Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Kolzene wrote:If we are to define a 'state' as: "...an organized political community living under a single system of government.", then since Technocracy does not use any form of political government, it is by definition a "stateless society": "...a society that is not governed by a state, or, especially in common American English, has no government." So there is no pretending involved. As for being "just managers," each person in a position of responsibility in the technical administration would by necessity have the required level of expertise in the field covered by their position. That is where the term technocracy comes from: "rule by skill."
Kolzene wrote:People do not pay anything for goods and services in a Technate, and there is no such thing as "energy credits". People simply consume what they want and whatever amount that is is measured in terms of energy so that the production sequences know how much of everything they need to produce for the next cycle so that there are not any shortages. The process happens out of the view of the consumer so there is no exchange taking place. That does indeed make it very different from money, and much more objective and scientific.
Kolzene wrote:There is no causal relationship between Technocracy not being a form of government and there being no social classes. The lack of classes comes from the fact that there is no differentiation in purchasing power among the citizens.
Kolzene wrote:Depends by what you mean by "elite" and "in charge". If by "elite" you mean some privileged class, then you are wrong. You could define it as "most qualified" and be correct however. As for "in charge", no one has any form of political power in a Technate, only the qualifications to do their job in making sure that the Technate operates as required. If one person does a better job managing a power plant than others with similar qualifications, then they are allowed to do the job. They receive no special considerations for doing so other than being allowed to do the job.
Kolzene wrote:Not political control like you know it. They simply have the responsibility to make sure that it operates according to established requirements. They can't just do whatever they want like a CEO can.
Kolzene wrote:For as long as you are not conflating politics and economics, and instead treating "left-wing" like is done with the Political Compass, then yes, Technocracy is perfectly comfortable for those of the "left" because it does centralize control of the economy for the purposes of supporting the population. If you think that left-wing means anything like being a dictatorship, then I would advise you not to conflate politics and economics, because they are different things, which is why the Political Compass is a much better description of reality than the simple left-right spectrum.
Kolzene wrote:Any while I do not know enough physics to understand what a "Gibbs State" is exactly (the Wikipedia article was a bit over my head), I do appreciate the reference, since Howard Scott, the inventor of Technocracy, credits J. Willard Gibbs as his technical inspiration for Technocracy. I'm going to have to look for a good explanation of a Gibb's State.
Kolzene wrote:Although I expect that you mean this sarcastically, it is indeed true (if a bit harshly worded). They can't abuse their "control". Any time someone performs in a manner that does not "get the job done" and meet requirements, or otherwise goes against the requirements of the Technate (such as depriving people of their freedoms and/or purchasing power), then they lose their position and it is given to someone who can do the job right.
Technology wrote:since the idea that economic power can be separated from political power is a fundamentally anti-Marxist idea
Zamuel wrote:! ? ! geee ... anti-Marxist ? whatever happened to -The State- "withering away?" You do understand ? that Marxism and Communism are transitory phases ... ? Economics is not transitory. The separation of economic power from political power is one of the GOALS of communism.
Technology wrote:The state withering is the end of political struggle, but only because the proletariat's political power over the economy is total.
Kolzene wrote:it has not changed in the most important aspect, and that is that it is still a scarcity-based economy. Technocracy does not need to make comments specific to these modern changes
page 140 wrote:Exactly the same relationship that we have described between the consumer and the retailer exists between the retailer and the wholesaler, and between the wholesaler and the manufacturer. In each of these cases goods move from the wholesaler to the retailer when, and only when, money in the broader sense that we have defined moves from the retailer to the wholesaler, and from the wholesaler to the manufacturer. Like the retailer, the wholesaler must pay his help, his landlord, his interest, light, telephone, and miscellaneous bills. Any surplus above these can be disbursed as profits. The manufacturer must do a similar thing, for he must pay all these bills, as well as purchase his raw materials. The raw materials, as we have pointed out, are derived originally from the earth, so that the last payment made in this series is that which goes to the farmer for his produce, or, as royalties, to the owners of mineral resources.
Kolzene wrote:There is no limit on "income" because there is an abundance of goods and services (e.g. there is more food than people can eat), but there are limits on consumption, as I've pointed out. So "income", net or otherwise, is not really a useful concept in Technocracy like it is in scarcity based systems.
Kolzene wrote:Technocracy has little to do with either socialism or communism, except perhaps superficially. It stems from entirely different premises, those based in science instead of political ideology or philosophy. It doesn't "restrict" itself to only being an economic entity. It is simply the engineering solution to the scientific problem of distributing an abundance of goods and services. In the development of this solution, politics was simply deemed unnecessary, it would only be an interference.That's funny because Capitalism seems to interfere with democracy... In a techntronic state, politics would interfere with economics. Do you see the rhetorical scandal here? Persuading people to follow Technocracy stems from language reconfiguration, in reality you're establishing refined mental constructs to institute the engineered economic system which is a form of politicking. In practice, what you are doing is no different than someone saying "Money doesn't grow on trees," well of course paper (with fancy number markings backed by a scientifically engineered system of exchange) does grow on trees, but your mental construct reconstitutes money's definition so it would appear to not grow on trees. Pure communism stems from technology, replaceable parts allow communism to exist. Henry Ford was one of the first practical communists. When you mass produce the automobile are you not applying some engineering solution to distribute an abundance of goods & services? Social networking is socialism through technology. Currency is capitalism through technology. All political systems arrive through science & engineered technologies/solutions. Education itself is a form of engineering by technicians who train populations.
Kolzene wrote:Technocracy has little to do with either socialism or communism, except perhaps superficially. It stems from entirely different premises, those based in science instead of political ideology or philosophy. It doesn't "restrict" itself to only being an economic entity. It is simply the engineering solution to the scientific problem of distributing an abundance of goods and services. In the development of this solution, politics was simply deemed unnecessary, it would only be an interference.
The Ascendancy Of the Scientific Dictatorship ! by Phillip Darrell Collins and Paul David Collins
The "conspiracy of scientists" to which Mencken referred
is, more succinctly, a conspiracy of knowledge. It is a conscious effort to monop-
olize, manipulate, distort, and exploit knowledge to the most evil of ends. H.G.
Wells called this conspiracy the "Technocracy." Aldous Huxley, who was Wells'
protégé, more succinctly characterized it as a "scientific dictatorship. "
From the dawn of antiquity to the twilight of the twentieth century, the hid-
den manipulators of mankind have sought to perfect their methods of control.
These shadowy puppeteers have been assigned numerous appellations. Perhaps
die most common name ascribed to them is the "Illuminati," which is Latin for
"those who are illumined." Irrespective of whatever name is assigned to them,
some of their members and agentur comprise a portion of the Technocracy.
Other members of the Technocracy are either self-initiates (i.e., individuals who
recognized the esoteric doctrine underpinning their belief system and initiated
themselves into Illuminism) or just foolish pawns who have helped to transform
science into a whore for the elite. The Technocracy has also been further divided
by factionalism within its own ranks. For instance, there is division amongst vari-
ous fascist and communist variants of the Technocracy. However, despite their
disagreements, all of the Technocracy strives towards a singe goal.. .a global "sci-
entific dictatorship" (i.e., a New World Order).
Before the birth of the Technocracy, the Illuminati's primary combatants in
its epistemological war against humanity were priests and philosophers.
"Only when there is zero opinion in the arrivation of social decisions in the operation of a technological totality will there be a maximum of personal selectivity, choice, and opportunity." -Howard Scott
This is a very interesting discussion, and one of[…]
September 24, Thursday For the three days foll[…]
Stupid thread. What the sane know is what is need[…]
Terrible News fro Moscow´s Juchi gang! Australia […]