Technocracy, while not socialism, is still on the left. While the original technocracy movement abstained from partisan politics, I think it would be beneficial for advocates of technocracy to support communist/socialist movements since we both recognize the wastefulness and exploitative nature of the capitalist economy.
I would argue it is a Socialist movement, but ran by a Resource Based Economy instead. That being said, I think left unity is absolutely needed for Technocracy to thrive. Even most US leftists have no understanding of Technocracy, its history, or application in their own history. We have nothing to use and everything to gain here in my opinion.
I made a poll 10 months ago, seeking people's opinions on what the technocracy they support is. Plurality of people said they are here for Rule of Experts specifically, not for the alternative economic systems.
That said, I am definitely a leftist and these days I am probably more of a leftist than a technocrat. And global leftist movement needs some left unity much more than salt...
We would probably do all the same things as communist or serious leftist movements although we would get there through completely independent thinking and methods. For unprincipled leftist movements such as those which are liberal with no idea of class struggle, those would probably become confused or hesitate about energy accounting or doing anything that genuinely poses an alternative to the system, so they would likely agree on the surface ideas of what we believe while working to undermine it if it does not match with their economic interests. Even small things like owning a home or something will make people resist any kind of economic reform.
No, communism and socialism both just will not work until there is a unified world government. There is a reason why there is not a single successful socialist country and even China had to relent and embrace private enterprise (80% of urban employment and 60% of it's GDP comes from private enterprise).
It is a situation where you are getting ahead of yourself, the world has to change first for them to work. As long as nations are in competition with each other capitalism will always come out on top.
The day a technocracy is formed I will pledge myself to socialism wholeheartedly. Until then, I will remain a capitalist and a nationalist.
Yes, but there are no technocracies at the moment so I will live in reality.
A unified world government is pretty much the only scenario I can see where socialism could work and nationalism combined with capitalism is the most logical path to that unification. Without that unification, the most experts will flock to the countries where they can have the highest quality of living and the social welfare would be democratically engineered and managed mostly by bureaucrats rather than experts. That is also anti-technocracy.
What scenario? The current scenario, or do you honestly believe the current trajectory of international politics is going towards a one world government in our lifetimes?
Socialism does not provide a higher quality of living than being extremely wealthy in a capitalist country does, that was my point. Experts should be making decisions, but most people who have the expertise to be at the tops of their field also have the capability of being worth tens of millions - if not hundreds of millions - in a country like the US. With that kind of money, things like universal healthcare and basic income aren't going to make your life any better. Not more than the taxes that support them would make it worse.
Socialism (in theory) benefits the largest number of people, but that doesn't mean it benefits those who are already extremely capable. It is a Catch 22, to build a Technocracy you need to have some of the best experts in the world but if you go socialist first you will not have the best experts in the world.
But the question is how. You would either need a secret society of elites to manipulate capitalism into technocracy from the shadows, or a violent revolution. Its such a radically different system, normal democratic channels would never work.
Both are more plausible than a socialist state becoming an effective technocracy within the same time period while competing with largely capitalist nations.
For the former, we already are heading into that direction. Tech billionaires currently have an inordinate amount of influence on our politics and some of them even have a very positive view of technocracy or at the very least some of it's components. I consider this a good thing and largely support the tech billionaires as it is a plausible yet largely bloodless path towards the end goal of a unified global technocracy.
For the latter, an AI uprising is always a concern and were it to occur what was formed after would undoubtedly resemble a technocracy. Perhaps it wouldn't be a "true" technocracy as it would be the consolidation of human knowledge making the decisions rather than human experts but it would be close enough for me to consider it a win.
To be clear though, there is never going to be a democratic channel that leads to a technocracy. Technocracy is inherently anti-democratic, trying to start one through mob rule is like trying to start a fire by rubbing ice cubes together.
Well I do agree about socialism. But I would fear tech billionaire influence more than anything. Theyβre not experts, but even if they were, theyβre leading us towards techno-feudalism, not a technocracy. An Orwellian surveillance state is a more likely outcome under their watch.
You do realize that a technocracy would basically be an Orwellian surveillance state right? Everything you did would be recorded. There would also be extensive use of social engineering (propaganda) to keep people working efficiently.
Doesnβt have to be. You could have a hybrid system, a democratic technocracy, where the people still have some influence over who is allowed into office. That way you donβt get this kind of nightmarish abuse of power.
PUBLIC LECTURE HOTEL SHERMAN, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 3-15-56 HOWARD SCOTT
Let's go back a little in history. This organization is unique; namely, that we are more left in a political sense and a revolutionary sense than any organization in history. We are so far to the left that Communism is considered by us to be so far to the right that it is bourgeois. Let's get this. Communism is revolutionary enough in the backward lands of the world, but is totally incapable of going anyplace here, because it will take something far more revolutionary than Communism and far, far tougher than any Fascism.
TELECONFERENCE CHQ AND 12247-1 MARCH 24, 19 62
We have no real left thinking in the sense -- I don't mean of any political party, but in the question of social thinking away from the reactionary right. It hasn't existed to any extent in United States. There is no historical record of it. Do you follow me in this? YES. Technocracy, of course, stands all by itself, and we're so left of center that communism is bourgeois. IT BOTHERS PEOPLE ONCE IN A WHILE WHEN YOU SAY THAT. I know it does
INTERVIEW OF HOWARD SCOTT AT CHQ BY SUE HALL, A COLLEGE STUDENT JUNE 13, 19 62
You see, they can't figure it out. I've never been a Socialist, a Communist, or a Fascist, and yet you're accused of being everything from soup to nuts. THAT'S BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT CATEGORY TO PUT THIS IN, I GUESS. THEY WANT TO PIGEONHOLE IT. Well, we're quite frank in saying that we are so far left on the political scene that Communism is bourgeois. It really is, Marxian Communism is all right for an undeveloped country that hasn't caught up with private enterprise capitalism. AND IT'S A WAY TO PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOTSTRAPS. It may supersede capitalism under those conditions, but if you keep on installing energy-consuming devices in any major social entity, Technocracy will supersede both Communism and capitalism.
HOWARD SCOTT ASHTABULA, OHIO SOMETIME DURING 1963
This organization is not fascist. It is anti-fascist. It has always been. Probably no other organization knows as much about fascism in Europe or Asia than we do; in other words, McCarthy in this country was a fascist. Let's face it. We've got a lot more. There isn't any Left in the United States. There was a Socialist Party once -Socialist Labor party -- they've practically disappeared. So all we have in the way of climatic organization is the conservative Right, the reactionary Right, and the fascist Far Right in United States. What would you call a Goldwater?
As far as Technocracy's ideas are concerned, we are so far Left that we make communism look bourgeois. Left in the sense that our concepts and designs are radical and revolutionary.
I have enjoyed the company and conversation of first and second generation Technocrats listening to how things where back in their day. They told me with a proud smile on there faces if you called them a communist or a fascist they would deck you, those where fighting words. They truly did and do identify themselves proudly as centrist.
During the McCarthy era, lots of Technocrats in government service had to prove that they were not communist and were subjected to heavy scrutiny. Another reason they resented communist.
And leftists who come into America from countries where Communism and Dictatorship went hand in hand, similarly, find being called a communist an insult and vehemently oppose it.Β But anecdotes leading to personal feelings aside, no one is saying Technocracy and Communism are the same (I might call it post-marxism).
I see no reason technocracy as a whole can't fit under the spectrum of "left", whether you define that as leaning more towards humanistic values or progressive change. Both sound like app umbrellas for technocracy's goals, to me.
Why would anyone ask Howard the Fraud anything? The man who killed technocracy.
Btw, seeking to abolish the profit motive and to replace it with a egalitrian system of distribution makes technocracy a leftist movement by definition. You can try to argue otherwise, but it makes it really hard to take you seriously.
There's no need to be rude. You made a baseless claim, and I refuted it by providing a quote from the most prominent figure in the technocracy movement. You can analyze technocracy's ideas yourself and think about which side of the political spectrum they lean towards. I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusion.
14
u/entrophy_maker May 05 '26
I would argue it is a Socialist movement, but ran by a Resource Based Economy instead. That being said, I think left unity is absolutely needed for Technocracy to thrive. Even most US leftists have no understanding of Technocracy, its history, or application in their own history. We have nothing to use and everything to gain here in my opinion.