3) Переход от современной системы к новой предполагается с помощью ... А никак не предполагается...
http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=95Переход предполагается через прото-технат. Создаются сети "Not for Profit Organisations (NPO)", которые оказывают услуги внутри сети бесплатно, а снаружи платно [eoslife.eu/files/Design.pdf , page 127, page 141]. И это уже частично воплощено:
Цитата:
A Start
EOS has started working on this plan (see
http://www.technate.eu). So far we have three organisations in the technate; EOS, Denia and Brain Box. EOS presents the ideology. Denia develops web pages and Brain Box provides server hardware. We can see the cooperation of the network even with these few elements as Denia designs the web site for EOS and Brain Box provides the servers for hosting it.
Также я планирую сделать онлайн - запрос правительству на упразднение официальных денег и переход к энерг. деньгам. Но это нужно обосновать, пока я не готова это сделать. Понятно, что запрос будет отклонен, но согласно законодательству какой-то ответ обязаны предоставить.
Sergey from SydneyВопрос:1 Does Technocracy's theoretical base contain some analysis about modern market economy? Some individuals tries to refute technocracy by pointing out the absence of such analysis.
2 According K. Marx's "Capital" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital,_Volume_I , 4.4 Chapter 15) -- the communist's ABC -- class struggle appears in capitalism due to an unproven statement that human needs for survival less means than he can produce. In labor accounting human heeds 6 man-hour of goods (food) per 24 hours, but capitalist (employer) uses him by 12 hours. So capitalist misappropriates difference. This employer's dishonest behavior is a reason of class struggle.
But today in market economy some individuals say that company's net income is explained by additional labor exact to K. Marx. So what technocracy can say about the nature of net income?
3 Also K.Marx writes (Capital, volume 1, 5.2 Chapter 17) that skilled labor is paid as x unskilled, x >1 . Marx writes that he doesn't know the reasons of x>1, and this proportion is set by market. Adam Smith [The Wealth of Nations, 1776] explain this by education (human must pay for education, so then he must recover money somehow. But in this case cause and effect are shuffled as not employee fixes his wage). And today some individuals say that engineer is payed in 7 times higher than minimum wage because skilled workers produces in unit time more value than unskilled ones in same unit time. Is it truth? What technocracy can say about fundamental reasons of higher wage of skilled worker in today market economy?
Ответ:1) I've heard this criticism before, but it is just grasping at straws. While the economy used in North America today has indeed changed a lot from what it was in the 1920s and '30s, it has not changed in the most important aspect, and that is that it is still a scarcity-based economy. Technocracy does not need to make comments specific to these modern changes because the flaw that it tries to point out to people and seeks to rectify is that a scarcity based economy cannot operate once an area's productive capacity reaches a certain point (which was reached already long ago), and trying to do so will only create increasing problems of waste, resource depletion, and environmental degradation, to say nothing of the social consequences. Now, with this economy having been on life support for so long, we not only see these problems, but also the depletion of that very productive capacity as well. It won't be much longer before we lose the ability to use Technocracy, and if that happens, we won't be able to regain it for a very long time.
2) Technocracy would say that the net income under today's economy is needlessly limited by its scarcity-based nature. If we were to produce what North America could produce, given the technology and resources we have now, the price of all those goods and services would crash, creating another great depression (and indeed was the cause of the first Great Depression). So any discussion of the specific configuration of any scarcity-based system, capitalist or not, does not concern Technocracy because of this very problem. We have to get rid of the scarcity model in order to unleash our productive potential. Then everyone's "income" will soar to new heights.
3) Again, Technocracy does not concern itself with the differences in scarcity-system operations, because they all suffer from the same fundamental flaw, as I already described. It reminds me of a phrase from the movie Fight Club: "Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic." It doesn't really matter how you change these things when the most important thing is to get off that ship and onto a better one!
Technology: I haven't forgotten about your post. It's just that it's big and I need to find time to properly reply to it. I do see that you are missing some important fundamental information regarding Technocracy, so I think that if you were to do some reading on it in the meantime, many of your questions would be answered. Just a suggestion.
Вопрос:But even in TECHNOCRACY STUDY COURSE (1944) I did not find the source of net income. It just says that net income is difference between revenue and expenditures:
page 140 wrote:
Exactly the same relationship that we have described between the consumer and the retailer exists between the retailer and the wholesaler, and between the wholesaler and the manufacturer. In each of these cases goods move from the wholesaler to the retailer when, and only when, money in the broader sense that we have defined moves from the retailer to the wholesaler, and from the wholesaler to the manufacturer. Like the retailer, the wholesaler must pay his help, his landlord, his interest, light, telephone, and miscellaneous bills. Any surplus above these can be disbursed as profits. The manufacturer must do a similar thing, for he must pay all these bills, as well as purchase his raw materials. The raw materials, as we have pointed out, are derived originally from the earth, so that the last payment made in this series is that which goes to the farmer for his produce, or, as royalties, to the owners of mineral resources.
For example some company makes some product. 2 options are available.
1 Employees got wage X, but "use value" of job was done is 1,5X. So 1,5X dollars worth of product was produced. 0,5X is net income of employer (Marx's "Surplus-Value").
2 Employees got wage X, so cost of product is X. But employer sells product by imputed price 1,5X. So he gets net income of 0,5X. But in this case there is no produced equivalent for 0,5X dollars, so 0,5X dollars was made from air.
What option is right?
Ответ:The quote from the TSC that you provided didn't contain a point in itself, it was trying to describe the operation of a price system in order to make the point of how it is not a sustainable model, from the point of view of its own ability to continue. It isn't trying to talk about "value" or what is "right". These are subjective concepts, and Technocracy deals with the objective. What is the "use-value" of ice-cream? I personally value chocolate ice cream far more than strawberry, so what are their relative "use-values"? It's meaningless in any objective sense because they are subjective. Now, there is an objective cost (in energy and materials) to making ice cream that can be scientifically measured, and that is how Technocracy does it. Trying to figure out whether scheme 1 or scheme 2 in a price system is an exercise for philosophy, not science, and has no bearing on Technocracy. I understand you wanting to try to understand Technocracy in terms you already understand that are based on price-system operations, but it's a case of comparing apples and oranges, or perhaps even apples and aircraft carriers. It is just two totally different discussions.
To illustrate, "income" in a Technate is not something that is determined by the system, but rather by the consuming patterns of the population. There are several limitations that help define this amount, including the population's limited ability to consume, the available resources, and the available technology to turn those resources into consumables. If we use food as an example, a person can only eat so much in a day. What they eat depends on what kinds of foods are available (plants and animals) as well as the available technology to turn those raw resources into different kinds of foods (bread, cakes, hot-dogs, etc.). There is no limit on "income" because there is an abundance of goods and services (e.g. there is more food than people can eat), but there are limits on consumption, as I've pointed out. So "income", net or otherwise, is not really a useful concept in Technocracy like it is in scarcity based systems. That is why they are two different discussions.
-- 01.11.2015, 07:39 --И какой уровень удовлетворения потребностей считать разумным, а какой - чрезмерным? Какой использовать критерий? Если, например, выживание людей как биологического вида, то достаточно технологий палеолита - и того уровня удовлетворения потребностей, который они в состоянии обеспечить. Тогда все мы купаемся в неслыханной роскоши. Или будем считать разумным несколько более высокий уровень? Какой именно?
Как пример приводится безопасная бритва Gillette, лезвия которой служат всего 3-4 раза, после чего затупляются, и для достижения такого показателя требуются незаурядные познания в металловедении. В то же время существовали марки лезвий Star и Rolls Razor, служившие десятки лет.
(https://ia801806.us.archive.org/20/items/studycourse5thed00unse_1/studycourse5thed00unse_1.djvu , pages 246-247)
Considering the quality of products the results are equally bad. Consider razor blades. Suppose that 30 million people shave once per day with safety razor blades, and suppose that these blades give 3 shaves each. This would require a razor blade production of 10 million blades per day, which is the right order of magnitude for the United States. Thus, our razor blade factories may be thought of as producing shaves at the rate of 30 million per day at current load factors. Now suppose that we introduce the energy criterion requiring that razor blades be manufactured on the basis of a minimum energy cost per shave. Then the blades, instead of lasting 3 days, would be more likely to last 3 years or longer. Suppose they lasted 3 years. What effect would this have upon our productive capacity in shaves? Technically it is just as easy to manufacture a good blade as a poor one. Thus the productive capacity at the current load factor would be 10 million good blades instead of 10 million poor ones per day. But 10 million good blades at a life of 3 years each are equivalent to 1,095,000,000 shaves per day, instead of the 30 million now produced by the same equipment. Since the number of shaves per day is not likely to be materially increased, with the longer lived blade what would happen would be a junking of approximately 99 percent of the present razor factories, thereby eliminating enormous wastage of natural resources.
(https://ia801806.us.archive.org/20/items/studycourse5thed00unse_1/studycourse5thed00unse_1.djvu , pages 164)
In the meantime, a safety razor is developed abroad, the 'Rolls Razor,' which has the quality of steel and the durability of the old pre-safety razor product. Since the public wants a good razor, and its habits are adjusted to safety razors, it follows that, if this new razor were admitted at a price which allowed it to compete readily with the prevailing domestic razors, it would stand a good chance of wrecking the domestic safety razor business. This entry is prevented very effectively by erecting a tariff barrier so high against the foreign product as to render its importation, except in small quantities, almost prohibitive.
It might be mentioned, in passing, that a safety razor, the 'Star' was introduced to the American market in the 1890's. People who bought this razor over forty years ago are still using it with the original blades. Business, of course, for this company could not have been very flourishing. It does not appear strange, therefore, that it should long since have ceased to exist.
What we have been pointing out in the foregoing is simply the fundamental conflict between production for social welfare, on the one hand, as contrasted with what is good business, on the other. It is not our purpose to intimate that the business men are at fault; we only want to point out that, under the rules of the game of the Price System, it is better business to maintain scarcity, and to turn out cheap and shoddy products which, like the Gillette razor blade, will be used a few times and then have to be discarded and replaced by another. It is also observed that if, under the same rules of the game, one fails to conform and produces, as in the case of the 'Star' razor, a superior product, he does not long remain in business.
