FAO technocrats and technocracy sympathisers

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 7 2009 22:05

I hope this explains a little further.

''''''As far as Technocracy was concerned, both attitudes of the so-called radical left and reactionary right were all alike, mere misadventures in the hostilities of the oncoming social conflict. Technocracy never was for the workers against the capitalists, or for the capitalists against the workers.'''''''
-- Howard Scott:
http://www.technocracy.org/ .... ,< that is the official site of the actual group. NET and Act are wanna be 'intellectuals' that are anarchist communists... or something like that. A bad fit to Technocracy... in fact not connected in any way.

In other words... there is no connection to what Socialist Technocrat is talking about and actual information concerning Technocracy technate ideas.
More on the actual ideas... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Accounting
or probably a fairly close version.

Socialist Technocrat's picture
Socialist Technocrat
Offline
Joined: 31-05-09
Jun 8 2009 09:41
Vlad336 wrote:
Socialist Technocrat wrote:
Vlad336 wrote:
Socialist Technocrat wrote:
Technocracy advocates egalitarianism.
Socialist Technocrat wrote:
The word 'technocracy' effectively means the ruled (sic!) of the skilled

your logic is compelling.

The working class =skilled

bourgeioise=/= skilled.

first of all, what do you mean by skilled? skilled in what? science and technology? manual labour?

By skilled, anything that cannot be easilly automated.

Early in the 20th century, the technical alliance computed that up to 98% of all labour could be automated. Around the turn of the century, the amount of extraneous or automotive labour had been accelerating and around the turn of the 1980's the proportion switchover of 98% human labour to 98% extraneous labour should have happened. The reason it wasnt was the capitalists and the protection of their beloved scarcity planning.

Vlad336 wrote:
the bourgeoisie are not a parasitical class because each capitalist is individually "unskilled" (by which I understand incapable of doing anything productive), but precisely because of their skill of maintaining capital and the wider social reality that it entails.

Nonetheless their 'skills' are arbitrary, and non applicable in an abundancy high-energy society.

Vlad336 wrote:
but even if that were literally true, it is only true in this society; how does it translate to a classless society? how can you talk of "rule of anyone" if you advocate egalitarianism? or is this some sort of rephrasing of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?

The idea that we must choose between egalitarianism and a society in which humans must carry out menial chores is a false dichotomy. That is of course, unless you subscribe to the bourgeioise notion of why classes exist in the first place (''the workers are lazy, stupid etc''). Capitalism mantains scarcity not only through goods, food etc but also the labour market. An abundancy labour market would enable the workforce to engage in skilled, un-automatable positions that were not previously available on a wide scale.

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 7 2009 22:22

'''''''''''''''but even if that were literally true, it is only true in this society; how does it translate to a classless society? how can you talk of "rule of anyone" if you advocate egalitarianism? or is this some sort of rephrasing of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?''''''''''''''''''''' end quote... Vlad336

Keep in mind that you are dealing with an apparent intellectual second hander that was fed information from bad sources. There is no political 'rule' in a technate system. In fact it is a non political system. No rulers involved.

The NET and Act theory... which is original research, based on neologism words to rationalize their nonsense.... is not going to make sense.
That is the nature of any cult... any one from the outside shakes their head.
In other words, if a set of false premises are 'believed'.... then the rest is easy.

The most glaring thing that the poster here has wrong? Socialist Technocrat wrote:
The word 'technocracy' effectively means the ruled (sic!) of the skilled

Not true... it is 'administration by science'..... not a people oligarchy construct as the cult claims (ACT Forum based on NET) and other low level fake intellectual types from Rev/Left ilk and Venus Project... and Iron Hand their leader.... they are also into Russian fascism groups... or at least the posters on that site are.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Jun 7 2009 22:56

You're definitely counting on post-scarcity of quotation marks, that's for sure. I wonder why you think this website would benefit from spillage of your forum wars with ACT/NET/Technowarlocks/whatever.

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 7 2009 23:05

Oh... every once in a while you run into someone with a brain.

Read this and put on your thinking cap http://www.eoearth.org/article/Neoclassical,_institutional,_and_marxist_approaches_to_the_environment-economic_relationship

It appears the posters here are mostly locked into the 18th. century.

Then take a look at this http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis

Anyway...

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Jun 7 2009 23:39

Gregg, no one gives a toss.

This is a communist site. That has fuck all to do with technocracy. What are you still doing here, peddling your shite that no one has any interest in whatsoever?

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 7 2009 23:48

This thread is fucking hilarious.

Socialist Technocrat, I watched about half of the video you linked me to. I got the gist. It's crap. Funny though.

Gregg Howards, for gods sake learn to use the quote marks. And stop linking to things to cover up your total cluelessness. It isn't working.

~J.

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 04:14

So sad, so sad.

First of all, let's get straight what communism means to anarcho-communists (also known as libertarian communism):
Egalitarian system with no state ownership nor private ownership of the productions (non-propertarian and egalitarian). This is actually the same definition by Marxist communists, but anarcho-communists also argue for the abolishment of money, as mentioned in the link above.

It is not a mix between "Libertarianism" and "Communism". To quote from http://www.chemistrydaily.com/:
"In common speech in the Western World, a Communist state is a state governed by a single political party which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism. The term Communist state originated from the fact that most of the states in question were or are run by parties that called themselves "Communist Party of [country]." Thus, they became known as Communist Party-run states, or simply Communist states. However most of these states called themselves socialist, since in Marxist political theory, socialism is the intermediate stage in reaching communism, which is a condition with no state, so that Communist state is considered an oxymoron."

This is accurate. In fact libertarian socialists and communists (which means anarchists) do not consider USSR socialist nor communist and they do not consider "The Libertarian Party" to be libertarian, and I will in this comment define communism and libertarian by this standard.

So easy to get confused when people do not understand that isms have different meaning to different groups or people.

While I think Gregg is quite informed in Technocracy it is sad that he never aimed to understand the anarchist movement. Another sad thing is that the anarchists run in fear, when they hear about Technocracy. Technocracy is NOT a political movement, but a scientific approach to matters. Arguably, I'd say that anarchism is not a real political movement either, a rather anti-political movement. Both seek to abolish political power and money, really. But traditional anarchism sometimes seems a little archaic as technology replaces human workforce with machines. But they did have a minor success notably in Spain 1936, where anarcho-syndicalists seized power. They did not use an energy account system, but they used another voucher system, i.e. a sort of "money" that gets cancelled out when spent. Thus, of all "political" systems, anarcho-syndicalism (anarchism) is closest to Technocracy. Unfortunately it was crushed by Stalinists and Fascists, but I wonder if "Anarcho-Syndicalism" could or would have evolved into Technocracy naturally. Technicians were left for technical decisions anyway, decisions that did not involve social matters, skill authority over technology.

I can understand that some Technocrats want to distance themselves from all systems that involve the use of money and the isms like communism or socialism that have a bad reputation thanks to certain regimes unrelated to libertarian communism. On the other hand, apart from scientists, libertarian socialists and communists ought to have more interest in Technocracy alone on "ideologic" terms than any other movement, which leaves me with the question why Technocrats don't try to use this opportunity too? The best would be libertarian socialists who are scientists at the same time. Most libertarian socialists have a Marxist analysis of class struggle although they are not considered Marxists. Marx is unscientific though, and I would argue that libertarian socialists ought to adopt the Technocratic analysis instead.

If Gregg still does not understand that libertarian socialists are not in favour of a monetary system, I would ask you to try out the Political Compass and tell us the result. I would argue that Technocrats would end up in the "libertarian left".

I will add that I always thought I was a libertarian communist and anarcho-syndicalist when I compared with other ideologies, and I will still say it is better than any other (Technocracy is not ideology, so I did not count it as one). But I was a little disillusional as I thought it was a little archaic and lacked something. Unaware of the Technocracy movement I started to develop the idea that scientists and technicians might be able to help to throw over the current system with their scientific method approach to matters - and to create a resource based system to replace the old. I wanted to see if other anarchists ever got to this conclusion as well. Some did actually, and anarcho-syndicalists are already very much in favour of technology, but doesnt' address any further role of the technicians and the scientists. Other modern anarcho-syndicalists like myself have had a short blind "in-love" with The Venus Project, but they are associated with the half-conspiracist Zeitgeist Movement, which scares intelligent people away. I have later discovered Technocracy Inc. that has all real the scientific knowledge and history. I also discovered NET, ACT and Technocracy.ca, but since Gregg is vague in his knowledge of anarchism, I am not convinced that these people, by his words, are just inferior - yet. I am critical though. I always am. If I was North American I would aim to take the full Technocracy Study Course. And I will encourage all people with scientific understanding to take it, notably libertarian socialists as the approach in physical terms are concerned not only with human liberty but human SURVIVAL!

I will encourage everyone that reads this comment to investigate everything I have mentioned.

/RSFO - not a troll

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 8 2009 05:50
Gregg Howards wrote:
Not true... it is 'administration by science'..... not a people oligarchy construct as the cult claims (ACT Forum based on NET) and other low level fake intellectual types from Rev/Left ilk and Venus Project... and Iron Hand their leader.... they are also into Russian fascism groups... or at least the posters on that site are.

Well, it is accurate that it is an administration by science. A misspoke of US, as neither of us support the monetary system or oligarchy.

The claim that "...or at least the posters on that site are [Russian fascists]" can't be true. "We" did have some bad experience with Russian fascists on that site. Some have been banned and others are being examined closely.

I must admit that ACT Forum, in my eyes, is not the best forum to convince libertarian socialists of the necessity of Technocracy and Technocracy Study Course provided to scientists. I seek to establish one that is not associated with Technocracy Inc. but independently analyses everything on the matter. And besides telling people about the improbability of The Venus Project and the half-conspiracist Zeitgeist Movement.

/RSFO

Socialist Technocrat's picture
Socialist Technocrat
Offline
Joined: 31-05-09
Jun 8 2009 09:23
molly0000000s wrote:
Gregg, no one gives a toss.

This is a communist site. That has fuck all to do with technocracy.

Many would argue that the cross over and common interests between communism and technocracy are obvious. This is precisely the reason the ACT project was started.

molly0000000s wrote:
What are you still doing here, peddling your shite that no one has any interest in whatsoever?

The same held true for communism before Marx made people realise it was a good idea.

Socialist Technocrat's picture
Socialist Technocrat
Offline
Joined: 31-05-09
Jun 8 2009 09:43
RSFO wrote:
Well, it is accurate that it is an administration by science. A misspoke of US, as neither of us support the monetary system or oligarchy.

The claim that "...or at least the posters on that site are [Russian fascists]" can't be true. "We" did have some bad experience with Russian fascists on that site. Some have been banned and others are being examined closely.

/RSFO

I think it's important to note that the monolith members are not fascists per se, they are slippery in that they amalgamate their beliefs into whatever forum or tendency they happen to cling onto at the time. When they go to fascist forums then they are fascist, when they go to communist forums, they are communist, they came to us, now they are technocrats.

As such, the monolith does not come under the no platform clause. We can only ban them when they post something bannable.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 8 2009 10:41
Quote:
The same held true for communism before Marx made people realise it was a good idea.

So you're Marx 2.0 now? Jesus...

~J.

B_Reasonable
Offline
Joined: 6-02-09
Jun 8 2009 13:00

"On the logical level of capital, the "double character" (labor process and valorization process) allows industrial production to appear as a purely material, creative process, separable from capital. The manifest form of the concrete is now more organic. Industrial capital then can appear as the linear descendent of "natural" artisanal labor, as "organically rooted," in opposition to "rootless," "parasitic" finance capital."

Moishe Postone, Anti-Semitism and National Socialism, Chronos Publications 2000, p16

Quote:
RSFO wrote:
Another sad thing is that the anarchists run in fear, when they hear about Technocracy. Technocracy is NOT a political movement, but a scientific approach to matters.

Well, you've managed to scare me. I don't know what Fascism 2.0 will be like but a 'scientific', 'non-political' attempt at solving capitalism's apparent problems by an 'benevolent' elite of nerds sounds like it could be a key component.

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 8 2009 14:17

Well... it seems that the Communists here can not wrap their heads around things unless it is something they know or have been exposed to before.

Political Communism persecuted and destroyed Technocracy advocates in the past with their reliance on the special interests of odd ball personality cults... made up of mostly ignorant people. http://books.google.com/books?id=m_wPpj64GqMC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=General+counsel+of+technocratic+party+russia&source=web&ots=nKYC6bXk2Q&sig=1M8sh3W3wtRhZzI9_PkKSiDded8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Also people do not know any real history of Technocracy and Communism and the vying position that both held each other in at the beginning http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr07/page10.html ... it looks doubtful whether the 'intellectuals' here have ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bogdanov#Legacy or understand how close Russia came to adopting an alternative science based course... but opted for the monstrosity of a deadly political system.
Ironically the Russians may be first to adopt actual energy accounting technocratic ideas.... though maybe not so ironic, that it was a planet wave of thought in the early 20th. century that spilled over world wide after the discovery of thermodynamic concepts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)

Even in Germany the Nazi's persecuted, tried and killed Technocrats http://books.google.com/books?id=d0QExts2z0IC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=Albert+Einstein++and+technocracy&source=bl&ots=BE2A7LdW_E&sig=Cio2Za-4nGcy02yo5ilkzvvR_pY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result ... so it is no surprise that people that are ignorant of history as to their own Communism movement do not understand much of what is being discussed here.... only relate to things as loads of shiite... and such.... not really very comical. That person sounds like a moron... sort of... but everyone has a pov.

As to anarchism...? no connection except by default... like capitalism or communism or socialism to technocracy ideas. Anarchists are also political in nature... and wish to enforce their odd beliefs on people. They are moralists and ethical ... aesthetic apologists riff-raff. ACT is supposedly Communist/Anarchist Technocrats? No such animal. Not connected. A stupid attempt at notability for Communists and Anarchists that they do not deserve. Ones with brains adopted actual Technocracy ideas after discovering them... the ones that were not brainwashed. So put away the Che Tshirts you bought at Walmart.... social activist wanna be's.

While it appears that at least /RSFO understands a little of all this... he is also in the dark as to big picture things.... as to 'taking the Technocracy Study Course...???? that is an idiot phrase developed by Kolzene the N.L.P. programmer.... Technocracy technate design is not hidden ... it is not a rocket science project. It is available and can be read... http://www.technocracytechnate.org/technocracystudycourse.pdf so... that is not a mystery, or not connected to a group or pov... except to the people that published it originally.... the Technical Alliance... out of Columbia University.

Ina
Offline
Joined: 10-04-09
Jun 8 2009 16:13

Gregg:

Quote:
Anarchists are also political in nature... and wish to enforce their odd beliefs on people. They are moralists and ethical ... aesthetic apologists riff-raff.

Oh I know how moral and odd of people to think that they should not be exploited or dominated by others. roll eyes

I am going to ignore the obviously authoritarian and trolling parts of your argument which have already been pointed out, with which you seem to not be open to questioning.

Wikipedia article you cited earlier says:

Quote:
Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. Technocracy is a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.... In all cases technical and leadership skills are selected through bureaucratic processes on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than democratic elections. Some forms of technocracy are a form of meritocracy, a system where the "most qualified" and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people. Other forms have been described as not being an oligarchic human group of controllers, but rather an administration by science without the influence of special interest groups

So it is merely a society run by managers/"Technocrats" who are just scientists or most "qualified"....
Who says who is qualified in this type of society? What happens when scientists/specialists opinions vary greatly on what is the most effiecient? Who decides which one's opinion on efficiency is the right one?

For example, today there are Christian scientists who deny evolution or put some kind of driving force of God behind that evolution and others who don't bring religion into it at all, don;t sometimes peoples personal beliefs get caught up in their scientific ones? (Religion isn;t the only spin on this either, there are TONS of ways "qualified" people put their spin on things in the name of science...)

How can you be "a-political" and avoid such "moral" dilemmas such as these? How are "the qualified ones" to be chosen? Science and Engineering can be great for society and have the ability to help tons of people but a society based on soley these aspects would be disasterous which beings me to my next point....

ever read Bakunin's God and the State? A lot of it has to do with Religion but there are sections that talk about a society run soley by scientists as well:

Quote:
Suppose a learned academy, composed of the most illustrious representatives of science; suppose this academy charged with legislation for and the organization of society, and that, inspired only by the purest love of truth, it frames none but laws in absolute harmony with the latest discoveries of science. Well, I maintain, for my part, that such legislation and such organization would be a monstrosity, and that for two reasons: first, that human science is always and necessarily imperfect, and that, comparing what it has discovered with what remains to be discovered, we may say that it is still in its cradle. So that were we to try to force the practical life of men, collective as well as individual, into strict and exclusive conformity with the latest data of science, we should condemn society as well as individuals to suffer martyrdom on a bed of Procrustes, which would soon end by dislocating and stifling them, life ever remaining an infinitely greater thing than science.

The second reason is this: a society which should obey legislation emanating from a scientific academy, not because it understood itself the rational character of this legislation (in which case the existence of the academy would become useless), but because this legislation, emanating from the academy, was imposed in the name of a science which it venerated without comprehending -such a society would be a society, not of men, but of brutes. It would be a second edition of those missions in Paraguay which submitted so long to the government of the Jesuits. It would surely and rapidly descend to the lowest stage of idiocy.

But there is still a third reason which would render such a government impossible-namely that a scientific academy invested with a sovereignty, so to speak, absolute, even if it were composed of the most illustrious men, would infallibly and soon end in its own moral and intellectual corruption. Even to-day, with the few privileges allowed them, such is the history of all academies. The greatest scientific genius, from the moment that he becomes an academician, an officially licensed savant, inevitably lapses into sluggishness. He loses his spontaneity, his revolutionary hardihood, and that troublesome and savage energy characteristic of the grandest geniuses, ever called to destroy old tottering worlds and lay the foundations of new. He undoubtedly gains in politeness, in utilitarian and practical wisdom, what he loses in power of thought. In a word, he becomes corrupted.
...
A scientific body to which had been confided the government of society would soon end by devoting itself no longer to science at all, but to quite another affair; and that affair, as in the case of all established powers, would be its own eternal perpetuation by rendering the society confided to its care ever more stupid and consequently more in need of its government and direction.
...
To sum up. We recognize, then, the absolute authority of science, because the sole object of science is the mental reproduction, as well-considered and systematic as possible, of the natural laws inherent in the material, intellectual, and moral life of both the physical and the social worlds, these two worlds constituting, in fact, but one and the same natural world. Outside of this only legitimate authority, legitimate because rational and in harmony with human liberty, we declare all other authorities false, arbitrary and fatal.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jun 8 2009 16:59
Gregg Howards wrote:
Well... it seems that the Communists here can not wrap their heads around things unless it is something they know or have been exposed to before.
Gregg Howards wrote:
As to anarchism...? Anarchists are also political in nature... and wish to enforce their odd beliefs on people. They are moralists and ethical ... aesthetic apologists riff-raff. ... A stupid attempt at notability for Communists and Anarchists that they do not deserve. Ones with brains adopted actual Technocracy ideas after discovering them... the ones that were not brainwashed. So put away the Che Tshirts you bought at Walmart.... social activist wanna be's.

You clearly don't know that much about the ideas on this site, which is fine, but it's pretty cheeky to claim that 'Communists' are being dismissive of Technocracy out of ignorance* then flout your own ignorance of anarchist ideas.

Anyway what are "aesthetic apologists riff-raff"?

*I admit my own ignorance of technocracy, which seems even more obscure than anarchism.

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 8 2009 17:10
Quote:
Who says who is qualified in this type of society? What happens when scientists/specialists opinions vary greatly on what is the most effiecient? Who decides which one's opinion on efficiency is the right one?

For example, today there are Christian scientists who deny evolution or put some kind of driving force of God behind that evolution and others who don't bring religion into it at all, don;t sometimes peoples personal beliefs get caught up in their scientific ones? (Religion isn;t the only spin on this either, there are TONS of ways "qualified" people put their spin on things in the name of science

Facts do not fight facts... http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html Christian scientists? Sorry they do not count. Obviously that is not science it is witchcraft. Understand? Occult bullshit.

Quote:
Outside of this only legitimate authority, legitimate because rational and in harmony with human liberty, we declare all other authorities false, arbitrary and fatal.

''ever read Bakunin's God and the State?''

That part is good, but in general it is poetic nonsense which can be made sense of in parts, but is directionless and relies mostly on what seems like his aversion to science or thinking that humans are capable of any kind of informed thinking in the here and now present.

Stuff like this though ''moral life of both the physical and the social worlds'' is mostly only abstracted poetry... romantic and apparently conceived in the glowing moon, or dying embers of a mighty fire.... or wiener barbeque.

B_Reasonable
Offline
Joined: 6-02-09
Jun 8 2009 18:06

The book you link to actually says:

Quote:
The journal Technokratie and with it the German Technocratic Society came to a sudden end in 1935, ironically just when opportunities for technocrats within the National Socialist state began to improve. The Third Reich had room for individual technocrats, but not for a technocratic movement.

Science, Technology, and National Socialism, Monika Renneberg and Mark Walker

So they suffered a Nazi re-branding exercise -- that's really tragic -- but at least some of them were able to keep up with the "non-political" work of keeping the Third Reich functioning.

PartyBucket's picture
PartyBucket
Offline
Joined: 23-03-08
Jun 8 2009 19:51

Definitely COC's best record though.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Jun 8 2009 19:54

Knockout for Bakunin also

Socialist Technocrat's picture
Socialist Technocrat
Offline
Joined: 31-05-09
Jun 8 2009 20:02

In response to the antiquated bourgeioise definition of technocracy appearing on wikipedia, here is an updated definition from the revleft 'revwiki'

http://www.revleft.com/wiki/index.php/Technocracy

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 8 2009 21:58

RevLeft is a self important ego mongering bunch of cretins... that apparently still think that Marx and Communism are alive... and that Che` will come back from the dead to liberate them.

Confusing Technocracy ideas with Communism .. Socialism... so called progressive politics or anarchy is really pathetic.

Compare that technocracy for dummies nonsense with this
I am the Price System... http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_70cmz88f&hl=en

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 8 2009 22:59
Gregg Howards wrote:
Not true... it is 'administration by science'..... not a people oligarchy

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jun 9 2009 12:48
Gregg Howards wrote:
[Technocracy] is 'administration by science'

Science is not capable of administrating anything, it's an intellectual tool, a means of reaching an understanding of the workings of the material world. Whatever semantic games you chose to play, you're effectively advocating a society ruled by technical experts of various stripes, who would constitute a managerial class.

So how do your stop your experts from acting in their own interests, against the interests of society as a whole or the vast majority of people whose lives would be controlled by the "scientific" decisions they make? By creating a class of people who manage society, you immediately remove any possibility of "objectivity" in decision making, since what is best or most efficient as far as the managers are concerned is not necessarily what is best or most efficient from the point of view of the workers they manage.

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Jun 9 2009 14:01
Gregg Howards wrote:
Confusing Technocracy ideas with Communism .. Socialism... so called progressive politics or anarchy is really pathetic.

So if technocracy has nothing to do with communism, why are you peddling it on a communist website?

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 9 2009 15:47
Quote:
Science is not capable of administrating anything, it's an intellectual tool, a means of reaching an understanding of the workings of the material world.

Try turning off the electric power and see how far you get with abstracted rhetorical questions and statements, if your refrigerator does not work. The program developed by the Technical Alliance is humanitarian and does not allow for special interest groups as a Price System does. Explore further. You sound jaded http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_82cb2rcg&hl=en#

Quote:
So if technocracy has nothing to do with communism, why are you peddling it on a communist website?

Technocracy replaces a Price System whether of Capitalism or Communism or Socialism or what ever.

I suppose I feel sorry for you people being locked into the 18th. century and not really being aware of actual alternative ideas that are not based on Adam Smith and labor theory of values... and scarcity thinking... and the glorification of human toil... in other words the ism of Communism... Capitalism... etc, ism's.
Our program is based on science... it is not idealistic or moralistic or captured by any aesthetic of idealogy. It was probably the flowering of American thought at its best. It revolves around energy economics.
http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml
It is not control freak stuff.

More info. http://www.youtube.com/user/TBonePickensetc

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jun 9 2009 16:01
Gregg Howards wrote:
I suppose I feel sorry for you people being locked into the 18th. century and not really being aware of actual alternative ideas that are not based on Adam Smith and labor theory of values... and scarcity thinking... and the glorification of human toil... in other words the ism of Communism... Capitalism... etc, ism's.

If this is attempt at shooting down stuff like Marx's Capital its a poor one (i.e. the "labour theory of values" has nothing to do with administering society, but understanding where value in the capitalist system originates).

Gregg Howards wrote:
Try turning off the electric power and see how far you get with abstracted rhetorical questions and statements, if your refrigerator does not work.

You see, this isn't actually an argument, its a bizarre non-sequitur and makes you look mental.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Jun 9 2009 16:07
weeler wrote:
So its a dictatorship of the greatest minds in a given field, no? Even though any scientific, economic or academic field will always have many opposing voices. How does this system actually work?

That's easy. Whenever you've got two opposing voices, one of them will publish a polemic on an unrelated forum, wait for a few locals to engage him, followed by his rival joining in, and eventually, once it reaches four pages, the participants in the debate will be polled as to who was most convincing. roll eyes

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 9 2009 16:28

Nah, it must be a society of scientific peer-review. Because scientists are, like, neutral and stuff. They're trained to not have biases and only consider the facts n' shit.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jun 9 2009 17:36
Gregg Howards wrote:
Quote:
Science is not capable of administrating anything, it's an intellectual tool, a means of reaching an understanding of the workings of the material world.

Try turning off the electric power and see how far you get with abstracted rhetorical questions and statements, if your refrigerator does not work.

this has no conection to what your quoting

Quote:
The program developed by the Technical Alliance is humanitarian and does not allow for special interest groups as a Price System does. Explore further. You sound jaded http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_82cb2rcg&hl=en#

do you really think you are the first people to come up with a moneyless system?

Quote:
Quote:
So if technocracy has nothing to do with communism, why are you peddling it on a communist website?

Technocracy replaces a Price System whether of Capitalism or Communism or Socialism or what ever.

talking about a communist price system is a good way to expose your ignorance.

Quote:
I suppose I feel sorry for you people being locked into the 18th. century and not really being aware of actual alternative ideas that are not based on Adam Smith and labor theory of values... and scarcity thinking... and the glorification of human toil... in other words the ism of Communism... Capitalism... etc, ism's.

Glorification of human toll would explain why communists tend to be anti work, and want to reduce it to the absolute minimum necessary.
you seem to be unable to tell the difference between understanding capitalism and advocating it.