Could technocratic state capitalism ever work?
Technocratic anything can't really work because engies can't run a country.
Technocracy isn't an actionable form of government. It's more of a spectrum within the operations of existing civic frameworks. Are officials receiving their position based on the general merit of their abilities as opposed to strictly political or nepotistic considerations?
That pic looks way cooler on thumbnail than enlarged.
>>1136179
Well, we're going to find out.
>>1136179
That's one ugly ass plane up there.
Come on commies, you can do better.
>>1136179
See Singapore
>>1136179
Isn't that what China is leaning towards?
All their leaders are highly educated engineers/scientists and decisions are mostly based on practicality.
A technocracy still has the danger of a undeveloped field getting a office. That isn't just dangerous, its insane.
Image if you had a technocracy, and in all the political sciences you had insane departments that would not survive vacuum. And in charge of other harder departments is undeveloped fields.
Image the sheer insanity.
Or even worse: You get people that buy into cost sunk fallacy very hard. And suddenly tons of resources will be wasted for no reason other than to fuel something.
Another danger is fields changing. I.E in sanitation things like washing hands was a insane improvement, and the entire field resisted for about 20 years. If there is a bureaucracy, it will go on for longer, and resisting will be done on a top level.
Field change happens to all fields once in a while. Most changes are minor, but if its bureaucratized its going to be worse.
That said, the core use of technocracy is for the state to learn on the current fields. They may not know shit about some cases, but it allows for good answers in the cases where they do.
But technocracy as a state form is dangerous. Just like all other forms of state, merely by allowing the human element to roam wild.
But humanity needs a state, because it forces societies behavior to change, merely by possessing a monopoly of violence.
>>1136179
What is Singapore, ya Goober
>>1136705
>>1136341
Singapore is a constitutional parliamentary republic.
If they're a "technocracy" then technocracy is not a form of government, but merely exists when electorate is trained to vote for candidates based on what they perceive as "practical" qualifications. The irony of this is that this only encourages "practicality" to become politicized. Wherein the appearance of practicality among the voting public is more important than practicality in of itself.
>>1136179
Man i wish commies did build that.
>>1136774
yeah then people might actually take them seriously.
>>1136179
>State-capitalist anything
Wew lad
>>1136179
State capitalist is one hell of an oxymoron, the state isn't private. If it is then is it really a state and not just a corporation?
>>1136774
They tried, but after uncle Joe died, the safest thing his succesors could do was distance themselves from Stalin-like projects and anything started by Stalin. Among other things, this meant no grand architecture.
>>1136179
No. Technocracies are by definition unable to define a desired goal for society, they can only organize society towards a goal efficiently.
You need the (popular) sovereign to decide on societal goals, if any, and adjust them every once in a while.
>>1136480
Mostly, but they still have the stated end goal of communism. At this point, that is reduced to having the CCP holding on to power, but still: they are not so technocratic that they would do anything that undercuts the power of the CCP.
>>1137139
>the state owning incorporated entities like mining or bus companies is an oxymoron
>>1137139
It's kind of called feudalism.
Weren't the two Iberian dictatorships technocratic?
>>1136179
That's the most beautiful building I've ever seen, albeit it not being real.
>>1137311
That is not what feudalism is at all.
>>1137139
No, it is not a corporation. Corporations are entities that exist for the purpose of profit and have shareholders. A government exists to govern.
In state capitalism, the state owns or has large stakes in many different businesses across the country. This is not so much for profit and more so that it gives the state more direct control over the course of the economy. The distinction between state capitalism and a planned economy is that in planned economies the state owns all business and there is no private enterprise, whereas in state capitalism private enterprises are allow and encouraged, but still features heavy state involvement, especially in more major industries.
>>1136179
yes, but the crucial thing is you dont shoot the engineers
>>1136179
That looks pretty cool.
>>1136204
It works for modern day China it seems. Most of the party leadership is engineers and PHD grads.
>>1136762
It has become politicized in Singapore. Also "competency".
>>1136179
If Jewry didn't exist.
Technocracy is one of the worst ideas ever
>lets put a bunch of people who are really good at building infrastructure and researching science in charge of the state
Problem is, yeah these people know a lot about their respective hobbies...but they don't know shit about societal problems, economics, or even the basic knowledge of social science and law needed to govern
It's the same as putting lawyers in charge of finding a cure for cancer
I'm sorry that people are so sick of "insiders" or whatever, but those who have the knowledge to govern should be the ones governing, those who know how to do other things should be doing those things.
Why do you want a technocracy?
Is it your goal to destroy humanity?
>>1136179
why they make lenin fat tho
>>1138721
So you get economists and social scientists on board ya dummy
>>1138757
Because only the nomenklatura gets to eat in communism.
>>1138787
but anon communism is stateless so there's no nomenklatura
>>1138792
We call communism what communists called socialism, because what communists call communism will never happen.
>>1138796
why not just call it socialism and say communism doesn't exist?
"lol let's have some random scientists and engineers take control of a nation."
How is this practical
>>1138863
As opposed to what? Is there a profession that makes an inherently good political leader then?
>>1138869
corruption would be a problem
The reason scientists and engineers are reputable is because they are powerless, leaving the search for the truth as their main motive. Having had experience doing so and knowing how difficult it is and how careful you must be not to leap to conclusions etcetera is a very admirable trait, but it is carefully cultivated through years of study and decades long careers, it runs contrary to human nature to actually care about the truth if you gain nothing from it.
You might be a Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson fanboy straight from reddit, but really you are interested in the fun parts of science, not the grind, the meticulously gathering of facts and willingness to criticize and question popular views (including what is popular among liberals) which would be involved in the genuine search for the truth in a super serious subject.
>>1138958
>it runs contrary to human nature to actually care about the truth if you gain nothing from it
Source?
>>1138958
Corruption is everywhere, you cant avoid it.
>>1138610
No it doesn't. The real question is "for whom". China works for the elites. Democracy works for the general population.
>>1137287
I'm sure even "real" technocratic states would limit their powers as to not destroy their own technocratic state. I don't know about liberals though. kek
