I would like to know people's views on Technocracy as a alternative to Capitalism and Socialism, not just for the USA but for the world.

Here is a series of videos explaining the failures of capitalist-price system and the need for a different approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ps5vJrIxM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icPOfVeIS...ure=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icPOfVeIS...ure=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV88ZQxZs...ure=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV88ZQxZs...ure=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV88ZQxZs...ure=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rveZLku...ure=relmfu

interesting.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

Seems to be a dilemma where I live.  The mayor wants to expand the subway train line.  People voted for that.  I prefer trains to light rail transit or street cars.  However there were earlier studies and plans made for more street car lines because they are cheaper.  I think they are impractical and recent street car line developments demonstrate this.  Many people agree with me that the trains are easier to use and faster.  The cheapest still is more express bus lines which everyone hates.  Mostly people who do not use the transit system are the most vocal about how they don't think their tax money should be wasted on expensive trains.  

I would prefer a few more subway stations added to the lines rather than light rail or street car lines added to the system.  

Also I would often hear arguments from banker types that some new products would not make enough money even though they would save energy for the consumer and be less polluting.  All they cared about was profits.  If they could build a car that would start falling apart after five years they would - built in redundancy.  It is pathetic.  

I got in trouble for insisting that some products do not have to be like a platinum pair of scissors when steel would be fine.  Sure platinum would be excellent but you don't need it.  Many products just have to have "prestige" about them or they wouldn't sell.  

Meanwhile the rest of us poor people are getting sick of the scraps we are being thrown.  Yes we could have nutritious food, adequate housing and meanful work for everyone but that means that 1% can not be rich and wasteful.

It seemed to me that the Startrek federation had some type of technocracy system.  It did not seem to me that Kirk or Spock were motivated by money.  No one on board was griping about their wages and benefits.

This post was last modified: 05-14-2012 05:15 PM by M.

No chance.
Primo: Technocracy is seen as a form of government, not a economic system. T. would be an alternative to Democracy, but a worse one.
Secondo: If you search an alternative for "Capitalism", you still have to keep in mind that you'll need markets OR plans to distribute the goods. Or you might want to kill everyone who isn't part of the T. government, so you can keep the goods (works only once).
Now you know my view, go and live with it.

Technocracy is supposed to be an alternate economic system.

really I can't see that letting power hungry greedy engineers and scientists run a country could be better than business men and lawyers as politicians.  

I was looking up some ideologies and found this about Star Trek.  http://vanparecon.resist.ca/StarTrekEcon/  It is called Participatory Economics.  

It could still be democratic.  Everyone's vote would still count equally.  

The current political system in US is not truly democratic since businesses often pay for lobbyist groups to influence policies instead of the public deciding.

It is an alternative economic system as well. It advocates using 'energy credits' in lieu of currency because these are directly connected to a physical tangible real world commodity whereas currency is a abstraction.

By what measure would engineers or scientists be any more greedy or power hungry than business men or lawyers?

At least scientists are motivated by the promotion of human knowledge and collective gain compared to businessmen who care only for their bank balance and know how to make money.

I know which I'd prefer.

I agree totally. In fact i'd say if anything, America is closer to fascism than anything else. Corporations hold all the cards and the state has barely any holding. Mussolini described fascism as 'hyper capitalism'. I think that sums modern America pretty well.

two points.

Firstly, there are two forms of democracy. You have parliamentary democracy where the electorate get to vote a new overlord every 5 years. Thats what we have now. On the other hand you have direct democracy, where the people as a whole have an ongoing say in state policy.

Secondly, I don't see why democracy and Technocracy necessarilly need exclude each other. From what I understand the technate would be a direct democracy, which is far preferable to the conventional understanding of the concept where we get a meaningless vote between 2 parties with no disparity between twice a decade.

Secondo: If you search an alternative for "Capitalism", you still have to keep in mind that you'll need markets OR plans to distribute the goods. Or you might want to kill everyone who isn't part of the T. government, so you can keep the goods (works only once).
Now you know my view, go and live with it.

A technate wouldnt be a government per sae. Technocrats advocate a 'holonic' system whereby different industries would have their own specific authorities or 'holons' since the most skilled in their field are in charge of them. It more closely resembles anarchism than anything else.  You cant therefore kill anyone who isnt part of the 'T government' because there wasn't a 'T government' to start with.

Most people are greedy.  

I think that if I was an engineer or scientist, I would rather be doing research than sitting at a government session arguing with people or trying to "rule".  I guess that people would have to offer to take a term in government administrative office or be consultants.  

Makes sense to have direct voting for people who want to vote or are qualified in some area of expertise.  You would vote on issues that related to your profession or as a consumer of goods.  People would constantly be having to put in their opinion on certain issues - however getting all the consensus might be a lengthy and difficult task.  I go to a Presbyterian church were most of the day to day business of the church is done by committees of volunteers.  Doctrine and other issues are decided by the Session of Elders who are elected by members of the church as they are revered as "wise".

I wouldn't mind electing someone to make some daily decisions but not forever or years and years and not for really important issues.   I doubt I would have the time to investigate and decide on too many decisions.

Plutocrats are the proven greediest so where is the sense in letting them have the most political leverage?

Again, there is no 'government' to argue with. Each holon would have jurisdiction over its own affairs. There would be a sequence of relations, that acts as an ombudsman between the holons. However there is no government. If you want to learn more about the proposed technate structure I suggest you visit here - http://www.eoslife.eu  Dr Wallace the administrator is a personal acquaintance of mine.

Sounds very similar to the system of government in Singapore.

Except in Singapore those who run the government are usually selected based on their achievements in the private sector, not in science.

Democracy is vastly over-rated. I don't know if technocracy would be any better though. I will read up a bit and give it some thought.

Technocracy and democracy do not necessarilly exclude each other.

On the contrary, they are mutually dependent. Far more democratic than the vile "cast a vote every 5 years, now go and dumb down with some reality tv stupid" system that we have at the moment.

Thanks for the link.  I will be examining most articles about technocracy.  

Just sounds too good to be true.  I do not have enough faith in the human race to believe that they could actually achieve this type of society.  I have been treated poorly or ignored by apparently the "best" people.

We can't carry on developing more and more labour-saving technology whillst retaining an economic system that relies on full (or near-full) employment, that's for sure. More and more people, fewer and fewer jobs - does not add up.

I have both. From time to time we decide by popular vote (directly), and it's really, really time-consuming. You have to read two versions of the proposed law, compare them and decide which one would be better. I found the process very draining, mentally, every time I took part (5 times so far, I think). You can read about the most prominent here.

I don't know whether you'd take my word on it, but was an assistant to a MP for three years and even between us four (MP, two assistants, one secretary) we had trouble following all the developments important for his (our) special area, where he should advise his party colleagues. I wouldn't want to go (back) there.

Shnoing Wrote:

Secondo: If you search an alternative for "Capitalism", you still have to keep in mind that you'll need markets OR plans to distribute the goods. Or you might want to kill everyone who isn't part of the T. government, so you can keep the goods (works only once).
Now you know my view, go and live with it.

A technate wouldnt be a government per sae. Technocrats advocate a 'holonic' system whereby different industries would have their own specific authorities or 'holons' since the most skilled in their field are in charge of them. It more closely resembles anarchism than anything else.  You cant therefore kill anyone who isnt part of the 'T government' because there wasn't a 'T government' to start with.

Market economy resembles anarchy, too. And usually it's profitable for the most skilled.

And who are these "specific authorities"? I'd call them government, no matter what name they give themselves.

Developing labour-saving technologies IS a job. Even if building them is done more and more by machines.

The purpose of creating labour saving technology is to enable all people to do more productive things with all their time, rather than repetitive tasks devoid of scientific, social or cultural enrichment.