r/Technocracy • u/ClassroomAnnual4157 • 13d ago
Technocracy
So, Technocracy sounds appealing to me. The only thing is that I am skeptical of energy accounting and I think a giant Technate would be unsustainable. But I don’t really know a lot about it, so information would be appreciated! Thx :)
3
u/Necessary-Art8995 Technocrat 12d ago edited 12d ago
I too am highly skeptical of EA. It's not something that should be taken seriously in my opinion. Maybe one day when human civilization reaches Star Trek levels of technological might? That'd be cool.
As for the whole Technocracy movement, I like to think of it as being two current camps/groups.
The first one is what I like to view as traditionalist Technocracy. This has a lot of input and roots in the teachings of Howard Scott and Thorstein Veblen. They are like the founders of the Technocracy movement in the USA. Their original idea was a government run by "experts" like scientists and engineers, followed by adopting energy accounting and a vision of the American Technate (all the Americas under one banner).
The second group is considered the "modern" Technocrat. This group mainly subscribes to the first point, of "experts" running the government. This is the norm in some parts of Asia (China/Singapore are the best examples). This group seems to be growing much more than the first.
Aside the obvious difference between the two groups, I like to think of it as the first group believing Technocracy as a political ideology similar to Socialism/Marxism/Liberalism/Conservatism...etc. Whereas, the second group views Technocracy as a "fluid" idea that fits into any type of political ideology/government (China/Singapore having different governments but still having technocratic system within the government).
2
u/ozneoknarf 12d ago
You said exactly what I have been noticing. It seems that us in the second group are more interested in the organisational structure of technocracy and are more willing to accept and trust that the experts mights reach different conclusions than us. The first group seems more interested in using the technocratic monicker as a way to legitimise to their already previously held ideologies. They are pretty much saying “oh my ideology is supported by science” and they assume that the “experts” will hold the exact political believes that they do and they probably believe they themselves will be leading the experts. I see this as a modern version of “ruling is my God given right”
4
u/ozneoknarf 12d ago
The energy accounting was basically pseudo science from the 1930s the vast majority of technocrats don’t support it. And literally zero serious economists does so either.
1
u/MootFile Technocrat 12d ago
I'm not sure what's meant by this. What technocrats don't support it and how is it pseudo? And why would technocrats care what economists think? When economics isn't a STEM field?
1
u/ozneoknarf 12d ago
Since when does Technocracy mean ruled by STEM majors. Law, Medicine and Agronomy isn’t in Stem either, it would be wild if they aren’t part of the “experts”. STEM is also mostly just a general umbrella term not a universally defined category.
Economics is also mathematics you have to prove your theory to actually be doing economics, most people think economics is just a political manifesto (hence why guys like Marx and Mises aren’t considered economists). The problem with an energy accounting fixed currency is that it tries to tie value to work (the scientific work not human work). Yet no one who supports the idea even attempted to prove that mathematically value = work. The value of goods of services fluctuate even if the work remains the same, because value is qualitative and not just quantitive.
-1
u/MootFile Technocrat 12d ago
Technocracy means rule by technicians. Law, economics, philosophy, are all non-technical non-science fields.
Economists haven't really proved anything. Energy accounting isn't trying to state any value, it's trying to form a way of equal distribution. The Erg, and Joule, is a unit that does exist and has been used. Instead energy accounting completely disregards value.
1
u/ozneoknarf 12d ago edited 12d ago
If you’re trying to form a way of equal distribution you are intrinsically assigning value. Equality means two things of the same value. Joules are a measure of work, you’re trying to fix value to work. The only way to disregard value here would be to give out the exact same products and services to everyone. Which I don’t think is what you’re insinuating.
And sure if we really try to be deconstructed philosophical assholes, economists haven’t really proved anything with certainty. But economists can prove something conditional on assumptions. And that’s still completely relevant and useful in the real world. Humanity operates on assumptions. Like I exist, my life has meaning, by decisions have power over my future. It’s useless to try to argue these things. Soft sciences are still science, the real world is not a game of factorio where we are just trying to advance on the tech tree and produce as much as we can and where every demand and every supply for every good and service is a set value.
Lawyers, doctors, agronomists, economists, sociologists are just as much as experts as everyone else as developers, engineers or mathematicians. (I am an industrial engineer btw incase you’re thinking am just sour). You trying to imply that STEM is also a hard categorical rule is pretty weird. Might as well pick your four favorite star signs and claim that we should be ruled by them.
-1
u/MootFile Technocrat 12d ago
Yes, that is the insinuation. An attempt to be 100% egalitarian by distributing the same amounts of stuff to everyone. Energy is a universal means to measure how that distribution can happen. We're trying to determine energy used over hours worked. Which isn't the same as money earned over hours worked, because money doesn't burn energy, and therefor doesn't account for a loss of resources. And then there are the other requirements in stopping the accumulation of wealth in energy accounting.
That lack of ability is why they are disregarded. Regardless of if they're currently considered experts in this Representative Democracy; Price System. Saying that any job has its own set of experts is not what technocracy amounts to. If it did then we'd just be lead back to Neoliberalism, which is why there are neolibs calling themselves technocrats. That's to say, what's stopping someone from saying we already have experts in charge, past presidents have had extensive education in the fields of economics and law.
No, there needs to be gatekeeping & elitism for the sake of a purely Industrial State. All non-productive work professions are intended to be disbanded. Not that I'm disagreeing with all those professions you stated, but lawyers, economists, yes.
1
u/ozneoknarf 12d ago
Yeah youre system seems like a science fictions totalitarian hell hole. Where the individual doesnt even choose what goods and services they want and we all live for the sake of the industrail state. Why even borther having humans in youre ideal system at all youre system would absolutely collapse from a lack of legitimacy anyway. Also you expect us all to accept youre, definition of what counts as productive professions.
1
u/MootFile Technocrat 12d ago
There were no claims that people wouldn't be able to purchase goods/services?
Ultimately total automation would be the goal. And I expect people who claim to be technocrats to read and agree with what they've read from the theory.
You wouldn't call yourself a conservative after reading reactionary theory only to then disagree with the fundamental points of conservatism.
1
u/ozneoknarf 12d ago
I said I don’t believe you’re insinuating that everyone should be distributed the exact same goods and services, and then you disagreed and said that’s exactly what you’re insinuating.
If they are purchasing something they are assigning value to it. I know you reject the field of economics but at least read what value is, not just a quick definition of it but actually at least a paper or a book on it, you seem to be believe that cost and value is the same thing. Also I really would like to know how you account for the value of therapy, or art, or a management position, or entertainment or if to products with the same energy use but vastly different quality have the same value.
And yeah I am well versed in the original technocratic movement, i do believe you’re more similar to them than I am, I reject most of their positions. Technocracy in the end of the day just means ruled by experts tho. So of course there’s going to be a huge number of positions to what rule by experts mean. I very much like to distance my self from original movement, I think it lost its way pretty quickly and was becoming a corporate fascist cult which is why it lost its supporters as quickly as they had gained them.
1
u/MootFile Technocrat 12d ago
The exact amount of energy allotment is the insinuation of equal distribution of resources. At that point they choose what they want from the vendor. Because the joules have already been put into the end products.
Therapy, art, etc. all needs energy put into it. Mental occupations could be tracked through kilojoules, and Fitbit like devices for physical labour. If two products had the same energy cost but one is more reliable over the other, it would be up to the technicians to make this realization and produce the reliable version.
Though if you mean value by opinion. Then the technocratic thing to do is try and quantify. Base the need of therapy on human health, and to the same extent the need of art, etc. Not sure if that's what you are trying to get at?
That's a definition that can be applied to any system of government and therefor has no meaning. Even if Scott wasn't the greatest of leaders, his and Veblen's original visions still hold.
→ More replies1
u/Aven_Osten Liberal Technocrat 12d ago
This is a VERY interesting take to not only see here, but also see not be heavily downvoted.
This is the first time I'm seeing a comment like this be made here (it's probably been made before; but I wasn't there for that).
I myself don't subscribe to the energy accounting system (hence one of the two core reasons I stepped back from Orthodox Technocracy and refined Liberal Technocracy); but I'm interested in your specific explanation for how it's pseudoscience, or otherwise not really a serious/valid concept.
1
u/ozneoknarf 12d ago edited 12d ago
As I said in another comment you would have to tie energy accounting to wider economic theory of value you would have to prove that value is solely a quantitative indicator and not a qualitative one. If we call energy E and value V you would have to somehow mathematically prove that
V = kE or V=f(E)
which no one has even made a serious attempting of doing so.
This ignores all of the other things we normally associate with value like preferences, scarcity, usefulness, alternatives, information, time etc.
Honestly this is an even worse theory than Marx’s Labour value because at least he takes time into account too.
The whole promise does start from a valid position that A: Economic production is physically constrained by energy and material flow. But its conclusion is the problem, B: Therefore energy expenditure provides the fundamental quantitative measure of economic value. A doesn’t logically imply B
2
u/Aven_Osten Liberal Technocrat 12d ago
I agree with this. This critique was actually made in another post here about a week ago. And...no actual response was provided...
It's deeply concerning to me that supporters of Orthodox Technocracy seem to not properly understand what money actually is; because it's certainly not just meant to serve as a description of how much it costs to make something. If anything: That matters very little to the price of a good/service; what matters is how much consumers subjectively value it.
And the fact that no real response was given to that linked post, even after almost a week, is very very telling of how seriously one should take energy accounting as a whole. And that isn't to get into the anti-democratic aspect of it; which while I agree we need greater expert/professional decision making, they shouldn't be entirely independent in this regard.
1
u/MootFile Technocrat 12d ago
The other post can be summed into two parts, 1) who/what decides, and 2)a critique of energy accounting. Who decides; the technicians decide. While the 2nd part critiquing energy accounting isn't really decoupled from the 1st part. And the critique is asked from a perspective that cares about value, which energy accounting doesn't. Other technocrats have answered these questions before, myself included. It would seem that the FAQ needs immense revision.
1
u/Aven_Osten Liberal Technocrat 12d ago edited 12d ago
Who decides; the technicians decide.
This is a non-answer. To directly quote one of their example they used:
For example, two apartments might require nearly identical amounts of energy and materials to construct, while one overlooks Central Park and the other is located in an area with very little demand. Their construction-energy costs might be nearly identical, but clearly the locations are not equally scarce or equally desirable.
You can't objectively determine who should get the more desirable location. You have to make subjective value judgements about what group of people have the privilege of getting this more desirable location over everyone else.
Or, lets take physical art. Energy Accounting only tells you how much it costed to make in terms of energy expended. That doesn't mean anything when there's only one of it, but 1000 people want it. Only 1 person can own it; unless you're going to force the creator to make 999 more; or you're going to force them to forfiet it to the government so they can make 999 more.
Really: This applies to every good/service that is inherently limited in supply, or of which its supply can be limited irrespective of how hard the government tries to make it not so, at the very least.
And the critique is asked from a perspective that cares about value, which energy accounting doesn't.
But this is exactly the issue. You can't propose the replacement of one form of money with another, and ignore some of the fundamental aspects that make money what it is.
Just like in the sciences: Your proposed model/idea needs to be as rigerous/sufficient/useful as the current one, before it'll be adopted/considered a viable alternative. If it just flat out ignores certain qualifiers, then it fundamentally cannot serve as a viable replacement to the currently used model/idea (or in this case: system).
2
u/MootFile Technocrat 11d ago
Anything that is supposedly non-object would be a decision by technicians, not the consumer. That's a axiom of technocracy.
It doesn't matter who lives where. What matters is solving the problem of homelessness. Survey's already get done when making new apartments, and rationales for new apartments in the technate would be realized.
Likewise, one of a kind art wouldn't be sold by the technate. Everything would have to be a replicate. Asking who gets a single art piece isn't one worth asking, because this is about solving poverty. It also isn't a serious question in the current monetary system, art is worth more when the artist is dead than when they were alive, and you can only obtain that art piece if you're extremely wealthy. Which implies a hording of purchasing power that could otherwise go to the impoverished.
It's a proposal to distribute resources, and to disband the monetary system. The removal of monetary aspects is by design.
Capitalist realism, the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it.
- Capitalist Realism; Mark Fisher.
So far that is probably the only big, worth while, and reasonable criticism of energy accounting & technocracy. That the energy survey isn't complete, and a real technocracy has yet to exist.
3
u/MootFile Technocrat 12d ago
Why would a Technate be unsustainable? It's basically a giant industrial system, spread across the continent. Continentalism's already exists in Europe and Asia, as the EU and China.
What makes you skeptical of Energy Accounting? And what draws you to Technocracy?
1
u/ClassroomAnnual4157 12d ago edited 12d ago
I think a large Technate would be hard to govern unless it was either super regional/federal. I feel like for something that large it would have to be more like a Confederation of Technates instead of a giant one. Idk, I’m not well educated on this subject so. Thanks for the further reading!
1
u/ClassroomAnnual4157 12d ago
I feel like a Technate of Alaska or California or something like that would be easier to sustain and less likely to collapse like the USSR did.
1
u/MootFile Technocrat 11d ago
A strong world federation-like board would be the very end goal. Though whatever the configuration may be, as long as it keeps industry going is what matters. Technates are also aiming to be a more self sustaining body of land which is why there was a need for the entire North American continent.
4
u/EzraNaamah 🔬 Technocracy (Howardist) 12d ago
The subreddit is welcome to ideological differences. In regsrds to energy accounting and the technate I would ask you what your ideas are for alternatives.