Revive the International.

No Demon, the owners of the machines will be rich and the nonowners will be poor.

Transhumanism is a better goal.

Yeah, fuck science!

The real fascists (the old ones, not the "ones " of today, who are a bunch of dumb idiots who don´t know nothing about politics) were not capitalists. The same apllies to most Greens.

"1984" has no likenesss to communist Poland, but is very simillar ot North Korea and Stalinist Russia (being the last example the target of "1984").

A technocracy isn't run by scientists, it's run by technical staff and specialized personnel according to the principles of function. The best offhand example I could give you would be a telephone company minus the financial bureaucracy.

The guy who coordinates your local sewage processing plant is indifferent to your religion.

The only "nonowners" would be people in nations outside the technocracy.

I call it "Step 2" personally.

That's true. I mean they weren't socialists, but most of their economical policies were Keynesian like; plus, fascism is still considered part of the "right".

Fascism is pollitically syncretic. Because ff you see the history of Mussolini´s governemnt, he starts to privatize a lot. An then, since the late 20´s, he begins to build a more centralized economy.

Because that's what fascism does, at least old school fascism. Private property still exists, and encouraged, but the State is always over the individual, and one of the main characteristics of fascism is to reach autarky.

I have a fascination for fascism (ha, see what I did there?), and I'm not saying to piss you off, but they are classified as "extreme right"; or at least, that's the thing over here. Of course, fascists deny to be called left or right, as they see themselves as the third position.

You can call it whatever you want. Because it is really hard to figure out what really is. Many scholars have different opinions.

It might be easier for you to quote people if you would press the "reply" button on a post you quote.

Just to clarify, what's a good solid definition of Technocracy?

Oh boy..
@Demondaze has to help you on that one...

I think Shaw or Demon explained few pages ago.

Just link him to that "manna" story demondaze showed us.

I think he wants a shorter answer.

It's easier to explain the goals of Technocracy.
Basically we want to automate all labor and eliminate scarcity and replace the price system, and allow all people equal access to all resources.

It isn't really an ideology compatible with the current system.

Good solid definition? Well first you'd have to understand our train of thought, which can be summed up with four simple points. (Postulates if you wanna be all academic about it.)

-The phenomena involved in the functional operation of a social mechanism are measurable.

-Social change is unidirectional and irreversible.

-Technology is today the only major cause of social change.

-All social theories of yesterday must be discarded.

-Any and all social problems are solvable by the technological application of scientific principles on a Continental scale.

As to the actual structure of a technocratic government, It basically involves dividing up all the various sections of the economy into industrial functions and having the technical staff that specialize in said functions operate them on a technological and scientific basis with the intent purpose of achieving maximum service, efficiency, and connivance.

That was propaganda. I stole it from Kali back when I was still an anarcho-whatever. (It's still relevant though.)

It isn't really an ideology. It's more or less the product of applying the scientific method to the entire human social field.

Yeah, sorry if it was a bit demanding. I just wanted to hear yours and Demon's definition, I didn't think you would appreciate me just reading up on wikipedia about it or something if I did have any criticisms. But this probably is not the thread to be discussing it.

That doesn't seem very grounded in reality.

Edit: Sorry, didn't see that you posted.

Alright, thanks. That is pretty clear. I'll have to soak that in and think about it before I can really get an opinion.

Thank you. Wikipedia makes us sound like a bunch of fascists.

Careful, that could be confused with positivism.

Naturally. Seeing as how similar the idea is to functionalism.

We're not discussing the past though, we're discussing present status. Otherwise I'd be talking about 1800s Communist theory or some shit and we'd never be able to argue straight.

And the Greens are probably about the same as they used to be. Perhaps they seem a little more moderate because they're no longer the massive Soviet sympathizers they used to be, but if you compare political platforms from now and from, say, 1960 you'll find them to be about the same (if you change for technological advances).

Well, given nations like Communist Poland, Hungary, Eastern Germany, Yugoslavia, Communist Vietnam, Communist Czechoslovakia, etc. are actually a lot more numerous than North Korea and Stalinist Russia, objective logic would lead one to believe that Communism more likely than not leads to still reasonably free states.

Anyway, that's not true at all. 1984 really has nothing like it in the modern world. I'm not sure where George Orwell got the idea of a state where with logic like, "No one creates a dictatorship with the intent of safeguarding a revolution. Only with the intent of safeguarding power." and "Power is an end, not a means." Hell, even fucking Hitler and Stalin believed they were doing stuff for a common good they were going to help achieve later on. And while we're talking about 1984, I just want to say naming your torture buddies the Ministry of Love is the most ironic thing ever. It's great.