Technocracy / Democratic Technocracy. Discuss. (Picture is the proposed work schedule, 4 hour shifts. 4 days on, 3 days off.)
Basic concepts:
- Pure Technocracy - Qualified scientists and engineers run the country.
- Democratic Technocracy - similar to how US works now, people are elected to office and work with the scientists and engineers and all that to implement the will of the people. Prevents one of the larger downfalls of Technocracy - Fascism.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
twitter.com
I don't mean this in a "but what about human nature" way, it's a genuine question
What about elitism? In the past I've considered the benefits of technocracy, mainly experts doing what they think is best, but often so called experts are biased. Mainstream economics in point.
If it's genuinely democratic it's not going to look much like the current USA. What you seem to be describing here is just a "democratic" society run on meritocracy. How genuinely democratic it is depends on whether it is socialist or not; you cannot have genuine democracy in class society. Of course if it was genuinely democratic, i.e. it was a socialist democracy, then it would by its nature be a meritocratic society in terms of the division of labour, and as such those most qualified would be elected to offices as you describe.
Human beings spend a very large amount of their life mastering a single trade or set of trades - to ask them to do another is to in essence ask for them to do something they are thoroughly unqualified for.
The best hope we can have is for artificial intelligence to reach a point where it can match or outdo human logic and reasoning at which point it should take the role of ordering society so long as it can be proven to be unbiased
Who gives them qualification? The academia, that is, themselves?
I studied politics and history.
The departments were made up of post modernist assholes.
I'd hate to see what other nonsense was being pushed onto graduates in other fields.
Well it is rather surprising to find someone other then me starting a thread on Technocracy.
It is just unfortunate that you seem to lack any real understanding (beyond what I assume you gathers out of a dictionary or wiki page) of Technocracy.
Correct.
I'm impressed that you you found once piece of correct information on Technocracy.
That is Veblenism, not Technocracy.
At its most basic level, the Technocracy organisational method assigns people to the positions that they are more qualified for.
For instance a chemist would bot be assigned a position as an agricultural administrator or military general.
However he may be assigned to a role (suited to his technical ability/skill set) within the research sequence.
That is an oxymoron.
Democracy and Technocracy are fundamentally incomparable.
You seem to have a rather strange definition of Fascism.
As a Technate would not organise itself along corporatist lines, it is fundamentally incapable of being Fascist while still being a Technocratic state.
If anyone would like to learn more about Technocracy, I encourage you to visit >>>/urbanate/
Additionally I would be happy to answer any questions on the subject that anyone may have.
...
...
...
I'm impressed that someone saved these.
I'm net a technocrat but they're some interesting ideas.
I'm glad that they interest you.
If you are interested in learning more, I have just started a youtube channel on the topic of Technocracy and the MTM:
youtube.com
Not that guy, but I just wanted to say this channel is pretty good. You should push this more and become part of the Holla Forums youtube channel club
subscribed
U.S. policy is pretty anti-scientific.
Climate change denialism is strongest in the US contrary to scientists warning them about climate change for decades.
Pure Technocracy is bullshit. Why should scientists and engineers run the country? Scientists and engineers are only qualified in science and engineering, not in politics.
That's as idiotic as Trump running for president claiming him being a successful businessman would qualify him for the job.
Democratic Technocracy slightly better, but also unnecessary, because a wise ruler/governing party will heed the advice of any expert, not just scientists and engineers, but also philosophers, sociologists, etc.
Why restrict the council of expertise to scientists and engineers?
I'm also opposed to democracy, because the demos is stupid and doesn't vote for the most qualified leader, but usually only the most charismatic. They demos doesn't look at who is making the best arguments in fields they don't know anything about anyway, but who seems the most trustworthy. Thus why Trump can gain so much support by making zero concrete policy proposals and just talking shit all day.
China's system is the best.
someone post the bakunin quote
After having watched that video. Another reason why technocracy sucks is that pure technological functionality isn't everything for example when it comes to city planning. Technocrats have a tendency to completely neglect the role that art and aesthetics play for human well-being.
...
you are the absolute worst namefag on this board i swear
Howard pls go
Neither. I choose communism. Technocrats belong on Holla Forums.
this is the reason why no one can take anarchists seriously, they spout shit like this and are comparable to tankies with their autism
Howard, can people choose to work longer shifts?
4 Hours seems hardly anything to get stuff done when looking at mental jobs that can't be efficiently handed over after a few hours.
Howard_Scott literally wants to kill all "genetic degenerates" tho.
Technocracy is pretty fucking elitistic authoritarian bullshit based on a fetish for robots and a ill-defined notion of efficiency for the sake of efficiency (for the sake of nothing).
I have no qualms about calling them out on their idiotic masturbation fantasy, this is the kind of shit you should grow out of once you finish junior high and stop watching Zeitgeist.
I didn't notice that while good capitalism aims to reduce the price of goods, it reduces wages too.
Technocrats are reactionaries who promotes a form of fascism and openly promotes extremely reactionary social and economic views. And you think they belong here? Do you know what this board is about?
I personally don't give a shit if statecuck retards and pseudo-leftist fascists like you don't take me seriously. Anarchism is the only branch of contemporary radical leftism that is serious about achieving communism, hence why the majority of this board identify as anarchists or some variant thereof. You're the minority here, and since you don't take the majority of this board seriously, perhaps you should fuck off to a place that better suits you.
Don't be retarded, comrade. They're not strict leftists but they're definitely not Holla Forumsyps.
That's because there is only 2 of them in the world.
They're even less committed to leftism than Nazbols, and Nazbols are basically just Russian Useful Idiotites. How are technocrats not Holla Forumsacks? I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of Holla Forumsacks either promote or would support some form of technocracy.
Previous quasi-technocratic states (Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, etc.) should tell you all you need to know.
Yes.
4 hours is only the amount that the majority of citizens will have to work.
Some functions will require people to work for 6, 8 or 12+ hours at a time.
The citizens performing these functions will be rewarded with the equivalent amount of bonus time off work, on top of the time they were already guaranteed.
Additionally, some functions may not have a standard shift time at all.
Military and high level administration functions for example will simply work as needed.
Such positions would be more like lifestyles.
My position is two fold:
1) It is inefficient to attempt to support those that are unable to fully function within society.
By eliminating such drains on both medical and physiological resources, society would be better able to support those that are best able to contribute to it.
On top of all of the liberated resources.
Just think of what a boon such a program would be to people that required organ transplants, blood transfusions or housing.
2) It is both unethical and harmful to society to allow those with genetic disabilities to breed.
The MTM has a number of plans to ensure that only those that are genetically healthy are able to procreate.
I would challenge you to provide an example of me ever using such a term.
I would ask that you educate yourself on a topic before attempting to speak about it with any authority.
Maximum centralization -> Maximum efficiency -> Maximum production -> Maximum abundance -> Maximum happiness
Says the fucking leftist.
I have been a fixture of this board for quite some time.
Quite common topic for discussion among you leftists include: "riot porn" (pictures of innocent police being attacked and set on fire by thugs) and discussions about who should be "gulaged" or put against a wall.
That is all far more masturbatory then any of the things I post.
Technocracy does not seek to reform society along corporatist lines.
It is by definition not a form of Fascism.
I would hope so.
Given that Technocracy is not a form of leftism.
Well Holla Forums is an echo chamber for neo nazis.
Given that Technocracy rejects racialism, capitalism and a traditional view of women.
It is just not welcome on Holla Forums.
The few times that I have posted about Technocracy on Holla Forums, I was called a kike shill.
There has never been Technocratic or "quasi-technocratic" states in the past.
Attempting to tie all ideologies that you dislike to Nazism is just juvenile.
Not that I expected anything better then strawman arguments from an anarchist.
Given both nations had at one point fervent supporters of socialist economic systems.
I think that should "tell you all you need to know".
It is not hard to play that game.
Technocracy promotes a state which is essentially corporatist in nature, replacing the profit motive with an obsessive commitment to efficiency for the sake thereof. Technocracy also promotes many of the basic tenets of fascism, most importantly class collaboration and totalitarianism. Perhaps a more accurate technical classification would be bureaucratic collectivism, as technocracy was in the Soviet Union, but bureaucratic collectivism is fascist in nature regardless.
Thanks for confirming the obvious. Feel free to go back to >>>Holla Forums any time.
Many on Holla Forums also reject capitalism in favor of Third Way politics. Just because technocrats reject racialism and certain other traditionalist views, that does not mean you are not more ideologically related to Holla Forums than Holla Forums. You're better suited for the former, where you can whine about degeneracy along with them and shill for your futuristic fascism there.
I'm not. I'm not describing technocrats as capitalists, propertarians, social fascists, or "anarcho-"capitalists. Nazism was nevertheless structurally and ideologically similar to technocracy, albeit with much more reactionary social views.
As if technocracy isn't just one giant strawman of fascism that refuses to call itself as much? Technocracy is just a dishonest descendant of traditional fascism that rests between it and the social fascism of the left. You're basically the "third way" among fascists.
Like most other fascists, technocrats promote their ideology under the pretense of socialism or communism because radical leftists are the most prone to mistake it as a serious form of radical leftism. Your kind are snakes in the grass and have no problem with co-opting genuinely radical leftist movements for your own means. That's what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and that's why you're here shilling your pseudo-leftist drivel here.