The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
Technocracy as a political ideal—rule by technical experts optimizing society like a machine—draws both nostalgia and alarm in reflections on its 1930s roots and present-day echoes among tech elites. Commenters weigh the appeal of efficient, scientifically guided governance against its historical ties to fascism, risks of elitist hierarchies, and the impossibility of reducing complex social trade-offs to purely “expert” decisions. The conversation broadens into critiques of modern technocratic management, from central planning and surveillance capitalism to China’s model and Western “managerial” states, questioning whether technology-led governance can coexist with genuine democracy and human flourishing.
Concepts of Technocracy (Movement vs Governance)
- Commenters distinguish between:
- “Technocracy” as rule by experts/technicians in general.
- The specific 1930s Technocracy movement, described as quasi‑cultish, with uniforms, symbols, and later overlap with New Age and Dianetics/Scientology ideas.
- Some recall late adherents who were devout but not notably pro‑technology, even anti‑tech in practice.
Appeal vs Risks of Technocratic Rule
- Pro‑technocracy sentiments:
- Desire for a government run with engineering discipline: long‑term thinking, efficiency, sustainability, reduced waste, better housing/healthcare, and lower inequality.
- Frustration that politics is dominated by money, mass appeal, and media rather than competence.
- Critical views:
- Efficiency is a dangerous organizing principle if people become expendable “cogs”; human flourishing and planetary health are better goals.
- Centralized expert rule creates rigid hierarchies, credential gatekeeping, and incentives toward elitism, racism, and eugenics.
- No single “correct” solution to social problems; expertise is plural and contested, especially in economics.
- Consensus and decentralization are seen by some as messy but ultimately more robust.
Technocracy, Fascism, and Plutocracy
- Several tie technocratic fantasies to 20th‑century fascism, communism, and New Deal–era “managerial” governance and population management.
- Modern tech billionaires are framed by some as aspiring technocrats aligned with right‑wing populism; others say they are straightforward plutocrats seeking profit and power, not genuine populists or consistent technocrats.
- There is disagreement on how well technocratic authoritarian models work today (with China cited both as success and as concerning).
Technology, Progress, and Human Development
- One line of argument: major rights and “modern” values depend on agricultural and industrial revolutions; “primitive” societies are portrayed as mentally and culturally limited.
- Strong pushback:
- Hunter‑gatherer and tribal societies have complex religion, culture, and social systems; some may be healthier or more humane.
- Agriculture is argued by some to be a “blunder” that increased disease, inequality, and war, even while enabling large populations.
- Debate over whether recent tech progress is mostly shallow attention‑harvesting vs meaningful advances (AI, biotech, EVs).
Competition, Power, and Limits of Tech
- One camp: countries that embrace technology will inevitably outcompete those that do not; resistance is futile.
- Counterexamples:
- The US loss in Afghanistan despite massive tech superiority shows tech does not guarantee victory.
- “Technological miracles” (e.g., harmful chemicals, health crises) can weaken societies.
- Some conclude that societies resist central planning and cannot be “well‑governed” purely through technocratic design.
Historical and Cultural Parallels & Meta‑Critiques
- Parallels drawn to Mexican “Científicos,” Futurism (especially its fascist Italian branch), Russian Cosmism, and mid‑century hippie counterculture as a reaction to technocratic governance.
- Mention of older critiques of meritocracy/technocracy and modern talks/books exploring these themes.
- A few criticize the article/thread for underplaying China’s contemporary technocratic practices and for superficial or dismissive takes on technology (especially AI).