DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

FAO technocrats and technocracy sympathisers

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 11 2009 15:01
Quote:
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.

Indeed - that has been more or less clear from the start of this thread. I only take part because it amuses me, there's obviously nothing constructive to be gained from "Technocracy" as a movement or as an idea.

Quote:
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.

I still dispute the use of the term 'political'. You're right that we are against bourgeois politics, but we mustn't seek to oppose the bourgeois political sphere with a 'radical' political sphere of our own. We should oppose it with a radical communist practice which cuts across the boundaries that separate 'politics' from life in general. This might seem like semantics but it isn't. Communism can't be political because politics requires that there is a separate 'political' dimension to social life: this separation is anathema to communism.

~J.

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 11 2009 15:32
Quote:
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.

BigLittleJ

The existence of a Pareto optimum depends on the existence of a set of preferences of individuals, which in turn basically depend on the individual's income. However, people do not maximize a well defined utilitary function. Almost everybody subordinates his/hers interests to the ideals of a group (family), of a nation, a religion, and the restrictions of tradition and laws. Altruistic behavior complicates the calculations. The Pareto optimum is at most a convenient abstraction. It may serve as a starting point for a notion of economic efficiency. You are a Communist with its attendant belief system about labor... class... morality judgments, etc.

Usually one starts from a convenient optimizable function. In the general case one has an extensive set of variables, such as materials, energy, rent and prices; capital, labor. As of now there is no general correlation between the thermodynamic and the economic efficiencies.
The value of things derives, in an ultimate manner, from the existence of matter and energy.
Hopefully, in the future we shall arrive at the concept of objective physical value of things. In that case it will be possible to estimate the value of a diamond, say, in kWh on the Universal Energetic Economic Scale, based ultimately on the intrinsic value of the available energy embedded in an object. Energy accounting in a non economic system. The word value then is not an economic term... but a way to estimate some useful aspect for society and the cost of that in environment terms.

For that we should reach a consensus about value, by weighting advisedly all the variables. Some idea like that certainly has occurred as soon the Law of Conservation of Energy was established in 1870. Suggested starting point in the writings of Stuart Mill, Spencer and Balfour Stewart.

Explicitly, a similar idea occurred to Frederick Soddy in 1922. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth,_Virtual_Wealth_and_Debt
He wrote that the price of a merchandise reflect, directly or not, the energy invested in its production. (Today, he would say available energy). The same idea was proposed by Howard Scott during the Great Depression of the 30's. And surfaced with the ecological movement since the 60's, while emphasizing the erroneous use of planet's resources. An indirect consequence of this idea is the analysis of industrial processes by net energy use, taking into account all the energy involved since the extraction of natural resources and the "primary" energy. This approach is gaining adepts.

Thermodynamic and economic optima do not coincide, except in very few cases. Berry et al. have shown that the two optima do coincide in the case of a free market in which the only "scarce" resource is available energy (or utilizable work).
That means that labor, capital, inputs, etc. should all be for free.

Energy having been used or converted becomes useless often (coal, gas, etc), environmental issues for this example are nonrenewable natural resource consumption, air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_61689.htm

Hubbert explaining energy conversion and its effects http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY&feature=channel_page

I can give you some information ... only god can make you think BigLittleJ

Quote:
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.

Once we understand the various transformations of energy that are possible, an energy balance can be used to track energy through a system, and is a very useful tool for determining resource use and environmental impacts. The idea is to use the First and Second laws to determine how much energy is needed at each point in the system and in what form that energy is. The accounting system keeps track of energy in, energy out, and non-useful energy versus work done, and transformations within the system. Non-useful work is what is often responsible for environmental problems.

Our society is now run for the most part by energy slaves... like your car converting energy and getting you somewhere. It does not complain ... and will never try to run away.

An Energy Slave is used to compare the productivity of a person and the energy that would be required to produce that work in the modern, oil fueled industrial economy, although it could be applied anywhere that labour is produced with non-human sourced energy. It does not include the ancillary costs of damage to the environment or social structures. Formally, one Energy Slave produces one unit of human labour through the non-human tools and energy supplied by the industrial economy, and therefore 1 ES times a constant that converts to work accomplished = 1 human labour unit.

The choice to “employ” Energy Slaves is only at the margins of their total impact, so are called slaves because users receive the value produced by them as an entitlement of the society.

Oh well... enough. If one or two people here understand a little of this then all is well. Those might become actual social activists... and not belief system hangers on, lay abouts.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Jun 11 2009 16:27
Gregg Howards wrote:
Oh well... enough. If one or two people here understand a little of this then all is well. Those might become actual social activists... and not belief system hangers on, lay abouts.

Oh, what a cop-out. It's not that you're rambling, arguing with people nobody here cares about, refusing to engage criticism, repeatedly proving that you don't know what you're talking about, incessantly sending us over to links that actually refute your argument, or anything. No, people are just too primitive to understand your wonderful message.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 11 2009 20:24

Gregg, you're a joke. And the funniest part is this attitude you have, where you're the open-minded freethinker fruitlessly endeavouring to bring the light of reason to the murky, stupefying depths of libcom.org. It really is too tragic.

Anyhow, am I to understand from your rather bizarre ramblings in the above post that technocrats advocate that energy replace value in exchange (assuming this is possible, and it's not)? That technocracy involves the exchange of goods and services based on energy? "My large warm rock for your medicines," "My lump of coal for your Mona Lisa" "My bottle of petrol for your XBox360" etc. ?

Quote:
Our society is now run for the most part by energy slaves... like your car converting energy and getting you somewhere. It does not complain ... and will never try to run away.

Really? Astonding! Where can I buy this "car" you speak of?

Seriously though, why is it that only sophisticated technology counts as an energy slave? For thousands of years humans have depended on the sun to convert energy and grow crops, grass for herds and so forth. As far as I know it never complained or ran away either. Is it an "energy slave" too?

Quote:
one Energy Slave produces one unit of human labour through the non-human tools and energy supplied by the industrial economy

Labour isn't measured in energy. You're thinking of the physical quantity 'Work'. If you're conflating that with 'work' as in working you really have lost it.

Then again, that's been obvious for some time now...

~J.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 11 2009 20:26
ToJ wrote:
arguing with people nobody here cares about

By "people", were you referring to me?

~J.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jun 11 2009 20:37
BigLittleJ wrote:
ToJ wrote:
arguing with people nobody here cares about

By "people", were you referring to me?

~J.

I think he's referring to the original poster.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 11 2009 20:48
Quote:
The value of things derives, in an ultimate manner, from the existence of matter and energy.
Quote:
That means that labor, capital, inputs, etc. should all be for free.

Gregg, you are a fucking legend, mate. Don't ever stop.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 11 2009 20:54
Django wrote:
BigLittleJ wrote:
ToJ wrote:
arguing with people nobody here cares about

By "people", were you referring to me?

~J.

I think he's referring to the original poster.

Well that's all right then.

~J.

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 00:43

This "discussion" has gone out of hand. A better way to understand, what Technocracy is is to visit either http://www.technocracyinc.org/ or http://www.technocracyvan.ca/, or join the organization to investigate (must be Northamerican).

Quote:
'Technocracy' [is] 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.

It says any social system. Understand that Technocracy is not an ideology. It is rather a sort of technology. You can then try to imagine in what sort of system this would be possible and which would conflict with this. It won't work inside any monetary system nor any dictatorship or parlamentary democracy. I don't see that it would compromise libertarian communism. I think such a system has to be at least very close to libertarian communism. I'll say that it could be one type of economy in a libertarian communist society; the most advanced type. Peace.

/rsfo - No prisons, no money, no poverty, no pollution, no politicians, no wage slavery, no laws...

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 00:50
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.

I agree. Communism would in theory be reality when politics are history, unless we are all gone that is. tongue

But again - this poster is not a spokes person for anyone but himself. Discussion is futile. :-/

/rsfo - Peace!

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Jun 12 2009 01:02
BigLittleJ wrote:
ToJ wrote:
arguing with people nobody here cares about

By "people", were you referring to me?

~J.

Like Django said, I was referring to the original poster, as well as to this insidious ACT/NET/Watevahcult. You're doing a great job refuting him. I admire your patience. smile

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 01:08
tojiah wrote:
Like Django said, I was referring to the original poster, as well as to this insidious ACT/NET/Watevahcult. You're doing a great job refuting him. I admire your patience.

I think the case is sad misunderstandings. sad

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Jun 12 2009 01:29

This is the internets. If understanding hasn't been reached within ten posts, the thread is dead.

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 01:43
Quote:
This is the internets. If understanding hasn't been reached within ten posts, the thread is dead.

That is what Gregg Howard/Skip Sievert has helped to achieve.

Quote:
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.
Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 12 2009 03:30
Quote:
I'll say that it could be one type of economy in a libertarian communist society; the most advanced type. Peace. RSFO

RSFO, you seem like some kind of idiot now. There is no connection between libertarian communist bullshit and what you are thinking, as to Technocracy... did you read this... or do you prefer to troll your personality here http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm

Get help man. You are in a cult. You are a victim. Either that or just an annoying troll. Not sure which... but maybe it does not matter. There is no Gregg Howards or Skip Sievert... those are avatar names.

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 03:39

Double post.

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 03:40

Double post.

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 03:49
Ina wrote:
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.

That was my impression as well.

Quote:
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.

The core problem here is that Technocracy is not about politics. It is a technology, and Technocracy, Inc. is a research organisation in this field. A society is from a technological view Technocracy if it complies with the describtion above. The question is then: How can a society become viewed as Technocracy from a technological perspective? Capitalism or fascist personality cult societies fail to uphold this standard. That is obvious to anyone here. Would libertarian communism uphold a social system in which this technology can operate? It is as if we here have a scientific support for libertarian communism, as all monetary systems are doomed to destroy themselves - no matter how many wars they try to patch themselves with.

"Anarchy is order".

The great problem today is that the Capitalist societies have brought chaos to technology (patent competition) and authoritarianism on people. If you can imagine the political compass, then the vast majority of governments, from Socialdemocratic to Margaret Thatcher, are in the authoritarian right square (and a few authoritarian left regimes here and there). I won't say that chaos is bad and order good, but I would prefer the opposite model: Order to technology, chaos to people. Chaos sounds bad, because we have been taught so, but it really just means the opposite of order: disorder. People do not need to be governd - no order, no commands, no demands, no taxation. A sane society can provide all of its citizens the things they need. And these things must be governd - not by faith, not by interest groups, not by opinion, not by philosophy, not by scientists, but science itself. No better neutral ground can be gotten than that as the limits are what nature can provide.

/rsfo - in favour of libertarian communist research & technology.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 12 2009 09:46
Quote:
There is no Gregg Howards or Skip Sievert... those are avatar names.

As I suspected all along!

~J.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 12 2009 10:25

Look, RSFO, "Energy Accounting" is not a viable system for planning any kind of economy. Nor is the isolation of North America from the rest of the world (the Area basis part) possible or desirable in the modern world.

Communism and technocracy are not the same, and nor are they compatible.

~J.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 12 2009 10:34

I mean, just look:

Quote:
a society which converts energy at a low rate can only have a low overall living standard, while another which converts energy at a somewhat high rate can have a correspondingly higher standard of living for all of its citizens

For fucks sake, what kind of scientist would take this sort of bullshit seriously?

~J.

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 13:14
BigLittleJ wrote:
Look, RSFO, "Energy Accounting" is not a viable system for planning any kind of economy.

I do not have the scientific knowledge to contradict you. But you may know that in anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia they used a certain voucher system, where vouchers got cancelled out on spending - this assured that noone could earn "money". Energy Accounting is semilar, but it is reflected in the physical world.

Quote:
Nor is the isolation of North America from the rest of the world (the Area basis part) possible or desirable in the modern world.

I agree. But remember much of this stuff is from the nineteen thirties, and the research is reflected on an area they have access to. And it would be more wise to begin a Technate in one area before expanding. You cannot just start a world wide Technate by witchcrafting. How would you achieve communism world wide at once anyway?

Quote:
Communism and technocracy are not the same,

True. Reason: Communism is either an ideology or a social system. Technocracy is a technology (not ideology) defined by this and only this (otherwise we are not talking about the same):

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.
Quote:
and nor are they compatible

If you think the above definition would not work in communism then enlighten me. Communism seeks to achieve all the things that a 'Technocracy' requires to operate. The technology cannot work within a price system, dictatorship, parlamentary democracy, police state you name it.

/rsfo
I am sure our favourite Ferrous Cranus will attack me again and thus people get confused again.

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 13:52
BigLittleJ wrote:
I mean, just look:
Quote:
a society which converts energy at a low rate can only have a low overall living standard, while another which converts energy at a somewhat high rate can have a correspondingly higher standard of living for all of its citizens

For fucks sake, what kind of scientist would take this sort of bullshit seriously?

~J.

A link would have been in order. But I must inform you that I am new to Technocracy and I do not have access to all of their material or have read everything in detail available.

The core thing is that I am interested in research and technology that will make libertarian communism more probable and functional. Even advanced anarcho-syndicalism. Some Technocrats are indeed aware that anarcho-syndicalism is the closest social system to which from a technological perspective would be a Technocracy.

/rsfo

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 13:49
revol68 wrote:
This energy accounting sounds amazing, you could literally buy loads of brilliant shit for peanuts.

If the physical world would allow that then yes it would actually be possible.

Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 12 2009 15:16
Quote:
The core thing is that I am interested in research and technology that will make libertarian communism more probable and functional. Even advanced anarcho-syndicalism. Some Technocrats are indeed aware that anarcho-syndicalism is the closest social system to which from a technological perspective would be a Technocracy.

/rsfo

'Some Technocrats'.... is what is known as a weasel wording statement. Only an ego mongering idiot that can not understand actual information that is available would fall into that zone. Your premise does not connect with reality. You need deprogramming http://www.rickross.com/deprogramming.html

Either that or you are just a trolling misinformed person that enjoys clacking on the keyboard, because you do not know shit as to basic Technocracy technate concepts. The 'core thing' is that you are interested in research and technology ???, but apparently you can not wrap your head around the actual ideas and must follow your nose to things you think you already know.

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Jun 12 2009 15:19
Gregg Howards wrote:
Either that or you are just a trolling misinformed person that enjoys clacking on the keyboard, because you do not know shit as to basic Technocracy technate concepts.

What's the different between a Technocracy technate concept and a Technocracy non-technate concept?

Quote:
The 'core thing' is that you are interested in research and technology ???, but apparently you can not wrap your head around the actual ideas and must follow your nose to things you think you already know.

Question marks??? - the new ellipsis?

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Jun 12 2009 15:32
Vlad336 wrote:

'WE are the experts'

RSFO's picture
RSFO
Offline
Joined: 19-03-09
Jun 12 2009 17:01

Quote:
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.
Gregg Howards's picture
Gregg Howards
Offline
Joined: 7-06-09
Jun 12 2009 21:24

Troller is looking for a response...ANY response, and he will chum the waters with complaints, insults, compliments, and inflammatory tidbits hoping that someone...ANYONE, will take the bait. Generally quite harmless - practices a form of catch and release. Nonetheless, he can upset the delicate ecology of a discussion forum. Once a forum becomes aware of his presence, however, all feeding activity ceases and Troller must move on to more promising waters.

Quote:
Philosopher??? RSFO.... probably not... Toller???? yeah.
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 12 2009 21:32

It was about time you introduced yourself to these boards Gregg.