technocracy

[Black Sheep]

Ulster Socialist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=11509)

this is why i am a technocrat. To me, people should have access to jobs and training they want at point of demand rather than being co-erced into crappy menial jobs.

If all the crappy jobs were automated, and there was no social elitism based on the appropriation of labour then there would be no need to punish and reward people with varying quality of life based on their social role.


Uhmm...
Yeah, isn't that common sense?Why is there even a name tag on this point of view (technocracy).Isn't it redundant to say that our society we struggle form will take full advantage of technology into increasing production, utilizing automation thus reducing the amount of human labor required for production to its minimum?

Isn't the denial of such a goal an incline to primitivism? Are there any other views that reject technocracy and are not considered opposing ideologies?

[Cult of Reason]

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm

I am tired, so I point you towards the above URL. Of course, you could also click the link to the Technocracy Study Course in my signature, though that is heavier going.

[Vanguard1917]

Ulster Socialist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=11509)

Uhmm...
Yeah, isn't that common sense?Why is there even a name tag on this point of view (technocracy).Isn't it redundant to say that our society we struggle form will take full advantage of technology into increasing production, utilizing automation thus reducing the amount of human labor required for production to its minimum?

Good point. Stating that technological progress is needed to increase the productivity of labour should be like stating the bleeding obvious for progressives.



Isn't the denial of such a goal an incline to primitivism? Are there any other views that reject technocracy and are not considered opposing ideologies.


I'm not a technocrat, but i recognise that technological progress is a fundamental requirement for human liberation. I share this view with all genuine progressives, from Marx and Engels, to Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The fact that positive attitudes towards technology are so readily dismissed on revleft as 'technocracy' simply reflects how prevalent anti-technology attitudes have become on the left in recent decades. Once upon a time, leftists denounced capitalism for holding back scientific and technological advancement. Nowadays you can find them in the vanguard of movements against technology and science (e.g. anti-nuclear power, anti-GM, anti-air travel, anti-vivisection).

[Revy]

Technocracy is the rule of scientists and technical experts. The proletariat has no role in this vision. So I fail to see why anyone here would identify with that ideology. It was popular during the Great Depression when people wanted alternatives to the capitalist system but didn't want to be associated with socialism.

[Revy]

Good point. Stating that technological progress is needed to increase the productivity of labour should be like stating the bleeding obvious for progressives.



I'm not a technocrat, but i recognise that technological progress is a fundamental requirement for human liberation. I share this view with all genuine progressives, from Marx and Engels, to Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The fact that positive attitudes towards technology are so readily dismissed on revleft as 'technocracy' simply reflects how prevalent anti-technology attitudes have become on the left in recent decades. Once upon a time, leftists denounced capitalism for holding back scientific and technological advancement. Nowadays you can find them in the vanguard of movements against technology and science (e.g. anti-nuclear power, anti-GM, anti-air travel, anti-vivisection).

The "techno" in technocracy has nothing to do with the techno in the word technology. It has to do with the Greek word for skill.

[ashaman1324]

i think technocracy is great once achieved, the only problem is on the road to attaining it, while machines reduce the need for human labor, there is still the same amount of humans, which causes unemployment. which can be solved by extremely short working hours so everyone can keep a job, work less and have more luxury.

[Black Sheep]

Technocracy (bureaucratic): A form of government in which engineers, scientists, and other technical experts are in control;

Technocracy movement: a social movement that started in the United States, advocating a post-scarcity society based on energy accounting.

[Dr Mindbender]

Ulster Socialist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=11509)

Uhmm...
Yeah, isn't that common sense?Why is there even a name tag on this point of view (technocracy).Isn't it redundant to say that our society we struggle form will take full advantage of technology into increasing production, utilizing automation thus reducing the amount of human labor required for production to its minimum?

Isn't the denial of such a goal an incline to primitivism? Are there any other views that reject technocracy and are not considered opposing ideologies?

Not necessarilly. Some classical socialists and communists that i have spoken to (mainly the sterotypical smelly green eco-hippies) paranoid to the extent of technophobia that are anti-technocracy say that goods and services as well as menial labour should be divided between all the workers equally.

To me, this is both wasteful and inoperable. A brain surgeon is missapropriated by forcing him to empty bins, and how are you going to enforce this anyway? If someone refuses to do their street cleaning or factory work duties it creates a precedence. Then everyone follows suit and no work is done. The solution is to automate all jobs that can run independently of the human brain and give people the jobs they want.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think technocracy is great once achieved, the only problem is on the road to attaining it, while machines reduce the need for human labor, there is still the same amount of humans, which causes unemployment. which can be solved by extremely short working hours so everyone can keep a job, work less and have more luxury.

The solution is to provide education and training for those not working.

How many people do you know ardently want to be toilet cleaners or factory workers? Exactly.

If people arent working then they should be preparing for the job they want. There is no excuse for anyone within reason to be idle, even under technocracy.

[Dr Mindbender]

Technocracy is the rule of scientists and technical experts. The proletariat has no role in this vision. So I fail to see why anyone here would identify with that ideology. It was popular during the Great Depression when people wanted alternatives to the capitalist system but didn't want to be associated with socialism.
Technocracy is the antithesis of primitivism, which is a highly reactionary ideology.

So i fail to understand why the proletariat should not embrace it.

Secondly, i think you have little understanding of class structure.

The vast proportion of scientists and technical experts ARE proletarians, albeit wage servants of the beourgiose. The vast majority of beourgiose are business orientated with little scientific or technical savvy.

[ashaman1324]

The solution is to provide education and training for those not working.

How many people do you know ardently want to be toilet cleaners or factory workers? Exactly.

If people arent working then they should be preparing for the job they want. There is no excuse for anyone within reason to be idle, even under technocracy.
i didn't think of that.
but if they're happy with their job, shorter working hours still seems the best way to go.

[Dr Mindbender]

i didn't think of that.
but if they're happy with their job, shorter working hours still seems the best way to go.

Maybe some of the slaves on the plantations were happy picking cotton for no money. We'll never know.

The numb complacency of a few workers does not justify the suffering and alienation of the masses. Nor does it justify the wasted brainpower that could be put to more constructive purposes other than the super-profits of the ruling class.

[Revy]

I don't understand what you're talking about. Are you really a technocrat? The "techno" in technocracy does not refer to technology. I already said that. It refers to skill. Thus rule by the "skilled", or as how technocracy sees it, scientists and technical experts. Some kind of energy accounting system is put in place. I don't see how denial of technocracy is a denial of technology since the ideology of technocracy does not seem to be promoting that.

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't understand what you're talking about. Are you really a technocrat? The "techno" in technocracy does not refer to technology. I already said that. It refers to skill. Thus rule by the "skilled", or as how technocracy sees it, scientists and technical experts. Some kind of energy accounting system is put in place. I don't see how denial of technocracy is a denial of technology since the ideology of technocracy does not seem to be promoting that.

I think you're not giving the proletarian class the credit that it's due.
You seem to think that talent is the domain of the beourgiose, which is precisely the punch bag they use to keep us all back. Everyone has a 'skill' the problem is that under capitalism those skills arent utilised because they don't necessarilly generate profit.

Technocracy as i understand it, is about utilising everyones skills to create as progressively a mobile society as possible.

[Oneironaut]

i think technocracy is great once achieved, the only problem is on the road to attaining it, while machines reduce the need for human labor, there is still the same amount of humans, which causes unemployment. which can be solved by extremely short working hours so everyone can keep a job, work less and have more luxury.

"Unemployed" in the sense that they are seeking employment? If we were to utilize efficient technological production, people would work significantly less, and many would not have to work for extended periods of time while they can pursue other interests. In this sense, I think you are using a capitalist conception of unemployment to describe something entirely different then what we would see with technocracy, primarily leisure time.

This leisure time could consist of education for technical jobs that require human power and not machine power. In this sense, every one could be a doctor, if they wanted!

Likewise, I see technocracy as solving the whole money deal. We aren't going to have to pay machines to produce our commodity goods and every one can enjoy them without cost! Production would be resource based.

Could any of the technocrats here tell me if I'm on the right track?

[Revy]

I still think everyone is confusing technology with technocracy.

I support the use of machines as labor in a socialist society, as I believe that would free everyone from menial tasks. Though of course I think this would cause doubtless problems under capitalism, like unemployment.

But I don't call myself a technocrat and I don't see what that has to do with that. I am familiar somewhat with technocracy and I don't believe that it is about the rule of the working class, but of scientists and technical experts.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Although the idea of using machines and technology to do the dirty work so we dont have to sound really good to me I do have a question:

Now its to my understanding that it would be Scientists, Engineerers and such in control right? yes they are the workers but.... wouldn't that in the end create some sort of Government? and very possibly lead to exploitation or at the very least an attempt at power? I mean havent we arleady realized its dangerous to put only one type of group in power? (again this is just a question sorry for the intrusion lol)

[Dr Mindbender]

Now its to my understanding that it would be Scientists, Engineerers and such in control right?
Not necessarilly 'in contol' per se.
Yes, scientists and engineers would be charge of running the factories, but equally artists, philosophers and students of the written word would be responsible for our cultural faculties and therefore be on equal standing.

Even capitalism does not regard scientists as being greater than artists otherwise it would not afford them equal worth and glory.

Production and culture are not more important than the other, remove one and society becomes a bleak, hellish dystopia.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Thanks for the answer but it dosn't really adress the problem (well the problem I think I see) that these Artists and who ever is in control or what ever you call it might try to gain more control than they have?

[Cult of Reason]

I consider myself a Technocrat: hello.


But I don't call myself a technocrat and I don't see what that has to do with that. I am familiar somewhat with technocracy and I don't believe that it is about the rule of the working class, but of scientists and technical experts.
Now its to my understanding that it would be Scientists, Engineerers and such in control right? yes they are the workers but.... wouldn't that in the end create some sort of Government? and very possibly lead to exploitation or at the very least an attempt at power? I mean havent we arleady realized its dangerous to put only one type of group in power? (again this is just a question sorry for the intrusion lol)In a Technocratic economy, the vast majority of productive labour (in the human sense) would be by scientists, engineers and technicians of some sort or another (among other things, there will be very little place for manual labour, especially not on a large scale). As a result, the vast majority of people would find that their work was of a technical nature.

To put it another way:
Not only would the scientists, engineers and technicians be working class, the working class would be scientists, engineers and technicians, for the most part.

This is one of the reasons technocracy is only feasible in areas that have reached a high stage of development: illiterate people are almost useless, are liabilities, so countries like India (40% are not literate, according to the UN Human Development Report 2007/2008) would find it hugely difficult to achieve a technate.

Also, there would be no point in exploiting people: machines are much more productive, so it would be pointless (never mind the fact that distribution according to need would fulfil almost any reasonable material want).

Concerning concentration of power: everyone who works will be part of the "governmental" structure by virtue of working, since all "official" work is within the "governmental" structure. At the very least, everyone would contribute in government for the area within which they work and, in most interpretations of technocracy, for social (non-technical) issues as well. That is, for example, if you worked on communications satellites, you would have little say in how doctors went about their business, as you probably know fuck all about medicine.


Not necessarilly 'in contol' per se.
Yes, scientists and engineers would be charge of running the factories, but equally artists, philosophers and students of the written word would be responsible for our cultural faculties and therefore be on equal standing.

Even capitalism does not regard scientists as being greater than artists otherwise it would not afford them equal worth and glory.

Production and culture are not more important than the other, remove one and society becomes a bleak, hellish dystopia. "Art is dead, do not consume its corpse."

Production is more important, definitely, as culture will take care of itself. There is no need to promote culture, people produce it anyway and can now distribute their works more than ever, through the internet. It should be the duty of all citizens to work a few hours per week to keep the system running. They would have plenty of time, enough for a full time job, to work on other things, whether it is painting, navel-gazing or something else.

Those who will not provide a few (and I mean only a few, estimated 16 in 1932, probably less now) hours of their time each week in keeping things running should be reviled as leeches off society. By not helping out, you are compelling others to work longer.

There is no need for "professional" artists and so on. People would have enough free time, let things be.


"Unemployed" in the sense that they are seeking employment? If we were to utilize efficient technological production, people would work significantly less, and many would not have to work for extended periods of time while they can pursue other interests. In this sense, I think you are using a capitalist conception of unemployment to describe something entirely different then what we would see with technocracy, primarily leisure time.

This leisure time could consist of education for technical jobs that require human power and not machine power. In this sense, every one could be a doctor, if they wanted!

Likewise, I see technocracy as solving the whole money deal. We aren't going to have to pay machines to produce our commodity goods and every one can enjoy them without cost! Production would be resource based.

Could any of the technocrats here tell me if I'm on the right track? Roughly. Something to add: accounting for production would be resource-based, but in a slightly indirect way (otherwise you get the apples and oranges problem): energy input and degraded ("lost") is measured and that is accounted as, in an ideal situation where you recycle all material waste, available(/useful) energy is the only thing that can truly be said to be "consumed". While this may seem inferior to accounting resources directly, it is not. Consider this problem:

You need to produce a lot of pig iron. You don't care why, it is just your job to do so. You have a choice: collect iron scrap and recycle it, or dig iron ore out of the ground and refine it (extraction of iron by electrolysis is under development). If your accounting method is by available energy (exergy) then your goal is to choose the option which results in the least energy "lost". What are the energy costs of the relevant processes? What processes are there?

For recycling: gather scrap, melt and purify and cast
"New" (primary) iron: find new iron ore resources, construct mining infrastructure, dig iron ore out, reduce it to iron (whether by coal furnace or electrolysis) and cast

Niether of the processes in recycling are likely to change in cost much. On the other hand, the following in primary iron production will: finding new resources, digging out the iron and refining it. In the first case, it takes less energy to find resources initially, since the ones that are easiest to find will be found first. Secondly, the easiest, most convenient to extract resources will be exploited first so there will be a tendency for extraction difficulty to increase. Thirdly, the amount of effort expended in refining iron ore into iron depends on its grade, or iron content, and, again, the easiest iron ore to refine, the ore with the highest grade, will be used first, so the cost of refining will tend to increase as resources deplete.

All these things would indicate a preference for recycling eventually, but it gets better. Recycling is already more energy efficient (and, since energy is a major cost for smelting companies, it is also very common even today: why throw out valuable scrap when you can remelt it at a fraction of the price of primary iron and make a hefty profit?) than producing primary iron as processing scrap that is nearly pure iron is a lot easier than processing ore which might only be 50% iron, by mass (and even less by number of moles).

Therefore, an energy accounting system would almost always be biased towards reuse or recycling of existing resources rather than extraction of new ones, assuming it was possible, and so would make the "right" decision. There will, however, be occasions where they will not be enough scrap available, such as when there is a large building project, because itis usually released at a relatively level rate, it is released when it has fulfilled its previous task. During those times primary production would be the only option.

I apologise for rambling.