Due to the recent popularity of members of this board creating videos on youtube.
I was inspired to create my own.
As such, I have just uploaded my first video:
youtube.com
Given the interest and discussions on the topic of Technocracy that this board has historically enjoyed, I'm sure their are those of you that will enjoy it.
Other urls found in this thread:
...
It is mostly a remake of an old Technocracy video from 1980.
I just replaced the parts that focus on the presenter with stock footage related to the topic at hand.
Given that the general level of video quality from members of this board equates to talking into a grainy webcam.
I think that it is ok.
Really it is the audio that I have the most problems with.
...
I would refute this video if there were more than two technocrats in the world.
I like how you made a tribute to the original by having the same stutter.
I will post something more tonight, maybe.
As socialists, we want to WORK, not technology. Technology will spell the end of mankind, just look at the atomic bomb. A true Leftist would favor work over a robot taking over his job and making him unemployed. We in the labor movement need to work really really hard, we cannot become lazy and let robots take our jobs. Fuck off with your naive techno-utopian jackassery, and get your lazy ass off your couch and go to work!
Nice bait.
As a communist, I want FALC.
Go to the Amish, protestant.
That's enough technocrats to rule.
Nice b8, m8
8/8
I like the vid, I haven't read much about technocracy
Glad to hear it.
As always, more information regarding Technocracy can be found on >>>/urbanate/ .
If you have any questions or video ideas, I would be happy to address them.
Interesting video, although i have a few questions about your, ehm, "plan" for australia.
You proposed this map. Your argument was that these "channals" would provide the energy needs of the continent, while also allowing mass ship transport and salt-water irrigation. The giant lake also supposedly provides great irrigation by evaporation etc. Now, looking at the heightmap posted here here, i see a minor issue. The place you want to build your lake is situated massively high. How exactly are you planning to get all the water into that lake, while also using said lake to generate enough energy? Basic physics tells me this isn't possible. Either you use energy to pump obscene amounts of sea waters across and up an entire continent, or you have to excavate a lake and canals a few kilometres into the ground, which to be honest, is simply not possible. What do you think about this?
As for ships vs trains, i have my doubts since the ship would have to fight its way upstream. And since ships wouldn't have the benefit of jumbo-size in man-made canals as on sea, I doubt it will be more efficient than trains, especially if you can use some engineering to streamline the, lets be honest, un-aerodynamic freight wagons we have today. Even just having covers on car carts would reduce drag by a lot. A train would also have the added benefit of being much easier to operate over long distances. A pretty rudimentary AI can operate a freight train, whereas guiding a boat is much harder.
Also, you better eradicate mosquitoes if you want to turn half of Australia into a swamp. I think your hellhole is already bad enough without malaria.
...
The only technocrat worth paying attention to is the computer-God Alpha 60 from Jean-Luc Godard's 1965 fim Alphaville, because that's one cool movie.
ftfy
Futurism is a religion these days.
NO SPACE TRAVEL TILL WE'RE ALL FUCKING FED.
Yet another, supress the old boss put me there instead and with the use of de jour I will solve all problems, honest.
-Charismatic dictator/oligarchy
-DA FRI MURKET AND MUH NAP
-SCIENCE-FICTION uber-nerds with SCI-FI technology (And pretentiousness)
-MUH OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT GOD FOR WHOM I SPEAK
-MUH OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT A-I THAT I SHALL DEVELOP(once I figure this java thing)
…
Also, that pesky resource allocation problem of the now is so unimportant in the face of this utopia I promise.
Forget solving the actual real problems of the now and get going on giving me all the power.
Keep your sight on the horizon,plebian.
WHY NOT BOTH, TANKIE????
WHY NOT BOTH?
YES WE CAN!
(I'll listen to the video after I finish "Working")
This! Technology is for loser nerds.
...
Also they're probably virgins too because all they do is waste their time reading geeky textbooks and writing goofy math proofs. Get a REAL job so you can be a dignified proletariat and not some pretentious techno-geek. Damned utopian hippies!
so technocracy wants to reduce economic imbalance, poverty, inequality, and alienation, it seems that technocracy it's just another way to name communism to those who still belive in the turd position…
I have a job.
Can I still want transdimentional travel?
All these "movements" are communism. They just don't want to be called communism.
Also, by avoiding to be called and not considering socialism, they are open to the same traps that socialists fell in.
What about Stalinism, technocrats?
What about Nomenclature?
Techno-priests?
What about it???? How do you avoid it?
I also fully agree and congratulate you with your use of the term "plebeian" and name-calling in general to completely dismiss the ideas of those damned techno-geeks. We as the true, proud proletarian socialists must maintain these divisions in our discourse through ad hominem attacks and maintain our rigid allegiance to specific economic theories and philosophies and never think critically. Anyone who challenges these notions is a plebian!
Transhumanists and technocrats are just a bunch of naive, idealist hippies who don't even want to work. That's why they think their solutions go a little beyond socialism.
Comrade Vladimir Lenin famously said "He who does not work shall not eat." Therefore that socioeconomic view must be set in stone in the Lefist movement and must never be challenged under any circumstances because Lenin is always right. Only a Plebeian would think otherwise.
I forgot to applaud you for this hyper reductionist douchebaggery that's prevalent in imageboard culture by reducing ideas down to "muh [noun]" (which by the way is always the right thing to do, because if the majority of the people do it and like it, it must be right), it's a very intelligent way of comprehension and communication.
i don't actually think that they're THAT idealists; i mean, there are some projects that may produce true automation in the economy, maybe it would be intelligent to better hear them.
who knows, maybe they're right and in the future humans wouldn't need to work.
… Don't go fullMaotist.
Don't be a faggot.
We work to create a better world. To be free from the bonds of work.
Sure, does not eat. But if there is no need to work, why work?
If there is need to work, why not share the work?
Less workhours, more automation, more people.
THIS IS THE WAY FORWARD!
SUFICIENT PAY FOR LESS WORK!
NOONE WORKS MORE THAN NEEDED!
As I stated in the video, it is only a conceptual map.
Its purpose is to demonstrate the overall plan in an easily understandable manner, not get into specifics.
That depends on the topography of a given area.
For example.
Getting past the great dividing range will require a tunnel for the canal through the mountains.
I chose not to include it in my video.
But, the rational for a reliance on water based transport is found in the attached webm.
The better part of northern Australia is already dominated by swamps, they get on ok.
Regardless, the policy of the Technate would be the extermination of pest animals.
Well the fact that Technocracy rejects the better part of Marxist theory, is opposed to democracy and never seeks to establish a decentralized system of workers councils would preclude it from being a form of Communism.
> Howard_Scott, i understand how you choose the optimal product to produce, but how do you choose how much to produce in relationship to the other products that need to be produced?
> That comes down to the 24 hour inventory control. If the stock of a product is projected to lower beyond a certain threshold (the exact amount will depend on the product), a new production run ticket will be created an sent to the factory most capable of manufacturing the product.
> yes but that assumes that you have the resources available
> what if you have to choose between 2 products as to what is more important
> the fact that you would replenish stock if possible is common sense, thats also done now
> well that choice would come down to comparing the utility value of the items and the remaining stock on hands. For example food would normally take precident over most things, but if there is a healthy stockpile of food, the other item will be manufactured.
> but how does one establish its use value then?
A very large number of factors have to be considered when the utility value of an item is calculated.
How much stock is already on hand?
Are any factories already tooled to produce it?
How large is the demand?
Is it a vital commodity (food, water etc)?
How resource intensive is it to produce?
How long will it take to produce?
Is the existing transport capacity capable of moving the stock to were it needs to go?
Once such questions are answered, one only has to compare it to the results of another item to see which takes production precedence.
Wouldn't a simulated market achieve somewhat the same, assuming all enterprises are run collectively? The price affects the demand, availability, cost to produce, time to produce, ability to produce and ability to transport to any given location.
Let me give you some examples.
In a simulated market, all items are threaten according to their oneness, IE some variant of a biscuit has a different ID than another, but all biscuits type A made by some company x are equal, thus they are under the same ID.
The price is determined by how much demand there was from the factory and how much supply there was from the factory, or whereever it is produced. All places where labour (mechanical of human) is done to make commodities (goods, services) are approached this way.
All means of production are owned collectively by society/the state (or whatever you want to call it) and produce to achieve the best cost efficiency, being marginal cost == price set by market system.
For example, a bakery makes bread. Customers buy bread. If the supply of bread made by the bakery, following the above rules, does not statisfy the demand of the customers, the price will be increased by the market system. This will both decrease the demand, and increase the amount the bakery can produce. If the demand for the bread is lower, the price will be lowered. This will mean that the demand will increase, and the amount of bread that can be made will decrease. Over several iterations, this will result in the market price being in a perfect equilibrium with the production capacity, when taking into account the overall demand of society, the availability of all resources and the costs of production.
Now lets scale this up a bit. A forge would make iron bars and sell it at the price set by the market. This price is set the same way as any other. 2 Different factories both want to buy iron bars to produce their products. The demand will increase and the price and production will balance out to a new, efficient equilibrium, allowing both factories to buy the iron bars in proportion to their funds.
In turn, their funds depend entirely on how much society needs their products. If almost noone wants their product, their price would drop, their production amount would drop. Due to their production dropping, the amount of iron bars they need also drops, causing the price in the iron mine to decrease, allowing the other factory to buy more iron for less money, making their marginal cost drop and thus their production increases, meaning that their prices will drop.
In the end, all demand in this system will depend on the buying patterns of society. Transport costs are accounted for, vitality is accounted for (since people will always choose to buy vital products over non-vitals), scarcity of resources is accounted for, demand and supply is accounted for and production time is accounted for. This system even allows for competition between different companies, if wished for, such as different variations of food items, or efficient production of homogenous goods.
This system has several large advantages over the current market system. For one, the workers operate the means of production, but no profit it made. All workers get a normal wage, which can be limited between two extremes by law. This assures workers get roughly the same amount of buying power, assuring that the simulated market accurately reflects the wishes of all of society, proportionately.
In addition to this, modifiers can be enacted on the prices, making prices artificially higher in some products to account for externalities such as environmental damage and whatnot.
Lastly, the state can (and must) put a tax/profit margin on each workplace, as a percentage of the *added value*. This money is then used to pay social dividends to all members of society, levelling the incomes even more and allowing members of society to easily bridge or altogether forgo employment if they need or wish to do so. The incentive of extra pay from a job will ensure that there will be people working in the production jobs.
The other part of this profit margin is then used by a (in my case) democratic body which uses this money to expand the capital of society in accordance of the wishes of society. If people wish for certain products to become cheaper, the money will be invested in increasing the capacity of those sectors, and increasing efficiency. One could also choose for a self-investment percentage to all workplaces to allow them to grow by themselves.
The hight of this profit percentage will depend on what society deems more important. A lower percentage means that prices will be cheaper, but a higher percentage means part of societies produce is used to create new capital, meaning, in the short term, higher prices.