[ZenWilsonian]

Many people have the conception that the Luddites rejected technology through and through, yet a read in 'Linux Developer' of all places this is untrue. Apparently, while they rejected technology being used by bosses to increase profits and put people out of work, they didn't mind it for the common good. Using technology for the common good, ain't that what technocracy is about? So perhaps technocracy has its roots farther back than 20s america.

P.S. Its kinda like communism was before the 18th and 19th century, Hegel and Marx an idea. If you ever read Gerrard Winstanley's 'The law of freedom' you will see it is very much like strict non-monetary communism. Many people call that 'Digger Communism' today.

[jaakko]

But Luddites broke machines. They didn't grasp the fact that destroying means of production is not the way to end exploitation or unemployment. It may be true they didn't see technology in itself a problem, but nevertheless they saw a solution in technology (or rather in its destruction). Therefore; Luddites = Machine Breakers. Technocracy seems to be the extreme opposite of Luddism, but an opposite which, just like Luddism, concentrates on Technology. Or atleast, this is what first came to my mind.

[A_Technocrat]

Many people have the conception that the Luddites rejected technology through and through, yet a read in 'Linux Developer' of all places this is untrue. Apparently, while they rejected technology being used by bosses to increase profits and put people out of work, they didn't mind it for the common good.

This is something that I haven't heard before. But yes, Technocracy's plan is to use technology to provide energy for all the citizens of North America and not to use it to provide money for the capitalists that have purchased it.

Of course whenever I hear Luddite I think of

Luddites = Machine Breakers

In that case Technocracy is exactly the total opposite of Luddism since instead of having a fear of technology Technocracy aims to have total control over it.

Chances are there were Technocratic ideals that were developed during the industrial revolution but it wasn't until the Technical Alliance researched the concept thoroughly and developed a full scientific plan that it actually could be used to run a society.

So could the Luddies have been proto-technocrats and capitalist propaganda painted them as machine smashers. Or were they just plain techno-phobic? I'd have to go with the latter since uneducated people like to let fear rule them, but you never know.

[Putinist]

The phenomenon that was "the Luddites" was not a technocratic nor democratic one - it was a dictatorship of the proletariat - an early socialist movement. I know that zenstalinist comes from the same part of the world as myself, in which case, he would have had the privilege of being taught about the Luddites in History at school - it was local history up 'ere . You should know therefore about Ned Ludd - the Robin Hood-like leader of the Luddist movement - hence where the name comes from. Now his existence has never actually been proven, but the likelihood in this case is that Mr. Ludd did exist and that he was a genuine person. There's no smoke without fire. Plus, I find it hard to believe that an organization such as the Luddites could operate without the essence of a dictatorial but covert hierarchal structure very similar to the later structure of the Russian Bolsheviks under Lenin.

I remember one poor lad - whom I will refrain from naming - a bright lad, who had come up to our school when I saw in year either (second grade?) from some awful school down south, where such History was never taught - and he had no idea who the Luddites were! The teacher gave him all the notes he needed, and he took them home and read them - with a space of about two weeks notice. In spite of his academic brightness, this same boy, come the History examination at the end of the year, this came up:

Question: What famous event happened on July 4 in the United States of America?
Boy's answer: The Boston Tea Party!

Note: "The Boston Tea Party" did exist - it was in fact an early American trade union action taken when dockers working on America's eastern coastline stormed onto a ship coming from Europe carrying tea leaves for making the tea, and threw the boxes containing the tea leaves into the Atlantic Ocean! "The Boston Tea Party"!;)

[A_Technocrat]

After doing a bit of research on this I was unable to find the article that Zenstalinist was talking about. I just found material that reinforces the notion that Luddites = Machine Breakers.

Although I did find a good article from this site

The membership of [the neo-Luddite] movement is extremely broad. It includes people who have seen such rapid technological change in recent years (especially since the development of the microchip in the mid-1970s) that they find many aspects of their lives beyond their understanding or control, and who feel they have nothing to lose but "a way of life that ends with the destruction of all life". Another major component of their membership consists of people who have lost their jobs, sometimes for good. This has affected up to 47 million people over the last decade (40% of the US workforce), as new technology has made them redundant or enabled their employers to relocate them to lower-waged regions.

The third group includes victims of technological aggression, pesticide poisoning, radiation exposure, deforestation, massive dam building, urban sprawl or land and fishery depletion. Recently the movement has acquired an activist element and some of its members have resorted to the type of direct violence for which the original Luddites were known.

You see, these people are not a victim of technology, but of the price system that only cares about the almighty dollar and everything else is just a liability. Under a Technocracy, not those with the capital will control technology, but the people will. With that unemployment, environmental poisoning, and general technological misuse will disappear.

For Technocracy’s plan is what people truly yearn for and not the destruction of an infrastructure that will result in their painful death. This is assuming that those in power don't first execute them for ‘threatening their assets’.

"rejected the scientific, technocratic Cartesian approach"

This angers me to no end, the rejection of science and the misuse of the word Technocracy...but I guess ignorance can be cured.

The phenomenon that was "the Luddites" was not a technocratic nor democratic one - it was a dictatorship of the proletariat - an early socialist movement.

I'm afraid that the Putinist is most likely correct. Socialism does seem to be a very 'techno-phobic' ideology. For that reason is why I cannot accept Socialism. Although I'm willing to accept I'm wrong if someone can show me otherwise.

[jaakko]

I'm afraid that the Putinist is most likely correct. Socialism does seem to be a very 'techno-phobic' ideology. For that reason is why I cannot accept Socialism. Although I'm willing to accept I'm wrong if someone can show me otherwise.

Stay technocrat but please don't think socialists have anything against technology. Atleast Marxists (ie. adherents of 'Scientific Socialism' as developed by Marx and Engels, and later by Lenin) don't. I know many communists who are very interested in science and certainly don't hold any phobias about the newest achievements of science, quite the opposite. Anyways, I don't see any signs that Luddites had had some kind of program to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. I see this movement as quite an intuitive reaction to the side-effects (which resulted not from the technology itself but from the current relations of production) of the 'industrial revolution'. Even if they were somekind of 'socialists', they must be considered as 'utopian socialists' because of the methods they used to achieve their aims (IF they had socialist aims).

[A_Technocrat]

Stay technocrat but please don't think socialists have anything against technology.

I will gladly stay technocrat. But if you must know I didn't make those statements in a vacuum. On our forums there was a person that was stating that 'Socialists had an aversion to technology'. That person was most likely was a socialist before discovering Technocracy so I gave a lot of weight to those statements. I'll dig up those statements a bit later if they have more background to them.

Anyways, I don't see any signs that Luddites had had some kind of program to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Well if the Luddites had their way they would most likely wanted a dictatorship of the proletariat and could have been aiming for one. But yes, considering their level of education they wouldn't have had any type of a plan to achieve it.

Although you haven't given me any sources to convince me otherwise, but to be fair I'll do some quick research on this 'Scientific Socialism'. If you have some good links/material on this subject I'd be happy to look at it.

Also one last point, one of the most visible examples of forced de-industrialization and removal of technology is Cambodia under Pol pot and he considered himself a communist. This doesn’t prove that all socialists are techno-phobic but it appears that socialism has more than it's share of Luddites.

[jaakko]

I will gladly stay technocrat. But if you must know I didn't make those statements in a vacuum. On our forums there was a person that was stating that 'Socialists had an aversion to technology'.

I see. Just remember that many kinds of political movements call themselves 'socialist' (while half of them aren't socialists in any aspect). Communists (if by that are meant those who adhere Marxism aka 'Scientific Socialism').
About the links... I prefer to use this site as my resource (when I don't have Finnish copies at hand): http://www.marx2mao.org
I don't know what would be the best introduction to 'Scientific Socialism', but there is a book by Engels called "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" which might do the job.

Although you haven't given me any sources to convince me otherwise, but to be fair I'll do some quick research on this 'Scientific Socialism'. If you have some good links/material on this subject I'd be happy to look at it.

Well, 'Scientific Socialism' was what Marx and Engels called their theory. They called it such as to distinguish it from 'Utopian Socialism' which was based merely on ethical critique of capitalism while Marx and Engels based their theory on Dialectical Materialist philosophy and on studying objective social and historical phenomena (which is not to say they hadn't any moral motivations).

Also one last point, one of the most visible examples of forced de-industrialization and removal of technology is Cambodia under Pol pot and he considered himself a communist. This doesn’t prove that all socialists are techno-phobic but it appears that socialism has more than it's share of Luddites.

Well, 'socialist' movement in general has its share of Luddites, but Marxists among certain other trends are an exception. Pol Pot certainly was a strange phenomenon in history. But Khmer Rouge wasn't communist. They themselves stated: "We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries" who do not 'belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina." This is something to discuss in another topic, but here's some stuff on Cambodia: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/f ... n0498.html

[A_Technocrat]

Make No Mistake About It,
You Are Being Monitored ... marx2mao.org is a security risk

Oh that's nice. I think I'm covered but the US sure hates you guys if they're doing that. I wonder if our site is being monitored?

As for the person I was talking about, here's the quote:

I've been thinking about the same things edb has, of how to get more clout for Technocracy. Even though it sounds counterintuitive I think you might be able to find a lot of people who are traditionally capitalists that might find technocracy an interesting alternative to other socialistic systems since technocracy isn't anti-technological. One possibly receptive group of people I can think of that are usually die hard libertarians are transhumanists. These people tend to hate socialism because they think socialists seek to put the brakes on technological development that will ultimately free the human race from meaningless labor and help us to signicantly increase our lifespans etc. These people aren't into capitalism for the profit motive but rather because it enables tech development. I'm something of a transhumanist myself which is why I went hunting for alternative political systems that retained the best aspects of socialism but didn't demonize tech development. Instead of halting tech development because it's considered destructive to the environment we need to advance it in focused directions that are compatible with the environment.

This post was lifted from here. Neon made the post.

But if do think about it socialism does promote the worker over almost everything else. Isn't that the basis of socialism and communism? Under normal price system rules technology makes unemployed workers because it converts man-hours into kilowatt-hours. Capitalism gets around this by purging energy and employing inefficient methods to create demand due to decreased supply. A socialist solution could be to curtail technological development and implementation to promote full employment. But us technocrats use the rational solution and just reduce the minimal working hours to meet the condition: energy input =~ energy output. This calculated to 16 hours a week. This figure was determined in the 1930’s. It could very well be under 10 hours now with our technology.

Maybe socialists aren't techno-phobic themselves, but could it be that technology has to be limited in order for communism to work?

[Proctor]

"It's not paranoia when they're really after you," applies nicely here. In all likelyhood, that site is being monitored, seeing as it is the largest source of communist material on the web. And guess what kind of people go to a site like that?

[Putinist]

I wonder what the Marxists Internet Archive have to say about the Luddites (the original ones from Yorkshire)?

[ZenWilsonian]

Hmm... I'm not sure... there's something I want to say though... In the vast majority of circumstances Luddites = Machine Breakers.

BUT there were the more educated, and many of those quite prominent in the luddite movement, just not listened to who said that IF the machines were used properly, to ease the life of the people, then they wouldn't have minded them... they only smashed them while they put workers out of jobs. I think eventually, however, the majority just got excited about smashing machines and thats all they wanted. I would say then that the leaders were someting near technocracy, just more negative than positive. However, the masses of the movement were probably just technophobic.

[A_Technocrat]

If you look, Neon is basing her comments on how the trans-humanist view socialism,

As you may have saw, Kolzene, I have an interest in trans-humanism. I most likely made the 'techno-phobic' comment with the same mindset as a TH. It is reasonable to assume if you see a system inhibit tech development then they seem techno-phobic. Although, Jaakko pointed out it's not specifically in socialism's design to inhibit technology but in practice it's a different story.

"It's not paranoia when they're really after you," applies nicely here. In all likelyhood, that site is being monitored, seeing as it is the largest source of communist material on the web. And guess what kind of people go to a site like that?

[lies]The CIA is totally not spying on communists and they respect them as well as the other fringe ideologies[/lies]

Well, thanks to the cold war the USA is bending over backwards to make sure those evil commies don't gain a foothold in the USA. Of course with Echelon, people believe that the USA is watching every website on the internet (although Echelon doesn't work with non-wireless communication). Just watch out for those black helicopters now.

BUT there were the more educated, and many of those quite prominent in the luddite movement, ... IF the machines were used properly, to ease the life of the people, then they wouldn't have minded them... they only smashed them while they put workers out of jobs. ... the leaders were someting near technocracy, just more negative than positive. However, the masses of the movement were probably just technophobic.

Since they weren't as educated as Howard Scott and the other members of the technical alliance, their plan was doomed from the start. Zen would be correct in assuming that some Luddies wanted the control of the technology for the people like Technocracy advocates. But ignorance got them in the end.