On this forum I have frequently espoused Marxist ideals, relating them back to the original intentions of utopian socialists in regards to some furture perfected state of socio-political governance. However, I have recently come across the somewhat amorphus conception of a future democractic state. It is within this state that I believe the best organization of society occurs, as dogmatic notions of moralism or spirituality along with motivations towards emotional governance have been extiguished. Im of course talking about Technocracy: "Technocracy is a form of government in which experts in technology would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers, and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen, and economists. In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field." Anyone have any thoughts?
There's a difference between the wisdom involved in making a good decision, and the technological ability to implement that decision.
I agree 10000%. I believe the future of the world lies in technology. And that the future of American prosperity and wealth lies in Technology. (*)(*)(*)(*) the politics, the poor, the media, and those who use government for unproductive means. Let's put power where it deserves to be. In the re-creation of the sun, man made. "I am become death, destroyer of worlds" Robert Oppenheimer
So how would one decide how knowledgeable and skillful someone is in their respective field? Would it be a test? Tests have never been a reliable method of judging how knowledgeable someone is. Not everyone who is knowledgeable takes tests well and it is too easy to cheat on them. Why do you think universities and colleges require more than just a high SAT score? So what about experience? Again, how do judge that? You can't just pick by how long someone has been in the field. There are more than a few people who have been doing the same job for a long time that still aren't very good at it. Also, this makes for a very old ruling class. Maybe a certification board like they do with doctors? That is probably the best idea. However, no matter which idea you use, it will be too easy for a corrupt group to take control and stay in control. Since they would be making the rules on what qualifies a person to rule, they could skew any test or panel so that only people they want would be able to become members of the ruling class. Finally, just because someone has brains doesn't mean they can't be corrupt. Without some kind of checks and balances, a Technocracy could very quickly become a dictatorship.
There is only one problem. Crap rolls down hill and technocrats have proven no better at running things than has anything else and when given a free had they are usually worse.
Good summary of the problems with a Technocracy... Technocracy/Meritocracy is a system that looks good on paper, but it's very difficult to set up and maintain without leading to massive problems of elitism and corruption. Our own system has plenty of problems, but in theory, elections limit the cronyism that would otherwise be present with a technocracy/meritocracy. The closest system to technocracy in the real world is China. While their government has its advantages in terms of getting things done, it still has a ton of corruption and elitism.
In my opinion, the artist and especially the philosopher are just as important as the scientist and the engineer. Perhaps rule by intellectuals would be more suitable?
Yes! I agree. Maybe some cooperative of morally philosophical intellectuals combined with a board of sound minded technocrats would be a pseudo utopian style of governance. However rather than just limit this conversation to the modes of basic legislative governance, consider the social sustainability such a technocracy would cultivate. Rather than money being exchanged, maybe some form of energy surplus in a barter economy would create a focus on economically sustainable practices. I.e. A person exchanges their time (labor) for a supply of energy provided by either a public or private institution. That energy is then dispensed in a barter economy with the purpose of not only obtaining goods, but with a sustainable consciousness in mind as well. Aka No Overproduction of goods / No Crisis Economy
Disagree The CCP structure is based around the Diefication of Mao, De Xiaoping & and the party proper. Not a public ally accepted ideal of educated academic leaders. Many in the party are directly affiliated with the military. This is cannot exist in a true technocracy
And I suppose that this plan would involve completely dissolving individual liberties, and these technocrats would ration out goods or tell people what they can buy or sell based on what is produced or what is allowed to be privately acquired? No thanks. I don't need pinheads ruling my decisions, no matter how much more efficient you think they would bring about a utopian, I mean pipe-dream future. Technology is mostly destructive. We should probably de-tech.
Not everything comes down to technical expertise. Even engineers and other scientists fail in their personal lives. Stop reaching for utopia. It is a pipe-dream, a dangerous one.
I'm a Marxist (Trotskyist) who looked into this, but was quickly disappointed. It would basically be a "dictatorship of engineers" which is undesireable in itself, but would in all likelihood degenerate quickly because of the lack of a coherent and effective system of self-regulation. The workers having no power over their means of production can only produce alienation, be it capitalism or technocracy. I find this system undesireable and unstable because of its inherent contradictions, but even if I did there's no hope of this system coming to power because they (advocates of technocracy) lack a revolutionary perspective and since they don't have a connection to a significant class Technocracy has never been and never will be a movement large enough to make a difference.
Technocracy would be a horrible authoritarian system that produces alienation, but your primitivist perspective is counterproductive to the wellbeing of mankind. Technology is good, and would be even better for improving our quality of life if we didn't have capitalists in control of it. I suspect your perspective comes from the idea of : "technology is bad, look what it's done to the environment!". If you had a real understanding of the way the class system and capitalism works your perspective would be closer to: "capitalism is bad, look at the destruction capitalists have inflicted of the environment harvesting it's resources for profit". Prifitivism is just as divorced from reality and the way society currently functions as technological determinism.
That's because it's not the people running things or the their favorite ideological system that's really the problem. The problem lies in the nature of the dumbass public that puts these people and their idiotic ideologies into power in the first place. These are these same people that blame their farts on those around them; embezzle from their employers and steal from their fellow employees, even if their embezzling is "only" in time spent being lazy, worthless fukoffs, doing as little as possible, while still getting paid as if they had some scruples; lie and exaggerate as a matter of normal lifestyle; watch reality TV; pick their noses and stealthily wipe the snot balls on the tablecloth or furniture; masturbate while fantasizing about their sister or daughter after church; dump their trash bags along side the road; and in general, conduct their lives like pigs rooting about a garbage dump - at least, when they think no one is watching. This bunch of lowlifes isn't an insignificant percentage of the public anymore and they're pretty much a bipartisan, cross-class cross-everything phenomena.
China is shaping up to be a sort of technocratic state, some say the soviet union was very much that way as well. Very corruptible system but with enough propaganda humans will most likely go for it if that is what TPTB desire for us.
This is where our opinions differ. This revolutionary perspective that you claim technocratic ideology lacks is inherently founded in the inevitable ascension of said technological innovation. Since true automation, or rather the creation of self-aware A.I. Is coming relatively soon, coupled with the dwindling of raw resources globally, you can only imagine the revolutionary chaos that is to come. A technocratic state however would be there to both mitigate said socio-political intricacies , as well as embody the revolutionary spirt of these two mutually exclusive crises.
Wrong Both the Soviet an Chinese systems had some form party Diefication. This spiritualist dogma would not exist in a technocracy.
Depends on what you mean by technology? The science of government or how well someone creates an app for the iPhone? The science of government was what Woodrow Wilson was all about and you can see what it has led us too, more government interference in social engineering (a technical field) which just leads to further tyranny by democracy.
Modern leftists seemingly cannot invision a life independent of elite, authoritarian overlords choosing their destiny. Creepy. and dangerous.
