The technocratic system proposed by N.E.T is a holarchic system, since it is built on the backbone of autonomous groups which are operating on their own projects but coordinating their efforts through the sequences which are offering channels of information. The decisions should be taken at the most local possible of levels, and be made based on technical expertise and transparency.

Thus, European technocracy is an inherently worker-controlled system, without any centralised command nexus.

Holons and a holonic society, by dr. Andrew Wallace

And the holons are already being built. The thought is, that even if the entire organisation is fucked up or eliminated, just one holon will be sufficient to re-build it.

What is wrong with Federalism as has already been demonstrated by numerous Anarchist organisations for over a century? Federation of local groups, federation of workers' councils, federation of industrial syndicates? This would be a non-hierarchical structure that can also work over a wide area (and has).

Why not have each Urbanate have a community federation to manage social events for that Urbanate, and which can further federate with other such federations for greater events? Why not form a workers' council for all workers in a computer factory, federate such councils into a Syndicate or Sequence of Computer Factories, federate such Syndicates or Sequences to a Syndicate or Sequence of Manufacturing, then into one for Industry and finally to a top level council analogous to a Continental Control Board?

That is the system I have been advocating to the few people I have talked to about Anarchist Communist Technocracy as I see it. These federations and super-federations (and super-super-federations...) would, both before and after a revolution, work under Theoretical and Tactical Unity (though the former becomes less relevant once techical decisions are the only ones being made) and Collective Responsibility (if you are in that group or federation and you all vote to do something, then you should do it, even if you disagreed with the decision).

This might call for continent-wide Anarchist Communist (whether Syndicalist or not), possibly Anarchist Communist Technocratic, organisations, covering areas such as North America (plus the areas of Northern South America that the Technical Alliance thought would be necessary, unless it turns out no longer to be required) and Northern Eurafricasia (Europe plus Asian Russia (for oil and other resources) plus, possibly, North Africa (for the Mediterranean and oil)), and maybe, eventually, Southeastern Asia (China, Korea, Japan, India etc.).

If and when a revolution happens in any of these areas, and if Anarchist Communism is implemented, it might be possible to convince others (if they have not been already) that to carry out the recommendations of Technocracy (probably Energy Accounting first) would be rational and then actually start building a Technate. Obviously, this would require a directly democratic society, one that only Anarchist Communism can provide.

I think your vision sound very promising Haraldur. In my opinion it would make sense if the socialist technate consisted of two parts: the core or 'socialist technate proper', ie areas advanced enough to be organised and managed in the technocratic/socialist fashion you describe, and a 'fringe' of areas supported by it, ie unadvanced third world nations.

The technate or 'core' would put part of it's resources in developing the 'fringe' areas in exchange for resources. They would then eventually be added to it, when advanced enough. In the meantime they'd be administrated in a more traditional libertarian socialist fashion by their inhabitants.

Hmmmm... I do not know. In order to function, a Technate must have all of the resources that are essential to the products that it produces within its 'borders'. There must be complete access to those resources so that more of the primary production can be taken in situations of elevated demand. If these areas have an essential resource, then the Technate would need to have them as part of it out of necessity, and simply transport goods that area needs to it from afar at the same time as taking that area's resources. If they are unadvanced, then their development, as part of a Technate, would be a priority.

If their resources are not essential but made production more efficient in the technate then I suppose it is possible as a last resort, if adding them to the Technate directly is impossible.

If they have nothing to offer that is not already available, I think a Technate would provide them with resources out of solidarity, and expect that area to use its own resources to develop itself to a state where it could either join the Technate or form one of its own.

I do not think such situations will arise often. In the North American case, the borders are in the rainforest and mountains of the south and the emptiness of the Arctic. In the Northwestern Eurafricasian case, Eastern Siberia and Mongolia are quite empty, as is the Sahara, Arabia and Kazakhstan (unless I am very much mistaken), with the main peopled border region probably being Iran. Of course, that assumes the scenarios I imagined. It might turn out differently.

That said, if you are referring to the transition period when a Technate was being constructed, it would probably have to be done like that. The more advanced and geographicallly central areas will have integrated themselves much faster than less advanced or outlying areas. Iceland, for example, despite its advanced state, is very far from the main area of Western Europe (which would probably get intigrated before any other part of that region) so it might take a while for it (assuming it is not too isolated to be integrated at all).

I do not know, I am not a seer and these things cannot really be worked out in advance. I do not have the information, or the time.

Is not this division rather semantic than based on real structural differences? I mean, the holonic system is a federal system per definition.

Forgive the ignorance of this reply, I admit I don't know too much about the NET and technocracy.
This quote from the URL you linked to; Although this seems a quite reasonable way to assume it's formation, do you think it could pose a risk of those who work in the "high[est]-level, more abstract holons" forming some kind of defacto 'government' type thing?
If you think this sounds stupid, don't laugh. I'm not familiar with the NET, so I wouldn't know what to assume.

Well, remember that each holon has a beginning and an end, just like each cell in the body has a beginning and an end. The Sequences are organised from one central focal point, and supposed to handle information, while the holons are organised from the bottom and up.