DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

FAO technocrats and technocracy sympathisers

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
B_Reasonable
Offline
Joined: 6-02-09
Jun 9 2009 19:10

Gregg Howard:
This replacement of scarcity, due to property, (not price!) with energy rationing is just a smokescreen for a totalitarianism.

Quote:
Your weblink says:

All philosophic concepts of human equality, democracy and political economy have upon examination been found totally lacking and unable to contribute any factors of design for a Continental technological control. The purpose of the organization is to operate the social mechanism of the North American Continent. It is designed along the lines that are incorporated into all functional organizations that exist at the present time.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_181grt6hhdb&hl=en#

Quote:
Herbert Marcuse said:

The Third Reich is indeed a form of 'technocracy': the technical considerations of imperialistic efficiency and rationality supercede the traditional standards of profitability and general welfare.

Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, 1941(?)

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 9 2009 20:40

lol, being accused of living in the 18th century by someone who believes SCIENCE should be used to "run" society and usher in THE WORLD OF TOMORROW is priceless!!1

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 9 2009 21:15

gregg,

nuqneH. Hab SoSlI' Quch!

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 9 2009 21:20
Quote:
THE WORLD OF TOMORROW

Ooooh, like with Sky Captains, giant robots, flying fortresses and the better half of Brangelina speaking in a crap English accent? Sign me up!

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 9 2009 21:29

technocrat at work:

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 9 2009 22:54

You people are fairly good in the put-down artists department it seems.

Really I have seldom run into a more loutish group of people in general... except maybe Anarcho Communists.... like the ACT people, or dumbed down versions of Technocrats like the NET people, both of which have appeared in this thread as to being represented. Maybe the only other more ignorant group I have crossed paths with are the Anarcho Primitivists.... they may have this communist site beat as to desultory anger and misinformation.

It appears you are not interested in new information or information that goes beyond the very limited and antique notions of Communism... a few of you maybe should educate yourselves about ... The Wealth of Nations... Adam Smith... the basic origin of Communism... and learn a little about the what has happened after the Industrial Revolution... and energy economics. All that has made Communism as given by the originators about as big a do0 d0o bird as Capitalism or Socialism.

So I guess this site is similar to middle ages fan sites where people meet up and dress up in armor and have old heavy swords and do mock battles... and talk the old lingo....

I guess this is more of a kind of FACEBOOK for Communism site or MYSPACE for Communists... in the sense that there seems to be very little discussion and mostly interjections of putdown material interlaced with little snippets of repeated propaganda aspects of Communism... funny.

Here is another of our older documents http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm
This is not the updated version... but it may give a reference point for some of these ideas.

Here is another little basic idea http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm

I get the impression that the ''Communists'' here have very little to no knowledge of the actual history of their movement in regard to some of the more notable people and their influence. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr07/page10.html

Still you never know maybe a few people here will throw their brain mechanism into gear... and start thinking a little more creatively.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12zencey.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion Frederick Soddy an Englishman.... this site is more or less from England right???? was also a scientist and a Technocrat.

One of his books... which was used for sourcing in the Technocracy Study Course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth,_Virtual_Wealth_and_Debt

Cheers.

Ina
Offline
Joined: 10-04-09
Jun 10 2009 04:01

Will you stop it with the "oohhh ohh I think anarcho-communists are this and that I'm soooo much more intelligent but I'm not going to offer up any actual counter-arguments to those who actually read what Technocracy is and just say everything they say is just moral and poetic nonsense because science is just pure logic and a universal truth that everyone is totally the same on and can never be flawed." shit.

You haven't even countered anyones arguments coherently, calling Bakunin Poetic nonsense without any actual explanation does not count. Its fine if those are your thoughts but what EXACTLY about Bakunin's argument do you find good or bad?

BigLittleJ wrote:

Quote:
So technocracy is just planned capitalism where energy is used as currency? Why the fuck would that be an improvement on the present situation? And how the hell would providing everyone equal credit eliminate class society, whatever currency that credit was in?

you haven't had an argument against this either.....

The Christian example was one of many( but anyone living in the Southern part of the United States also a real possiblity), companies do it too. I'm assuming you have never done a science experiment or even read a scientific journal because scientists have different opinions on the same experiment all the time. The fact that you can not also admit that even the almighty unbiased scientists exploit science and spin it in order to fit their agenda(especially in any sort of government or law! "Specialists" are brought in all the time that agree with whatever bullshit the state is trying to put into place and ones that dissent are and have been ignored) shows how totally out of touch with reality you really are. Just because there is a government of "qualified scientists" doesn't mean it will be any less shitty than the governments now, "energy voucher"(or whatever term you use for some bullshit form of currency in energy form like it makes it any less like money pfft) or not.

And could you try to actually answer other peoples questions in your own words, without petty insults and trolling and using a ton of the same shitty links over and over?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jun 10 2009 06:40
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.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything I said?

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#

The issue is not one of "special interest groups" but of class, the society you're proposing would still be a class society, with a separation between the ruled and the rulers, the managers and the managed, this creates a conflict of interest in and of itself.

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 10 2009 13:18

Libertarian communist
I do not have any totalitarian beliefs. I don't want to ever rule over someone else and I don't want anyone to rule over me. Out of fun I tried to take the Political Compass test. It should not be taken as fact, but it is still funny. In the real world I think I would be -10 on both axes, but here is the result:

Economic Left/Right: -9.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36

That places me in safe distance from Stalin, Hitler, Margaret Thatcher, the fake-libertarians and all Western governments that, although not all to the same extreme, reside in the Authoritarian Right square.

I am not a part of the Technocracy, Inc. or movement. As stated before, I always felt alligned with that of anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism. I have been "blessed" with resistance to propaganda from media, and I always try to get my own information and to be critical. I gained a fair understanding of Astronomy as a 4-year-old and later Biology and Evolution. When I was 7 I critized the Bible. None of my parents ever told me to read Karl Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Noam Chomsky (which I did), but I cannot deny their influence. I think the core influence on me was to be critical. Today I understand that to be critical should accompany an understanding of the scientific method or the general attempt to disprove your own theses to get closer to reality (you can get closer to reality but you can never reach it). That means you would not swallow what they say on TV or whatever stories you hear. You do not need a degree in physics or history to think this way. It means to think that what you hear might not be the entire truth or even true at all. It also means that you acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong yourself. I consider this to be the wisest stand.

To that I would say it is unwise to use a permanent definition of a word and always connect that word with that definition, i.e. take the first found definition in a dictionary without further investigation. This by definition is a dogmatic stance. To hold to the definition that "communism" includes a monetary system on a libertarian communist site is an example of this, as libertarian communism has no connection to what is known as "Marxism-Leninism" (Stalinism) or in the West as Communist state societies. It is also unwise to define technocracy as a bureaucratic system of ruling experts and engineers when talking about the Technocratic movement. I say this as an individual and not as a spokes person for this movement that I am not a member of.

Here is a link to a very thorough and accurate definition of communism hold by both Marxist communists and Anarcho-communists: http://www.revleft.com/vb/communismi-t42451/index.html?t=42451

I regret that it is difficult to get an accurate understanding about what the Technocracy movement, i.e. Technocracy, Inc. (which they named themselves to protect their material), is about (it is evident that it is not aimed for politics, oligarchy or capital interest in any way). It will not get anyone a better understanding of the matter unless you read the material on their two official websites and/or you get some credible third-party information, research or analysis on the particular movement and claimed research. It would be in order to leave a quote from one of their two official websites (I could not dare to leave out the very saying Cree Indian Prophecy quote):

Quote:
The Meaning of Technocracy

The Organization and Membership of Technocracy Inc. define 'Technocracy' as any social system which is organized and integrated on an Area basis to apply the knowledge of science and the methods of technology to the physical operations of the Area, and which has the objective of achieving the highest sustained standard of living for all of its inhabitants that its physical factors permit, and whose ultimate objectives are the production and distribution of abundance.

Any application of the term 'Technocracy" to anything inferior to this, we contend, is dishonest and inaccurate.

Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then, will you find that money cannot be eaten
(Cree Indian Prophecy)

I find it difficult not to be in favour of this. I also find it difficult not to see that Technocracy should be considered a tool to gain a sustainable (libertarian) communism, i.e. destroy the monetary system/price system/capitalism or what ever you want to call it, political power, patent system. And how would you gain libertarian communism without thinking just a bit like these Indians anyway? And this definition of Technocracy would be difficult if not impossible to combine with capitalism. They say based on research it would be dificult to maintain Technocracy in a dictatorship if not impossible as well, or within any other political system. I would argue that libertarian communism is an invert of any notion of "political system" as state and capital are gone.

An excerpt from their FAQ:
"What is in the minds of most people when they speak of 'human nature' is human behavior. Human behavior, like all other animal behavior, is the result of the reaction of environment upon the inherited mechanism of the individual. Technocracy proposes to regulate this environment in such a manner that the most desirable human behavior will evolve naturally; or, to put it another way, Technocracy proposes to change the rules of the game under which human nature operates. Given a decent set of rules, there is every reason to believe that human nature will affect a veritable Renaissance."

What did Emme Goldman once say? "A society gets all the criminals it deserves."

My independant thoughts
As mentioned I started to develop my own thoughts on a resource based economy without money, also thinking of the short success of anarcho-syndicalism as we know it from Catalonia 1936. I remember months ago when I began to think about the Danish (I am Danish) public transport system and how inefficient it is, and the government controlled educational system. I like thought: Why the hell should the universities receive orders from a lower denominator (politicians) and why would we need money to either education, transport or health-care? Isn't it just a question of resources? Is it fair that elected politicians rule over skilled people or people in general? Wouldn't it be more fair that they ruled themselves? Isn't it right that the rightfully skilled people are in control of their respective areas? Shouldn't the students and teachers control their thing?
How should this be done? And could you through a scientific research, method and understanding change the rules of the game? And could that lead to an abundance that could even change the third world conditions as well? The patent system is definitely in the way. It is limiting research and controlled by interest groups; no need for either Karl Marx nor Technocracy research to understand that.

If Technocracy Inc. has research on how to make abundance, then this is the interesting part, and it would be a contribution to present their material to third-parties (i.e. scientists) to try and validate that material. Historical background is irrelevant in this matter. What counts should be to take control of technology and remove it from those with power, not destroy it, if theoretical libertarian communism should have any chance of success.

Anarchists claim that democracy can exist without a government, state, capitalism and politicians; in fact they say that anarchism is pure democracy, i.e. no rule over anyone else, no elected oligarchy. Translated from greek anarchism means "without government", democracy means rule of people and technocracy would mean rule of skill. Completely unconnected to the Technocracy movement understanding of the word, i'd say neither of these three words translated imply the rule over people. If we ever should evolve into a type I civilization on planet Earth, as defined by kardashev scale, such a society necessarily must have elements at least close to that of anarchism, direct democracy and open-source control of technology at the same time. Technocracy Inc. may have some of the important research on the matter. They do not have a political solution to matters, and do not claim to have the exact answer ready to everything, but they may, to the ignorant, have some of the tools to get answers that comply with the natural world that is completely neutral to us humans. Whatever material they have would require third-party scientific research to make it credible.

Gregg Howard/Skip Sievert/TbonePickensetc/Tbone is the one that sends people into the dark confusion
When people start to search for information about resource economy to see if other people have gotten similar ideas there is a high chance that they, like me, will encounter a certain high-level troll, or the more fitting Ferrous Cranus, here known as Gregg Howard, also known as Skip Sievert on different blogs and foras and TBonePickensetc on facebook and youtube, who has a clear vendetta against the administrator of technocracy.ca with the nick Kolzene. I have not ever spoken with Kolzene personally, but the way Skip Sievert acts makes it questionable to trust anything he says or links to. And here he is using the portrait of Dr. Andrew Wallace of NET, which alone should justify the banning of Gregg Howard/Skip Sievert/TBonePickensetc from Libcom.org. I myself got interested in TBonePickensetc's material on youtube some time ago, but fortunately smart enough though to find out that he is a factor to spread more confusion than understanding (also quite obvious here), which I unfortunately and ignorantly have been let to contribute with. He is doing more damage to the Technocracy movement than Kolzene could ever hope to, if he does any damage at all (whatever supposed NLP witchcraft conspiracy). So Kolzene is a Wiccan? I mentioned an Indian quote earlier. It's a shamanist people's prophecy, so for the very fact that it is present on an official Technocracy webpage obviously also makes it vested in witchcraft (read the irony).
Skip Sievert "drafted" me to his own forum technocracytechnate.org earlier, which (although new) doesn't have a very large following. He is linking to a lot of his own stuff here and there to his own site, his youtube, the wikipedia stuff that he has partly edited himself (look at the talk pages: It's Skip Sievert all over the place) and to some of the real material from technocracyinc.org, which confuses with these part truths. He does not try to understand ideologies on their own terms and just defines them as if he read or understould the only authoritative definition of an ideology and of what follows. This obviously makes him, apart from laughable to anyone on this forum, unreliable to whatever this Ferrous Cranus crafter is doing. Judge for yourself on this single persons large scattering of garbage on different sites. He hunts all people he deems to be "pseudo"-technocrats on different sites to try to discredit them. So where ever they go he will be there instantly. I seriously doubt you can count Skip Sievert as a spokes person for Technocracy, Inc.

I found a copy of an interesting letter from George Wright of Technocracy Inc.:

George Wright wrote:
Greetings all:

This note to you should not have been needed to be written, but when one and one's organization is slandered and lied about, one must come forth.

A certain Skip Sievert [Gregg Howard, rsfo], for whatever reason, has deemed it his personal vendetta to discredit the organization of Technocracy Inc. and some of the membership of this organization. We have done nothing to make Mr. Sievert act in this manner, and even as I write I hold no personal grudge against this person. I will make no personal attacks against Mr. Sievert, but I will point out the fabrications and misinformation that he has so liberally disseminated to an unsuspecting audience.

First, the organization of Technocracy Inc. had its inception in 1933, and to this day has maintained a physical, intellectual, and personnel presence in North America. As part of its leadership, the organization has a Continental Board of Governors - five members in the U.S. and three in Canada. We are chartered as a North American not-for-profit research and educational volunteer membership organization, originally incorporated in the state of New York, some time later in Ohio, and currently in Washington State.

In Washington, we lease acreage and on that site have established housing for staff and a main office. We publish "The North American Technocrat" magazine quarterly and have a monthly newsletter called "Trendevents" that is on the Internet and mailed through regular post to subscribers who have no access otherwise. We have developed and maintain two official web sites: www.technocracyinc.org and www.technocracyvan.ca. Our web sites, the magazine, and the newsletter are the only official outlets for our organization, no matter what you might have seen or heard otherwise. Other web sites, blog sites, Wikipiedia, or any other groups or individuals have no authority unless specifically granted permission by Technocracy Inc. to use our generic concept. For us, this has to be considered as unauthorized and subject to misinformation, and a good reason why I now have to write to you.

We finance all activities ourselves. We allow no ads in our publications, and we have accounts audited by a professional financial advisor. We have had a strong relationship with the Bank of America, who, along with our financial advisor, can vouch for our superior financial stewardship. We anticipate being active in placing advertisements in various media when conditions warrant, but for now, conditions are not conducive for a major advertising undertaking. We have had several trial ads printed as example in the Progressive magazine, but without much response. These placements are extremely costly; therefore, we have had to be very judgmental in our financial dealings. Our hope is that the falsehoods and misinformation being used against our organization will not reach critical mass necessitating legal action for infringement. This will cost all parties involved a great deal of money which we certainly could put to better use.

Technocracy Inc. recognizes that many will not agree with the idea or design conceived by The Technical Alliance, the forerunner of Technocracy Inc. Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert, co-founders of the organization, considered that to be the case, but they knew this information to be so valuable that they undertook the work of establishing our organization. To this day, we remain as relevant as when first incorporated. The only thing the leadership and members of Technocracy Inc. ask of people is to conduct a personal mature evaluation for themselves. It will do no one any good to attack, curse, and generally act like a spoiled child who cannot seem to get attention any other way.

My best to you all,

George Wright
Board Member
Technocracy Inc.

I have a quote from another technocrat:
"This person [Skip Sievert] has by himself done more to damage the reputation of Technocracy than any other person. His sheer level of output is impressive, but most of what he says is pure garbage. For one, he has an almost fanatically adherence to the idea that everything can be solved via the scientific process. Since the scientific process can only deal with objective matters, it cannot handle subjective matters. Subjective matters must be handled democratically. However, Skip is unable to understand this and accuses anyone who attempts to point this out as not being a true "Technocrat", and sets himself up as the only person who truly understands Technocracy."

None of the people being attacked are trying to stifle social change - far from that. Quote from official Technocracy, Inc website:

Quote:
"We acknowledge" the fact that many are copying much of Technocracy Inc's material. There would be no problem with this action - we are on this site to have people learn of the only program that will counter the problems confronting our area [North America, rsfo]. Our concern is that some entities want to use our name to further their own agenda for personal reasons, or that misguided people and their organizations want to stifle social change to ensure their continued control in our existing economic and political structure.

"We Acknowledge."No other web sites, media presentations, orators or other factions, have authorization to represent Technocracy Inc. or its generic design for scientific functional governance without our expressed consent. Technocracy's two official web sites are: technocracyinc.org and technocracyvan.ca Reference: The Technical Alliance "Profiles." Copies available upon request.

Revleft.com
It is a website of a motley lot with both Anarchists (the largest group), Trotskyists, Stalinists and other groups. They do not represent a united lot even if that may seem to be the unholy case. And they are obviously not all on speaking terms. Judge for yourself. Personally Stalinists give me headache and make me puke. I doubt most anarchists would wear Che Guevara T-shirts by the way, not even if they have to look at Stalinists in this forum.

More on Bakunin, anarchism and technology
To my understanding libertarian communists and particularly anarcho-syndicalists do not "traditionally" view technology as an evil. There is even a debate here on libcom.org called "Technology is neutral" to which I would add that nature is neutral. There is an article called Anarcho-Syndicalism, Technology and Ecology at anarchosyndicalism.net and an interview with Noam Chomsky on Chomsky.info from 1976. It should go without saying that "traditional" anarcho-syndicalism as an industrial worker movement has no connection with Luddites or "anarcho-primitivists", whose ideas if implemented would lead to the extermination of at least 90% of world population.

What was Bakunin's stand on technology? I deliberately stole two qoutes provided by another libertarian communist known as Cult of Reason from revleft.com and ACT Forum also speaking as an individual and not on behalf of Technocracy movement. I did once read the same in a book written by Bakunin many years ago or at least the essence of what I quote here:

Bakunin wrote:
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.
Bakunin wrote:
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.

Certainly neither a Luddite nor a primitivist (Bakunin). He wasn't a god nor a scientist, but a wise critical man, and prophetic regarding certain parts of Marxist science. He understould many things about human behaviour and nature.

Now that we have finally gotten straight that technology and science belongs with industrial unionism, I encourage that real technocrats and the trade unions & libertarian communists should cooperate on how to make a society of abundance.

/RSFO
Economic Left/Right: -9.99
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.99

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 10 2009 13:26
tojiah wrote:
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.

This actually made me laugh smile. The two persons are not connected in any way however, and I certainly as a libertarian communism, consider myself in the right forum. Gregg Howard is a high-level troll, a Ferrous Cranus, and should not be considered a spokes person for Technocracy, Inc. Not that "Socialist Technocrat" or I do either. We simply adapted the definition given by Technocracy, Inc. quoted here:

Quote:
'Technocracy' [is] as any social system which is organized and integrated on an Area basis to apply the knowledge of science and the methods of technology to the physical operations of the Area, and which has the objective of achieving the highest sustained standard of living for all of its inhabitants that its physical factors permit, and whose ultimate objectives are the production and distribution of abundance.

The question is: Would this compromise libertarian communism? I'd say it would greatly enhance it.

/RSFO

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 10 2009 17:11
Quote:
So Kolzene is a Wiccan? I mentioned an Indian quote earlier. It's a shamanist people's prophecy, so for the very fact that it is present on an official Technocracy webpage obviously also makes it vested in witchcraft (read the irony).

/RSFO ... maybe you could think about counseling. Deprogramming could be an option. You are obviously under the Kolzene N.L.P. spell. Kolzene started the NET cult originally with disinformation. http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfx7rfr2_47gwfdk6&hl=en

NET was blacklisted on Wikipedia as to their article for these reasons http://ia360905.us.archive.org/3/items/NetworkOfEuropeanTechnocratsN.e.t.Technocracynet.eu/NetworkOfEuropeanTechnocratsN.e.t.Techno.pdf

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 10 2009 17:54

This is almost funnier than Kevin Keating vs IDP.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 10 2009 19:05

LUCKY I WENT TO THE GUN SHOW YESTERDAY!!!

Ina
Offline
Joined: 10-04-09
Jun 10 2009 20:24
Quote:
Now that we have finally gotten straight that technology and science belongs with industrial unionism,

yeah I donlt think anyone ever argued otherwise and I would agree that technology itself is neutral. Thats not what anyone was arguing.

Quote:
'Technocracy' [is] as any social system which is organized and integrated on an Area basis to apply the knowledge of science and the methods of technology to the physical operations of the Area, and which has the objective of achieving the highest sustained standard of living for all of its inhabitants that its physical factors permit, and whose ultimate objectives are the production and distribution of abundance.

wow how generic, technology can be good for people and increase a standard of living, I don;t see why the term "technocracy" is needed for saying something so simple...that definition isn't telling me anything new and I can;t imagine why anyone would need a movement for something that seems like just plain common sense. That Technocracy Inc pretty vague and is so against the price system but doesn't offer up any alternative, at least on its FAQ page.

Quote:
Technocracy, then, concerns itself with the determination of the most probable in the field of social science -- the determination of the most probable state of society.

errrm wtf does this mean? Most probable state of society? Seriously, its hard to use so many words to say nothing....

Quote:
This plan offers achievable technological solutions to our social problems via replacement of the social system, since our problems are due to the impact of technology upon a 7,000 year old social system. The solutions must be technological ones, compatible with the modern age in which we live.

huh? This is absolutely ridiculous.

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 10 2009 22:44

Here is something RSFO that you may find interesting.

“A very narrow boundary exists between the desire to help and the desire to control. Sometimes organizations and individuals can blur this boundary with good intentions, exhibiting the same totalistic control and ideology that exists on the other side of the line.” http://www.cultnews.com/?cat=40

Also as it has been suggested... there is no connections as the ones you are drawing in regard to the program of Technocracy technate design and your influences, which are comical in general compared to the information you are talking about.
Read this with an open mind... and please put your thinking cap on!
http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm
There is no connection to Noam Chomsky... ha ha or the others you mention... that is cartoon stuff.... as to, Karl Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin... again.... you are in left field to relate those connected in any direct way... shape or form...

If you hang out with a spin off of cult people such as NET or ACT or TechCA ... you are going to be led around in circles. Those are based on personality cults connected with the various administrators....
NET may be the worst of the group... as NET, Network of European Technocrats, have an assumption to power theory... and that means their leader Andrew Wallace .... who formulated the 'Rule of Experts' theory which is not connected to Technocracy design... wants to be the over all leader of a group of interconnected Hobbit like villages in Europe, that subscribe to the NET cult.
Although... keep in mind that you have been sucked in by 4 or 5 active bloggers. NET has no real life takers.
By the way ... confusing bloggers and forum participants with 'real' people is probably a mistake.
Formatting elaborate grudges as a kind of cyber detective for a cult is not really a great part to play.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 11 2009 02:02
Gregg wrote:
SELF-PWN

Gregg, Gregg, Gregg...

I'm actually going to post some of the choicer gems from that article you keep linking to, for the entertainment of the wider audience:

Quote:
the conductivity characteristics of carbon coding with a modified Dewey decimal system enables one to devise a Continental accounting system and medium of distribution, becoming at once a Continental accounting system and continuous inventory of both production and distribution on an hourly basis, Continent-wide.

Fantastic. I haven't a clue what carbon coding is, and Google hasn't either. Fuck knows what its conductivity characteristics might be, assuming that phrase has any meaning whatsoever. The Dewey system is a system for the categorisation of non-fiction books in libraries. It is not designed for, nor could it conceivably be applied to either accounting or resource distribution. The whole sentence is actually meaningless. Literally. It is simply a reel of pseudo-scientific jargon stuck together with little regard for even grammatical sense.

Quote:
What Technocracy has always contended is that if sufficient energy consuming [sic!] devices are installed and the total amount of extraneous energy consumed per capita [sic!] reaches or exceeds 200,000 kilogram calories [sic!] per capita [sic!] per day, toil and workers alike will be eliminated[sic!]

This one is great because it works on so many levels...

1) You can't consume energy, because energy can't be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed. Basic thermodynamics.

2) You can't have a 'total amount of x per capita'. You can have the total - all of it - or you can have the amount per capita.

3) Energy is usually measured in Joules, or sometimes in Calories. It is not measured in kilogram calories. Fuck knows what those are, I don't.

4) Per capita is repeated, even though it didn't make sense the first time.

5) The whole idea that you can define human toil in such a way that it can be quantitatively eliminated. If there is any kind of reasoning behind this, and I suspect there isn't, it could only involve arbitrary definitions of 'toil', which would amount to simply assuming the problem away.

Quote:
Neither Russia nor China has as yet developed the design to handle even the production of wheat in their area, let alone other commodities.

This one has to win the prize for Most Blatant Display of Ignorance By A Self-Proclaimed Expert. Russia and China not producing wheat, eh?

Quote:
Understand, human toil and hand tools, from at least Hammurabi's time (about the 19th Century, B.C.) down to the present time, the annual increment of physical production, under human toil and hand tools was so small that it required a century to amortize the principal and interest of any major debt. Therefore, without technology, there would be no possibility of any social renovation, only a perpetuation of human toil and hand tools.

Yeah. Right. All those 19th century BC debtors, working away for centuries just to pay off the mortgage... imagine...

Quote:
It is only when the load factors of operations and complete design are altered according to energy factors that a resultant comes about which would be beyond the dreams of all social philosophers.

A resultant comes about? Resultant was an adjective, last time I checked. A resultant what? A resultant spoon? A resultant banana?

And energy factors? Who knows.

Quote:
it is well to realize here and now that Technocracy, like science, has no truth

And the Telling It Like It Is Without Meaning To award goes to...

Quote:
the system of tomorrow will be a system of operation and control of energy and things, wherein decisions will have to be rendered as the closest approximation of the next most probable energy state, made at the speed of energy transmission

A system of operation and control of energy and things? Remarkable. Wonder what that would look like...

Energy states are chemical concepts, and have to do with the fixed amounts of energy that can be absorbed or given out by electrons. (Sort of).

The speed of energy transmission of course depends upon the method of energy transmission. Shining a torch transmits energy at the speed of light. Throwing a ball transmits energy at the speed at which the ball is thrown.

There's more, but I think I'll leave it there. The full article can be found here.

Interestingly, the author of the article does seem of a rather similar mindset to our very own Gregg. He doesn't really understand grammar, but likes to use long, sciency words. He doesn't really understand communism, but likes to dismiss it out of hand to avoid thinking about it. He doesn't really understand science, but likes to think his understanding of science can solve the world's problems. He doesn't really understand energy, and I mean at all, but thinks that an economics vaguely based on it would be a good idea.

~J.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 11 2009 02:07

I'm actually starting to suspect that our Gregg may in fact be Old Gregg of the mighty Boosh, in disguise...

~J.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 11 2009 02:19
Quote:
Quote:
the conductivity characteristics of carbon coding with a modified Dewey decimal system enables one to devise a Continental accounting system and medium of distribution, becoming at once a Continental accounting system and continuous inventory of both production and distribution on an hourly basis, Continent-wide.

To make a Technocratic text:

* Take a science book
* Take a pair of scissors.
* Choose a portion as long as you are planning to make your text.
* Cut out the pages of that portion.
* Then cut out each of the words that make up this portion and put them in a bag.
* Shake it gently.
* Then take out the scraps one after the other in the order in which they left the bag.
* Copy conscientiously.
* The text will be like you.
* And here you are a writer, infinitely original and endowed with a sensibility that is charming though beyond the understanding of the vulgar.

-Tristan Tzara, technodadaist.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 11 2009 02:30

And... ellipses:... lots... of... them....

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 11 2009 03:09

god you are a tough crowd here.

Number one.

Quote:
1) You can't consume energy, because energy can't be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed. Basic thermodynamics.

Did you ever get an electrical bill? They measured the kilowatts no doubt?

Pardon but are you functional? I mean... really you consumed a whole lot of energy today, measurable energy in this sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophysical_economics

A human runs at about 33 to 80 watts. or about 1/20th. of a horsepower...

To put it another way your refrigerator... assuming you have one, BigLittleJ, has about a 1/4 horse power motor in it that runs it.

In other words it did a whole lot more work than you did today... so ... do you understand the concept of energy slaves?.... maybe not... or energy conversion http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml .. maybe not, http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis

Or how this relates to http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics ... maybe not.

Anyway... nice to see some of you have a marginal sense of humor, even if you do not understand the discussion, or much about history. .. or the present.

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 11 2009 03:17

Electricity is energy Mr. Do0 DOo. It is measurable to an exact degree. Missed the point? Only in your dreams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

And what is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_quality

Now lets get back to the real thing that all of us have in common... and not misconstrued bullshit about science which obviously is not well known here... this is the real thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-market_economics

This was also a person that understood the real thing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bogdanov#Legacy

As well as this person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Proteus_Steinmetz

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 11 2009 04:24
Gregg Howards wrote:
This was also a person that understood the real thing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bogdanov#Legacy

Both Bogdanov's fiction and his political writings as presented by Zenovia Sochor[2], imply that he expected the coming revolution against capitalism to lead to a technocratic society. This was because the workers lacked the knowledge and initiative to seize control of social affairs for themselves.
Isn't this basically admitting that technocracy is opposed to workers' self-management because they are apparently "lacking in knowledge and initiative" to seize control? Do you read the stuff you link to?

also, just for the lulz:
In 1924, Bogdanov started his blood transfusion experiments, apparently hoping to achieve eternal youth
WTF?

ok, so he did some cool shit, but politically he was an idiot:

Despite his earlier efforts and interest in socialism, by 1922 Steinmetz concluded that socialism would never work in America because the country lacked a "powerful, centralized government of competent men, remaining continuously in office" and because "only a small percentage of Americans accept this viewpoint today."

This is a political forum by the way.

One possible non market economic system proposed is based on thermodynamics and energy.[1] Technocracy Incorporated proposes a non market economic system called Energy Accounting[2] which uses a post scarcity type of economy as its basis.[3]The technate design as projected, would include such post scarcity aspects as free housing (urbanates), transportation, recreation, and education. In other words free everything, including all consumer products, as a right of citizenship.

leaving aside the details of your amazing "non-market economic system" what the fuck does free everything as a right of citizenship mean? rights and citizenship are characteristics of a capitalist bourgeois democratic society. What does this have to do with socialism or anarchism?

Quote:
An Urbanate is essentially an assembly of buildings where people live and work. These places would have all the facilities needed for a community, including schools, hospitals, shopping malls, waste management and recycling facilities, sports centres, and public areas.Technocrats plan for Urbanates to be something akin to resorts, designed to give each citizen the highest standard of living possible. Getting around in an Urbanate would be inherently easy and efficient.

that sounds lovely; I imagine it looks something like this:

O HAI WE'RE MAKIN DE TEHCNOCRAZIES FO REAL. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE LOLWUT!!11

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 11 2009 04:39
Quote:
This is a political forum by the way.

Yes. Sadly... that is part of the problem. Communism equals politics... and politics equals mind control and disinformation. Belief systems... you are believers in soldiering for some abstract concept.

Technocracy technate concepts are a non political system based on energy thermodynamics.

''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:
History and Purpose of Technocracy

`Our principal constraints are cultural. During the last two centuries we have known nothing but exponential growth and in parallel we have evolved what amounts to an exponential-growth culture, a culture so heavily dependent upon the continuance of exponential growth for its stability that it is incapable of reckoning with problems of non-growth ~ http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/wwf1976/

I understand that I am on alien territory here.
I do not think that a general knowledge of history is thought about here as to the origin of the political Price System... and its mechanism.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 11 2009 05:08
Gregg wrote:
Belief systems... you are believers in soldiering for some abstract concept.

some abstract concept? you mean like THE WORLD OF TOMORROW ?!

Quote:
"Technocracy never was for the workers against the capitalists, or for the capitalists against the workers.''

Thank you for finally admitting, albeit not with your own words, that technocracy has nothing to do with class struggle or anarchism.

Quote:
"Our principal constraints are cultural."

not economic and social? yeah, that definitely makes a lot of sense.

Ok, I see where you stand now. Thank you for your time.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 11 2009 09:54
Quote:
Did you ever get an electrical bill? They measured the kilowatts no doubt?

Kilowatts are a measurement of power, not energy.

Quote:
Electricity is energy

No it isn't. Electricity has energy. So does a ball, if I throw it. That doesn't make it energy.

Quote:
It is measurable to an exact degree.

So is a haddock, that doesn't make it energy.

Quote:
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Any form of energy can be transformed into another form, but the total energy always remains the same. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century,

The wikipedia article you linked to confirms my point, and disproves yours. Interesting that you're the one mincing on about how we're all stuck in the 18th century.

Do you even read the things you link people to? Wikipedia articles about Russian science fiction writers, who killed themselves with dodgy blood transfusions that they thought would make them immortal? That's the best you can do for a theorist? Wikipedia articles on non-market "economics"? You're just totally clueless aren't you?

~J.

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Jun 11 2009 10:17
Khawaga wrote:
And... ellipses:... lots... of... them....

I'm... going... to... become... an... ellipsocrat. It's... clearly... the... best... social... system.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 11 2009 10:23
Quote:
Yes. Sadly... that is part of the problem. Communism equals politics... and politics equals mind control and disinformation. Belief systems... you are believers in soldiering for some abstract concept.

Actually I disagree with the first poster - this isn't a political forum, or if it is it's only partly that. It's a communist forum, and communism is (or should be) anti-political.

Quote:
Technocracy technate concepts are a non political system based on energy thermodynamics.

Maybe caps will hammer the point home. THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS IS THAT ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED BUT ONLY TRANSFORMED. THE FIRST FUCKING LAW. You and your sources repeatedly talk about 'energy consumption'. Whatever your system of accounting is based on, IT IS NOT BASED ON THERMODYNAMICS BECAUSE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THAT IS. LIKE, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA AT ALL.

Quote:
both attitudes of the so-called radical left and reactionary right were all alike, mere misadventures in the hostilities of the oncoming social conflict.

I agree. Leftism and reaction are just modes of managing capital, all alike. Neither can get rid of social conflict because neither goes to the source of the problem - capital as alienated labour.

Quote:
we have evolved what amounts to an exponential-growth culture, a culture so heavily dependent upon the continuance of exponential growth for its stability that it is incapable of reckoning with problems of non-growth

Bourgeois theorists in not really understanding capital shock!

Quote:
I understand that I am on alien territory here.
I do not think that a general knowledge of history is thought about here as to the origin of the political Price System... and its mechanism.

I'd say you're pretty ignorant of communist ideas, then. But then that's obvious to all concerned.

Keep on truckin'.

~J.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 11 2009 10:35
Quote:
I'm... going... to... become... an... ellipsocrat. It's... clearly... the... best... social... system.

Our ... ellipse accounting ... system will rationalise the mechanisation of the world ... economy, and eliminate human toil by ensuring ... each worker per capita ... consumes over 200 000 000 000 ellipses ... per capita per ... day per year per capita per tunafish per calorie kilowatt hour ... That'll show those stuck-in- ... the-18th- ... century communists ... ! Ellipsocracy ... forever!

~J............

PS: I don't mean to be harsh on 'ee, Gregg. Actually the ellipses are the best bits of your posts.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Jun 11 2009 11:31

Spoken... in... robotic voice!

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 11 2009 14:29
BigLittleJ wrote:
Actually I disagree with the first poster - this isn't a political forum, or if it is it's only partly that. It's a communist forum, and communism is (or should be) anti-political.

political not in the sense of being concerned with bourgeois politics, which is what technocrats seem to be doing when they're talking about rights and citizenship, but with radical "anti-politics" politics.

Quote:
I agree. Leftism and reaction are just modes of managing capital, all alike. Neither can get rid of social conflict because neither goes to the source of the problem - capital as alienated labour.

In that quote the author also declares his position as "never was for the workers against the capitalists, or for the capitalists against the workers." I doubt he means leftism as you and I understand it.
Basically Gregg has just stated that technocracy is apolitical daydreaming utopia-building bullshit. It has nothing to do with class struggle, even if all that crap about energy credits made absolute perfect sense.