After watching the TNAT lectures on youtube, the speaker pins the blame of social problems on 'the price system' and makes it clear he does not mean capitalism. Is technocracy therefore possible under capitalism and if so should we support it as a pre-cursor to communist technocracy?
1. The Price System and Capitalism are not the same thing, but you could not have capitalism without the price system, while you could have a price system without capitalism. The price system means that the goods and services are produced on a market and sold for a price. 2. Of course it is theoretically possible to establish technocracy without a political revolution, although it is quite unlikely, just as it is theoretically possible to establish a planned economy without a political revolution. Just imagine that the powers that be are completely passive. As for the technocratic movement, it is not a political party but an educational movement in it's present state. To mobilise people, it is required that awareness is raised. Otherwise, all kinds of change are highly unlikely. But the North American technocratic movement really did screw up their opportunities in the 1930;s and the 1940;s, something which might not be as bad given that the North American version of technocracy has some unnecessary centralised features which I think would have weakened the attractiveness and efficiency of North American technocracy. 3. TNAT was established in 2007, while the video was an old Technocracy Incorporated Video. The TNAT is a break-away organisation from Tech.inc.
Anarchist Communist Technocracy. Come on, you know you want to! :P Capitalism is a subset of the Price System, just as Feudalism had a Price System, and LTV Socialism is a Price System. They all had prices. Also, I do not think there is any significant difference between a 'normal' Technate and a Communist Technate. Any Technocratic system necessarily has distribution according to need. The only difference is organisation and the fact that the orthodox Technate is heirarchical with appointments to positions of responsibility using a system of 'nomination from below and appointment from above', which I do not think is any way necessary (and so can be replaced with a federalist delegate system IMO) but was probably a holdover from the academic and professional backgrounds of the original Technical alliance.
I am in agreement that the system could be made more holarchic, especially with the development of software.
I think that Technocracy is impossible without the Revolution, as the financial speculative capital corporations that completely dominate the industry nowadays would never voluntarily submit to measure that would turn their "sacred property" and their incredible power over the global economy into nothing.
