Weaknesses of Technocracy

This Movement Is So Over

The technocratic movement was a social movement in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s that advocated a form of society where the welfare of human beings is optimized by means of scientific analysis and widespread use of technology. I think technocracy, as a movement, was attractive as long as there was a growing suspicion that capitalism would not survive the depression - if in fact, it had not caused it. In any event, after World War II evaporated the depression, Technocracy immediately lost its 'bloom'

What are the weaknesses of theocracy and the theocracy movement? In the first place the moment is too obscure to attract much criticism. But knowledgable critics make the following claims regarding technocracy:

1. There is no possible way to eliminate the scarcity of products in the modern world, especially given the large variety that exists today.


2. The theory that labor time could be drastically reduced at current productivity levels seems extremely suspect given the low unemployment rate in modern Western societies.


3. The movement lacks organization and a clear path.


4. Technology cannot solve all of our problems.


5. Naturally scarce things (e.g. gold, diamonds, the Mona Lisa) are impossible to distribute equally.


6. Many people believe that human beings are materially selfish and would not be willing to work unless that work gave them some direct material benefit; thus the technate would fail to function due to a shortage of labor.

Wikipedia

This post has been post-dated due to continued discussion.

Who Can Save Burma?

Well, not the Technocrats from Singaphore, anyways:

Much attention is placed on China and its coming hosting of the Olympic Games as a diplomatic pressure point on the rampant Burmese junta. But there is a group of government businessmen-technocrats in Singapore who will also be closely monitoring the brutality in Rangoon. And, were they so inclined, their influence could go a long way to limiting the misery being inflicted on Burma's 54 million people.

Collectively known as "Singapore Inc", they gather around the $A150 billion state-owned investment house Temasek Holdings, controlled by a member of the ruling Lee family.

With an estimated $A3 billion staked in the country (and a more than $20 billion stake in Australia), Singapore Inc companies have been some of the biggest investors in and supporters of Burma's military junta — this while its Government, on the rare times it is asked, suggests a softly-softly diplomatic approach towards the junta.

When it comes to Burma, Singapore pockets the high morals it likes to wave at the West elsewhere. Singapore's one-time head of foreign trade once said as his country was building links with Burma in the mid-1990s: "While the other countries are ignoring it, it's a good time for us to go in … you get better deals, and you're more appreciated … Singapore's position is not to judge them and take a judgemental moral high ground."

But by providing Burma's pariah junta with the crucial equipment mostly denied by Western sanctions, Singapore has helped keep the junta and its cronies afloat for 20 years, since the last time the generals killed the citizens they are supposed to protect.

Withdraw that financial support and Burma's junta would be substantially weakened, perhaps even fail. But after two decades of profitable business with the trigger-happy generals and their cronies, that's about the last thing Singapore is likely to do. There's too much money to be made.

Nor is there any hope from China:

Every current regime has its own guilt feelings about their failed past actions that when reminded, struck deep regret and confusion among their leaders. In the current global order, every nation who has a part to play to change the fate of Burma is ruled by either a dimwit or a technocrat.

China, who is dubbed as the regional power in this part of the globe will never lift a finger in favor of Democracy. Remembering its own Tienanmen nightmare and Tibetan occupation, they would rather stay quiet about Myanmar rather than risk exposing its own rotting domestic policies.

Neither will there be any solace from Thailand, which is now ruled by Technocrats.

Technates are soul-less. They just want order, tranquility and productivity.

A Level Playing Field for Technocrats!

I think I have provided perfectly balanced playing field and discussion table - fair and balanced to the max - for technocrats. I have labored long and hard to establish this site, and who have I really pleased?

But I have found another possibility for those who want to junk our Great Constitution for . . . . something else, maybe a new constitution?

Whatever.

But I feel that a United Technates of America would require some kind of founding document, whatever it might be called.

Anyways, Here's a possible discussion table that might be more equitable or agreeable - if you will - than my humble abodes.

I Give you the United Technates of America.

Augusto Pinochet Is Dead

Gott rot the soul of a man who snatched a people and government from the hands of a democracy, and placed them under the heels of a dictatorship.

Problem #1

I read somewhere in sites cited below:

The upshot of all this is that the scarcity model of the Price System worked well when there existed a natural scarcity. However, now that technology and rich natural resources have eliminated scarcity, an entirely new economic model is required. We have changed our methods of production from an argrarian model to a technological one, thus we must also change our method of distribution from an agrarian model to a technological one.

There are still natural scarities, some very critical, and some with increasing scarcity:

1. Petroleum.
2. Water.

Global competiton for these two resources will sharpen in the decades to come. Hopefully societies will resolve to purchase their share of these resources as opposed to seizing them by force.

I have another problem with this quotation, but the above will do for a start.

My New Symbol

Skip Sievert says I'm a Cog.

He may be right. But at least I'm moving. And, I'm part of something which is functioning.

Is he moving? Is he functional?

I expect he will answer shortly.

Technocracy and Authoritarianism

Theodore Adorno figures to have been averse to Technocracy. That's why Skip Sievert did not take up Messenger's cue to discuss Adorno's quotation in The Boonyaratglin Solution:

If voting could change the system, it would be illegal.

Adorno wrote that the concept of reason was transformed into an irrational force by the Enlightenment. As a consequence, reason came to dominate not only nature, but also humanity itself. It is this rationalization of humanity that was identified as the primary cause of fascism and other totalitarian regimes. Consequently, Adorno did not consider rationalism a path towards human emancipation. For that, he looked toward the arts.

Adorno, along with other major Frankfurt School theorists such as Horkheimer and Marcuse, argued that advanced capitalism was able to contain or liquidate the forces that would bring about its collapse and that the revolutionary moment, when it would have been possible to transform it into socialism, had passed. Adorno argued that capitalism had become more entrenched through its attack on the objective basis of revolutionary consciousness and through liquidation of the individualism that had been the basis of critical consciousness.

In the Authoritarian Personality, Adorno predicted one's potential for fascist and antidemocratic leanings and behaviors. These qualities are assessed by a coherent system--the "structure of personality"--which arises out of characteristic experiences in early childhood and the pattern of internal, psychic processing. Hishe development of a measure for fascist tendencies known as the F-scale that is still in use today

Adorno explained the onset of fascist and antidemocratic attitudes from a psychoanalytic viewpoint, and thereby to make a scientific contribution in the struggle against fascism.

• Conventionalism -- the tendency to accept and obey social conventions and the rules of authority figures; adherence to the traditional and accepted
• Authoritarian Submission -- submission to authorities and authority figures
• Authoritarian Aggression -- an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by authorities; particularly those who threaten traditional values
• Anti-Intraception -- rejection of the subjective, imaginative and aesthetic
• Substitution and Stereotypy -- superstition, cliché, categorization and fatalistic determinism
• Power and Toughness -- identification with those in power, excessive emphasis on socially advocated ego qualities
• Destructiveness and Cynicism -- general hostility, putting others down
• Projectivity -- the tendency to believe in the existence of evil in the world and to project unconscious emotional impulses outward
• Sex -- exaggerated concerns with respect to sexual activity
  

All of these tendencies are evident in Sievert's statements on this site. That is why Skip did not want to take the discussion on: he was afraid of disclosing his F-factors.