Talk:Technocracy

message: The Criticism section might be bias against neoclassical models
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.212.64 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.243.130 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What the... this whole article is incorrect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Derogatory Usage of Technocrat 

message: 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)
thread_title:  20th century 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed new section "The technocratic instinct amongst engineers and its outcomes"

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Krypton 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The current title is loaded with smear. 84.104.135.141 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article Title

message: 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)
thread_title:  Habermas' critique 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Isn't technocracy a meritocracy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds fine... Johnfos (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Seems reasonable Firebladed (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Added disambiguation link and fixed a few double redirects and links  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebladed (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to Technocracy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Technocracy and engineering 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Always selected through bureaucratic means

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Monad and Symbols 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Precursors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent developments and Technocratic Organisations  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Your contribution is completely unrelated to the term discussed in this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 .  MistyMorn (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No list of Technocratic governments? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: wilful art is that way. We don't do dicdefs. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of technocracy? 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degradations to the Accuracy of Subject's Definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nations 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  How does Technocracy deal with Faction? 

message: The citation to Britannica seems like a weak cite, as their page doesn't have any citations on it that I could see.(other than citing other pages of itself)
Daniel Bell was a well respected professor at Harvard.  Here is a larger clip of how he described St. Simon's views in his book "The Coming Of Post-industrial Society", page 76-77:
Industrial Society, as St. Simon insisted, was the application of technical knowledge to social affairs in a methodical, systematic way. With industrial society, thus, has come the technicien - the French usage is more apt than the English "technician," for its sense in French is much wider - the trained expert in the applied sciences. It has implied, too, that those who possessed such knowledge would exercise authority - if not power - in the society.
St. Simon's vision of industrial society, a vision of pure technocracy, was a system of planning and rational order in which society would specify its needs and organize the factors of production to achieve them. Industrial society was characterized by two elements, knowledge and organization. Knowledge, he said, was objective. No one had "opinions" on chemistry or mathematics; one either had knowledge or not. The metaphors St. Simon used for organization were an orchestra, a ship and an army, in which each person fulfils a function in accordance with his competence. Although St. Simon clearly outlined the process wherby a nascent bourgeoisie had superseded the feudal nobility, and though he predicted the rise of a large working class, he did not believe that the working class would succeed the bourgeoisie in power. As he tried to show in his sketch of historical development, classes do not rule, for society is always governed by an educated elite. The natural leaders of the working class would therefore be the industrialists and the scientists. He forsaw the dangers of conflict, but did not regard it as inevitable. If an organic society were created, men would accept their place as a principle of justice. The division of labor meant that some men would guide and others would be guided. In a society organized by function and capacity, doctors and engineers and chemists would employ their skills according to objective needs, not in order to gain personal power. These men would be obeyed not because they are masters but because they have technical competence; to be obedient to one's doctor, after all, is a spontaneous but rational act. For this reason the St. Simonians, in a set of phrases that later were used by Engels, gave their new social hierarchy the slogan, "From each according to his capacity, to each according to his performance," and the industrial society, as they describe it, was no longer the "rule over men, but the administration of things."
The administration of things - the substitution of rational judgement for politics - is the hallmark of technocracy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.189.153 (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Bell's description of early St. Simonian Technocratic ideas 

message: I think E-Democracy is some way sharing ideas from Technocracy from its rules for people that used technology (Internet as case) to voting in form of online polling, This way similar to how concept of Technological experts from real life. In way both ideas of two movements that have people can create laws, proposal, devlopment with technological interest and any fields. 2606:A000:85E7:4E00:A9F0:BC80:438A:8556 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Your opinion does not matter. You are not sourcing your opinion to anything in the published world. You can not go by your hunch of some connection. Do not add the material please and please read up on what the encyclopedia publishes as compared to your opinion and original research. Thankyou. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think E-Democracy kinda share influence to Technocracy in light positive way? 

message: I've seen "technocrat" often (mis-?)used perjoratively to imply an autocrat or otherwise unelected official (i.e. imply that they are democratically unaccountable and therefore potentially illegitimate). I don't see such mention of this in the article, nor of any criticism of technocracy (even from those who assume it to be inherently unelected). Does anyone have reliable sources to describe this usage? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of technocracy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Technocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.technocracy.org/periodicals/nwtechnocrat/237/who-is-a-technocrat.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe critiques of technocracy are usually couched in the language of critiques of Post-politics. Some of that literature should be mentioned in this article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of technocracy 

message: There is no such thing as a government which is technocratic. However the idea of this being possible does deserve some serious attention, and this with a view to better understanding about of what our society comprises and how it works.
Many people avoid this matter of society because they imagine it is too complex and difficult or impossible to pin down and to properly understand. This is true if you look at it as having many individual and varied trends, but one can also examine our society as if it were a number of functions, of which many individuals share in common.
As shown in my recent paper “SSRN 2865571 Einstein’s Criterion Applied to Macroeconomics Models” the subject is not so hard to explain as first supposed. I show that when our trading and exchange activities are listed and broken down there are but 19 different kinds of money flows passing between the 6 kinds of functional entities or agents, in the structure of a country’s social system. These entities are: Landlords, Financial Institutions, Householders, Producers, Capitalists and the Government.
By the use of a theoretical, logical and scientific approach, we can then begin to better understand of what our society comprises and how it works. Such an approach is provided in my recent book:  "Consequential Macroeconomics--Rationalizing About How Our Society works" which due to its technocratic nature should be added to the list of references, cited in this article.Macrocompassion (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Technocracy Really Means 

message: Could be compared to Gnomes in World of Warcraft, maybe?
2A02:C7D:16E3:5F00:DCCF:3CC7:56DC:9561 (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Fictional Example 

message: (I do not know how to add new drop down sections similar to "history", "precursors" or "characteristics", otherwise i would add it myself.)
The new section would include economic theory that would accompany a technocratic government.  
For example, all products in an economy are produced by machines, these products require a certain amount of energy (watts) to produce.  So the amount of energy needed to produce all the products in the system would be evenly divided among the population.  So if a loaf of bread took 1000 watts of energy to grow the wheat, refine it, mix with spices that also took energy to grow, mix with water that took energy to pump, and bake in an oven that took energy to heat, then that loaf of bread will cost 1000 watts to buy.  (Represented in some sort of electronic currency that also charges you watts to run)
I think that this would give the average reader a better idea of what a technocracy is or could be with the proper technology and organisation.  (A post scarcity economy where all manual labor is optional, and people are free to innovate/create as they please without the burden of a 9-5 job.) Pierce592 (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should a new "economic theory" section be added? 

message: I understand this talk page is already crowded with Critiques critiques from at least 2005, however in my effort to try to clean this page up I'll make a more specific issue, the section appears to incorrectly assume technocracy means "rule of technology companies" rather than anything defined in this article, it makes constant mentions to social media and of all people and platforms, Mark Zuckerberg and Pinterest. I'll look into whether or not it is even a valid criticism of technocracy as "rule of technically experienced". 93.105.178.32 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph 2 of Critiques section