[jaakko]

I must admit I haven't paid much attention to this imaginary social system of 'technocracy'. According to my understanding, technocracy would have somekind of planned economy. I also recall that someone said technocracy is also meant to abolish social classes (ie. the bourgeoisie and the proletariat).

Here's some question to those of you who know better:

-Who would own the means of production?

-Who would hold state power in technocratic society or would state be replaced by other forms of organisation?

-How is technocratic society to be achieved?

[The Old CPGB]

Firstly, I think it's when robots own the means of production. This being the case robots would also have all the state power and humans would be their slaves.
Robots would acheive power after they become too intelligent and able to think for themselves. They would overthrow their human creators through a world wide war in the year 2027, just like in the Terminator films!
Only our great and wise leader John Conner can save us!

[jaakko]

Firstly, I think it's when robots own the means of production. This being the case robots would also have all the state power and humans would be their slaves.
Robots would acheive power after they become too intelligent and able to think for themselves. They would overthrow their human creators through a world wide war in the year 2027, just like in the Terminator films!
Only our great and wise leader John Conner can save us!

Seriously, I don't think this is what technocrats like Kolzene are after.

(Re "Terminator society":
Robots are means of production. How could machines take state power? If you give machine a consciousness, it's then more than just a machine. Machine with consciousness is essentially human-like. Robot is unable to create surplus-value to the capitalist without the involvement of human labour. If you give rovot a consciousness, this changes and the robot ceases to be a mean of production, it becomes a producer using the means of production. If that robot is owned by the enterpreneur, it's a slave. If the enterpreneur boughts from that robot its labour power, that robot is a proletarian. I think this is just stupid. A conscious robot selling its labour power wouldn't have interests opposed to the humans doing the same. If those robots made a revolution and established their state, I'd have nothing to fear.)
BUT THIS IS JUST SCIENCE-FICTION AND MY INTENTION WAS TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. So let's discuss science-fiction somewhere else. I'd like to hear what this technocratic society is about, according to technocrats like Kolzene.

[A_Technocrat]

I must admit I haven't paid much attention to this imaginary social system of 'technocracy'. According to my understanding, technocracy would have somekind of planned economy. I also recall that someone said technocracy is also meant to abolish social classes (ie. the bourgeoisie and the proletariat).

Kolzene knows Technocracy much better, but he hasn't posted here yet. I, a potential member of Technocracy Inc., in the meantime will answer these questions the best I can.

I wouldn't call Technocracy any more imaginary than Communism was before the 20th century. Technocracy has the elements of a planned and free economy (ie: mixed). The planned part comes in the construction of continent-wide projects (mostly transportation). But looking at Technocracy's system of distribution, energy accounting, it works off a ideal form of free market concept. People consume what they want and the amount of energy they consume determines what and how much is needed.
Also, Technocracy is NOT communism. Technocracy only meant to abolish money. Social classes will most likely still exist, but the divisions will most likely be based on education/competency level as opposed to how much money you have or if you belong to a party.

Here's some question to those of you who know better:

-Who would own the means of production?

Short answer: the means of production will be 'owned' by the Technate. It will be managed by the relevant functional sequence. Kolzene or I will write more about this at a later time.

-Who would hold state power in technocratic society or would state be replaced by other forms of organisation?

The state would be replaced by other forms of organization. The techate will be operated by those who are selected based on competency (in theory, the fine details may have to be worked out). Also technocracy aims to be governed the most by automatic processes that current technology will allow.

-How is technocratic society to be achieved?

I'll leave this to Kolzene. But the scenario that I heard is that people will eventually become fed up with the price system and will demand a new system. Technocracy Inc. is to come in and present its rational and logical plan. But people are more likely to listen to anti-Semites and racists during those times.

If you would like to learn more, check out Technocracy.ca or Technocracyinc.org for more information.

P.S. - The second poster is quite ignorant of Technocracy. There is nothing in the literature about 'robots' controlling society. They are a tool and nothing more. As for sentient AI's, that can be seen as an evolutionary step and this is independent of what system is operating an area. Besides, an AI is more likely to overthrow an archaic price system than a Technocracy.

[jaakko]

Kolzene,

Thanks for your reply. Seems Tecnocracy really was worth the questions I made, altough I'm aware of where I disagree with this theory. But for now, I'll think about this more before I return to the subject.

I wouldn't call Technocracy any more imaginary than Communism was before the 20th century.

I called it imaginary because it hasn't been realised anywhere yet. Same thing with communism. There has only been countries which entered the transitional stage (socialism), which was to lead from capitalism to communism. For reasons that are to be discussed in the 'socialism' or 'communism' forum, the transition process got interrupted and the course of development was changed back to capitalism (either gradually, as in USSR, or in rather short period, as in Albania). All in all, I call 'imaginary' any society that exists in theory but which haven't existed in real world.

Just one question before I go and think more of technocracy itself:
-If in a tecnocratic world there's no social classes, if everyone gives what they can and are given what they need, if State is replaced by other forms of organisation, what differentiates this from communism ('communism' as a type of society, not as political movement)? I see for you all this is just side effect, and that you don't agree on the means communists are ready to use in order to achieve these goals, but is there a fundamental difference between these two types of society?

[TomThumbKOP]

Kolzene, thanks for helping me understand this.

If there is no concept of ownership, is there a concept of leadership? Who decides who does what job? I can accept not owning my apartment but still taking care of it, but who takes care of the building itself if noone owns it?

[TomThumbKOP]

How would the composition of the continental control board be determined?

[Proctor]

If the job was being done right, then the right person was doing it. If not, they would be moved somewhere where they could do a better job, while possibly upgrading their education, meanwhile being replaced by someone who could.

This poses one problem. People doing their job too well. If you are so effective at your job that you simply can't be replaced, you can't be promoted. This doesn't reward competance at all.

[TomThumbKOP]

Another point is that no technical organization exists in a vacuum with out the presence of business interests. THis means that if Bell was the epitomy of technical efficiency, then it is because the business side of the company made good decisions in choosing how to set it up. What body would perform this function for a technocracy?

[Proctor]

Bob is a shearer. He is very good at shearing, and enjoys it. He can shear much faster than any of the other workers on the farm. But he would one day like to run a farm.

Since he is so good at shearing, his boss would be reluctant to move him to a higher position, even if he is the most competant for the job, because it would reduce the effectiveness of the farm, ie. it costs more under energy accounting to shear sheep.

[TomThumbKOP]

Kolzene, thusfar I have been baseing my discussion purely on the things discussed in this thread. Thank you for wealth of information you have brought to the discussion. I've decided to broaden the scope of my interest however and branch out into some of the links you have thoughtfully provided. I'd like to start with the Eleven Reasons Technocracy Works. It takes me a while sometimes to assimilate a new idea, so I plan to look at each of these one at a time.

The first:

Example 1: Product Quality.

The principle here is, as I have said, very simple. Once considerations such as profit are removed, so too are the barriers to efficiency and abundance. Suppose we take the case of razor blades. Suppose again that we have a particular razor blade, disposable of course, and that it is good for approximately three shaves. This would give a rate of usage of about (365¸3) 121.7 razors per year per person. Now, we assume arbitrarily, that there are about 100 million people using these razors. They require one shave per day, 365 days a year. This amounts to a required (100,000,000 x 365) 36.5 billion shaves, for the entire razor using community of the nation.
If these 100 million people were to use the three day razor, then they would require (36,500,000,000¸3) 12.17 billion razors to be produced for the year. Now, it is a commonly unknown fact that, scientifically, it is basically just as easy (energy cost-wise) to produce a razor that will last three days as one that will last for three years. We will assume, however, for this exercise, to have a razor that lasts a single year.
Now here's where the magic happens. Introduce this new blade on the market. You now have people buying them once per year instead of 121.7 times per year. Thus, the number of razor blades that are needed to be produced becomes 100 million per year, rather than 12.17 billion. What this means, in terms of resources and energy, is that well over 99% of the existing razor blade factories may now either be junked, or reconverted to better uses. Of course, such a situation would ruin a company, which is why they developed the idea of planned obsolescence in the first place. However, in terms of providing people with an abundance, the benefits should be self evident. This principle can also be applied to virtually any industry.

The first main problem that I have with this is that pure energy is not the only thing that goes into this. Using the analogy given, what if making a 3 year razor requires a better grade of steel that is less abundant. Or it requires a metal handle instead of a plastic handle. These components requirre more energy to produce, thus the overall energy cost of the razor is higher. This is not how it is represented in this example.

[Proctor]

Oh. I think I understand now. So Bob isn't working x hours, he has to shear x sheep. So his brilliant sheep shearing skills only mean he gets more time off, not that more sheep get sheared. So there is no reason for him to be held back.

It gets kind of muddier from there on in your post, but you've answered my original question, so I'll live.

On the razor blade example, I know it is only showing that imposed obsolescence would cease to exist, but the amount of saving in making the superior blade seems a little exorbitant? One hundred times less was your most conservative estimate. I simply find that hard to believe.

Also, not everything is as crappy as razor blades. Not all products are retarded to allow them to be improved upon later. I'd even say most of them aren't. So I don't know how much can actually be saved.