[Comrade Ogilvy]

Of all society, technocracy is the only workable model for abundant societies. Is it by deliberate effort of corporate powers or the government that technocracy is so badly known, or does it simply take time for such a progressive idea to gain popularity?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Any articles at all? Perhaps I stated it too simplistically. I was hoping to learn other things also and I thought this was a good starting point. I guess I might as well ask right here.

How do I contact the technocracy membership in Vancouver, BC? So far I only have postal code. That, and would we still have restaurants and fast-food places with waiters and drive-by service? Not that it affects me, but curious.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

First let me start, since I do not know how much you already know about Technocracy, by saying that it was the largest social movement of the 1930s and '40s

I only read the booklet and some articles on technocracy.ca, so this is all knew to me. I've only now started reading the study course and some other books.

There are plenty of other examples too, but yes, Technocracy has been suppressed, and as the US becomes ever more fascist itself in the suspension of civil liberties, we can expect it to get worse as time goes on. Hence, we must make the best use of what time is left to us to inform the public of North America about their sole chance for survival.

Yes, very convincing case. The technocratic stance on gaining political power is "we're right, so let's just wait for them to come to us" as opposed to revolutionary approaches. It is good that it makes absolutely no way for government or people to blame them. However, you mentioned popularity has taken a downward trend? What is the technocratic plan for getting attention? Is there a schedule that's followed and a certain point in time where it will become necessary to use other methods?

Do you mean about Technocracy being suppressed, or just about Technocracy at all?

Just any passing questions I have as I study it. It's very nice to have someone to answer my questions like a teacher to help understand the reading. Here's another question. How would airlines work? How would people get by on planes? The airline industry employs a lot of people to do important jobs, and technocracy would automate many. Would pilots be replaced with reliable technologies or would airlines rely on 'volunteer' pilots?

Instead of wasting so much time reading random literature, however, I could recommend a series of articles and books that would give you the most amount of useful information in the shortest time, customized to your interests of course. If this interests you, please let me know. Otherwise, I can simply point you in the direction of various resources and you can attack them yourself!

I would like that very much! Especially about the possible role of a military in technocracy. Along with the study course on technocracy.com I've found a list of "recommended literature" that I keep on my computer, but I fear it's all outdated. I've enthusiastically started devouring books on the subject:
"Life in a Technocracy: What it might be like" by Harold Loeb, The Viking Press 1933;
"The End of Work: The decline of the global labor force and the dawn of the post-market era" by Jeremy Rifkin, G. P. Putnams Sons 1995;
"Transition to Technocracy: The structural origins of the soviet administrative state" by Don K. Rowney, Cornell University Press 1989.

With Technocratic training, it is not mere day-dreaming or wishing either; it is seeing what is really possible with the technology we have today, kept from us only by our refusal to let go of an outdated economic system that only holds us back.

And a shame that it is so badly known. One day people will look back on this all as the proto-history of humankind.

[Josh]

Although I haven't encountered any evidence of some mass attempt to 'supress' technocracy, but there are quite a few uncontested misconceptions floating around out there, one of which comes from the government's Social Security website (although I'm not sure why it's there).

For example, there's the tried-and-true misconception that Technocracy is some rule by scientists/machines or some other kind of similar hierarchy. And then there are those who think that it is just another offshoot of communism or socialism.

But the one that irritates me most comes from the Social Security website, as I said before. Instead of summarizing, I'll post it in its blatantly biased, slanted, and misleading entirety.

Technocracy:

Out of America's fascination with technology came another eccentric "reform" movement known as Technocracy. Founded in 1918 by a California patent attorney it would briefly flare as a serious intellectual movement centered around Columbia University; although as a mass-movement its real center was California where it claimed half a million members in 1934. Technocracy counted among its admirers such men as the novelist H.G. Wells, the author Theodore Dreiser and the economist Thorstein Veblen.

Technocracy held that all politics and all economic arrangements based on the "Price System" (i.e., based on traditional economic theory) were antiquated and that the only hope of building a successful modern world was to let engineers and other technology experts run the country on engineering principles. Technocracy's rallying cry was "production for use," which was meant as a contrast to production for profit in the capitalist system. Production for use became a slogan for many of the radical-left movements of the era. Upton Sinclair, among others, affirmed his belief in "production for use" and the Technocrats briefly made common cause with Sinclair, and even Huey Long, in California. But the Technocrats were not of the political left, as they held every political and economic system, from the left to the right, to be unsound. The Technocrats believed that the solution to all problems of economic security were the same, the rigorous application of engineering principles in a system freed from the Price System. They conceived of retirement as being made possible at age 45 for everyone due to the vast prosperity the new age of Technocracy would usher in. Rejecting all forms of traditional political science, the Technocrats refused to even use standard geographical maps because their boundaries were political, so they would refer to states only by their geographical coordinates. Names, too, were suspect for some reason so members of the movement in California were designated only by numbers. A speaker at one California rally was introduced only as 1x1809x56!

Oddly enough, alone among this collection of radical movements of the 1930s, the Technocracy movement survives, if not quite thrives, into the present day.

I don't mind being called "eccentric", though.

[Mr. Anderson]

Was that guy really referred to as 1x1809x56? I like my name, I don't want to lose it.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Well, keep in mind that we are not attempting to "gain political power", but rather abolish it altogether. You see, if we were simply "changing who's in power", then we could get lots of help from special interests, because they would know that the fundamental power structure still existed, and thus the path to their own rise to power. Without a political structure in place at all, this cannot happen, and thus really sticks in the craw of all groups that seek political power.

Is there a plan for putting technocratic apparatus in operation without use of political power? Or does this mostly depend on conditions?

Necessity of technocracy aside, I think some people would not wholly embrace technocracy, and technocracy would not have total consent of population. Would they just have to keep quiet, like voters whose candidate lost election? How would reactionary elemenets be dealt with?

There are some good articles on www.technocracy.ca as well, but since you've said that you've already read some, I'll wait until I see which ones you've read.

The articles on technocracy.ca (is it safe to assume you run the website?) are good quick reads. I'll read all of them.

I have not heard of the last one, but I would caution you to look at it with a critical eye. There have been few, if any, factual books written about Technocracy (even just the word) that were not published by Technocracy Inc.

Yes, I noticed while reading. The last book is describing something more like http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/elite.htm.

The case of the Soviet Union was indeed a interesting one, and if you are interested in that we have an "insider's scoop" on the technocracy.ca forums that blew me away.

Yes, he calls himself "General" Vladimir Georgievich Frolov, and claims to have some relation to the physicist Pyotr Nikolaevich Lebedev. I did brief research and he is nuisance in some American political-history forums. But he regularly visits technocracy.ca and seems peaceful.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Feel free to let me know what you think of them. I know the author pretty well ( Wink ) and he likes to get feedback. And yes, I do run the site.

They're good technically, but if they're intros to technocracy you might have to dumb it down.

This is a bit much to take in one sentence:
"Due to the fact that money is a species of debt, and hence cumulative,
the amount would have to be continuously increased, which,
in conjunction with its property of being negotiable,
would lead inevitably to concentration of control in a few hands,
and to general disruption of the distribution system which was supposed to be maintained."

I think term like "social mechanism" has feeling attached and might lead to belief that it's totalitarian or really a rule of the elite.

Still, I really don't know how to make it better without nit-picking. If person really wants to learn it will stimulate interest in technocracy.

[Clann]

oops.

[Clansman]

"Technocrats" will not install a Technocracy. Instead, it must be installed by the people themselves, by reorganizing themselves into the structure set forth by Technocracy. The only time a political device would be used would be in the form of a referendum so that the population can confirm for themselves their own collective consent to make the transition. At that point, whatever remains of the "political" government would exist in a custodial fashion only, for as long as it was useful during the transition. Thereafter all concepts of political "power" will have been dispensed with. Any more detail than that, yes, depends on conditions.

I am about to reveal my complete ignorance here.
How are strategic decisions taken in a technocracy and who takes them?

[Josh]

A quick demonstration of this would be in decisions about electrical power.

Remember the massive blackout from a few years ago, which left almost all of Canada and a great deal of the United States in the dark? (Sorry for the pun, I couldn't help myself.) It serves as an example of how the Price System is not the best for the job. The blackout, which was all blamed on a single branch hitting a power line (I don't know how people bought that), occurred in the middle of a very large heat wave, which meant that more and more people were using more and more electricity, which in turn caused the system to essentially "freak out". However, it didn't fail because it couldn't handle the demand- far from it. It failed because it was running at the best efficiency it ever had. (I'm not making this up- the man who was head of the electric company at the time, whose name I can't remember, stated this in the documentary "End of Suburbia".)

I realize I'm not explaining this to it's full potential, so I recommend watching the documentary "End of Suburbia", which explains this and more.

[Clansman]

The former are what is handled by the technical administration; qualified experts whose results can be measured against set goals for the benefit of society. The latter is handled completely democratically, usually with some form of electronic voting system.

So, if I'm reading this right, the people set the overall goals of society through direct democracy, while the administration figures out and implements the most best solution to fulfill those goals. I would call the goal setting the strategic decisions. Sounds to me a bit like Switzerland but with the democratic process confined to the strategic/subjective level. An immediate, and somewhat practical follow up question is who has power of initiation? Who poses the strategic questions to the electorate? If the technical administration does this then surely they are nothing but an unelected government. They may not be able to force strategic decisions on to the population against their will, but they would be able to deny the population certain strategic options, this would seem to skew the political decision making process at the strategic level. Were it to be the people of the technate who had this right of initiation, then it is very difficult to see how this would work and who would take responsibility for it in the society except for some form of representative council, presumably elected, which again would be a government, though here it would at least be representative. It may of course be something of a mix with the technical administration able to table motions, which the people could then discuss and perhaps add options and amendments to through a process of petitioning, before voting on them. What is the standard model for a technate in terms of how "subjective" motions are tabled to the people?

Also, is it just me or are we not kind of sliding into technocracy anyway. Governments rely heavily on the scientific advisors on all matters technical, though technical decisions are still meddeled in by politicians. Surely such reliance just deepens as we progress as a global society?

[Tangerine]

Also, is it just me or are we not kind of sliding into technocracy anyway. Governments rely heavily on the scientific advisors on all matters technical, though technical decisions are still meddeled in by politicians. Surely such reliance just deepens as we progress as a global society?

For a civilization to 'slide' into Technocracy, it would need to be a Communist state, or something similar, and probably rimmed with mega-intellectual, non-power-hungry leaders. Allegedly the USSR was awfully close to this ‘transition’ from a Communism to a Technocracy prior to its collapse. For us in Europe to slide into a Technocracy we would first require a united Europe, perhaps Middle East, Northern Africa, and Russia - for an abundance of resources. Quite clearly this is not just going to happen within the next 100 years under the price-system; and any way, in 100 years this civilization would’ve collapsed, and we would either be under a police state, or growing our own crops - or dead, of course.

I’m glad you have taken time to read something on Technocracy, Clansman. Be sure to argue your point and ask questions: the world, the ecosystem; and mankind’s happiness, fulfilment, and potential depend on it. Sadly, time is not on our hands, either.

[Clansman]

Kolzene, say that the education system needs a revamp in the Technate, or even suppose that there is an international incident where a decision needs to be taken whether or not to get involved in it, another Darfur or something. Now the decisions on both questions should of course be informed by a rational and technical appreciation of the circumstances and options, but at the end of the day parents want to have the final say how their children are to be educated and they also want those making important international decisions to be accountable. For both these questions I would have thought that the final decision would have to be taken by the people of the technate directly. Not all questions are amenable to the laws of supply and demand. Now whilst I can imagine the technical administration responsible for education would be legitimately involved in putting the question of educational reform to the people as it would be they that identify the best options, the question of who sponsors the plebicite on the issue of Darfur is a more difficult one to resolve. Of course there would be a branch of the technical administration responsible for the efficient dispersal of aid, etc but the question being asked is not about what is the best way of aiding Darfur, the question is should we do this at all. We seem to come to a point where Hume's injunction that one cannot reason from an is to an ought. There are a host of such moral questions that a technate would be faced with where the question isn't just what is the best way of doing something but is rather what is the best thing to do, there are no "right" as in scientifically assessable answers to such questions. Now it would be just such questions one would expect the people of the technate to answer through direct democracy, but for them to do that someone would have to form the questions and put the questions to them. As it is not the business of the technical admin to engage in moralising one finds it hard to see who it would be who would be responsible for putting these questions to the people of the Technate.

For us in Europe to slide into a Technocracy we would first require a united Europe, perhaps Middle East, Northern Africa, and Russia - for an abundance of resources. Quite clearly this is not just going to happen within the next 100 years under the price-system; and any way, in 100 years this civilization would’ve collapsed, and we would either be under a police state, or growing our own crops - or dead, of course.

Tangerine I found this very interesting because it almost precisely tracks another train of thought that I have been following recently. I was concerned about how to marry three dispirate problems into one solution for the EU, wealth generation, good social conditions, and sustainability. The global market clearly undermines the last two in favour of the first. The solution I identified as being the only one with a chance of working was for the EU to form an autarky. By autarky I mean a self contained economy that does not trade at all with the rest of the world. The idea was actually very simple, the internal market would be exactly like the present world market in terms of how it functioned. Comercial actors, capitalists, would compete against each other for market share and profits, some of which would be reinvested thus driving economic growth and so wealth creation. However, as EU law would apply across the system the parameters for the competing actors could be set universally without fear that one part of the system could environmental, wage or social dump to gain a competitive edge and so undercut other parts of the system. The EU would be able to define a set of minimum social, wage and environmental conditions across the system.

Where is the big difference compared to what we have now? Well just now as the EU is part of the global market it is competeing with countries that have much lower environmental, social and wage levels. These countries are systematically undercutting the EU and so forcing it to dump on all three agendas. The beauty of the autarky is that because it was not trading with the rest of the world it would be immune from such undercutting. Also as an autarky is entirely dependent upon the resources in its territory, it would have a much keener interest in being sustainable. The list of positives I found to be long and substantial. It would also be relatively easy to evolve into, all one would have to do is raise stepwise the EU's tariffs on imports and exports. Eventually they reach a limit where it is no longer profitable to trade into or out of the EU and so trade would cease and the economy would be self contained, the stepwise movement would have allowed the commercial actors to evolve into their new role of servicing the domestic market only.

The only fly in the soup that I found was due to the EU only having access to the resources in its territory, as we are over consuming at the moment this would require a substantial reduction in our levels and diversity of consumption. However, the larger the autarky, both in terms of population but also in terms of area, the less this is a problem. I can very definitely envisage an EU involving all the CoE states plus Belarus being a reality before 2050. That EU would include Russia and the Caucusses, cover a land mass the size of the continent of Africa and contain nearly 900m people. Put another way it would contain nearly 15% of the worlds population and cover well over 20% of the worlds surface. That EU could form a viable and very comfortable autarky. What struck me by your comment Tangerine is that such an autarky would also be very fertile ground for a technocracy.

How likely is all this? Well I'm pretty sure that the EU will not stop expanding until it includes all the states of the CoE plus Belarus and I think it will manage that before 2050. It may even expand further than that. So I think the criterion of size will almost certainly be met. As China and India expand their economies the EU and America will either have to raise tariffs or allow themselves to be impoverished over the next 40 years or so, so I can well see tariffs going up in the EU. The question then is will people at some stage decide that a self contained economy is the way to go. Bare in mind that after the expansion has reached Russia some 200 odd million EU citizens will have had experience of the USSR autarky so the idea will not be foreign to EU citizens. Add to this a convergence of a couple of other factors. The internal market encourages trade between members rather than to non-members, any country that joins the EU tends to realign its trade away from the outside world, and green issues are likely to become much more topical and Green politics much more central in the EU over the next 50 years due to global warming (EU cooling), demand outstripping supply in oil, etc, etc and Greens openly advocate autarkic policies. If there is an economic shock to the global system 30-40 years from now, Africa booming like Asia has or something like that, then the convergence of these factors maybe sufficient to push the EU electorate to opt for autarky, particularly as once Russia is in the EU it will be big enough to do this without significantly jeopardising living standards. So, whilst I would never say that an autarkic EU is a safe bet for the future I can realistically envisage circumstances where it could come about in the next 50-60 years or so.

Put all this together with an increasing use of direct democracy in the EU, we are seemingly all moving toward the Swiss model, and one has come quite a long way toward implenting a technocracy. Isn't it wonderful how following a rational train of argument can lead you to new and wonderful insights, possibilities, and connexions. I have come so far in my reasoning toward technocracy, my prefered future for the EU could almost be seen as a stepping stone to a technocratic EU, dare I take the extra step?

An aside question, where does the impetus for creative design come from in a single centralised distribution system? In the present system companies try and out do each other in both innovation, to be first to market a new product, and consumer grooming, to create markets for such new products. This competition supposedly feuls creativity and technological advancement, what plays the same role in a technocracy?

[Tangerine]

Yes, these are thoughts I experienced also, and I commend you on your ability to describe them so fluently .

The only fly in the soup that I found was due to the EU only having access to the resources in its territory, as we are over consuming at the moment this would require a substantial reduction in our levels and diversity of consumption. However, the larger the autarky, both in terms of population but also in terms of area, the less this is a problem. I can very definitely envisage an EU involving all the CoE states plus Belarus being a reality before 2050. That EU would include Russia and the Caucusses, cover a land mass the size of the continent of Africa and contain nearly 900m people. Put another way it would contain nearly 15% of the worlds population and cover well over 20% of the worlds surface. That EU could form a viable and very comfortable autarky. What struck me by your comment Tangerine is that such an autarky would also be very fertile ground for a technocracy.

I'll start by saying this is more than a fly in the soup - think more of a soup made out of flies. As long as we’re in the price-system, no matter how large our territory, we’ll collapse, eventually. We are over-consuming for one simple reason: money. Companies retract fully exploiting the technology and resources we have at present, to be able to re-release slightly updated versions years, sometimes months, later. They are incredibly inefficient in their design, as they are working for efficiency in cost rather than efficiency in resources - and I’ll leave the rest for your train of thought, as I’m sure you’ll continue on your own path after I light this little flame. Basically a Technocracy can last forever, at a standard of living many times higher than today's.

Take a look, for example, at a razor blade. Gillette forces us to procure new blades at least once a week, at prices heavily inflated in comparison to the cost of the resources. The cost of the resources of the packet, razor blade and plastic? Maybe 3 pence.. Cost of product is perhaps £5.99. This isn’t shocking until you realise it’s possible for us to create a razor that will last 90 years and maintain its sharpness during that time. In a Technate, you shall be provided with such a razor blade. In a price-system you shall not, as it’ll see the end of Gillette for 90 years. So they continue to pump and pump resources out of this Earth, and keep selling it to us, and we keep throwing it away - this is completely unnecessary, and the reason why we are over-consuming; however, without this little business trick, there would be Great Depressions every few years, as everyone would have what they need.

Now, imagine all the computer engineers coming together from all over Europe, and designing a super-computer the size of a laptop, and providing it to everybody in a Technate, in the colour and shape they desire. This is what is possible. Not just with this, but with every product, they shall be designed efficiently and for durability, etc. In a Technocracy, since we are efficient in terms of energy, we shall have more than enough resources for many a millennia on this plant - by then, we'll be off to Mars, Pluto or even further, possibly.

Production will be at 100% (nowadays, production is not at 100%, due to the fact that companies need to keep a demand for the product, to keep the price high) so things like space colonization will be extremely easy. Cars, for example, are not being produce 24 hours a day, if they were cars would cost a FRACTION of the cost they are today.

Scientists, teachers, doctors, anything, YOU, will have unlimited resources and unlimited potential to learn; so the advance in intellectual pursuits, culture, music, art, ANYTHING will be staggering in comparison to today’s, or any day’s, in the EU.

In the price-system, full automation in terms of production is fought off, as there would be no jobs. In a Technocracy, full automation is what we're going to have, so no more mundane working for you. Only free time and unlimited resources to pursue your interests. Human development and achievement will be inconceivable, as everyone in a Technate will be brought up as millionaires - with the education, nutrition, environment, etc. that comes with such a status. Imagine a nation with hundreds of Einsteins.

By the way when I said we may need Russia, the Middle East and North Africa, I should’ve said we’re expecting to need these regions. In truth we’re going to be undertaking a European Survey, which will evaluate the preferred size of the Technate (it will be as small as possible to begin with), among other interesting things. So we may be OK with a Technate slightly larger than current-day EU.

Any questions? I’m still sort of a newbie to a lot of subjects concerning Technocracy, there is a lot to know afterall. Kolzene is much more knowledgeable than I, in these subjects - I’m sure he’ll add his own bit in time.

By the way Kolzene is a member of the North American Technate, I am a member of NET. Which stands for Network of European Technocrats. I am a member of the European/Eurasian/Caucasian Technocracy. NET was only founded a year or so ago I believe, we are at the very, very early stages of a transition in Europe.

[cyb3rsamurai]

tangerine: how can one become a member of NET? I have been thinking abstract technocratic thoughts without knowing that such an idea has already been developing for such a long amount of time. I am very interested in the topic and would also be interested in helping out where that is possible.

At the rate we're going the corporations,capitalism and all the money is burning us and our planet out. Technocracy is the solution. How can I be a part of this and do my part to help? Where do I sign UP?

[Tangerine]

I'm glad you asked. We are presently in the formation stages of NET. Currently, we're based at Technocracy.ca's forums. Our website will be complete in as little as a few months - and if you have any expertise in these fields maybe less if you help the designers out. Once the site is up, we're going to be initiating a promotional strike on the Internet. The way we figure it, if we gain enough support over the internet, we can bring this to the real world with extreme intellectual backing; furthermore, as the internet is now revealing itself as the only sincere means of information around, anything the media use against us (as they did with Technocracy Inc.) blogs and websites will argue back the truth. We’re looking for hundreds of members; the more members we have, the more power we have, the more power we have the more members we have. And the way I see it, it’s very easy to attract people to Technocracy; after all, everybody has to agree, as it is a science. (From my understanding Technocracy Inc. in the 30s had 2 million members.)

Once we have enough members around Europe, and the European Energy Survey (come to the forums and ask about this) is complete, we will push for a referendum for a transition into Technocracy. Initial guesstimates (the Survey will scientifically prove how long it’ll take) say around 30 years from point of YES on referendum and we will have completely restored Europe to its natural origins (forests galore), moved the populace to more comfortable Urbanates - which would be designed, of course, by Europe’s top designers, in every field . (Search some posts by Kolzene on this forum for info on the Urbanates – very interesting.) And let's not forget having a Technate and full operational capacity. What this means is anything is possible.

[Clansman]

the population of the Technate would be very well educated and informed, esp. when compared to today. Having leisure time means having time to think and talk about such issues, and it would be up to the citizens themselves to decide whether or not to get involved based on what they know. Remember that the technical side is only an instrument of the people, albeit one governed in such a way as to optimize its effectiveness. This would also apply to domestic issues as well.

This doesn't really answer the question but I'm sure it could be answered in some manner. For example, part of the technical admin could be political and social sciences, they could then present the prople with a list of options covering most moral positions on for example Darfur, as and when such situations arise, and the people could then vote on these options directly. There could even be a system of petitioning for initiation of legislation by the populus similar to but stronger than, the EU's proposed one.

What Tangerine said about the EU is correct. No matter how big it gets, it is still a Price System, and as such is subject to the laws of its own life cycle of birth, life, and death. Globalization is a multi-national expression of one of the two survival methods used by a mature Price System that can no longer sustain itself: when you can no longer exploit your own people and resources, you must do so in other areas. Most "advanced" countries rely on this today for survival, as they are well past their "natural" lifespan. When trade (i.e. foreign exploitation) fails, then the other strategy is used (although it has been used first in the past), and that is war. We can see the dogs of war being unleashed around the globe, in particular with the USA, the oldest and most decrepit Price System. If a Price System that is "past its time" can be considered as being on life support, then the US would be the equivalent of Darth Vader. Is it any wonder most of the world hates them?

I can't claim to know exactly how "mature" the European Price System is, but given initiatives such as the Euro and EU, I would say that it is past its time as well. Thus, autarky would only stifle its income, and the economy would suffer, and die much more quickly. Isn't is a good thing then that Technocracy is designed to be self-sufficient? It is for the very reasons you stated.

Well lets run this through the intellectual mill shall we (as I write this I really don't know whether I agree with you or not so where this ends up I am not sure). As the enlarged EU went through the process of ramping up Tariffs to bring about the autarky what would happen to the EU economy? Obviously prices would go up on all goods employing materials sourced from outside the EU and on all goods produced outside the EU, together this equates to price rises on just about all goods. The higher the Tariffs the higher the cost of the goods. However, domestic producers geared ot the domestic market would offset this by sourcing their materials from within the EU. The price of their goods would therefore after an intial rise, stabilise. The rise in the cost of goods would curtail consumption. Once domestically produced goods for the local market stabilise in price thorugh local sourcing of materials, rises in the Tariff barrier would force up the price of both EU exports and imports whilst the price for domestically produced and consumed goods would remain static. At some point imported goods would become so expensive on the EU market that they would cease to be bought. As the tariffs rise the price of imports would rise relative to the price of locally produced goods for the local market, citizens would buy EU produce rather than the imports, promoting growth in the domestic market and shrinkage in the import market. At the point where an autarky is realised the domestic market would be entirely servicing the needs and wants of the people of the EU. Put another way the EU would have had to have insourced every kind of job its society needs to run, it would be selfsufficient and with all production sectors represented. This insourcing of jobs that would take place would lead to a temporary but substantial drop in unemployment to the extent that either automatisation or immigration would be required. This insourcing would promote substantial economic growth. At the end of the process one would be left with an EU that was still over consuming, but where consumption would have been significantly cut. This drop in consumption would hurt EU growth, however it would have been offset over the period of raising the tariff barrier due to the insourcing of the jobs necessary to make the EU autarkic. The EU would still be under the price system.

So It would seem that the establishment of the EU autarky whilst not without pain would also not be without economic benefit. What happens into the medium term? Well there is a tension in the system. The EU would still be using capitalist economics in order to generate wealth. To generate wealth in this system one needs to promote consumption. But an autarkic EU has a very firmly delimited rate of consumption that can be maintained. In short to realise the environmental aspects of the autarky and to sustain it into the future one would need to heavily regulate the internal market to prevent it encouraging unsustainable levels of consumption. But as a price system market generates wealth through promoting over consumption and then reinvesting the profits gleaned for that consumption, one would have to hamstring the wealth generating part of the autarky to make it sustainable. The rest of the world would continue to grow whilst the autarky, to remain sustainable and balanced would have top retard its growth considerably. Overtime the EU would move into relative poverty with respect ot the rest of the world, though our standard of living would still be better than it is currently we would become relatively poorer with respect to the rest of the world. That plainly isn't acceptable.

So it would seem that an autarkic polity operating on a price system has a time limit on it, to be sustainable into the future it needs to limit consumption, but in a price system limiting consumption limits wealth acculmulation and growth, eventually this limiting of growth will disadvantage the autarky with respect to the rest of the world and so empoverish its people relative to the rest of the world. This process of retarding growth would make itself felt slowly so there would be no catastrophic collapse of the system, merely a winding down.

The remedy? What could the autarky do to prevent itself sliding into relative poverty, or consuming itself out of existence? The answer of course is to cut the link between consumption and wealth generation. One would need to implement an economic system in the autarky that ensured growth and wealth accumulation without driving up consumption, even one compatible with driving down such consumption. From what I have read Technocracy is one of the few systems, if not the only one, that fits that bill. In the long run, it would seem that the only thriving autarkic polity is a technocratic polity, as only technocratic polities divorce wealth generation from consumption.

So it would seem that I have completed my intellectual journey to Technocracy.

To avoid the empoverishment of the EU in terms of wage, social and environmental conditions, I sincerely advocate the EU to form an autarky, where due to its immunity from outside competition the people of the EU would then be free to set their minimum wage, social and environmental conditions without fear of being undermined. However, for this autarky not to be left behind on the world stage and so for it not to result in the increasing relative empoverishment of its people through time the link between consumption and wealth generation needs to be cut, the only pair of scissors capable of cutting that cord is technocracy as far as I am aware. Therefore my ultimate goal of an EU autarky sustainable into the future can only be realised if I embrace technocracy as the eventual economic, and political, system of that polity.

So Tangerine if you've got space in NET for me, then I guess I too am on board. If I can be of any help then let me know.

I am an academic, my subject are is Philosophy of Science, particularly Philosophy of Physics. I am Partially trained as and Architect, fully trained as a phycist and a philosopher, I have also dabbled in sociology and a little in macroeconomics. My political affliations are presently that I am a member of the Scottish National Party, they seek independence from the British state for Scotland, but are very pro Scottish membership of the EU. I am a member of this party as the british state over the last 40 years or so has presided over Scotland, the richest country of the Europe in terms of natural resources, becoming the poorest country in western Europe with poverty rates of between 25-30%, three times the EU 15 average. I am a staunch environmentalist of the ecologist kind and very pro-EU and pro-EU expansion. And I suppose I am now also a supporter of Technocracy. My computer skills are so so, but I have a fair degree of political and economic accumen.

[Tangerine]

You would be of great asset to NET Clansman. For now, simply contributing to our forum discussions would be supportive. However, within a month I will be initiating our promotional push over the Internet, and if you would be willing, your advice on how to approach organizations like Greenpeace, and your help to the promotion in terms of writing articles, forum topics, sparking interests in people, or whatever else will be of immense benefit. There are a million other things you could do to help us once the site is up.

Please come to the forums - we won't bite.

[Clansman]

You got a link to those forums Tangerine?

[Tangerine]

Here.