So what exactly is wrong with technocracy?

So what exactly is wrong with technocracy?

I don't know about you guys, but where I live most people are fucking idiots. I can't imagine living under a council of these mouth breathers calling the shots

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Technocracy would have the most capable people running it (in theory) - it sounds like you're shitting on something more like decentralised socialism.

What do you think communism is?

any system that relies on a professional bureaucracy ends up being rife with corruption

Yes I'm talking about libertarian socialists

MLs pls go, your dead ideology is no longer relevant

not to defend ML but how libertarian socialism any more relevant? Most of the large parties and armed struggles are either ML or maoist. LibSocs only really have rojava and chiapas.

It's a power fantasy for nerds who honestly think being able to program a computer qualifies them to lead a country. Haven't you ever heard of the Halo Effect? Related concept that explains why people who get recently promoted end up being demoted or fired afterward; if you take an engineer and he's good at fixing machines a company promotes him to lead an office to design new products or do desk work, and he fucking sucks at it. Obvious question is why? He was so good at fixing machines, surely he's good at designing new ones or handling paperwork related to them? No. All that it mean, is that he's good at fixing shit. It doesn't mean anything other than that. If you train to be able to fix something, you will only ever be able to get better at fixing said machine, this experience does not translate into creativity or being able to write better.

In that same vein, just because you're good at fixing, programming, or designing a wide variety of technology, doesn't mean you know shit about politics or their management.

Absolutely nothing.

Especially if you can remake education so people become actually competent in a variety of disciplines, not the capitalist "careerism" that boxes people in narrow fields of study.

Technocracy leads to corruption; otherwise faultless.

Firstly, Technocracy isn't just "put smart people in charge". Even if it was, it still wouldn't be good, because if you've ever known engineers or math nerds they tend to be discompassionate libertarian types who project their desires for an neat, orderly, rational world onto messy, chaotic, emotional human beings. So you have to decide what kind of smart people are supposed to rule over us, and how to identify/qualify them. And at this point your entire theory is basically just "Why don't we just make a government out of people who are good at government" which is a borderline-retarded level of naivete. I wonder why nobody's ever tried just making government good?
Anyway, in practice, Technocracy really means elevating an educated professional class to rule over us, filled with its equal share of incompetent, corrupt, and evil people, which inevitably puts its own class interest ahead of the interests of the people as a whole.

Read Cockshott Anarchild.

idiots like howard scott unironically support it. that should be enough of a red flag for any sane being to be highly critical of technocracy.

oh and by howard scott i mean the insufferable tripfag going by that name

Communism cannot be technocratic because communism is precisely about having a society no longer dictated by productivity as automated subject. Technocracy, in its most basic form, implies the leading of society by technology. We as such already live, to various degrees, under a technocracy (domesticated proletariat, superfluous/symbolic bourgeoisie). This goes beyond pre-technocratic capitalism, in which indeed capital was long-automated as subject, but we could still interact with it and recognize ourselves as more than just a mystified cog. You don't need to be a humanist to understand that the technocratic angle is fundamentally rooted in a productivistic perspective on the state of things. However, bureaucracy is not synonymous to technocratic, and I think that may be desirable, in the same sense Zizek and to a certian extent Lenin thought it could be, both for communism the movement and communism the mode of production.

It's fine to have specialist direct technical matters, but the goals, then ends to which techniques, technology, industries, etc. are directed, need to be determined democratically. A technocracy is not just management of this and that by technocrats, but them deciding the entire direction and form of society.
It's one thing to ask a management specialist to set up a method of producing fridges for everyone, but a wholly different matter to have him decide: should all people really have fridges etc.?

All technocrats I've ever met can only think of themselves and have been insufferable egotistic faggots. Also, putting STEMlords in charge of society can only lead to disaster (i.e. all the terrible wild ideas that come from Silicon Valley nerds).

We must respect the scientists for their merits and achievements, but in order to prevent them from corrupting their own high moral and intellectual standards, they should be granted no special muh privileges and no rights other than those possessed by everyone – for example, the liberty to express their convictions, thought, and knowledge. Neither they nor any other special group should be given power over others. He who is given power will inevitably become an oppressor and exploiter of society.

Mikhail Bakunin 1873
Statism and Anarchy

Your job is no indication of capability to lead or act as a delegate for the people. Do you want Ben Carson, a retard who believes the pyramids were offerings to Jesus, to have say over the medical field, because he's a neurosurgeon? What the more dictatorial forms of technocracy will result in is a class dictatorship acting entirely in its own interests at the expense of most others.

Daily reminder that the party of the Soviet Union was mostly full of engineers, scientists and skilled mathematicians, yet it did not stop them from making completely irrational, detrimental and self-serving decisions, like the soft market reforms of '65 and refusal to enact any form of computerization or automation that would benefit the population at large, but put their work at risk.

( ( (Technocracy) ) )

Being a Technocrat doesn't qualify you to be the leader of a country.

Everybody wants to be a technocrat, nobody wants to be a prole.

Jesus built my hotrod.

The robots will be our proles.

Then whoever programmes the machines basically owns the means of production.

...

Why don't you give me an actual argument instead of reading some obscure author's 300-page doorstopper, Mr. Shitpost? Besides, I'm right. Take your halo effect and shoe it up your ass, third shelf to the left.

wtf I love technocracy now

...

lol

technocrats are universally technofetishists and control freaks who are triggered by the existence of subjectivities other than their own.

Amazon should count partly because of the Marketplace.

Doubleplusunbad, brother. Praise Scott.

???

well… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

i think it is important to point out that in a socialist society, scientific education would be more accessible,
(particularly if through the vast means of production aviliable to society, we shorten the working day)

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
this book is somewhat related to this topic

also imagine the work quality of scientists who enter into science, not for the love of knowledge but for the love of power