[infestedterran]

Marx's inability to recognize the difference between technology and industry is clearly shown in the Manifesto of the Communist Party where he states: "This [Proleterian] union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another." Then he goes on to say: "And that [Proleterian] union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years."

The above is the only reference which is made in the Manifesto of the Communist Party on technology and its affects, other than in production of course. Marx was able to recognize how the Industrial Revolution affected society, but his imagination was limited by the time in which he lived.

What does our future hold? Automation of course! Is it really difficult to imagine that in the future machines will do basically everything, leaving only jobs that require a superior education? We must adapt to this technology that will inevitably produce complete automation, or perish.

If it is possible for you to go beyond the property question and to realize that science and technology is not something that can be stopped, then Technocracy is for you.

You will know that you understand Technocracy when you realize that comparing it to any other existing governance is impossible.

[jaakko]

Marx's inability to recognize the difference between technology and industry is clearly shown in the Manifesto of the Communist Party where he states: "This [Proleterian] union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another." Then he goes on to say: "And that [Proleterian] union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years."

I fail to see a confusion of 'technology' and 'industry' in the given quote. Could you give a wider context of the quote and elaborate on what you were trying to say.

What does our future hold? Automation of course!

This trend was basically seen by Marx and Engels. It's one significant contributor in the increasing 'contradiction between the development of productive forces and the capitalist mode of production'. Study Marxist economics. Knowing the basics would eliminate such unnecessary misconceptions as implied in this topic.

I'm not asking to agree with Marxism, just to understand it. You'd see that on the scale of society, only human labour creates new value. This is not a problem for a socialist or communist society, but it is increasingly for capitalism (see "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall"). Under capitalism automation is just one mean of increasing the rate of exploitation. It increases profits on the level of an individual enterprise, but in society the long-term effects are contrary. But in socialism automation has only positive effects (like decrease in work hours without decrease in real wages, and effects like the diminishing of the division of mental and physical labour, more time for cultural progress and political activity etc.).

If it is possible for you to go beyond the property question and to realize that science and technology is not something that can be stopped, then Technocracy is for you.

You can't go beyond the 'property question' by dismissing it. You can go beyond it only by solving it.

[Eddier1]

Marx's inability to recognize the difference between technology and industry is clearly shown in the Manifesto of the Communist Party where he states: "This [Proleterian] union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another." Then he goes on to say: "And that [Proleterian] union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years."

I fail to see a confusion of 'technology' and 'industry' in the given quote. Could you give a wider context of the quote and elaborate on what you were trying to say.

What does our future hold? Automation of course!

This trend was basically seen by Marx and Engels. It's one significant contributor in the increasing 'contradiction between the development of productive forces and the capitalist mode of production'. Study Marxist economics. Knowing the basics would eliminate such unnecessary misconceptions as implied in this topic.

I'm not asking to agree with Marxism, just to understand it. You'd see that on the scale of society, only human labour creates new value. This is not a problem for a socialist or communist society, but it is increasingly for capitalism (see "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall"). Under capitalism automation is just one mean of increasing the rate of exploitation. It increases profits on the level of an individual enterprise, but in society the long-term effects are contrary. But in socialism automation has only positive effects (like decrease in work hours without decrease in real wages, and effects like the diminishing of the division of mental and physical labour, more time for cultural progress and political activity etc.).

If it is possible for you to go beyond the property question and to realize that science and technology is not something that can be stopped, then Technocracy is for you.

You can't go beyond the 'property question' by dismissing it. You can go beyond it only by solving it.

Technocrat, I offer Harry Bridges, the great Commie and leader of the Longshoreman's Union based in California as apodictic and/or absolute evidence that what Comrade Jaakko said is absolutely true.

Bridges supervised the transition of automation on the docks, and his Union was able to make the longshoremen workers the best paid members of the proletariat, and with the best benefits that workers have ever had in the United States.

This proves that with the correct leadership in the Trade Union movement, automation is not a problem, but will be a boon to the working class.

[infestedterran]

First, let me say that I understand Marxism better than you think. Second, by technology is meant something more to the extent of progress, or in a more radical sense, as evolution. As a Marxist, you will no doubt argue that technology only advances depending on who "owns". This is what I mean when I say, "Go beyond the property question." Do you want to argue that capitalist or the bourgeoisie own mathematics or some other science? Of course it is understandable why you would think that by technology is meant something like a machine.

In any case, I refuse to respond to any claim that implies that it was in any way possible for Marx or Engels to even envisage any of the technology that would be developed in the later half of the 20th century. It is this very technology that has emerged in this time that invalidates all previously existing political dogma.

Maybe this will help you understand a little better:
http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/certificate.htm
(scroll all the way down to where it says Values and Marx)

Given your previous response, I feel that it is necessary for me to use a Marxist vocabulary in order to be understood. Capitalism is a problem because in this system it is allowed for machines to displace workers. Eventually, technology will advance to the point where relatively few jobs will remain for humans to do because there will already be a machine that can do that same job better, faster, and with the use of less resources.

So, as much as I hate to use this vocabulary, capitalism will eventually cease to function because of the development of technology, and this will force socialism upon us.

Now, I hope you can see that all Socialist are considered possible allies for Technocrats. But you must realize that Technology alone will bring about the establishment of things like Socialism, not the proletariat. Bloodshed is unnecessary. A war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is unnecessary. But also you must realize that Technocracy is nothing more than the recognition of the inevitable. While all Technocrats most certainly want things like Equality to be instituted in a government, not just civil equality but also economic. The notion of Equality is purely ethical, and that is a realm science cannot touch.

Please, do not view me as your enemy. Also, I dont exactly understand why you are telling me Capitalism doesnt function. This is the main argument of Technocracy. But Technocracy reached this conclusion through scientific study alone. Never venturing into the realm of ethical theory, as Marx mainly did.