Technocracy vs. Communism - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

The solving of mankind’s problems and abolition of government via technological solutions alone.

Moderator: Kolzene

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15181440
B0ycey wrote:
Corruption in achieving your ideal system. How do you prevent it?



The prevailing political culture / revolution / paradigm would predominate in terms of what the overall societal *ethos* is -- against corruption, against opportunism, against privateering, all the way to abolishing private property itself, to *collectivize* all productive means, particularly the means of mass industrial production.

'Corruption' in a *revolutionary* political-culture context would basically mean 'backsliding', or 'counterrevolution', for *private* (not collective) interests.

I can't *guarantee* that the prevailing political culture will be 'anti-corruption', or 'anti-profiteering' (as during the pandemic), or full-blown 'anti-private-property'.

So I myself *can't* prevent it -- that's about the overall 'struggle', or political ethos, that almost allows a coup in the Capitol building, or military rule in Myanmar, or a coup in Haiti, or wage-slavery globally.

Suffice it to say that prevailing political sentiment / ethos would have to solidly be for *workers power*, and for *workers collectivization*, to battle and mitigate 'corruption' in such a political environment.
#15181441
@ckaihatsu, if we are basing this on ethos and can't guarantee prevention, they why would we gamble on something different when we could just reform what we have. I have already told you to research Locke and the need for a state. Sure a state isn't a prevention of corruption and may well be a cause of it. However it offers protections which Anarchy could not.
#15181442
B0ycey wrote:
@ckaihatsu, if we are basing this on ethos and can't guarantee prevention, they why would we gamble on something different when we could just reform what we have. I have already told you to research Locke and the need for a state. Sure a state isn't a prevention of corruption and may well be a cause of it. However it offers protections which Anarchy could not.



Believe it or not, I'm actually *not* arguing for 'anarchy', nor am I an anarchist, though I *am* a far-leftist.

The best argument against the 'state' formulation / usage, is that those who are *in* the state do not produce any commodities (goods and/or services) for society -- meaning the things that people need for modern humane life and living.

Those who 'administrate' are essentially *overhead* to society and its functioning, and *others* must produce the commodities that persons-of-administration use and consume, since they're not part of producing commodities themselves.

So we can readily ask 'Why do we need administrators? Why do we need a state? Why can't everyone, 'the state' included, just *all* produce for society equally?
#15181444
That said, I have to add the proviso / disclaimer that I, personally, don't really give a shit what people do or don't produce, and what their lifestyles / creature-comforts are.

We're now at the point in things that *plenty* of people could produce, or not-produce, and, thanks to prevailing productive technologies (computers and industrial mass production), everyone would still have *plenty* and could get shit online, or whatever.

So 'my' communism isn't moralistic, with identical timecards for everyone. Just had to get that out there.

Hong Kong (CNN)In January 2013, months after taki[…]

July 27, Monday Minor affairs take place near […]

Problem with the quarantine is that it damages the[…]

@late What's the point of staying here if we […]