Talk:Technate

Communism and the Technate concept
Someone interjected into the article with connections of Marx and Communism. That is not connected to the Technate concept which is not connected to Communism or Socialism or Capitalism in any way. Marx much like Adam Smith employed a theory of labor concept scarcity based economic agenda... and there is no connection to those sentiments and the information here on the projected concept of a Technate. Here is a reference for background as to the political economic reference point of this projected idea... http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy. It looked as though the interjected material was placed as Communist Pov which is not related to this subject... and it was removed.skip sievert (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Karl Marx stipulated that society would first need to reach a level of industrial maturity, at which time the proletariat would rise up and seize the means of production from the capitalist class, in order for a communist order ("from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs") to be successful. In the 19th century, most communist thinkers were convinced that the socialist revolution would start in fully developed countries such as Europe or the United States.  Instead, of course, most communist revolutions have taken place in relatively undeveloped, agrarian contexts, where it was hoped that merely overthrowing the "oppressors" would miraculously bring about massive economic growth.  This never happened, of course, since the incentive for individual achievement was removed wholesale, and that is the best driver for economic growth, even if (necessarily) tempered by government to restrain the potential abuses of total freedom (which is really anarchy).  The Technate concept sounds very much like an updated 20th century version of where Marx was going in the 19th century.  The presumed technocratic base would who run such a society sounds remarkably like the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat".  Also, the requirement for a "sufficient" base of industry and technology seems to obviously mirror Marx's stipulation for industrial maturity.  Finally, like a communist society, the Technate concept does not explain how (or why) further industrial or economic progress or growth would be achieved in the absence of individual incentives. CiudadanoGlobal (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Marx based his ideas in a reactionary way to Adam Smith and human toil and Capitalism. There is no connection to this information about a Technate. This article is not connected to what you are trying to make a case for. Read the file presented above. There is no connection between the ideas you are trying to link. This article is not a billboard for communist theory, and communist theory is not connected in any way to Technocratic ideas except tangentially.. that never developed ... the information from Technocracy is not connected to Capitalism or Communism or a price system using Rubles or Dollars from the past or present. It is not a political system. The information you were putting in that edit was political and not connected, political sentiment, that is also untrue (not factual) in the context here, as to the subject.... it is not related to the subject. What you have stated up above is original research that is not connected.


 * A statement by Howard Scott in regard to Communism.


 * Technocracy never had any philosophical predictions on the inevitable collapse of capitalism. The Marxian political philosophy was a condemnation of the ills of so-called capitalist society and a propaganda political document that all wealth was created by work, labor and toil, a theme which he sums up in his ``Workers of the World Unite. Marx, of course, envisaged abolition of one estate and the creation of another, and that the capitalist class should be expropriated and the workers be installed as the new social elite in a socialist world. Technocracy Inc. has never held any brief for the so-called ``capitalist class, or for that matter for any proprietary interest or group in our social structure. Marx only wanted to eliminate the so-called exploiting and owning classes. We contend that it is hardly worth undertaking. What Technocracy has always contended is that if sufficient energy consuming devices are installed and the total amount of extraneous energy consumed per capita reaches or exceeds 200,000 kilogram calories per capita per day, toil and workers alike will be eliminated, and, when toil is eliminated, the bourgeoisie will likewise go down the drain of history. Technocracy has always contended that Marxian political philosophy and Marxian economics were never sufficiently radical or revolutionary to handle the problems brought on by the impact of technology in a large size national society of today. It is sufficiently revolutionary to be of some importance and temporary application to under-developed areas of the globe. We have always contended that Marxian communism, so far as this Continent is concerned, is so far to the right that it is bourgeois. It is well here to bear in mind; the technological progression of the next 30 minutes invalidates all the social wisdom of previous history. Technology has no ancestors in the social history of man. It creates its own.--- end quote. Howard Scott skip sievert (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

price system / introduction
From the intro: "The term Technate was originated by Technocracy Incorporated in the early 1930s to describe the region over which a technocratic society would operate using thermodynamic energy accounting instead of a money method." with a citation of http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml

Not sure if this is a meaningless technicality or not but the studycourse.pdf released by Technocracy, Incorporated makes repeated use of the term 'price system' instead of money. Is that equivalent to the phrase 'money method'? Using the term price system seems to place more emphasis on the distribution of goods, which is the theme of the guide and movement, where as 'money' can take on many connotations which are difficult to pin down. I would suggest someone revert the article back to using 'price system' 68.175.118.95 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If one clicks on money currently in the article it explains what money is and also how the term relates to a price system. In other words in economics, a price system is any economic system that effects its distribution of goods and services by means of goods and services having prices and employing any form of money or debt tokens. Both terms are used in the article. A technate would use an energy unit or certificate which is an accounting system using energy economics instead of a price system... so, it is energy accounting... and not a price system, or money system. Energy is unconnected to debt... but is useful to monitor the environment and resource base for consumption purposes. skip sievert (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
This edit by John Quiggin was reverted he is doing other redirects without discussion also such as here Urbanates (another page redirect without discussion) on related topics. This user it is noted is wikihounding information related to this article also elsewhere... note here on that subject from Economics project page.