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.
#15183721
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, more seriously, my critique of technocracy, from past discussions at RevLeft, is that it's basically *Stalinism*, a bureaucratic elite. What's to guarantee that this technical bureaucratic elite will be in any way *accountable* to the people it's supposedly administrating-over -- ?

Rancid wrote:Technocracy is not natural and will need a forceful hand to implement. I'm sure it will work out to an authoritarian hellscape one way or another.

Technocracy will be nothing like authoritarianism or Stalinism because it does not use political government. It is essentially an anarchist economic system.
#15183723
Kolzene wrote:Technocracy will be nothing like authoritarianism or Stalinism because it does not use political government. It is essentially an anarchist economic system.


If the decision makers are those of expertise, why would a government not form?
#15183734
Kolzene wrote:Technocracy will be nothing like authoritarianism or Stalinism because it does not use political government. It is essentially an anarchist economic system.


Anarchism is an ephemeral form of government. unsustainable. People will naturally organize to make things better/easy/efficient (or at least try to). Hence, some form of government will arise organically. One of the most common types of governments are those that are based in a strong hand. That is, authoritarianism. All you need is one sociopath (it's like 1 in every 25 men is a sociopath by the way, so not hard to find) to manipulate everyone else and the system.

It's even easier to do when the pre-existing culture is very hierarchical and based in obedience (see east Asian cultures).
#15183745
Kolzene wrote:
Technocracy will be nothing like authoritarianism or Stalinism because it does not use political government. It is essentially an anarchist economic system.



B0ycey wrote:
If the decision makers are those of expertise, why would a government not form?



Rancid wrote:
Anarchism is an ephemeral form of government. unsustainable. People will naturally organize to make things better/easy/efficient (or at least try to). Hence, some form of government will arise organically. One of the most common types of governments are those that are based in a strong hand. That is, authoritarianism. All you need is one sociopath (it's like 1 in every 25 men is a sociopath by the way, so not hard to find) to manipulate everyone else and the system.

It's even easier to do when the pre-existing culture is very hierarchical and based in obedience (see east Asian cultures).



I never thought I'd be arguing for anarchism, but Kolzene has a point -- if society can get past the *need* for a government, then there *could* be anarchy, in the *positive* sense of the term, that no government is objectively needed.

A smoothly running economy that's not prone to internal contradictions, as capitalism / class is, would theoretically not need any administration, not that I agree with such a formulation. I think it would *always*, timelessly, be better to have a mass-conscious, collective, hands-on administration (post-capitalism), but such would not have to be its own institution, with its own institutional interests separate from society.
#15183750
ckaihatsu wrote:I never thought I'd be arguing for anarchism


Sorry I see it pretty natural.

You seem share a lot of points of view with the leading anarchist PoFo'er, whose daily posts in the Longest Thread Ever seem to attack capitalism even more often than statism.

EDIT: What I mean is that, if that PoFo'er represents the mainstream anarchism then I can say you actually have a quite large common ground with anarchism.
Last edited by Patrickov on 03 Aug 2021 16:16, edited 1 time in total.
#15183751
ckaihatsu wrote:I never thought I'd be arguing for anarchism, but Kolzene has a point -- if society can get past the *need* for a government, then there *could* be anarchy, in the *positive* sense of the term, that no government is objectively needed.


An impossibility. Humans are social, humans naturally organize. Fundamentally, government is just humans organizing.
#15183753
Rancid wrote:An impossibility. Humans are social, humans naturally organize. Fundamentally, government is just humans organizing.


Anarchists would probably argue that they are not against organization, they are just against organization with the aim to control the means of production and oppress others.
#15183754
Patrickov wrote:Anarchists would probably argue that they are not against organization, they are just against organization with the aim to control the means of production and oppress others.


Perhaps, perhaps. That said, I would still argue the same, that the means of production will always need organization and control in order to improve its ability to sustain the popular at large. At a minimum, defacto governance will occur, one way or another. It will not be willy nilly, everyone independently and cooperating completely uncoerced.

Plus, as I said, there will always be manipulators, sociopaths, and strongmen out there to fuck up the anarchist dream.
#15183755
Rancid wrote:
An impossibility. Humans are social, humans naturally organize. Fundamentally, government is just humans organizing.



Patrickov wrote:
Anarchists would probably argue that they are not against organization, they are just against organization with the aim to control the means of production and oppress others.



Rancid wrote:
Perhaps, perhaps. That said, I would still argue the same, that the means of production will always need organization and control in order to improve its ability to sustain the popular at large. At a minimum, defacto governance will occur, one way or another. It will not be willy nilly, everyone independently and cooperating completely uncoerced.

Plus, as I said, there will always be manipulators, sociopaths, and strongmen out there to fuck up the anarchist dream.



Without the class divide and private property interests it's at least *conceivable* that people could spontaneously coordinate productivity entirely on-the-ground, ad hoc -- like a warm medievalism and/or the Smurfs. That's the anarchist ideal, I guess.

I tend to agree that de facto governance would emerge -- probably for economies-of-scale.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image
#15183765
Kolzene wrote:
[Technocracy] is essentially an anarchist economic system.



Rancid wrote:
anarchist dream



ckaihatsu wrote:
anarchist ideal



I'd like to add that the thought-experiment here would be a world in which 3D printers are able to produce *anything*, on the tabletop, for the consumer.

Such a system of production *would* be anarchic because it *wouldn't* require government, and it would be fully automated, assuming that all feedstocks were easily obtainable and produceable from nature.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I never thought I'd be arguing for anarchism



Patrickov wrote:
Sorry I see it pretty natural.

You seem share a lot of points of view with the leading anarchist PoFo'er, whose daily posts in the Longest Thread Ever seem to attack capitalism even more often than statism.

EDIT: What I mean is that, if that PoFo'er represents the mainstream anarchism then I can say you actually have a quite large common ground with anarchism.



Just seeing this now.

Yes, well, I *am* far-left, so I'm definitely anti-capitalist and anti-class-divide, which is a commonality with anarchists.


EDIT -- ADDITION:


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image
#15183767
ckaihatsu wrote:I'd like to add that the thought-experiment here would be a world in which 3D printers are able to produce *anything*, on the tabletop, for the consumer.

Such a system of production *would* be anarchic because it *wouldn't* require government, and it would be fully automated, assuming that all feedstocks were easily obtainable and produceable from nature.


Oh yea, 3d printing is fucking awesome. I hope to see it decentralize production. That said, I'm not sure if that would somehow put capitalism on its head.

It's interesting that you mention emergent central planning. Isn't capitalism an emergent property of trade? That is to say, capitalism wasn't invented, it emerged naturally.
#15183768
Rancid wrote:
Oh yea, 3d printing is fucking awesome. I hope to see it decentralize production. That said, I'm not sure if that would somehow put capitalism on its head.



Well, think about it -- if all the *energy* came from solar (etc.), and all the *material* came from plants (perhaps), then no one would be able to make a profit because no one could make anything that everyone else couldn't make for *themselves*.


Rancid wrote:
It's interesting that you mention emergent central planning. Isn't capitalism an emergent property of trade? That is to say, capitalism wasn't invented, it emerged naturally.



Sure, we could say that *finance* emerged out of mercantilist-type economic relations. It originated with the state, but the merchants gradually built up their own *economic* power, which challenged the monarchies, and here we are today.

My 'emergent central planning' is meant to indicate that production is ultimately *local*, but that it can be *coordinated* and *built-up* across localities, to broader scales of coordination, over time, so that post-capitalist planning can be done over large regions, even continents, and the whole world, for any given item, without any top-down authority or impositions of any kind.
#15183779
Rancid wrote:
It's even easier to do when the pre-existing culture is very hierarchical and based in obedience (see east Asian cultures).



Some would find this kind of statement to be socially *problematic*, and even racist -- maybe what you're indicating is that China, in particular, has had solidly *bureaucratic* rule throughout its history, while the West had the prevailing of its *bourgeoisie* (merchants), over the state, by comparison.
#15183781
ckaihatsu wrote:I never thought I'd be arguing for anarchism, but Kolzene has a point -- if society can get past the *need* for a government, then there *could* be anarchy, in the *positive* sense of the term, that no government is objectively needed.


I guess the point I was making was as soon as someone is appointed leadership, whatever the reason or however it occurred, a government is basically created. Hierarchy creates governance. How can you get round that? Anyone who suggests that Anarchy or that no government is needed within society, is really someone who doesn't understand that government is merely the body of social organisation whilst hierarchy and appointment are the starting block to form a government. That isn't me being negative on Anarcy, Technocracy or even Socialism/Capitalism. It is merely pointing out that to suggest any form of economy you create, whether you eliminate the previous governance you had before or not, once you start appointing people of leadership/power/responsibility, what you create is a government by default.

Isn't this the status quo? What do you mean?

And it is - one of the top 2 or 3 depending on ho[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

***UPDATE*** @godstud and the rest of the vaccine […]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

[one thing I forgot to cover in my earlier respo[…]