Technocracy

{{silver}}
[[File:Mario Monti 2012-06-27 d.JPG|thumb|right|165px|Former [[Italy|Italian]] PM {{wpl|Mario Monti|}} filled his cabinet with bankers and economists rather than politicians.<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-15751179 Monti unveils technocratic cabinet for Italy] (16 November 2011) ''BBC News.''.</ref> ]]
{{politics}}
{{cquote|A businessman who was also a [[biologist]] and a [[sociologist]] would know, approximately, the right thing to do for [[humanity]]. But, outside the realm of [[business]], these men are stupid. They know only business. They do not know mankind nor society, and yet they set themselves up as arbiters of the fates of the hungry millions and all the other millions thrown in…  I charge the [[capitalist]] class with having mismanaged society. You have not answered. You have made no attempt to answer. Why? Is it because you have no answer?|||Jack London's [[dystopian]] novel ''The Iron Heel'' (1908)<ref>[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1164/1164-h/1164-h.htm ''The Iron Heel''], via Project Gutenberg.</ref>}}

'''Technocracy''' is a form of government in which the decision-makers are selected based on their relevant expertise, with a preference for those with [[scientific]]/[[Technology|technical]] knowledge. The general idea is that said people would treat a nation's problems as a series of '[[engineering]] challenges' for which they would use the [[scientific method]] to discover not only the optimal solution, but the optimal manner in which to achieve it&nbsp;— free of [[bias]], [[ignorance]], or [[Conflict of interest|vested interest]]. This could be considered a ''form'' of [[meritocracy]] if those technocrats selected were selected on their previous professional achievements (though this makes the assumption that the educational/scientific 'ladders' available won't be [[bias]]ed against certain groups, such as women or the [[poor]]).

Though clearly Technocracy (in its pure sense) has not been instituted in any nation of the globe yet, we all live in a partial 'technocratic world' because our lives are shaped by [[government]]s and large companies being guided and heavily run by people with a (broadly speaking) technocratic viewpoint. This has led to '[[Small government|small state]]' [[conservatives]] such as {{wpl|James Burnham}} to claim in books such as his 1941 ''The Managerial Revolution'' that the new masters of our world were the 'professional–managerial class' who had sidelined the previously dominant [[politicians]], capitalists, and [[Aristocracy|aristocrats]].<ref>[https://archive.org/details/the-managerial-revolution/mode/2up ''The Managerial Revolution'' by James Burnham (1962 [1941]) Penguin Books</ref> Eighty-odd years later, one might quibble on how desirable this situation is and point out details on which he was proven incorrect, but Burnham's general argument holds true.

As such, when 'professional–managerial' experts are put into political power, they are often described as ''technocrats''. In [[democracies]], this often happens if the nation's political class is judged as incapable or unwilling to govern, or is found to be unpalatable to either the public at large and/or foreign opinion&nbsp;— for example, 'caretaker governments' in parliamentary democracies or 'non-political' cabinets in situations where there is a political 'negative majority'{{efn|When politicians can only agree on what they ''won't'' support, not what they will. Thus, there is political paralysis.}} exists&nbsp;— for example, in [[Italy]] in 2022.<ref>[https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-technocrats-mario-draghi/ Italy's technocratic anomaly: The country needs to develop a new, wiser political culture that seeks to stabilize its politics.] by  Tommaso Grossi & Francesco De Angelis (25 July 2022) ''Politico''.</ref><ref>[https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/16/so-what-exactly-is-a-technocrat-anyway So what exactly is a technocrat anyway? What is a ‘technocrat’? And why are technocratic governments all the rage these days in Europe?] by Joshua A Tucker (16 November 2011) ''Al Jazeera''.</ref>

==Background==
While the seeds of technocracy were sown during [[Age of Enlightenment|The Enlightenment]], the first real shoots were in the final decades of the 19<sup>th</sup> century; a time where the '{{wpl|Second Industrial Revolution||'}} was in full swing (giving several [[Technology|technological]] keystones of the modern world, such as industrial [[chemical]] production, mass production, [[electricity]], and the internal combustion engine) coupled with a growing 'scientifically'-minded middle class to run the technologies (rather than a 'traditionally'-minded middle class, put through an educational system geared towards producing lawyers, clergymen, and clerks). People unsurprisingly held the view that a 'scientific mindset' could improve ''all'' spheres of human life. This (somewhat naïve) 'faith in the future' was a real [[paradigm shift]] for humanity&nbsp;— a genuine belief in [[progress]] on all fronts. People had good reasons for believing this; [[scientific management]] promised material prosperity for all, [[Evidence-based medicine|medical advances]] (such as [[germ theory]] and knowledge of nutrition) promised improved human health and longevity, while the myriad gizmo-inventors such as [[Thomas Edison]] held out a vision of a cleaner world full of labour-saving devices. However, as with any 'movement', some dross got mixed up with the pearls; the belief that [[Sigmund Freud]] was in the progress of 'unravelling the mysteries of the [[human]] [[mind]]' and laying the parts logically in front of us, [[spiritualism]] was considered a legitimate scientific study of the [[afterlife]], and that [[Francis Galton]]'s [[eugenics]] would 'improve the race' in a similar manner humans had done with domesticated animals, while the ''mostly'' sane campaigns by the [[clean living movement]] got hijacked by [[cranks]] and [[religious]] zealots.

==Variants==
In the century-plus since, several 'technocratic' movements have waxed and waned, with differing levels of success. As they often shared distinct overlaps, it was common for individuals to over time slide from one to another, as well as seeing 'merit' in the other variants&nbsp;— such as the works of {{wpl|H.G. Wells||.}}<ref>[https://jacobin.com/2023/07/h-g-wells-socialism-progress-science-fiction The Scientific Socialism of H. G. Wells] by Joshua Fagan (3 July 2023) ''Jacobin''.</ref>

===Efficiency Movement===
[[File:1918 Influenza Poster.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Telling you what to do for over a century (USA, 1918)]]
The first variant of technocratic ideals, running between around 1890 to 1920 in many industrial nations, such as the [[UK]] ('National Efficiency' under the 'New Liberalism'<ref>[https://liberalhistory.org.uk/history/the-new-liberalism/ The New Liberalism] by Duncan Brack, ''Journal of Liberal History''.</ref> of {{wpl|David Lloyd George}}) and the USA ('Progressivism'<ref>[https://www.history.com/news/gilded-age-progressive-era-reforms How Gilded Age Corruption Led to the Progressive Era] by Christopher Klein (4 February 2021) ''History Channel''.</ref> under [[Theodore Roosevelt]]). The {{wpl|Efficiency movement|Efficiency Movement|'s}} guiding principle was simple: that the state would actively intervene in the country's affairs, to drive modernisation, hack out inefficiencies and encourage best practice&nbsp;— if [[laissez-faire]] [[economics]], [[tradition]], or vested interests got in the way of this, then it was ''they'' who had to give way to [[logic]] and the needs of the nation. This was a break with the prevailing '[[classical liberalism]]' of the latter Victorian era/[[Gilded Age]] (which by modern standards we would call [[libertarianism]]), but also broke with conservative 'paternalism' in which our 'efficient state' was motivated ''only'' by 'enlightened self-interest'&nbsp;— that it did not wish (for example) to improve the heath of the public because it was 'the right thing to do', but simply that healthier people were better workers who paid more [[taxes]], were fit for military service if required, and were more likely to become good parents. If this sounds like 'master of the obvious' to you, it's because to a major extent, the adherents won the argument on the core concepts.

It's important to note that the vast majority of proponents were not '[[socialist]]' or even [[left-wing]] in a modern sense; many were merely applying new methods to old goals&nbsp;— for example, the British were motivated by shoring up [[British Empire|their empire]] against their [[German Empire|German]] and (to a lesser extent) American rivals,<ref>[https://history.port.ac.uk/?p=2264 The Fitzroy Report, 1904: How the poor physical condition of Boer War army recruits prompted social change] by  Fiona McCall (30 April 2021) ''University of Portsmouth's History Blog''.</ref> while the Americans were motivated by wanting an economic, scientific and governmental base to allow them to get the clout deserving of a 'Great Power'. This goal was seen elsewhere in the [[autocratic]] modernisers such as {{wpl|Sergei Witte}} ([[Tsar]]ist [[Russia]]), and the '{{wpl|Hundred Days' Reform|Hundred Days Reforms|'}} ([[Qing dynasty|Qing]] [[China]]), people who were mainly interested in ''material'' reforms, not societal.

Typical reforms included the professionalisation of the civil service (hiring experts, using modern [[statistical]] methods), expansion of the education system (schools, universities, public libraries),<ref>[https://www.loc.gov/collections/america-at-work-and-leisure-1894-to-1915/articles-and-essays/america-at-school/ America at School] ''Library of Congress''.</ref> a new focus on public health (municipal sanatoria for the mentally ill and those with infectious disease, regulation of [[patent medicine]]s),<ref>[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/plague-gallery/ TB in America: 1895-1954] ''PBS American Experience''.</ref> changes to improve economic efficiency (trust-busting, foundation of labour exchanges, resource conservation),<ref>[https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/03/this-day-in-politics-december-3-1027800 This Day In Politics: Theodore Roosevelt assails monopolies, Dec. 3, 1901] by Andrew Glass (3 December 2018) ''Politico''.</ref><ref>[https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/winston-churchill-forgotten-progressive/ Winston Churchill, Forgotten Progressive?] by Eamonn Bellin (7 October 2022) ''American Purpose''.</ref><ref>[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/tr-environment/ Theodore Roosevelt and the Environment] ''PBS American Experience''.</ref> and putting in protections against 'disasters' (banking regulations, occupational safety legislation, old age pensions).<ref>[https://spartacus-educational.com/Lold.htm Old Age Pensions Act] ''Spartacus International''.</ref> The zenith of this movement was undoubtedly the [[First World War]], where all the major powers tightened the screws on every facet of domestic activity in an attempt to leverage as many resources as possible for the industrialised 'total war' (rationing, economic nationalisations, and [[conscription]]),<ref>[https://fee.org/articles/how-war-amplified-federal-power-in-the-twentieth-century/ How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century] by Robert Higgs (July 1, 1999) ''Foundation for Economic Education''.</ref><ref>[https://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/total-war/ Total War] by Jennifer Llewellyn et al. (2014) ''Alpha History''.</ref> while the last gasp was the granting of [[women's suffrage]] and in the USA, the arrival of [[Prohibition]].

Perhaps the most lingering ''negative'' effect the movement had on general society was the ones related to eugenics, such as the forced sterilisations of 'undesirables',<ref>[https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/469478098/the-supreme-court-ruling-that-led-to-70-000-forced-sterilizations The Supreme Court Ruling That Led To 70,000 Forced Sterilizations] (7 March 2016) ''NPR Healthshot''.</ref> kidnapping of children from parents pre-judged to be 'unfit' for modern society for enforced assimilation,<ref>[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/a-century-of-trauma-at-boarding-schools-for-native-american-children-in-the-united-states A century of trauma at U.S. boarding schools for Native American children] by Erin Blakemore (9 July 2021) ''National Geographic''.</ref> and the belief that an early application of [[IQ|IQ tests]] on children would allow them to be assayed correctly for their 'later station in life' (unsurprisingly, supporting [[racialism]]).<ref>[https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/racism-intelligence-test-scores Racism and Intelligence Test Scores] (14 March 2016) ''Facing History''.</ref>

===Scientific socialism===
[[File:Yakov Guminer - Arithmetic of a counter-plan poster (1931).jpg|thumb|right|200px|'2 + 2 + the enthusiasm of the workers = 5'. (USSR, 1931).]]
{{main|Command economy}}
Scientific socialism could be glibly called 'Efficiency Movement as run by [[Marxists]]'. Revolutionaries such as [[Lenin]] took the experiences of the previous decades and of innovations such as 'scientific management'<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/13.htm The Taylor System - Man’s Enslavement by the Machine] by V. I. Lennin (2004) ''Marxists Internet Archive''. Originally published in ''Put Pravdy'' No. 35, March 13, 1914</ref>&nbsp;— his theory was that if 'good Party [[Communist glossary#Comrade|comrades]]' were giving the directions rather than politicians 'in the pockets of capitalists', then the resources of the nation would be diverted into 'building [[communism]]' (which included enforced modernisation) rather than simply fattening foreign investors and their domestic hangers-on.

After a period in which the [[Soviets]] ran what is now call a mixed economy,<ref>[https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/new-economic-policy-nep/ The New Economic Policy (NEP)] by Steve Thompson et al. (February 22, 2024) ''Alpha History''.</ref> it was decided by [[Stalin]] amongst others that the pace had to be increased drastically. The result was the {{wpl|First five year plan|'Five Year Plan|',}} the first attempt to scientifically plan an entire economy of a country in human history.<ref>[https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/russian-soviet-and-cis-history/five-year-plan Five-Year Plan] by Darren G. Lilleker (May 11 2018) ''Encyclopedia.com''.</ref>{{efn|A more impressive feat when you consider the fact that the State Planning Committee (Gosplan) had zero computing power, experience, or even methodology to accomplish this, and that the Soviet Union was the largest nation by land area.}} This created the [[command economy]], which became the hallmark of the 'Second World',{{efn|The 'First' being the advanced capitalist nations and the '[[Third World|Third]]' the poorer non-aligned nations.}} which ran with little change until the collapse of the Soviet bloc in the late 1980s (surviving nominally-communist states such as [[China]] have shifted to a 'corporatist' method of organisation).

Putting aside ''other'' discussions over the flaws of command economies, the main problem was that like their capitalist predecessors, the 'commissars' often ignored their experts, instead choosing options for political or selfish reasons (which produced ultimately worse solutions). Almost without fail, it soon became professionally or even ''personally'' dangerous for experts to demur from official policy, question leaders' '[[Lysenkoism|pet projects]]', point out [[Chernobyl|negative side-effects of previous policies]], or [[Bourgeois pseudoscience|suggest alternatives]].<ref>[https://spartacus-educational.com/RUSshakhty.htm Shakhty Trial] by John Simkin (2020) ''Spartacus Educational''.</ref> At least under capitalism, you were simply ignored and ''perhaps'' fired. Despite these issues, supporters of this system highlighted the determination and resource allocations it can grant to projects deemed 'of national importance'&nbsp;— for example, the construction of new industrial cities, hydroelectric dams, [[Nuclear energy|nuclear facilities]], and Olympic stadia&nbsp;— yet often these were infected with '{{wpl|gigantomania||',}} the desire to out-do competitors (normally the capitalist states) with sheer size when smaller, saner developments would have been more efficient in resource use. Examples often cited as engineering 'white elephants' include {{wpl|Magnitogorsk}} and {{wpl|Baikal–Amur Mainline|Baikal-Amur Railway}} (Soviet Union), the '{{wpl|Palace of the Parliament||'}} ([[Romania]]), and the {{wpl|Ryugyong Hotel|Ryugyong 'Hotel'}} ([[North Korea]]).

===Technocracy Movement===
[[File:TheTechnocratsMagazine Robot.png|thumb|left|200px|Making the robot look like it's a monster attacking DC ''perhaps'' not wise? (USA, 1933).]]
{{main|Technocracy movement}}
Perhaps one of the most well-known political ideologies you probably haven't heard of, its forerunner was spotted in the immediate aftermath of the First World War,{{efn|The small 'Technical Alliance' group first met in 1919, while the term 'Technocracy' was also coined this year, but by one Smyth who had ''nothing'' to do with the later movement.}} but only came to the fore during the rapid onset of the [[Great Depression]] in (primarily) the [[United States]] and [[Canada]]&nbsp;— a time where the very underpinnings of capitalism and democracy appeared to be floundering.<ref>[https://time.com/archive/6750519/science-technocracys-week/ Science: Technocracy’s Week] (23 January 1933) ''Time''.</ref>

Having tried (and partly failed) to 'sufficiently' guide aristocrats, capitalists, politicians, or commissars into building a world of their liking and apparently unable to grasp what needed to be done to get out of the crisis, our budding technocrats began to organise, arguing that only ''they'' really had a viable plan and it would be best for all if they were simply allowed to get on with it without '[[Dictatorship|interference]]'. To top this off, they had their own logo (a [[Yin and yang|yin/yang]] called 'The Monad'), a 'uniform' (grey suits and blue ties), a picked colour (if grey can be described as such), liked to greet each other by a salute, and eventually gave each other number-letter code names. If this is [[Fascism|reminding you of something]], you're not the first,<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1944/03/technocracy.htm Technocracy: A Totalitarian Fantasy: Myths and Realities About a "New Order"] ''Marxists Internet Archive''. Originally published in: ''New International'', Vol. X No. 3, March 1944, pp. 73–78.</ref> as early detractors called it 'an incipient fascist movement', and it splintered almost immediately when some key people fell out with the wannabe 'Continental Director', {{wpl|Howard Scott (engineer)|Howard Scott|.}}

What it wanted, in short, was a '[[North American Union]]'{{efn|Called the 'Technate of North America'.}} ruled by a self-selecting [[oligarchy]] of engineers and scientists, the turning of [[fiat currency]] into an energy-backed currency,{{efn|This wasn't ''as'' nuts as it first looks, as the world had just abandoned the [[Gold standard (economics)|gold standard]]; hell, energy is a slightly more logical thing to measure 'value' with, as everything has 'energy inputs' into it, but not much so much for a shiny yellow metal.}} the rollout of [[universal basic income]] from the proceeds of the previous, and a firm goal to move towards a technological [[utopia]] for all.<ref>[https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/politics-law/the-last-utopians The Last Utopians] by Ray Argyle (1 January 2018) ''Canada's History''.</ref><ref>[https://bostonraremaps.com/inventory/technocracy-inc-technate-of-america-1940/ Technocracy, Inc. and the Technate of America] ''Boston Rare Maps''.</ref>

Ultimately, it was a true 'flash in the pan' movement, though it held on as a force in places like [[California]] and [[British Columbia]] into the 1950s. Its 'failure to launch' can be put down to (apart from the [[fascistic]] echoes) a fuzziness as to what a 'Technocratic' government's programme would be, no apparent plan on how they'd gain power to implement said programme, and lack of ability to persuade the wider public that the situation was bad enough to accept the jettisoning of [[democracy]]. There's a good chance that it only flared into the public consciousness due to there being a 'gap in the market' between the perceived inaction of [[Herbert Hoover]] and the coming corporatism of [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]'s [[New Deal]], which drained off all but the most ideologically committed Technocrats.<ref>[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17449359.2024.2343657#d1e323 A non-conforming technocratic dream: Howard Scott’s technocracy movement. 3. The rise and fall of Howard Scott’s technocracy movement] by Kyunghwan Oh (2024) ''Management & Organizational History'' 19(2), 108–123. doi:10.1080/17449359.2024.2343657.</ref>

Nearly a century later, only a few relics remain past the term itself; such as the 'Air Dictatorship' in HG Wells' 1933 novel ''{{wpl|The Shape of Things to Come}}'' (of which the latter chapters could be seen as a de facto 'Technocracy manifesto') and the 'World State' in [[Aldous Huxley]]'s 1932 ''[[Brave New World]]'' (which is more a warning ''against'' at least a form of 'Technocratic society'<ref>[https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/brave-new-world-at-75 Brave New World at 75] by Caitrin Keiper (Spring 2007) ''The New Atlantis''.</ref>).

===Corporatism===
[[File:A Mule and a Plow 05986r.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Drastic solution to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl Dust Bowl]. (USA, circa 1936).]]
{{main|1=Corporatism|3=New Deal|5=Distributism}}
Corporatism is both an old and new idea; this being that society was made up of different 'corporations', in a broad sense,{{efn|In this case meaning 'common interest groups'. So yes, private companies are 'corporations', but so are religious groups, trade unions, local communities, etc.}} and that it was the duty of them to cooperate to find the ideal solution. Its modern variant arose in the late 19<sup>th</sup> century as a reaction/counterpoint to both [[Marxist]] socialism and laissez-faire capitalism, touted by (amongst other things) the [[Catholic Church]] in pronouncements such as the 1891 {{wpl|Rerum novarum|''Rerum novarum''|,}} something which pissed off both other opposing factions at the time<ref>[https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/09/25/is-rerum-novarum-a-socialist-manifesto/ Is Rerum Novarum a Socialist Manifesto?] by Michael D. Greaney (September 25, 2022) ''Catholic World Report''.</ref> and continues to do so today.<ref>[https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-a-catholic-be-a-capitalist Can a Catholic Be a Capitalist?] by Trent Horn (18 Feburary 2020) ''Catholic Answers''.</ref> One might have heard of this via its watered-down edition called 'stakeholder capitalism',<ref>[https://www.investopedia.com/stakeholder-capitalism-4774323 What Is Stakeholder Capitalism?] by Deborah D'Souza (October 03, 2022) ''Investopedia''.</ref> which the usual suspects hate like poison (''[[National Review]]'', [[Mises Institute]]).<ref>[https://archive.ph/Xw67K ‘Stakeholder capitalism’ is corporatism in disguise] by Andrew Stuttaford (July 9, 2020 6:30 AM) ''National Review'' (archived from 9 Jul 2020 12:28:01 UTC).</ref><ref>[https://mises.org/mises-wire/problem-stakeholder-capitalism The Problem with "Stakeholder Capitalism"] by Frank Shostak (6 November 2021) ''Mises Institute''.</ref>

Its modern form was first popularised by [[Benito Mussolini]] in the 1920s, with the principle of ''compulsion'' being added to the theory&nbsp;— to make permanent the various [[Ad hoc|ad-hoc]] measures introduced during the First World War in the advanced economies and to spur growth and development greater than what [[Free market|free-market]] capitalism could achieve by themselves.<ref>[https://archive.ph/ECqBQ Fascist Italy's Experiment With Economic Corporatism] by Philip Scranton (15 July 2013) ''Bloomberg'' (archived from 25 Sep 2023 15:38:27 UTC).</ref><ref>[https://politicalresearch.org/2005/01/12/mussolini-corporate-state Mussolini on the Corporate State] by Chip Berlet (12 January 2005) ''Political Research Associates''.</ref><ref>[https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/ ''Economic Fascism''] by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (1 June 1994) ''Foundation for Economic Education''.</ref> If communists wanted a 'command economy' and capitalists desired a 'market economy', corporatists proposed a '''directed'' economy'&nbsp;— where capital, labour, resources etc would be funnelled towards the optimum solutions. Despite this being popularised by a strongly authoritarian character such as ''Il Duce'', corporatism is not ''inherently'' in conflict with either democracy or personal [[freedom]] in general (that is, unless one is a free-marketeer ideologue who considers ''any'' restrictions on one's ability to make money akin to [[slavery]]).

While variants started to be spotted in weaker/smaller nations who used it to harness limited resources to speed up modernisation (such as in [[Turkey]] under [[Kemal Ataturk]]<ref>[https://whoisataturk.com/g/icerik/Ataturks-Understanding-of-Statism/223 Atatürk's Understanding of Statism] by Hasan Yuksel, ''Who Is Atatürk''.</ref>), corporatism really took off in the 1930s, as the [[Great Depression|laissez-faire world economy fell apart]] and threatened to drag down most of the independent states with it. [[Nation]]s grew hugely more [[autarkic]] and interventionist; tariff walls, bank bailouts, the formation of state-backed business syndicates, the fixing of prices and wages, limits on the import/export of capital, and so on. An excellent example of this in a ''democratic'' state was the New Deal in the USA; showing that the main issue was not so much the concept itself, but more the goals to which it was put and the methods employed&nbsp;— that it did not ''have'' to be the 'going over roughshod over people's freedoms to build a war machine' à la [[Nazi Germany]].

By the outbreak of the [[Second World War]], the vast majority of the world's countries were under some form of corporatism (albeit to differing levels and styles), and after the conflict, it became the dominant form of government economic policy throughout the non-communist world until the rise of [[neoliberalism]] in the 1980s. Current systems such as the {{wpl|Party-state capitalism}} seen in China under [[Xi]] and [[Putinism]] in [[Russia]] are generally considered to be modern variants of corporatism.

==Current trends==
Not only do we continue to reside in a technocratic world heavily run by the 'professional–managerial' class, but its views continue to resonate and shape it further. Not only do all the previous iterations still have their proponents, we have seen in the last few decades the growth of what can be termed the 'Dark Technocracy'; people who&nbsp;— despite sharing their predecessors' firm belief in technology&nbsp;— ''don't'' subscribe to either Enlightenment values or the utopian dreams of most of their predecessors.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/03/facebook-meta-silicon-valley-politics/677168/ The Rise of Techno-authoritarianism: Silicon Valley has its own ascendant political ideology. It’s past time we call it what it is.] by Adrienne LaFrance (30 January 2024) ''The Atlantic''.</ref> Instead, most circle around ideologies found within the [[neoreactionary movement]]; most commonly a form of {{wpl|neo-feudalism}} where a technological-financial [[elite]] (which foolishly [[Useful idiot|includes themselves]]<ref>[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OriginalPositionFallacy Original Position Fallacy] ''TV Tropes''.</ref>) enjoy [[Libertarianism|almost unlimited power]] while the masses are either utterly disregarded or, ''if lucky'', [[Anarcho-capitalism|get some crumbs from their master's table if judged as 'useful servants']]. While the majority of capital in this era is controlled by the fairly nondescript 'managers' outlined above at the behest of other managers with no goal apart from making more money, a significant portion of the 'active ultra-rich' are (at least in part) members of this movement.<ref>[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/08/musk-thiel-zuckerberg-andreessen-alternate-autocratic-reality How Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, and Andreessen—Four Billionaire Techno-Oligarchs—Are Creating an Alternate, Autocratic Reality] by Jonathan Taplin (22 August 2023)''Vanity Fair''.</ref>

[[Peter Thiel]]<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/oct/03/the-contrarian-review-inside-the-strange-world-of-paypal-founder-peter-thiel The Contrarian review - inside the strange world of PayPal founder Peter Thiel] by John Naughton (3 October 2021) ''The Observer''.</ref> has embraced [[transhumanism]] so he (and other chosen oligarchs) can live (and rule) forever,<ref>[https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2017/08/first-men-conquer-death-will-create-new-social-order-terrifying The first men to conquer death will create a new social order – a terrifying one] ''The New Statesman'', 25 August 2017.</ref> [[Mark Zuckerberg]] tries to sell us a hyper-capitalised [[simulated reality]]<ref>[https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/14/metaverse_internet_failure/ The Metaverse is the internet no one wants] by Thomas Claburn (14 October 2022) ''The Register''.</ref><ref>[https://jacobin.com/2021/09/facebook-zuckerberg-metaverse-stephenson-big-tech Mark Zuckerberg’s “Metaverse” Is a Dystopian Nightmare] by Ryan Zickgraf (25 September 2021) ''Jacobin''.</ref> in lieu of the screwed-up one we currently inhabit while Jeff Bezos and [[Elon Musk]] plan to sidestep this issue with [[bullshit]] plans for colonising ''other'' worlds, instead<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/20/jeff-bezos-space-flight-billionaires-earth-sinking-ship Why is Bezos flying to space? Because billionaires think Earth is a sinking ship] by Hamilton Nolan (20 July 2021) ''The Guardian''.</ref><ref>[https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-has-a-new-excuse-for-not-making-it-to-mars-2000497650 Elon Musk Has a New Excuse for Not Making It to Mars: The billionaire says that if he doesn't successfully colonize Mars at some point in the next few years, you can blame Kamala Harris.] by Lucas Ropek (September 11, 2024) ''Gizmodo''. "Musk, a studied peddler of vaporware, is used to spouting off bullshit that uninformed stans think sounds cool, only to then never accomplish the feat he claimed he would accomplish."</ref><ref>[https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/11/technology/future/spacex-elon-musk-mars-bfr/index.html Elon Musk: Mars rocket will fly 'short flights' next year] by Jackie Wattles (March 11, 2018: 4:13 PM ET) ''CNN Business''.</ref>&nbsp;— or to watch this world collapse and then arise like gods from the ashes.<ref>[https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2023/02/the-apocalyptic-delusions-of-the-silicon-valley-elite The Apocalyptic Delusions of the Silicon Valley Elite] by Douglas Rushkoff (16 February 2023) ''Current Affairs''.</ref> Energy tokens are back, except they're called [[Bitcoin]] (rather than just being pegged to energy production and use, they just waste energy)<ref>[https://cointelegraph.com/news/100-years-ago-henry-ford-proposed-energy-currency-to-replace-gold 100 years ago, Henry Ford proposed ‘energy currency’ to replace gold] by Sam Bourgi (18 September 2021) ''Cointelegraph''.</ref> and so many people assure us 'they're the future' for… reasons. [[Effective altruism]] will save the world by working out logically what would be the 'best' [[charity]] to give to, doubtlessly decided by [[AI]] using [[utilitarian]] criteria and mining big data&nbsp;— which will increasingly micromanage the neo-serfs' lives to the point that [[free will]] becomes more theoretical than actual. All ruled over by an elite [[Social Darwinism|who deserve to be there]] because of their obvious success, demanding that [[Ultracrepidarianism|their views on everything is correct]] ''due'' to their ability to make lots of money and [[Victim blaming|mocking the serfs]] for their 'lack of gumption' [[JD Vance|to bootstrap themselves into the elite class]]. In fact, some question whether the [[nation-state]] ''itself'' is a dead concept… or actively desire to make it so.<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyl171lyewo The crypto bros who dream of crowdfunding a new country] by Gabriel Gatehouse (20 September 2024) ''BBC''.</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/12/san-francisco-tech-billionaires-political-influence Inside tech billionaires’ push to reshape San Francisco politics: ‘a hostile takeover’] by Ali Winston (12 February 2024) ''The Guardian''.</ref><ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/180487/balaji-srinivasan-network-state-plutocrat The Tech Baron Seeking to Purge San Francisco of "Blues"] by Gil Duran (26 April 2024) ''The New Republic''.</ref>

If this sounds like a pastiche of the technological [[dystopia]]s such as ''Cyberpunk 2077'' and the ''Deus Ex'' series, that's because they come from the same source material. The amusingly sad thing is that many of our wannabe technocratic overlords<ref>[https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/technocracy-incorporated-elon-musk/ In science we trust] by Ira Basen (28 June 2021) ''CBC News''.</ref> don't seem to realise that the world they're constructing is desired by almost nobody, or even that they ''are'' the villains of the tale&nbsp;— such as when Musk compared himself to the original ''Deus Ex'' protagonist JC Denton, but the public response was to compare him to the technocratic antagonist Bob Page instead.<ref>[https://gamerant.com/elon-musk-twitter-deus-ex-tesla-stock-price/ Elon Musk Compares Himself to Deus Ex Hero, Fans Think He's More Like the Villain] by Callum Williams (2 May 2020) ''GameRant''.</ref>

===DOGE===
[[File:Logo of the Department of Government Efficiency.svg|thumb|right|165px|The stupid logo<ref>[https://logomakr.com/11-warning-signs-your-logo-sucks/ 11 Warning Signs Your Logo Sucks] by Samantha P (2023) ''LogoMak<u>r</u>''. "3. Your logo looks generic." "6. You can’t explain what it means…" "7. It doesn’t fit with what people are expecting from your brand."</ref> of DOGE]]
[[Elon Musk]] and fellow plutocrat [[Vivek Ramaswamy]] announced a technocracy-style quasi-governmental crew of tech bros,<ref>[https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/errors-pile-musk-doge-appear-increasingly-incompetent-rcna192851 As errors pile up, Musk and DOGE appear increasingly incompetent] by Steve Benen (Feb. 19, 2025) ''MSNBC''.</ref><ref>[https://newrepublic.com/post/190175/elon-musk-government-doge-tech-bros Here Are All the Tech Bros Helping Elon Musk Gut the Government] by Edith Olmsted (January 13, 2025) ''The New Republic''.</ref><ref>[https://fortune.com/2025/02/25/elon-musk-doge-tech-engineers-scientists-product-managers-resign-letter/ 21 tech staffers quit from DOGE en masse, warning Elon Musk’s hires are political ideologues without the necessary skills or experience] by Brian Slodysko et al. (February 25, 2025 at 9:26 AM PST) ''Fortune''.</ref> DOGE (the "Department of Government Efficiency"), with a [[bullshit]] announcement ("we’ll reverse a decades-long executive power grab") shortly after [[Donald Trump|Trump's]] 2024 election.<ref>[https://archive.ph/TLP7Y#selection-5925.63-5925.98 Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government: Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we’ll reverse a decadeslong executive power grab.] by Elon Musk & Vivek Ramaswamy (Nov. 20, 2024 12:33 pm ET</ref> Musk began implementing it almost immediately after Trump's inauguration, but not before Ramaswamy was quit-fired (because no one can stand close proximity to Musk for very long).<ref>[https://www.thedailybeast.com/vivek-ramaswamy-wasnt-radical-enough-for-his-doge-co-head-musk/ Vivek Ramaswamy Wasn’t ‘Radical’ Enough for DOGE Head Musk: Just hours after Trump’s inauguration, Ramaswamy quit the “cost-cutting” task force to run for governor of Ohio.] by Janna Brancolini (Feb. 28 2025 11:59AM EST) ''Daily Beast''.</ref> DOGE has caused widespread [[chaos]] across government departments, which is hardly a sign of efficiency.<ref>[https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/alsobrooks-warren-smith-question-hud-secretary-on-alarming-consequences-of-new-doge-task-force-on-housing-for-americans Alsobrooks, Warren, Smith Question HUD Secretary on Alarming Consequences of New DOGE Task Force on Housing for Americans] (February 24, 2025) ''United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs''.</ref> There is also evidence that Musk is self-dealing with DOGE by knee-capping agencies that directly regulate or compete with his businesses, such as [[NASA]] and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/doge-layoffs-nhtsa-agency-regulates-tesla-elon-musk-trump-2025-2 The agency that regulates vehicle safety — and Elon Musk's Tesla — is another target of DOGE layoffs] by Feb 24, 2025, 7:40 AM PT) ''Business Insider''.</ref><ref>[https://spaceinsider.tech/2025/02/28/how-doge-has-affected-nasa-so-far/ How DOGE Has Affected NASA So Far] by Alyssa Lafleur (February 28, 2025) ''Space Insider''.</ref>

So not only was DOGE not actually about Government Efficiency, it wasn't even a Department.  Congress creates departments, not the president.  Only the "Of" actually applied.

It's no coincidence that DOGE was named after Musk's favorite [[cryptocurrency]] to [[Pump and dump|pump-and-dump]], the ''[[inflation]]ary'' [[Bitcoin#Dogecoin|Dogecoin]].<ref>[https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/elon-musk-dogecoin-rally-bitcoin-ethereum-solana-predictions-trade-secrets/ Elon Musk Dogecoin pump incoming? SOL tipped to hit $300 in 2025: Trade Secrets. Crypto analysts share their tips on a potential Musk-fueled Dogecoin price rally, plus Bitcoin, Solana and other coins.] by Ciaran Lyons (June 10, 2025) ''Cointelegraph Magazine''.</ref>

Although claimed to be a government efficiency organization, there is good reason to believe that it just a cover for a [[Kleptocracy|kleptocratic]] and/or [[Kakistocracy|Kakistocratic]] organization:<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/trump-kleptocracy-autocracy-inc/682281/ Kleptocracy, Inc. Under Trump, conflicts of interest are just part of the system.] by Anne Applebaum (April 14, 2025) ''The Atlantic''.</ref> cuts in budgets and staffing will likely cost far more than they save.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/politics/doge-musk-government-savings Scorecard: How Musk and DOGE could end up costing more than they save] by Zachary B. Wolf (May 30, 2025) ''CNN''</ref> many if not all of the "experts" that Musk selected came from his own companies and had no experience in government,<ref>[https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-elon-musk-trump-staffers-tracker-update The DOGE 100: Musk Is Out, but More Than 100 of His Followers Remain to Implement Trump’s Blueprint] by William Turton et al. (June 10, 2025, 3 p.m. EDT) ''ProPublica''.</ref> data theft by the DOGE employees is likely to benefit Musk's companies,<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1-5355896/doge-nlrb-elon-musk-spacex-security A whistleblower's disclosure details how DOGE may have taken sensitive labor data] by Jenna McLaughlin (April 15, 20255:00 AM ET) ''NPR''.</ref><ref>[https://www.epi.org/press/report-reveals-how-musk-and-doge-could-profit-from-access-to-personal-data-and-federal-contracts-and-potentially-cost-working-people-billions-of-dollars/ Report reveals how Musk and DOGE could profit from access to personal data and federal contracts—and potentially cost working people billions of dollars] (May 7, 2025) ''Economic Policy Institute''.</ref> the evisceration of some government branches are likely to directly benefit Musk's companies (cutting the National Labor Relations Board harms private employee rights, cutting NASA benefits SpaceX, and cutting National Highway Traffic Safety Administration benefits Tesla).

Although Musk could claim to be a scientist based on receiving a bachelor of arts degree in physics (though some of the details are sketchy, e.g. degree awarded two years after completion of courses).<ref>[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-physics-degree/ Does Elon Musk Have an Undergraduate Degree in Physics?] by Alex Kasprak (Dec. 21, 2022) ''Snopes''.</ref>{{efn|Calling Musk an artist might have been more appropriate were it not for his design of the Cybertruck.}} Nonetheless, the activities of DOGE have caused "cruel and arbitrary chaos,"<ref>[https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/exposing-doges-dark-dealings and anti-science Exposing DOGE's Dark Dealings] ''House Oversight Democrats''.</ref> and have targeted any programs that mention [[DEI]] and [[climate change]], sacking scientists, science-based programs, science grants and contracts throughout the Federal government, causing collateral damage thoughout the US and the world.<ref>[https://archive.ph/LutCj How Trump’s attacks on ‘climate alarmism’ have already transformed U.S. science] by Ruby Mellen (December 24, 2025) ''The Washington Post'' (archived from 27 Dec 2025 12:46:09 UTC).</ref><ref>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/extreme-heat-climate-change-research Life-saving research on extreme heat comes under fire] by Nikk Ogasa (November 17, 2025 at 9:00 am) ''Science News''.</ref><ref>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/public-health-cuts-infectious-diseases How U.S. public health cuts could raise risks of infectious diseases] by Tina Hesman Saey (April 4, 2025 at 1:00 pm) ''Science News''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250426011636/https://doge.gov/ Department of Government Efficiency] e.g., "Great work by @NSF canceling 701 wasteful DEI grants ($203M in savings), including 'Building Racial Equity in Marine Science.' This brings the total to over $325M saved in the past 2 weeks." (archived from April 26, 2025).</ref><ref>[https://www.npr.org/2025/02/18/nx-s1-5301049/national-science-foundation-fires-roughly-10-of-its-workforce National Science Foundation fires roughly 10% of its workforce] by Jonathan Lambert (February 18, 20257:11 PM ET) ''NPR''.</ref><ref>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/trump-harvard-funding-biomedical Funding chaos may unravel decades of biomedical research: Current actions open the door for future administrations to put their political stamp on higher education] by Tina Hesman Saey (November 18, 2025 at 9:00 am) ''Science News''.</ref>

==Critique==
{{cquote|Technology doesn't solve social and political problems, any more than it causes them. The prospect of [[nuclear war]] was made possible through technology, but it's a live concern because of geopolitics. Humans could come together and choose to rid the world of nuclear weapons, just as we could come together to end [[global warming]]. Applying more intelligence and technology to these problem won't solve them; they're fundamentally political.|||Adam Becker<ref name=becker>''More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley's Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity'' by Adam Becker (2025) Basic Books. ISBN 1541619595.</ref>{{rp|175}}}}
Like any political-economic system, technocratic forms have both positive and negative elements, many of which have 'in the eye of the beholder' subjectiveness about it. The relative attractiveness of the system is dependent on circumstance; a nation facing an existential threat (such as a full-scale invasion or an economic collapse) may regard the negatives as being so minor in comparison that 'they're not worth talking about', but in a time of calm and plenty, the negatives become key issues for abandoning it.

===Democracy===
The most common complaint is that technocratic regimes are ''inherently'' anti-[[democracy|democratic]]; as in at least a portion of decisions are being made by manager-technocrats and not by politicians who have been elected by the people on a manifesto. Politicians of various political hues have long complained that 'the civil service'/'bureaucrats'/'officialdom' have either hamstrung or outright reject their goals&nbsp;— a tussle of wills between the power of the officials vs the authority of the politician (best illustrated for comedic effect by the classic [[BBC]] series {{wpl|Yes Minister|''Yes Minister''|)}}&nbsp;- something which some people will describe (often in [[Conspiracy theory|conspiratorial]] terms) as the existence of a '[[deep state]]'. An even more common complaint is that the elected politician has responsibility but not power, while for the official, it's reversed&nbsp;— that unless the screw-up was catastrophic, the official's career will continue unmolested, but their political master will carry the can. In 'pure' technocratic regimes, the deficit is even worse, because there is no 'people's representative' within the organisation challenging assumptions, giving the general 'direction of movement', and looking out for the people's interest.

Technocrats would argue that this was ''exactly'' the point: that by being elected, the politician does not gain any special insight to their constituents' needs or views, may have zero experience or knowledge of the decisions being put to them, and may well make the decisions based on factional interest and/or their own biases and/or selfish desires, while the technocrat would be able to make the best decision for ''all'' (meaning the thwarting of the politician's schemes was correct). What's more, it avoids the 'electoral cycle effect', in which democratic states find it difficult to tackle long-term problems because the ''costs'' are immediate but the ''benefits'' would be decades hence (and thus beyond the career span of the average politician, or simply the attention span of the average voter). What's more, democracy comes in many forms; while ''representative'' democracy and technocracy might be incompatible, it's possible to construct a hybrid system using other methods, including 'when needed' {{wpl|Constituent assembly|constituent assemblies}} to tackle the big questions of the day, 'advisory panels' chosen by [[sortition]] to allow public oversight, or the use of {{wpl|Referendum|referenda}} to 'cut out the middleman' and simply ask the people ''directly''&nbsp;— thus allowing public participation in discussions and (ideally) 'buy-in' for the plans (though some technocrats have little to no truck for this, because they don't believe in the '[[Argumentum ad populum|wisdom of the crowd]]' due to the power of demagogues and oligarch-fueled [[propaganda]]).

Lastly, they'll simply point out that our worlds and lives are dominated by entities which have almost no 'democratic' oversight&nbsp;— privately-owned [[corporation]]s and finance houses. Odd, how so many right-wingers bleat about 'freedom' and 'democracy' but ''completely'' ignore the fact that these days most large private entities have way more power over the citizen than the state does, are only really accountable to their shareholders, and in many areas of our lives, effectively unavoidable.

===Expertise===
If you're promoting decision-makers on the basis of relevant expertise, you then start the argument on what that expertise looks like. Take, for example, a school&nbsp;— technocratic logic would suggest that a teacher should run it. But is their expertise ''relevant''? A teacher knows about, well, teaching, not running an organisation. Unless by chance, they won't have experience in dealing with budgeting, staffing, legal compliance, or planning maintenance schedules. In fact, some technocrats would argue that a professional ''manager'' is in fact the person with the 'relevant expertise'. There is also the spectre of the [[Peter Principle]] and of opportunity cost to consider; it may in fact be a suboptimal decision to turn a ''brilliant'' teacher into a ''mediocre'' administrator, the best way for that teacher to contribute being to continue teaching (but this does mean they've fallen into the 'too valuable to promote' trap which bedevils many organisations). In fact, some folks might prefer this because (for example) our teacher's passion is teaching, not administration.

The next issue with 'relevant expertise' is when dealing with similar, but distinctly different fields. For example, an experienced banker is unlikely to have a huge amount of insight on how to organise a industrial strategy&nbsp;— for the banker is an expert in ''finance'' while the expertise being asked for comes from ''economics''. Even sub-fields of a discipline might not be 'relevant'; for example, a data-driven classical economist being tasked to draw up a programme to eliminate [[poverty]].{{efn|They will most likely argue that sorting out poverty requires increasing the general income level of the country and then 'poverty will simply vanish' due to [[trickle-down economics]].}}

Most important is the limits of expertise. Said expert's knowledge/experience may be significantly out of date (often a risk if they'd been promoted into administration aeons ago) and/or may be in a field where there is no firm [[scientific consensus]] to rely on (for example, in most [[social science]]s). Variants of [[Nobel disease]] are also an issue; seniors pushing their own [[Inverse stopped clock|pet theories]] and using their status to [[chilling effect|stifle criticism]] on it from more junior peers. Last but not least, an expert might not be ''capable'' of communicating in a manner which people outside of their discipline actually understand&nbsp;— after all, 'science communication' is a skillset in their own right (which an expert may not possess).

===Goals===
'Evidence-based policy making' is all well and good, but there's questions that simply can't be answered using this method, most obviously relating to goals&nbsp;— it might be able to show us the best ''methods'' of teaching and the most effective ''materials'', but it won't show us the best ''curriculum'' that the schools should follow. Somebody, somewhere will need to tell us 'what is education meant to achieve?', and ''only then'' can our experts tell us how best this can be achieved.

This 'somebody' would not only have to grapple with this question, but also be bombarded from many quarters what ''they'' believe the answer is. For example, business will advocate for more 'practical workplace training', the military pushes for more physical education to deepen their future conscription pool, while sociologists argue the key is to drastically increase the civics component to help to inoculate the youth in how they can be a productive, aware citizen. Clearly, not everyone's desires can be accommodated&nbsp;— decisions ''must'' be made, and once they have been, must be sold to both the 'losing' interest groups and the wider public that this is the correct course of action.

Technocrats try to answer this by arguing that a technocratic society could provide such persons&nbsp;— such as utilising professional judges (and their analytical reasoning skills) or even entrusting said decisions to an [[artificial intelligence]]. But this simply sidesteps the issue&nbsp;— judges and AIs alike are given guidance on what elements are the most important, requiring somebody to ask ''what'' said guidance should say.

===Mismanagement===
Technocrats are human beings like the rest of us, and thus fallible. From political biases to naked self-interest, there are several ways where our technocrat's 'objective' decision is, in fact, rather partisan&nbsp;— for example, favouring policies that benefit their own department or themselves personally over the wider needs of the public. Corruption, collusion, cronyism, rent-seeking behaviour, and similar can grow very quickly in a technocratic system if not checked; even the most benign 'careerism' can reduce efficiency if doing the 'right' thing required taking actions which would damage the individuals' future career prospects (which is often cited against allowing monopoly power in any sector; that if someone falls out with the established hierarchy, they are capable of leaving and continuing their career elsewhere).

More malign is the problem of a faulty application of [[Occam's Razor]]; the technocrats may select the ''easiest'' solution, rather than the ''correct'' one. Examples of this can include 'shooting the messenger' (you 'solve' the problem by silencing the person reporting it), '[[moving the goalposts]]' (retconning past goals to fit current [[reality]] so you've succeeded in meeting them), deploying propaganda and engaging in [[psychological]] manipulation (to convince the public that the group's goals are in fact theirs and/or 'there is no alternative' to their plan), and engaging in tokenistic or [[Slacktivism|performative actions]] (to reassure the public that something is being done, much as with [[security theatre]]).

Technocracy supporters would retort that all of these are that which can and often are spotted in all forms of organisation; that the majority of private companies aren't run on technocratic principles but still show these symptoms. That often the problem lies in these organisations being opaque to the general public and said public getting insufficient civics lessons or access to investigative [[journalism]] to realise the scams. Ultimately, much of the complaints are of a 'perfect is the enemy of good' type&nbsp;— that because they can't propose a way to eliminate all of the issues, their proposal is not worth discussing.

==External links==
* [https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/whats-wrong-with-technocracy/ What's wrong with Technocracy?] ''Boston Review'' 'Longread'

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note|2}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Consequentialism]]
[[Category:Forms of government]]
[[Category:Muskiverse]]
[[Category:Oligarchic escapes]]
[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:War on science]]

Categories: Consequentialism, Forms of government, Muskiverse, Oligarchic escapes, Technology, War on science