What's a Third Position? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14902381
Rancid wrote:I'm just gonna say it.

Rei sounds black to me. Has anyone actually seen her?

I can't get the picture of a black British women out of my head when I hear that voice.


She has a Leicestershire accent. She seems assertive. So if she has Asian relatives she must be second generation. I picture her with short hair and glasses. I don't know why.
#14902387
I think the element of confusion is a good thing @Oxymandias. No matter what I imagine you look like, it will never be the reality. To me, everyone looks like their avatar. Everyone accept those how have published their photos of themselves on PoFo of course.
#14902388
B0ycey wrote:I think the element of confusion is a good thing @Oxymandias. No matter what I imagine you look like, it will never be the reality. To me, everyone looks like their avatar. Everyone accept those how have published their photos of themselves on PoFo of course.


Like me? :D
#14902389
Oxymandias wrote:Like I said, it is irrelevant.

Why don't you actually give a good argument and respond to my previous ones instead of going on irrelevant childish tangents with the clear motivation to derail the discussion at hand? Why don't you tell me exactly what Technocracy is "lying" about? Why are so unwilling to admit that you know 0 things about Technocracy and why are you so unwilling to cure yourself of such ignorance.

It's irrelevant to you. I think to a student of attempts by questionable characters to lead free people into totalitarianism it would be at least slightly interesting as while it never amounted to anything it is more current than old ones like the Technocracy you like so much. Point of fact in 1932 computing essentially barely existed except as exceedingly primitive mechanical punch card assemblies, the 1932 technocrats could not have credibly woven AI computers into their sales pitch, they probably couldn't even conceive of such a thing. The technate hierarchy would be composed of human managers as they conceived it.

The big lie is that their project is not political just technological. You literally cannot takeover the entire American continent's resource base, including human resources and production and distribution capabilities without getting political, that's political as Mao used the term as in "political power grows out of the barrel of the gun". Essentially that aim is just as collectivist, or more so, than even the Soviets attempted and there is no possibility of carrying out such a wheeze without getting heavy duty "political".

The other big lie is that "energy accounting" is magically superior to market exchange. Energy accounting in reality is just rationing. Rationing is done to essentially passive entities whose consent is not required because they are treated as property. Trade, as seen in the market, is what happens between free agents whose consent for participation is required. A farmer alots feed, medicine, space and other resources to his livestock based on his own technocratic resource accounting analogous to your technocratic energy accounting but when he wants to offload his cows on someone else of comparable legal status, ie free, then he must trade, ie get consent from the prospective trade partner. The technocrats intention is for trade to be completely eliminated and replaced with rationing, the marxists want to do the same thing and in the same way "abolish private property" which is the same thing as abolishing freedom and reducing all to slavery. The technocrats promise that people's new condition will be comfortable, more comfortable than ever, and they won't call it slavery but it is slavery, chattel slavery at that, and there is no reason at all to believe the promise on comfort will be delivered on, and almost certainly it won't be because once the technocrats have all the people's property and have reduced their legal rights to that of farm animals they won't have any need to provide anything but the most spartan of comforts at best.

This isn't really the place to discuss technocracy as this thread is about a different kind of totalitarianism (a more palatable one too). Pofo has a whole sub-forum devoted to this 1932 totalitarian fad, which seems excessive given the negligible interest in it.
#14902390
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Like me? :D


Like you VS. But I must admit, until you posted photos of your 'younger self', I did picture you much older. And I thought you were going to look like Salvador Dali.
#14902391
Oxymandias wrote:What is Third Positionism and how is it different from regular fascism?

I don't think it's been mentioned? There is one instance of an actual "Third Position" Government. Juan Peron (1940s - 50s, Argentina) described his political dynamic as 3rd position (1949). During his tenure he was most successful with industrialization and labor relations. He established trade with the soviets and withstood US pressure with relative ease. You might find studying his example enlightening.

Zam
#14902392
@SolarCross, @Oxymandias,

I have been reading you guys' back-and-forth and I want to facilitate this further to answer questions in my own mind. You two can both answer.

1. Is the provision of all of man's needs and comforts, if man was designed/evolved for scarcity management, compatible with whats makes him human in the first place?

I know that sounds a bit esoteric, but think about it, if man was designed and/or developed to manage and struggle against scarcity, dominate others, etc., how would a technological provision of all of his bodily needs ever satisfy him? In fact, if bodily health and mental health are in anyway linked, and dominating others is part of a healthy mental state, how could a technocratic system possibly provide that satisfaction?

2. Let us assume Peak Oil is real. (I don't see how its not, given that Oil is not a renewable resource and is at least theoretically finite even without our consumption of it only ever increasing), if we were to reach that point (peak oil) sometime before post-scarcity, wouldn't this whole ideal of a technocracy be basically fucked? At least for another several centuries?

3. If a technocracy could provide for all your physical needs (food, shelter, etc.), would it be detrimental to the technocracy for people within nation to opt out? Would they be permitted to? (this will really answer the totalitarian question I suppose).

4. Perhaps I am the unusual one, but i don't really see the appeal in being provided for. I find my meaning in my work, being connected to the earth, to raising animals. If anything, I try to ditch technology as much as possible (I harvest my grain entirely by hand now) in order to strengthen that connection (much of this came from Heidegger's influences, admittedly).

How could you convince someone like me, who finds the amish way more appealing, that technocracy is a better life overall?

If you don't think so, at least play devil's advocate. How would you talk to someone like me if you were a technocrat and thought that technocracy was the answer?
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 02 Apr 2018 21:23, edited 2 times in total.
#14902400
VS, technology might to some extent be reliant on oil today, but not in the future. There is fission and maybe Fusion. There is solar among other renewables energy that are becoming more efficent every year and technological advancement in energy saving technology. They're even creating battery powered cars. When oil runs out, something will replace it, I'm sure of it.
#14902402
@SolarCross

It's irrelevant to you. I think to a student of attempts by questionable characters to lead free people into totalitarianism it would be at least slightly interesting as while it never amounted to anything it is more current than old ones like the Technocracy you like so much. Point of fact in 1932 computing essentially barely existed except as exceedingly primitive mechanical punch card assemblies, the 1932 technocrats could not have credibly woven AI computers into their sales pitch, they probably couldn't even conceive of such a thing. The technate hierarchy would be composed of human managers as they conceived it.
[


It's irrelevant to the discussion. I highly doubt what you described was Technocracy given that you know very little about it in the first place. You also have to give proof that Technocracy is, in anyway, totalitarian. You have to give me hard evidence and no, "because I said so" is not a valid answer.

Furthermore, there is no "sales pitch". The Technocracy Inc. movement started out as a couple of guys, walking around New York, giving flyers and pamphlets to random people on the street. Technocracy was developed as an invention to improve the human condition and to solve the cause of the Great Depression which was due to an abundance of resources rather than any reason within the constraints of the financial system. There was a genuine effort, no strings attached, to help people and this embedded itself into Technocracy's design. Unless you give proof that Technocracy, within it's design, is totalitarian, your argument falls flat.

The big lie is that their project is not political just technological. You literally cannot takeover the entire American continent's resource base, including human resources and production and distribution capabilities without getting political, that's political as Mao used the term as in "political power grows out of the barrel of the gun". Essentially that aim is just as collectivist, or more so, than even the Soviets attempted and there is no possibility of carrying out such a wheeze without getting heavy duty "political".


You stated yourself that they would've not had any information on any technology which is compatible with Technocracy. Yes, Technocracy Inc. became political eventually (which is why many of it's founders left in the first place) but the design of Technocracy itself is not political.

If the people will it, it will occur. Technocracy can only happen if everyone voluntarily wishes for it to happen and there is a high chance that people would given that, if you are actually knowledgeable of Technocracy, it would be within your interest to do so. The only thing that stops Technocracy is education on it, something you are resisting.

The other big lie is that "energy accounting" is magically superior to market exchange. Energy accounting in reality is just rationing. Rationing is done to essentially passive entities whose consent is not required because they are treated as property. Trade, as seen in the market, is what happens between free agents whose consent for participation is required. A farmer alots feed, medicine, space and other resources to his livestock based on his own technocratic resource accounting analogous to your technocratic energy accounting but when he wants to offload his cows on someone else of comparable legal status, ie free, then he must trade, ie get consent from the prospective trade partner. The technocrats intention is for trade to be completely eliminated and replaced with rationing, the marxists want to do the same thing and in the same way "abolish private property" which is the same thing as abolishing freedom and reducing all to slavery. The technocrats promise that people's new condition will be comfortable, more comfortable than ever, and they won't call it slavery but it is slavery, chattel slavery at that, and there is no reason at all to believe the promise on comfort will be delivered on, and almost certainly it won't be because once the technocrats have all the people's property and have reduced their legal rights to that of farm animals they won't have any need to provide anything but the most spartan of comforts at best.


Energy accounting isn't rationing at all because there is nothing to ration. You're thinking in terms of scarcity economics, Technocracy is post-scarcity and therefore doesn't have to ration anything at all. Technocracy's goal is simply to get whatever resources someone wants to whoever wants them as efficiently as possible. Energy accounting isn't even the main distribution network Technocracy proposes. Energy accounting just measures what you're consuming and how much you're consuming to determine the amount of net energy loss in order to provide continuous inventory for products and services. Information Brief Number 29: Energy Accounting lists it's following benefits:

1. Register on a continuous 24-hour-per day basis the total net conversion of energy, which would determine (a) the availability of energy for Continental plant construction and maintenance, (b) the amount of physical wealth available in the form of consumable goods and services for consumption by the total population during the balance-load period.
2. By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.
3. Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption.
4. Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced, and where used.
5. Provide a specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.
6. Allow the citizen the widest latitude of choice in consuming his individual share of Continental physical wealth.
7. Distribute goods and services abundantly to every member of the population.

This has nothing to do with rationing at all.

This isn't really the place to discuss technocracy as this thread is about a different kind of totalitarianism (a more palatable one too). Pofo has a whole sub-forum devoted to this 1932 totalitarian fad, which seems excessive given the negligible interest in it.


It is not totalitarian at all and you have given no arguments at all to support such an assertion. Technocracy is important and requires all the exposure to the world it can get so goddammit it deserves it's own sub-forum whether you like it or not. It certainly has a better future than Austrian economics ever has, especially given that your ideology's flaws are slowly coming to light.
#14902405
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If you don't think so, at least play devil's advocate. How would you talk to someone like me if you were a technocrat and thought that technocracy was the answer?

Like many social dynamics the technocratic ideal was born ahead of it's time. Personally I agree with the doubts that it could be effectively instituted anywhere on Earth. However, mankind is on the verge of leaving Earth and technocracy is waiting for those who do. It is ideally suited to the management of Lunar colonies and orbital habitats and may be the only viable alternative to corporate slavery.

Man will be forced to adapt to an offworld environment and present political dynamics are not suitable to the requirements such adaptation will impose. Future development of technocratic territoties will eliminate human judgement / decision making in favor of machine analysis. Survival will be the primary imperative with surplus production devoted to the general population. Trade is to be expected within a network of similar environments.

That's just a nutshell view, does it seem reasonable to you? Could this be classed as a "Third Position?"

Zam
#14902406
As far as extra-terrestrial colonisation goes, I think it extremely bizarre to assume that totalitarianism of any kind will be any kind of norm out there. If we consider precedent the colonisation of the heavenly bodies will follow a comparable pattern to every preceding colonisation venture in history, you should think of it being the wild west frontier in space rather than soviet gulags in space. The wild west frontier except without the indians to get underfoot, at least until we encounter aliens and then all bets are off as unlike the indians they might be considerably more powerful than us.

Space cannot be conquored by slaves only by rugged individualists. Slaves have a passive condition, they either adapt to that by becoming passive and submissive or by focusing on escape or revolt in which case their will is bent on a completely different purpose than colonisation. Neither the rebellious slave nor the passive one can mobilise the courage and resoucefulness to take on the stars. They will just fail and out there failure will mean death. Colonisation of such extreme environments must be done by free adventurers in possession of their own resources or not at all.
#14902414
@Victoribus Spolia

1. Is the provision of all of man's needs and comforts, if man was designed/evolved for scarcity management, compatible with whats makes him human in the first place?

I know that sounds a bit esoteric, but think about it, if man was designed and/or developed to manage and struggle against scarcity, dominate others, etc., how would a technological provision of all of his bodily needs ever satisfy him? In fact, if bodily health and mental health are in anyway linked, and dominating others is part of a healthy mental state, how could a technocratic system possibly provide that satisfaction?


There is insufficient psychological evidence that proves that humans are inherently inclined to dominate others or require struggle. Yes, humans are aggressive and express this aggressiveness through violent acts with domination being one of such acts. However, humans are not aggressive for the sack of being aggressive. Aggressiveness originally was a defense mechanism that occurs when humans see that their resources are endangered. This changed as humanity progressed, fighting for resources became less necessary, and humans became more intelligent. This lead to aggressiveness over things other than resources with such conflicts not resulting in any violent actions.

Humans began to value other things outside of simply resources. Through Technocracy, it would only be completing the natural evolution of man rather than hindering his nature. This doesn't mean that humans will become incapable of fighting, simply that their aggression and vigor will be directed towards other, less destructive pursuits.

2. Let us assume Peak Oil is real. (I don't see how its not, given that Oil is not a renewable resource and is at least theoretically finite even without our consumption of it only ever increasing), if we were to reach that point (peak oil) sometime before post-scarcity, wouldn't this whole ideal of a technocracy be basically fucked? At least for another several centuries?


There exists so many forms of renewable energy that one cannot even count. Even if it isn't enough or if such forms of energy hypothetically did not exist, there are ways to conserve it via co-generation for example. Even if these forms of renewable energy aren't sufficient to power the Technate, we have an available form of energy that any country can use which is nuclear energy. Contrary to popular belief, meltdowns don't happen often at all and when they do they are very circumstantial. Furthermore, if you still have concerns, there exists a safer, more efficient form of nuclear reactor known as the Thorium Reactor which, as it says on the tin, uses thorium instead of uranium. The difference is that thorium is abundant and is much less wasteful than regular nuclear reactors.

In a nutshell, energy is a non-issue currently.

3. If a technocracy could provide for all your physical needs (food, shelter, etc.), would it be detrimental to the technocracy for people within nation to opt out? Would they be permitted to? (this will really answer the totalitarian question I suppose).


There's no reason to keep them if they don't want to live there however the Technate certainly wouldn't distribute to them resources or provide them with services to be found in the Technate. If they wish to live outside of the Technate, they will get their own resources and mitigate their own standard of living.

But, the Technate will always open it's doors for persons who left it. If someone were to leave the Technate, they can always come back.

4. Perhaps I am the unusual one, but i don't really see the appeal in being provided for. I find my meaning in my work, being connected to the earth, to raising animals. If anything, I try to ditch technology as much as possible (I harvest my grain entirely by hand now) in order to strengthen that connection (much of this came from Heidegger's influences, admittedly).

How could you convince someone like me, who finds the amish way more appealing, that technocracy is a better life overall?


I would not try to and it would be a waste of time to. I understand what you're saying and I agree that living that way provides a different level of satisfaction than you would get in the Technate. I have talked to Bedouins, people who live life in the desert as a nomad despite having full access to the amenities of modern life, and through speaking with them I realized how appealing such a lifestyle could be. You have every right to desire such a life.

If you don't think so, at least play devil's advocate. How would you talk to someone like me if you were a technocrat and thought that technocracy was the answer?


I am a technocrat and I do think that technocracy is the answer. I would talk to you like every other human being, with kindness, dignity, and respect.
#14902416
As far as extra-terrestrial colonisation goes, I think it extremely bizarre to assume that totalitarianism of any kind will be any kind of norm out there. If we consider precedent the colonisation of the heavenly bodies will follow a comparable pattern to every preceding colonisation venture in history, you should think of it being the wild west frontier in space rather than soviet gulags in space. The wild west frontier except without the indians to get underfoot, at least until we encounter aliens and then all bets are off as unlike the indians they might be considerably more powerful than us.


How can you be sure that colonization of space will follow a similar method to that of the colonization of the world? Furthermore, colonization, especially American colonization, was state-funded from the very beginning.

Space cannot be conquored by slaves only by rugged individualists. Slaves have a passive condition, they either adapt to that by becoming passive and submissive or by focusing on escape or revolt in which case their will is bent on a completely different purpose than colonisation. Neither the rebellious slave nor the passive one can mobilise the courage and resoucefulness to take on the stars. They will just fail and out there failure will mean death. Colonisation of such extreme environments must be done by free adventurers in possession of their own resources or not at all.


What makes you say that citizens of the Technate will be any more slaves than they are under your totalitarian financial system. under Technocracy, people are given more freedom than they can do with. Just because they won't be motivated by scarcity doesn't mean that they won't be motivated at all. They may be even more successful given that they can focus all that vigor and aggression towards colonization rather than having to distribute their aggression towards other pursuits.
#14902418
Zamuel wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned? There is one instance of an actual "Third Position" Government. Juan Peron (1940s - 50s, Argentina) described his political dynamic as 3rd position (1949). During his tenure he was most successful with industrialization and labor relations. He established trade with the soviets and withstood US pressure with relative ease. You might find studying his example enlightening.

Zam


Outside of wikipedia, do you have any other information on him and his policies?

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]