Technocracy -- your position

In the case of Anarchist Communist Technocracy:

Who are the 'skilled' for any particular thing? In a factory the answer is simple: the workers. No one can organise production better than themselves for their situation.

In the vision of Anarchist Communist Technocracy I propose, social and technical structures would be absolutely seperate, even if everyone involved with the social structure was involved with the technical. Different tasks need different modes of organisation or, as the old Technocratic slogan goes, "the right tool for the right job." Testing for safety of cars would probably need consensus decision-making, in order to take all doubts into account (and there is usually plenty of time to come up with a conclusion, especially if marketing are not getting on to you ), while on-site fire-fighting might need a rigid command structure for a situation that needs quick decision making (not that I know anything about fire-fighting...), while the decision on a new design of valve might best be served by direct democracy and voting, since the decision cannot take too long and hold up production and there are probably few risks involved. Social structures would also vary according to circumstance and custom.

Unlike other, perhaps more idealist, versions of Anarchism, ACT (you know you are in trouble when your ideology needs an acronym ) assumes centralised production to a point, since the most efficient methods probably result in there being one (big) factory for any particular thing in any particular large area, depending on transport "costs" (in energy) from other areas. To give control of the factory to the entire community around it would be questionable for a couple of reasons: 1. it is in everyone's interests that the factory keeps on working and, while highly unlikely, the chance of the community trying to use it as leverage should be avoided and 2. in the interests of coordination for higher efficiency, bodies that have a broader scope, that can "see the big picture", must have control over the factory with structures that have federalism and collective responsibility.

Because of this, ACT proposes that for each factory all the workers (yes, all the workers! Due to automation the workforce is small (or large with very short hours, in which case a somewhat different organisation is needed) and the work is technical, though at first this may not be the case, requiring federation within the factory) run the factory directly democratically in an assembly. The factory then federates with other factories of its type, so you have a federation for a particular industry. This then federates further until, ultimately, you have a large federation, sequence or syndicate for all manufacturing, which then federates just once more with the sequences for transport, mining, health, education an so on until you have a full organisational structure for the entire Technate, which covers an area of continental scale (it is not world-wide).

Here is a picture of the orthodox, not Anarchist Communist, Technocratic structure (I will pick out some differences from what the ACT will be like):



First of all, we remove the Conintental Director, Armed Forces, Social Relations and Foreign Relations units. Those would instead be sorted out by the separate social structure. From this we also rid the Area Controls of their social functions, taking them back to absolute technical administration, where they should be. Their purpose is to coordinate the efforts of the sequences in any geographical area and they are made up of delegates from each industrial and service concern in that geograpical area. The Area Board's purpose is to coordinate the different Area Controls, made up from delegates of each. The Continental Control Board is made up of delegates from all the industrial and service sequences, the research sequence and the Area Board.

Now that is all very nice and democratic, but how does that result in those with the greatest skill doing the tasks that require such skill? The answer, for any self-respecting Anarchist, should be simple in my view: rational authority, that authority that is forced upon men, according to Bakunin, by their own reason:

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give — such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.

It is almost Anarchism in a nutshell, isn't it? I also find it rionic how so many have this strange view that division of labour must be done away with.

Back on topic, the social structure will probably be a bit more eclectic, but will still, nonetheless, federate to a scale comparable to the Technate simply due to the social bonds it induces. There will probably be many spontaneous social structures that come and go and which are only barely connected to any others, but that does not matter as long as the technical structure is intact.

To my mind, the Technate structure depicted on the scheme above is rather sound, and for working in Communist society it muswt be only put under constant supervision and control of dictatorship of proletariat carried out by workers' councils or any other form of self-organization of the organized working class. Besides, until the Global Revolution hasn't been victorious, one must have both Foreign Relations and Military organs, the latter being in charge of few professional units (strategic air forces, the navy, special forces, etc.) and co-ordinating the joint efforts of the proletarian militias.

Besides, until the Global Revolution hasn't been victorious, one must have both Foreign Relations and Military organs, the latter being in charge of few professional units (strategic air forces, the navy, special forces, etc.) and co-ordinating the joint efforts of the proletarian militias.

Yes, but I think that those two organs must be part of the (seperate) social structure, not the technical structure. Different tools for different jobs. Also, I would be happier with there being a larger professional military than you are describing, as long as its organisation was democratic, as well as the militia. Make the enemy really afraid of intervening.

Yes, but I think that those two organs must be part of the (seperate) social structure, not the technical structure. Different tools for different jobs. Also, I would be happier with there being a larger professional military than you are describing, as long as its organisation was democratic, as well as the militia. Make the enemy really afraid of intervening.

What you're outlining sounds similar to some of the plans outlined by the CNT, specifically Santillán's talk of parallel worker's syndicates and community assemblies.

I count myself as a sympathized, especially so of the ideas Cult of Reason has espoused here. I don’t view technocracy as a political movement that stands separate from either anarchism or communism, but instead as a proposal for how to organize such post-capitalist societies. That being said, though, I suspend judgment on any particular plan because I’m not well informed enough to make up my mind on the technical question of whether this form of organization is best. I think the ideas have merit and are worth studying, but it is far too early to definitively come out in support of any particular technocratic proposal.

Furthermore, I don’t believe everything in post-revolutionary society need be structured along technocratic lines. While most production would likely benefit from a highly coordinated economic planning scheme, for some goods and services which are not in considerable demand, as well as for creative goods and services (art, entertainment, etc.) it would probably be better to simply provide the necessary means to individuals and groups who wish to engage in such production. For instance, in the case of, say, sports vehicles, I doubt there would be a high enough demand to mass produce them, but instead what we could do is supply the necessary parts to a garage for people who want to devote their leisure time to such a hobby. Lastly, I don’t think this is per se inconsistent with technocracy, nor that technocracy itself necessarily advocates the centralized planning of *all* production, but I simply wished to make my thoughts clear.

What you're outlining sounds similar to some of the plans outlined by the CNT, specifically Santillán's talk of parallel worker's syndicates and community assemblies.

This is very interesting. It would be good to compare our ideas to those from the past, particularly those that have either been enacted or been developed from enaction of past ideas*. Are you able to provide the plans, links to them or commentary on them? It would be appreciated if you would.

*Also, of course, the more links we have to the past Anarchist movement, the easier it is for us to gain credibility in the current movement as true Anarchists.

I count myself as a sympathized, especially so of the ideas Cult of Reason has espoused here. I don’t view technocracy as a political movement that stands separate from either anarchism or communism, but instead as a proposal for how to organize such post-capitalist societies.

Yes, but this proposal, in order to be enactable, must have an influence on the movements that are to destroy and replace Capitalism in the First World. For instance, I think it is important that continentally based (Anarchist) organisations, both unions and political groups, should be formed in a way that mimics a proposed Technate's geography so that all necessary resources, machinery and people can be secured as quickly as possible (this is partly because I think that any such area, such as North America or an extended Europe, would likely be alone, isolated, for a considerable time after any revolution, with or without war, so it cannot be afforded not to have all the necessaries).

My Platformism influences how I see such organisations being organised, and which ones to have: a continental IWW equivalent (perhaps with structures mimicking those of an eventual Technate; I have read that the IWW's Wobbly Wheel looks similar to the chart above, though I have not seen it, unfortunately) and an ACT political group; a metaphorical FAI to a metaphorical CNT, if you will.

That being said, though, I suspend judgment on any particular plan because I’m not well informed enough to make up my mind on the technical question of whether this form of organization is best. I think the ideas have merit and are worth studying, but it is far too early to definitively come out in support of any particular technocratic proposal.

Yes, though that does beg the question of who actually would be sufficiently informed to judge this, a situation that has never existed. Of course, I welcome any criticisms (and I will then reject them, since this is RevLeft, where repetition determines the value of an argument *)

The orthodox Technocrats chose the corporate model because it was one that they had seen working, and had worked in, and then removed the irrelevant parts, like finance, and made a few alterations. I took two models, my impression of the Syndicate and federated Commune models, which I have only read a little about, and made alterations based upon what I thought necessary, so that is how qualified I am.

*I am not serious, of course

Furthermore, I don’t believe everything in post-revolutionary society need be structured along technocratic lines. While most production would likely benefit from a highly coordinated economic planning scheme, for some goods and services which are not in considerable demand, as well as for creative goods and services (art, entertainment, etc.) it would probably be better to simply provide the necessary means to individuals and groups who wish to engage in such production. For instance, in the case of, say, sports vehicles, I doubt there would be a high enough demand to mass produce them, but instead what we could do is supply the necessary parts to a garage for people who want to devote their leisure time to such a hobby. Lastly, I don’t think this is per se inconsistent with technocracy, nor that technocracy itself necessarily advocates the centralized planning of *all* production, but I simply wished to make my thoughts clear.

Yes. Hobbyism (I cannot truly think of it as "production", if you understand me) should not (and, indeed, cannot) be coordinated by anything other than the simple making of rules such as "do not drive where the kids play" etc., and we know who does that!

This is very interesting. It would be good to compare our ideas to those from the past, particularly those that have either been enacted or been developed from enaction of past ideas*. Are you able to provide the plans, links to them or commentary on them? It would be appreciated if you would.

*Also, of course, the more links we have to the past Anarchist movement, the easier it is for us to gain credibility in the current movement as true Anarchists.

http://membres.lycos.fr/anarchives/s...tion.htm#organ

Online for all the world to see.

Consider me a sympathiser. I find the ideas behind technocracy fascinating, but I feel I lack the knowledge to fully support them, and I am not a member of any technocratic organisations.

This; technocrat sympathiser.

Let me update this old post of mine;

A Technocrat. I believe Socialism and Technocracy are inseperable concepts.

I now would have probably voted 'A technocracy sympathizer', because I found back then and now I didn't know near enough about Technocracy to declare myself a Technocrat at all. However, I am immersed in lots of reading material on the theories found here at the HPG at the moment, specifically on Anarcho-Transhumanism.

Opposed to technocracy. I think that it is a very dangerous thing.

Opposed to technocracy. I think that it is a very dangerous thing.

Why?