Technocracy

[Aleksandar]

Can someone explain to me what is it and how does this work?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The term was invented in 1919 by William H. Smyth, a Californian engineer to describe "the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers" - it became somewhat popular in North America during the 1930s in the form of Technocracy Inc (http://www.technocracy.org/index.php), but clearly their plan to abolish money and private corporations in favour of a planned economy based on energy accounting (http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84%3Aenergy-accounting&catid=23%3Aeconomics&Itemid=95) clearly didn't sit too well with the ruling classes.

While I'm an advocate for some form of technocratic economy, orthodox technocracy as advocated by the likes of Tech Inc has a number of problems:

1) Managerialism - basically, a hypothetical technocratic society as envisioned by Tech Inc can be fairly divided into "technicians" and "everyone else". This simply recreates capitalist relations along the lines of technical skill rather than effective control of capital. In my opinion the solution to this is obvious - everyone can and should be an expert, and not necessarily in science or engineering. The Arts and the Humanities are just as worthy as lifetime pursuits, and while the input from such fields can't always be strictly quantified, I believe there are strong arguments to made for their contributing to human well-being.

2) No "theory to power" - While their rejection of participation in elections is admirable, revolution as an answer doesn't seem to have occurred to advocates of orthodox technocracy - the closest thing being some kind of coup engineered by some technical elite. An unacceptable omission.

3) Incomplete analysis of the capitalist price system - For one, it fails to take into account class struggle and how it relates to economics, however right-on its other criticisms of the capitalist price system may be.

In my estimation, the failures of technocracy as a movement serve to strongly underline the necessity of class analysis and a Marxist framework.

[rylasasin]

The term was invented in 1919 by William H. Smyth, a Californian engineer to describe "the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers" - it became somewhat popular in North America during the 1930s in the form of Technocracy Inc (http://www.technocracy.org/index.php), but clearly their plan to abolish money and private corporations in favour of a planned economy based on energy accounting (http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84%3Aenergy-accounting&catid=23%3Aeconomics&Itemid=95) clearly didn't sit too well with the ruling classes.

While I'm an advocate for some form of technocratic economy, orthodox technocracy as advocated by the likes of Tech Inc has a number of problems:

1) Managerialism - basically, a hypothetical technocratic society as envisioned by Tech Inc can be fairly divided into "technicians" and "everyone else". This simply recreates capitalist relations along the lines of technical skill rather than effective control of capital. In my opinion the solution to this is obvious - everyone can and should be an expert, and not necessarily in science or engineering. The Arts and the Humanities are just as worthy as lifetime pursuits, and while the input from such fields can't always be strictly quantified, I believe there are strong arguments to made for their contributing to human well-being.

2) No "theory to power" - While their rejection of participation in elections is admirable, revolution as an answer doesn't seem to have occurred to advocates of orthodox technocracy - the closest thing being some kind of coup engineered by some technical elite. An unacceptable omission.

3) Incomplete analysis of the capitalist price system - For one, it fails to take into account class struggle and how it relates to economics, however right-on its other criticisms of the capitalist price system may be.

In my estimation, the failures of technocracy as a movement serve to strongly underline the necessity of class analysis and a Marxist framework.

Yes, I'd have to quite agree with that.

Interestingly, it was Technocracy that (inadvertingly) lead me to Marxism.

[fabian]

Technocracy is the rule of managers, of "experts". That's what Bolshevism is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Technocracy is the rule of managers, of "experts". That's what Bolshevism is.

Wrong on both counts. Try learning about what you speak of before opining. It will make you look less foolish.

[l'Enfermé]

Technocracy is the rule of managers, of "experts". That's what Bolshevism is.
Yes, that's a very convincing and informed refutation of comrade ÑóẊîöʼn's post...

[fabian]

he talked about the technocracy movement, which was an american movement based on technocracy, but that movement is only one from of technocracy (which means the "rule of experts"), and, as I said, bolshevism is another, being that bolshevik established a class society, and the class that ruled over the workers was the class of managers, class of "experts", that is- bolshevism is a form of technocracy.

[Rising_Dragon]

he talked about the technocracy movement, which was an american movement based on technocracy, but that movement is only one from of technocracy (which means the "rule of experts"), and, as I said, bolshevism is another, being that bolshevik established a class society, and the class that ruled over the workers was the class of managers, class of "experts", that is- bolshevism is a form of technocracy.
If you have a "class" of "experts" ruling above everyone else, then you do not have a Technocracy - you have oligarchs with degrees.

[fabian]

oligarchs with degrees, that's called technocracy.

[Tim Cornelis]

By your logic, Fabian, every class society is a technocracy.

[fabian]

I said that technocracy is the rule of managers.

[Yazman]

Y'all know that in english, words can have multiple meanings, right? There's no need for dispute here.

The OP was clearly looking for information on the technocracy movement and the system its supporters advocate. While it is true there is another meaning than can refer to a type of bureaucracy dominated by those with qualifications, it isn't the only meaning. There really isn't any room for a "no, technocracy means THIS" argument here.

Technocracy in the sense Noxion described is an economic system, without necessarily having a political analysis component attached. That's why of the supporters of technocracy (the economic system) one can find anarchists, communists, left liberals, and even US-style right-libertarians.

I think, Fabian, one must make sure to differentiate between technocracy the proposed economic system (what Noxion describes) and technocracy the political term (which is what you describe).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I said that technocracy is the rule of managers.

Technocracy literally means "rule of skill", not "rule of experts" or "rule of managers". If everyone in a technocracy is skilled at something, then everybody rules at something. What would managers be needed for? Surely the best people to manage are those who actually do the work?

[fabian]

The OP was clearly looking for information on the technocracy movement and the system its supporters advocate
I didn't see where. There is only a general question about technocracy.


Technocracy literally means "rule of skill", not "rule of experts" or "rule of managers".
And plutocracy means "rule of wealth" not "rule of the rich", and monarchy means "rule of one" and not "rule of one person", and olygarchy means "rule of few" not "rule of few people", and theocracy means "rule of god" not religious law state, and meritocracy means "rule of merit" not "rule of people with most merit".

[Strannik]

If I remember correctly, technocracy in US advertised itself as an alternative to socialism, which they understood to mean "rule by all". Instead of masses guiding the society according to their aggregated desires, technocrats proposed a system where experts offer people certain necessary services (food, water, housing, electicity etc) within predetermined limit, measured by energy credits in each individual case.

The problem is that what's necessary is usually socially constructed and can't be decided witout involvement of the people. On the other hand, principle that experts should make complex technical decisions is accepted by any sane society, be it bourgeois or socialist.

And that's the contradiction of technocracy, as I see it. If it's "experts decide what people can and cannot have", you'll have a static, closed economy where people are treated not as active creators of their world but passive cattle (which is why these days some greens are falling in love with technocracy). But if you understand it as experts deciding how to organize fulfilling particular social desires, it's redundant, because pretty much everybody agrees with this anyway.

[ham]

Technocracy advertised itself as the next most probable social governing system in our new high technological society. The technical alliance(1918-1920's) saw what happened during WW1 with production and man-hours and decided to study that and predict where this stuff was headed. The idea was developed from analyzing society in physical terms...energy.(Biophysical economics, Systems theory, etc.)


"Technocracy has no political antecedents. It derives nothing from any of the historic political theorists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx. The basic views of Technocracy derive (embryonically) from the works of Joseph Willard Gibbs, the father of physical chemistry. It was Gibbs who placed the science of thermodynamics on a sound footing; and he emphasized that every process in nature means change. He discovered some of the laws of physical change.

Technocracy's survey of the economic situation in North America leads to the conclusion that there is in development a process of progressive social instability; that this process will continue until the instability reaches the limit of social tolerance, and that there then will have to be installed on this Continent a social mechanism competent to meet the needs of its people...

Technocracy proposes that the North American Continent be operated as a self-contained functional unit under technological control. This control would operate the area under a balanced-load system of production and distribution, where under there would be distributed purchasing power commensurate with the resources and the continuous full-load operation of the physical equipment, with the guarantee of a high standard of living, equality of income and economic security to every inhabitant, with a minimum of human toil.

Scientist and engineer M. King Hubbert, and Howard Scott wrote the findings and conclusion in what is known as the Technocracy Study Course. If you are curious and/or do not understand Technocracy. It is important that you read the 22 lesson study course to fully understand the idea.

According to Scott and Hubbert, the distribution of energy resources must be monitored and measured in order for the system to work -- and this is the key: monitoring and measuring.

They wrote that the system must do the following things:

1. "Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net conversion of energy.

2. "By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.

3. "Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption

4. "Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced and where used [Scott, Howard et al, Technocracy Study Source, p. 232]

All this within a sustainable context in a non monetary non political science based social design"

All inventory is distribution through energy UNITS, not CREDITS. The energy used to produce has already been spent and recorded and hence become available as products for consumption. The "energy units" are used as a method of recording and distributing the resources equitably. We call it Energy Accounting. The citizens have the choice to consume what they want and everything evolves from there.

ÑóẊîöʼn,

Your first point is wrong. Anyone can choose a pursuit and become involved in some way. Artists and designers can work to create functional and aesthetically pleasing buildings or works of art on display. Anything is possible but to say people can't come together and organize in the arts and humanities in a Technocracy and create something is wrong.

3. Technocracy refutes the Price System entirely. No need to pick and choose parts of it when the entire system is the problem.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

ÑóẊîöʼn,

Your first point is wrong. Anyone can choose a pursuit and become involved in some way. Artists and designers can work to create functional and aesthetically pleasing buildings or works of art on display. Anything is possible but to say people can't come together and organize in the arts and humanities in a Technocracy and create something is wrong.

It's not so much that people can't organise pursuits in the Arts and Humanities according to orthodox technocracy, so much as is it is that such pursuits do not appear to be as highly valued as science and engineering.


3. Technocracy refutes the Price System entirely. No need to pick and choose parts of it when the entire system is the problem.

The Price System aspect of capitalism is not the whole problem, though. As a Marxist I have to consider the question of who has effective control of the means of production. I also have to consider issues of alienated labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation), which is still most certainly a possibility in an orthodox technocratic economy.

[Crabbensmasher]

Hopefully this is of some help
First of all, as various people have more or less said already, it's a completely different approach to economic management than capitalism. The term itself has been around forever, and different movements have claimed to represent it throughout modern history. They all have different ways of describing the term, with some even going as far to say Italy's PM is a technocrat.

Basically, the most popular explanation nowadays is something along the lines of this;

yes, it can be simplified to the "rule of skill". Resources are allocated by scientists, engineers, or even computers not according to the price system, but done so taking into consideration the needs of people, the environment, and resource sustainability.
Basically, it's using the planet's resources in the most efficient way possible (and by efficiency, I don't mean price efficiency. I mean mechanical efficiency) so as to create a more equitable, healthy distribution of needed resources.

The movement is not political in any context. It's concerned with the technical management of the world. It's purely economic in the truest sense of the term.

Oddly enough, the movement seems to be making a comeback lately. Of course, they go by other names, but it is similar to the movement that emerged in 1930s America.

I speculate it's just people getting fed up with the capitalist system during economic downturns, and looking for solutions.

[NGNM85]

It seems implicitly obvious to me that a rational society (as opposed to the one we presently inhabit) would employ this kind of planning. I'm also quite skeptical that doing so would automatically lead to an autocracy of engineers. Michael Albert's Parecon describes a similar process, and suggests ways in which this could be conducted democratically. I see no reason why this should not be so. Furthermore; we also have to realize that individuals living in such a rational society would be much better equipped for the responsibility of citizenship than most people are, today. Most Americans, today, are ill-equipped for this task; our educational system is substandard, and primarily geared towards churning out fodder for corporations, as well as indoctrinating, and pacifying people, etc., etc. In a rational society, based on meeting human needs, as opposed to production for profit, we should expect human beings would be far better prepared to understand the complexities of managing a sophisticated technological civilization, and, thus; to participate in the democratic management of said society. Besides; it's not like everybody would need a certificate in civil engineering, just a basic level of political, and scientific literacy.

[Lowtech]

Regardless of it's tradition defintion, technocracy shouldn't be ignored out of pure bias.

Computers can make better decisions and faster than humans; its simply a matter of what decisions we want computers to make.

also, technology can, even today, allow for a kind of flat government, where there is no hierarchy among humans all.

Marxism is an observation of capitalist economics and it's social impact, there's much missing from marxism's actual marketless framework as an economy. These missing parts will most cetainly be filled by technology, skill sets, etc.

The only so-called leftists that would object are those that support authoritarian ideology.

it really comes down to making a choice; do you see socialism as a mathematically validated economic system suited to sustaining a civilization (which welcomes technology) or do you believe in some archaic authoritarian garbage that calls itself socialism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think it needs to be emphasised that technocracy isn't about the latest trends in technology, but rather how that technology is organised. Case in point: Tech Inc concluded as part of their Energy Survey of North America that the continent was materially capable of economic self-sufficiency - and this was back in the 1930s! I suspect that North America is no longer alone in being a geographic region capable of sustaining its own population without external input.

I just wish I could find a scanned copy of that document, since the information contained therein is of interest to any advocate of a post-capitalist economy based on real material and energy availability rather than money and markets, not just technocrats.