Howard Scott and the Technocracy Movement

Why be a Technocrat and research boring stuff like how shit is produced and what resources are there when you can be a super cool, epic, and totally revolutionary academic who writes Marxist analysis of My Little Pony?

...

Counterpoint: Yer a faget.

Technocracy is the application of scientific principles to the economic, political and social spheres.
Rather then being a philosophy in-and-of-itself, Technocracy is the logical extension of staunch utilitarianism and positivism applied to societies that have achieved a high energy state.

Technocracy was the largest North American social movement of the 30s.
For a time, it really did look as if Technocracy was going to be the system to rescue the American people from the depths of the depression.
Naturally the agents of the status quo panicked and did their best to suppress the movement; Even immortalising Howard Scott himself in the wonderful work of status quo propaganda 'It could happen here'.

Additionally, from the Technocratic perspective, it is the Marxists that fail to truly endanger the system we suffer under.
Technocracy recognises that the true agent of suffering in the world is scarcity and the systems built to manage scarcity, of with being capitalism simply one form.
From this perspective Technocracy can recognise Marxism for what it is, the brother of capitalism, born from the same parent only wearing red to differentiate it.
Even from the very first day of the Socialist revolution in Russia, Technocrats have always considered the Marxists to be overly emotional stooges that cannot see the forest through the trees.

The Capitalists would sell bread to those that could afford it.
The Socialists would share the bread with the wretched in the gutter.
The Technocrats would build another bread factory so that everyone could have as much bread as they damn well wanted.

If one is a 'Socialist' or 'Marxist', they are by simple definition not Technocrats.
While Socialism and Technocracy may have similar humanitarian sympathies, they are as compatible as oil and water.Sadly, Zig Forums is filled with "Socialists" who, as a group, are endlessly devoted to wasting their time doing anything other than being a Marxist

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

Join COCKSHOTT GANG or have fun playing in the dustbin of history.

Attached: cockshott.png (837x803, 113.58K)

The only thing that makes me hyper fucking butthurt about technocrats is their aesthetics and the air about them.
There's something off about technocrats and technocracy but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Seems like a good idea though.

Can you expand on this? I don't see why the socialists wouldn't build the factory.

Question, the political system of a Technocracy: how does it prevent itself become ossified like the bureaucracies of the eastern bloc.

Truly a brilliant take.

That's utter bullshit. Marxism is explicitly a scientific approach to understanding society and the world as a whole through materialism. Add in socialist cybernetics and there's no reason socialists wouldn't also build a new factory.

Cockshott is an irrelevancy with silly, unworkable ideas.
Once this site eventually dies (and it will sooner or later), his works will be quickly forgotten.

From where I'm standing now, it seems that non-idpol socialism has been reduced to the dustbin of history.

Would you care to elaborate on this?
I have honestly never come across anyone seriously criticise the aesthetics of Technocracy.

Personally I love the aesthetic elements of it.
All very smart, ordered and military.
Delightfully modernist.

You seem to have misunderstood me.
What I'm comparing is the interests and focus of the various ideologies.

Capitalists only see scarcity of a given resource (in this case bread) as a means for personal enrichment at the expense of the wider community.
Socialists see a limited resource as something that should be carefully managed and shared to ensure the most equitable distribution of the resource possible.
Technocrats see the fact that this scarcity itself exists as the problem and addresses this by eliminating the scarcity, rather then simply managing it as per the Capitalists and Socialists.

Technocracy is applied science, explicitly making use of physics, chemistry and other such disciplines to understand human civilisation as a function of energy usage.
This is the reason why ~75% of the Technocracy Study Guide is composed of lessons in science (with a focus on physics and energy), as an understanding of such scientific concepts is a requirement for understanding the Technocratic view of history and society; Science and Technocracy are linked at a fundamental level.

Attached: tu1942.jpg (800x564, 65.2K)

isn't howard scott that really bad autist

Attached: FB_IMG_1541615853541.jpg (672x737, 78.67K)

But is the idea of socialism (and of course by extension communism) not ultimately to eliminate scarcity?

I just personally don't like the whole 50's America stuff.

Technocracy has nothing to do with Nick Land or any form of fascism.
But then, 'fascism' has been reduced to little more then the favoured snarl word of the anarchists, so I am shouting into the wind on this topic.

Socialists see the world as a matter of scarcity management, just as the capitalists do; Simply disagreeing over how it should be managed.
I do not deny that some modern day Socialists do give lip service to the idea of some post-scarcity socialist state existing in the far future, however it is exactly that - lip service.
The fundamental way that Socialists see and intend to ultimately organise society is just scarcity management with a focus on an equitable distribution of limited resources.

Technocrats see scarcity as a fundamental adversary to be overcome, not managed.
This is why Technocracy requires society to be organised in a very rigid, hierarchical way: Maximum efficiency -> Maximum production -> Maximum abundance.
Socialists only intend to organise society in such a manner as to maximise what they consider material/social equality and/or liberty; This is why post-scarcity with modern technology is only possible with Technocracy, Socialists only being able to achieve it with Star Trek styled energy to matter machines.

Technocratic aesthetics are actually rooted in the American modernism of the 30s and 40s; With its military and utilitarian elements uniquely pronounced.
Such aesthetic sensibilities can be mostly found in films/videos produced by the American military during/in the decade after WW2.

Just compare some of the aesthetic elements found in these two videos:
youtube.com/watch?v=4lH28OfEJXI
youtube.com/watch?v=D7lsKJZ1mgs

With the aesthetic elements found in this video by Technocracy Inc:
youtube.com/watch?v=pDX9dyjqimA

Attached: DSCN0812.jpg (800x600 51.42 KB, 152.16K)

Howard Scott was anything but a Utopian, he’s more like what liberals thinks Stalin is.

"Howard Scott Killed 100 Million Americans and sent everyone with more an 1 car to a Technocracy Inc. Assisted Rehabilitation Center. Still think Technocracy is cool?"

You think his ideas are only popular on here? His ideas are gaining popularity around the world, especially in China apparently, whereas technocracy only has a following of autists on the internet.

Attached: 36821C88-972C-404D-A7EA-6C6631DD0576.png (1139x690, 1.08M)

Cause the retrofuturist aesthetic looks tacky today

Which makes them utopian morons. By rejecting scarcity as an inevitable part of living in a finite, material universe they're being completely idealistic in their goals. There are a finite number of resources. There is a finite amount of labor power. There is a finite amount of energy. No matter how efficient you make your machines, post-scarcity abundance of everything is physically impossible without "technology" that is indistinguishable from magic. Even WITH Star Trek styled energy-to-matter machines, you would still need to manage the scarcity of whatever energy source is used to power the machines and the finite input and output of the machines. Praying at the altar for technology to save us from scarcity is just cornucopian nonsense.

How anyone can say that with a straight face baffles me. It's like a caricature of a dystopian megacorp, except it's for real.

The Technocrats wanted to brand themselves outside of politics (which was stupid) so that’s why they didn’t create a Technocratic Party.

You mean "It can't happen here"?
I thought that was about Huey Long.

fuck thermodynamics - made by technocrat gang
it's funny cause cockshott's work on econophysics actually shows sustainable post-scarcity being possible but cockshott sucks cause he's not american :^(

So from what I understand, the core message of the Technocracy Movement is that politics are outdated and irrelevant and we need "technological solutions" to social problems, with the whole society under the enlightened rule of engineers and scientists. So in other words, it's basically just Radical Centrism (tm) for STEMfags and silicon valley freaks.

I think it is quite charming.

Obviously true post-scarcity is an impossibility; That is why it is broadly accepted in such circles that whenever one refers to 'post-scarcity', they are referring to a system that is able to eliminate scarcity at the micro scale and not a system that is able to change the nature of the universe.
The very fact that I would have to explain this, is due to what I can only hope is empty pedantry on your part.

Additionally, there is no 'praying at the alter of Technology' in Technocracy.
Technocracy is chiefly concerned with energy management and organisation; Technology is of tertiary concern at best.

Technocracy is a non-democratic ideology that does not really intend to take power via some referendum or other democratic nonsense.
As such, it would have been extremely hypocritical to have to have formed a political party and participated in elections.

However because formal organisation of the movement was required, incorporating as a non-profit was a logical move.

Yes, clearly that is what I'm referring too.
While the work is indeed chiefly about some ridiculous, fanciful version of Long.
Howard Scott (as another political enemy FDR) is mentioned by name as one of the regimes leading collaborators, personally invited to help assist in the reconstruction of America.

It has been explicitly mentioned several times in this thread that Technocracy has nothing to do with engineers and scientists ruling society.
If you cannot be bothered to read a small handful of posts regarding this, then your wilful ignorance stands as a remarkable condemnation of any political system that would dare enfranchise you.

Attached: 5441040605_72f12def1d_o.jpg (660x480, 65.78K)

I have yet to a see a single concrete explanation of "real technocracy" in this thread besides some vague platitudes about the scientific management of society and eliminating scarcity (along with some downright nuclear takes on "political solutions"). It is a completely substance-less ideology with no revolutionary potential, alive only in the minds of a few autistic STEMfags on the internet with a toddler's conception of Marxism. Technocracy is dead and buried, exactly where it belongs.

Then permit me to explain what Technocracy truly is.

Any ideology represents interests of some specific group. This group defines and shapes ideology through their desires (as there is no way for ideas to get support, other than by being useful to someone). Exact excuses often vary and do not define the essence of ideology (even if there is nominal difference).

Consequently, we must look at the people who are behind Technocracy, at their problems and interests. And we will see that at it's core, it is ideology of industrial "labour aristocracy" (qualified specialists who possess enough education/skills to make them Petit-Bourgeois, even if they are often paid - de jure, not de facto - as wage-workers).

The proverb "if all you have is hammer, every problem looks like a nail" applies here in full: Technocracy (or, should I say, "people who constitute basis of Technocracy") attempts to present qualities possessed by said industrial "labour aristocracy" as solution to everything. Similarly, qualities not possessed by them are treated as something irrelevant to solution or even harmful. Worldview of Technocracy is shaped by those two influences.

This is why class struggle tends to be overlooked by Technocrats of all shapes (even those who pretend to be Marxist): Petit-Bourgeois intellectuals are neither Capitalists nor Proletariat. They don't care about class struggle and question of ownership is not important to them.

This is why we constantly get attempts to resurrect "objective use-value" (as Petit-Bourgeois intellectuals don't want unwashed masses constantly defining and redefining it, this is nothing but infringement upon the territory said intellectuals want to personally control).

This is why usefulness has to be expressed only through physical goods (said industrial labour aristocracy is not involved in service sector and deals with production of material goods).

And so on, and so forth.

Attached: class interests.jpg (1446x1043, 424.84K)

Why are you talking about Cockshott as irrelevant and unworkable when you're a fucking Technocrat? It's a meme-tier ideology that can't be realized as it's entirely designed by intelligentsia (which is unable to hold power by itself)
Cockshott's work on econophyiscs should be right up your alley if you didn't have a stick up your ass about anything you consider "tainted" by socialism.

Attached: cybersyn.jpg (764x514, 152.78K)

...

The eternal Technocrat is just the STEMlord realising it's final form

Unless you can acknowledge energy as finite and manage its SCARCITY, your meme ideology will fail.

Technocracy = STEM + Planing

is singapore technocratic? either way fact summary:
it has a history of deporting and jailing leftist activist
90% public housing
private business heavily regulated, banned in some cases
State Owned Enterprises (SOE) and Soveign Wealth Funds that are paid by taxpayer and bring in money for the nation
aesthetic as FUCK, srs look it up man
only ONE tiny ass park square where LGBTQ+ degnerates are allowed to protest
lowest tax rate of all developed nations
top ~5 in almost every important economic and development indexes
recovered from asian financial crises in less than a year
esp if you compare performance vs tax, this BTFOs all the nordic countries, even Norway who has a giant oil reserve

Attached: Expanding-Brain.jpg (857x1202, 107.05K)

NrX love singapore.

it also has a rotating system where the President is Chinese for one term, Malay for another term, and Indian for the third

Sounds like state capitalism to me

sauce?

There's a video where he says if Towards a New Socialism keeps getting translated into Mandarin the CCP might ban him from China

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (377x450, 327.8K)

imagine what a GCPR would be like now that we have the internet

it's also a world famous port, maybe that is a little bit more important than the one park for "degenerates" to protest, polyp

Special schizophrenic blend of 11 state capitalist herbs and spices.

Wasn't that what Yugoslavia did?

Not sure

You forgot the + commodity production + class collaborationism + (totally not, honest!) Wage Labour lmfao

Technocracy is basically what China is.
it's a hereditary monarchy but instead of god-given right (which doesn't work because literally everyone there is Atheist) they justify their despotism with math and science.
not that I see anything wrong with it inherently, just that it doesn't immediately solve issues like the State and all the negative attributes that come with it.

No it’s not. Xi’s father was not the previous leader. Wtf are you talking about?

his father was propaganda chief. most people who have party membership inherited it.

Proof?

nothing really of importance

technology does more to contribute to consumerism, selfishness, greed, degradation of human relations, etc

abolishing technology would be a road to peace.

chinese-leaders.org/xi-zhongxun/