjudgement. There is nothing scientific about your organizational propositions.

Energy accounting is surely a scientific theory, and parts of it, like energy tracking, are today being applied within for example MIPS systems. But I agree that technocracy is rather a design than a theory, while it is backed up by numerous other theories.


Is it not a change in behavior to relegate economic decision - making to a certain set of people, rather than sustaining this system? Or is it just acceptable for you to say how people ought to live and work, and not me?

It is necessary that we change social system since capitalism is grossly inefficient and wasteful. But a change of human behavior, if any, is a by-product of technocracy rather than an intentional result.


What social ills? Doesn't that indicate a concern abut how people act? Or are you still above your own criticism?

As long as people are nourished, clothed and given the opportunity to use their share of the resource base without being limited by any external factor, they should be left alone by the technate.


Despite your long-windedness, the repetition and baseness of your claims is profound. You are basically saying you are nihilistic, uninterested in any distinct goals of society but to "let people do as they will" in the predefined economic organization of a technate.

Why would we like to do anything else? Our design is concerned with administrating machines, not people. The people may administrate themselves.

The main goal of technocracy is to provide sustainability and equal access to resources, not to create some form of metaphysical goals about human liberation from some form of "taint", which sounds distinctly spiritual.


It's really quite laughable to talk about this with you, and witness all your contradictions. Actually it is kind've painful. Please start thinking out your responses more thoroughly, I really don't know if I can't allow myself to keep running in circles.


I think the laughable thing is that you cannot back up your goals except through a very narrow definition of Marx's spexes, mixed together with what I interpret as quasi-religious quackery.

Especially given that European Technocracy has employed modern, project-orientated work methodologies like for example autonomous holons which are very spontaneously organised (self-organised) as the main basis for organisation (while the sequences still are providing information), then this thread holds a reputation as the most meaningless on this forum for a long time.

Oh, and please turn down the ad hominems some degrees. It is not my fault that not everyone here could see your "light".

[Dean]

I think the laughable thing is that you cannot back up your goals except through a very narrow definition of Marx's spexes, mixed together with what I interpret as quasi-religious quackery.

Especially given that European Technocracy has employed modern, project-orientated work methodologies like for example autonomous holons which are very spontaneously organised (self-organised) as the main basis for organisation (while the sequences still are providing information), then this thread holds a reputation as the most meaningless on this forum for a long time.

Oh, and please turn down the ad hominems some degrees. It is not my fault that not everyone here could see your "light".

Serpent, I read your response over and over again, trying to find how I can aproach you. Honestly, I just don't know how to get through to you, and I won't keep rephrasing and going deeper into my critiques. You have constantly avoided my arguments, and maybe its because you don't understand me, and maybe I just don't see what you're saying.

I apologise that I was a little caustic (though I feel you've been passive - aggressive throughout, responding to my criticisms by saying that I am somehow supporting alienation, without really addressing my claim in the first place). I don't want to be your enemy, but I find your inability to focus on my criticisms, and rather to offer single - line responses when the idea calls for more than that, really condescending. I've tried to explain and go into detail with most of my remarks, and you usually respond from the standpoint that I "don't understand [this or that]."

I noticed that you added a few posts to the Human Progress Group partly in reference to criticisms I raised. That makes me feel like you think your own technocratic ideology is lacking, at least in how it is portrayed here. Until I see some type of theory or discussion which gives more than a phrase or two addressing the concerns I've raised (whi indeed go beyond the scope of your addendums in that forum), I don't see any reason to continue this discourse. It is repetitive and shallow; maybe we can take it up again when you are willing to go further in detail.






But isn’t this exactly what technocracy seeks to do by increasing leisure time? Not all work is pleasant, especially work that we do not do for ourselves; it isn’t as though garbage collecting will disappear after the revolution, these jobs will still have to be done. If there happens to be a person who enjoys doing it, all the better, but I can’t imagine most people would find that sort of labour fulfilling or enjoyable, even under communism.

The most we can do is to minimize the amount of such alienating and unfulfilling labour by giving people as much leisure time as is technologically possible, thereby permitting them the leisure time to work on things that they truly find enjoyable: art, philosophy, sports, whatever.
You're right that they'll have to be done. And I don't oppose makign machines do as much of our work as possible. I do, however, oppose the organizational system described above, which makes that human labor which must continue to exist a part of a rigid system rather than a fluid, spontaneous activity. Speaking of professionals running a system of machinery, and then having the sole right to the governance of that industrial sector, is a very dangerous concept.


You claim that Serpent, and by extension technocracy, I presume, is making presuppositions about human nature in proposing the sort of economic organization that it does. What presuppositions are they making?

The aim of technocracy, as I understand it, is very utilitarian, in the sense that it seeks to most efficiency utilize resources in such a manner as to make available for a population the most goods and services which it can, as well as to minimize the labour time necessary for the production of said goods and services. In short, it tries to give people the maximal number of resources (consistent with everyone having similar resources) to satisfy their desires, whatever they may be (provided, of course, that the harm of another isn’t involved, I presume). How is this suppose to make them less free?
First off, I am not saying that technocracy in general makes people unfree by assuming things about human nature, but rather that proposing a form of social and / or economic organization which involves humans always indicates a presupposition about human nature and psychology; namely, that humans can be mentally healthy in the society, that it will be sustainable as a fixture of human life, and also that those humans who are professionals running specific aspects of a technate will be altruistic, and follow those ideals Serpent proposed. He said that, because the ideal is an aspect of the Technocratic idealism, it will necessarily be followed. However, this is not realistic.

Decentralization was an aspect of the Soviet idealism, however, their practices and organizational policies did not fulfil this need to live up to the fundamentals of Marxist socialism. It is not unlike saying that caitalism will work because the "invisible hand" is part of Adam Smith's theories. Sure, it sounds like it would be nice if our ideals worked with our proposed systems, but the fact is that the system has be be set up in a way which distinctly insures adherence to the policy. I don't think ideals are bad, though some here do; I do, however, oppose the promotion of ideals in the context of a theory without any definite link between the two.


You’re objectifying “society” here as an entity that has a will of its own, rather than treating it as a sum total of all the individuals in it. As Marx said of history, that it "is not like some individual person, which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends,” the same is true of society: is it not an individual person with ends of its own, but rather nothing but the actions of people in pursuit of their ends.

What “distinct goals” can society have apart from the goals of its members?
I fully understand that society is a collection of individuals. That is why I am asking for an explanation as to how humans can work well in a technate. You cannot have a system of social or industrial organization which involves humans without considering what a human will be like in that situation.

If you say "I propose people live this way," then someone says "what makes you think people will be able to sustain such a lifestyle, and be altruistic etc. etc.," it is nonsense to say "well you are trying to change how people act." Am I? I am asking how such an organization would work for humans. You (the speaker) are proposing that an entire society ought to change the character of its activity.

But that isn't necessarily bad; that's why I never criticied him for it. I find it offensive to say that someone shouldnt propose ways humans ought to live. 90% of statements made on this site include some prejudice on how people ought to be; it's not a moralistic thing, either. To say that people ought not kill each other, or amass great fortunes, is distinctly saying that people shouldn't live certain ways.

And it is very Right-wing Libertarian to claim that we should have a social organization which ignores all the important, penetrating aspects of communist theory - alienation theory, labor theory of value, etc.. To propose that the best way for a society to be is a defined disinterest in the subject of human activity is horrifying to me. We shouldn't try to be authoritarian, but we certainly shouldn't be promoting nothing.

[Hyacinth]

You're right that they'll have to be done. And I don't oppose makign machines do as much of our work as possible. I do, however, oppose the organizational system described above, which makes that human labor which must continue to exist a part of a rigid system rather than a fluid, spontaneous activity. Speaking of professionals running a system of machinery, and then having the sole right to the governance of that industrial sector, is a very dangerous concept.

I don’t think that the model being proposed places in the hands of technical experts “the sole right of governance” of the economy. We need to draw a clear distinction between administration and rule. Administration is simply a means to the end: an administrator is in charge of attaining certain ends (set by whoever holds political power) by the most efficient means possible. They aren’t in charge of setting the ends themselves (presumably this would be done via a democratic process of some sort).

Technical experts under a technocratic mode of administration wouldn’t be in charge of the economy anymore than the managerial class is under capitalism. The managerial class manages enterprise *on behalf of* the capitalists, but it is still the capitalists who run the show. Likewise, having technical experts administer the economy doesn’t in any way imply that people wouldn’t be in charge of the process ultimately, as being the ones who decide on the economic ends.


First off, I am not saying that technocracy in general makes people unfree by assuming things about human nature, but rather that proposing a form of social and / or economic organization which involves humans always indicates a presupposition about human nature and psychology; namely, that humans can be mentally healthy in the society, that it will be sustainable as a fixture of human life, and also that those humans who are professionals running specific aspects of a technate will be altruistic, and follow those ideals Serpent proposed. He said that, because the ideal is an aspect of the Technocratic idealism, it will necessarily be followed. However, this is not realistic.
I’m really losing you here. “He said that, because the ideal is an aspect of the Technocratic idealism, it will necessarily be followed.”? I’m really not sure what that means, can you elaborate.


Decentralization was an aspect of the Soviet idealism, however, their practices and organizational policies did not fulfil this need to live up to the fundamentals of Marxist socialism. It is not unlike saying that caitalism will work because the "invisible hand" is part of Adam Smith's theories. Sure, it sounds like it would be nice if our ideals worked with our proposed systems, but the fact is that the system has be be set up in a way which distinctly insures adherence to the policy. I don't think ideals are bad, though some here do; I do, however, oppose the promotion of ideals in the context of a theory without any definite link between the two.

Once again, I’m not sure if I’m following you correctly. Are you suggesting that technocracy requires coercion and authoritarianism because it needs to “distinctly insures adherence to policy”? If so, I think that this is, once again, reading too much into the technocratic proposal. Technocracy is a general idea which can be implemented in a variety of ways. If you are concerned about, say, the free rider problem and how technocracy would deal with it, I think this is not an economic question but rather a political one, and hence that technocracy is properly silent on it.


I fully understand that society is a collection of individuals. [I]That is why I am asking for an explanation as to how humans can work well in a technate. You cannot have a system of social or industrial organization which involves humans without considering what a human will be like in that situation.

If you say "I propose people live this way," then someone says "what makes you think people will be able to sustain such a lifestyle, and be altruistic etc. etc.," it is nonsense to say "well you are trying to change how people act." Am I? I am asking how such an organization would work for humans. You (the speaker) are proposing that an entire society ought to change the character of its activity.
Indeed, but isn't this precisely what any revolutionary proposes? That an entire society change the character of its activity.

Moreover, though, I don’t think technocracy is really proposing a change in how people behave. It isn’t asking people to be altruistic (for that matter neither is communism), the appeal of technocracy as a mode of economic organization is that it allows people to maximize the possible consumption of goods and services, and minimize work. It is appealing to their self-interest; the proposal is that they could have a better life under this new model than they have under capitalism.

Also, since I fail to see what the possible problems for people living under a technocratic economy are, could you perhaps say why humans wouldn’t be able to live in a technate?


But that isn't necessarily bad; that's why I never criticied him for it. I find it offensive to say that someone shouldnt propose ways humans ought to live. 90% of statements made on this site include some prejudice on how people ought to be; it's not a moralistic thing, either. To say that people ought not kill each other, or amass great fortunes, is distinctly saying that people shouldn't live certain ways.
I best rephrase the moral principle which I think underlies technocracy (or, more properly, consequentialism, at least Mill’s sort, from which technocracy, implicitly if not explicitly, draws inspiration): “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

All that is being said is that, provided that people don’t harm others, they should be free to do whatever they please, and the aim of the economy is to facilitate them in doing so.

Technocracy *isn’t* proposing a model of social organization, it is *only* proposing a model of economic organization. What society would look like would be entirely left to people to decide on their own, since it isn’t a technical question. People can form whatever communities that they like, based on the principle of free association.


And it is very Right-wing Libertarian to claim that we should have a social organization which ignores all the important, penetrating aspects of communist theory - alienation theory, labor theory of value, etc.. To propose that the best way for a society to be is a defined disinterest in the subject of human activity is horrifying to me. We shouldn't try to be authoritarian, but we certainly shouldn't be promoting nothing.
Communism isn’t a doctrine, it is open to adjustment. Technocracy doesn’t seem to be ignoring the labour theory of value, energy-accounting can be regarded as an expansion of the theory. Moreover, energy accounting is just that, an accounting method. I don’t see how it deviates from Marxism here, since Marx didn’t really outline exactly how a post-revolutionary society would or should look like. (Communism for him wasn’t a model about how things should be, but rather the active movement which seeks to overthrow the way things are; out of this struggle the new world would be shaped)

Moreover, from a policy perspective, labour-time vouchers (one concrete proposal from Marx regarding how to organize socialism) really don’t differ greatly from energy credits. In practice I think they would amount to more or less the same thing.

We are promoting something: human freedom and welfare, maximal human freedom and welfare. I don’t think this is a morally natural stance to take. What we aren’t, nor should be, concerned with is what people do, provided that they do not infringe on the freedom or welfare of others.

[Dean]

I don’t think that the model being proposed places in the hands of technical experts “the sole right of governance” of the economy. We need to draw a clear distinction between administration and rule. Administration is simply a means to the end: an administrator is in charge of attaining certain ends (set by whoever holds political power) by the most efficient means possible. They aren’t in charge of setting the ends themselves (presumably this would be done via a democratic process of some sort).

Technical experts under a technocratic mode of administration wouldn’t be in charge of the economy anymore than the managerial class is under capitalism. The managerial class manages enterprise *on behalf of* the capitalists, but it is still the capitalists who run the show. Likewise, having technical experts administer the economy doesn’t in any way imply that people wouldn’t be in charge of the process ultimately, as being the ones who decide on the economic ends.
I see what you're saying, but I don't agree. The issue in technocracy is not just that there are managers, but that when things are sufficiently mechanized there will be very few people working. That is not a problem, of course. The problem is that those few people who work will be able to decide how the entire mechanized structure works, with very little responsiveness to the will of the people, besides meeting stated needs. As I mentioned earlied in the thread, a nucleaar scientist should not be the only person who decides whether or not we research and test nuclear weaponry. In the U.S., truman had to make the decision; of course he chose to allow it, because it is a benefit for the powerful. A small group of professionals would be making this decision in a technate, and we can't expect them to be altruistic and simply "do what the people would wish." This goes into my next response:



I’m really losing you here. “He said that, because the ideal is an aspect of the Technocratic idealism, it will necessarily be followed.”? I’m really not sure what that means, can you elaborate.



Once again, I’m not sure if I’m following you correctly. Are you suggesting that technocracy requires coercion and authoritarianism because it needs to “distinctly insures adherence to [its] policy”? If so, I think that this is, once again, reading too much into the technocratic proposal. Technocracy is a general idea which can be implemented in a variety of ways. If you are concerned about, say, the free rider problem and how technocracy would deal with it, I think this is not an economic question but rather a political one, and hence that technocracy is properly silent on it.
I am not suggesting that a need for a policy to be adhered to is very authoritarian. Maybe it is, but that's not the point. My point is, what would compel a small group of professionals to act in the will of the people, if they are supposed to be the primary deciders of how a sector is run? Serpent said that the very structure of a technate requires people to act in such a way, but I am thoroughly unconvinced.

When I pointed this out, he said I was trying to tell people how to be! I was merely pointing out that there is a gap between his statements on organization of a technocracy and the expected outcome of a technocratic society. In other words, I want to know why trhe structure of a technate would make people altrustic - not just to be told that I shouldn't worry about it.



Indeed, but isn't this precisely what any revolutionary proposes? That an entire society change the character of its activity.

Moreover, though, I don’t think technocracy is really proposing a change in how people behave. It isn’t asking people to be altruistic (for that matter neither is communism), the appeal of technocracy as a mode of economic organization is that it allows people to maximize the possible consumption of goods and services, and minimize work. It is appealing to their self-interest; the proposal is that they could have a better life under this new model than they have under capitalism.
Yes, every revolution is based on a change in social activity - nothing wrong with this. I have said this to Serpent, but he refuses to see it. It is saying that people have to be altrustic in the sense that the professionals will do what is in the interests of the people (please understand my use of the term as in this context - I haven't used it for any other purpose in this thread so far). Note that I am not saying it is commanding people to be altrustic, but rather that Serpent's inference that professionals will be altrustic, and act in the good will of the people, is a statement which proposes that humans will act a specific way given a set of circumstances. In other words, he is saying that the human mind will respond to given situations in a given way - a psychological statement.


Also, since I fail to see what the possible problems for people living under a technocratic economy are, could you perhaps say why humans wouldn’t be able to live in a technate?
I have addressed the problem earlier in the thread. Search for "alienation" and you will find a lot of statements about this.


I best rephrase the moral principle which I think underlies technocracy (or, more properly, consequentialism, at least Mill’s sort, from which technocracy, implicitly if not explicitly, draws inspiration): “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

All that is being said is that, provided that people don’t harm others, they should be free to do whatever they please, and the aim of the economy is to facilitate them in doing so.
I don't disagree with the quote, but technocracy is hardly about that. It is not really related, because as Serpent pointed out, it is not focused on social issues, but rather the controlling of a mechanized economy by a professional class.


Technocracy *isn’t* proposing a model of social organization, it is *only* proposing a model of economic organization. What society would look like would be entirely left to people to decide on their own, since it isn’t a technical question. People can form whatever communities that they like, based on the principle of free association.
That's where you're wrong. Any statement on an economic organization is distinctly social. It may ignore many social issues (technocracy does) but it is still social.

Picture this: a capitalist economy where a class of people control all the means of production. You live in such a society without any control of the economy; in other words, you are an indigent. However, the capitalists have decided to give charity to the poor with a credit system not unlike Energy Credits. The poor are therefore nto involved in any stage of the production, but merely in consumption.

Despite how alienated you are from the industry, the fact is that the organization is still a social one. Any installation involving humans in any step of the way is most definitely a social issue. It is nonsesne to think of it in any other terms.



Moreover, from a policy perspective, labour-time vouchers (one concrete proposal from Marx regarding how to organize socialism) really don’t differ greatly from energy credits. In practice I think they would amount to more or less the same thing.
You're right they share that similarity. But you're missing something: marx never proposed that such a system was communistic, but rather a socially progressive policy a revolutionary socialist society might have. And I don't oppose energy credits as a short term policy. I think it is a fine idea. But I do oppose the inference that it is a communist concept. It simply isn't.

I've ignored a few portions which I already gave an applicable response to. Thanks for being more comprehensive in your responses.

[Cult of Reason]

The issue in technocracy is not just that there are managers, but that when things are sufficiently mechanized there will be very few people working.

Incorrect. In Technocracy, when things are sufficiently mechanised everyone will work very short hours as a minimum, but nothing stops them doing more if they wish.


The problem is that those few people who work will be able to decide how the entire mechanized structure works, with very little responsiveness to the will of the people, besides meeting stated needs. As I mentioned earlied in the thread, a nucleaar scientist should not be the only person who decides whether or not we research and test nuclear weaponry. In the U.S., truman had to make the decision; of course he chose to allow it, because it is a benefit for the powerful. A small group of professionals would be making this decision in a technate, and we can't expect them to be altruistic and simply "do what the people would wish."

First of all, since the technate involves the entire population, it is not "a few people". Second, the technate does not decide what it does, but how it does it. The only things it decides are those things that affect itself only.

Your example is disingenious. Even if the person who decided things in the nuclear research department of the Continental Research sequence was just one man (and by extension the only member of that department, hardly a realistic situation if you want to produce nuclear weaponry), in order for the plans to actually happen (this is within the technate structure itself) he would have to get the materials and machines from other departments.

In fact, due to the nature of the proposed structure, he would have to get the consent of the entire research sequence in order to get support for his project and he would have to negotiate, or the sequence would, with the entire power generation sequence (of which he would be but one member) in order to get support and materials from them and, finally, since the technate is an open structure with all the population as members, it is absolutely impossible that the activity (should it have gone this far) would go unnoticed so the social structure, of which, as well as the technate, the entire population is involved in, would be able to have its say and, if necessary, use its authority to stop him.


My point is, what would compel a small group of professionals to act in the will of the people, if they are supposed to be the primary deciders of how a sector is run?

In Anarchist Communist Technocracy:

Assuming that this "small group" is running a rather large sector, that means that they are holding positions as delegates from which they are instantly recallable by those below them, so they would be held accountable. Additionally, the only decisions they would be mandated to make are those that only affect their sectors. If there is to be any effect upon other sectors then the decisions must be taken higher up the federal structure, and so involving more people.


Picture this: a capitalist economy where a class of people control all the means of production. You live in such a society without any control of the economy; in other words, you are an indigent. However, the capitalists have decided to give charity to the poor with a credit system not unlike Energy Credits. The poor are therefore nto involved in any stage of the production, but merely in consumption.

Irrelevant. In a Technocratic system everyone is involved with the technate in some way, or has the opportunity to be. Everyone would have equal access to information, equal access to goods and would be involved in at least one sector of the technate, unless they were unwilling to be involved.


You're right they share that similarity. But you're missing something: marx never proposed that such a system was communistic, but rather a socially progressive policy a revolutionary socialist society might have. And I don't oppose energy credits as a short term policy. I think it is a fine idea. But I do oppose the inference that it is a communist concept. It simply isn't.

Energy Accounting is nothing like an LTV system, nothing at all. LTV is a system of exchange for scarce goods, while in Energy Accounting goods are distributed according to need with the energy needed to produce and distribute them tracked and recorded for the best possible balance of production with consumption for the sake of sustainability. It is not even necessary for people to be aware of the "cost" of any particular thing as it is more of a back end than a front end (if you do not mind the terminology), though IMO it is a good thing if people are aware of how much energy they "consume".

Energy Accounting, really, is a way to manage Communist distribution, not really a replacement for it.

[Hyacinth]

I see what you're saying, but I don't agree. The issue in technocracy is not just that there are managers, but that when things are sufficiently mechanized there will be very few people working. That is not a problem, of course. The problem is that those few people who work will be able to decide how the entire mechanized structure works, with very little responsiveness to the will of the people, besides meeting stated needs. As I mentioned earlied in the thread, a nucleaar scientist should not be the only person who decides whether or not we research and test nuclear weaponry. In the U.S., truman had to make the decision; of course he chose to allow it, because it is a benefit for the powerful. A small group of professionals would be making this decision in a technate, and we can't expect them to be altruistic and simply "do what the people would wish."
I don’t see how that necessarily follows. Consider the following: you could, within the context of a technate, for example, have a citizen’s committee (elected, selected at random from a representative and relevant sample of the population, whatever) be in charge of a certain sector of an economy, where you, on that committee have both ordinary people (consumers and interested parties) as well as technical experts, to ensure both a) that the technate is responsive to people’s actually desires and needs, and b) that technical considerations are heeded in the decision making process.

I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that the managers (the technocrats, or whatever you want to call them) should be vested with absolute power. Technocracy is, more or less, a proposal for planned economy w/ energy accounting with the aim of creating abundance. It doesn’t itself address any political questions about how to structure society. And your criticisms of it seem to be purely political.

I am not suggesting that a need for a policy to be adhered to is very authoritarian. Maybe it is, but that's not the point. My point is, what would compel a small group of professionals to act in the will of the people, if they are supposed to be the primary deciders of how a sector is run? Serpent said that the very structure of a technate requires people to act in such a way, but I am thoroughly unconvinced.
Perhaps our conceptions of a technocracy are different here. What I look at the proposal what I see is that the technocrats are merely coordinators or administrators with no political power. Their role is to provide suggestions about how to best achieve certain ends (the ends being decided upon in a democratic manner, or whatever). They don’t have any power to enforce their decisions. Their role is mostly advisory. I mean, I presume that their advice would be followed if people though it was good, but ultimately anyone and everyone would have the decision to choose not to follow their recommendations if they don’t approve of them. There won’t be any police force to make people do as the managers please.

So, to answer your question, they *aren’t* suppose to be the primary deciders of how the economy is run. Their role is advisory, and always subject to a veto in practice.

Now, my conception and understanding of technocracy here *might* be different from the other posters. I’m not sure. But in any case, even if there are technocratic schemes that are subject to your criticisms, there are others which aren’t.

When I pointed this out, he said I was trying to tell people how to be! I was merely pointing out that there is a gap between his statements on organization of a technocracy and the expected outcome of a technocratic society. In other words, I want to know why trhe structure of a technate would make people altrustic - not just to be told that I shouldn't worry about it.
I’m confused as to one point: why is it that people have to be altruistic in a technate (or, for that matter, any form of society)?

Yes, every revolution is based on a change in social activity - nothing wrong with this. I have said this to Serpent, but he refuses to see it. It is saying that people have to be altrustic in the sense that the professionals will do what is in the interests of the people (please understand my use of the term as in this context - I haven't used it for any other purpose in this thread so far). Note that I am not saying it is commanding people to be altrustic, but rather that Serpent's inference that professionals will be altrustic, and act in the good will of the people, is a statement which proposes that humans will act a specific way given a set of circumstances. In other words, he is saying that the human mind will respond to given situations in a given way - a psychological statement.
If this is what Serpent is saying, I disagree with him, but this isn’t how I’ve understood his suggestions. Though let’s not get into the issue of interpretation here.

Set aside, for a moment, what you think Serpant is proposing. Consider, as an alternative, what I have outlined above. Do you think it is subject to the same criticisms?

That's where you're wrong. Any statement on an economic organization is distinctly social. It may ignore many social issues (technocracy does) but it is still social.

Picture this: a capitalist economy where a class of people control all the means of production. You live in such a society without any control of the economy; in other words, you are an indigent. However, the capitalists have decided to give charity to the poor with a credit system not unlike Energy Credits. The poor are therefore nto involved in any stage of the production, but merely in consumption.

Despite how alienated you are from the industry, the fact is that the organization is still a social one. Any installation involving humans in any step of the way is most definitely a social issue. It is nonsesne to think of it in any other terms.
In the strictest sense of the term anything to do with humans or society is “social”, so of course.

But what I had in mind was something more along the following lines. The economic organization under capitalism produces certain consequences regarding the distribution of power in society: in capitalism, the capitalists, and those with more money, have more freedom and more power. Hence they are the ones who decide how society, as a whole, is going to be run.

When I say that technocracy is suppose to be technical, and not social, I say it in this sense. Technocracy is suppose to be a suggestion for the organization of an economy in a classless society, in such a way as to distribute power as widely as possible, by ensuring an equitable and abundant distribution of resources, as well as to make people as free as possible (since the more resources that you have, the more that you can do, and the more that you are capable of doing the more free you are).

In a way, what technocracy is supposed to do is depoliticize certain economic questions. Whether this can be done, and whether technocracy would succeed as doing it, that is another question.

You're right they share that similarity. But you're missing something: marx never proposed that such a system was communistic, but rather a socially progressive policy a revolutionary socialist society might have. And I don't oppose energy credits as a short term policy. I think it is a fine idea. But I do oppose the inference that it is a communist concept. It simply isn't.
On this I agree with you. Technocracy is not an end in itself, it is a mere means

[Dean]

Incorrect. In Technocracy, when things are sufficiently mechanised everyone will work very short hours as a minimum, but nothing stops them doing more if they wish.

That was irrelevent to the point. The point was that there would be very few people needed to run the given industrial sector, and subsequently they would have centralized power in that area.


First of all, since the technate involves the entire population, it is not "a few people". Second, the technate does not decide what it does, but how it does it. The only things it decides are those things that affect itself only.

Your example is disingenious. Even if the person who decided things in the nuclear research department of the Continental Research sequence was just one man (and by extension the only member of that department, hardly a realistic situation if you want to produce nuclear weaponry), in order for the plans to actually happen (this is within the technate structure itself) he would have to get the materials and machines from other departments.

In fact, due to the nature of the proposed structure, he would have to get the consent of the entire research sequence in order to get support for his project and he would have to negotiate, or the sequence would, with the entire power generation sequence (of which he would be but one member) in order to get support and materials from them and, finally, since the technate is an open structure with all the population as members, it is absolutely impossible that the activity (should it have gone this far) would go unnoticed so the social structure, of which, as well as the technate, the entire population is involved in, would be able to have its say and, if necessary, use its authority to stop him.

I don't quite understand what you're saying; you seem to be contradicting youselft in these two paragraphs. Are you saying that the decisions made over the economy would be controlled by everyone in the "technate" collectively, or that the different sectors of the industry would have seperate, specified controllers? Unless you are equating a technate to a sector of the economy (i.e. transportation) I think there is a cotnradiction. If you do think that a technate is this then, from what I understand of the technate system, that is a dangerous and extreme division of labor (also, I've never heard of the system described this way).


In Anarchist Communist Technocracy:

Assuming that this "small group" is running a rather large sector, that means that they are holding positions as delegates from which they are instantly recallable by those below them, so they would be held accountable. Additionally, the only decisions they would be mandated to make are those that only affect their sectors. If there is to be any effect upon other sectors then the decisions must be taken higher up the federal structure, and so involving more people.

Irrelevant. In a Technocratic system everyone is involved with the technate in some way, or has the opportunity to be. Everyone would have equal access to information, equal access to goods and would be involved in at least one sector of the technate, unless they were unwilling to be involved.

I've neer seen the system described this way before. Are you saying that the professionals do not in fact get their power by having worked in the system, but rather by consent of the entire population? I don't really disagree with this stance, but I have also never seen the system desribed this way.



Energy Accounting is nothing like an LTV system, nothing at all. LTV is a system of exchange for scarce goods, while in Energy Accounting goods are distributed according to need with the energy needed to produce and distribute them tracked and recorded for the best possible balance of production with consumption for the sake of sustainability. It is not even necessary for people to be aware of the "cost" of any particular thing as it is more of a back end than a front end (if you do not mind the terminology), though IMO it is a good thing if people are aware of how much energy they "consume".

Energy Accounting, really, is a way to manage Communist distribution, not really a replacement for it.
Still, I can't see it as a form of management which allows for spontaneity, something I view as central to a communist society.

Cult of Reason, I don't see your concept of technocracy as anything like what is proposed by Serpent, or any other people here for that matter. Maybe that is why you use the terms "communist anarchist" as well to describe it. What you have proposed, I do find acceptable as a form of socialism, but not in the context of communism. At best, traces of it could be seen in a communist society; spontaneity and anarchism are way too fundamental to communism.



Hyacinth, a response to your post would be more involved. I will respond later tonight or tomorrow, whenever I feel compelled to invest the time. So, don't think I'm ignoring you!

-Dean

[Hyacinth]

I've neer seen the system described this way before. Are you saying that the professionals do not in fact get their power by having worked in the system, but rather by consent of the entire population? I don't really disagree with this stance, but I have also never seen the system desribed this way.

...

Cult of Reason, I don't see your concept of technocracy as anything like what is proposed by Serpent, or any other people here for that matter. Maybe that is why you use the terms "communist anarchist" as well to describe it. What you have proposed, I do find acceptable as a form of socialism, but not in the context of communism. At best, traces of it could be seen in a communist society; spontaneity and anarchism are way too fundamental to communism.
This is exactly what I was trying to get across as well. Technocracy need not be like what you attribute to Serpent.


Hyacinth, a response to your post would be more involved. I will respond later tonight or tomorrow, whenever I feel compelled to invest the time. So, don't think I'm ignoring you!
Ignore me if you will, I know I can be longwinded. ;)

But in reading your response to Cult of Reason, I don’t think we’re in disagreement. What you were attacking was one particular conception of technocracy. (I always get the impression that in many of these disputes people are talking past one another, and the disagreement is often a consequence of a misunderstanding.)

[Dean]

I don’t see how that necessarily follows. Consider the following: you could, within the context of a technate, for example, have a citizen’s committee (elected, selected at random from a representative and relevant sample of the population, whatever) be in charge of a certain sector of an economy, where you, on that committee have both ordinary people (consumers and interested parties) as well as technical experts, to ensure both a) that the technate is responsive to people’s actually desires and needs, and b) that technical considerations are heeded in the decision making process.

I don't really oppose this. But I proposed the idea to Serpent in so many words, and he rejected it, saying only the professionals / workers in a given field have the right to make those decisions. Look at the arguments about nursing versus patients' rights and the atom bomb, for instance.


I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that the managers (the technocrats, or whatever you want to call them) should be vested with absolute power. Technocracy is, more or less, a proposal for planned economy w/ energy accounting with the aim of creating abundance. It doesn’t itself address any political questions about how to structure society. And your criticisms of it seem to be purely political.
This isn't beign suggested. It is, however, being suggested that in the context of one specific industry that they have extremely disproportinate power.


Perhaps our conceptions of a technocracy are different here. What I look at the proposal what I see is that the technocrats are merely coordinators or administrators with no political power. Their role is to provide suggestions about how to best achieve certain ends (the ends being decided upon in a democratic manner, or whatever). They don’t have any power to enforce their decisions. Their role is mostly advisory. I mean, I presume that their advice would be followed if people though it was good, but ultimately anyone and everyone would have the decision to choose not to follow their recommendations if they don’t approve of them. There won’t be any police force to make people do as the managers please.

So, to answer your question, they *aren’t* suppose to be the primary deciders of how the economy is run. Their role is advisory, and always subject to a veto in practice.

Now, my conception and understanding of technocracy here *might* be different from the other posters. I’m not sure. But in any case, even if there are technocratic schemes that are subject to your criticisms, there are others which aren’t.
This is the impression I'm starting to get. However, I don't see how the organization proposed in technocracy is relevent if you are opposing it. Why call yourself a technocrat? You are just a democrat, from waht I see.


I’m confused as to one point: why is it that people have to be altruistic in a technate (or, for that matter, any form of society)?
They don't. To live up to Serpent's standards, however, altruism is necessary. He said those with immense power would do "what is in the benefit of all people" because they are compelled to. That is altruism, however I haven't seen any coherent theories about why people would be altruistic: just ideals which rely on that tendancy.


If this is what Serpent is saying, I disagree with him, but this isn’t how I’ve understood his suggestions. Though let’s not get into the issue of interpretation here.

Set aside, for a moment, what you think Serpant is proposing. Consider, as an alternative, what I have outlined above. Do you think it is subject to the same criticisms?
I suggest you re-read some of your technocracy articles in the links Serpent posted. I won't get into all the criticisms, but suffice it to say that the whole discussion has been specifically about those criticisms.


In the strictest sense of the term anything to do with humans or society is “social”, so of course.
That's my point. You cannot ignore social and psychological theory just because you say something isn't social. Serpent has been doing this.


But what I had in mind was something more along the following lines. The economic organization under capitalism produces certain consequences regarding the distribution of power in society: in capitalism, the capitalists, and those with more money, have more freedom and more power. Hence they are the ones who decide how society, as a whole, is going to be run.

When I say that technocracy is suppose to be technical, and not social, I say it in this sense. Technocracy is suppose to be a suggestion for the organization of an economy in a classless society, in such a way as to distribute power as widely as possible, by ensuring an equitable and abundant distribution of resources, as well as to make people as free as possible (since the more resources that you have, the more that you can do, and the more that you are capable of doing the more free you are).

In a way, what technocracy is supposed to do is depoliticize certain economic questions. Whether this can be done, and whether technocracy would succeed as doing it, that is another question.

On this I agree with you. Technocracy is not an end in itself, it is a mere means
The problem is that technocracy is directly about the centralization of economic power. It is outlined on their webapage. It is, more or less, a watered down bureaucracy. So the worst forms are really anathema to communism, and the best forms are at best temporary socialist measures. What you have been talking about seems prety nice, but it is not technocracy by any means. I think there has been a movement here to redefine technocracy, not just in its basic meaning, but in the specified movement of the NET. It is definitely about specialization and professionalism. It is simply not anarchistic. Waht you and Cult of Reason propose, I don't really disagree with all that much. But I don't see how you can call it technocracy.

[Dimentio]

In the technate, the economy is managed by the people and everyone holds equal access. It seems that you are attacking Windmills right now, believing that they are giants.

I have never ever said anything about the need to change the behavior of people after a revolution, because such a development would gradually occur given the changing social relations evolving under a post-capitalist system.

Technocracy is not a theory which tries to bake in everything about reality and social conditions in its framework. It won't explain the meaning of life. What it does explain is how the production could be streamlined to provide everyone with an equal and good access to the means of production.

Moreover, as Haraldur stated, we are not cutting down on the amount of labour other in the sense of labour time. We won't have a small minority working full time and managing the economy, but the entire work-force but with reduced working-time.

More or less, as earlier stated countless times, Energy Accounting is not a planned economy where others decide what you should consume, but an interactive economy where the users have the right to use their share of the consumption capacity to design and consume whatever they may want for.

Thus, Energy Accounting is the most free and non-alienating social system which have yet been devised.

You say that it is alienating for the workers and only gains the consumers, but workers are consumers as well. And everyone has an equal share, so there is no exploitation under technocracy per definition.

Why we are using consumption capacity and not labour value as a designing factor is that we live in a society where automatised machinery outperforms human labour.

For your vision to hold root, we must subjugate the most optimal use of machinery to some form of archaic production scheme just to support what I see as your metaphysical assertions of alienation which would be matter of indifference to the worker under a technate.

[Ultra-Violence]

raelly enoyed this thread people really learned lots but im really just not bying technocracy its just to bueracratic how are people to be held accountable what about crime what about all those things to me techonacracy sound like freaking that book "The Giver" but i enjoyed reading both of your arguements tho

[Dimentio]

1. If a person messes up, she is replaced. All actions within work should be documented.

2. Crime will probably still exist, but the economic incitaments for it will disappear.

3. There is no bureaucracy in a technate since there is no need for funding and hence redistribution.

[Ultra-Violence]

1. ok the person is replace what about the replaced person? hmm we just train them again or something

2.Same arguement for communism

3.THATS WHAT CONFUSES ME THE MOST! i dont understand that if only for example if only nurses have a say in their profesion and their the only ones who have any say isnt that a bueracracy? these people need to be held accountable and their has to be some democratic process IMO or else itll just be a lonley lame divided stupid society,probably more so then now. The point of communism is community!IMO i just dont grasp this part of technocracy

[Dean]

1. ok the person is replace what about the replaced person? hmm we just train them again or something

2.Same arguement for communism

3.THATS WHAT CONFUSES ME THE MOST! i dont understand that if only for example if only nurses have a say in their profesion and their the only ones who have any say isnt that a bueracracy? these people need to be held accountable and their has to be some democratic process IMO or else itll just be a lonley lame divided stupid society,probably more so then now. The point of communism is community!IMO i just dont grasp this part of technocracy

Whether or not its bureaucracy, it certainly doesn't sound equitable does it?

[Ultra-Violence]

i agree of course i just want to more hear more of thier arguements for technocracy