[Technology]

The core of communism is collective proletariat control of the means of production. In the socialist mode of production, when all business is controlled and administered by the state for the collective interest of workers, the main issue of the government becomes production and allocation, in other words issues of supply and distribution.

When socialism does this it no longer relies on the demand of consumers to send price signals for private interests to react to, but instead calculates based on the notion of need. Demand, in the economics sense of what we are able and willing to buy, no longer comes into economic calculation, because allocation is done on the basis of what the planners (with the same class interests as the workers) decide we need instead. The issue then becomes meeting the production requirements for fulfilling these need quotas, meaning that when centrally planned socialism is progressing to communism and giving up monied interests, it is writing the economic concept of demand out of the picture, and replacing it with a supply side drive to meet selected numbers.

In this way, Karl Marx and Margaret Thatcher converge.

[The Immortal Goon]

There is no "state"' in communism. It writhers away. Anyway, Marxists are old proponents of technocracy:

"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.

[Technology]

There is no "state"' in communism. It writhers away.

Marxist communism, the ideology, requires that capitalist states transition to communism through the socialist mode of production brought about through revolutionary action. The state of pure communism may not have a state, but you need a state based on Marxist communist doctrine to get the pure communism he advocates for as an ultimate stage.

Communism as a set of ideologies is different from communism the final state, as communism as ideologies cover the methods of reaching the final state.

"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.

So sayeth Trotsky. I'd rather privately own means of production and trade what I produce freely, technocracy or not.

[Someone5]

The core of communism is collective proletariat control of the means of production. In the socialist mode of production, when all business is controlled and administered by the state for the collective interest of workers, the main issue of the government becomes production and allocation, in other words issues of supply and distribution.

In the strictly Marxist sense, that sort of detail would be determined dialectically; it might or might not fall in the hands of governments.

When socialism does this it no longer relies on the demand of consumers to send price signals for private interests to react to, but instead calculates based on the notion of need.

Alternately, it responds to what people are actually using, less some resources set aside for the exploration of new goods and services. There's no reason the government needs to grope around in the dark on this one--it's quite possible to predict demand by looking at what people are actually using. That's basically what private businesses do right now. Markets aren't actually required for that--just data on what's arriving to and leaving from "store" shelves.

Demand, in the economics sense of what we are able and willing to buy, no longer comes into economic calculation, because allocation is done on the basis of what the planners (with the same class interests as the workers) decide we need instead.

Or, again, based on what people are actually using. I.E. "demand" of a sorts (though obviously not the "willing to buy" part).

The issue then becomes meeting the production requirements for fulfilling these need quotas, meaning that when centrally planned socialism is progressing to communism and giving up monied interests, it is writing the economic concept of demand out of the picture, and replacing it with a supply side drive to meet selected numbers.

I guess in some abstract sense, but "supply-side" doesn't mean anything in that context.

In this way, Karl Marx and Margaret Thatcher converge.

Only if you presuppose that the government is deaf and blind.