Technocracy

[Dimentio]

Technocracy seems to stir up emotions from many, so therefore, I am obliged to start this thread where we could discuss technocracy.

Let me first state, that technocracy gave me the profound impact which led me to adopting a progressive viewpoint. Before technocracy, I was thoroughly cynical and non-political in my outlook. With technocracy, I gained the tool to understand a possible way to reach a socially and ecologically sustainable future.

Therefore, me and my best friend joined the European technocratic movement.

What is then technocracy?

Its not "technofetischistic communism" or anti-environmentalism.

Technocracy is a profoundly environmentalist position, which seeks to balance sustainability in both the social and the ecological spheres. Energy accounting achieves that because it is non-profit-driven, certainly communist and allows us to use the resource base as denominator instead of debt.

It does'nt need to have anything to do with technology in itself. Technology is a tool which should be used to elevate humanity to a higher level of social conciousness. Under capitalism, technology is instead used to increase profits.

To say that technocracy is about technology is to say that marxism-leninism is about ice-picks.

[Dean]

Technocracy is a profoundly environmentalist position, which seeks to balance sustainability in both the social and the ecological spheres. Energy accounting achieves that because it is non-profit-driven, certainly communist and allows us to use the resource base as denominator instead of debt.

Your attitude about this has changed over time. It's good to see that, but other members need to take on that particular attitude as well (namely Vanguard1917).


It does'nt need to have anything to do with technology in itself. Technology is a tool which should be used to elevate humanity to a higher level of social conciousness. Under capitalism, technology is instead used to increase profits.

To say that technocracy is about technology is to say that marxism-leninism is about ice-picks.
Firstly, it is by definition about technology. Even your modes of social organization are tools, or technology. And that is basically the problem.

The point, for me at least, is that human beings should control and benefit from their labour equally and collectively, but above all, directly. The technocratic movement seeks to apply rigid organizational phenomena to a (generally post-communist) society. Compare the two:

Dean's Communism:
Human being in control of his or her labor.

Serpent's Technocracy:
Human being in control of social or economic apparatus in control of labor.

I have given you the benefit of the doubt - absent are the concerns about bureaucracy, technofetishism and class recreation. I am only focusing on the very fundamental, irrevocable problems, which are basically a re-alienation of the human creature from his/her labour.

I am not bothered that you want mechanized labor, but I am bothered that you want a specific form of mechanization which removes the human from the very important social character of labor, and the interests which drive the given labor in the first place.

And Serpent, you have a tendency to respond to posts with irrelevant points, because you misunderstand some things that I say. I would prefer that you respond that something doesn't make sense than that an inferior or irrelevant point is wrong. I'm not angry or anything, I just want more thoughtful answers.

One more thing - I was terse before when I said that people don't dislike you. Well, they really don't. I have spoken to some of your harsh critics, and they are not against you personally. You're not a very unlikable person, but your ideas are very untenable. Don't feel like the criticism is against you, but that it is an attempt to help you to see where (we feel) you are wrong... very very wrong. :)

[chimx]

To say that technocracy is about technology is to say that marxism-leninism is about ice-picks.

That doesn't make any sense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Your attitude about this has changed over time. It's good to see that, but other members need to take on that particular attitude as well (namely Vanguard1917).

As far as I am aware VG1917 is not a technocrat. He certainly doesn't seem to call himself one.

[Dean]

As far as I am aware VG1917 is not a technocrat. He certainly doesn't seem to call himself one.

Well, I was talking about the orientation of comrades, not necessarily their distinct ideologies. A lot of comrades are industrial apologists without having a clear ideology to that end.

[Sentinel]

The problem with the technocracy movement, and particularly with the existing technocratic organisations, is that their membership comes from mixed class backgrounds. Some of them are bourgeois, and thus by default have bourgeois class interests -- the preservation of bourgeois hegemony over the proletariat -- always as their most immediate goal.

They may or may not admit, or even realise this but it is nonetheless a fact -- a doctor Ph.D. has no material reason to push for a workers revolution, and that will affect their position on worker's struggles. And unfortunately the leader of NET is one. :(

Technocracy does, however, have revolutionary elements -- members who aren't bourgeois and strive for a merger of technocratic and socialist thought -- and revolutionary theories concerning economy and the automation of production.

For these reasons I feel that the correct socialist position towards technocrats should generally be one of friendship and positive curiosity. A lot can be learned from their economic and other theories, and many comrades -- such as Serpent -- can be found amongst their ranks.

[Module]

That doesn't make any sense.
... He's saying it's not about technology, like Marxist Leninism is not about icepicks. :s

I would agree with Sentinel on this.
From what I have read about Technocracy, it seems like it potentially has some very valuable ideas about post revolutionary society, though I admit I haven't read very much so can't really give a complex answer in that regard.
But the Technocracy movement, from what I can see, is not a class struggle movement; therefore I can't really see it as anything of too much importance.
Technocracy is like all... hypothetical science.. right now that could improve our lives. Cool .. but not exactly considered a priority, and not something which should be an 'end' to specifically struggle for, as revolutionary leftists.

[Dimentio]

Your attitude about this has changed over time. It's good to see that, but other members need to take on that particular attitude as well (namely Vanguard1917).


Firstly, it is by definition about technology. Even your modes of social organization are tools, or technology. And that is basically the problem.

The point, for me at least, is that human beings should control and benefit from their labour equally and collectively, but above all, directly. The technocratic movement seeks to apply rigid organizational phenomena to a (generally post-communist) society. Compare the two:

Dean's Communism:
Human being in control of his or her labor.

Serpent's Technocracy:
Human being in control of social or economic apparatus in control of labor.

I have given you the benefit of the doubt - absent are the concerns about bureaucracy, technofetishism and class recreation. I am only focusing on the very fundamental, irrevocable problems, which are basically a re-alienation of the human creature from his/her labour.

I am not bothered that you want mechanized labor, but I am bothered that you want a specific form of mechanization which removes the human from the very important social character of labor, and the interests which drive the given labor in the first place.

And Serpent, you have a tendency to respond to posts with irrelevant points, because you misunderstand some things that I say. I would prefer that you respond that something doesn't make sense than that an inferior or irrelevant point is wrong. I'm not angry or anything, I just want more thoughtful answers.

One more thing - I was terse before when I said that people don't dislike you. Well, they really don't. I have spoken to some of your harsh critics, and they are not against you personally. You're not a very unlikable person, but your ideas are very untenable. Don't feel like the criticism is against you, but that it is an attempt to help you to see where (we feel) you are wrong... very very wrong. :)

What labour? Our goal is to eliminate as much as possible the direct human inolvement in production. Most humans, even workers, will rather be administrators and programmers than manual workers.

And I think its a good process. If you want to work, you have 20+ hours per day to do it under technocracy, free from any production process, free to do it independently or collectivelly. No one forces you to lay off during the free time. And no one takes anything from your time surplus.

We also of course have some things which needs to be done. Like for example healthcare, maintenance, education, and so on. And in order to deal with that, we would need some sort of schedual implemented, in order to get an efficient flow.

I wonder how that flow should be organised under your model?

As for my attitude to environmentalism. It has not changed. It has been the same for ages, which my articles about environment on the European technocracy website shows.

I advise you to look at NET;s stance on the environment.

I will say that you are idealising Marx's views upon alienation, and building some sort of semi-religious idealisation of the virtue of labour. The truth is that there is no exploitation under technocracy because there is no profit and no classes, and no differentiation of income.

Given that, technocracy, much like anarchism, in itself do not say that it derives from the teachings of Karl Marx, then it also has no responsibilities to uphold to marxist ideals, namely because marxism and technocracy analyses two different things.

While marxism analyses class relations and development of class relations, technocracy analyses the available resource base and the organisation of collective administration of the production, in order to maximise output and minimise the output within the framework of a sustainable community.

At least, those are the differences between the two disciplines. I have never demanded marxism to answer to technocracy, and I see no reason why technocracy should be judged from the perspective of marxism and declined as an idea for a post-capitalist society when we have a lot of anarchists here who do not abide to Marx's ideas at all, but rather follow Stirner or some other non-marxist anarchist.

[Jazzratt]

Well, I was talking about the orientation of comrades, not necessarily their distinct ideologies. A lot of comrades are industrial apologists without having a clear ideology to that end.

He's not even "orientated" toward technocracy, he is an outright critic of the idea. Hell, he even shares in some of your criticisms. The whole point of this thread has been to indicate that simply liking technology or science does not make one a technocrat.

It should also be pointed out that technocracy is not a monolithic ideal any more than communism. We have various organisations with different schools of thought (you may remember this when Captain Orthdox Technocracy Skip fucking Sievert came here) and even within some of the organisations there is a variety of ideas - the Anarcho-Communist Technocracy holon set up in the NET for example.

Frequently the criticism that we [leftists] do not have a lot to say about the specifics of a future society and the way it would run can be answered by technocracy, likewise, in energy accounting, we have a strong method of efficently calculating what needs to be done in order to keep a society viable.

This, of course is my view on the matter and it is different to Serpent (who, as an important member of a technocrat organisation probably sees technocracy as an ideological whole), Sentinel, NoXion, Kami, Haraldur and all the other technocrats and sympathisers.

[Dean]

He's not even "orientated" toward technocracy, he is an outright critic of the idea. Hell, he even shares in some of your criticisms. The whole point of this thread has been to indicate that simply liking technology or science does not make one a technocrat.

It should also be pointed out that technocracy is not a monolithic ideal any more than communism. We have various organisations with different schools of thought (you may remember this when Captain Orthdox Technocracy Skip fucking Sievert came here) and even within some of the organisations there is a variety of ideas - the Anarcho-Communist Technocracy holon set up in the NET for example.

Frequently the criticism that we [leftists] do not have a lot to say about the specifics of a future society and the way it would run can be answered by technocracy, likewise, in energy accounting, we have a strong method of efficently calculating what needs to be done in order to keep a society viable.

This, of course is my view on the matter and it is different to Serpent (who, as an important member of a technocrat organisation probably sees technocracy as an ideological whole), Sentinel, NoXion, Kami, Haraldur and all the other technocrats and sympathisers.

Right, and that's why I tailored my criticism so specifically. As for VG1917, that is why I said "orientation" as opposed to "distinct ideologies." At the very least, Technocracy suffers from emptiness, social engineering attitudes or a basic disrespect for human psychology. I only brought up VG1917 as an example of an industry fetishist, not a technocrat.

[chimx]

I have never cared enough about technocracy to read into it. My knowledge of it pretty much exclusively comes from reading about it here by adherents. While you assert that technocracy has nothing to do with technology, all the technocrats on this forum fetishize technology.

The problem is that, as I pointed out in this thread on Marxist superstructure, this fetishization exhalts bourgeois superstructure. Technological developments under the current historical epoch exist to defend the hegemony of bourgeois rule. It is short-sighted to laud and praise the liberating aspects of things like the internet, production automation, etc. because they exist to prolong bourgeois rule. It is repressive desublimation, to use Marcuse's term for it, and in my opinion, completely lacks a materialist conception of human development.

[Dimentio]

Marx himself was very interested and positive towards electricity and other discoveries. As for being a technology fetischist, I do not really feel as one. I could agree that the Venus Project are quite technologically fetischist.

[Vanguard1917]

Marx himself was very interested and positive towards electricity and other discoveries.

This is an immense understatement. For Marx, scientific, technological and industrial progress makes up the very essence of what would ultimately liberate humanity, freeing him from the realm of necessity, and allowing him to enter into the realm of freedom. As such, Marx marvelled at the technological and scientific developments which were taking place around him. In contrast to the 'leftists' today who find themselves in the vanguard of movements against technological progress (whether in biotechnology, nuclear power or air travel), fear and hostility to technological progress was absolutely alien to Marx's outlook.

Engels summed it up well: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general."

--------------------

Technocracy can be criticised legitimately in several ways; anti-technology eco-arguments aren't among them. Technocracy is not flawed because it places 'too much' faith in technology and human scientific ingenuity. On the contrary, we could argue that it's flawed precisely because it doesn't place enough faith in these things.

The obvious rift between Marxism and technocracy is that the latter (at least according to some of its advocates) seems to pressupose the idea that material scarcity is an eternal condition of human society, which is why it argues that an ideal future society would have to regulate consumption, through energy accounting, as a result of scarce resources. This is, obviously, not compatible with the communist view, which argues that scarcity is a historically determined phenomenon as opposed to an eternal condition, and that the aim of a society in transition to communism is to radically step up progress in productive technology as a means to reduce the realm of necessity and expand the realm of freedom. In a communist society, no system of regulation of people's consumption is necessary, whether by money, by administration or by energy accounting. In this sense, the vision of the technocrats (as i understand it) seems to be a narrow one. This is, for example, why several technocrats advocate the reactionary ideology of neo-Malthusianism. In accepting that there are preset limits to future productivity and economic progress, technocracts have more in common with the environmentalist technophobes than they might think.

The other key citicism of technocracy is its, well, technocratic approach to questions of social organisation. From the Marxist POV, what makes socialism a more advanced way of organising society is the conscious decision-making of working people in all aspects of social, economic and political life. Decisions regarding the way society progresses aren't best left to technical experts (as some technocrats may argue) but need to be consciously made by the working class. Of course experts in various fields should inform social decisions (and technology does not exist outside of society), but they cannot be made responsible for making them. For socialists, it's working people who ultimately decide the shape and future of a socialist society.

Having said that, technocrats and transhumanists can be interesting to read and they're capable of doing an impressive job of exposing the reactionary outlook of the neo-Malthusians and eco-miserabilists. I generally enjoy reading the posts of the technophiles on revleft, as well as occasionally reading the articles of people like the 'libertarian transhumanist' Ronald Bailey.

[Jazzratt]

I generally enjoy reading the posts of the technophiles on revleft, as well as occasionally reading the articles of people like the 'libertarian transhumanist' Ronald Bailey.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that libertarian transhumanists used "libertarian" in the american [i.e free marketeer] sense of the word.

[Vanguard1917]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that libertarian transhumanists used "libertarian" in the american [i.e free marketeer] sense of the word.

Yep, he's a free marketeer. He's the science editor for Reason magazine.

[Jazzratt]

Yep, he's a free marketeer.

I find the free market concept of Transhumanism somewhat hard to swallow and I'm not entirely sure that a libertarian transhumanist could really add much to a leftist understanding of transhumanism. Their entire philosophy strikes me as a way of filtering even more power upward to the bourgeoisie, and even if it is not their intention it is the demonstrable effect of deregulated markets. As any leftist should understand.

[Vanguard1917]

I find the free market concept of Transhumanism somewhat hard to swallow and I'm not entirely sure that a libertarian transhumanist could really add much to a leftist understanding of transhumanism. Their entire philosophy strikes me as a way of filtering even more power upward to the bourgeoisie, and even if it is not their intention it is the demonstrable effect of deregulated markets. As any leftist should understand.

Yes, his enthusiastic support of capitalism contradicts his advocacy of progress. Libertarians are unable or unwilling to see that the system which they support is actually restraining the industrial and technological progress which they purport to be championing.

[chimx]

This is an immense understatement. For Marx, scientific, technological and industrial progress makes up the very essence of what would ultimately liberate humanity, freeing him from the realm of necessity, and allowing him to enter into the realm of freedom. As such, Marx marvelled at the technological and scientific developments which were taking place around him. In contrast to the 'leftists' today who find themselves in the vanguard of movements against technological progress (whether in biotechnology, nuclear power or air travel), fear and hostility to technological progress was absolutely alien to Marx's outlook.

Technology is as tied to production relations as any other social or cultural institution.

[Dr Mindbender]

The problem with the technocracy movement, and particularly with the existing technocratic organisations, is that their membership comes from mixed class backgrounds. Some of them are bourgeois, and thus by default have bourgeois class interests -- the preservation of bourgeois hegemony over the proletariat -- always as their most immediate goal.


Should we therefore be ardently active in opposing pre-revolutionary technocracy? My fear is that a beourgiose technocracy would remove the onus of it's production away from egalitarian goals and move towards concentrated production for an elite. Technocracy must therefore follow socialism, not before.


Removing workers from menial labour before arranging an alternative vocation for them would be disastrous.

[chimx]

Removing workers from menial labour before arranging an alternative vocation for them would be disastrous.

This already happens in the industrial production that VG1917 praises. It is a primary cause of the destruction of labor unions in the West.

[Dean]

What labour? Our goal is to eliminate as much as possible the direct human inolvement in production. Most humans, even workers, will rather be administrators and programmers than manual workers.

And I think its a good process. If you want to work, you have 20+ hours per day to do it under technocracy, free from any production process, free to do it independently or collectivelly. No one forces you to lay off during the free time. And no one takes anything from your time surplus.

We also of course have some things which needs to be done. Like for example healthcare, maintenance, education, and so on. And in order to deal with that, we would need some sort of schedual implemented, in order to get an efficient flow.


This is an immense understatement. For Marx, scientific, technological and industrial progress makes up the very essence of what would ultimately liberate humanity, freeing him from the realm of necessity, and allowing him to enter into the realm of freedom. As such, Marx marvelled at the technological and scientific developments which were taking place around him. In contrast to the 'leftists' today who find themselves in the vanguard of movements against technological progress (whether in biotechnology, nuclear power or air travel), fear and hostility to technological progress was absolutely alien to Marx's outlook.

Engels summed it up well: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general."

You both suffer from this same deficiency, so this is addressd to both of you.

The inference that human beings will become free by a. increasing progress (please define this tech progress btw) and b. having lots of free time is ludicrous. Freedom comes only from an active, productive relationship with the social and economic organizations in place. Free time is not meaningful to this, primarily because free time implies a period of no responsibility or no obligations. Contrarily to this is the notion that human beings should be actively interested and involved in the social-industrial mechanisms of society. People in jail have free time, and in some jails they have a plethora of toys (which is what your technocracy sounds like, incidentally).


I wonder how that flow should be organised under your model?
Firstly, I have no intentions to "scientifically" apply social theories without even acknowledging that a social theory relies on basic psychological premises. For instance, you have no idea what it means to be free, you just think that the "freedom to choose" your activity is synonymous to that point (a wholly bourgeois, 'individualist'approach).


At least, those are the differences between the two disciplines. I have never demanded marxism to answer to technocracy, and I see no reason why technocracy should be judged from the perspective of marxism and declined as an idea for a post-capitalist society when we have a lot of anarchists here who do not abide to Marx's ideas at all, but rather follow Stirner or some other non-marxist anarchist.
This isn't about Marxism. As you may remember, I famously said "if that is Marxism, I am no Marxist!" :lol: I agree with a number of Marxian theories. But if a so-called 'anarchist' described freedom as you have, I would laugh. And I really don't have any interest in anarchist theories which exclude the notion of alienation from its critique. My position is basically a coalescence of the various ideas that I have encountered, developed and experienced. The fact that you think it is a characteristically marxist notion is interesting, though.

I want to reiterate the point, and I know this is always the main contradiction, that you continue to defy the fact that a very specific notion of the human beign is necessary for this discussion. Consider this comparison:

The human being will react by experiencing freedom if we place them in this specific organizational structure X.

The hydrogen atom will react by bonding with other hydrogen atoms if we place them in this specific organizational structure X.

The second statement is quite clearly needing some statement which defines explicitly and relevantly how the hydrogen atom acts (assuming a clear meaning is given for X). The first statement experiences the very same deficiency, but it is that one which you are making, while arrogantly saying that we need not push "social theories" on humans - while you believe that your own social experiment will free them!

I will say this much for you - you are much less one-dimensional than Vanguard1917. It was only for that reason that I used his dogmatic, single-minded industry worship as an example. And as much as you might not agree, it is quite clear to me that your attitude on Environmentalism has changed, if not your fundamentals on that issue.

[Dimentio]

Human beings react differently under different social circumstances. I hold no doubts that people themselves would know what kind of social structures they will attach to in a society where the production and distribution is managed by a technate.

What begin to appear is that you somehow denounce everything that is based on the theory of free choice and that people themselves could organise their own social lives. In a technate, you could spend your spare-time living in a community, or sitting all the time playing WoW. That is not the business of anyone else. Period.

If that position is fundamentally bourgeois, then define a non-bourgeois attitude?

As for labor hours, we could clearly see that increased technological progress creates higher living standards and leads to the possibility for increased demands from the working class.

The conceptual framework for liberty lies in if the people controls the means of production. The technate gives that control to the people, and is one of many ways to administrate an industrial-level society after capitalism. Gift economics or just "free for all, do as you wish"-attitudes won't be possible, since modern infrastructure is dependent upon a specific amount of routine, whether or not we have capitalism.

I do not know if you stand closer to the anarchist ideal of free communes or the marxist-leninist views of the big workers with big hammers who happily builds the socialist paradise, but I think your ideas in the real world could work as an ideological blindfold which prevents people from realising their happiness.

Thank you for not confusing our ideas with Vanguard1917;s.

[Vanguard1917]

This already happens in the industrial production that VG1917 praises. It is a primary cause of the destruction of labor unions in the West.

No where have i supported the closing down of workplaces, so it is anyone's guess what you're trying to argue.



Thank you for not confusing our ideas with Vanguard1917;s.


It ought to be very difficult to confuse technocracy with the Marxist viewpoint, even for those who know basically nothing about the latter.