Should technocracy be only in N.America? It's been 70 years since technocracy was officially reconized. In that 70 years a great deal many things have changed. The most hi-tech society on earth the Japanese are not included, why? The only reason I can see is that they lack resources. Now W.Europe has large deposits of coal, and N.Europe has a lot of hydro-power potential. Combined with Russia you would more than enough resources. What about Mercosur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay) These nations have huge reserves of oil, coal,etc. Also they have possibly the best hydro-generation possiblities in the world. China is also becoming a international player, frankly by 2015 she will be the world's largest economy. So IMO to limit this engenious to N.America is a bit short-sighted.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Technocracy, but where is it written that it is for N. America only?

I think you might just find maybe that the majority of Technocrats in here are N. American.

But hey I could be wrong

from what i've accertained, i'm not an expert either (we need Kolzene here) Technocracy was developed in the US during the Great Depression of the 1930's to solve America's problems. But i think it could quite easily used in all countries, otherwise it would be a very pointless ideology to hold.

Just to clarify, it is North America specific, as North America is the only region that has sufficiently developed industry and technology to be able to comfortably support it. In a word, it has eliminated scarcity.

But I'm not too sure I agree. I certainly don't see any reason why Japan or Germany couldn't support it, being the most technologically advanced and most industrialised nations of the world respectively (I think).

Proctor and Yeddi have it mostly right; I'm glad you've been paying attention. But to make sure that everything is perfectly clear, I will spell it all out.

When Technocracy was developed in the 1920's, North America, at that time, was the only area that met the requirements* to operate a technate (Technocratic society). Since then, no one else has done the research to figure out if any other areas on Earth would be capable of it today, but it is possible, as I have speculated in the "The energy economy a recipe for inequality?" thread. While many of the design elements are rather specific to North America (say, the Continental Hydrology program), there is no reason that they could not be adapted to any other suitable area, and Technocrats freely share their information with anyone that's interested. Otherwise, I wouldn't be on this board. Since shortage of resources is always overcome with a sufficently high level of technology, then eventually everywhere in the world will one day be able to have one. Now wouldn't that be nice?

Proctor: I think it would be interesting to speculate, if not actually collect rellevant data, on which other areas might actually be capable of operating a technate. I doubt that either Germany or Japan could do it alone (certainly not Japan, they really lose on the first requirement, being sufficient natural resources), but I think that a united Europe may be able to pull this off easily, if they could ever overcome their cultural differences.

* Footnote: For those that missed it in another message, the three requirements for being able to operate a technate are:

1. It must have sufficient natural resources to provide everyone with a high standard of living
2. It must have a sufficient level of technology installed to convert these resources into use forms, that will comprise this standard of living, and
3. It must have sufficient technically trained personel to operate this machinery.

There are actual mathematical calculations for this, but generally the point is that you have to have sufficient automated production in all major inductries to cause a price collapse without interference, like what happened in the 1920's-30's.

Thanks for that Kolzene, I really should get around to reading the Technocract website one day .

Sure, no prob.

There are actually two web sites. www.technocracy.org is the "Official" web site and is primarily an archive for articles, essays, and information briefs. There's enough in there to keep anyone reading for months! www.technocracy.ca is a more interactive community site, with news, a forum, picture gallery, polls and so on. It also has some good resources for the beginner on Technocracy.

For those just starting out, there are some links that I recommend that I have put in another thread, called Informative Technocracy Links. Of course, these don't generally explain why a Technocracy works, that's always a much more detailed discussion. But if your ever interested, this is a fairly good forum to learn, as is the one on the community site, plus there's always plenty to read!

Hey Kolzene, maybe it'd be useful to post/write a Technate development plan just for interest. Also, foreign nationals can use it to develop their own technates.

The United States alone has the resources to feed the entire world at a basic level. Not sure if this is relevant but thought I would add it to the discussion. How is distribution of products and services handled in technocracy? Is it a communist ideology?

Hi Justin! Welcome to the forum.

Your question is a big one, and could take some time to explain. I'll give a basic run down here, but I highly suggest looking into some of the resources I'll be mentioning later on.

First of all, no one "owns" the means of production in a Technocracy. In fact the idea that the whole concept of ownership today is outdated is an entire discussion in itself. But I will ask you this: Who "owns" the air? No one. Why? There is simply too much of it. I can't sell it to you because you can easily get your own. This is called an abundance. What we are used to are called scarcities, and these are easily hoarded and controlled.

Thus, when a society with rich resources and high technology reaches a state of abundance, any attempt to "sell" it via a scacity system (such as communism) fails, just like selling air. Thus, what Technocracy proposes, is that goods be manufactured at the maximum capacity and efficiency that the population is capable of consuming. I have just finished describing briefly how the cycle works in this thread, (Dec 21st post), and I don't think Fox wants me plugging up the forum with copy and paste.

When you've read that, I'd recommend this simple presentation to get you started. This page helps show the differences between Technocracy and other forms of government (such as communism). After that, the rest of the site is has a wealth of information, and of course I'm always happy to answer any other questions you may have.

I dont think communism (I refer to marxism and communism interchangeably) is based on a scarcity system. In fact, marxism could work because there is plenty or resources for everyone. True communsim is very different from soviet Communism (Communism with a big C) where everything is state controlled. In fact, in marxism there is no need for money but instead everyone takes what is needed when it is needed. I think that technocracy and communism may share the same idea that scarcity is just an illusion. Any thoughts on this.

Ah yes, and now we enter the murky waters of semantics. The problem that this board has introduced me to when discussing either communism or socialism is that it appears that there are so many differing opinions on what those words mean exactly. Even people who may agree on basic tenents will argue about the minutae. So you'll forgive me if I have to proceed from certain assumtions at times until I get a clearer idea of your idea of communism.



The reason I say this is because when Marx developed his ideas, the processes that caused the North American Price System to collapse due to the unprecidented state of technological abundance that it had achieved had not yet occured. It was unforseen by everyone (except for the predecessors to Technocracy, the Technical Alliance), so there is no way Marx could have understood these processes, or their consequences. This is evidenced by the fact that nowhere in my studies (which are, admittedly, far inferior to some on this forum) of socialism or Marxism are the concepts of scarcity and abundance addressed, nor the ramifications of a nation making the transition from one to the other. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but even if so, he did not have the expertise to understand the precise mathamatical formulae that led to the discovery of these processes by the Technical Alliance during the 1920's. At best he may have had some vague and idealistic notions of a society that knew of no want, but still his attentions concerning the hows and the whys were focused primarily on the transition of political power from one class to the other, and his faith that his favored class would be "moral" or "enlightened" enough to not abuse that power.

Technocracy is a far more in-depth and precise study than that, something that can only be appreciated by taking the Technocracy Study Course, unfortunately. Their purely scientific analyses covered almost every area of human endeavor, from physics and chemistry, to engineering and economics, geology, ecology, medicine, and psychology, among others. From this expansive collection of data, and the unique perspective of correlating all of it in order to synthsize a new paradigm came an entirely new idea who's precepts were simply unprecidented.

This is not to say that some of the ideals of Marxist communism cannot be seen in some of the calculated results of Technocratic management, such as elimination of money, social classes, and economic predatory practices. Still, what Technocracy offers is not some vague ideals and "shoulds" and "should nots". Rather it offers a precise modulus and calculus by which the citizens of a continent that meets specific parameters can thereby avoid the catastrophe of enforced scarcity, and unleash the productive potential of their high technology, realizing lives impossible to anyone in any kind of scarcity system.

And it is quite likely that it is this comparison of ideals to results that has led so many communists to study Technocracy, and even endorse it. But make no mistake, Technocracy cannot be "combined" with communism, no more that your car can be "combined" with "velocity". They may see the same futures, but only one will really get you there.

As for scarcity being an illusion, it isn't, in most parts of the world. It is a cold, hard fact that must be dealt with by scarcity controls. It is, however, an illusion in North America, and possibly now even some other parts of the world. Until the proper research is done however, that cannot be known. But it is this illusion that feeds a hungry few, and that I intend to wake people up from. If this metaphor seems somewhat Matrix-like, it is no coincidence.

So by all means, study Technocracy some more! If you happen to find its goals consistant with yours, its benefits appealing, and its methods sound, then perhaps you'll have found what you were truly looking for in communism.

Then perhaps I should restate my original position: I can see communism working because scarcity seems, for the most part, an illusion (regardless of Karl Marx' line of thinking).



Let me restate myself, scarcity is an illusion on a global scale (assuming all countries has access to all the resources of every other country). For example, the US alone has the resources to feed the entire world on a basic level.

The more I look at it, it almost seems like technocracy is sort of a communism of the new millenium.

This I think that I can agree with, but only as an opinion. At least until an extensive enough study like the one the Technical Alliance did for North America was done on the rest of the world, at which point we could safely establish it as fact. It's too bad we couldn't get everyone to agree to this (or any) kind of system though. At least, not until they see one working.



As I've stated on this board before, that I might privately agree with this as well, given a very precise set of definitions first, but in general I will never agree with it. Simply for the reasons I've stated before, that too many people have their own (or even erroneous) ideas surrounding words like "communism" and "socialism." And I certainly don't want people running through the streets (whether friend or foe) exclaiming: "Technocracy is Communism!!"

But thank you for claifying your points. And I do believe that Technocracy has a lot to offer many who call themselves either communists or socialists. It all comes down to figuring out your real (highest) goals, and then deciding which is the best way to achieve them.

Surely oil is a scarcity? Not just in certain parts but everywhere?

Oh for sure, oil is scarcity. But we dont NEED oil, we are not technologically dependent on it. The only reason, in my opinion, why we are not driven by alternative fuel sources is because it makes up such a large portion of capitalist economic investment. Whether its useful or not, you take oil away and the economy would collapes. Hell, towards the end of WW2 the germans were very much independent of oil and had many advanced, even by todays standards, alternative fuel technology.

I definately agree and would not call technocracy communism. In fact, I wouldnt call communism communism, and as long as it is called communism it will never succeed. Did that make sense? People have such negative connotations and assumptions about communism that they dont actually assoicate it with what it really is.

This is true to a point. Not only does our society have huge investments in oil monetarily, but also in terms of how much we are dependant on such an readily available, potent, and easily portable energy source. Even if we wanted to switch to alternative fuel, it would take a massive amount of effort (not to mention money) to do so. People usually aren't very aware of how easy oil makes things. Then there is also our massive energy inefficiency/comsumption, which is totally unprecidented. If we were not so dependant on our cars to get around in cities, for example, we could easily enjoy just as much transportation convenience (maybe better) at a small fraction of the energy cost we expend today. This would require, however, a complete redesign of our cities, however, (see step 4), which is the main reason we don't do that. The question then becomes, can we find an alternative energy source that is as abundant and easy to use as oil before we run out of it? All the figures I've seen seem to suggest that we cannot, and an energy crisis is ineveitable. The only way around it, as you may have guessed, would be Technocracy.



Yes this makes sense. I know exactly what you mean too. Technocracy too has a negative connotation to it that is propogated by the mainstream media (guess why?), and retards its popularity. This can be seen more on this page.

BTW, a friend of mine and I, in discussing Noam Chomsky's ideas of Anarchosyndicalism believe that he has simply renamed classic communism/marxism in order to make it more paletable to the post-Macarthy public. What do you think?

I havent really read anything on Noam Chomsky so I cant really tell you what I think on the subject. However, now that you mention it he sounds like a good person to read up on.

China as the potential to achieve a Technate by itself, but I don’t believe that it would be done to eliminate scarcity. If China was to move from a People’s Republic to a Technate, it would be done to maintain the power of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). While China has many shortcomings (massive population and low agriculture output), the CCP leadership, as with all leaderships, has an invested interest in maintaining its position.

It won’t be the Technate envisioned by Technocracy, Inc. it be a “Technate with Chinese Characteristics.”

Let’s compare China and the three Requirement of a Technate:
It must have sufficient natural resources to provide everyone with a high standard of living.
China has an abundance of natural resources and a diverse climate. Most critical of resources it’s possesses are hydroelectric potential (CIA World Factbook) and massive manpower. While it doesn’t necessary provide everyone with a high standard of living in China, it sure has been provide a high standard of living for the US and other countries due to it cheap labor costs. What if these manufactories were converted to supplying the Chinese?

It must have a sufficient level of technology installed to convert these resources into use forms, that will comprise this standard of living.
China’s industrial capacity, while poor compared to Western Nations, is growing rapidly. Its focus on exports, limitation on imports and insistence on self-development in areas of technology (missile and space technology as examples) will ultimately lead to the fulfillment of the second requirement.
China is already predicted to be the world’s largest economy in the coming decades. With them already supplying the world with consumer goods far great than they currently can consume, it’s only a matter of time before their national demand is supplied by their own industries. Something other regions are beginning to lack, as their industrial capacities are moving to China! Worst case, Chinese Communist Party will resort to their old fallback – massive manpower and get it done with brute strength (example – Three Gorges Dam)!

It must have sufficient technically trained personnel to operate this machinery.
China has long history of being ruled by a meritocratic system under the various Dynasties. The
Bureaucracy of the Chinese Empires aided the Emperor in his rule. To become a bureaucrat, one had to pass a series of tests – the high one wanted to achieve, the harder and longer the testing. So historically, China has experience in governing systems based on ability and centralized control.
As with most Communist governments, education has been free to all in China with the nations literacy rate at 86% (CIA World Factbook). They have a vast pool of engineers, technicians and scientists, many employed by the government in various programs (like their Space Program) in order to retain their service so they don’t immigrate overseas.
While the Technocracy, Inc. and the Technical Alliance never envision creating a political vehicle to achieve their goals, the Chinese Communist Party has no ideological qualms about adapting itself in order to survive (from Mao’s communal communism to Deng’s “social market”). The party cadre would be great assist in order to organize and enhance China’s transition. Look that the People’s Republic’s history and you’ll see that virtually all major attempts at development and change relied on the party cadre as the base of the organization (the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution – not that these were very successful).

Other benefits and characteristics that China has going for it:
An existing Armed Services Sequences: from the CIA World Factbook – “People's Armed Police Force (internal security troops, nominally a state security body but included by the Chinese as part of the "armed forces" and considered to be an adjunct to the PLA)”

Possible source of change:

• The Party Cadre – tired of losing authority to business interests;
• Rising Unemployment and Increase Disparity between Economy Levels – a return to a class-based society could be viewed as unacceptable;
• PLA/CCP – unable to stop the demand for democracy, unable to revert back to full communist due to the public acceptance and desire for consumerism; may just side step the issue rather than be consumed by it – converting the Party into the Technocratic system itself or have the Party “guiding” the development of the system while allow limited democracy on “social” issues.

If I could spend an Energy Certificate on where the first Technate would be formed - sorry everyone but I’d spend my on the People’s Republic of China.

Wow, you're just full of good information, aren't you? Thanks for that insightful piece on China. I would, based on what you've presented, have to agree that it would be very likely that China would be able to achieve a Technate in the near future if not already. I can also see how easy it would be, due to their current practices and centralised government, to convert the country over to one. However, I do not agree that an actual technate could be worked under the auspices of any political government.

The reason for what I say is this: a properly running technate requires too much freedom in order to operate. Any attempts to direct and control its function artificially, outside of the ordinary democratic methods already part of Technocracy, automatically restrain its abilities, and most likely past the "threshold" point that would differentiate a scarcity society from an abundance one.

Also, in order to operate a technate, many of the Price System "controls" used (particularly in centralized goverenments that are accustomed to having a great deal of social control), would not be usable. One is money. For instance, if they used money to pay their workers, this would automatically impose a scarcity economy and invalidate any attempt to produce an abundance (for the reasons of commodity devaluation and technological disemployment I've talked about before). Even if money were not used, if suppose a politcal method of control were used to ensure compliance of a member of the technical branch of the technate, then occilations would occur, and efficiency reduced. These people would not be able to do their jobs to the best of their abilities in serving the public since their attentions and duties are being diverted to accomidate political interests.

And if these poltical controls were used to interfere with the amount of consumption of the public, then the first goal of a technate has been comprimised, and already it is made inferior. This is not even mentioning that fact that suddenly people have less say in what happens with their country (not uncommon in places like China), so where is the line drawn? The more control the political government takes, the less like a technate it becomes, and all its advantages go with it.

The best China could do, if they wanted to hold onto their political power, is make a technologically advanced dictatorship. No more. I hope I've been able to make my point clear without going into a lot of math, because then it just gets all sticky. And I hate math. Sooner or later China's productive capacity will hit that "threshhold point", and they will have to make the same decision that the US made in the 1930's. Either put their economy on life support, go heavily into debt, and start a few wars (not a big stretch I imagine), or simply realize that Technocracy is the only viable way of running a high-energy society.

They may be very close to this point right now, and that may be why they are trying so hard to push their space program, as a peaceful alternative to maintain the rate of growth that is required by all Price Systems to survive. Too bad it will never last. I only hope that they realize the fact before they start a war, like the US is now.



You do know that energy credits can't be gambled or given away, right??

Too funny!