The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

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).