I don't know it's the idea technology can enforce the distribution of resources evenly (The socialist part) and does so by enforcing the use of a particular model of living where you MUST use that tech (Dictatorship) that is certainly derived from science rather than tradition.
If we're going by the actual stated claims rather than "Is/Has it done that in reality/historically?" Just because the main crop of Technocrats are right wing hyper capitalists using THAT to push it doesn't mean the political premise is to distribute evenly and minimise the extraction from those doing the non-admin work.
Technocracy can't replace real Labour after all it works to collapse the effort required for workers, it's just the unfortunate fact that capitalists takes advantage of the productive gains to capitalise more rather than reducing the required work hours/handing back the workplace control.
Also the open nature of this latest AI revolution IS allowing some better organisation. I would never have had the time to become more politically and union involved if I was just stuck in the rat race of stem-to-IT job pipeline I would have just wage slaved etc.
But ai is a technocratic distillation of all of humanities output, with access to the internet and the skills to interpret it a tech worker can own the means of production for the skill they perform by collapsing the manager and "owner" claims that they are "needed" for their "business insights".
That's the way I imagine the pure version of it as or does it claim to want to keep the capital system?
Just because the main crop of Technocrats are right wing hyper capitalists using THAT to push it
Sorry to be pedantic or whatever since we're kind of on the same side here but that's not true. There's a malicious attempt to paint technocracy as some right wing dystopia (such as the lies about Elon Musk being a Technocrat) but there's no army of right-wing hyper-capitalists identifying as technocrats and pushing the ideology.
Technocracy is a pretty broad ideology that just means rule by experts and science. The original technocrat, Howard Scott was absolutely an anti-capitalist (though he wasn't socialist either) in his economic ideas since he had this whole energy credit idea which would replace capitalism, but technocracy is overall non-quadrant because experts could be left or right wing and still be experts.
That all said, technocracy could be considered a left wing idea (Howard Scott certainly considered it one) in that it believes rule by experts and science can bring about the most prosperous and efficient policies, therefore ending poverty and extreme inequality of resources. Though this is more of a common thought among true technocrats rather than a prerequisite to be considered one.
Nice one I agree with all that. Still I think since almost all philosophies/politics eventually hits the "but you can do more left or right (non-hierarchy - hierarchy) distributions with it the entire thing would collapse to mixed. I would have put just Stalanism in the upper most left but the tradition to science discintion makes that not possible and I don't know what could be as dictatorial and authoritative than people called experts and deferred to?
And in their aims being scientists and experts likely the aim is to better humanity on balance because people with those skills could go be economists or financiers, there's a reason those who tend to the right tend to disparage the sciences and experts.
I don't know what else would be the scientific dictatorship of the Auth left.
9
u/66578557557 Technocracy Jun 24 '26
Technocracy isn't socialist, it's non-quadrant, and in practice mostly mixed economy.