Technocrats and primitivists

[Dimentio]

As Dean pointed out in the informative and consistent thread about why we ban fascists, it is true that we technocrats individually have played a significant role in the definition of primitivism as a reactionary current.

What I disagree with is Dean's opinions on why primitivists are restricted, which he claims is entirely due to technocratic influence, which makes it sound like there is a hidden anti-primitivist agenda on revleft run by a secretive cabal of technocrats.

Technocrats are not opposed to environmentalism, and technocracy is not, as it's critics on revleft often state, and some of it adherents sadly believe, a position which is dogmatically in support of technological development.

Technocracy is a humanist position, which wants to free human beings from excessive labor, exploitment, and partially focuses on engineering solutions to accomplish that goals. That is because technocrats believe that executive power never should be used to administrate human beings, only to administrate machines.

The reason why I am a technocrat is because I adopt a humanistic and environmentalist standpoint. We cannot have a socially and ecologically unsustainable system in a limited world, and needs to utilise energy accounting as a means to elevate the human condition toward a higher and more fulfilling quality of life, where the person herself controls more of her time and thus have more time to define herself, while machines are doing more and more labor.

Primitivists on the other hands, believe that the means of production is the problem alongside capitalism, and thus wants to destroy the productive and technological base for a post-capitalist society.

We have experience from parts of the world where the standard of life has rapidly declined, to prove that technological and infrastructural regression diminishes the resources available, and thus both create human suffering and tensions between those who are worst off under that new economic regime. Ethnic warfare is a typical consequence of collapsing infrastructure.

Primitivism is essentially an idealist stand-point, while any rational material basis for environmentalism per definition must be based around anthropocentric premises, that what we are doing for the environment should benefit humanity, not regress it.

Primitivism, on the other hand, focuses on the supposed alienating effects of machines and modern infrastructure upon the human existence. I respect if a person may feel that she like to live her life without modern infrastructure, but I think that should be a matter of choice. While no technocrat will try to force you to possess a computer, primitivists want to force everyone to move back 300, 3 000 or 30 000 years, to societies with a material base which did not support any pretensions of equality, self-realisation beyond food and sexual urges, or any progressive human development.

A primitivist collective in a modern world may work because the value systems which our current technological standard allows for leads to demands of equality, of freedom of expression. But in a savage world where our ability to utilise resources for the common good is decreased, we will soon see human values deteriorate into something resembling more primitive and less humanistic perspectives.

Some libertarian right-wingers, sincerely think that everyone would be rich under a free market system. They are nutters, but in any case more progressive than even the most beardy left-wing anarcho-primitivist.

Finally, I would like to state that primitivism is idealist to the point of being a metaphysical project, and that it has nothing to do parasiting on the left, which must embrace progress - not because progress is objectively good - but because progress elevates the human being, and makes room for reforms.

Thus, the reason why a lot of us oppose primitivism is not because we are computer geeks, nerds or that we want to install bureaucracy (neither of these accusations against technocrats are true), but because that we, like many other progressives, be they marxist-leninists or libertarian communists, recognise the danger of primitivism as a reactionary animal which in its characteristics bears resemblance of conservative currents rather than progressive, and that no matter how many dreads the primitivist in your student corridor has (nothing bad 'bout dreads).

[chimx]

We restrict primitivists because most of the people here don't understand what primitivist ideology actually is, and the technocrat/vg1917 crowd has gone to great lengths to falsify the belief system of primitivists. You for example:


primitivists want to force everyone to move back 300, 3 000 or 30 000 years

[Dimentio]

In reality, that is the final consequence of that thinking. The primitivist analysis see civilisation, which is (partially with a big P) a result of advanced technology as identical with capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

They're both as crazy as each other.

[chimx]

I agree, either start restricting technocrats or stop restricting primitivists.

Serpet: primitivists don't think civilization is identical to capitalism. That doesn't even make sense.

[Dimentio]

They're both as crazy as each other.

Care to elaborate what is crazy about wanting to install a non-capitalist economic system based on physics?

[The Feral Underclass]

Although Technocrats don't want to set back civilisation 300, 3,000, 30,000 years.

[The Feral Underclass]

Care to elaborate what is crazy about wanting to install a non-capitalist economic system based on physics?

Although I'm sure they differ, I find trans-humanism to be especially bizarre. I don't think a society should invest so much attention on technology that is unnecessary. I suspect that the definition of necessity can easily be different depending on who you talk to but I feel that this obsession with technology or indeed with turning humans into invincible creatures poses some rather dubious questions.

[Dimentio]

Although I'm sure they differ, I find trans-humanism to be especially bizarre. I don't think a society should invest so much attention on technology that is unnecessary. I suspect that the definition of necessity can easily be different depending on who you talk to but I feel that this obsession with technology or indeed with turning humans into invincible creatures poses some rather dubious questions.

Transhumanism is not necessarily an inherent part of technocracy, although many technocrats or technocrat-sympathisers are transhumanists in the same time. There are transhumanists with every brand of political outlook, from left to right.

[chimx]

install a non-capitalist economic system based on physics

You want to replace capitalism with gravity?

[chimx]

There are transhumanists with every brand of political outlook, from left to right.

There are primitivists with every brand of political outlook from left to right.

[Dimentio]

You want to replace capitalism with gravity?

No, with energy accounting.

http://en.technocracynet.eu

[chimx]

Physics is the study of matter and movement.

[Dimentio]

Yes, and energy accounting is based - as it sounds - on the matter of energy involved in the production of a specific item. All individuals are given an energy certifikate with an equal allowance to a specific share of the total enegy capaciy during a given time.

Last time I checked, thermodynamics was an important feature in the movement and transformation of matter, which in its turn is a major feature of production.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There are primitivists with every brand of political outlook from left to right.
Chimx, please define what exactly constitutes "primitivism" in your view.

As far as I'm aware, primitivists want at the very least a return to pre-industrial society. That can never be anything other than an extremely reactionary position.

As for technocracy, I've never really been able to see any fundamental difference between technocracy and communism, with the sole exception of the fact that technocrats actively think about the role of technology in a future classless society. A technocratic society is for all intents and purposes a communist society.

(transhumanism, on the other hand, is something I find loathsome and dangerous)

[chimx]

As far as I'm aware, primitivists want at the very least a return to pre-industrial society. That can never be anything other than an extremely reactionary position.

Primitivism means a lot of different things, but what you just said covers most of it. What's important is that you'll very rarely find "revolutionary primitivists" and most see it as a gradualist approach or I've also met primitivists that viewed their ideology as a dialectic within anti-capitalism to counter the "theory of progression" thesis.

[piet11111]

if falling birthrates as observed in most western nations are an indication of an "advanced nation" then i would consider the transhumanist program rather important to sustain production.
our populations are aging and we will not have the manpower to replace them or take care of them after their retirement for much longer.

immigration helps but its not a permanent solution the only way out in my eyes would be to extend the life's of people so that they can be productive for much longer.

anyway transhumanist technology is going to develop anyway as a continuation of medical science and the capitalists will be the first to get their hands on it.
what matters is that we get this technology into the hands of everyone.
and i think that this could end up as the best argument for communism namely perfect health and a very long life for everyone.

[More Fire for the People]

Technocrats are Eurocentrists par excellence. Eventually, they'll take up jobs working in the applied sciences departments of corporations.

[Dimentio]

Technocrats are Eurocentrists par excellence. Eventually, they'll take up jobs working in the applied sciences departments of corporations.

Eventually, most people get to work somewhere. There are all kinds of technocrats, from university professors, to haircutters, volunteers, students. I wonder where the eurocentrism bit comes in?

Sure, even Marx stated that the revolution would begin in the most advanced nation.

[chimx]

Yes, and energy accounting is based - as it sounds - on the matter of energy involved in the production of a specific item. All individuals are given an energy certifikate with an equal allowance to a specific share of the total enegy capaciy during a given time.

you are describing economics, not physics. This has nothing to do with physics.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Primitivism means a lot of different things, but what you just said covers most of it. What's important is that you'll very rarely find "revolutionary primitivists" and most see it as a gradualist approach or I've also met primitivists that viewed their ideology as a dialectic within anti-capitalism to counter the "theory of progression" thesis.
Alright, but a reactionary goal is still reactionary even if you want to take a gradualist approach. For example, a person who wanted to gradually introduce market relations in a socialist economy would still be a reactionary and an enemy.

[note: I do not believe primitivists should be restricted here on revleft; however, I do believe they are reactionary and should be generally kept out of the real-life leftist movement because they are a liability - their ideas are not only wrong, but they also put us in a negative light]


Sure, even Marx stated that the revolution would begin in the most advanced nation.
However, he was wrong. It is true that the most advanced capitalist nations have the best material base for building socialism; the objective conditions are perfect. But the subjective ones are not - as long as workers in the most advanced nations draw some benefits from the exploitation of the periphery, it is highly unlikely that they will support a revolution. Mass support for socialism just isn't there, and I see no way to gain such support in the forseeable future.

[Raúl Duke]

as long as workers in the most advanced nations draw some benefits from the exploitation of the periphery, it is highly unlikely that they will support a revolution. Mass support for socialism just isn't there, and I see no way to gain such support in the forseeable future.

Are you a 3rd worldist by any chance?

What is key here is "as long" as the imperialist nations continue to be victorious will there be no conditions for revolutions. That's why it's important for the left to oppose their ruling class's imperialistic ambitions. This is especially important for the left in the U.S.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't know about 'technocracy', but Marxists are pretty much the most ardent advocates of technological progress around.

'Marxism sets out from the development of technique as the fundamental spring of progress, and constructs the communist program upon the dynamic of the productive forces. If you conceive that some cosmic catastrophe is going to destroy our planet in the fairly near future, then you must, of course, reject the communist perspective along with much else. Except for this as yet problematic danger, however, there is not the slightest scientific ground for setting any limit in advance to our technical productive and cultural possibilities. Marxism is saturated with the optimism of progress...'
- Trotsky

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Are you a 3rd worldist by any chance?
Of course not. Third worldists hold the ridiculous view that Western workers are not exploited, or that the Western working class doesn't even exist.

I hold the Leninist view that the bourgeoisie in the imperialist nations is sharing some of the benefits of imperialist exploitation with its domestic working class, in order to keep that working class docile. And as the history of the 20th century has shown, this strategy is very effective.

Revolution in the advanced capitalist countries is not impossible. However, it remains unlikely as long as imperialism continues to function. So you are correct:


What is key here is "as long" as the imperialist nations continue to be victorious will there be no conditions for revolutions. That's why it's important for the left to oppose their ruling class's imperialistic ambitions. This is especially important for the left in the U.S.

[Raúl Duke]

Ok. Just wanted to clarify that (thus I made that statement, so to somewhat clarify your statement about yet asked so to be sure that I wasn't putting words in your mouth.)

I don't think I have much to add to this discussion per se (technocrats and the anarchist communists technocrats are better at arguing their positions then I can; although I support them to a degree and wouldn't want to see them restricted while electing primitivists to the CC!).

[Led Zeppelin]

Sure, even Marx stated that the revolution would begin in the most advanced nation.

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion because I don't care enough about the issue, but the above is not true. If Marx had stated the above he would have completely abandoned his own method of analysis, which he didn't do.

He even spoke of the possiblity of the revolution beginning in a backward nation like Russia (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1223259&postcount=23).

[Sentinel]

What I disagree with is Dean's opinions on why primitivists are restricted, which he claims is entirely due to technocratic influence,Which is of course not true. Dean wasn't in the CC when that decision was made, so he doesn't know. Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=41914&highlight=primitivists)

Someone may now claim that I am a technocrat (which I am not) and I was in the CC. But as can be seen from that thread, definitely non-technocrat members like violencia.Proletariat, redstar2000, LSD, CDL etc were just as much for the proposal as I.

The 'technocratic conspiracy against the poor primmies' theory just doesn't hold water, primitivism is anti-human and anti-communist, and is naturally opposed by all sane members here..

[Hyacinth]

Technocracy, however crazy or wrong one may find it, can at least be construed as an attempt to try to outline how a planned economy in a post-revolutionary society might function, and inasmuch as it does this is at least attempting to be progressive. The same cannot be said of primitivism, I fail to see how it can be regarded as progressive in any sense, though I'm open to the possibility of being proven wrong if anyone would like to try and outline how primitivism can be a progressive ideology.

[Plagueround]

Technocracy, however crazy or wrong one may find it, can at least be construed as an attempt to try to outline how a planned economy in a post-revolutionary society might function, and inasmuch as it does this is at least attempting to be progressive. The same cannot be said of primitivism, I fail to see how it can be regarded as progressive in any sense, though I'm open to the possibility of being proven wrong if anyone would like to try and outline how primitivism can be a progressive ideology.

I don't usually like to just quote people and say "QFT" or "this". But in this case I'll do both. I have yet to hear any primitivist proposal that doesn't seem highly anti-working class (or anti-people for that matter).

[Dean]

At the time I was actually just trying to take the piss out of the technos (this is the first time I've ever used that phrase!). Honestly, opposition to primitivism is the least of my worries; it is a part of a deeper, much more dangerous phenomenon.

This phenomenon, which is not limited to the technocrats (though they seem to be a symptom of it) looks at the economic and political issues surrounding marxism as cold, mechanical dynamics. They characterize them as external to human activity and interests, and when it comes down to very specific issues - such as the role certain technology plays in society, particularly capitalism - thye almost always take the position more rhetorically in support of technology.

Which seems fine, in and of itself. Technology is good, and can help mankind. But the conditions surrounding these issues are very often dealing with the oppression of one class at the behest of another, often accompanied or accomplished by the use of technology. Rosa Lichtenstein has made some good points about this in the thread with 1917

Another problem is the belief in numerical standards as actuators of social and economic programming, not human association or activity in general. They take the marxist recognition of conditioning so far as to say that the economy makes man as opposed to the traditional mantra, man makes himself for the economy. Simply put, it is never a good idea to ignore the role that we have in our own existence; just as I remarked in the sexism thread, it renders us impotent when we ignore our role in oppression, because we fail to recognize the first things which must change for that emancipation.

As I said, this isn't just about technocracy. But technocracy seems to be the most severe example of this deficiency.

[black magick hustla]

Technocrats are Eurocentrists par excellence. Eventually, they'll take up jobs working in the applied sciences departments of corporations.

What is wrong with this?

You were applying to ivy league universities and you are going to probably study something like sociology or whatever. probably you are as bad, or even worse, than people who work in the applied sciences.

[black magick hustla]

I study astrophysics/physics and I think technocracy is silly. I don't think its terrible, but the whole "sci-fi communism" thing is tiresome, and it lends to some pretty bad politics like the stageism of comradered and noxion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you are describing economics, not physics. This has nothing to do with physics.

Are you really sure about that? I realise that bourgeouis capitalist economies, especially nowadays, basically deal with a lot of non-materially existant "credit", but even they must have some point of contact with material reality at some point.

Revolutionary and post-revolutionary society won't be built out of a house of (credit) cards, so physical reality becomes the main if not the overriding concern.


However, he was wrong. It is true that the most advanced capitalist nations have the best material base for building socialism; the objective conditions are perfect. But the subjective ones are not - as long as workers in the most advanced nations draw some benefits from the exploitation of the periphery, it is highly unlikely that they will support a revolution. Mass support for socialism just isn't there, and I see no way to gain such support in the forseeable future.

Sure there is. Massive failure of imperialist ventures discredits it in the eyes of the population at large. Even small upsets like the Vietnam war raise worker consciousness. Combine this with a working class that considers itself "fit to rule", and you have the makings of a mass movement if not a proletarian revolution.

Considering how long it took for feudalism to be discredited as a social system and for the rising bourgeouisie to consider themselves fit to rule (rather than appointing "business-friendly" despots like Napoleon), I think it's far too early to say that Marx was wrong about this.


Which seems fine, in and of itself. Technology is good, and can help mankind. But the conditions surrounding these issues are very often dealing with the oppression of one class at the behest of another, often accompanied or accomplished by the use of technology. Rosa Lichtenstein has made some good points about this in the thread with 1917

It's the oppression that should be the issue here, should it not? Oppression is oppression regardless of whether the tool used is a big stick, a rifle or a laser cannon. It is not the tool which is the cause of the problem, it's the use to which it is put.


Another problem is the belief in numerical standards as actuators of social and economic programming, not human association or activity in general. They take the marxist recognition of conditioning so far as to say that the economy makes man as opposed to the traditional mantra, man makes himself for the economy. Simply put, it is never a good idea to ignore the role that we have in our own existence; just as I remarked in the sexism thread, it renders us impotent when we ignore our role in oppression, because we fail to recognize the first things which must change for that emancipation.


Humans are central to the equation of a technocratic system. Barring the invention and widespread implentation of AI (which is doubtful within my own lifetime), those machines won't administer themselves.

[Forward Union]

As Dean pointed out in the informative and consistent thread about why we ban fascists, it is true that we technocrats individually have played a significant role in the definition of primitivism as a reactionary current.

What I disagree with is Dean's opinions on why primitivists are restricted, which he claims is entirely due to technocratic influence, which makes it sound like there is a hidden anti-primitivist agenda on revleft run by a secretive cabal of technocrats.

After reading these two paragraphs I've realised just how serious this bussiness is.

It's real serious. I just don't know what to do.

[Dean]

It's the oppression that should be the issue here, should it not? Oppression is oppression regardless of whether the tool used is a big stick, a rifle or a laser cannon. It is not the tool which is the cause of the problem, it's the use to which it is put.
Well, we don't speak of oppression without speaking of capitalism, the police, and all the very real economic and material conditions that deal with that issue. It seems silly to defend technological advancement in every social setting we see it in, particularly when it is used to dull and manipulate the population in advanced nations.




Humans are central to the equation of a technocratic system. Barring the invention and widespread implentation of AI (which is doubtful within my own lifetime), those machines won't administer themselves.
Well, this is the problem. You, and it seems other Technocrats, seem to think that the control and administration of society can be accomplished with goals, policies and quotas defined by programmable data. My opinion is that, even if it is humans continuing to control society, we cannot have a sense of social policy which puts such high standards on the mathematical analysis of data. Such evidence should only be used by humans to define policy, it should never be, along with a few other very specific values, the sole input for whatever regulatory system we have. Going beyond that fact, it is tantamount to recognize how important the human being and the human character of any control structure is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, we don't speak of oppression without speaking of capitalism, the police, and all the very real economic and material conditions that deal with that issue. It seems silly to defend technological advancement in every social setting we see it in, particularly when it is used to dull and manipulate the population in advanced nations.

The problem is that some use the oppressive use of a technology as carte blanche to ban that technology under any and all circumstances. Television can be used to educate and enlighten as well as indoctrinate and propagandise, in both capitalist and communist society.

Or would you argue that my OU DVD, "Seeing inside the Sun" is also propaganda just like a Democrat political broadcast?


Well, this is the problem. You, and it seems other Technocrats, seem to think that the control and administration of society can be accomplished with goals, policies and quotas defined by programmable data. My opinion is that, even if it is humans continuing to control society, we cannot have a sense of social policy which puts such high standards on the mathematical analysis of data. Such evidence should only be used by humans to define policy, it should never be, along with a few other very specific values, the sole input for whatever regulatory system we have. Going beyond that fact, it is tantamount to recognize how important the human being and the human character of any control structure is.

Objective analysis is vitally important to the effective implementation of policy. The reason that so many government policies and initiatives under capitalism falter, fail, or limp along bleeding money all over the place is because they are heavily coloured in their implementation by subjective analysis derived from ideology, religion, fallacious economic models and greed as well as material factors that are either unrecognised, ignored, and/or not predicted by their faulty analysis in the first place.

While there may be no objective reason for an additional rail route between City A and City B if the citizens of both cities really want it, it would be poorly served by subjective implementation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion because I don't care enough about the issue, but the above is not true. If Marx had stated the above he would have completely abandoned his own method of analysis, which he didn't do.

He even spoke of the possiblity of the revolution beginning in a backward nation like Russia (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1223259&postcount=23).

And to simultaneously back you up here and criticize your underestimations elsewhere, so did Kautsky (so much for the vulgar caricatures of Marxism in bourgeois political science):

http://www.fifthinternational.org/index.php?id=168,757,0,0,1,0


Kautsky's renegacy in 1914, and his vituperative attack on the October Revolution in 1917, should not cause revolutionaries today to misestimate his views in the first years of the twentieth century. In fact, in the years prior to 1905, Kautsky predicted, encouraged and welcomed the outbreak of revolution in Russia and, in doing so, he helped overturn elements of the established perspectives of the Marxist movement at that time.

In the very first chapter of Left-Wing Communism, Lenin has a well-memorized quote of Kautsky from The Slavs and Revolution.

[Dean]

The problem is that some use the oppressive use of a technology as carte blanche to ban that technology under any and all circumstances. Television can be used to educate and enlighten as well as indoctrinate and propagandise, in both capitalist and communist society.
Of course, I am not proposing banning any technology. The only forms I am really wary of based on their existence are weapons, nuclear weapons, microwave, &c., but it's really hard to know what to do about that without arresting other developments and science.

My problem is when support for technology involves implicit or explicit support for corporations, and when very real environmental concerns are shrugged off.


Or would you argue that my OU DVD, "Seeing inside the Sun" is also propaganda just like a Democrat political broadcast?
Well, yes, I actually would, but that doesn't mean I oppose the technology. Much like any other spoken word, it speaks from a position which presupposes various social prejudices, explicitly referenced or not.



Objective analysis is vitally important to the effective implementation of policy. The reason that so many government policies and initiatives under capitalism falter, fail, or limp along bleeding money all over the place is because they are heavily coloured in their implementation by subjective analysis derived from ideology, religion, fallacious economic models and greed as well as material factors that are either unrecognised, ignored, and/or not predicted by their faulty analysis in the first place.

While there may be no objective reason for an additional rail route between City A and City B if the citizens of both cities really want it, it would be poorly served by subjective implementation.
I understand what you mean here, but I don't really see how this relates to the point? Much like we can discuss it with language here, a form of association of people can also talk about the issue. The pint wasn't about objective analysis, but about programmed or programmable analysis. It seems ridiculous to grant executive power to a set of rules, rather than a group of people.

[PRC-UTE]

I study astrophysics/physics and I think technocracy is silly. I don't think its terrible, but the whole "sci-fi communism" thing is tiresome, and it lends to some pretty bad politics like the stageism of comradered and noxion.

you're absolutely right. under the guise of being some advanced theory they actually spread anti-working class stagist rubbish that was discredited empirically decades ago.

I dont think the technocratic types are responsible for getting primitivists banned. other well read and respected comrades who represent real world political tendencies, as Luis H does have explained that primitivism is not a form of radical ecology at all, almost its opposite, and is a by product of alienation from labour. It's a reactionary middle class ideology if there ever was one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you're absolutely right. under the guise of being some advanced theory they actually spread anti-working class stagist rubbish that was discredited empirically decades ago.

Anti-working class? A baseless political slur if I ever saw one. Substantiate it.


My problem is when support for technology involves implicit or explicit support for corporations, and when very real environmental concerns are shrugged off.

1. Governments, universities and corporations are currently the only institutions with the physical and intellectual resources to actually advance human knowledge. Gone are the days when the lone inventor could wack together something new in his basement lab.

2. Too many environmentalists leap on the nearest potential environmental risks without a clear-headed assessment of the consequences. Some leftists suffer from something similar when they use any problem, no matter how small, with a technology or process as an excuse to attack corporations. Genetically modified foods are a prime example of both phenomena - an agricorp uses GM in an unethical fashion, and the eco-worriers and under-informed leftists both call for a ban on GM technology rather than criticising the corporation's actions. This is unrealistic for at least two reasons I can think of, the first being number 1 above, and secondly sooner or later someone's going to do it anyway, so why try to hold us all back?


Well, yes, I actually would, but that doesn't mean I oppose the technology. Much like any other spoken word, it speaks from a position which presupposes various social prejudices, explicitly referenced or not.

I am really surprised that you can say with any confidence, since I assume you haven't seen it. On what basis would you argue that, especially considering the very physical nature of the subject matter? The Sun has no detectable political opinion.


I understand what you mean here, but I don't really see how this relates to the point? Much like we can discuss it with language here, a form of association of people can also talk about the issue. The pint wasn't about objective analysis, but about programmed or programmable analysis. It seems ridiculous to grant executive power to a set of rules, rather than a group of people.

The point is that almost all policies deal with material, objective reality at some point, and to ignore that while concentrating solely on subjectives is to court disaster, gross inefficiency and failure, as is shown time and time again. A collective might vote to develop a faster-than-light drive, but if the physics says that's impossible, then it won't happen no matter how badly they want it or how democratic their system is.

[black magick hustla]

Anti-working class? A baseless political slur if I ever saw one. Substantiate it.

Maybe technocracy itself is not "antiworking class", but the stageism a lot of technocrats hoild is really questionable. I dont know if all of you, but atleast you Noxion are incapable of looking beyond national borders because rather than seeing capital as a world system that interconnects economically all the working classes and the capitalists, you think some countries are in different "stages", and therefore it is correct for you to support "progressive capital" in some countries.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe technocracy itself is not "antiworking class", but the stageism a lot of technocrats hoild is really questionable. I dont know if all of you, but atleast you Noxion are incapable of looking beyond national borders because rather than seeing capital as a world system that interconnects economically all the working classes and the capitalists, you think some countries are in different "stages", and therefore it is correct for you to support "progressive capital" in some countries.

Others support "progressive capital" in some countries, they simply don't call it that. They take progressive capitalists like Chavez and Prachanda at their word and consider them "socialists" or even "communists", while I look at their real world performance. As long as said performance remains as resistance to Western imperialism I see no reason not to support them.

The difference is one of terminology and what is percieved to be possible by such forms of government. History has shown time and time again that such approaches do not bring about communism, or anything even close.

Of course capitalism is international. It cannot help but put it's grubby, bloody fingers in every pie. That's exploitation, not development.

If capitalism is universal, then sooner or later I'm going to be proven wrong when a proletarian revolution engulfs a country I completely didn't expect to be. But it would be the nice kind of surprise.

I await the verdict of history.

[black magick hustla]

Well I am a left communist, I think all the people who support factions of the bourgeosie are anti-working class to some extent.

History has proven the bourgeosie in all nations have been responsable for some of the worst barbarisms inimaginable. Whether anti-imperialists like Mugabe, or "pro-US" bosses. I have no reason to think capital is progressive in any sense. Furthermore, there arent "anti-imperialist" capitalists- capital is a world system and they either get integrated into one imperialist superpower or try to gestate imperialist blocs and aggressively pursue expansion.

[Dean]

1. Governments, universities and corporations are currently the only institutions with the physical and intellectual resources to actually advance human knowledge. Gone are the days when the lone inventor could wack together something new in his basement lab.
Wait... so you are saying that support for industrial or technological advancement does mean that we should support corporations, governments and universities as they are? Wahtever happened to taking that productive capabilty from them for us to use???


2. Too many environmentalists leap on the nearest potential environmental risks without a clear-headed assessment of the consequences. Some leftists suffer from something similar when they use any problem, no matter how small, with a technology or process as an excuse to attack corporations. Genetically modified foods are a prime example of both phenomena - an agricorp uses GM in an unethical fashion, and the eco-worriers and under-informed leftists both call for a ban on GM technology rather than criticising the corporation's actions. This is unrealistic for at least two reasons I can think of, the first being number 1 above, and secondly sooner or later someone's going to do it anyway, so why try to hold us all back?
We have a media, corporate and government culture which pushes all of these technological developments heavily upon us. And we know for a fact that in the past, these advancements have been very detrimenatl. Not only is it rational, but often critical that we distrust these organizations.


I am really surprised that you can say with any confidence, since I assume you haven't seen it. On what basis would you argue that, especially considering the very physical nature of the subject matter? The Sun has no detectable political opinion.
I say it because I describe it as a product of its environment. Just like you might assess environmentalists, who often have no clear loyalty to the liberal parties or opposition to corporate interests otherwise. I think it is ridiculous to talk about media in any capacity without talking about the prejudices it brings to the table. At the very least it argues from a philosophical assumption that certain kinds of data are more important - maybe imagery. At the worst it could have some very real social prejudices, but since I know nothing of the film, I wouldn't comment except as I would comment on any other thing.




The point is that almost all policies deal with material, objective reality at some point, and to ignore that while concentrating solely on subjectives is to court disaster, gross inefficiency and failure, as is shown time and time again. A collective might vote to develop a faster-than-light drive, but if the physics says that's impossible, then it won't happen no matter how badly they want it or how democratic their system is.
This is where your prejudice against human creativity becomes quite clear. To say that humans cannot be objective or come to objective conclusions in a group environment is to say that they cannot act with social interests in mind; in short, that communism is not possible or rational. This is a truly sad view of the human animal, and it is truly puzzling that any so - called "comrade" would speak of hman beings this way.

You might criticise a group of scientists that collectively want to create the "faster than light drive" but it would only be the programmed computer or bureaucratic policy that would enforce that research well beyond the point that it has been proven impossible. Computers can only act as the arbiters of human interests; "the confines of physics" will be just as much a problem for computers trying to accomplish X as it would be for humans trying to accomplish X.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wait... so you are saying that support for industrial or technological advancement does mean that we should support corporations, governments and universities as they are? Wahtever happened to taking that productive capabilty from them for us to use???

Well, if the Large Hadron Collider still exists by the time proletarian revolution rolls around then I fully expect the scientists, engineers and technicians of CERN will sieze the facilities and wrest control of them from the petty bereaucrats and miserly accountants. Likewise for other research orgs. In the meantime they are limited to *****ing about the constraints within they have to work and whatever methods short of takeover will work.



We have a media, corporate and government culture which pushes all of these technological developments heavily upon us. And we know for a fact that in the past, these advancements have been very detrimenatl. Not only is it rational, but often critical that we distrust these organizations.

What technologies have proven to be detrimental? Further, was it the actual technology or it's implementation that was detrimental? How many times did the engineers' recommendations get overridden by the penpushers and bean-counters? Without access to the internal communications of such organisations I cannot say, but my suspicion is that whenever something terrible happened, it was because the engineers and techs were overruled or ignored or simply ordered to do something that was just plain dangerous from an engineering standpoint. There is a tradition of placing very generous safety margins in engineering designs, and the cost-reducing measures and corner-cutting that the financial departments are so fond of are the very antithesis of that ethic of engineering.


This is where your prejudice against human creativity becomes quite clear. To say that humans cannot be objective or come to objective conclusions in a group environment is to say that they cannot act with social interests in mind; in short, that communism is not possible or rational. This is a truly sad view of the human animal, and it is truly puzzling that any so - called "comrade" would speak of hman beings this way.

Come on now, if it is impossible for humans to be objective then technocracy is an exercise in futility as technocrats are just as human as anyone else. Science, engineering and technology are products of the human ability to objectively analyse data and apply their findings to understand and change the real world. If that ain't creative, I don't know what is.

If humans were completely incapable of objectivity, then science would "work" just as well as religion or philosophy, IE hardly ever or not at all.


You might criticise a group of scientists that collectively want to create the "faster than light drive" but it would only be the programmed computer or bureaucratic policy that would enforce that research well beyond the point that it has been proven impossible. Computers can only act as the arbiters of human interests; "the confines of physics" will be just as much a problem for computers trying to accomplish X as it would be for humans trying to accomplish X.

You seem to be under the impression that technocrats will be handing executive power to computers. This is would be an exercise in stupidity, as computers have no creative capacity (the best they can do is come up with (admittedly elaborate) recombinations of elements already defined by humans) and thus cannot formulate policy. Another stumbling block for computers is in recognising patterns in an analogue environment, in other words, the non-digital world not composed of bits and bytes.

The AI researchers are working on this, but I don't expect an Artificial Intelligence capable of formulating the elaborate policies that society requires to appear within the next 5 to 10 centuries, although I disagree with the neo-Vitalists like Roger Penrose who state that AI is impossible.

[Dean]

Well, if the Large Hadron Collider still exists by the time proletarian revolution rolls around then I fully expect the scientists, engineers and technicians of CERN will sieze the facilities and wrest control of them from the petty bereaucrats and miserly accountants. Likewise for other research orgs. In the meantime they are limited to *****ing about the constraints within they have to work and whatever methods short of takeover will work.
Well, I never said that you opposed workers' revolution, either. My point is that control of the means of production should in no way grant them all support that we give to that product; that is, if we like food, that doesn't mean we need to support the method, existence or production of the food industry.


What technologies have proven to be detrimental? Further, was it the actual technology or it's implementation that was detrimental? How many times did the engineers' recommendations get overridden by the penpushers and bean-counters? Without access to the internal communications of such organisations I cannot say, but my suspicion is that whenever something terrible happened, it was because the engineers and techs were overruled or ignored or simply ordered to do something that was just plain dangerous from an engineering standpoint. There is a tradition of placing very generous safety margins in engineering designs, and the cost-reducing measures and corner-cutting that the financial departments are so fond of are the very antithesis of that ethic of engineering.

Well, Nuclear weapons, a slew of drugs, various products that are recalled. Of course it is only in application that they are detrimental - even nuclear bombs and "bad" drugs are totally harmless if left untouched. My point is that, as the product of insidious, globally powerful elites which ultimately serves their interest in some way, it makes perfect sense to be wary of one's relationship to that technology.


Come on now, if it is impossible for humans to be objective then technocracy is an exercise in futility as technocrats are just as human as anyone else. Science, engineering and technology are products of the human ability to objectively analyse data and apply their findings to understand and change the real world. If that ain't creative, I don't know what is.

If humans were completely incapable of objectivity, then science would "work" just as well as religion or philosophy, IE hardly ever or not at all.
That's not true. I think you have a different understanding of "objective" -by its very nature, the human mind is subjective.


You seem to be under the impression that technocrats will be handing executive power to computers. This is would be an exercise in stupidity, as computers have no creative capacity (the best they can do is come up with (admittedly elaborate) recombinations of elements already defined by humans) and thus cannot formulate policy. Another stumbling block for computers is in recognising patterns in an analogue environment, in other words, the non-digital world not composed of bits and bytes.

The AI researchers are working on this, but I don't expect an Artificial Intelligence capable of formulating the elaborate policies that society requires to appear within the next 5 to 10 centuries, although I disagree with the neo-Vitalists like Roger Penrose who state that AI is impossible.
Well, what problem do you have with human control then? That's what the discussion was about. Human control in no way implies irrational and emotional (which seems to be what you mean by subjective").

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, I never said that you opposed workers' revolution, either. My point is that control of the means of production should in no way grant them all support that we give to that product; that is, if we like food, that doesn't mean we need to support the method, existence or production of the food industry.

[Emphasis Added]

All advanced technological societies, which includes communist ones, need industrialised food production. It will certainly be organised differently than under capitalism, but to oppose the existance of a food industry is foolish.

I oppose "terminator seeds" and other applications of technology the purpose of which is solely to line the pockets of greedy corporations, but in no way am I opposed to GM as a whole.


Well, Nuclear weapons, a slew of drugs, various products that are recalled. Of course it is only in application that they are detrimental - even nuclear bombs and "bad" drugs are totally harmless if left untouched. My point is that, as the product of insidious, globally powerful elites which ultimately serves their interest in some way, it makes perfect sense to be wary of one's relationship to that technology.

1. Even nuclear bombs can be put to good uses. Link 1 (http://orbitalvector.com/Deep%20Space%20Propulsion/Nuclear%20Pulse%20Drives/Nuclear%20Pulse%20Drives.htm) Link 2 (http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040112/nuclear.shtml)

2. Drugs and products are recalled because their manufacturers either cut too many corners to save money (like with the current Chinese milk scandal), failed to complete comprehensive tests for whatever reason (thalidomide was not tested on pregnant animals - I assume (or rather, hope!) that it is now standard practice) or genuinely failed to foresee the consequences.

The problem isn't technology, the problem is when technology is applied in a haphazard fashion (usually to save money) or applied in an unethical fashion.

The problem is capitalism.


That's not true. I think you have a different understanding of "objective" -by its very nature, the human mind is subjective.

That there is a subjective component to the human mind is undeniable. However it is manifestly untrue that the human mind is entirely subjective. It is after all a part of material reality, and thus has to maintain a certain degree of objectivity simply to remain alive. Minds that consider gravity an illusion tend not to last long.


Well, what problem do you have with human control then? That's what the discussion was about. Human control in no way implies irrational and emotional (which seems to be what you mean by subjective").

My problem is with uninformed human control. The non-specialist can familiarise themselves with the basics of a subject, but that does not make them qualified to have executive power over those specialists who actually studied their subject. When a dentist is working on my teeth, I don't want him to be constrained by the opinions of non-dentists. In the manner of boots, I defer to the bootmaker.

In multi-disciplinary projects, like colonising the Solar System, refurbishing a city's transport network, or building a skyscraper, the desires of those who set those projects in motion are best served by letting those in the know communicate freely with each other and get on with it, with an absolute minimum of meddling.

[Dean]

[Emphasis Added]

All advanced technological societies, which includes communist ones, need industrialised food production. It will certainly be organised differently than under capitalism, but to oppose the existance of a food industry is foolish.

I oppose "terminator seeds" and other applications of technology the purpose of which is solely to line the pockets of greedy corporations, but in no way am I opposed to GM as a whole.

1. Even nuclear bombs can be put to good uses. Link 1 (http://orbitalvector.com/Deep%20Space%20Propulsion/Nuclear%20Pulse%20Drives/Nuclear%20Pulse%20Drives.htm) Link 2 (http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040112/nuclear.shtml)

I understand how you can take the quote that way, but it's simply not what I meant. Just as human existence refers to the specific conditions of life, so too does "existence... of the food industry" refer to the economic organization &c. that it exists within and as. And, as pointed out, even "terminator seeds" are not bad simply for being developed - they are only bad in application. But I fail to see how that relates to the supportive approach given to the pharmaceutical industry &c..


2. Drugs and products are recalled because their manufacturers either cut too many corners to save money (like with the current Chinese milk scandal), failed to complete comprehensive tests for whatever reason (thalidomide was not tested on pregnant animals - I assume (or rather, hope!) that it is now standard practice) or genuinely failed to foresee the consequences.

The problem isn't technology, the problem is when technology is applied in a haphazard fashion (usually to save money) or applied in an unethical fashion.

The problem is capitalism.
Of course the problem is capitalism. But the organizations which are responsible for the capitalist mode of production, and which exist due to the capitalist orientation, should not be canonized.

The question was whether or not a generalized distrust of corporations RE: their products was rational. Well I think that the pharmaceutical industry makes it clear. There have been hundreds of cases of dangerous incidents with Ambien. My own mother had problems with it. And yet, it was still advertised throughout, which is wholly disgusting. I'm sure it has some rational application, but I think it is only reasonable to distrust every instance of its application within the conditions of a capitalist mode of production.


That there is a subjective component to the human mind is undeniable. However it is manifestly untrue that the human mind is entirely subjective. It is after all a part of material reality, and thus has to maintain a certain degree of objectivity simply to remain alive. Minds that consider gravity an illusion tend not to last long.
I don't see what gravity has to do with it. And I never implied that the mind was in totality "unobjective." But by definition, all thoughts exist within the confines of a subjective existence. In any case, my point was that some individual bias is bound to affect pretty much every statement you make, even if it is only in emphasis or linguistic design. The mental patterns involved in the design process are simply too complex to circumvent these forces. Maybe some totally non-delierate actions are free of this bias.




My problem is with uninformed human control. The non-specialist can familiarise themselves with the basics of a subject, but that does not make them qualified to have executive power over those specialists who actually studied their subject. When a dentist is working on my teeth, I don't want him to be constrained by the opinions of non-dentists. In the manner of boots, I defer to the bootmaker.

In multi-disciplinary projects, like colonising the Solar System, refurbishing a city's transport network, or building a skyscraper, the desires of those who set those projects in motion are best served by letting those in the know communicate freely with each other and get on with it, with an absolute minimum of meddling.

Well, I don't see where this came up either. I never advocated ignorant problem-solving. In past discussions on technocracy, I pointed out that specialization was not the only way to go about acheiving a rational discourse on an issue, and that open discussions on issues should be as welcoming and inclusive as possible. If we have an informed, rational public, it might be totally rational to leave the specialists to certain plans themselves, such as engineering. But there is no reason why the public should be barred from such discussions, expecially if we have a heavily mechanized economic system. That would only mean that the controllers would become the sole arbiters of the economy, which simply recreates the problem with the means of production that we experience in capitalism.

[PRC-UTE]

Anti-working class? A baseless political slur if I ever saw one. Substantiate it.

It's not a slur, stagism is objectively anti-working class. Stagists consistently argue that democratic revolutions must be finished in their entirety before the working class can go on to struggling for socialism, which is telling the workers to put their interests aside.

[BobKKKindle$]

Anti-working class? A baseless political slur if I ever saw one. Substantiate it.

A "stageist" approach rejects any possibility of revolutionary change in the developing world because these countries have not attained a high level of economic development, and still exhibit pre-capitalist social and political structures, due to the weakness of the national bourgeoisie which prevents democratic tasks from being accomplished. In reality, however, developing countries possess the greatest potential for revolutionary change because the proletariat in these countries are often faced with conditions of intense material deprivation (which means they are frequently driven to revolt) and are rarely subject to the influence of a labour aristocracy, which is an important obstacle to revolutionary transformation in the developed world, especially when the members of the labour aristocracy dominate trade unions and other proletarian organisations, as is frequently the case. Moreover, capitalism is now ready for destruction because the necessary material prerequisites for socialism have already been reached but only on a world scale due to the integration of the entire world as a single economic unit, such that any revolution, regardless of whether it occurs in a developed or developing country will only be able to survive and lead to the successful attainement of a socialist society if it spreads to other countries and becomes a world revolution. Trotsky argued this position by explaining that, despite being a major industrial power, the UK was still dependent on its colonial empire and so would not be able to attain socialism on its own:


It is precisely here that we come up against the two mutually exclusive standpoints: the international revolutionary theory of the permanent revolution and the national-reformist theory of socialism in one country. Not only backward China, but in general no country in the world can build socialism within its own national limits: the ‘highly-developed productive forces which have grown beyond national boundaries resist this, just as do those forces which are insufficiently developed for nationalization.

The Permanent Revolution, What does the slogan of the democratic dictatorship mean today for the countries of the east?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's not a slur, stagism is objectively anti-working class. Stagists consistently argue that democratic revolutions must be finished in their entirety before the working class can go on to struggling for socialism, which is telling the workers to put their interests aside.

I don't "tell" the workers to do anything, it's the material conditions that decide the outcome. All the "socialist" revolutions have thus far turned into capitalism, with the possible exception of Cuba, in which the presence of foreign capital is increasing. In the absence of any pro-active movement towards communism, it is drifting towards full-blown capitalism.

What happened in those countries was laudable, but didn't lead to communism any more than the developments in countries that weren't wrapped in red flags.


A "stageist" approach rejects any possibility of revolutionary change in the developing world because these countries have not attained a high level of economic development, and still exhibit pre-capitalist social and political structures, due to the weakness of the national bourgeoisie which prevents democratic tasks from being accomplished.

Nonsense. Revolutionary change does occur, it just doesn't lead to communism.


Moreover, capitalism is now ready for destruction because the necessary material prerequisites for socialism have already been reached but only on a world scale due to the integration of the entire world as a single economic unit, such that any revolution, regardless of whether it occurs in a developed or developing country will only be able to survive and lead to the successful attainement of a socialist society if it spreads to other countries and becomes a world revolution. Trotsky argued this position by explaining that, despite being a major industrial power, the UK was still dependent on its colonial empire and so would not be able to attain socialism on its own:

I was never of the opinion that communism was attainable in a single country - rather, it seems to me that communism will be achieved on a regional basis - Europe, North America, Autralasia, Latin America, East Asia, Russo-Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa etc - as each of these areas appear to have the material and economic clout to maintain communism in the face of antagonism. I expect Europe and North America to achieve communism first, but I could be wrong about that. But waiting for the whole world to turn socialist before communism can be achieved is a recipe for postponing communism indefinately.

The socialist hypothesis has thus far failed every test. It's time to try a different hypothesis.

[BobKKKindle$]

But waiting for the whole world to turn socialist before communism can be achieved is a recipe for postponing communism indefinatelIt's not a matter of "waiting", because regardless of how much you want to attain communism or any other progressive social system, communism can only come into existence once the prerequisites have been satisfied. The economic prerequisites for communism have already been satisfied for some time but only on a world scale because no single country (or region, especially underdeveloped regions such as Africa) possesses the natural and technological resources necessary to abolish material scarcity, and so communism can only be attained once the revolution has spread to the entire world, and the economic resources of the world are coordinated through a rational system of planning. History shows that attempts to construct socialism in primitive settings solely through the power of ideological fanaticism and mass political mobilization have ultimately ended in failure and have resulted in the formation of state-capitalist regimes which exhibit pervasive inequalities and exploitative social relationships, as occurred in the PRC and other experiments.


Nonsense. Revolutionary change does occur, it just doesn't lead to communism. If a socialist revolution (following the accomplishment of bourgeois-democratic tasks during the first phase of the revolution) occurs in the developing world but if the revolution fails to spread to other countries and eventually the entire world, the revolutionary country will certainly not be able to attain socialism or communism, and will eventually resort to capitalism (generally in the form of state capitalism where the bureaucracy takes the place of the old bourgeoisie and owns the means of productive through the state, even when private property is not codified in law, which allows the bureaucracy to accumulate surplus value) and the gains of the revolution will be lost despite the efforts and ideological commitment of the working class. Recognizing this basic fact (which has been vindicated by historical experience, and was even predicted by Lenin following the Bolshevik revolution) is important because it has implications for how we act once a revolution has occurred, as it establishes an imperative to support revolution movements operating in other countries.


I expect Europe and North America to achieve communism first, but I could be wrong about thatWhy? Are you saying that revolutions will occur first in these countries? For the whole of the twentieth century, almost all of the most influential revolutionary struggles have originated in countries like Russia which exhibit a serious lack of industrial development due to the economic effects of colonialism and subsequent systems of exploitation, so socialists need to start our analysis from the assumption that the revolution will begin in a developing country, and then examine the possibilities and imperatives which spring from this assumption.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't "tell" the workers to do anything, it's the material conditions that decide the outcome. All the "socialist" revolutions have thus far turned into capitalism, with the possible exception of Cuba, in which the presence of foreign capital is increasing. In the absence of any pro-active movement towards communism, it is drifting towards full-blown capitalism.

What happened in those countries was laudable, but didn't lead to communism any more than the developments in countries that weren't wrapped in red flags.

You may not personally tell workers to delay making a revolution, but that's exactly what Mensheviks and some Stalinists who adhered to stagist doctrines did exactly. That's undeniable.