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.
But is the idea of socialism (and of course by extension communism) not ultimately to eliminate scarcity?
Jose Richardson
I just personally don't like the whole 50's America stuff.
Asher Cooper
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.
Howard Scott was anything but a Utopian, he’s more like what liberals thinks Stalin is.
Zachary Price
"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?"
Hudson Bennett
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.
