This idea began as a joke inspired by the thread about the effects of a Cold War between fascism and liberalism on culture and politics in the West, and it got me thinking: before the New Deal was enacted there were several different currents of reformist impulses in the United States, what if one of those got a moment in the sun? I'm specifically talking about Technocracy, a social movement that called for the replacement of political actors behind the levers of government with technical experts empowered to manage society in order to ensure production and distribution of resources and goods unhindered by the price system.
Actually THIS is your "first" question since, like many such movements, there was the whole problem of:
"Old System falls apart"
(a miracle occurs)
"We're in charge and everything is fine, forever"
Which specifically in this case was Technocracy had no actual form and function in place to figure out HOW to be "in-charge" once they got there... IF they got there
IOTL technocracy explicitly rejected revolutionary and political activity,
Which was BECAUSE they didn't have the above or any idea OTHER than "when things fall apart we'll be there"
...but if we assume a scenario where the New Deal is delayed or halted entirely popular discontent could lead to a change in that policy. This raises the first question: does technocracy occur through a revolution (creating a new constitution), or democratically (through a far more expansive set of reform laws)? I lean more heavily toward the latter, as several goals (the institution of a tiled four-day work week most notably) can be achieved legislatively, and "rule by technical experts" can be achieved at least on paper by a large technical bureaucracy managing everything, or having a requirement for expertise in relevant fields to achieve committee assignments in Congress for example. You end up with a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" scenario, but that's a feature not a bug of this little exercise.
And here's where basing your entire plan on "one shock and the whole rotting structure will come crumbling down" never actually works and why those who USE that phrase are ignorant of historical context... Especially when talking revolution or drastic regime change
First consider that to take advantage of the present power structure crumbling you have to not only have a fairly broadly thought out plan of taking over you have to have at least some basic infrastructure TO take over and at least a modicum of public knowledge and support.
The last two was the only thing Technocracy had going for it and it shows. Had the US actually fallen apart Technocracy was somewhere near the bottom of the barrel for choices to replace it and the fact it had little or no support from the proposed "elite" it planned to elevate to power was a key red (non-Communist/Socialist
) flag here. To even have a sliver of a chance you have to co-opt at least some, (the more the better) of the current power structure as well as some general appeal to the general population. (If you guess wrong about how the general population feels about the issue having the police and military on your side offsets this a great deal)
So in either case Technocracy's FIRST order of business, (after drop-kicking Scott under the bus) should have been gaining support of the very "technocrats" it intended to elevate to power along with as many current "PTB" (Powers-That-Be) associates they can get their hands on. People like Patton, and Arnold that were fascinated by technology and the art of war, (help me out folks, was there a Navy equivalent at the same time?) along with the likes of Einstein, Keynes, Hayek to drop some names. Leaders of industry, business and religion and yes the rich and famous as well you need all the clout you can muster in either case.
Further you need the current PTB to de-legitimize themselves, (which arguably Hoover and the Republican response to the Great Depression were heading towards) and you then have to co-opt or infiltrate the likely opposition. At which point, if you've put in the right amount of work and luck breaks your way you are now in a position to do something about it.
Of course the greatest challenge is you have to hope that things don't improve until your ready because ANY improvement and people are apt to retain the status-quo rather than change. There's also the issue in places like the United States of somehow convincing some stubborn people who are rather historically enamored with the idea of "democracy" even if they don't really understand it to accept a certain 'class' of people being in charge. Seriously, American's have a historic habit of going as far as to screw themselves over if we can 'justify' it as "sticking-it-to-the-man/showing-the-elites-their-place" moment.
So, long story short, (FAR to late
) I also favor a take-over from within the system as revolution is far to chancy a thing to pin your hopes to.
Outcome-wise here's why you have to drop anything to do with Scott's "Technocracy" except some core ideas. It HAS to appeal and not just be a "fascism-light" movement because that takes far to much work with not enough near-term, (and almost no long-term) payoff. Mussolini an Hitler managed to make it work under their circumstances but the US hadn't hit any such point and frankly was unlikely to at any point. Now a "New Deal-ish" program of government works and "American know-how and elbow grease will see us through" will likely get you through the worst of the Depression but getting America to the point where it's a super-power under the circumstances is a bit dicier. Specifically the question is how to gain the "Technate" envisioned given the world situation and scope required to make it happen. (Contrary to Technocracy tenets stopping with only part of South America was an unstable proposition despite it being a 'natural energy' environment, and then there's Canada...)
As for fascism, what about a scenario where World War II is exclusively aimed at the Soviet Union? Germany would be hegemon of Europe, and, with the Soviet Union at least pushed beyond the Urals, free to start propping up fascist states in its regional neighborhood. If the US remained isolationist during this period given the technocratic program to achieve continental autarky from Panama to the Arctic Circle, you would end up with a scenario where a bloc of capitalist countries is locked into a Cold War with a bureaucratic managerial state that sits astride a continent, without having gotten into a shooting war with them first. What regional conflicts could serve as proxy wars? What is Japan doing this whole time? Who comes out on top in this struggle for the ages? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Have you manged to read The Anglo-American Nazi War thread? It might take a bit longer without America but the Nazi's were going down eventually if something didn't come along to change the way the operated. No matter how "isolationist" America was politically and publicly it had a vested interest in keeping both Germany from achieving hegemony in Europe and Japan from doing the same in Asia and the Pacific. Here's where Technocracy fell down with foreign policy in that America could not in fact afford to be totally "self" sufficient even if it could be. We'd built ourselves up into an industrial powerhouse and producing ONLY what "we" could use and consume in the Americas was a slow way to fall to pieces. If we weren't the "Arsenal of Democracy" then we'd have to sell to all-comers and since that would include two power we could not afford to "arm" (German and Japan) then there wasn't a lot of choice no matter which way your politics ran. A "shooting" war was coming by the mid-30s was obvious which is why everyone began to re-arm.
How about an alternative? Someone less bat-shit-crazy than the 'die-hard' Nazi's is in charge of Germany in the early 30s, (Goring comes to mind) and instead of scaring and pissing off the Entente they become more conciliatory, (by the early 30s even the French were thinking they'd gone overboard with Versailles) and you end up with a European anti-Communist organization with the fascist, if not in charge at least helping call the shots. Japan is more problematical because in the end they need to confront the US and other European powers to gain the "Co" (and with that we mean Japanese) Prosperity Sphere" and there are few ways that doesn't turn out badly for Japan.
Randy
