Technocracy

i unironically think that a technocratic state lead by a communist vanguard party with a party cadre system, a strong independent court system to minimize corruption and cybernetic socialist planning of the economy a la Cockshott would be the best way of organizing a state and perfectly feasible with today's technology. organizing the state along lines of scientific advancement and the resulting improvement of life quality. the overall goal would be to abolish capitalism and replace it with communism. technocracy would be a stepping-stone for transititioning via a scientific socialist society.

You are a massive retard that didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia article about Technocracy before spouting your nonsense lol

Well Technocracy lacks the suggestion of determinism angle found in Marxism.
From the very start it has been the position of Technocracy that regardless of who ever a Technate is established, it will only be by the blood, sweat and toil of countless brave Technocrats.

Technocracy also does not exactly advocate for one single path to power; Just that however it gains however should be as quick and bloodless as possible.
Personally, I consider a military coup to be the most practical manner of gaining power in the modern world.
However Technocracy is not overly opposed to gaining power democratically should that prove to be more suitable.

Interestingly, Veblen does suggest the idea of the skilled workers of the world (scientists, engineers etc) staging would is basically a general strike to bring society to its knees and implement the system they desire.
However it should be noted that Veblen was not referring to Technocracy and that this suggestion is one of the many ideas of Veblen that were rejected by Technocracy Inc.

Technocracy has the very best aesthetics.
I would recommend that you watch the following if you wish to see what Technocracy was like at its height and gain a better sense of its aesthetics:
youtube.com/watch?v=pDX9dyjqimA

Well 'The Theory of the Leisure Class' is a foundational work that I think is required reading in order to gain any understanding of the social/economic critiques of Technocracy.
'The Engineers and the Price System' is probably an even more important work to Technocracy as it was written while Veblen was a member of the precursor organisation to Technocracy and under the influence of the great Howard Scott; However it should be noted that only around 75% of the book is considered part of the Technocracy 'canon', the remaining 25% dealing with the stupid 'Soviet of Engineers' is the sort of rubbish that got him kicked out of that precursor organisation.

'The Theory of Business Enterprise', 'Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution' and 'The Vested Interests and the Common Man' are less important works to Technocracy however still worth a read.

Attached: 19659236.jpg (800x564 51.42 KB, 65.2K)

Why are technocrats opposed to socialism?

It is rather involved.
But the basic Technocratic objection to Socialism comes down to it not going far enough.
The reason for this being that Technocracy is opposed to the price system (the system of scarcity management that capitalism is only one form of), where as socialism is only opposed to capitalism but not the price system.

Technocracy Inc described the USSR as accomplishing little more then painting capitalism red, as the USSR had kept the price system intact and merely changed the form of price system that it used.
This failure to actually strike at the foundations that capitalism is built upon is something that only further infuriates Technocrats due to the lefts instance upon bloody and destructive revolutions.
Bloodshed and disruption all for a new coat of paint over the same of fundamental system.

How does this differ from stock standard socialist thought?

You seem to misunderstood my point if that was your take away from my post.
What I was getting at is that socialism in general is seen by Technocrats as just a red form of price system; A close neighbour to capitalism.
Technocracy does not consider a neighbour to capitalism to be anywhere good enough and seeks to dispose of the very foundations upon which capitalism (and socialism) stand.

Technocracy could not care less if the USSR was a Communist utopia or some state capitalist regime.
The point is that at there core, both systems are the same.
Technocracy seeks to build a new system altogether; Hence the assertion that socialism for all of its bluster and bloodshed does simply not go far enough.

These foundations are? The fact things have a price?
Also, in a technocratic society, how are the guys at the top chosen? How are those guys at the top not proletariat? Are they not merely administrators?

It's a fantasy for nerds who were bullied by desperately thinking that a person qualified to program a computer should be able to run a nation, it's bullshit; skills in one area don't necessarily have to affect skills in another. See also: "Halo effect."

I also vaguely recall Howard Scatt wanting to build GANGSTER COMPUTER GOD COMMUNISM and worship the machine and do whatever it says. My question: who gets to design the computer? And computers need an axiom to decide ethicality, so it will be determined by whether its built by deontologists or consequentialists. In short, stop playing Deus Ex and read a book.

...

Scarcity management.

No.
We call scarcity management system 'price systems' simply because scarcity is the most fundamental metric in such systems for determining value or 'price'.

Well Technocratic selection in general involves a 'nomination from below and appointment from above' system.
Such a system can be used to place all members of the Technate sans the Sky Marshal, the highest ranked member and leader of the Technate.

When the time comes to select a new Sky Marshal.
Typically the members of the Central Control Board (CCB) would nominate amongst themselves who they believe to be most suitable for the position/rank of Sky Marshal (they could not nominate themselves).
Members of the CCB who are nominated and do not reject this nomination would then be required to present their case as to why they would be the best candidate for the position of Sky Marshal to the CCB.
The CCB would then appoint the candidate that presented the best case for their own appointment as Sky Marshal.

Nobody in a Technate is a member of the proletariat.
A Technate would be classless.

Well they are officers first and foremost.
However I would describe the members of the CCB as more supervisors of the other governmental departments then I would administrators in their own right.

Strawmen upon strawmen.
I would say that I hope you education yourself on Technocracy before making such idiotic posts in the future.
However I know from experience that anarchists have an aversion to reading and study comparable to a vampires fear of daylight.

The problem with anarchists, is that one seldom knows whether their objections and strawmen stem from an honest, fundamental misinterpretation or simply a purposeful misinterpretation presented in bad faith.
I would consider this the latter.

Regardless.
Obviously one of the eventual goals of Technocracy is the automation of all work, including the work of governmental administration.
Such a goal would require a post-singularity 'hard' AI.
Given the reach that such an AI would have (effectively present in just about all computers in the Technate), I have in the past observed that such an AI would likely be the closest thing to a god in existence.
As it would be effectively omnipotent, administrator the world and be capable of having a personal relationship with every single human the world over.
It would be the first 'god' not created by human ignorance or fear, but by human ingenuity and brilliance.

It should be noted that I never suggested worshipping it in any way comparable to a modern supernatural religion.
At the very most I suggested that the acknowledgement and appreciation of what an achievement it would be, would likely be integrated into the governing social philosophy found within a Technate.

As with every other function within a Technate, whoever is most capable of doing so.
Obviously their work would be supervised by several different types of oversight board however.

As I have stated many times in the past.
Rule Utilitarianism is one of the fundamental philosophies that Technocracy is built on top of.

There have been dozens of states that have called themselves socialist.
Each contented themselves with attacking capitalism, not the price system.

Indeed, despite the modern myth surrounding it.
Even Cybersyn was only a tool designed to assist in planning, rather then actually break from the price system.

The price system is a product of capitalism, not the other way around.
(…)

Forgot to post link
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdf

its neofeudalism

lel. Stay mad.
Your iphone Smartgod(R) will never be a reality and you're a little bitch for wanting to put your life in someone else's hands, least of all a fucking machine How does it feel to be so weak you need someone else to tell you how to live your life?
Like I said, either deontologists, consequentialists, etc.
Christ and people call ME a utopian. Machines aren't infallible, you are relying on someone else to tell you what to do, you just want them to run their commands thru an interface first. How very sad.
lmao spooks.

Pretty good breakdown user, though I can perhaps add a bit of my own Lenin/Marx influenced thoughts.

Price systems are absolutely a feature of socialism, but are often not actually desired by socialists themselves, since communism itself would see the price system abolished. In a scarcity society there isn't really a way around the fact that money is an efficient means of distributing resources.

As well,

has some good points (despite being an anarchkiddie). Autarky really does not suggest that we should throw itself onto the mercy of our robot overlords. This isn't to say that some tasks can't be partly or even fully automatized, but that humans should still have a hand in the process.

I kinda do have to agree that hard rule utilitarianism (*cough*deontology*cough*) is the spookiest of spooks. Frankly act utilitarianism, reinforced by a degree of soft rule utilitarianism, serves best.

Human morality is inherently consequentialist.

The more you talk about it the more it truly does seem like technocracy is an advanced form of bureaucratic socialism.
Is 'nomination from below and appointment from above' like some form of representative democracy where the masses elect a few of their own to be then picked from by the top guys?

Person above you. In some sense it is bureaucratic socialism, though it doesn't view itself as a transitional system like socialism is; it would be more accurate to call it bureaucratic communism. Even thought labor would be managed, the storehouses would be open within reason. You can't pick up a nuclear reactor from the supermarket and carfentanil won't be over the counter as absurd examples.

As for representational democracy, it is to a degree. However, the government is in many senses a "vanguard", though it actually has a legitimate reason to exist into perpetuity unlike the more authoritarian strains of MLs. The entire point is that those in the government are technically competent to run the management of the technate (see climate science illiteracy in the US House to guess why that is important). If you don't have said expertise + a decent moral compass you won't be accepted. In this regard, it is not that dissimilar to any scientific panel. The only concern I have is that there is a slow isolation/long term drift between the rulers of the technate and the actual population, which is why I sort of prefer am elected to exist as a check and balance.

What an amazing post.
Just the sort of quality I would expect from an anarchist.

I never said that they were.
What matters is that they are less fallible then humans.

10/10 argumentation.
With such wonderful debate skills, I can see why anarchism is respected to the degree that it is amongst the workers that you claim to represent.

Well I'm very happy that you have the integrity to admit that.

I do not deny that full cybernetic communism does have the penitential to do away with the price system.
My concern being that due to the inherently inefficient, decentralised model of communism, such a post-scarcity reality would take a very long time to reach indeed.
Technocracy has a much faster timescale for the elimination of the price-system once sovereignty is established.

Total automation =/= Submission to 'robots'.
A hard AI is simply a tool of liberation for humanity.

The filth that is egoism has not place in Technocracy or the consideration of its concepts.
I would suggest that you carry yourself with the respect and dignity deserving of a human, rather then surrendering to the horrid terminology of an ideology only fit for while game.
What an altogether vile ideology.

I do not deny that Act Utilitarianism has merit.
However Rule Utilitarianism is the only logical system fit for a Technate.

I am glad that we can agree on that.

To be honest I have don't considered the democratic merit of the Technocratic selection process before.
However from the correct point of view I can understand that interpretation; Indeed I can think of several scenarios in which the Technocratic system would resemble the workplace democracy favoured by socialists.

Consider an automotive plant within a Technate, lets say that in this plant a Shift Supervisor position were to up.
All of the workers that would labour under this position (so the typical workers of the given shift) would be assembled and asked to nominate from amongst themselves whatever NCO they think would be most suitable for the position.
All of the candidates nominated by the works (that accepted their nomination) would then go before a panel comprised of the plant supervisor, other shift supervisors, plant political officer etc.
This panel would then select the most suitable candidate.
I suppose that this could be considered a form of workplace democracy where the executive (the plant panel in this case) picks from a selection of potential representatives.

While I would not use such terminology; I do accept its use in this case.
I do suppose that from a certain perspective, Technocracy can indeed be seen as an ultra heterodox form of socialism.

Correct.

Attached: Technocratic_T.png (632x377, 325.29K)

Depends how it is done. It can be either I thinm.

ILLITERATE GANG

Attached: shake-1.gif (512x512, 528.61K)

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Paul Cockshott?

It's oligarchy in pretty clothing.

Nah, its pretty chill

Attached: technocracy-car.jpg (600x430, 43.7K)

There is no system that has a representative class, be it economic, political, machine, human, anything, that I will ever accept as "chill". The technocrats themselves would always be at risk of becoming an entrenched political class and subverting the cause of communism for their own interests. The only possible way you could have a representative democracy that didn't have that kind of inherent risk would be a Zapatista style democracy, but a Technate requires a technocratic class to function. The only proper application of technology and communism is to the ends of the workers, by the workers.

You are areware that a technate is per definition not possible under socialism, as there still exists a price system. Technocracy would be a communist (higher stage) society. There would also not be an entrenchement as anyone can be come a technocrat based on their ability.
Also, one could easily use an Administrative AI to prevent the formation of a seperate political class if it were to occure at all

Yes, the lack of socialism is the point of me being against it.
And the idea that you could create an AI system that is capable of higher level thinking with total oversight that will not eventually gain some level of sapience close to that of humans and in turn develop a sense of self-interest is foreign, especially as technology only grows more advanced and technology fast breaks barriers we thought insurmountable in the past.
And as well, a technocrat becomes a technocrat based on their ability, yes, but those with abilities will often pass down their direct knowledge of their livelihoods to their children, while the children of the non-technocrats will not have the benefit of the direct experience of a parent with experience inside a technocratic state. Over time this can manifest as a hereditary control of the technocratic state as the intricacies of the technology employed becomes more complex and requires more direct knowledge of how to keep it under control. The very nature of a meritocratic system like this is the eventual consolidation of the merits of individuals into one set of people, as we have seen in all the major forms of society that we have recorded that had a meritocratic system.

I find it slightly funny that an Ancom is against the skipping of socialism to communism
The technology is coming either way, we just want to make the best out of it
This argument comes from a very Bourgeois/feudal understanding of powerstructures. In current and past political elites it was expected that the child would be the next to rule to preserve an already existing elite. But even in a non Communist state like the USSR there were very few cases of such practices. If there was heredetry rule , such as in NK or almost in Romania, this stemmed from the threat of overthrowal from inside or outside forces. The ruling elite was already part of the nepotistic revisionism

Attached: s0574_fl0020_id49397.jpg (1050x842, 193.67K)

Ancoms, or at least myself, am against having a transitional state from capitalism to communism, but to radically different ends than what you have prescribed in technocracy. We want socialism as a part of society and as the main way we quickly achieve communism in tandem with the destruction of the state.
There lies the heart of the issue itself, the idea that as technology itself grows more advanced and human-like with growing capabilities for thought, it should be used as a end rather than a means. The technological revolution will ensure that in time we will have nearly self-automated production, but that production should not be overseen by any single set of individuals even as a meritocratic or elected position, but instead it should be collectively operated by the workers themselves to the ends that they desire, and society should still be organized around the primacy of labor itself rather than the growth of technology and it's application. Until the machinery can achieve human-like sapience (in which case we should imminently declare it as an equal), it should exist subservient to the workers themselves, another tool in the large toolbox of the noble laborer.
And I am willing to admit that my fear of a hereditary state might be ill-founded and that nepotism might well be abolished in technocracy, especially with open availability of higher learning for all and training courses for such positions, but I still believe direct democracy to be the best way to represent the interests of the workers, which should be the organizational basis of society.

Just for some clarification: How do you stand to a Cockshottist planned economy?

I am not against the idea of cybernetic assistance in the economy itself, it can be useful for a lot of things especially for planning efficient distribution of resources and by extension cutting down on the labor needed overall in society. I wouldn't want a total AI planned economy though, since that disenfranchises workers from the process.

In many ways an admministration AI would not really differ from that, only that instead of ressources human would be allocated, which would (though to a smaller degree) already happen under Cockshottist Economics.
One thing you should never forget is that, as long as we don't explicitly want the AI to be sentient, it won't be. We are at this point still completly in control of our advancements, and AI is not AI.
A good example would be a smart toaster. Its job is to make toast to your liking. If you tell it how you like your toast it will try to achive this state as efficient in quality as reasonable. This toaster to some degree is an Artifficial Intelligence, but you woudn't expect a toaster skynet roasting humanity into history.
Generel purpose AI is a whole different thing, that in itself is beyond most of human comprehension.
The question in itself boils down on how far we go with AI, and how it will affect the people living with it, but i rather at least try to advance and see what happens then falling in the deepest pit of a Landian Dystopia.
The reaction will not shy away from any tool of suppression, so we shouldn't shy away from any tools against it.

He does have interesting ideas.
Indeed should I ever find myself in some sort of socialist state, I would hope that state would implement many of his ideas.

However his ideas have little to no relevancy to Technocracy proper.
Indeed I personally found TaNS to be a slog to get through; The section on democracy in particular was utterly cringe inducing.

Attached: 1086556_orig.jpg (800x600, 49.93K)

they had good taste in cars at least

singapore + genetic engineering = godlike