Zerogouki wrote:Communism: "Let's get rid of government and private property and the economy, and we'll all share things, and people will work instead of screwing around all day because they will feel like working just out of the kindness of their hearts."
Today the spoliation rate from the riches is very low, likely less than 5% (*), so communism by itself only has a small margin to increase purchasing power. On the other hand it is extremely likely that it would lead to a significant decrease of productivity, therefore leading to a decrease of purchasing power. Even worse if you were sharing things evenly between the rich and poor countries.
Capitalism and science coupled together created an incredible explosion of growth for the past two centuries and I doubt anything can beat this. At best I think that efficiency may in the decades to come become irrelevant as we will become more efficient than reasonably needed.
The promise of communism should not be an increased purchasing power, this would be an illusion, it is about power and equality.
(*) Before someone jump at my throat with a ten times higher figure, ask what this wealth really is. Forget money, it obscures things, and focus on the Marxist reading grid: value is labor. So how do riches use the labor they acquire? There are only two avenues in the end: production means (enterprises) and private luxuries (villas, cars, etc). And the former is ten times more important. In the end riches only seize relatively small amounts of labor for their personal goods and services. The individual figures remain extravagant and infuriating when compared to the average citizen, but collectively insignificant when compared to mankind.
Technocracy: "Let's get rid of government and private property and the economy, and we'll all share things, and people will work instead of screwing around all day because they will feel like working, just out of the kindness of their hearts. But it'll be like Star Trek, where it's all like high-tech and shit, and everything that we need will be provided by machines that operate on magic and the power of positive thinking."
No, that is a promise from technology, not from technocracy.
Technocrats may believe that experts holding vast amounts of power may create a more efficient economic organization. I think the idea is ridiculous but even if you think they are right, surely you do not believe it would be largely more efficient than capitalism. Even if they were collecting so much data that the governments' computers would know you better than you do.
Seriously, that's the impression that I'm getting after reading some of this stuff. Can someone explain what I'm missing?
Now you are indeed right that there are similarities between most visions of technocracy and communism, especially the belief in a centralized and wise government.
However technocrats tend to deny the inevitable politicization of political matter while class conflicts are the cornerstone of any Marxist revolution. And technocrats tend to promote efficiency (but are actually fascinated by their hope of aseptization and systematization of human societies) while marxists tend to promote equality (but are actually fascinated by their hope of power).
MB. wrote:I read the technocracy study course.
There is not a single or official vision of technocracy, but many of them.
A technocracy is only defined as a regime that puts technology and knowledge at the heart of its governmental processes. From such a loose definition many implementations are possible.