CH: Technocratic US

[Killer300]

Possible? I know in OTL the movement had no traction, however could this be different? Perhaps no FDR leads to it gaining popularity? Prove it can be done AH.Com!

[TxCoatl1970]

IMO FDR, Truman, thru LBJ did their best to make technocracy one of the main tools in America's kit, linking technical progress to social progress in whatever technical project held their fancy- e.g. TVA, Hoover/Grand Coulee Dams, Manhattan Project, etc. and considering it of net social benefit as long as it did its specific job.

Where that consensus of technical progress is social progress ran into a social brick wall was the almost Luddite reaction the far left environmental movement and to some extent the far-right, (Birchers and so forth campaigning against flouridation of water as a Commie plot) as well to technology during and after the Vietnam era.
We've discussed ad infinitum et nauseam on this board how space exploration and other blue-sky searches for technology have stalled out for various social and political reasons.

You're asking if the US could have stayed gee-whiz progressive not just about tweaking electronics for all they're worth but other macro-scale stuff as well.

The big problem with that is we started counting the fiscal, environmental, and human costs of progress in the 1970's and have gone so far in the other direction trying to avoid future liabilities it's led to a relatively sclerotic status quo.


IMO-

• technocracy needed NOT to be associated with miltary misadventure in Vietnam. Sure, the politicians and brass colossally screwed up, but the protesters got mad at engineers at Dow making napalm and Monsanto for making Agent Orange and other stuff.
• technocrats should be seen as heroes keeping things running and preventing further issues when they bring up problems and propose solutions. Whistle-blowers have never been properly listened to or protected in the public or private sector.
• technocrats had to make their case to the general public and be listened to respectfully. Public opinion about technocrats tends to be either vaguely worshipful or thoroughly suspicious without much middle ground.
• butterflying away the rise of regressive religious leaders in the 1970's/80's actively suspicious of modern technology, women's roles/possibilities changing, and so forth.
• keeping the capital gains taxes where they were before Reagan took office avoiding the destructive hollowing-out of industrial America in a speculative frenzy that had zip to do with capably running a business. Sure, there was definitely some deadwood and complacency that needed to change, but instead of belieiving in incremental change, it had to be the wonder drug or killer app that allows management to cash out.

[Asnys]

TxCoatl1970, I think he's talking about a different kind of Technocracy...

I posted a thread on this a month or two back. Getting rid of or hobbling FDR is a definite requirement. My vague thought was to have Howard Scott not mess up his big speech in 1933, and gain a rich patron or three for the movement. Then, as the economy just keeps not getting better and communist agitation starts turning into insurrection, Technocracy seems to offer political and economic elites a revolution they think they can control.

There's a Technocrat, krkrbs420, who posts occasionally on these boards who may have some suggestions.

[Killer300]

Interesting guys, interesting.

Also, yes TxCoatl1970, talking about the much more radical form.

[Orville_third]

Would Buckminster Fuller have helped?

[TxCoatl1970]

After doing a little wiki-walking, I got a general idea of what Howard Scott & Co were about.
Interesting to see Thorstein Veblen was an early proponent of it.

A utopian movement trying to make economy rational? Wow! Scientists, engineers, and techies in society's driver's seat? Cool! How well would non-techies buy into it? Um

Howard Scott FWICT proved brilliant with tech and inept with people when he pulled that bizarro radio address in 1932. He might've been an interesting theorist, but you needed a better front-man to pitch it. IDK if Scott's ego could let that happen.

As to Buckminster Fuller being associated with it, to me, unfortunately it seems like a ticket to being even more marginalized than he was OTL.
Now you need to get prominent non-techies to buy into it.
If they did, it becomes popular. Bucky Fuller goes from interesting footnote to prophet of accessible, useful tech mentoned in the same breath as Henry Ford and Thomas Edison. Nikola Tesla ????

Of course, Aldous Huxley was probably having a larf with Brave New World which could be seen as both the apotheosis of consumer society
and Technocratic principles.
Another bit was how scientists and ordinary people became very wary of technology as an unmititgated good/ tool of human progress after WWII.

[Polish Eagle]

Originally Posted by TxCoatl1970

After doing a little wiki-walking, I got a general idea of what Howard Scott & Co were about.
Interesting to see Thorstein Veblen was an early proponent of it.

So was Upton Sinclair, IIRC, as were many other early-20th-century Socialists.

For Technocracy to take over the United States, it must either win in a democratic election or come to power in revolution. The latter is rather unlikely IMO, but in any event it must develop mass-appeal. Its disadvantage compared to Communism is that Communism provides the Working Class with the ideological hope of power. Technocracy must develop an ideology at least as, well, moving as that.

What could that require? As I noted above, some Socialists had ideological sympathies that favored Technocracy. Perhaps a merger of Socialism and Technocracy into one new party would work.

[Asnys]

The way I imagined it working, was that Technocracy would be a revolution of the elites. That the Depression lasts long enough and gets bad enough that even the political and economic elites come to believe that a change is needed, and Technocracy seems to offer a change that allows them to retain control. So the "revolution" isn't street protests or guerilla fighting, but rather a group of the Power Elite (TM) quietly meeting with the President and explaining the new reality - in other words, a quiet coup d'etat. Howard Scott is appointed Chief of Staff, technocrats are installed in key positions throughout the government, and enabling legislation is passed. Of course, once in power, the Technocrats may prove to have their own ideas about the role of the old elites in the new order.

Another option was the Technodemocrats or the other splinter group, whose name I forget. They both split off on the grounds that Technocracy, Inc., was insufficiently democratic and, in the Technodemocrats case, too politically inactive. With the right leadership, they seem like they could have turned into something instead of dissolving into the larger field of social democratic politics.

A third option would be to have the Technocrats pursue a political strategy analogous to the Libertarians. Essentially, rather than trying to gain power directly, set up think-tanks and publishing houses and lobbying groups, and slowly build influence. In which case they probably never actually come to power as Technocrats, but over a period of decades they push US policy in their direction.

[blindgoose]

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

So was Upton Sinclair, IIRC, as were many other early-20th-century Socialists.

For Technocracy to take over the United States, it must either win in a democratic election or come to power in revolution. The latter is rather unlikely IMO, but in any event it must develop mass-appeal. Its disadvantage compared to Communism is that Communism provides the Working Class with the ideological hope of power. Technocracy must develop an ideology at least as, well, moving as that.

What could that require? As I noted above, some Socialists had ideological sympathies that favored Technocracy. Perhaps a merger of Socialism and Technocracy into one new party would work.

If you talk to most Socialists about what Socialism will look like (and I'm talking revolutionary socialism, not social democracy) they will give you a description of a vaguely technocratic society. The only problem with make technocracy viable in comparison to the socialist movement in the Depression is the latent authoritarianism of technocracy suis generis. A society run by
scientists and engineers, though democratic in the sense that the scientists and engineers will vote on policies, must necessarily be anti-democratic in the choosing of the scientists and engineers who are part of the government. In order to successfully implement technocracy, I think the movement would need to appropriate the socialist movements "industrial democracy" rhetoric and talk about workers' control while maintaining that science and engineering would be the base for all decisions and policies. Basically, I think a successful technocratic movement would need to be a technocratic version of socialism, rather than a socialistic version of technocracy.

[Johnny]

Hello.
People here need to stop getting their information on Technocracy from Wikipedia... that site sucks and is about as dumbed down as is possible as an information source En.Wikipedia Encyclopedia And The Technocracy Entries : TechnocracyTechnate.org : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Also if you want actual information on this subject go to places like this Biophysical economics - Encyclopedia of Earth and Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology and ECONOMY AND THERMODYNAMICS

In other words most of your information on what this subject is .... is wrong.
Number one Scott did not give a bad speech. It was presented that way in the New York Times though... here is the text of the Hotel Pierre speech mentioned Technocracy IncorporatedHotelPierreAddress

Anyway go to other places... and actually learn something about this subject before clacking the keys here Technocracy IncorporatedFirstPrinting