Path to Post-Scarcity - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The solving of mankind’s problems and abolition of government via technological solutions alone.

Moderator: Kolzene

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14414350
Kolzene wrote: "Parahprasing the Buddhists in a very Maoist way, to achieve a post-scarcity society we gotta follow the Threefold Path:

-> Development of Productive Forces.
-> Mechanization and Automatization.
-> Social control over the means of production.

The third one's the charm :P. In the absence of social control over the MOP, the propertied classes will simply introduce artificial scarcity in order to preserve their status and privilege."

I see nothing there that disagrees with Technocracy. There may be disagreements however on the method of "social control", but otherwise that is quite accurate. I'd be interested to know exactly what parts of Buddhism correspond to this; perhaps we have some potential allies there?


No Kolzene it is not accurate at all it is obviously nothing but typical Marxist theory which has absolutely nothing to do with Technocracy and I'm pretty sure the Marxist "class war" people are some of the last people Technocracy is going to want as allies. The quote I posted above should have made that pretty clear. For someone with a Howard Scott picture and an (excellent) Howard Scott quote in his profile you should know this by now.
User avatar
By KlassWar
#14414375
I am a Marxist, not a right-wing technocrat, and I'm here to deliver Marxist criticism of technocracy: Technocracy is reactionary because it specifically seeks to disempower the toiling masses and centralize power in a bourgeois-intellectual elite separated from the working masses.

For an economy to function in the interest of the masses it must be physically answerable to the masses and organized by those experts and intellectuals that maintain the trust of the masses and are aligned to their interests, preferrably Marxist and proletarian intellectuals.

Kolzene wrote:I'd be interested to know exactly what parts of Buddhism correspond to this; perhaps we have some potential allies there?


It was a friendly quip at Maoists: Being Asian commies they were prone to slogans that were aesthetically similar to Buddhist principles, like the Struggle against the Four Olds as some sort of parody of the Four Noble Truths. That's why I nicknamed the three requirements for the construction of a post-scarcity society the Threefold Way.

Kind of forgot y'all ain't Marxists and ended up having to explain the joke.
#14414418
KlassWar wrote:I am a Marxist, not a right-wing technocrat, and I'm here to deliver Marxist criticism of technocracy: Technocracy is reactionary because it specifically seeks to disempower the toiling masses and centralize power in a bourgeois-intellectual elite separated from the working masses.


"Technocracy considers that Communism is sufficiently radical and revolutionary for the Old World. In Europe, they still have alternatives politically and economically. Here on this continent, Communism is so damn far to the right that it's bourgeois."

- HOWARD SCOTT VANCOUVER FORUM 7-2-47
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott

KlassWar wrote: For an economy to function in the interest of the masses it must be physically answerable to the masses and organized by those experts and intellectuals that maintain the trust of the masses and are aligned to their interests, preferrably Marxist and proletarian intellectuals.


"There are only two classes of people on this continent. We differ from those in Europe. In Europe, the European peasant considers himself wealthy by the size of his manure pile outside his front door. He knows from long historical background that if anyone attempts to move that manure pile, home will never smell the same. He resents any attempt to operate the area. It's always been human toil and hand tools, so there is class resentment from the grand bourgeoisie down to the peasant. But here on this continent, there are only two classes: chiselers and suckers. The sucker here on this continent never resents the chiseler; in fact, when he is trimmed, what is the first thing he does? He rushes back to the plant, office, or home to drag his relatives or friends down to the same place to have the satisfaction of watching them get trimmed the same way he did. Suckers here on this continent don't hate the chiseler; they envy him. Because why? Because they want to emulate him. Every sucker on this continent wants to graduate into being a chiseler. We know you. Why does he want to do that? Because a chiseler is he who gets the most for the least.

The native habitant of this continent was the Indian. The Indian had more sense than these white men. He knew there was no sense in work, and he never tried it. Did you ever hear of a mule ever killing himself from working overtime or dying from overeating? No, you never did. The mule is intelligent. It's only the human jackass who owns him that does that trick."

- HOWARD SCOTT VANCOUVER FORUM 7-2-47
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott
Last edited by TechnocracyTNAT on 29 May 2014 17:29, edited 1 time in total.
#14414446
Kolzene wrote: Hey! What's with the personal attacks? I know you're new here but that's bad form wherever you go. It's also against the rules, so cut it out.


Sorry I thought you were going to ban me anyways. Quetzalcoatl started attacking me first for no reason.
#14414448
"Go to work in your areas and develop some esprit de corps. You have permitted personal jealousies and God knows what to come up. You fight between yourselves. For heaven's sake, if you felt that you want to be sadistic, take a crack at a Republican or Democrat or Communists and don't pick on yourselves. Let's go and kill the other guy for a change."

- MEMBERSHIP MEETING, AKRON YWCA HOWARD SCOTT 10-10-43
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott
User avatar
By Varax
#14414583
This thread has really taken a turn for the worse and I find that very unfortunate because there were a lot of interesting and worthwhile ideas that have been presented here. A lot of the commotion here from my perspective seems to be infighting from people who really share a lot of the same goals, but have misconceptions about each other that is unfortunately driving us apart. I'm glad Kolzene has returned because his knowledge can help us bring this together in a sensible manner. But first of all the personal attacks need to cease as it is not conductive to productive discourse. This is a very important topic for me and one I have spent years contemplating.

For starters, we need to clear the air here on some of the more unfortunate misconceptions that have been laid down.

TechnocracyTNAT wrote:No Kolzene it is not accurate at all it is obviously nothing but typical Marxist theory which has absolutely nothing to do with Technocracy and I'm pretty sure the Marxist "class war" people are some of the last people Technocracy is going to want as allies. The quote I posted above should have made that pretty clear. For someone with a Howard Scott picture and an (excellent) Howard Scott quote in his profile you should know this by now.

As Kolzene adroitly pointed out that is consistent with Technocracy. It is also consistent with Marxist theory. That is because these two while often thinking themselves as different really wind up at a very similar place when you look at it.

We need to be clear about this: Technocracy is a form of Socialism. It can only exist under socialism and by bringing it about you would necessarily for socialist system.

Now before anyone cries foul here, we need to step back and look at what each one entails and get to the heart of the matter. It is true that Technocracy is not the same as what as what existed in say, the Soviet Union but the Soviet system was considered to be transition phase - it never fully built socialism. Obviously we know the Soviet system collapsed, but there were a lot of reasons for that and we can learn from them but we need to realize that the productive forces were less advanced there and other factors that prevented it from achieving its stated goals. I only bring this up because we need to establish context. A more proper socialist system in an advanced economy such as in North America would be precisely along the lines of what Technocracy Inc. states.

A socialist system entails an end to capitalism - it is a system wherein the means of production are socially managed and controlled. Technocracy Inc. precludes the existence of capitalism - not only does it remove ownership of the means of production from the capitalist class it destroys the very underlying fabric of capitalism itself by ending the price system. Under this system capitalism no longer has any relevance, it is thus rendered wholly obsolete. This is what a completed transition to a socialist system entails. This is exactly what both Marxist socialists and Technocracy Inc. advocate in their end result by bringing about a post-capitalist system. By using Energy Accounting and Technocracy would precisely mean a democratic socialist plan economy.

This fact has not been lost on Marxists, indeed there have been acknowledgments of this:

Trotsky wrote:"Technocracy" can come true only under communism, when the dead hands of private property rights and private profits are lifted from your industrial system. The most daring proposals of the Hoover commission on standardization and rationalization will seem childish compared to the new possibilities let loose by American communism.

National industry will be organized along the line of the conveyor belt in your modern continuous-production automotive factories. Scientific planning can be lifted out of the individual factory and applied to your entire economic system. The results will be stupendous.


To wit, Trotsky recognized what I am mentioning now in no uncertain terms - the goals of Technocracy Inc. entail a system where private property rights and profits have have been removed from the productive process. It can only exist once that has been done - the abolition of the price system and the full use of Energy Accounting under a socially planned economy means that capitalism has been removed. This is exactly what socialists such as myself wish to see happen and it thus only possible once capitalism has been removed.

I have a lot of respect for Howard Scott, I think he was brilliant engineering mind and the work he and the Technical Alliance have done is very valuable. They worked out a lot of very important details for this sort of thing. But Scott was not a great political mind - let's be fair here - it was not his main vocation and he wanted Technocracy Inc. to be as apolitical as possible. I understand where he's coming from given his background. But I feel he did not understand the Marxist position fully, nor do I blame him for having a dislike of what was going on with regards to the Soviet Union. Also I think his views have been somewhat colored by the time in which he lived when anti-communism was very prevalent in American discourse. But a lot has changed in 50 years, and we should not let these historical arguments get in the way of the task at hand which is how we are going to get these wonderful designs from Technocracy Inc. implemented. Make no mistake here, I fully support getting that done and that's what this thread is about after all - how to get there. I am not your enemy here, our goals are completely compatible even if we disagree on details. So let's work together to do that friend, after all that is the essence of what my sig symbolizes technocratic socialism.

TechnocracyTNAT wrote:Sorry I thought you were going to ban me anyways. Quetzalcoatl started attacking me first for no reason.

No one is going to ban you as long as you conduct yourself according to the forum rules. You're new here, so let's take a step back and not jump on each other based on initial presumptions. There is no reason we can't have a civilized discourse and I hope you will represent Technocracy Inc. well in your time here.

KlassWar wrote:I am a Marxist, not a right-wing technocrat, and I'm here to deliver Marxist criticism of technocracy: Technocracy is reactionary because it specifically seeks to disempower the toiling masses and centralize power in a bourgeois-intellectual elite separated from the working masses.

The term "technocrat" has indeed been used to mean that, but that's not what we're talking about here. If it were just putting intellectuals in charge of the existing capitalist system that would indeed just be more right wing claptrap and I completely agree on calling that out for what it is. This is not what Technocracy Inc. proposes however, what they want is only possible once capitalism has been abolished.

KlassWar wrote:For an economy to function in the interest of the masses it must be physically answerable to the masses and organized by those experts and intellectuals that maintain the trust of the masses and are aligned to their interests, preferrably Marxist and proletarian intellectuals.

Yes, this is exactly it. The experts would be put in the roles they are best suited towards to help organize the economy but all other decisions would be made democratically. Furthermore, by abolishing the price system and thus the very foundations of capitalism we will have completely transitioned to socialism and on our way to making a proper classless society. This why Technocracy Inc.'s model is valuable - if it was implemented it would mean exactly that. Now we just need to get there so we can do that, which of course is the topic of this thread isn't it?

Now I hope we can get that cleared up, because I really do think that Technocracy and Marxist socialists should be natural allies since upon further analysis we both want a similar model for society. We have enough pressing things to address without tearing ourselves apart.

To that end we must now turn our attention back to how we can achieve such a result. Now Technocracy Inc.'s model focuses mostly on education, emphasizing that it is not a political organization. If it were possible for such an organization to exist in a vacuum then perhaps that would be so.

On Kolzene's website Technocracy.ca we have the following Roadmap to Technocracy. It starts out well underlying three preconditions for such a system:

Technocracy.ca wrote:Technocracy has stated that is has three requirements in order to make it possible:

1. That there be a sufficient amount of natural resources to be able to produce an abundance of goods and services.
2. That there be a sufficient amount of installed technology to turn those resources into use forms.
3. That there be a sufficient number of trained personnel to operate that technology.


According to Technocracy's research, North America already has these three requirements. Given the advances in technology it may even be possible that other areas of the world do as well. But if this were really all that was needed, then why hasn't it been put in place yet? It is because there are other requirements not part of this list. This list features only the physical requirements to make it possible, and they were emphasized in order to point out to people that it was indeed possible. Two other, non-physical requirements exist as well. The first is obvious, the Technocracy Design. We have that (to some degree anyway), so what else? The second is the informed consent of the public. This last requirement is the big one that we are missing, and thus becomes the focus of our beginning to construct a plan to build Technocracy.


This gist of this is quite clear, in order for the model Technocracy Inc. lays down to become a reality the productive forces must be sufficiently advanced and there must be trained personnel. This indeed shows the problem less advanced societies faces where such preconditions are not met and thus advancing the means of production is necessary for full technocratic socialism to become possible. This is something that Marxists have long acknowledged - so here again we are mostly on the same page. We're off to a good start here.

From there the Roadmap goes to explain the importance of education for spreading Technocracy's views, and then goes on the discuss a bit on how to be efficient in how to care about that education. For Technocracy Inc. then focus on the purely educational side of things becomes paramount in their approach to spreading their message. Well, then what? How do we go from this social movement to getting this implemented? If we look historically into the Technocracy Movement in North America we can see clearly what happened. The goal of the movement was to get referendum on putting the system into practice. As if one could simply gather support and propose it then that would be taken seriously by those already in power who then give the people the option of putting it into power.

That is not what they got. The response of the establishment was less than encouraging, instead they told Howard Scott in no uncertain terms that it would be best if he would stop his research. Scott of course refused, but from then on Technocracy Inc. was heavily criticized especially after some of their early predictions for collapse of the price system did not come to fruition. As many others have done before them, they underestimated the resiliency of capitalism and the price system and it has limped ever since. The North American Technocracy Movement lost momentum after that and while the advent of the internet has been a boon for getting its message out its spread remains mostly small and we have other, often less full developed proposals such as the Venus Project (from some who broke away from Technocracy Inc. itself) come forward with their own plans. Yet none of them has yet achieved mass appeal.

More importantly, there is the implications of what Technocracy Inc. proposes and how it effects certain entrenched interests - their response to the Technocracy Movement and Howard Scott is very telling of this. Technocracy Inc. is thus viewed in the same light though on smaller scale as what Marxist socialists and others had to deal with - those who feel they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for their own profit and status it confers them view these proposals as a threat to their interests in a very real sense.

This is where I feel Technocracy Inc. falls short, because they do not adequately address the issue of agency. It is this important question that I feel separates those in Technocracy Inc. from Marxists and such socialists. Technocracy Inc. claims its not political and in narrow sense it may be true in that it doesn't campaign for office but it is innately political because it advocates a political-economic system that presupposes the abolition of capitalism and the price system. Along with that you are going to be confronted by the entrenched elements of the present ruling class who view that abolition as a threat to them. This is not something that can be sidestepped by resorting to pure education - as if we could educate enough people and then they might be kind enough to let us do things our way without opposing it or using their own already existing ideological and cultural hegemony which they can use disrupt and discredit us at every turn. This is the reality we are confronted with, it is not a pleasant one but it is something we must address as a point of necessity.

This is the reality that those who want to abolish capitalism and the price system face - to us of the Marxist persuasion it is a known fact. Technocracy Inc. is no different in this aspect, it is just more easily marginalized. You can throw your hands up and try all you want to claim that you're not socialists - that what you're pushing for is different but in reality we are in the same boat together, pushing for something very similar. The ruling class to the extent they care certainly sees it and their actions tell the tale. So again, instead of fighting each other we need to seriously talk about how to face the obstacles in our path and understand the scale of what we're really talking about here. You're talking about nothing less than a total removal of the existing order.

So this is why Marxists like to talk about class and class interest in these things because it is a question of "in whose interests is it to pursue these changes?" "Whose interests it in to oppose these changes, who has a vested interests (in their mind) to maintain the status quo?" So you can see it is a very practical question because it addresses the question of agency. That is, how can go about building a movement that make the kind of revolutionary break from the present way of things in order to establish a post-capitalist, post-price system way of things?

Now there are certainly other things that will help us in doing this - the inherent instability and failings of the present system make things easier. Technocracy Inc. is quite right when it points out this volatility. The cycle of booms and busts, the never-ending need to generate profit, the precariousness of debt and the financial system - all these things highlight the instability of the present system. But this needs to be taken into account with other factors as well. But failure of the present system in itself isn't enough, a movement based in those whose interests it is to pursue change must be formed in order for that to happen.

______

I have a lot more I wanted to say on the nature of the transition phase, the uneven developments of capitalism, how new systems build from within the old and how to form a political movement with a proper mass line but this thread has gone in a different direction than I had hoped so I'll save it for now.
#14414632
"The political administration of our national affairs is deemed by Technocracy to be totally inadequate and incompetent, irrespective of which political racketeer does the administering. Politics and the financial racketeering of the Price System are blood brothers conceived in the ages of scarcity along with the oxcart, the sickle, the hoe, and the spade; and, like them, they have become as obsolete and must be consigned to historical antiquity. The technology of a new America of plenty will not permit Price System sabotage of our national operations nor will it tolerate either a Marxian insurrection or a Fascist suppression.

No importation of any social theory or philosophy will avail America in the slightest in solving her operation problems of today and tomorrow. Communism, Socialism, and Fascism were conceived outside this continent and belong to the European philosophical proposals to divide up the results of scarcity. Technocracy is not a philosophy; it is a continental engineering design of a social mechanism for the production of plenty."

- RADIO ADDRESS - WEVD NEW YORK, NEW YORK 2/6/35
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott
User avatar
By Varax
#14414656
That is not an adequate response though it appears you are incapable of actual discourse. Am I supposed to have a discussion with the late Howard Scott on this based on what he said so many years ago? You have addressed nothing I wrote.

Fine, I will address some of this:

"The political administration of our national affairs is deemed by Technocracy to be totally inadequate and incompetent, irrespective of which political racketeer does the administering. Politics and the financial racketeering of the Price System are blood brothers conceived in the ages of scarcity along with the oxcart, the sickle, the hoe, and the spade; and, like them, they have become as obsolete and must be consigned to historical antiquity. The technology of a new America of plenty will not permit Price System sabotage of our national operations nor will it tolerate either a Marxian insurrection or a Fascist suppression.

The political administration is still in power the last time I checked so as I addressed at great length you still need to remove them in some way or another eventually and those in power have a vested interest in keeping their power. Also this administration is tied to the business interests which are also tied to maintaining the price system. The Marxist approach at Socialist in its end result also aim to get rid of the state in its present form - so again this is also consistent. Again, Howard Scott was an engineer but he didn't seem to know much about politics except that he didn't like it and wanted it to go away. Which I can sympathize with because the state does need to be abolished. The type of socialism I'm talking about is the same as what Technocracy Inc. wants and I'm talking about a way to actually implement that. Revolution is a means to that end. Or do you simply think that the Price System and the entrenched elements that support it will go quietly into the night without a struggle? It's an honest question.

No importation of any social theory or philosophy will avail America in the slightest in solving her operation problems of today and tomorrow. Communism, Socialism, and Fascism were conceived outside this continent and belong to the European philosophical proposals to divide up the results of scarcity. Technocracy is not a philosophy; it is a continental engineering design of a social mechanism for the production of plenty."

Yet you continue to ignore me when I try to show you that what you are advocating is a form of socialism. I even explained to you how it differs from the other historical attempts at socialism but is still at it's core socialism. Your continental engineering design would entail the creation of a system where private property has become irrelevant, where the means of production are socially controlled in a stateless, classless society. The phrase "social mechanism for the production of plenty" is key. This is exactly the same thing as what socialists want it is highest form. This issue is how do we get there? You can have this wonderfully planned out design but without a means of implementation it will remain just that - a design.

As with regards to "importing philosophy from Europe" - societies do develop differently according to their material conditions and it is true that the advanced economy of America will allow us go full force into this if we get the chance at it. However, the forces of reaction are also very strong which is part of why Technocracy Inc. and socialists of all types remain relatively weak.

Also I don't appreciate you simply patronizing me with these quotes. I've read Howard Scott, the Technocracy Study Guide, virtually everything from Technocracy Inc.'s website and other material online. I've also read a lot from Marxism and other viewpoints to have my own broader perspective on how Technocracy Inc. fits in enough to know that while it may not claim to political or philosophical it has plenty of implications in those regards. I'm trying to formulate a broader view for how to get these "continental engineering designs" actually implemented. I'm not interested in you simply block quoting Howard Scott as if his word is law in this matter and we should allow just submit to everything he says. If this is how you intend to win over people to your point of view then you are doing a poor job at it. I'm not interested in a lecture from you as if my only issue is I haven't read enough Howard Scott. I agree with him on a lot and I also disagree with him on other things or think his perspective was skewed by his own background and time in which he lived (as we all are). But I'm not interested in discussing with his ghost.

Next time respond to what I wrote directly or don't respond at all. You can start with that longer post I wrote. I was hoping to have an actual discussion.
#14414662
Well you keep insisting that Technocracy is a form of socialism. It is not and never will be no matter how you try to rationalize it. I don't know how to explain this to you better than with these amazing quotes. If you don't like Howard Scott or his quotes then that's not my problem. As for the transition I have plenty of amazing quotes about that too:

"We do not care if you agree with us or not. We are not trying to sell you anything. A new kind of social mechanism is yours for the asking, but if you voted 100 percent to put Technocracy in tomorrow, you couldn't do it, because you are not capable of running peanut stands on wheels as an organized body. You think putting X on a ballot is all that is necessary. Wish fulfillment or psychology do not run factory or powerhouses. We can devise plans and struggle along without money, but if you are going to build an organization on this continent to prevent chaos, you had better get going. Unless human beings of ability on this continent realize that they must build an organization to supervise the functional operations on this continent, you will see something that will make the Russian Revolution look like a splash in a mud puddle."

- PUBLIC LECTURE, HOWARD SCOTT EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA December 1935
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott

"Now, Technocracy is not trying for any political position whatsoever. We are not going to do this or that. We have no assumption of power theory. This is not a case of political parties taking over. This is a case of 150 million people north of the Rio Grande being forced into the leadership of this continent whether they like it or not, and Technocracy is not going to do it but those 150 million. This is a slightly different aspect. We have never asked Technocrats to break up meetings or interfere with anything or interfere with anybody or commit an illegal act or entertain an illegal thought. And yet this audience could be repeated from coast-to-coast and in the far north. In some places, the buildings aren't big enough, and yet we have no angels, no endowments, no funds. Howard Scott has only done the same as you have done. It is up to you whether you want to move in this area or whether you want to fold your hands. CHQ cannot compel you to do a single thing that you don't want to."

- HOWARD SCOTT, CARTER HOTEL, CLEVELAND 2-4-45
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott
User avatar
By Varax
#14414673
TechnocracyTNAT wrote:Well you keep insisting that Technocracy is a form of socialism. It is not and never will be no matter how you try to rationalize it. I don't know how to explain this to you better then with these amazing quotes. If you don't like Howard Scott or his quotes then that's not my problem. As for the transition I have plenty of amazing quotes about that too:

And you can keep blinding yourself to the reality of what you are really advocating. I just wish you and Technocracy Inc. would stop rationalizing to pretend that it is isn't. I'm not even saying it is socialist as a philosophical point of view - simply that it objectively is and would be if it was put into practice. That's a good thing from my perspective, yet you don't seem to care that I'm trying to find ways to help your movement. Because what you're doing right now is not helping - I'm somebody who supports Technocracy Inc. and I'm put off by your method of spreading your message and so do others in this thread it seems. I was actually trying to defend Technocracy Inc. to others on the left here as something that has worthwhile positions but you don't want our support. Also I said repeatedly that I respect Howard Scott as a historical figure and like his designs - that doesn't mean I agree with him on everything. You seem to have trouble grasping this.

If you keep trying to do things this way you'll continue to just be a marginal movement. How many members does "Technocracy Revolution" have on Facebook? 633. Wow (I'm one of them btw ) . Their video views on youtube are also unimpressive. If you want to carry on this way then that's unfortunate. I was really trying to help you guys.

I hope Kolzene gets around to responding because he actually discusses things and is thus much better suited to representing Technocracy Inc. than you. I really do want his input on some of these things.
#14414679
"TECHNOCRACY SEEMS TO BE SLIPPING BACKWARDS FASTER THAN USUAL. HOW COME IT IS NOT BECOMING MORE POPULAR?

When was it ever popular? After all, if we had collected a bunch of people who went around kissing the rearends of the businessmen, we would have been popular, wouldn't we? Soft soapers. After all, Ikie was a good public relations officer--he wasn't a general, you know, but he's a smoothie. If we had been smoothies, we would have been popular. A smoothie is always one who shaves a posterior before he kisses it. It's very easy to become popular. All I've got to do is go on the television, and what do they say? Glamour boy! (laughter) And I do it without makeup.

And these boys on television that interview me—they're all made up, it's very difficult when you come into the studio to tell whether it's male or female, and they sit on the arm of the chair, because they want to get up here, you know. They don't want to feel inferior. How many of you heard the rebroadcast of my Press Club interview in Cleveland? How many did? Well, a lot here evidently didn't. In other words, my Eisenhower highball is spreading across the country. You haven't heard of that yet? You will. Business on the rocks with a dash of compensation bitters. You'll all be drinking it pretty soon.

Now as far as Technocracy being popular, we never tried to be popular. What's the first fundamental in pedagogy? It isn't to make people like you. It's to have people leave with more questions in their minds than when they entered, and I think you will have to admit that wherever we hold meetings from Mexico City to the far north in Canada, they have all left with more questions in their minds than when they entered. Howard Scott, Director-in-Chief of Technocracy, has never tried to make any audience like him, because he is not running for office. You can't elect me to anything. [WHO APPOINTED YOU?] The organization. I'm-elected every three years.- It's tough,- isn't it? So are Section Directors and Section officers. They're elected every year. Anybody wants my job at what I get, they are welcome to it. Just try it, I don't even qualify for the minimum wage law."

- HOWARD SCOTT, AKRON Y.M.C.A 3-25-58
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott
#14414696
Kolzene I apologize for saying "you don't understand much of anything" because I admit you do have some understanding of Technocracy albeit not enough, but I do stand by the comment I made in the other thread, and the comments made by your followers here are only proving what I said there. It is obvious they are interested only in their own fantasy conception of Technocracy and are hostile towards any actual Technocracy information, and for some reason you are encouraging this. It is really unfortunate because you might make a good Technocrat eventually if you chose to study Technocracy more in depth instead of trying to pose as a "Technocracy expert" and maintaining a website containing disinformation under the name of Technocracy in order to gain a following.
#14414870
Kolzene I'm sorry but I think I'm going to have to re-retract my retraction because it is apparent from your comments that you have even less understanding than I could have imagined.

Technocracy is totally different from socialism because Technocracy is scientific and socialism is philosophic, not because socialism is an "evil dictatorial warlord". In fact Technocracy is "so much damn tougher than communism and socialism that it's laughable", and Howard Scott and the Technocrats are "worse than Stalin, Genghis Khan, Hitler and Mussolini rolled into one", and unlike you I'm not making this up as I go, I have the quotes to prove it:

"Technocracy is a technological socialization—not a Marxian socialization, and it is so much damn tougher than communism and socialism that it's laughable. We in Technocracy consider communism or socialism sufficiently radical for the old world, but it is so darn far to the right for this continent, we think it's bourgeois, to put it mildly. In other words, when you start to put in a technological design on this continent, you'll have to liquidate the proprietary rights regardless of whether they are financiers or a farmer out here or someone who's got a special claim."

- HOWARD SCOTT, AKRON Y.M.C.A. 3-25-58
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott

"Your socialism, communism, your fascism, your so-called democracy, republicanism,- you might just as well throw those down the drain, because they haven't any relationship to the technological factors required. You can't find any party or any outstanding politician that has any realization--oh, they'll try to hook onto the bandwagon once it starts to move. They all do that, but if you've got to design the working probabilities of this continent, you are not going to do it with any political party gang. You'll have to get a brand new complex. Bear that in mind. You have to face it, and reality is pretty tough, but the reality of tomorrow is going to be a lot tougher. After all, the Russians had it fairly easy. Remember here, you are not going to have any revolution of the proletariat, because there practically isn't any proletariat. They're all aspiring tycoons. They all want to acquire a corporation."

- HOWARD SCOTT, DETROIT 3-15-58
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott

"Let's go back a little in history. This organization is unique; namely, that we are more left in a political sense and a revolutionary sense than any organization in history. We are so far to the left that Communism is considered by us to be so far to the right that it is bourgeois. Let's get this. Communism is revolutionary enough in the backward lands of the world, but is totally incapable of going anyplace here, because it will take something far more revolutionary than Communism and far, far tougher than any Fascism."

- HOWARD SCOTT, CHICAGO 3-15-56
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott

"Why, we have been calling the wrong man a S.O.B. That S.O.B. of a Technocrat will accomplish in 24 hours what took Hitler and Mussolini twenty years to do."

- MEMBERSHIP MEETING WITH HOWARD SCOTT, CLEVELAND 9-27-42
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott

"Why, you Technocrats, you've got to realize, you know, that there are people in United States who think that Howard Scott, and, incidentally, every other Technocrat but me in particular, only because he symbolizes the movement as a whole, is worse than Stalin, Genghis Khan, everybody rolled into one. And their attitude is this: that even with Hitler or Stalin they could make a deal but not with Scott."

- MEMBERSHIP MEETING WITH HOWARD SCOTT, CLEVELAND 2-5-45
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott

"We have never compromised and we never will. Some of you might have gotten a little timid at times because your Director-in-Chief was too tough for your friends. You remember what the next door neighbor said, "Well, Technocracy may be all right if it wasn't for that S-of-a-B Howard Scott." "

- HOWARD SCOTT, CARTER HOTEL, CLEVELAND 2-4-45
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott

"About my being a Joe Stalin, that is a current remark. "A Technate would be all right if it wasn't for that son-of-a-bitch, Howard Scott." If Technocracy ever comes on this continent, you will hear people say Scott was a Hitler and Stalin all rolled into one. You will hear people say. "Why, we can deal with Communists but you can't deal with those Technocrats." "

- MEMBERSHIP MEETING, AKRON YWCA HOWARD SCOTT 10-10-43
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott

Well, if you haven't got the guts, crawl under a bed. Technocracy lays it down. If you don't like it, I can give you something even tougher.

- HOWARD SCOTT, EVERETT 4-23-54
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott
#14414896
Image

Fields Of Mental Activity:

- Abstract Concepts (Supposition) - Credulity, Fallacy, Futility, Obscurantism,Sophistry, Dogma, Superstition, Authoritarianism

- Mixed Concepts (Empirical Knowledge) - Reason, Logic, Discussion, Business, Politics, Philosophy, Opinions, Price System

- Operational Concepts (Scientific Knowledge) - Observation, Research, Experiment, Analysis, Synthesis, Operations, Facts, Technological Control
Trump, Oh my god !

Falwell leveraged cable television. Nothing preve[…]

it's China too and it's just a renegade island […]

perfection would be the lack of contradiction Gö[…]

June 19, Wednesday Francis H. Pierpoint is name[…]