[Tribbles]

Technocratic Functionalism is a new doctrine I have started working on, that is inspired by Italian Fascism. Technocratic Functionalism believes that in order to create a well-balanced and stable society, the various interests of the people must be organized in a different way than it is within parliamentary democracy.

- Tecnocratic Functionalism believes that nations should keep out of each others interior-policies, regardless of ideology.
- Technocratic Functionalism believes that peace is better than war, and that war should be avoided.
- Technocratic Functionalism believes in healthy competition between companies and firms, but also in regulation in order to preserve the environment, and protect the workers from exploitation. Such regulations are best evolved within the framework of labour-asemplies.
- Technocratic Functionalism believes in a limited form of autarky, meaning that each country has the right to keep raw-materials on national hands rather than selling it to foreign companies.
- Technocratic Functionalism believes in strong leadership, but oppose one-man rule.
- Tecnocratic Functionalism believes in formal powers rather than advisory organs.
- Technocratic Functionalism believes in a planned society, and is therefore (within reasonable limits) anti-liberal on the cultural as well as economic level.
- Technocratic Functionalism believes that traditional institutions such as church and monarchies should play a important role also in the field of politics.

In order to describe the system of Technocratic Functionalism, I made this blueprint:

http://bildr.no/view/922998

I am looking forward to hearing your viewpoints/criticism

[Tribbles]

Some of the point with this project is to create a coherent doctrine that has practical solutions to the various problems in society, and that is easy to grasp.

Other points that I am thinking about adding is:

- All though Technocratic Functionalism have little faith in parliamentary democracy, it will follow the laws established by this system when seeking influence and political power.
- Technocratic Functionalism believes in discipline and meritocracy in all aspects of society, specially in the field of education. Special schools will be made for those students who lag behind, as well as for those who excel.

Since this doctrine is separate from fascism, there is no problem with not being authoritarian enough, not being militant enough, not being nationalistic enough, and so on. Keeping a more relaxed attitude might also help bringing some real technocrats (as well as blue-collar workers, students and everybody else) into the project.

[Bon Ventri]

This embodies, by far, more democratic processes than it does authoritarian. But I'm intrigued by the idea of a Parliament of state leaders, rather than of common-folk.

The biggest eyesore to me is the existence of an institutionalised union power, the Labour Assembly. This would only spell disaster for political expediency - if thats what you're aiming to achieve. I would predict that this would become the Parliament's greatest opponent over time, as the price level is affected by almost EVERY policy you could imagine. This means that every business of Parliament would likely be objected to. In the midst of the confrontation that would ensue, one or the other body would seek to eventually dominate. It would be unhealthy.

Give all power to the Parliament, or all to the Unions. Don't split the power, or heavy repercussions would follow.

Its a decent model of Meritocracy, though. I can see this took some effort. Very interesting.

[Tribbles]

This is exactly the kind of constructive feedback I am fishing for, so thank you!

If one chooses the traditional fascist way of dealing with this problem, there are several steps one can take to control the unions:

1) A ministry or agency of the state approves or denies the people elected by the unions, something that gives a safety-measure against communist and socialist influence in the corporations - or "Labour-assemblies" as I have called them. The change of name is due to the double meaning of the word "corporation" that usually means "big firm" in everyday-speech
2) The unions and their leaders/representatives are only allowed to have opinions on subjects related to their work. Having opinions on broader issues is a privilege of the party.
3) There can only be one union for each profession, or category of workers. Creating competing unions is forbidden.
4) Strikes and lockouts are forbidden

I am a bit uncertain on these steps (specially the first one) because it harms the ideal of class-collaboration, something marxists and communists often point out. It must be mentioned though, that these restrictions also applies to the managers and company-leaders.

I am open to another form of organizing the ideal of class-collaboration, but I insist that the basic ideal is not thrown over-board, and in order to achieve it, some sort of representation with formal rights is needed.

One can for example, make a "labour-ministry" and then have the leader of this ministry being elected into the new parliament the same way as the others are. Labour-assemblies will that way become a part of the inner organization of the ministry. (This might also help me make the blue-print more pyramid-shaped, with the head-of-state on the top instead of in the middle)

More debate is needed before such changes are made however. The point of "the game" so to speak, is to make a drawing that other technocrats & corporativists can agree on - with a program of principles and ideals beside it - and then perhaps make a international movement with national sub-groups that works towards becoming political parties.

[Tribbles]

Even though I my self am perhaps to be considered a extremist, I think that for the Technocratic-Functionalism project, it is important to dare to be moderate.

Within more "traditional" fascist forums and groups, the difference between "way-over-the-line" and "acceptable" becomes a bit blurry. We all have our different likes and dislikes off course, I for example, hate intellectualism, ideological inconsistencies, and all forms of socialism except orthodox marxist-leninism. Other people may hate muslims, gays, or whatever.

But for Technocratic Functionalism (If enough people becomes interested) I think it could be healthy to follow the same kind of rules as more mainstream and non-aggressive political groups do. - No racism, no sexism, and so on. This will among other things, make forum-moderation easier. It will also be easier to get out and do stuff in the real world, and not hide behind internet anonymity.

But it depends on people being interested off course.

[Tribbles]

Made another version, is this one better?

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2797/95teknokratiskfunksjona.png

[Tribbles]

Hyperactive as I am, I have continued to work on it without more outside input.

The thing is, that it is bad to fill up the web with almost inactive forums and websites rarely visited, so I thought that the followers of technocratic functionalism could use this forum instead, and use the link to the blueprint instead of a website.

This is the last version, and I would happily vote for this one:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9940/92teknokratiskfunksjona.png

If there are no spelling-errors, inconsistencies or stupidities in it, I will take the first step, and post it on my blog:-)

It has always been a (somewhat bizarre perhaps) dream of mine to create the perfect blueprint for corporatism, and now I think I am getting close, if not already there.

[Suska]

One thing I love about the dictatorship forum is how since it's dictatorship people enjoy dictating about their dictatorial model systems. The great thing about this is how easy it is. We will have this and this and this - Ah, the world is fixed! In my dictatorial system everyone will be happy. And see how symmetrical my parliament is?

Tribbles, I hate to break it to you, because you seem quite sincere, but what you're doing is more akin to playing with GI Joe action figures than discussing politics.

[Daktoria]

Alright Sus, I take back what I said about killing all funny people.

[Tribbles]

It is actually a heroic attempt at saving fascist core-values from various forms of junk-info that has been produced by racial-theorists, hindu-mysticists, nashi-bashi-bolshevists (or whatever) and so on during the demise of fascism in the late 1930s, and the post-war era. Fascism these days may very well degenerate to a bunch of librarians who are busy digesting such fluid and contradicting junk-info, eventually drowning fascism in it.

I think a lot of people long for a more systematic and thorough approach to fascism, and if not it will at least help me clear up my own thinking on these matters.

Fixed a bad sentence, removed some misplaced pixels, added the minister of labour to the new parliament:
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9295/81teknokratiskfunksjona.png

[Rei Murasame]

If your intent is to save Fascism, that's what has been carefully guarded as a small little flame, in the European Union member states among some intellectuals and activists, India, and Japan (Japan has mastered the strategy of designing systems that look open but are functionally closed), ever since 1945. The watchword is 'preserving the spirit of Fascism in the interregnum'. Third Position groups and various 'controversial' authors in academia and the military in those countries I have just named, have been releasing things into the popular debate ring for ages now, and there has been to some extent a noticeable impact (don't ask me to name the figures in this thread, it would take us offtopic).

Your diagrams here seem to want to describe what I would call a form of new corporatism, and so given that, what I would recommend you now do, is engage with other posters on how to get from A to B - which is to say, where do you go from here to get there? Most of the Far Right posters around here are already corporatists, so if it's aimed at us, we hardly required further convincing on the general way that a corporatist system should look.

I was going to say this to you in your lobby thread, that the best way to get good feedback, is actually to engage with other posters on common-sense issues in subforums outside Platonism and Dictatorship, rather than merely banging down some sort of gigantic end-game plan in this subforum.

With regards to your question on unions, you should probably make a whole separate topic for that question (with an appropriate title), because it's a big question and probably will need a thread all of its own anyway.

[Tribbles]

Due to my fetish for paint-drawings, I may be moving a bit to fast on these things.

A more relaxed attitude will take over when I feel the drawing is done

[Tribbles]

One long bike-trip, a huge dinner - and no more replies?

Well, tomorrow (if nobody detects any huge problems with the blueprint that needs fixing, spelling-errors included) I will post the image on my blog, thus proudly declaring my self the worlds first "Technocratic Functionalist". I am also thinking about making a facebook-group.

If people on these forums have a good understanding of corporatism - that is very good indeed. (I was hoping for it, since I came here for input) On other forums I have been to, the understanding have been quite primitive, something that is dangerous because communist and laizes-faire thinking will sneak into the void where corporatism should have been.

Rei Murasame:
If you have any good authors or books you want to recommend for me, feel free to send me a message

[Tribbles]

Well, this is the final-thing that I am launching to the facebook-group now created, called "Technocratic functionalism"

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2508/22teknokratiskfunksjona.png

Added a thing about lobbyism.

Now it is time to either join my group, or start laughing

[Suska]

It's like you use the complexity of modern bureaucracies for a rule of thumb about how complex an administration should be and then just load arrays of ministries run by a parliament of over-ministers. So your idea is basically to abandon checks and balances?

[Tribbles]

Facebook-groups are so incredibly crappy.... I cant even delete my own posts, so the group is closed to debate due to the impossibility of moderation. Bah!

No, there are checks and balances! See the blueprint!

[Suska]

Your blueprint is unclear, why don't you just talk like an actual person in the room..?

[Tribbles]

It seems that moderation is possible after all, so its no problem.

I am talking, and I am in a room... and my blueprint IS clear - At least the way I see it.

If it is unclear, than it can be changed - but I need to know where the fog is, in order to make improvements.