AK

I would say the difference between Technocrats and ACTs is the treatment of politics - orthodox technocratic documents often speak disparagingly of it (I.E. recognising the faults and inherent corruption of bourgeois political systems), but don't seem to recognise that alternatives exist (given that the most prominent example of "socialism" the USSR, was also a price system, this is unsurprising).

ACTs recognise this shortcoming, and attempt to address it thus. Technocracy has the potential to create a society worth living in, but it needs a political arm, a "theory to power" if you will. Hopefully you can appreciate why anarchist communism was chosen for this.

I strongly recommend you read Cult of Reason's Introduction, it answers many common questions.

Well, there's a bit more to it than that. For a start, Technocrats propose a notionally separate administrative structure for technical areas, for the simple fact that machinery behaves differently to people, yet nonetheless obeys the same physical laws no matter what social structure is in place.

I honestly don't know.

Yeah pretty much, I'm basically saying vouchers run on the LTV

Vouchers make cost+labor=worth...

AK's student? I try to remain....autonomous

Yup, 14, thankyou. Even rarer when you consider Maryland.

So do I, except with an extra letter that creates a slightly homophobic term inappropriate for RevLeft and all.