butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Indeed. Google the Venus Project for the 'good technocracy'...
Technocracy - Is this the future?
- Thread starter ItWillNeverWork
- Start date
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
So basically a modern rehash of the utopian socialist ideas of Robert Owen etc?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Well, sort of but not quite - more the saint-simon stuff where clever chaps get to rule because of their scientific cleverness. Harsh authoritarian technocracy rather than utopian use of machines.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
It seems to be the end result of the neo-liberal dream. Power is devolved to such an extent that the markets rule and democracy is irrelevant. Up until recently markets needed politicians to sell off the remaining assets to private hands. Now there's nothing left except debt.
Every part of the economy has already been liberated to feed the teeth of private enterprise. Debt management policies, such as to how much money needs to be printed, has been taken from the hands of our democratic leaders as they couldn't even be trusted with managing the money supply.
It's only a matter of time before the unelected technocrats are outsourced - they'll be given 5 year contracts which are won through the likes of Goldman Sachs. The House of Commons will be replaced with lawers from Experion expertly executing contracts. To ensure fairness and efficiency Price Waterhouse Coopers provide financial audit.
Efficiencies are also found at the local scale as well - our local councillors are replaced by call centres in India. "Your democracy is important to us - please hold the line while we confirm your payment details."
Every part of the economy has already been liberated to feed the teeth of private enterprise. Debt management policies, such as to how much money needs to be printed, has been taken from the hands of our democratic leaders as they couldn't even be trusted with managing the money supply.
It's only a matter of time before the unelected technocrats are outsourced - they'll be given 5 year contracts which are won through the likes of Goldman Sachs. The House of Commons will be replaced with lawers from Experion expertly executing contracts. To ensure fairness and efficiency Price Waterhouse Coopers provide financial audit.
Efficiencies are also found at the local scale as well - our local councillors are replaced by call centres in India. "Your democracy is important to us - please hold the line while we confirm your payment details."
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It's an effect of the centralisation not devolution of power. It's an effect of the state and capital becoming one. Not one gaining power over the other. The state doesn't and cannot protect you from capital. It's not now and never was supposed to.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
in fact, without the state the massive transfer of wealth to capital over the past decades would have been and would be impossible.
ska invita
back on the other side
I think it is the future, but it is also the recent past. The move towards one party politics goes hand in hand with 'the end of history' stuff - mainstream political differences come down to nuances over and above a common agreement on economics. New Labour are a symbol of this, and the US has been in an effective one party state for years. Even the arguments over levels of state spending are evaporating into the hard logic of economic and social management.
The Chinese CCP one party model has been 'effective' for a while now, and definitely impressing Western elites with its growth figures and general management abilities. Greece and China have a fair amount in common right now. Then in Europe even when supposedly socialist parties get voted in they have to bow to the dominant system.
Even if we dont have IMF technocrats directly in power in the UK, we have a managerial political class who try and pre-empt what the technocrats would do.
At the heart of the problem is the political-economic consensus of chasing continuous growth, which just isn't possible, and thats why the only way out of this crisis is going to be going Bust and fulfilling the business cycle.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Yes and no. As Lo Siento mentiones soverign states have overseen policies which give power to corporations. I'm sure you know the rest, in may ways corporations have more power than Goverment in dictating policies blah blah blah. With power devolved to the 'market' it's those who are masters of the markets who get to dictate national policy. As I tried to point out in a tongue in cheek way in my last post the biggest economic lever left for government was the money supply - now this level seems to have no impact.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Technocracy is reliant on there being plural party politics. On representative democracy. It does not want one party politics.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
How did they manage to do that if powerless? Whose bailed people out?Whose doing all the reacting?The national states.
TruXta
tired
I suppose it's reliant on the failure of plural party politics, all the while being seen as somehow not beholden to any party.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Failure or success - doesn't matter.It legitimates the apolitical stuff going on. Aside from what the success of representative democracy under capitalism could possibly look like. (Hint,it looks like now)
ska invita
back on the other side
The structures between a plural party greece overseen by technocrats may differ from the CCP with its own internal policy wonks but the effect is the same though dont you think? I think. One logic state capitalism
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I don't know what you asked me.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
I didn't say sovereign states were powerless. I did say that power has been deliberately (and perhaps irreversibly) devolved to 'the market'. The 'bail out' solution is a sign of this. When sovereign states had more control over their own destiny other solutions were possible. Now it seems all that's left is money supply responses - ie 'bail outs'.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The effect:
In the four years to the latest available data, for the 3rd quarter of 2011, China’s GDP expanded by 42.2%
In the four years to the latest available data, also for the 3rd quarter of 2011, US GDP increased by 0.6%.
In the four years to the latest available data, for the 2nd quarter of 2011, European Union (EU) GDP shrank by 0.3%.
In the four years to the latest available data, for the 2nd quarter of 2011, Japan’s GDP contracted by 5.2%.
The same?
In the four years to the latest available data, for the 3rd quarter of 2011, China’s GDP expanded by 42.2%
In the four years to the latest available data, also for the 3rd quarter of 2011, US GDP increased by 0.6%.
In the four years to the latest available data, for the 2nd quarter of 2011, European Union (EU) GDP shrank by 0.3%.
In the four years to the latest available data, for the 2nd quarter of 2011, Japan’s GDP contracted by 5.2%.
The same?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You're still seperating the two when your own post argues that they can't and shouldn't be. You seem to have a very old model of the state and capital as separate entities - it's not been true since 1914.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Because that's when state and capital first fully intertwined as a developmental aspect of capitalism rather than as a passing response to crisis.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I think you're in a position to guess then aren't you?
(britian, france, germany, russia)
(britian, france, germany, russia)
TruXta
tired
Sure, just checking.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
LOL
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
You might just be right butchers. For those of you interested, here are the faces of the the revolution:
Typhus-bearing vermin. We need to stamp out these technocratic scum.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
elbows
Well-Known Member
I am reminded of last months 'keep fuckwits out of government' thread. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/keep-fuckwits-out-of-government.282879/page-2
Especially a quote from the short video I posted at the end of the thread. "What you might call technical arrogance that overcomes people when they see what they can do with their minds".
I would favour the term econocrat rather than technocrat, although as the original technocracy movement had only a brief period of popularity a long time ago (1930s depression) it probably doesn't matter.
Anyway I have little doubt that the technocrats cannot solve all of the big issues, therefore I do not freak out too much with ideas about the death of democracy etc at the hands of these people. Rather I believe the financial poopstorm offers a full spectrum of possibilities, ranging from far more democracy than we are used to, to far less.
What the technocrats offer is more confidence to markets that the economic reforms will not be hampered by other kinds of politicians who favour the protection of a narrower set of interests. I agree with butchers that the state and capital had quite the merger a long time ago, but there is still plenty of devilish detail as to what this means in practice, with leeway for politicians to make compromises that do not favour all aspects of capital with an even hand.
But that still leaves multiple crucial areas where the technocrats have no special powers to overcome the great hurdles that lie in wait this century. They already start from a weakened position by being seen as undemocratic, lacking a mandate from the masses. And as all possible solutions require the masses to be on board to a certain extent, thats quite a weakness. Maybe they can get away with it but only if they are able to 'fix' things very quickly, and I doubt even the best-case scenarios for the future of the financial system offer notable improvements in a short timescale.
What is required in order to stand a real chance of bringing the masses along for the ride, is for the burden to be shared far more evenly, and for people to be sold on hopeful ideals about what we can achieve in the end. There is little sign of the former being seriously attempted, and the latter will be a real challenge in an age of cynicism and where the amount of 'grotesque plenty' available, however superficially, to many people for many decades, has created a bizarre sense of entitlement. So I tend to expect that things will have to get a hell of a lot worse before any really meaningful change in direction is possible.
Alternatively we may see more use of force, and giving up of democratic pretensions in a way that goes far beyond the current imposition of technocrats. But even then the stick alone is not enough, a certain number of people at all levels will still need to buy into some ideas and hopes in order to justify the regime and be motivated to put in the elbow grease necessary.
Especially a quote from the short video I posted at the end of the thread. "What you might call technical arrogance that overcomes people when they see what they can do with their minds".
I would favour the term econocrat rather than technocrat, although as the original technocracy movement had only a brief period of popularity a long time ago (1930s depression) it probably doesn't matter.
Anyway I have little doubt that the technocrats cannot solve all of the big issues, therefore I do not freak out too much with ideas about the death of democracy etc at the hands of these people. Rather I believe the financial poopstorm offers a full spectrum of possibilities, ranging from far more democracy than we are used to, to far less.
What the technocrats offer is more confidence to markets that the economic reforms will not be hampered by other kinds of politicians who favour the protection of a narrower set of interests. I agree with butchers that the state and capital had quite the merger a long time ago, but there is still plenty of devilish detail as to what this means in practice, with leeway for politicians to make compromises that do not favour all aspects of capital with an even hand.
But that still leaves multiple crucial areas where the technocrats have no special powers to overcome the great hurdles that lie in wait this century. They already start from a weakened position by being seen as undemocratic, lacking a mandate from the masses. And as all possible solutions require the masses to be on board to a certain extent, thats quite a weakness. Maybe they can get away with it but only if they are able to 'fix' things very quickly, and I doubt even the best-case scenarios for the future of the financial system offer notable improvements in a short timescale.
What is required in order to stand a real chance of bringing the masses along for the ride, is for the burden to be shared far more evenly, and for people to be sold on hopeful ideals about what we can achieve in the end. There is little sign of the former being seriously attempted, and the latter will be a real challenge in an age of cynicism and where the amount of 'grotesque plenty' available, however superficially, to many people for many decades, has created a bizarre sense of entitlement. So I tend to expect that things will have to get a hell of a lot worse before any really meaningful change in direction is possible.
Alternatively we may see more use of force, and giving up of democratic pretensions in a way that goes far beyond the current imposition of technocrats. But even then the stick alone is not enough, a certain number of people at all levels will still need to buy into some ideas and hopes in order to justify the regime and be motivated to put in the elbow grease necessary.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
To be honest I'm not quite sure what your argument is. I'd be grateful if you could explain further? I thought my argument was clear - We can use 1914 as an example - I'm still of the impression that a government in 1914 would have more economic options to manage their economy than today.
For example in 1914 you could implement Keynesian style investment to prop up an industry and be sure of wider benefit to the economy. Now a similar economic policy is like a fart in the bath and has little effect to a domestic economy.
Anyway I'm getting distracted - my original post was an effort to be humorous about the future of a Technocracy - I not entirely confident that Goldman Sachs will end up managing technocracts to countries on 5 years contracts.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The state and capital do not have the same relationship at all times. It develops historically. There is a competing logic of capital and a competing logic of the state - but this competition takes place within a shared set of aims, the reproduction of capitalist social relations. In 1914 the state had a limited autonomy - it could act in ways it thought best to preserve these social relations. Not independently of but against the immediate wishes of capital. Post 1914 (and we must say post 1917 as well). The state started to control and direct large crucial parts of the economy at this point (it was of course, already happening in certain industries in certain countries already but not a long term generaliased state planning). This led to a growing fusing together of the state and capital logics over the last century. Not capital taking over the state and limiting its options, but the two developing together and becoming ever more reliant on each other, not escaping each other. The short lived keyneisan period (the conditions for which have now gone) being an example of the way they rely on each other-the state led imposition of neo-liberal measures being another. Its far too easy to see the former as the state dominating capital and the latter as capital dominating the state - they are both instances of the same wider logic they both share. There is no escape through the state.
Similar threads
