Kolzene wrote:NationaliDemocratiSociali wrote:Where did I ask such a simple question? And money exists in many forms, such as capital (as I have mentioned many times before).
This I take as evidence of either you not understanding something you've read, or not making any attempt to actually learn about the subject you criticize despite numerous attempts to assist you.
If you take that as evidence, then you have scant evidence, because what I meant by capital was property value, such as the machinery would have value, and all such material property that provides livelihood has always been controlled by a minority of society, so logic is against you and technocracy, because based on this fact, technocracy is a lot like utopia, in the sense that it wants to achieve a society that relies on an unprecedented socio-economic set-up.
Kolzene wrote:To say that Technocracy uses money is like saying Marx was a capitalist.
I did not say technocracy uses money, and capital has many definitions, and yes among one of them is "money", however also "property".
Kolzene wrote:But in case you did miss it somehow, I will make it clear:
"Remove money and replace with Energy Accounting"
taken from: How Technocracy Works (simplified).
This is rendered unnecessary, by my first paragraph in this post which is just a paraphrasing/summarizing of what I have always stated all along hitherto.
Kolzene wrote:"Thus, money in any form whatsoever is completely inadequate as a medium of distribution in an economy of abundance with a Price System control."
taken from: Energy Accounting Information Brief Number 29.
I agree that money should be abolished at once, especially in an "economy of abundance", which I think is 100% more potential in collective manual farming with abolition of the cities and towns and use of their populace for 100% labor-force to increase productivity ten-fold. By the way collective labor is much more powerful than individualistic labor, because in collective labor, the labor group can achieve much more as an organized group then can any individual on Earth, I am sure you will agree with this reasoning/logic, though I admit I have a feeling you will not through being influenced by others.
Kolzene wrote:The accompanying links explain the position of the statements rather clearly.
Yes they do.
Kolzene wrote:There would be no "capitalist" class, or any other for that matter.
There will however be a ruling-class, whether it be in the form of technocrats or a racial group. Throughout history, there has always been a ruling-class, the only societies that did not have a ruling-class were those of prehistoric times or around that time.
Kolzene wrote:All citizens receive an equal (although not identical) portion of production of the nation, as measured in the only objectively measurable and non-fluctuating common denominator of all goods and services, energy.
This is a very long sentence to paraphrase and lengthen a rather short statement, please be more succinct through proper clarification thereof. Thank you.
Kolzene wrote:And due to its non-transferability and limited validity, it cannot be saved, hoarded, given to or taken from others in any way whatsoever.
What about food? Food is the most basic necessity for life, there are people that can not stop eating, there is an obesity epidemic in the most industrialist nations, especially America.
Kolzene wrote:Thus it, unlike money cannot be used as a means of "social control" in the form of bribes or wages.
It can, such as by the ruling-class not providing equal treatment to each racial/intellectual class, such as a race deemed criminal or a large intellectual group deemed "anti-progress". By the way this and the other example cited, such as that of a ruling-class always existing, has much more precedents than does technocracy with its dependence on material things more than on people, all social systems thrive from balancing attention toward people and material property for livelihood, such as in slavery there was the slave, this is why it quickly failed and transitioned into feudalism. Feudalism thrived from balance between land and laborers, feudalism declined when the handicap of it being based on agricultural arable land turned into the springing up of wealthy villages that turned into towns and then into cities, thence capitalism arose. Capitalism thrived from the balance between man and machine, this balance failed miserably by the machine replacing the man, resulting in the most poverty,
pollution, unemployment, overpopulation centers, starvation, world wars, and etc, that humanity has ever seen in such an extent (which is extremely unprecedented), this is why the abolition of towns, and cities is important, as is outlined in the communist manifesto as among the 10 measures to be implemented by a victorious communist party. The abolition of capitalism also requires the extermination of the system of money, as feudalism destroyed the system of individual owning another individual on the basis of difference of tribe/race. And as Capitalism replaced feudalism by destroying the feudal ties and power sourced in landed aristocracy, which capitalism replaced with by for the first time since the primitive age of tribalism, the ability of man to be free through their own struggle, however this is still half-like tribalism, because there is still ruling-classes and ruled-classes.
Kolzene wrote:As for "capital", i.e. anything that can gernerate wealth, the very definition of "property" would be different in a Technocracy. No one would be able to "own" for instance a factory, warehouse, or even a means of transportation. All "property" would be in the form of consumable goods, or personal items (clothing, jewelry, etc.)
How is this different from internationalist industrialist communism? Or communo-anarchist syndicalism, such as that preached by the Industrial Workers Organization?
Kolzene wrote:All of this is irrelevant, because it is off topic: technocracy and pollution.
So is genocide, which you seemed to take quite an interest in. But I'm not getting into that.
I will soon make a topic on the immense relation between the modern precedent of conventional use of genocide and machines, that machines have made genocide into a conventional use of doing and gettign away with genocide.
Kolzene wrote: ...acid rain and nuclear accidents were inevitable prerequisites to more "Advanced" technology, such as extremely immense amounts of energy from nuclear generators and the massive capitalist want of transportation and factories that produced the air pollution that causes acid rain.
From this can I infer that you agree that it is the abuse of technology that causes these things? If so, as I've pointed out, such "capitalist wants" would not only be absent in a Technocracy, but also the mechanisms by which such "wants" are both executed and encouraged (i.e. rewarded). There would be no motication for any behaviour that was not contributing to the sustainability of the Technate, of which environmental protection and resource conservation are both integral and vital.
I agree with the former statement, though not the latter, because there is no evidence to prove that a technocracy or any automated industrial corporation takes environmental protection to be "integral" and "vital" to anything essential about them.
Kolzene wrote:Technocracy's plan is very thorough, and the original designers would not have put forth this proposal if they did not understand that this goal was indeed technologically possible, even feasible.
What is the meaning of "technologically", like what is the definition of technology that you implyed through your use of "technologically" in that statement?
Kolzene wrote:Yes, but this ignores the main point that I am raising, which is that pollution will only increase from a technocracy, and or that technocracy requires at least some sort of pollution, even if it is minimal in comparison to a non-technocratic system.
Pollution is not inevitable, unless you are defining it as "any interference with the environment whatsoever by humans." In which case, "pollution" would be far within the environment's tolerance limits in a Technocracy.
I wish, however I don't see how it is logically "tolerable" for the environment to sustain pollution, you need to understand evolution, evolution made humans into what we are after millions of years, all this biological progress was possible through a sutained evironment that did not change radically, today the environment/climate that humans live in is much more radically changing then it ever has, according to many scientists. Like haven't you noticed that all of a sudden in this past century and this century hitherto, records of climate temperature have breaken record after record in their extremity, and this is coinciding with earthquakes being more and more common, and with floods being much more wide-spread then they used to be, they used to be rare, and hence taken as a sign of punishment from God or some supernatural thing.
Kolzene wrote:Nothing dramatic would happen, not due to the Technate anyway.
See above.
Kolzene wrote:Environments are changed and shifted by numerous forces all the time, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramtically. These forces can come from the weather, from space, from some species of plant or animal. From what I've read of your posts, and correct me if I'm wrong, you think that anything above an agrarian level of civilization is automatically harmful to the environment.
Not necessarily, however I think a purely agrarian economy with tools made out of agricultural organic products with everyone working, even the leadership, would result in the best society, economy, and polity potential then has ever existed, and this is partly-precedented by attempts at building self-sufficient stateless communes, and most logically possible through evidence and reasoning through pre-capitalist times of feudalism, in which there was feudalism with no trade.
Kolzene wrote:What I am saying is that the environment will barely notice humans being there in a Technate.
The thing is that agriculture is important to help the environment, either the environment is helped or destroyed by humans, it is impossible for humans to do neither.
Kolzene wrote:There have even been numerous agrarian societies that have butchered their environment in deforestation, improper use of farmland, poor waste disposal (such as in Europe during the middle ages), etc.
I agree this is why I think industrial communism is an important prerequisite for agrarian ruralism. Please read the 10 measures of the communist manifesto on communist forum it is among the latest posted, it is authored by me, or you can just read a free on-line version of the communist manifesto through searching for it on google or yahoo or etc.
Kolzene wrote:These practices have the same root as our currently, damaging, "technological" ones, and that is the Price System, which requires continuous growth, expansion, and resource exploitation (including human resources I might add).
You are extremely mistaken, if you think most or all agrarian socieities had a "Price System".
Kolzene wrote:Technocracy was the first to research and understand this fact, and therefor was the first to devise a solution for it. We no longer have to limit ourselves to this way of life, and can instead take what we need from the environment efficiently, cleanly, and return to it (in the form of recycling and proper waste treatment) without adversely affecting the balance of its ordinary functions. I think that Mother Nature would be quite proud.
This is all illusory, because it has no precedent in modern times, especially "proper" waste
treatment, by the way treatment means treating the problem, not curing it, just as they say "Cancer treatment", this would in fact be "cancer treatment", abolition of machines, would be like cutting off the cancerous tumor which threats the very existance of humanity.
Kolzene wrote:One article you should read if you have not already is called The Ecology of Man.
I will read it, I don't know if I have read it already or not, because I haven't clicked on the link yet, before typing this post, and because I want to read it thoroughly in one trial.
Kolzene wrote:Would there be unemployment at all? I still can't understand how the capitalist-class can easily have its employing powers and the tyranny that it does with this power be taken away from it without massive genocide of the capitalists and their supporters (religious people). Just give me a direct URL link to a web page that explains this, thank you.
1) No, there would be no unemployment, because there would be no employment, in a Technocracy. Employment is the exchange of work for wages or salary. Since a person's income is independant of their functional contribution to society in a Technate, then this is not employment, and therefor both "work" and "income' need to be looked at separately.
By employment, what is meant is doing work in exchange for livelihood, from someone, which in technocracy would be the technocrats overseeing the "proper" transfer and distribution of "energy".
Kolzene wrote:Would there be people without income? No. Would there be people that did not work? Quite possibly.
So there would be no income, but there would be some people that do not work? This is considered joblessness, and this would be worst then feudalism and capitalism, because the person would have no means of making a livelihood in case if some accident happens to the source of livelihood in the technocracy: the juggernaut of technate machinery. I call it a juggernaut, because the technate would deny people the ability to live from farming or trade, which are the most common forms of "instinctual" social contracts hitherto in human history.
Kolzene wrote:Would there be no opportunities for these people to do work? Absolutely not. Anyone may contribute in any number of ways and the Technate would have at its disposal several mechanisms to assist each and every person in acheiving the most they personally can in any field.
This is an assertion with a promise to support it, it has no statistical or factual evidence to support it, it has a promise to support it because it just uses the word "would" to support itself.
Kolzene wrote:2) The "capitalist class' of any country has it's power dirived from wealth generated by the economy.
This is your most fundamental flaw, you fail to realize that wealth (money) is not the only or main thing that the "capitalist class of any country has it's power derived from", the main thing is machinery/mechanical technology, if by wealth you mean abundance of machinery and mechanical technology being in possession of the capitalist-classes, then yes I see what your point is, and I agree that such a system would be better than capitalism at present, but stil I think a technocracy should be just a temporary transitionary stage between capitalism and communism, and thus socialism. Technocracy is a lot like socialism, because it puts all property, machinery, and etc into the hands of society rather than the capitalist-class.
Kolzene wrote:If the economy collapsed, as it most certainly will (many links have already been posted, but here is one again: Why Technocracy?), then their base of power is gone. They will not be able to do much about it. Their only hope is to try and establish a fascistic government to control what little of the population will remain after the collapse. Before then, however, people will not want to simply "give up and die". They will be looking for another alternative to maintain their technologically established standard of living, and only Technocracy will be able to do that. There's not guarnatees that this will happen, but its success will be directly related to how much help we can get to make sure that the public is informed about their choices before this happens.
You fail to realize that capitalism also involves international exploitation, and technocracy would rquire some sort of international trade, whether exploitive or not, to get the resources to maintain the industries and machinery that it depends on.
Kolzene wrote:However, this is topic of transistion, not one of operation, and does not reflect at all the feasibility of an operating Technate.
I agree with such a transition, however I am also "toying" with the idea of violent abolition of all symbols of capitalism, such as: machines (which includes cars, factories, and computers), cities, towns, religion, houses of worship, trade, property rights, morality, law, and racial plurality. You need to take all of these into consideration, I think all of these wil either make or break technocracy, respectively.
Kolzene wrote:immortallove wrote:The commonly accepted one is "the scientific application of knowledge to a problem." Thus, even mediating a debate which is falling apart is by definition technology, if the ugly debate is a problem.
This is an obvious distortion of the real definition of technology, and you know yourself that you are distorting the definition for your propagandic scheme for whatever purpose.
I know you use a very different definition than the rest of us, but please, if we can't agree on a simply definition this entire conversation is pointless, since we'll be talking about two different things.
You are an extreme contradictor if you agree with his definition of technology, because this would make many of your statements seem stupid, like all of the ones in which you talk about "technologically established standard of living" and talk about "tech"nate and etc. He use this definition for technology:
immortallove wrote:"the scientific application of knowledge to a problem." Thus, even mediating a debate which is falling apart is by definition technology, if the ugly debate is a problem.
Technocracy is anything but a system that is based on platonism, or is it? I say platonism, because he says that technology is "mediating a debate", which is like philosophic. Please correct me if I am wrong without any isolated explainations, because the purpose of all of this is not just one on one or group versus group competition, the purpose is to learn, right?
Kolzene wrote:You call it a "distortion" for "propaganda". This to me sounds like "projection", i.e. accusing someone else of what you yourself is doing. I'll back this up, shall I?
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 10th Edition wrote:Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technE art, skill + -o- + -logia -logy
1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : ENGINEERING 2 <medical technology> b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology>
2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>
3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>
- tech·nol·o·gist /-jist/ noun
taken from: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=technology
wikipedia wrote:...the development and application of tools, machines, materials and processes that help to solve human problems. As a human activity, technology predates both science and engineering.
The term technology thus often characterises inventions and gadgets using recently-discovered scientific principles and processes. However, even very old inventions such as the wheel exemplify technology.
taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechnologyI agree with this statement that I colored in red, because I agree in the abolition of all of this, like "inventions", "gadgets", wheels, machines, and etc.
Kolzene wrote:wikipedia wrote:Early or prehistoric advances in technology or fundamental tools
Agriculture
Astronomy
Animal husbandry
Cattle breeding
Cooking
Clothing
Fire
Inclined plane
Metal mining
Lever
Pottery
Pulley
Screw
Weaponry
Wedge
Wheel
Writing
taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_technologies
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary wrote:technology [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
(the study and knowledge of) the practical, especially industrial, use of scientific discoveries:
taken from; http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=81654&dict=CALD
Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition wrote:tech·nol·o·gy (plural tech·nol·o·gies)
noun
1. application of tools and methods: the study, development, and application of devices, machines, and techniques for manufacturing and productive processes
recent developments in seismographic technology
2. method of applying technical knowledge: a method or methodology that applies technical knowledge or tools
a new technology for accelerating incubation
3. anthropology sum of a society’s or culture’s knowledge: the sum of a society’s or culture’s practical knowledge, especially with reference to its material culture
taken from: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861718738
Wordsmyth Onilne Dictionary wrote: tech-nol-o-gy
Part of Speech noun
Pronunciation
tehk na lE ji
Inflected Forms technologies
Definition 1. a field of knowledge concerned with the use of industrial arts and applied science to achieve practical objectives.
Definition 2. all of the means available for dealing with practical problems in the material world.
Derived Forms technologist, n.
taken from: http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=technology&matchtype=exact
So, where do you get your definition from?
Ok, I hope all of that definition reproducing was not made as an arrogant action, and rather as one to just humbly help me "get back on track" or "get with the program" by us coming to a common understanding of the root of technocracy, which is the word "technology". I am simply against all forms of material technology made at and after the birth (advent) of capitalism in the form of simple barter-trade, which coincided with the production of the wheel to transport goods and etc.
Political forum vanguard.