Technocracy - Is this the future?

[DotCommunist]

jesus. The ruling clases bringing the chickens home to roost.

 

[butchersapron]

This is just the coming to light of what the EU is about today. They have adopted an 'apolitical' approach over the last two decades - that means they wrote their political aims into the various EU constitutions so they couldn't be challenged without threatening the whole thing. There was no debate over what those aims were, no popular participation in their construction. They were just going to go in no matter what. (Incidentally Spain last month was successfully pressured to change its constitution to include pro-austerity measures as unchallengeable constitutional aims in the same way). What the technocracies are is this hidden ideologically driven apoliticism being forced out into the open. This is the real hidden hand.

Latest proposed developments more evidence of this 'apoliticism'...

 

[articul8]

Yes - but then does it really matter that national budgets need the approval of the (unelected) Commission or is that just a formal expression of what is already the case, ie that national governments are totally constrained by the anticipated action of the (equally unelected) bond markets. In other words, the British government is no less fiscally constrained than the Euro ones despite not being part of this package?

 

[butchersapron]

Not really talking about Britain. Secondly, for the pressures of international capital competition to effect all countries equally and in the same way would require homogeneous national state and capital blocs rather then the very real differences in internal composition, historical relations and so on. Of course all states face these pressures but not in conditions of their own making.

(Of course, this isn't to argue that we have a real healthy participatory govt here or that the mainstays of it offer any real political choices).

 

[TruXta]

There was a series of decent posts by Krugman in the NYT on the idiocy of proclaiming technocrats to be non-ideological. Worth a read.

 

[articul8]

Not really talking about Britain. Secondly, for the pressures of international capital competition to effect all countries equally and in the same way would require homogeneous national state and capital blocs rather then the very real differences in internal composition, historical relations and so on. Of course all states face these pressures but not in conditions of their own making.

(Of course, this isn't to argue that we have a real healthy participatory govt here or that the mainstays of it offer any real political choices).

How far are we away from this kind of overt Technocracy though? Ok there's some scope for disagreement about the timing of cuts and deficit repayment in Britain - more than in Greece, Italy or Ireland - but the general direction of travel is the same?

 

[butchersapron]

How far are we away from this kind of overt Technocracy though? Ok there's some scope for disagreement about the timing of cuts and deficit repayment in Britain - more than in Greece, Italy or Ireland - but the general direction of travel is the same?

I'm not talking about an overt technocracy, i'm talking about a covert technocracy buried deep within the constitutional foundations of the EU.

What do you mean by the direction of travel is the same? That we're all heading one way because we have to - there are no other options? Or we're all heading one way because those with their hands on the levers of power have constructed a situation in which we appears that we all have to head the same way? If the latter then you should be able to see how making it a constitutional requirement to go this way would be helpful.

 

[articul8]

we're all heading one way because those with their hands on the levers of power have constructed a situation in which we appears that we all have to head the same way? If the latter then you should be able to see how making it a constitutional requirement to go this way would be helpful.

Well as a kind of reserve power, maybe. But it's a bit like them making a virtue of what they've already decided is necessary.

 

[butchersapron]

Well,it's as the very front line in Greece and Ireland right now - not being kept in reserve. And soon to spread in this heightened form to at least another 17 EU countries.

Odd line that you're taking here.

 

[articul8]

But it's not as though the Greek and Irish governments have any intention other than to comply with what the markets are demanding of them. *If* there was a government that wanted to resist, then it would find itself constitutionally restricted (a reserve power). But that is just a further reflection of the power of the markets to begin with. It's not a welcome or irrelevant step by any means. But it's relatively second order, isn't it?

 

[butchersapron]

Absolutely not, you seem to be discounting the fact that states are required to discipline their populations at times of danger opposition in favour of simply looking at capital alone - sort of finance capital based workerism. Part of this disciplining is to make strongly ideological manouveres appear as normal, as the only way things can be done without incurring significant direct penalties, a way of shifting the overton window onto a firmer neo-liberal footing. Why do you think capital is so keen on these developments and the states are following so eagerly? Because they recognise that ideological grounding is very important in a part of the world where constitutional legality and the systems way of doing things still has popular legitimacy?

To argue that state and capital have come over the last few decades to a modus vivendi based on the above is not to argue that they wouldn't try and find other ways to achieve their common aims, it's actually to try and identify what forms the Labour/ state-capital is taking today.

When did you join the SPGB btw?

 

[articul8]

When did you join the SPGB btw?

I would've thought that a more effective way of disciplining the population is the way that international capital markets are effectively regarded as forces of nature. This is what has meant austerity has been "inevitable" even without it being a formally/constitutionally necessary requirement.

 

[butchersapron]

And that effective method translated into political terms would look a bit like what?

 

[articul8]

but why is that extra step of "translation" into political terms necessary, why prohibit what is already believed to be impossible?

Isn't it more about reinforcing the increasingly threadbare claims to political legitimacy on behalf of the ruling classes of the EU (by saying "we've chosen to discipline ourselves in this way) rather than to strengthen the perceived "necessity" of the action - which is already pretty much universally accepted - because the markets need to be reassured.

 

[butchersapron]

but why is that extra step of "translation" into political terms necessary, why prohibit what is already believed to be impossible?

Isn't it more about reinforcing the increasingly threadbare claims to political legitimacy on behalf of the ruling classes of the EU (by saying "we've chosen to discipline ourselves in this way) rather than to strengthen the perceived "necessity" of the action - which is already pretty much universally accepted - because the markets need to be reassured.

Not sure if you've noticed the growing opposition to neo-liberal measures and EU austerity over the last 3 years, or the polarisation based on a rejection of these measures as natural and inevitable. Odd that whilst this is happening the state-capital has sought to adopt these constitutional requirements - almost as if they're seeking to pre-empt that (sometimes limited, sometimes radical) rejection of them as natural - i think they may be connected!

 

[butchersapron]

Isn't it more about reinforcing the increasingly threadbare claims to political legitimacy on behalf of the ruling classes of the EU (by saying "we've chosen to discipline ourselves in this way) rather than to strengthen the perceived "necessity" of the action - which is already pretty much universally accepted - because the markets need to be reassured.

And they're going to do this without translating these claims into political terms, political terms based in the tradition that still hold political legitimacy - i.e electoralism, constitutionalism etc? And this is to ignore the real content of these proposals.

How is this development going to re-inforce ruling classes legitimacy anyway - supposing we ignore the content of the proposals?

 

[articul8]

Not sure if you've noticed the growing opposition to neo-liberal measures and EU austerity over the last 3 years, or the polarisation based on a rejection of these measures as natural and inevitable.

I've noticed protest, even violent protest. But I don't know that I've seen a movement with any real conception of how it would implement an alternative programme, let alone threatening to do so.

 

[articul8]

And they're going to do this without translating these claims into political terms, political terms based in the tradition that still hold political legitimacy - i.e electoralism, constitutionalism etc? And this is to ignore the real content of these proposals.

How is this development going to re-inforce ruling classes legitimacy anyway - supposing we ignore the content of the proposals?

It's an attempt to restore a minimal legitimacy to widely discredited institutions. To say they chose to do what they had no choice other than to do (from within the framework of their own assumptions). It's not so much that electoral politics retains s strong claim to legitimacy, that in the absence of any ready alternative sources of legitimacy they persist on a keeping hold of nurse basis. I

 

[butchersapron]

I've noticed protest, even violent protest. But I don't know that I've seen a movement with any real conception of how it would implement an alternative programme, let alone threatening to do so.

That's an entirely different point. If what you see as a more effective and primary (even though you didn't appear to earlier) necessity is being rejected by large parts of the population- i.e the idea that austerity and neo-liberalism is natural then something must replace it, must replace its function (or else why would they have sought to develop this naturalisation). The approach that i've outlined does this, and at the same time does it in terms and forms recognised as legitmate by the majority of the populations.

 

[butchersapron]

It's an attempt to restore a minimal legitimacy to widely discredited institutions. To say they chose to do what they had no choice other than to do (from within the framework of their own assumptions). It's not so much that electoral politics retains s strong claim to legitimacy, that in the absence of any ready alternative sources of legitimacy they persist on a keeping hold of nurse basis. I

How does it attempt to do that? What did they do?

 

[articul8]

That's an entirely different point. If what you see as a more effective and primary (even though you didn't appear to earlier) necessity is being rejected by large parts of the population- i.e the idea that austerity and neo-liberalism is natural then something must replace it, must replace its function (or else why would they have sought to develop this naturalisation). The approach that i've outlined does this, and at the same time does it in terms and forms recognised as legitmate by the majority of the populations.

First of all consciousness is contradictory and uneven. People are rejecting and protesting against the neoliberal order and its effects in general but at the same time see the options open to individual national governments as circumscribed by this institutional context. People are increasingly prepared to stand up and say "it shouldn't be this way", but have no real sense of an alternative or how you'd go about implementing one.

In this context the constitutional stuff is about keeping the figleaf that a future fiscal consolidation is a framework that political representatives of the people have taken, rather than had inflicted on them by the markets.

 

[butchersapron]

First of all consciousness is contradictory and uneven. People are rejecting and protesting against the neoliberal order and its effects in general but at the same time see the options open to individual national governments as circumscribed by this institutional context. People are increasingly prepared to stand up and say "it shouldn't be this way", but have no real sense of an alternative or how you'd go about implementing one.

In this context the constitutional stuff is about keeping the figleaf that a future fiscal consolidation is a framework that political representatives of the people have taken, rather than had inflicted on them by the markets.

Maybe i'm being thick but all that above is agreeing precisely with what i've been saying all along. (Apart from the trot 'contradictory consciousness' stuff and your concentration on whether the growing rejection of the naturalness and inevitability of neo-liberal measures is effective or not).

 

[articul8]

You seem to be saying that the EU etc political maneouvres are being driven out of a sense that they feel they urgently need to reinforce their legitimacy in the face of a very real threat of popular rejection. I'm saying that this is an embarrassed political elite trying to rationalise their own powerlessness and being given the space to do so because there is so little belief that an alternative agenda could be practically implemented.

 

[butchersapron]

You seem to be saying that the EU etc political maneouvres are being driven out of a sense that they feel they urgently need to reinforce their legitimacy in the face of a very real threat of popular rejection. I'm saying that this is an embarrassed political elite trying to rationalise their own powerlessness and being given the space to do so because there is so little belief that an alternative agenda could be practically implemented.

You're the one who said recent moves emanate from a desire on the part of the ruling classes to reinforce their political legitimacy - i argued that this is the coming to light of the already existing power relations under the pressure of the crisis,which is now developing into an attempt to extend these 'apolitical' manouveres whilst the opportunity presents itself. I only mentioned legitimacy in response to your argument that the above developments are concerned with that rather than the broad question of state-capital/labour relations. You seem to be going out of your way to write the same thing as me but in a different way then insisting that you're actually saying something totally different.

(Have you read this thread btw?)

 

[articul8]

Gone back and read the thread over again - I agree substantially about the convergence and mutual inter-linking of state and capital now, and about the deliberate construction of deeply political acts as natural and inevitable responses. I don't understand how to get from this analysis to the mobilisation of a counter-power (labour) in a way that is politically effective. Its not that people are positively consenting to austerity (bar the Libertarian Alliance and allied fruitcakes) but that they see no other option, and of course this is reinforced over and over again by the political/media/financial elites. They realise there's no point in rallying in the defence of democratically elected politicians, if the decisions are fundamentally the same whoever is taking them.

 

[butchersapron]

Mohammed Morsi to select government of technocrats

(Article also says he's resigned from Muslim Brotherhood - he hasn't, He's resigned from formal positions within the MB).

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

The Money-changer's Spring advances south.

 

[audiotech]

It was way back In 1975 that the Trilateral Commission published a report: 'Crisis of Democracy'. The conclusion: 'There's an excess of democracy', so there was a push to lower expectations and to counter liberal and social democracy. Thatcher, Reagan and the conservative governmemt in Canada led the way to "free trade" and "deregulation". Trickle down theory was put forward at this time and that turned out to be not worth the paper it was written on.

 

[camouflage]

You might just be right butchers. For those of you interested, here are the faces of the the revolution:

Ah, the dull boring grey man. They make perfect assassins.

 

[audiotech]

It's not just about individuals, although the third image above does resemble a lizard, but the whole, now rotting, financial system we live under.