Talk:Technocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Energy  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

...[edit]

You are all aware that this is the 21st century and not the 20th century correct? Some portions of the article were written as though the author was unaware of this fact. 4.157.68.228 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Didn't Superman The Movie (1978) have Krypton run by a body of scientists on a council? As such, Krypton was run with a Technocracy government. Another "Technocracy in Media" point for consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.167.124 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Please understand that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of sorts... not a debate forum on the omnipotent nature of "things." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleyjem (talkcontribs) 02:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


The Criticism section might be bias against neoclassical models

2/5/07- Replaced a paragraph in Criticism which was, not just arguably biased as mentioned above, but totally inaccurrate -- under the neoclassical model of economics no technocrat ruler would decide to close down a factory; instead the owner would close it down in response to market conditions. I added a paragraph with two examples from the left and right sides of the spectrum criticizing technocracy.

Criticism[edit]

Someone added some stuff to the 'criticism' section that's way too specific for this particular article (any mention of the 'Technate'). I think there's another 'Technocracy' article on Wikipedia that it belongs in, if not it should probably be deleted or moved.

AustinZ 04:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I think he has a good point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.72.172 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

I've trimmed up the page to filter clear anti-technocracy bias. The assertion that Technocracy is opposed to democracy and some of the allegations about the nature of technocracy itself were unfounded, and appeared more as propaganda than an objective representation.

Technocracy in and of itself is not opposed to Democracy (though some forms of democracy are incompatible), communism, monarchy, a despotic dictatorship, or a republic. Democratic, monarchial and communist technocracies, aren't only possible, they're all entirely feasible as emergent phenomena in the world today.

~LucaviX

I did a lot of cleaning up, and edited out a lot of bias and correct some grammatical errors. It should be more to the point. -- 67.58.85.208 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What the... this whole article is incorrect[edit]

This article does not express what is almost always meant when the word "Technocracy" is used. If the definition used here is legitimate at all, it is a vanishingly insignificant use of the word by a few people in the 1930s. The first sentence is particularly wrong: it is a good description of meritocracy, not technocracy. The overwhelmingly usual meaning is that given by the OED:

The control of society or industry by technical experts; a ruling body of such experts. Technocracy has been the name of various groups advocating the technical control of society, esp. Technocracy, Inc., established in New York in 1932-3 by Howard Scott. 1919 W. H. SMYTH in Industr. Management Mar. 211/2 For this unique experiment in rationalized Industrial Democracy I have coined the term ‘technocracy’. 1932 N.Y. Herald-Tribune 15 Dec. 11/1 Technocracy..the name for a new system and philosophy of government, in which the nation's industrial resources should be organized and managed by technically competent persons for the good of everyone instead of being left to the management of private interests for their own advantage. 1945 C. S. LEWIS That Hideous Strength xii. 318 The effect of modern war is to eliminate retrogressive types, while sparing the technocracy and increasing its hold upon public affairs. 1947 Mind LVI. 164 Such notions as social and economic planning, technocracy,..the denial of natural rights and individual liberties, etc., are due to them [sc. French Utopians, St. Simon, etc.] more than to Godwin or the Utilitarians. 1955 Times 23 May 3/4 On the unlikely day when England elects a benevolent technocracy to power a Bill will be passed forbidding more than one performance per year per town of such works as The Messiah, the St. Matthew Passion, [etc.]. 1975 Political Studies XXIII. 82 Nevertheless, if technocracy means rule not just by individuals who are members of a particular technocratic élite, but rule by a technocratic class as such, one has to show that the latter has either a common interest to defend or a common ideology to pursue.

Hence {sm}technocrat, (a) an advocate of technocracy; (b) a member of a technocracy, a technologist exercising administrative power; techno{sm}cratic a.; tech{sm}nocratism. 1932 Sun (Baltimore) 12 Dec. 6/3 The Technocrats, thanks..largely to a peculiarly fetching ‘trade label’ which embodies in one word two of the most far-reaching of current concepts, technology and democracy, are succeeding in a remarkable degree in breaking down the apathy. 1932 N.Y. Herald-Tribune 15 Dec. 11/2 The haunts of technocratic science were situated at numerous places about town, principally in cubbyhole restaurants in Greenwich village. 1933 Times Lit. Suppl. 26 Jan. 46/2 An age that was already substituting the technocrat for the monarch. 1945 C. S. LEWIS That Hideous Strength xii. 318 It was not the great technocrats of Koenigsberg or Moscow who supplied the casualties in the siege of Stalingrad. 1949 Mind LVIII. 416 Lersch denies the widely accepted thesis that man's uniqueness consists in his activities (activism, pragmatism, technocratism) since these are characteristic only of the Male's relation to the world. 1957 London Mag. Jan. 48 Sprawling in my revolving chair, behind a man-sized desk, I could imagine myself a brisk and efficient technocrat, a kind of highbrow tycoon. 1958 Times Lit. Suppl. 26 Dec. 751/1 Either tending towards reliance on a tradition which has been made obsolete..or else attempting a technocratic rule for which no tradition exists. 1965 W. H. G. ARMYTAGE Rise of Technocrats v. 66 St. Simonians were the first technocrats: apostles of the religion of industry. 1974 J. WHITE tr. Poulantzas's Fascism & Dictatorship V. ii. 254 Imperialist ideology in effect represents a displacement of domination within bourgeois ideology itself, from the juridico-political region which was dominant in liberal~bourgeois ideology to economic technocratism. 1980 Times 11 Aug. 11/1 Dr Hoss was chosen after the Syrian~imposed end to the civil war in 1976 to head a ‘technocratic’, ie non-political, government.

I must leave correction of the article to others (gotta run and won't be online for days). JDG 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Derogatory Usage of Technocrat[edit]

Someone has reverted my edit, so instead I'll post the website here until it can be properly added to the article following the sentence, "It should be noted that this opinion is not mainstream among technocrats." Right after this sentence a reference should be cited that I have found and added to the footnotes explaining the mainstream opinion of technocrats. This is the website I wanted to link in the footnotes http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V65-4379FJW-9&_user=783137&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000043272&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=783137&md5=9f390e071bd916535f92611049966dc3. If someone has the technical expertise to add a citation, please do so using this link right after the sentence mentioned above in the 'Derogatory Usage of Technocrat' section. Thank you. Make sure to properly link it from the 'Derogatory Usage of Technocrat' section to the footnotes, and finally to the website. Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.162.53 (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted section on Socialism[edit]

As a new user to wikipedia, I had put weight behind Skipievert, until I read up his profile out of curiousity, and learned that others considered his opinions biased.. your milage may vary, but multiple viewpoints are very helpful/interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skipsievert "This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia." (see: block log-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Skipsievert) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.150.86 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It was long and rambling... and totally unsourced. skip sievert (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Skip get this through you head once and for all, this article has nothing to do with Technocracy Incorporated, it is about the political use of the term, deleting sections on the basis that they are not "connected to the Technate design" is ludicrous. --Hibernian (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is marked to delete un-sourced material. All that section was unreferenced and un-sourced. It did not really seem to be connected to any thing. It was all conflicted statement.skip sievert (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say to delete any unsourced parts, it says they must be cited or be removed. And since the "Citation Needed" tags were only put up a few hours before you deleted it, that's doesn't give a significant amount of time for anyone to be able to source it. Leave it for a few weeks and then, if no one has sourced it, delete it. BTW you specified the reason for deleting it as not being connected to Tech Inc. which is such a basic misunderstanding of the article that it had to be undone. --Hibernian (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because it is totally made up of weasel words and conjecture. skip sievert (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the section. Leave it for a couple of weeks, then dump it in this bit of the talk page. Most of wikipedia is weasel words and conjecture; give the editor who produced that section some time to back up their writing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The section first appeared [1] 23 August 2005, describing French socialist derogatory usages. On 11 March 2006 [User:69.6.104.2] produced much the current version of the section: a [2], to the extent that it discusses abstract relations between "technocracy" and "socialism". Interestingly around early 2006 someone spruiked Skip Sievert's book inappropriately in a series of edits. On 20 May 2006 we won the highly coveted "Unreferenced" template. 6 Feb saw an example with a hypothesised socialist criticism [3]. On 15 May 2007 Skipsievert produced this edit: [4] which, imho, misrepresents the role of pricing in "Actually existing socialist" economics, and softens (by removing) "Most socialists'" criticisms of technocracy. This was reverted 20 May by Hibernian as part of a general revert. Any IP editor produced the "Many Socialists are Technocrats" [5]. Another IP user sees the current section as is come into being[6].
After reading four years of diffs to figure out where the content came from, I can say, this article's quality is low due to lack of citations.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right. More as to that in a comment about your projected addition to the article. skip sievert (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential Sources[edit]

Smyth, William Henry. "'Technocracy'—Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy," Industrial Management (57) 1919. Stabile, Donald R. "Veblen and the Political Economy of the Engineer: the radical thinker and engineering leaders came to technocratic ideas at the xzame time," American Journal of Economics and Sociology (45:1) 1986, 41-52. Veblen, Thornstein. Engineers and the Price System. New York: Viking Press, 1944. Towne, Henry R. "The Engineer as an Economist," Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1886.

Proposed new section "The technocratic instinct amongst engineers and its outcomes"[edit]

Technocracy is one solution to a problem faced by engineers in the early twentieth century. Following Samuel HaberHaber, Samuel. Efficiency and Uplift Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Donald Stabile argues that engineers were faced with a conflict between physical efficency and cost efficiency in the new corporate capitalist enterprises of the late nineteenth century USA.

Profit-conscious, nontechnical managers of the firm where the engineers work, because of their perceptions of market demand, often impose limits on the projects the engineer desires to undertake; workers do not perform according to the specifications of the engineer's plans; and the prices of all inputs vary with market forces thereby upsetting the engineer's careful calculations. As a result, the engineer loses control over his own little world and must continually revise his plans. To keep his little world secure, the engineer is forced to extend his control over these outside variables and transform them into constant factors.Stabile, Donald R. "Veblen and the Political Economy of the Engineer: the radical thinker and engineering leaders came to technocratic ideas at the xzame time," American Journal of Economics and Sociology (45:1) 1986, 43-44.</ref>

Engineers heatedly discussed these issues in US engineering journals and proceedings. Three ideological outcomes were produced. Firstly, Taylorism which integrates price structures into engineering concerns, thus producing scientific management where the capitalist manager and engineer divide control over the production process and working class between themselves. Secondly, building on Taylorism the Soviet Union implemented socialist-Taylorism where economic planning, a political bureaucracy and a technical elite divided control over the economy through institutions like the GOELRO plan or five year plans. While political concerns influenced Soviet planning, and engineers were politically persecuted; the political bureaucracy designed plans so as to achieve technical outcomes, and used production price accounting as a technical, rather than economic measure. Finally, in the United States a view that technical concerns should take precedence developed among engineers such as William Howard Smyth based on the early conception of Industrial democracy which was limited merely to the technical government of firms. This school of thought amongst engineers eventually produced social institutions arguing for purely technical government of society in the 1930s. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is rather brilliant. Wow. I would say add it pretty much as is. It covers and incredible amount of ground in informative and accurate and creatively put way. Could you please spend some time on the Technocracy movement article if at all possible and integrate what you are saying above about Smyth and Taylor and Scientific management. That article very much needs some thoughtful editing with the kind of reference tag citations you have accurately added to this one. Regards skip sievert (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

citations added[edit]

Footnotes citations for article relating to Techinc... and wiki article reference added. skip sievert (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Title[edit]

Since there's a decent effort at explaining the differences between beauraucracy and technocracy shouldn't the title be changed to Technocracy (government form)?? Mdw0 (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. It would be more descriptive/accurate. Go ahead and start the process if you care to. skip sievert (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The current title is loaded with smear. 84.104.135.141 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by loaded with smear, 84.104.135.141? Also, please do not remove information links in the article. skip sievert (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Habermas' critique[edit]

In Toward a Rational Society, Habermas puts forward a good critique of technocracy, (which I'd say is an approach to or ideology of government as opposed to a form of government). I'd like to see a connection here, but I'm not sure I'm the right one 146.115.123.180 (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

08/05/2012 How does Technocracy fail? That is, is it failsafe, or is it catastrophic, economically? How many articles do I need to read... is bureaucratic technocracy the one that fails when managers limit access to education and training to favored individuals, rather than merely holding the meritorious responsible for making something of any training they have demanded.

Are there technocratic corporations or companies? Is Microsoft internally technocratic? I'll agree it's a hard question to certify in a scholarly sense, but people looking for precedent might ask it very reasonably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltek (talkcontribs) 19:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't technocracy a meritocracy?[edit]

Shouldn't technocracy be a subgroup of meritocracy on the list of government types?--158.39.240.120 (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

move to Technocracy?[edit]

All the other forms of government are named just that. How about we move this page to Technocracy, and move what there now to 'Technocracy (disambiguation)'? LK (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine... Johnfos (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable Firebladed (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


since been couple of days and no objections moved Technocracy to Technocracy_(disambiguation) requested move of Technocracy (bureaucratic) to Technocracy will add disambiguation link here and check for any links that need fixing when move done, Firebladed (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Added disambiguation link and fixed a few double redirects and links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebladed (talkcontribs) 13:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Technocracy and engineering[edit]

I don't like the sentence "Workers do not perform according to the specifications of the engineer's plans" which sounds like a strict assertion denoting a discrimination toward the Workers class, like if Workers were "bastards who never obey". It misses a "if" or a "when" to make it neutral, or the name of the author who pretended that.

Beside, if you can read the French version (the English translations are awful) of Henri Fayol "Administration Industrielle et Générale", you'll find a perfect "how to" manual of technocracy. But AFAIK nothing has been published on this aspect of that book yet (the bad translations could be in cause: all sociological term were removed, and the words supporting political preconceptions [socialist ideas] were mistranslated). I think that would make a good Master Thesis in Political Science.

-- Silwilhith (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Always selected through bureaucratic means[edit]

I take issue with the sentence: "In all cases technical and leadership skills are selected through bureaucratic processes on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than democratic elections." This is not strictly true, as a society which highly values technical skill and competence could elect technocrats democratically (this would still qualify as a technocracy if those skills were the predominant factor in elections). While this may not be the most common case today, it does seem to be an increasing trend, especially if we are headed towards an Information society. It is a valid point that technocrats are generally selected bureaucratically, but the absolute language is fallacious. Ian Burnet (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Complete conjecture and non-sensical. Technocracy is immediately at odds with democracy. You don't figure out who is the best at something by vote. Maybe such a person can be democratically elected into office, but if there is any kind of public vote, it is not a technocracy. marnues (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

USSR and China[edit]

I cannot see how the former Soviet Union was a Technocracy, it is a socailist republic and had one political party, Communist. Nor can China be a Technocracy because they are have communism and is a socialsit state, similar to the USSR. So both of those statments at the bottom of the introduction should be removed, unless one can provide proof that USSR and China are described as a Technocracy.- Space Commander Plasma (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can be a technocrat and be of any ideology, and the government can be almost any type of political and economic system. An technocracy is when technical and scientific specialists have a special or higher status or make up a large proportion of the government. Does it matter what kind of government it is? ValenShephard (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because most governments are based on an economy of Scarcity and monetary systems, rather than on resources and post sacrcity economy with an energy accounting system.- Space Commander Plasma (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and removed since after 6 weeks no one has stepped forward to back up that obviously unsound claim. The Masked Booby (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Way to be narrow minded by removing something that is perfectly valid. I put the reference to the Soviet Union in there (obviously, it was awhile ago, but I don't frequent Wikipedia for editing much) and properly sourced it from a legitimate book. Princeton's Wordnet defines a technocracy as "a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control" which was exactly what the Soviet Union was by the 70s and 80s, with the majority of its politicians having backgrounds and degrees in engineering. Brezhnev himself was a former engineer, to give an obvious example. When I have the book that I used as my source on hand again so I can provide a page number, I'm going to add in the line about the Soviet Union again. I can't speak to the claim about China being technocracy, but the USSR most assuredly was. Sark6354201 (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have talked to some technocrats and they disagree, the Soviet Union was a socialist republic not a Technocracy. Space Commander Plasma (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Socialist republic and technocracy are not mutually exclusive terms, you can be both. The bottom line is that the Soviet Union's highest level politicians were engineers and technical specialists and they controlled the country and economy. If that's not a technocracy than what is? That's not to say it was a good or effective technocracy, but to deny it as one is like when communists or socialists say the Soviet Union wasn't really communist.
Well, it wasn't! It was a bureaucraty, and not Communism. Even more, it didn't declare itself to be Communist, they said it was Socialist! - 92.100.165.131 (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I've added the reference back in with more clarification this time.Sark6354201 (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed it. Most governments are based on an economy of scarcity and monetary systems, rather than on resources and post scarcity economy with an energy accounting system. Fidel Drumbo 00:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Who cares what kind of economy it had? Politicians with technical backgrounds (i.e. engineers) still ran the country. Before removing it again, how about you produce a source of equal quality to mine that refutes the contention that the Soviet Union was a technocracy?Sark6354201 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
By that logic. Any totalitarian government, which contains a single party, with half or more of its members having science or engineering degrees is to be considered a technocracy, is that correct? Control method has nothing to do with it? Pendrokar (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Why not? You can argue that anyone with an engineering degree is going to inherently look at problems differently than someone with a different degree (such as a degree in law). The Soviets put technology on a high pedestal and thought infusing it into society was crucial, and if you look at how the Soviets managed the country and the economy you'll also find that it was indeed influenced by their technical background, which tended to be narrow in education and focus and helped lead them to ignore "people problems" that ultimately helped lead to the downfall of the country. That's not to say all engineers are narrow-minded, like I said earlier saying that the Soviet Union was a technocracy does not mean it was a good one, just that you can view it as one. No one disputes Mexico is a capitalist democracy despite the fact that it isn't a very successful one compared to the gold standard of other Western countries.Sark6354201 (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I personally think that a lot of these arguments have to do with semantics. A true "Technocracy" would have sociologists and other experts regarding "people problems" in charge of those issues. Furthermore, there is a difference between a government being "technocratic" and being "a Technocracy." I would argue that some of the Soviet Union's policies were technocratic, but not that they could be described as a Technocracy. The USA, for example, embraces many libertarian concepts...but is not a Libertarian government. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It's interesting you point that out, since the author of the book I cite actually goes into how the Soviet politicians with engineering backgrounds were poor with regard to "people problems." He points out that their narrow non-Western educations resulted in many of them having an education and outlook more closer to what some might consider a technician than an engineer.
Despite this, he still considers the Soviet Union a technocracy, with good reason. For one, they might not have been very good engineers, but they were still engineers. That they were poor, like I mentioned earlier, does not mean that their presence and methods did not constitute a technocracy -- there was a culture of technology and the idea that it should be applied to nearly all aspects of life to solve problems, they just failed at properly implementing it. Stalin himself said that business managers without technical training were in essence worthless. Sark6354201 (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, the reference is certainly RS...and the author does use the word "Technocracy" to describe the Soviet Union, but I would quibble with the wording of the sentence that appears in a Google Books "preview" of the reference: "If one defines technocracy as rule by people who were educated in technical subjects, the Soviet Union by the last quarter..." (The preview cuts off here, and I can't see the rest of the sentence...) I think that exposes the basic issue right there: He's using a "lower-case" definition of technocracy, rather than Technocracy, if you know what I mean. I mean, there's a distinct difference between what he's saying in that sentence is the definition of "technocracy," and the kind of Technocracy that this article is about. Engineers running the country...is not the same as "engineers, scientists, health professionals and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields." Of course, I can't see the entire sentence, or most of the book, so he may elaborate better elsewhere. I am not an expert in Soviet history, but my general take is that I've never felt that they were a very good example of experts in their fields being in charge of issues related to those fields...which I believe is the essence of Technocracy. I generally think that the fictional example of the United Federation of Planets in the "Star Trek" universe is a much better example of Technocracy. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's the full sentence: "If one defines technocracy as rule by people who were educated in technical subjects, the Soviet Union by the last quarter of this century was clearly a technocracy."
He goes on to cite specific examples. Without making this reply too long, I'll quote a couple passages that don't need to be expanded upon to get the meaning: "Housing construction in Soviet cities displayed the limited vision of engineers concerned more with ease of building than with aesthetics" and "Soviet agricultural policymakers also sought a technological fix for an essentially economic and social problem." All of this is in an entire chapter devoted to the issue called "Technocracy, Soviet Style."
You can also argue that the technical experts were in control of decision making in their fields, even if it wasn't in the most direct and explicit fashion. They were the decision makers in a one party state where almost of all of the industry, with all its diversity of areas, was nationalized. It was also a very centralized state, which meant they ultimately could dictate solutions and institute huge, large scale building projects (even whole cities, as was the case with Magnitogorsk).
Was it a good technocracy or the most ideal form of one? Of course not, it was not the Federation in Star Trek (which, as an aside, many people have pointed out is very communist). But you can't leave out real world examples of something just because it doesn't fit the ideal. Sark6354201 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

'Who cares what kind of government it had'? end quote Sark6354201. The article is about a form of projected type of government called a Technocracy, it is not about little aspects of technocratic things connected to the Soviet Union or China etc. Example:

Scott and the fascinating Technocracy movement he founded proposed that dollars and money be replaced by energy certificates denominated in units such as ergs or joules, equivalent in total amount to the appropriate national net energy budget, which could then be divided equally among all members of the North American Continental Technate. The Technocrats argued that apolitical, rational engineers should be vested with authority to guide the nation's economic machine into a thermodynamically balanced load of production and consumption, thereby doing away with unemployment, debt and social injustice --- source [7]

The soviet system was a patronage special faction controlled society based on Marx and the glorification of human toil. It was a traditional approach based on labor theories of value like capitalism was/is. Its completely different. They used the Ruble money not any type of energy measure system which is the basis of a Technocracy.

Suggestion. An article about the influence of Technocracy and its different word meanings can solve this issue. It would breakdown different uses of the word. Could someone start one, or does one exist on Wikipedia already? Maybe [Political Cultural Influences Of Technocracy] i.d.k. what title would be good. Then articles about Singapore or the Soviet system being influenced by various technocratic thinking would fit in there. Fidel Drumbo 00:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talkcontribs)

I realize that the Soviet Union does not neatly fit every definition for technocracy, but it should still be mentioned and included on the page. To that end, a section could be added that mirrors the "Types of Capitalism" section in the Capitalism article. It's not perfect, but it would clear up the debate and it would give people information that is useful and relevant. It is also consistent with how my source describes the USSR's technocracy (as "Soviet style" and defined mainly by technical experts being in control). I have added in this section and I've entitled it "Variants of technocracy" to suggest they are different interpretations rather than full blown movements as "Types" might imply. Ideally a new article could be created, something like "Soviet Technocracy", that goes into detail just as there is a page about Anarcho-Capitalism. I have other sources that backup this idea and I could write it someday. This format allows for other countries like China to be mentioned as well. Sark6354201 (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Find a high quality reliable source discussion the Soviet Union or China as a technocracy. Cite the HQRS and write based on a deep assimilation of what the text says, including the text's definition of technocracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The revision of what I posted looks good, I'm glad we could reach a sort of compromise! Sark6354201 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What about segregation that used to take place in Soviet institutions of higher education: those who received high grades and good diplomas were: 1) those who were especially good, bright and smart students, and also 2) those who were active at "social work" and in Komsomol (the "Communistic Union of the Young"); the first (educated) then went on to become good engineers, and the second (uneducated) became rulers of the country? => I wonder whether mr. Graham was the only one who referred to USSR as a technocracy (and whether he did so for his own motives rather than for the sake of truth); quite likely he was the only one, but is this really so? - 91.122.12.152 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Monad and Symbols[edit]

Since we're starting to see an edit-war over the use of the Monad as a symbol of Technocracy, I figured it should have its own section on the discussion page. Note, for example, that when one goes to many other pages for major political movements, there are pictures associated with the articles. They range from the anonymous "A" of Anarchism, to the flag of Italian Fascism on the Fascism page, to a picture of people stuffing ballots in a box on the Democracy page. In addition, many of those pages contain pictures of major intellectual figures in these movements, as well as symbols of political groups. Personally, I don't see why the Monad is any different, nor do I see why the fact that Technocracy, Inc., is organized as a non-profit corporation has anything to do with anything...since many political organizations are incorporated similarly. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is somewhat like using the symbology of the Bolshevik Party on the Marxism article. It is falsely claiming that a particular section of Technocracy represents the totality. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
But why wouldn't symbology of the Bolshevik Party be welcome on the Marxism article? In that case, I would think there'd be plenty of different kinds of "representatives" of Marxism as a political reality, whereas, to my knowledge, Technocracy only has one major attempt so far. If nothing else, why not leave it, but with a disclaimer? For the record (transparency): I personally have no stake in, or dealings with, Technocracy, Inc., nor do I think all of their ideas are feasible, but I do identify as a "Technocrat." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing inaccurate info[edit]

Removed this:

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, on Marxists.org: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm: "In 1816, he declares that politics is the science of production, and foretells the complete absorption of politics by economics. The knowledge that economic conditions are the basis of political institutions appears here only in embryo. Yet what is here already very plainly expressed is the idea of the future conversion of political rule over men into an administration of things and a direction of processes of production."</ref> Scientific socialist theorist Friedrich Engels had a similar view; the state would die out and ceases to be a state when the government of people and interference in social affairs is replaced by an administration of things and technical processes.Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels, Fredrick. "The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society—the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society—this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not abolished. It dies out."

Not connection to Technocracy or that movement. It was never a utopian concept, and the 'state' was never meant to 'wither away' It was an ordinary government structure or form of government. No connection with scientific socialism or Communism or Capitalism or Socialism http://web.archive.org/web/20020721043025/http://technocracysf.org/tech-defined.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talkcontribs) 01:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For unknown reasons economist Lawrence Khoot is continuing to re-add the information above.

According to this file and every other thing available on this subject the info. added by Laurence khoo is not accurate.

According to the founder of the Technocracy concept Howard Scott, Howard Scott originator of the concepts of the Technocracy technate design…. quote:

”What Technocracy has always contended is that if sufficient energy consuming devices are installed and the total amount of extraneous energy consumed per capita reaches or exceeds 200,000 kilogram calories per capita per day, toil and workers alike will be eliminated, and, when toil is eliminated, the bourgeoisie will likewise go down the drain of history. Technocracy has always contended that Marxian political philosophy and Marxian economics were never sufficiently radical or revolutionary to handle the problems brought on by the impact of technology in a large size national society of today. It is sufficiently revolutionary to be of some importance and temporary application to under-developed areas of the globe. We have always contended that Marxian communism, so far as this Continent is concerned, is so far to the right that it is bourgeois. source https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfx7rfr2_10fqbv5t but the file is available through many sites including the official site and internet archive site also. Fidel Drumbo 04:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talkcontribs)

Interestingly enough Michael G. Smith "Marx, technocracy, and the corporatist ethos" Studies in East European Thought 36:4 233–250 DOI: 10.1007/BF02342284 directly asserts and demonstrates as the central element of their peer reviewed paper that Marx and Engel's conception of both the lower and higher stages of communism were inherently technocratic. Studies in East European Thought is a higher quality and more scholarly source than technocracysf or google docs last time I checked. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Howard Scott made up the concept and he says directly that it is something different than what your saying with your information. inherently technocratic is different than the subject matter here. Many arguments are made for Obama's political government or Singapore's government or the current Russian government being technocratic. That strays though from the subject. Marxism, Communism is Adam Smith based as is Capitalism, Socialism etc. labor based theory etc. in the case of Communism the glorification of human toil which is antithetic to technocracy concepts and then misconstrues the article if that info is included. Fidel Drumbo 05:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talkcontribs)
Studies in East European Thought is a peer reviewed academic journal and Smith's "Marx, technocracy, and the corporatist ethos" is a peer article in the same, specifically on topic. This makes Smith's paper a high quality reliable source. Wikipedia's Verification policy is based on the use of reliable sources, by preference high quality reliable sources, not on user produced arguments from authority. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you could rewrite or redo the way it is written because as it stands in the context of that section it is not directly related and gives a false idea of the subject. Google History and Purpose of Technocracy by Howard Scott. He was the inventor of this concept. Read that please. It was never a Utopic idea of related to Communism, Socialism or Capitalism. It was a proposal for a specific type of governmental structure and this article is about that. Not Communism or science socialism either. Fidel Drumbo 05:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talkcontribs)
Sadly Howard Scott doesn't have a monopoly on the idea. Veblen's own thoughts on the subject outshine Scott's, as does serious social science scholarship such as Smith's. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Sadly (and that is a sad way to preface your opinions and extremely condescending), you have no clue as to who did what and when and who influenced who and because you control the article with your editing friends, you sound so sure of yourself, but you are wrong anyway... the article will reflect the bad information that you insist is accurate. :::::::Scott invented the idea. Hello? Veblen was taken with it and wrote Engineers and the Price System several years after meeting Scott. Check the time line. Veblen had zero influence on Scott except as some footnote material.
But because your interested in communist thought you think it is connected around Communism or Socialism or connected or Veblen contributed?, but its not like that. So in effect the article is twisted downward as to intelligence or making sense. Thanks anyway.
Part of the problem with Wikipedia. Ignorant people... and that is not an insult, just a fact, control lots of the economics and history articles. https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfx7rfr2_10fqbv5t, but yeah I know your not impressed. Gino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.41.133 (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:Reliable source and WP:Verifiability which are our policies. Random google documents do not meet the required standard. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I told you before that the history is available in lots of files from the internet. Library versions etc. Remember? Did you bother to read it or look for so called accredited versions of it? Bet not. Random Google documents... your tone is kind of nasty firefloo. Gino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.41.133 (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I recently found myself becoming involved in this little dispute. The issue at hand is that the Precursor section of the article advances a position -namely, that socialism is to be considered a precursor to Technocracy- which is not supported by the sources that are being cited. This qualifies as Original synthesis (and consequently amounts to Original Research) and must be removed immediately per the cited guidelines. If user Fidelfoo's unconstructive behavior on this matter persists, I recommend we call for outside mediation. Malik047 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Smith, as cited in that section, makes this link directly in a peer reviewed scholarly journal article, the assertion being the topic of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Please formally request moderators. While you're waiting for their response, please do bother to read Smith. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I am in the process of calling for outside mediation, and will make common cause with editors who have been observing the ongoing violation of Wikipedia policies in this article as well. To understand the origin of the dispute, I recommend you review the following three items: WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYN. These guidelines are relevant to the issue as follows:
* 1) The sources you cite qualify as fringe and extremist, as per WP:NOTRELIABLE. Such sources are to be used exclusively as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims, as is the case in the "Precursors" section of this article.
* 2) The "Precursors" section, in its current contested form, presents ideas for which no reliable (see point 1) source material is available. This qualifies as original research, as per WP:ORIGINAL.
* 3) Even in the instance that the cited sources were to be deemed reliable, the "Precursors" section still advances a position/implies a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by said sources. This qualifies as original synthesis, as per WP:SYN. Malik047 (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for organising the process. I'm only citing Smith in Studies in Eastern European Thought and Velben on the Engineers at the moment. I'm certainly not standing behind the wsws. Smith is fairly explicit in supporting the sentence he's cited for, and for the general connection between socialism and technocracy in the history of ideas. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Precursors[edit]

There's been a bit of edit warring over the section 'Precursors'. Reviewing the sources, I'ld say that they range from the 'definitely reliable' to 'iffy, but reliable about their own opinion'. They are also relevant as they directly address the topic of Technocracy, and so should not be removed from the article. There may be a bit of WP:SYN involved in the writing of the paragraph, but this can be taken care of with some judicious rewriting. It's clear that the section should be there, perhaps rewritten a bit to make it clear where the viewpoints is coming from. I've thus reinstated it on a temporary basis, but suggest that the sources be reviewed and the paragraph tweaked to better reflect the sources and to state clearly where the viewpoint is coming from. LK (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You may also take a look to the relevant section of fr:Technocratie#Origines_et_histoire_du_concept which is carefuly sourced. Best regards --Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent developments and Technocratic Organisations[edit]

I noticed there was no information stated in the article on any recent technocratic organisations or activity. Whether or not there should be a dedicated section or some other form of integration in the article is open to debate, without this information however one gets the impression from the article that technocracy is a dead or stagnant movement. That however is far from the truth and the organisations in mind have broader contributions and activities than mentioned in the article.

My suggestion would be a section on recent developments and the activities that the organisations are involved with. In that way the section contributes to technocracy as a system where as a list of recent organisations could be irrelevant.

To aid discussion and referencing here are some useful sources, it would be good to have some U.S sources to if anyone can provide some?

1 - EU Technate group: http://www.technate.eu/index.php : A group of collaborating technocratic organisations.

2 - European Organisation for sustainability : http://www.eoslife.eu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.207.229 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No list of Technocratic governments?[edit]

I came here looking for a list of examples of past technocratic governments but there isn't one. I know that there would be some controversial additions to such a list but there would be several examples at least. Would Italy's forthcoming government be such an example?--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 20:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

We rely on scholarly sources making notable arguments for this kind of thing. AFAIK the only major "trope" of technocratic government in the scholarly literature is a half-hearted accusation levelled at the Soviet Union; using data that is now 60-70 years out of date. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Have added a list of technocratic governments as listed on a BBC News article about it. Have also added an explanatory paragraph explaining how such a government can be appointed in a parliamentary system. This section could do with some expansion by someone more familiar with the matter MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 10:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Your contribution is completely unrelated to the term discussed in this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Fifelfoo. Italy has a democratic constitution, and continues to do so. The BBC, and various news organisations, are not sociologists, and aren't using the word in the sense discussed here. Johnfos (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a note in the lead explaining this difference to the uninitiated? It just seems odd that the article does not address the "common" usage of the term, and until it does people will come here saying "Italy is a technocracy" etc. for the next year or so. Something like "Although unrelated to the concept discussed in this article, the term "Technocratic" has been applied by news media to a government headed, for example, by an unelected economist such as the Italian governments of Lamberto Dini and Mario Monti, and the Greek government of Lucas Papademos. However such governments do not exhibit the features of a true technocracy." Would this be acceptable to both experts and non-experts? I agree that lists of such governments are not relevant to this article, but an explanation of why they aren't relevant is relevant to the article...if that makes any sense 129.234.189.85 (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Dini was elected and had been Berlusconi's Treasury Minister. It was the ministerial posts that gave the government its character of governo tecnico. MistyMorn (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The "common" usage of the term is a piece of bullshit invented in the last two months by news media organisations. It isn't a "term" at all; it doesn't appear in reliable sources. Moreover, appointed ministries are nothing special, and have existed since the dawn of time—slapping a label on a previous structure doesn't change it. The reliability of the sources bandying around the word is so unusually low compared to Veblen or the other academic sources here that I don't know what to do. This is like the media have taken a giant fucking shit on social science. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree in that there aren't any reliable sources, but it's been around for longer than two months. Best I could find was a half page news/comment piece in Science (vol 267 p450) from 1995 that refers to the then-incoming Dini government as "technocratic" twice in passing. However - not a social science article, so wouldn't have thought it can be considered reliable in your field. This whole thing seems to be an imperfect translation of the Italian term it:governo tecnico "technical government" - distinct from it:tecnocrazia. We could do with a separate page for "technical government" with a "not to be confused with" note at the top of this page maybe? 129.234.189.85 (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this because of the particular post-war constitution (both formal, and practical) of Italy. Perhaps Caretaker government is relevant here? Commonwealth governments, who have lost the command of Parliament (due to proroguing) become Caretaker governments until an election is held and the new house convened. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Monti made it a condition for accepting the post that his government would not be temporary (ie caretaker) with a predetermined "use by date" before the next elections were due. I agree that Italians tend to distinguish their concept of governo tecnico from "governo tecnocratico". My impression is that the latter term is used mainly either in a critical/hostile tone or when back translating comments by non-Italian speakers who have rendered governo tecnico as "technocratic" (or the equivalent in other languages). See [8]. MistyMorn (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition of technocracy?[edit]

Is there any particular reason why economists (and indeed businessmen) were excluded from the definition of technocracy on this page? (See also this discussion on the Mario Monti talk page.) MistyMorn (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

did you read The source cited or another equivalent but as yet uncited source prior to changing that cited definition? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The dictionary definitions I've been able to look at so far, including the OED one transcribed above, speak of technical experts in general. I wondered why that particular paper had been chosen as a source for the definition of technocracy. However, I'm certainly no expert, lol. MistyMorn (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to reshape the article so that the OED definition was the starting point and sub-sections were created to discuss the differing ways the term is used? Or is that violating WP:DICTIONARY? IMHO, the current article is too focused on an academic definition and should at least attempt to incorporate common usage.Connolly15 (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I very much support that view. IMHO, attention to the structure of the article should allow many of the conceptual issues to fall into place. Surely the concept of "technocracy" has a cultural history which can't be forced into any tight, one-size-fits-all definition? Different usages of the term may deserve structured treatment within the article (and perhaps even sub-articles). A layman's 2 cents, MistyMorn (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


Will someone kindly word/structure the lede in such a way as to incorporate the broader usage of the word "technocracy", including the OED definition? I don't know what criteria were used in the selection of Berndt (1982) to cover the overall definition of the term in the present article. However, exclusive use of such a restrictive definition appears to contradict broader usage, as per the OED, and invalidates legitimate wikilinks from other articles. MistyMorn (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

wilful art is that way. We don't do dicdefs. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain? If the present page is about a concept which does not include the main current dictionary definition, I think that should be specified either in the lede or in a disambiguation hat (probably not the right wikiterm, sorry). But in that case, shouldn't the more narrowly focused article should become a 'sub-article' of the main article entitled Technocracy? MistyMorn (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC) MistyMorn (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The article had been flagged as contradictory for that reason. It appears to be ok now though as that has already been clarified; the article would not make sense otherwise: "However, the meaning of the word technocracy more recently has expanded in the popular lexicon to indicate any kind of management or administration by specialized experts of any field, not just physical science, and has been used in various different contexts.[3]" 186.42.106.20 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree that's a good move that partially addresses the immediate problem. However, modern economists certainly use scientific tools, such as statistical modelling. So there's still, imo, an unresolved tension between the first two sentences. More worryingly perhaps, Berndt (1982) still appears to define the main scope of the article, which appears to marginalize (if not quite exclude) usage in recent decades. For instance, my 1977 copy of the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary says government or management by technical experts: a state, etc so governed: a body of technical experts in governing position. Incidentally, that definition would seem to fit the current Monti government in Italy like a glove. MistyMorn (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The distinction is important because there is a conflicting view between geophysicists and economists concerning energy related issues. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy and the influence energy related issues have on politics. It is already stated in this article that "Technocrats may be distinguished from "econocrats" and "bureaucrats" whose problem-solution mindsets differ from those of the technocrats.[12]"; those definitions fit the concept of "government or management by economic experts" more closely. 186.42.106.20 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I can see that there are different usages of the term, but I would have thought prioritizing one restrictive definition (however authentic) to the near exclusion of the common usage is unhelpful to the general readership of Wikipedia—which is not confined to the energy sector. Wouldn't it be preferable to structure the article in such a way as to consider the different usages in their historical and theoretical contexts? Unfortunately, I'm having difficulty right now accessing both Berndt (1982) [link not working for me today] and Njalsson & Gunnar (2005). But am I right in thinking that both these papers are advancing a thesis, and therefore expressions of a POV? If so, I'm wondering why Berndt is taken as the single authority for the definition governing the scope of the article. (Sorry if that was a bit convoluted.) MistyMorn (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
We weight off scholarly consensus, not off the BBC inventing things. We also don't conflate two terms together. I suggest you fork your content to Technocracy (governo tecnico) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
As regards your first point, if I've understood it, I suggest you consider the OED: "1. Government or control by an elite of technical experts; (also) a doctrine or theory advocating this... 2. A ruling or controlling body of technical experts; a powerful technical elite... 3. A society, community, etc. governed or controlled by such a group." Please have the civility to write intelligible English ("wilful art"? "weight off"?). — MistyMorn (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
We aren't a dictionary, and the OED is not a sociological document. The OED has no reliability for the scope or content of a term within sociology. Moreover, WP:WEIGHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Degradations to the Accuracy of Subject's Definition[edit]

The first sentence of this article itself seems to incorrectly define "Technocracy" as a whole. While certain sentences of description in this article seem rather lengthy, the initial sentence seems far too short; especially in regard to the importance that proper definition of differing forms of government might hold. It is of my opinion that the initial sentence of this article places too great a responsibility on technocracy to "be in control of all decision making." A technocratic society uses its knowledge of science and technology as a means to progress the legitimacy of ideas, not to claim power over ideas that have no recognizable adherence to fact. Please don't underestimate the importance of the first sentence in these articles, regardless of how accurate their underlying elements may seem. Rather, use the the legitimacy of those underlying ideas to more accurately develop the initial definitions of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleyjem (talkcontribs) 02:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nations[edit]

Are there any states that would have been classified as technocratic entities? Perhaps certain Italian city-states that existed during the Italian Renaissance? Were not the majority of the rules patricians of the arts and sciences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.7.5 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Technocrat[edit]

A while back I emboldened the word "Technocrat", and someone reverted my edit. Seeing as Technocrat redirects here, I see no reason why the word should not be bold. Are there any objections? 14:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to embolden it and it should not be capitalized either. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

How does Technocracy deal with Faction?[edit]

The democratic system survives faction by checks and balances. The system of Technocracy is Utopian, but in practice would soon fail. The "Head Technocrat in Charge," can, through nepotism, or cronyism, control access to training of well qualified individuals, while promoting unqualified individuals at will.

One check/balance, would be to guarantee access to training, by requiring an individual to make the class pay for itself, before moving on to any new course, or programming language, etc. This falls to the problem of aptitude. I had interest, but not aptitude for my first college major. Under a system deterring the laziness of the professional student by forcing that accountability, an individual unfortunate enough to take a course or major in which he was not apt, would see his career die outright, even without faction.

Hamiltek (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This whole article needs to be scrapped and re-written[edit]

Please reference:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/277o4q/correcting_reddits_chronic_misunderstanding_of/

This article is mishmash of ignorance of the original late 19th and early 20th century technocratic philosophers and treats the Technocracy movement of the 1930's and it's ideas as being the standard of technocratic thought.

Specifically, the idea that technocracy is authoritarian is absurd, as well as the idea that you can have a "technocracy" in addition to some other form of governance. While it's certainly possible to have a technocratic Democracy, or technocratic Socialist Republic, or whatever else, these are not technocracies in the original sociopolitical philosophical sense of the term. Technocracy is *explicitly* a post-capitalist socioeconomic structure, in the same vein as Communism being *explicitly* a stateless, classless society. That the layperson is far too unintelligent to make these distinctions, and thus give rise to colloquial stupidity such as saying the USSR was a communist state, is immaterial to the fact that Communism has never existed, the same that Technocracy has never existed, nor will ever exist until an egalitarian, post-capitalist, post-scarcity automation economy managed by technical experts comes to fruition.

This article is a pile of lay garbage written by contributors who have obviously never read the formative literature on the topic with any depth or breadth whatsoever.

Actually, most scholars and academic sources will associate technocracy with authoritarianism, precisely because technocracy can only exist in a authoritarian system, at least in modern usage.
Regards, Dark Liberty (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Coming here and trash talk blogging about the article is not helpful. Your thoughts are also not relevant because they are original research or your opinion. Your link you gave to reddit.com is not a good way to begin stating your case because that is not a reliable source or citation. I suggest you refrain from posting your personal thoughts on this subject on Wikipedia because you are not an authority and by dissing the article which has been the subject of many peoples editing and is neutral in presentation you do not do your case well, your case being your o.r. opinions about the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the article. I think you mistake me for some scum bag who linked to Reddit now that has soiled my cuffs. The only trash that exists is the article, there is so much room for improvement. I am not one in favor of original research. Dark Liberty (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Article rewrite[edit]

Here is a proposed version of the article:

Technocracy is a proposed form of government in which technical experts, including scientists and engineers, participate in various fields of governmental decision-making. The term technocratic refers to 'a member of a technical elite', including non-elected professionals at a ministerial level. The word technocracy has also been used to indicate any kind of management or administration in any field, not limited to government.

The term technocracy was originally used to designate the application of the scientific method towards solving social problems, in strong contrast to traditional Western concepts of economic, political, or philosophical ideology. The concept has some basis in Marxism-Leninism, but is opposed to its economic theory; in such an approach, sustainability, rather than only growth in GDP, would be the primary objective of all social-industrial functions. Technical and leadership skills would be valued on the basis of meritocracy, rather than democratic means.

Currently, technocracy only exists only on an authoritarian model, although the term has been proposed historically during the 1920s to be used in democratic governance, ostensibly to remove the influence of special interest groups. Also, there have been examples where democratic governments have applied technocratic principles in practice. Dark Liberty (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but that is complete trash. It is your opinion. It is not cited. You can not make original research on Wikipedia the source has to come from reputable cited information and none of the above does. Please follow the citations currently in the article. Your point of view from some reddit.com posts is a pov which is original research. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is trash because you edited it. I actually copied and pasted sections of the article which were written by you to test if you would go revert them, and indeed you did. And does the rule that the lead need not be cited not apply to you?
Dark Liberty (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Trash talking is not going to help your case, whatever that is and from what I can tell you have some opinions that are original research and are angry about the cited verifiable information in this article. I did warn you on your talk page [9] about your behavior on this article. Your post above is pretty much proof that you are not here to edit cooperatively. There is zero tolerance for personal attacks on Wikipedia and interrupting Wikipedia to make a point as you say you have done is strictly forbidden although you have no diffs of what you are claiming. I think you are just trying to create some kind of problem here by tendentiously attacking and putting your thoughts in a blog-like manner on the talk page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)