Yes, it’s an interesting discussion quetzalcoatl and Noelanda, but it’s probably better done in the appropriate subforum. It deserves to be given more depth than I will here.
quetzalcoatl wrote: This is slightly off-topic, but I am becoming more convinced that some variant of technocratic socialism is the most desirable outcome of current political trends. In the long run, it may even be the most likely outcome. Liberal democratic socialism won't cut it (due to the inevitability of its co-optation by liberal capitalism). Scientific socialism of the Leninist/Stalinist variety won't cut it, simply because the chance of a proletarian revolution is exactly zero (even assuming such an outcome were desirable). Most importantly, it can stealthily be implemented through incremental "reforms".
The likelihood and practicality of such a system is precisely one of the main reasons I favor technocratic socialism. Solving the transition problem that has troubled other attempts at building socialism has long been at the forefront of my mind and many of the various approaches I’ve taken have precisely dealt with how to tackle this issue. Technocratic socialism succeeds because it would abolish the price system outright upon being implemented – it would be a total change of the material base from what we have now in a way that would completely remove the control of capitalism and monied interests by its very design. The danger of co-optation by capitalism is eliminated virtually outright and along with it the dangers of reversal. It is a total change to a socialist economic base.
Further with the transition issue, you are very right to point out the emergence of such technocratic structures emerging now. The seeds of the new society grow out of the fabric of the old – so when trying to push for something new these are precisely the trends we must look for. This is part of taking a dialectic approach to different stages of development. Technocratic socialism is part of a logical transition along these lines – it allows us to make the most out of the technology and economic trends that are emerging now, make it far more efficient and maximize distribution in a way that capitalism and the price system simply cannot by their very nature in way that allows us to benefit all.
It’s not incompatible with Marxism-Leninism though. In fact, when formulating my approach I started with Marxist-Leninist framework then added on designs from Technocracy Inc. and other sources. I have also read Leninists who seem to favor such an idea. You are correct that it differs significantly from the historical states that had Leninism as their ideology though. This is to be expected, after all material conditions change and anything in the future is going to look much different than what has existed in the past. Again, I combined traditional Marxist socialist philosophy with the designs of the technocrats because while Marxists of the past have had a lot to say the basic ideological groundwork they often had little to say on the full details of what such a society would actually look like – preferring to take it as it comes. Pure technocrats on the other hand had a lot to say about what their society would look like but no ideas on how to actually get there. Combining the two solves both problems.
Though like I said, some Leninists already kind of had such an idea. Take this from Trotsky:
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."
SourceSo as you get a more advanced economic base the ability and potential to implement it increases. If that was true back in 1930s America just think of what we could do now.
Regarding proletarian revolution – as I mentioned above yes it true that many of the necessary forms are already developing within the present system and eventually a tipping point will be reached. Once that point is reached a hard break is still needed where the monied interests are finally overthrown and the vestiges of capitalism and the price system are swept away. This is necessarily a revolutionary break. Ultimately reform and revolution are both needed together as part of a dialectic approach. The workers struggle is critical in this. Technocratic socialism is also well positioned to pull in many professionals – scientists, engineers, doctors, teachers, etc. and other middle strata together with the proletariat as part of a winning coalition. All would benefit immensely from such a change.
Noelnada wrote:About a techno-socialist world government, as portrayed in Varax's sig, well... i'm not convinced that it will happens anytime soon and not even convinced that it is desirable.
The world phase is a very long term proposition. By no means am I saying that would be overnight. Technocratic socialism would take hold first in a few countries then spread from there. But again consider that new societies emerge from old – capitalism now has become global and increasingly so – our society itself is increasingly becoming global and interconnected. Further technological and economic developments will only continue this. For the first time it is now possible to begin building a “global consciousness”. Technocratic socialist societies would almost every reason to work together and more advanced countries that achieve it sooner could offer technical assistance to the less developed world. Also, even if we get a “world government” I’m by no means saying that there won’t still be local forms of governance. Such a government would be very federalist in its structure. Like I said though that’s very long term – let’s not put the cart before the horse here.
I like it.
).
- By Tainari88
- By ingliz