National technocracy - help me developing an ideology

"""""That focus was only set by Howard Scott and not shared by other early supporters."""""

"The All American Technological Society was only one of almost 30 organizations in the United States that came into being from Mobile, Alabama, and Los Angeles, Calif., Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, New York and other cities, all trying to climb aboard the band wagon.

There was even a wealthy doctor who incorporated the Technocracy Political Party in the state of Illinois, and had sound trucks out blaring the good news to the citizens of that state. There was a slew of publications, some on simple newsprint, and up to magazines printed with photographs in color, none of which originated with Technocracy Inc. and none of which had the approval of or sponsorship of Technocracy Inc.

Seldom has there been assembled, as there was in the ballroom of the Morrison Hotel, such a ludicrous assemblage of so many different kinds of fish, all trying to nibble at the same bait. Technocracy did not bury them, they buried themselves. Technocracy would have loved to have had the money spent by the All American Technological Society and others in promoting the so-called convention on Technocracy in 1933 at the Hotel Morrison in Chicago, Illinois. We could have put it to better use."

http://www.archive.org/details/HistoryAndPurposeOfTechnocracy.howardScott

"He who Creates an Idea

It is true that we have imitators. Upton Sinclair (I, Governor of California) proclaimed that the EPIC Movement would bring Technocracy to California. The Utopian Society has lifted many things from Technocracy -- in fact, most of its program with the exception of its ritual. We find it in all places from the President in the White House to the man on the street. They take just so much from Technocracy but stop when it comes to accepting our social design or conclusions. Father Coughlin in his broadcast the other Sunday was using a Technocratic approach very ably but ended up as a lame duck in his conclusion.

He who creates has but one purpose; to have it stolen by other human beings. Human psychology is such that if people have to steal anything, they will desire it more highly. The famous Thomas W. Lawson had a large estate in New England and offered a cherished suggestion to beautify the roads of his county; but the county supervisor did not accept the idea of furnishing the roadsides with hedges of roses, so, Lawson had rose hedges planted on his own estate, and they were so attractive when in bloom that many people from distant parts came to observe the display. One day the gardener announced that over 200 of his rose hedges had been stolen and remarked, 'We cannot allow this to continue,"

"Complain and threaten them with arrest,' ordered Lawson, 'but never catch any of them, and see that you order more rose bushes.'

Today you will find rose bushes in every direction in that area. Technocracy, too, does not mind people stealing its ideas. You are welcome. You will never be able to go back to the old ways. Our position with regard to all of these social propositions is the same; they can go only so far and then they will either have to stop or go the whole distance with Technocracy."

- HOWARD SCOTT, ADDRESS AT THE ENGINEERING AUDITORIUM (Untitled) 12/6/35
 
"""""It, with him lying about his credentials"""""

"A lot of people have believed a lot of things. That's what you get for believing in things. No, they've printed all kinds of legends about me. They've printed that I was graduated Uppsala -- that's in Sweden - Schlottenburg, The University of Berlin, the University of Milan, the Sarbonne -- that's Paris - Oxford, and Cambridge. Why, yes, we've had people come in and say they went to school with me at MIT or Cal Tech and the University of Minnesota. Yes, they graduated in the same graduating class. They even tell you that they got their doctorate degree and they had one when I got mine, which I haven't got."

- MEMBERSHIP MEETING WITH HOWARD SCOTT, CLEVELAND 2-5-45

"Now don't forget I was a "dope fiend, a two-bottle-a-day drunkard for 30-some years." You'll find more legends. Who created them? "They" did. Did you take the trouble to examine them? The day would come when they went on creating legends, but they couldn't take it back; and they finally told so damn many of them that there wouldn't be any more left to tell. Might bother a lot of people but it hasn't bothered me. But you know that was also done with malice aforethought by one Howard Scott, too."

- MEMBERSHIP MEETING WITH HOWARD SCOTT, CLEVELAND 2-5-45

The following letter was written by Howard Scott to correct gross errors in an article published in THE NEW YORKER of October 31, 1936:
The New Yorker
25 West 43rd Street
New York City

Attention: Harold Ross, Editor-in-Chief
Gentlemen:

May I extend my compliments for the altogether amusing resume of Technocracy and myself that you presented on pages 20 and 21 of your issue dated October 31, 1936, under the ubiquitous title, "The Erg Man."

The New Yorker's description characterizes me so delightfully mysterious and at the same time some kind of a near "bogeyman" and big bad wolf of the econommic technological world that it appears as if you were attempting to do an Allen Raymond a la Herald Tribune.

May I be permitted to suggest that if your publication and others of the press persist in endeavoring to present me in this intriguing manner to your public, you will succeed in creating a Howard Scott legend that will place me on a par with Franklin Delano Roosevelt of being all things to all people. In view of this possibility, while I do not object to what you infer or imply, or how you qualify my reputation, may I correct as follows certain statements made in the issue of your magazine mentioned above.

1. My automobile license carries my height at six feet five and not at six feet two, a mere matter of three inches you'll say. Of course, even in a pinch we could let that pass, but, after all, this is a correction to the record and no doubt you would like to have your record straight.

2. Further to keeping your record straight -- you state that I was not an engineer in charge of Muscle Shoals No. 2 plant during the war but "merely a worker in a concrete gang." May I state that I was employed as equipment engineer by the Air Nitrates Corporation, a semi-government corporation, at U. S. Nitrate Plant No. 2 at Muscle Shoals, Alabama, in charge of installing the equipment of the cyanamid, calcium-carbide, and liquid-air divisions of that plant. Furthermore, I was promoted to designing technologist of the Air Nitrates Corporation in their offices in the Postal Life Building, 511 Fifth Avenue, New York City, and resigned in order to go into private engineering practice.

3. Apropos your statement of my being suspected of being a spy -- that is also a funny one for the book, since spies are never six feet five, and I have never been guilty of the great honor you confer, having never been employed in the intelligence service of any government or any organization.

4. Have never been a member of the i. W. W., the Communist party, the Republican, the Democratic, or the Socialist parties -- in fact, to put it mildly, have never been a member of any political party, or labor union, or liberal, or reform organization of any kind, not even a college fraternity. Nor have I at any time been in sympathy with any of these organizations.

5. Neither nave I at any time organized or been a member of any association or "bureau to teach workers to run industry after they took it over."

6, If you can produce a copy of the Congressional Record that bears any inquiry of my activity at Muscle Shoals such as has been brought out in your magazine, I assure you that the Division of Publications of Technocracy Inc. will gladly make you a present of an annual subscription to each of ten different magazines now published by our organization. In the files of Technocracy Inc., there is a record of the senate Investigation of Muscle Shoals by Senator Graham's committees which no doubt is the inquiry to which you erroneously refer. While I am mentioned in that investigation, you will find that it is only because 1 had several secretaries and a car, and seemingly possessed the power to issue oil and gas books on the Standard Oil, which I will admit is just a little too much swank for a concrete mixer.

7, You state that a banquet for 500 technologists at the Hotel Morrison in Chicago, June, 1933, was called off upon my announcement "that Technocracy would use bayonets if necessary." You no doubt refer to the convention held under the joint sponsorship of Technocracy Inc., the All American Technological Society, the National Technological Congress, and the Continental Committee on Technocracy, in the Hotel Morrison of Chicago, on June 27, 28, 29, and 30, 1933, The entire proceedings of this convention were stenographically reported, and you are entirely incorrect in your quoted statement in that no such statement was made at that meeting or at any other time by Technocracy Inc. or myself. The convention was called off because of the heat after four days of convention fighting, in which Technocracy Inc. absorbed all of the other attending Technocratic organizations except the Continental Committee of Technocracy, which has since passed Into the great beyond.

8, You state that the Duron Chemical Products Company was established by me three or four years ago in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey. The Duron Chemical Products Company was incorporated in Delaware in the early part of 1923 and operated as a going concern until 1933, when it was liquidated. Its products were used over that time by the Medical Center, the Gresham Realties, Neurological Institute, New York Floor finishing Co., Brooklyn Edison, et cetera.

I have gone to this trouble in making these corrections for your record because I am certain that you do not care to be in the hazardous position of making libelous statements. As one publisher to another, I know that you will accept this communication in your own humorous spirit. More power to you, and a happy landing!

Howard Scott
Director-in-Chief
TECHNOCRACY INC.
 
"""""Incidentially at least in much of Europe the older, more basic definition survived, with a clear distinction between technocracy and the technocracy movement."""""

"In the literature of Europe and America especially America-there is developing a tendency to employ the words `Technocracy' and 'Technocrat' rather loosely. The origins of such references are mostly traceable to Roman Catholic writers of propaganda releases, but other willful stooges of reactionism often pick up the words and carelessly proliferate their applications in writings and speeches."

"When these propagandists are challenged by Members of Technocracy with reference to their use of the words in loose and improper ways, the trite answer is that the words were intended to be spelled with a small `t,' hence do not refer to Technocracy or Technocrats as an organization or members thereof. In other words, presumably if `technocracy' is spelled with a small `t,' it can be used in any sense that the writer chooses."

"The Organization and Membership of Technocracy Inc. define `Technocracy' (whether with a large or little `T') as any social system which is organized and integrated on an Area basis to apply the knowledge of science and the methods of technology to the physical operations of the Area, and which has the objective of achieving the highest sustained standard of living for all of its inhabitants that its physical factors permit, and whose ultimate objectives are the production and distribution of abundance, the achievement of the maximum security for the Area and its citizens, and the reduction of human effort and vigilance to a minimum. Any application of the term `Technocracy' to anything inferior to this, we contend, is dishonest and inaccurate."

"Technocracy has become firmly established on the North American Continent as a definite and specific form of social operation; and the name `Technocrat' applies only to one who actively supports that form of Area Control. So, when anyone attempts to apply those words to anything or anyone else, or to make inaccurate associations, you can put him down as a propagandist for, or a dupe of, some agency whose objectives for the people of North America are the antithesis of those proclaimed by Technocracy."

- Who Is A Technocrat? - Wilton Ivie
http://www.archive.org/details/WhoIsATechnocrat-WiltonIvie

" The long continued silence of academia and the mainline press in America on the subject of Technocracy has resulted in almost universal distortion of the original meaning of the word and also the omission of proper recognition of Howard Scott as the author of the concepts of Technocracy. This paper attempts to correct this situation."

"Howard Scott stands alone as the innovator, the intellectual source of the basic concepts of Technocracy, as well as its principal advocate."

- WHO’S WHO OF TECHNOCRACY: SCOTT?, VEBLEN?, HUBBERT? - Walter Fryers
http://www.technocracy-think-tank.org/founders names.htm

Technocracy was incorporated in 1934. The Technocracy Study Course was published the same year. Now, over 70 years later, there is still no officially published definition of the original (Howard Scott’s) term ‘Technocracy’.* By default dictionaries use a corrupt and narrow meaning (see No.3 definition below) which has effectively displaced Howard Scott and has virtually extinguished the concepts which he developed as ‘Technocracy’.

This writer has proposed a dictionary definition, not yet officially recognized:

"TECHNOCRACY: 1. An advanced industrial society of continental extent in which the supporting economy uses energy units for measurement and control, in place of the monetary values (money) of the Price System. 2. A membership society or a movement advocating adoption of this concept. 3. A derived and corrupt meaning of the word, in wide use, indicating management or rule by specialized experts in place of elected representatives or non-specialists."

- Defining "Technocracy" - Walter Fryers
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~monad1/technocracy defined.htm

"As new educators come along to update the definitions for dictionaries and encyclopedias, the truth sometimes becomes fractured along the way, just as a tale of gossip gains in mythical momentum the more it is told and tramples facts into obfuscation."

"Writers of famous encyclopedias and dictionaries and national newspapers don't know where to find the facts about Technocracy, so they resort to fiction."

- Meanderings Into Obfuscation - Lois M. Scheel
http://web.archive.org/web/19990915....org/periodicals/nwtechnocrat/319/scheel.html
 
That focus was only set by Howard Scott and not shared by other early supporters. It, with him lying about his credentials, contributed much to the movements splintering. That his Technocracy, Inc., founded after the splintering, is today the main surviving group of the technocracy movement does not mean its definition was the only one.

Incidentially at least in much of Europe the older, more basic definition survived, with a clear distinction between technocracy and the technocracy movement. Only the latter directly includes Scott´s idea, while in the former it is just one (small) School of thought. Also included in it are for example the actions of the British think-tank PEP (founded 1931) or Jean Monnet´s Planification. I was using this broader definition as well.

I will not point out much here beyond saying you are ignorant of the antecedents of Technocracy ideas. Pretty much totally ignorant and that added with an arrogant attitude makes your post a little comic ... but lacking in thought.... if I can say that here, without being too insulting.

Scott never lied about anything like you are saying.
You are a victim of corporate media... still after all those years... a poison pen story from the New York Times seems real to the ignorant http://www.facebook.com/groups/2205039391/permalink/10151394563069392/ there were a multitude of disinformation things written about Scott.

Also no offense my fine fellow, but Scott invented the application and its idea about an energy metric using vector analysis .... so your silly post is worthless in general. There is no connection to Planification... haha.

More basic info http://www.authentichistory.com/1930-1939/2-fdr/2-reception/technocrats/index.html
icon7.gif
 
I will not point out much here beyond saying you are ignorant of the antecedents of Technocracy ideas. Pretty much totally ignorant and that added with an arrogant attitude makes your post a little comic ... but lacking in thought.... if I can say that here, without being too insulting.

Scott never lied about anything like you are saying.
You are a victim of corporate media... still after all those years... a poison pen story from the New York Times seems real to the ignorant http://www.facebook.com/groups/2205039391/permalink/10151394563069392/ there were a multitude of disinformation things written about Scott.

Also no offense my fine fellow, but Scott invented the application and its idea about an energy metric using vector analysis .... so your silly post is worthless in general. There is no connection to Planification... haha.

More basic info http://www.authentichistory.com/1930-1939/2-fdr/2-reception/technocrats/index.html
icon7.gif
I think that you are missing my point entirely. I intend to develop this ideology entirely from a German point of view. And while the term Technokratie was readily adopted it was used to described ideas flowing already around here, be it those proposed in the Sozialisierungskommission or even those of Gottfried Feder. They shared only the basic definition I gave with Howard Scott or among eachother, but nothing beyond. People supporting those usually worked from within existing parties, therefore explicitly technocratic groups are rare. But they viewed themselves as technocrats. Under the German (and by and large European) definiton Planification is a practical application of technocratic ideas while those following Scott´s stricter definition are seen as a fringe group, much like mainstream socialists view trotskyites. I assume that is a reason why here claims about him lying about his credentials are usually accepted. After all he is largely unimportant to European technocrats one way or the other.

I can see ittl a clash between the American School of thought and the German one since both openly aim for power and influence under the same name, but with very different economic ideas.

That said, Nationaltechnokratie is a working title for that movement and if someone has a better proposal I´ll consider it as well.
 
Last edited:
I admit that I am not really familiar with the underpinning of this site also.
Since I am more involved with the original group and its ideas maybe I sound a little strident about it also.

The most basic thing about the original idea and the social movement connected is this http://www.archive.org/details/TechnocracyStudyCourseUnabridged

Contrary to the idea of it being 'left' or 'right'.. or elitist... it really is a type of non oligarchic 'science base social design'. Non political. Very different.

This is kind of fun to watch on that theme http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbqX0ECPFk it is not put out by TechInc but stills gives a general idea about the difference.

"""""Thorstein Veblen"""""

There has been much discussion concerning the origin of the body of ideas for which the term Technocracy now stands. Speculation concerning this point has focused attention upon the work of Thorstein Veblen as the source of inspiration, with particular reference to the Engineers and the Price System as the animating force. Such conclusions are quite contrary to the facts.

[edited for length]

While I appreciate the knowledge you two bring to bear about Howard Scott's Technocracy, it's very obvious that historyfool is not talking about that explicitly but about an ideology with the same name that shares certain characteristics. This is a work of counterfactual history, not an attempt to revise actual history. While your input is certainly welcome, I would ask that both of you please avoid derailing the discussion. If you would like to start a separate thread about the historical Technocracy, which I confess to being entirely ignorant of before reading your links, you are welcome to do so. I would suggest the Chat section. Please PM me if you have any questions.
 
Hmm...nice idea...

I am sure that once the party is in power, they will soon need a whole new constitution based on the technocratic principles...perhaps some kind of caste system...after heavy tests as children to test for aptitudes till you have castes of engineers, scientist, managment, artist, industrie worker, farmers...each caste has its own councils regional, overregional and then national. Then up the ladder you have finally a leader for social (consisting of religion,art, social services,finances...), science (constising of different sciences,engineers....) and military (constiing of Army,Navy,Air, Police..).....And to give the whole thing a democracy touch you can even let each caste for its regional caste council, which votes for next tier ....)

Or as an alternative once the party is victorious and you have banned all other parties you let the Volk decide by referendum which wing can control the different seats.

Hmmm..this state will surly try to headhunt the best of the best from the whole world

And how will this state handle the ususual undesireables?(gay,bi,physical and mental deficiencies and everyone else away from the "norm"
 
"""""an ideology with the same name that shares certain characteristics.""""""

You might want to re-read this part in particular:

"So, when anyone attempts to apply those words to anything or anyone else, or to make inaccurate associations, you can put him down as a propagandist for, or a dupe of, some agency whose objectives for the people of North America are the antithesis of those proclaimed by Technocracy."

- Who Is A Technocrat? - Wilton Ivie
http://www.archive.org/details/WhoIs...rat-WiltonIvie

"""""After all he is largely unimportant to European technocrats one way or the other.""""""

"CHQ is receiving mail from abroad: Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Vienna, Budapest, Berlin, Copenhagen, Norway, and Sweden. Literature is going over there all the time. Some places they cannot pay for it because they cannot send out the money, but they're sending us back literature printed there. Fair exchange, if no robbery.

Of course, many of you did not know that, prior to Hitler, there was a Deutche Technocratische Geschellshaft in Germany -- an incorporated organization with some of the best scientists in Germany and they published some very excellent magazines; but when Adolf came in, the Deutche Technocratische was liquidated.

There was a Czechoslovakisha Technocratisha Spolensk in Prague. Well, they published an excellent magazine, too, and they edited and published seven volumes of the best technical job that's ever been done on Technocracy. The only trouble with it is is that the mathematics in it are so beyond the average engineer's mathematics that 99% of the engineers in United States couldn't handle it. Three of the outstanding scientists and mathematicians in Europe wrote it. It was published by the best book publisher In Europe. Remember this was before the war.

There was also the Nederlandisha Technocratsha in Holland, with offices in The Hague. There was an Austrian organization. Those were all liquidated, of course, by the advance of fascism. Some of them died; some of them went to prison and concentration camps; and some of them went underground.

In Italy, there were twenty-six graduate engineers sentenced to 10 years "confino" for advocating Technocracy. They were liberated — what was left — by the Allied troops when they captured Lipari. They are now back in Northern Italy and they don't like Gasperi.

Now remember those organizations over there were never affiliated with ours here. They took our literature and our ideas and built their own. In some cases they were political and some cases not. There are two movements in France; one is a political movement, the other is nonpolitical. Both are on the radio in both France and Algiers, publish pamphlets and books, and weekly papers, but we cannot control them nor do we wish to. There isn't any Third International of Technocracy.

A Belgian ran for alderman In the City of Brussels before the war, and he scored more votes than the Rexist Degrelle. Quite interesting, isn't it? That group are now publishing pamphlets, very nicely done, big, black letters on the front: ADVANCE WITH TECHNOCRACY NOW. We just got them in a couple of weeks ago. See, we're in the very peculiar position. Many of these people who have turned up their noses at us for the last 15 years had better get their nose straightened, because if this keeps on going, it's going to be rather funny."

- MEMBERSHIP MEETING, SEATTLE, WITH HOWARD SCOTT 7-4-47"

"""""those following Scott´s stricter definition"""""

It is not a "stricter definition", it is completely antithetical to whatever it is you are talking about. No relation whatsoever. There are already plenty of other words that correctly describe the kind of things you are mentioning perfectly accurately and adequately, Technocracy is not one of them in any way at all.

"""""are seen as a fringe group""""""

Now this is not to say that Technocracy is interested in 'prestige by association' or believes that 'big names' or the 'right people' make the ideas right, but I really challenge you to find a single group in the world, whether it uses the word "Technocracy" in any way or not, with more prestigious scientists then the founding scientists of the Technical Alliance of 1918-919, forerunners of Technocracy, or even just Marion King Hubbert for example, who was co-founder of Technocracy Inc. in 1934 and co-author of the Technocracy Study Course, first published that same year, and who was "bowled over with the man's scope, knowledge, understanding" when he first met Howard Scott in 1931.

- The Technical Alliance Profiles - John Waring with Lois M. Scheel - 1991
http://technocracyinc.org/technical-alliancetn/the-beginning/241-waringscheel

- Interview of Marion King Hubbert by Ronald Doel on January 17, 1989, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD USA
http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/5031_4.html
 
It would be a lot easier to read, if at least one of you understood how to work with quote tags.
Of course, many of you did not know that, prior to Hitler, there was a Deutsche Technokratische Gesellschaft in Germany.
Whose very existence undermines both your positions. The group derived some of its ideas from Velben (less from Scott), but most was based on European precusors with comparable ideas. And still it called itself technocratic. And while we are at it: it was not immediately liquidated with Hitlers rise to power. In fact it officially took that very name only in 33 and was tolertated because its ideas ran largely parallel to the NSDAP´s left wing. Only in the course of purging that wing it was liquidated in 36.

Again: It does not matter to most people whether those sharing a label agree you deserve it or that you are part of their movement if someone chooses to use it for themselves. Just like Mormons consider themselves Christians despite not being accepted by most churches. Or like Juche sees itself in the tradition of Marx though many socialists abhor the ideology.

But just to get the two of you out of my hair: Propose a better term for my ideology and I might rename it. Otherwise stay away from my thread and let those contribute who actually have something useful to say.

And Lesychan, I have seen your post and respond to it once I have formulated a decent answer. Might be only tomorrow though since I´ll be busy the rest of the day.
 
How about calling it 'Recycled European Socialism'

That would be better than using an old word with an actual historic meaning as a neologism, a made up new word.

The Euros had basically nothing to do with this concept unless maybe you want to include Alexander Bagdanov in the mix... the Russian http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr07/page10.html

Veblen in particular had nothing to do with it except as a supporter.
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfx7rfr2_10fqbv5t History And Purpose Of Technocracy and follower in that sense of Howard Scott.

Whose very existence undermines both your positions. The group derived some of its ideas from Velben (less from Scott), but most was based on European precusors with comparable ideas. And still it called itself technocratic.
Huh?
This is a basic history of biophysical economics and that is more or less what we are talking about http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics

I don't think you understand the extent of the influence of the American movement. It all derived from that. That swept the world in the early thirties. Energy economics was a new concept. Its a stretch to even say Bogdanov was close to it but he may have been the closest.
 
Hmm...nice idea...

I am sure that once the party is in power, they will soon need a whole new constitution based on the technocratic principles...perhaps some kind of caste system...after heavy tests as children to test for aptitudes till you have castes of engineers, scientist, managment, artist, industrie worker, farmers...each caste has its own councils regional, overregional and then national. Then up the ladder you have finally a leader for social (consisting of religion,art, social services,finances...), science (constising of different sciences,engineers....) and military (constiing of Army,Navy,Air, Police..).....And to give the whole thing a democracy touch you can even let each caste for its regional caste council, which votes for next tier ....)

Or as an alternative once the party is victorious and you have banned all other parties you let the Volk decide by referendum which wing can control the different seats.
I am not yet so far that I have devised the actual implementation of their ideas. So far I envision a gradual approach without officially abandoning the constitution at least in the beginning. But the democratic institutions will largely loose their authority to experts, the top tier of course chosen initially from regime supporters. Replacements will be selected by degrees, work experience and perhaps special accomplishments. I have not yet given it much thought but I imagine it akin to guilds (its comparable to your caste proposal, but without the connotation of the positions heridity): workers fresh out of training/college can only elect their local representative, for eligibility for a position you have to have a minimum grade and/or minimum years of experience. The better your "rating" the more elections you can participate in and the higher you can go. And the higher you go the less specialised your position will become (as in: the lowest are representing a single profession in a single factory, the highest is a cabinet post). Mind you that is only an initial idea and it is still bound to change. For the military for instance it would hardly work exactly that way.
Hmmm..this state will surly try to headhunt the best of the best from the whole world
Well the nationalist part of the ideology will limit it somewhat, but they surely would welcome trustable, educated foreigners.
And how will this state handle the ususual undesireables?(gay,bi,physical and mental deficiencies and everyone else away from the "norm"
Given the time none of those will be exactly embraced by the party and frankly at least some support for euthanasia to "improve mankind" would realistically exist. It was before Hitler after all openly discussed in wide circles all over the world. Actual implementation is one of those details I´ll have to develop with the tl, leaning currently more to a rather not. Gays and Lesbians won´t be fundamentally contradict the ideals of the party, beyond the fact that those are unproductive in regards to new "human resources". Open homosexuality will thus be probably discouraged, but no more prosecuted than in other nations at the time.
 
A layman evaluation of technocratic/meritocratic principle:

While by definition, totally progressive and egalitarian to put the 'experts' in charge of the citizen polis, hard meritocratic or technocratic principles I believe would form an oligarchy very quickly and thus alienate the body politic leading to social apathy and discontent. Discontent that would be represented in technology and science, politicising it and thus leading the lay body politic to reject rationalism.


The very first problem that can be found with such ideology is the question; "Who are the experts in the fields?" It's too easy to point to scientists, engineers and academics at the top of academia and suggest them simply because they are knowledgeable and intelligent.

But who are these people, how do we decide who's opinion is valued or not? Is it done by peer review? In such a case who are the peers, and who chooses them? Are they to be elected from the entire body politic? If so then how is this different from democratic republicanism? If you have to fulfil a certain level of citizenship (in the Classical sense), then we advocate that their is a class structure of those 'who rule' and those 'that are ruled' and deny equality of human rights. Even if meritocratic who chooses the criteria to become a citizen with political rights?

Because from its very nature this ideology assumes inequality within the body politic and values one individuals opinion over the other, and puts the power in the hands of the 'preferred individual' then natural human nature is for it to swell the ego and create a sense of self importance for teh preferred individual. Since this individual also wields unequal power/rights they are also granted the means to protect this ego more strongly than that of the non-prefered individual.

Overtime suggesting a creep of the collection of power within an ever more egotistical group, since this trend of protecting the inequality will only exist where there are individuals who want to protect their ego/position. It is these stakeholders and character trait who will eventually form an oligarchical group buoyed up on their own self importance. All well and good while they make good decisions, but when bad ones are made it is a recipe for maintaining a preferred individuals position simply because of perceived status, rather than real status.

These people, while good at what they do, are not classically 'managers of people' and might not have the required leadership skills to transform that knowledge and intelligence into meaningful action...which is the role government practically takes on.

Furthermore many of these 'experts in their fields' live an academic life separate from the working toils of your average man. And so while their opinions and ideas for action might be incredibly well thought through and accurate, they might not reflect well in the eyes of the people.

An example might be the issue of UK Student Tuition fees, as part of the plan to allow universities to charge up to £9,000 a year for their courses, they reformed the student loan system, so that people from poorer backgrounds would be more able to afford to go to university, and even then most bands of socio-economic class of student (undergrad and postgrad) will be better off. Yet public opinion gets hung up on the raw figure and uses that to judge their opinion rather than looking at the full issue.

Better legislation may still end up being divisive between the technocratic government and the body politic.


The quality that represents top experts in their fields is that they have the breath of knowledge that other experts don't have...let alone a layman from the general public. This means that if government was made up from individuals at the top of their fields then they would talk and address issues that the layman wouldn't even have a comprehension of.

This is as dangerous as organised religion of the middle ages and renaissance where the layman is taught not to question that which he does not know...and might not ever know because of the time needed to be able to learn the material to bring them up to speed with the experts discussions.

This is dangerous because it not only reinforces the notion of a split between those 'of knowledge' and 'those without' it also places government discussion behind closed doors which means that even those experts not at the top of the field may not be questioned of their opinion on the matter. In the natural human nature of turning to those individuals personally known, as opposed to strangers, it also will have the creeping trend for those experts at the top only to discuss with others at the top...creating an ever smaller pool of decision makers at the core of government.

Thus strengthening the trend towards oligarchy while at the same time making government look mysterious as what goes on behind closed doors in the Vatican (or any other religious order/hierarchical institution).


That which people do not understand, they typically mistrust or ignore.

In the latter case you generate social apathy towards governance an a persons place within society in general. The become the proverbial sheep or ant willing to let the Shepard or queen guide them through life. Thus overtime individuals within the body politic could become like H.G. Wells Eloi 'farmed' by the Morlocks. Without the spirit (or capacity) to decide for themselves how to live, it destroys the very innovative spirit that empirical experimentation and rationalism is based on. Thus the body politic will overtime loose the very qualities the that ideology hopes to promote.

This positive feedback loop would help further split 'those who rule' from 'those who are ruled'.

In the prior case where individuals mistrust the technocratic government you breed social unrest. Because these individuals cannot be placated by being 'brought into the fold' because they won't be of the intellectual calibre needed to be (because otherwise they would already be understanding what was going on) they can only be 'contained' and prevented from 'spreading unfounded opinions'.

This is another dangerous area since it directly threatens an individuals right to freedom of speech as well as their personal liberty. Any government that physically acts will take the road to repression, and eventually totalitarianism. Any government that doesn't act takes the risk of self proclaimed 'leaders of the proles' forming...either from disenfranchised technocrats at the 'establishment', or from laymen with natural leadership skills.

If enough people are ignorant of the workings of the technocratic regime and social apathy is high then the message of self-determination would be a very infectious meme since it would pry directly on the natural feeling to desire freedom of action and not to be ruled.

With a regime at its top that will tend to a small efficient egotistical oligarchical group, while at the same time alienating the majority of the body politic and fermenting potential revolutionary fervour, then the regime itself might be highly unstable under any form of perturbation from the ability of the technocratic oligarch to placate the proletariat.


Finally a good political technocrat might realise these issues with a technocratic regime and thus inform those other technocrats coming to him/her that a technocracy would ultimately undermine itself on the very principles it stands on. That said, a good technocrat would also believe that all these critisims above would be ultermately 'solvable'. Leading to a dualistic feeling on the nature of leadership by informed inderviduals only.
 
Top