issues with classical marxism and pure technocracy.

  1. Dr Mindbender
    At the moment, I self identify as a socialist technocrat in that i am inspired by postulates from both ideaologies, however i do take issue with both of them and i am trying to reconcile these.

    I have noticed that most classical marxists are sceptical of technocracy because they regard it as a step towards an elitist, almost fascistic dictatorship run by a scientific intelligentsia. As a result, most of whom would oppose the switch from a society run primarilly manpower to one run primarilly on extraneous means of work as envisaged by the technocratic movement. To me, this twangs of reactionism because the liberation of the human brain and the liberation of workers is inseperable. The species cannot attain full progression while we still have members of the species committing their time to inefficient, mentally wasteful menial tasks.

    The issue i take with [non-partisan?] technocracy comes about from watching the TNAT video which postulates that a technocratic society would only be achievable in the north american continent because this is where the highest concentration of natural resources are located in order for the switch to purely extraneous work can take place. What of other locales? The rest of the world presumably, is also largely dependent on these north american minerals. Surely they will degenerate as a result of this? Have the TNAT's calculations been based purely on the assumption that it will cater for purely the present local populace or have they taken into consideration an upsurge of political asylum seekers looking to benefit from the new society? If not surely this will entail a right wing immigration policy. How does this tie in with leftist principle?
  2. Dr Mindbender
    no opinions?
  3. ÑóẊîöʼn
    ÑóẊîöʼn
    I have noticed that most classical marxists are sceptical of technocracy because they regard it as a step towards an elitist, almost fascistic dictatorship run by a scientific intelligentsia.
    What is this initial premise based on?

    The issue i take with [non-partisan?] technocracy comes about from watching the TNAT video which postulates that a technocratic society would only be achievable in the north american continent because this is where the highest concentration of natural resources are located in order for the switch to purely extraneous work can take place. What of other locales? The rest of the world presumably, is also largely dependent on these north american minerals. Surely they will degenerate as a result of this?
    I don't actually know if North America has resources that the rest of the world relies on, but if so it seems that the other parts of the world aspiring to be technates will have to abandon any notions of autarky, the likes of which the original vision of the North American technate appears to adhere to. Some way would have to be found to set up some medium of exchange with non-technocratic parts of the world. Technocracy is not unique in this respect - how would any stateless, classless society deal with another society still mired in capitalism and class?
  4. Dr Mindbender
    What is this initial premise based on?
    Conversations I have had with other people of leftist influence. I have had technocratic tendencies since my political influency, and my ideas have been met with head shaking to ''you're so elitist, not respecting the roles of menial workers''.

    Which i think is a misunderstanding on their part, i don't seek to put menial workers into a state of redundancy, merely to remove the co-ersive mechanism of wage slavery.

    I don't actually know if North America has resources that the rest of the world relies on, but if so it seems that the other parts of the world aspiring to be technates will have to abandon any notions of autarky, the likes of which the original vision of the North American technate appears to adhere to. Some way would have to be found to set up some medium of exchange with non-technocratic parts of the world. Technocracy is not unique in this respect - how would any stateless, classless society deal with another society still mired in capitalism and class?
    Firstly, I'm not convinced that all technocratics are revolutionary, or even leftist for that matter. Going by some of their information, particularly from the TNAT i get the impression that some technocrats have no problem with class society per se.
    In answer to your question though, i read this wikipedia article on technocracy