Totalitarianism, marxism-leninism and technocracy

I would not apologise that there have been claims that marxism-leninism is a totalitarian ideology.

I consider myself, apart from being a technocrat, to be a libertarian communist, and while I do agree with Marx in that class struggle and the relation between social classes in a given society is crucial for the development of human civilisation.

I do not agree with the simplistic theory of dialectal materialism in its wholity though, since it assumes 1) that history will end during one point, and 2) that conflicts and struggles generates higher degrees of simplicity, culminating in a society characterised by a single node and level.

While that might be an attractive idea, it is not corresponding with what we could see that evolution has provided for us in nature, which is an increasing amount of complex relationships. I think there is a high possibility that communism will arise, but that it rather than being a state of utopia will be a state of several utopias all interconnected, through advancepd multi-level systems reminding of an irl version of the internet.

My other criticism against Marx, is his idea that human beings somewhat need to work and consume what they themselves produce in order to not feel alienated from their work. My criticism depends on how you chose to interpret that. I am the first to write up that each human beings deserves the fruit of her labor, but I am also the first to dismiss the notion that human beings need to labor in order to be psychologically healthy.

I do not think that Marx, who was never a psycho-therapist, should be interpreted in that metaphysical way.

Never have I called marxism in itself totalitarian (although Popper did that), but it surely offers some traps for people who like to tell others how to live their lives. Like the vanguardists for example.

I am in a terrible disagreement with the vanguardist theory, which gives nearly enough unrestrained decision power over the lives of ordinary workers to members of an elite party of "proletarian intellectuals" who claim to speak for the conciousness of the working class.

That will clearly produce what I would call alienation, unless the vanguard was somehow somewhat telepathically connected to the workers like in a hive society.

Totalitarian societies are societies which are mobilising the population in order to serve a higher ideological end, and I claim that some totalitarian societies has poised themselves as "communist", while sharing few characteristics of even Marx's communism.

Technocracy is unique in that it offers no such traps, since it has never assumed to state the meaning of human existence. Technocracy is not an ideology which is based on humanities, but on emergy economics, and the opportunity to build an egalitarian society where each person could be assigned the full autonomy over a share of the total production capacity superceding her own individual ability to produce.

That is completely in line with communist freedom from alienation, and energy accounting also gives the people the direct, unquestionable control of the means of production, in terms of equal shares to each and every individual residing within the borders of the technate.

If that is not communism, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know what is communism.

Yes, I am in agreement there.

I think that you tend to misunderstand certain provision of dialectic materialism. Marx and Engels never claimed that historical process would end in some "ideal" condition. For them, Communism was but a new stage of potentially never-ending human society development.

It is not I who misunderstand here, but marxists. At least those who are semi-dogmatic.

What I disagree with is the inherent dualism of dialectal materialism. There is never one dualistic conflict in any society, all are marked by sub-groups, agents and nodes, all interacting in complex manners which are creating emergent results. That's evolutionary theory.