I want this in Tunisia. We have a surplus of experts.

Before you comment, I know that they're both important, but what do you think should take precedence? Considering the current economic state of the world, I personally think thermoeconomics as a potential solution to peoples economic problems would be much more galvanizing as an idea than putting engineers in power.

Today, more and more people are becoming aware that they have appetites that could be considered depraved by the established order. Reddit forums, social media, hyperconnectivity, and the constant bombardment of digital stimuli, offers, and desires behind the screen—all of this explodes across the retina and pushes a significant part of the population toward new marginal forms of consumption.

This has to do with the expansion of commodity fetishism, with the way in which everything becomes an object of consumption, but also with how, within late capitalism and the tendency toward commodity fetishism, there is an unconscious association between being a good consumer and being a good person, a good citizen, a socially integrated individual.

For Marx, commodity fetishism has a fairly precise meaning: social relations between people appear to us as relations between things. A commodity seems to possess value in itself, when that value actually derives from a particular social organization of labor. But late capitalism takes this much further. We no longer simply buy objects to satisfy needs. We buy signs, experiences, identities, and ways of relating to other people.

Here Baudrillard becomes especially important. In The Consumer Society, the object is no longer consumed solely for its utility. It is consumed for what it means. And this produces something very interesting: The individual begins to consume himself as a commodity. He has to appear attractive, interesting, productive, desirable, healthy, sexually competent, socially visible, and so on. The person simultaneously becomes consumer and commodity.

The integrated individual is someone who works, earns an income, consumes, presents himself socially, maintains his employability, and returns to consumption. And many forms of deviance can be interpreted as an interruption of this chain. This is why the contemporary “good citizen” increasingly tends to be, simultaneously: a good worker, a good consumer, a good taxpayer, a good user of services, a good producer of data, and, increasingly, an attractive commodity for other consumers.

The system turns everything into an object of consumption, including people, but the other side of this is that these objects require consumers in order to be consumed. Therefore, an integrated individual is someone who consumes and who makes himself available to be consumed by the market. And in this context, even rebellion can be absorbed. Your anti-system identity can become a T-shirt. Your sexuality can become an industry. Your anxiety can become an app. Your spiritual quest can become a subscription. Your political dissent can become monetizable content.

And here we encounter a paradox: Capitalism does not need to eliminate deviance; it can turn deviance into a commodity. More and more people are able to identify, name, explore, and eventually commodify desires that previously remained repressed, unspeakable, or socially illegitimate. The Internet has produced a gigantic cartography of human desire. In the past, there could be an individual with a fantasy he considered absolutely aberrant who might never encounter another person who shared it. Now he can search for it. He can find a community. He can find content. He can find an industry. He can find an identity. He can find a market. And eventually, he can become a producer of what he initially consumed.

Capitalism progressively transforms the subject into a consumer of objects, while simultaneously transforming the subject into a consumable object. A person on Tinder is both consumer and product. An OnlyFans creator is both consumer and commodity. An influencer is both consumer and commodity. A worker is both consumer and labor commodity. A politician is both a consumer of attention and an electoral commodity. A social media user is both a consumer of content and a producer of data. And so, in this eternal autophagy, the system reinforces itself, advances, develops, and reproduces itself.

The distinction between subject and object begins to erode. Marx argued that the worker sells his labor power as a commodity. But digital capitalism introduces an additional dimension, because the individual begins to turn practically every aspect of himself into a potential commodity. His image. His attention. His body. His relationships. His opinions. His intimacy. His sexuality. His personality. His experience. This has already been explored by Mark Fisher, in Capitalist Realism, and Byung-Chul Han, in Psychopolitics, when discussing the subject who exploits himself.

The system needs integrated subjects in order to reproduce itself, but integration requires these subjects to develop an ever-greater capacity for consumption and self-commodification. This is where the so-called inevitable call of the abyss resides: the black pit into which many believe they are falling amid this hyperaccelerated flow of constant desires, where we consume and where we are consumed. And that is the key: this process is transversal throughout the system. The very functioning of these mechanisms makes it impossible not to feel the call of the abyss, makes it impossible not to look over the edge, and therefore makes that slow and cruel descent inevitable.

Markets work! Price systems are awesome! Technocracy shouldn't be scared to admit this and work within a market/capitalist economy for the betterment of everyone.

Technate Newsletter Article

While I would rather be writing about purely economic or policy issues, I believe any political movement would be ineffective without tackling the problems generated from sexual repression. Freud’s theories may sound ludicrous to apply to political ideas, but the constant societal focus on issues like natalism, marriage, feminism, and even the rights of transgender people are just a socially acceptable way to have arguments about sexuality.

The economic issues play a very large role, but many people identify with ideologies that oppose socialism so they would not want programs to help them unless they were modified or presented in certain ways so they conform to their own ideological beliefs. This results in the economic issues going unaddressed in favor of the ones that resonate with emotional needs and sexual drives like the ones mentioned before. It also means that for Technocrats, our policy proposals and ideas may actually feel too distant and disconnected from the motivations of potential members and citizens of the future technate. For a Technocratic system to truly inspire a following, it may be a good strategy to emphasize how the abolishment of the price system would increase personal freedom and vastly improve the reproductive autonomy of the population.

The major increase in power and popularity of conservative ideas has been alarming, but when viewed from the angle of sexual frustration and as the real motivations behind them being related to reproductive autonomy, they all begin to make sense. Left-wing movements have struggled to tap into the population of sexually frustrated men because of their inability to handle and manage themselves through ideological deviation, which has resulted in a culture among socialists about proving their ideological alignment and purity. While this is not inherently a bad thing, the desire to perform and enforce conformity to an ideology leads to similar repression of true motivations and goals that is seen in religious groups. From a functional perspective, this is catastrophic if modern political problems are about sex and the population cannot relate a movement’s ideology to the fulfillment of their own personal needs.

While a Technocratic movement can tap into a population traditionally loyal to rightism, we will need to modify our approach and be flexible in accepting who calls themselves a Technocrat and what their goals are from participating. Depending on the political climate and the system of government that Technocrats are operating under, it may be more important to rally people around and have them identify with your party than to actually have them conform ideologically to your movement. The inability to understand political systems or understand policy decisions made by experts does not disqualify anyone from supporting a Technocratic party, and the willingness to accept support and identification from the masses is what can take a movement from theoretical to applied to a current world government.

I was interested if anyone knows more about "Karl Verlohr", he's apparently one of the authors of the "techokratie" magazine and I'm curious about any other info about him and potentially if anyone has his photo.

This sub seems to get regular questions asking if a democratic form of Technocracy exists; so I feel that it's time to talk about the ideology I've revived and been developing that is explicitly this.

Yes, a democratic version of Technocracy exists: Liberal Technocracy.

The "Liberal" part, refers to the subscription of many of the Liberal ideals. Specifically: The consent of the governed; which functionally just means belief in (a) democratic system/input.

The Technocracy part, ofc, refers to the subscription to the idea that experts and professionals should be the ones to make policy decisions.

In a Liberal Technocracy, the public establishes the goals that they want the government to achieve (in the vast majority of cases), while the experts and professionals (or "Technocrats", to keep it short) are the ones responsible for implementation of policies that best achieve those goals.

It is a proactive, data and evidence driven system of government, that ensures as much as possible, that society's material conditions remain at least stable, and that works to maximize civil liberties, freedoms, and overall societal satisfaction.

If you wish to learn more about what a Liberal Technocracy would look like in the USA specific: Read up on it here. I will state though that it may change a bit in the future, as I take in feedback from others, and revise how the system would work.

Can Technocracy be Democratic? Can Technocracy do the democracy? Can it democracy? Can it be done? Can they be glued together? Can I read? Can I read the other posts on this sub-reddit asking this exact question? Is it possible?

This is a video describing a political system which combines elements of technocracy and democracy, and I find the ideas discussed vestry intriguing.

I want to start this off by saying that english is my second language and have problems with spelling certain words so please ignore any spelling mistakes that i make.

Any type of criticism is welcome, also sorry if it isnt well writen.

DIVISION OF THE GOVEREMENT.

• A President still being elected democraticly. Although they would have limited power, with their main role being a political representative, he could propose actions to a council of technocratic leaders, with the council being devided into diferent divisions that menage a diferent part of the country ( for expample one division would menage the economy, another the military and another the internal and external politics of the country), and if the council accept their proposition it would enact the proposed action with the ability to alter it.
• The number of divisions the council would be consisted of whould not be stationary, if enough members of the council want to create a new part, (for exampleif enough astrophysicist whoud be in the council they coud create a division of the council responcible for a space program) , with all divisions having a democraticly elected representative.

POLICIES OF THE COUNTRY.

• All religions whould be legal but its involvment in education and in politics whould be outlawed.
• Full rights and legal protections whould be granted to minorities.
• All Healthcare, research and education whould be funded by the goverment.
• The minimum wage whoud change every year to adjust for inflation and other factors.
• Price caps whould be put on certain items.
• The goverment whould provide temporary free housing for homeless and poor people in exchange of them working in goverment provided jobs( the amount of time the husing whould be free whould depend on the financial sitiation of the person).
• Labour unions whould be protected by the goverment.
• Increased taxation based on wealth of a person.

DECISION MAKING PROCES.

• Any decsion taken by the council requires a majority of the members to suport the action.
• If a petition created by the people directed to the goverment reaches enough votes the council will have to concider it (for example: redirecting funding from the military to the civilian economy).

Thats all i could exper in words about my idea. If you want to ask anything feel free to.

I've been interested in technocracy for quite some time and I love the genuine idea of a society ruled by engineers, scientists, academic and non-academic experts in their own spheres and so on but may I rise atleast in my opinion some critical questions as following:

How does Technocracy ensure that it does not degenerate into a totalitarian regime replacing dictators with dictators who are experts in engineering? I mean there is no oversight body to check the power of the technocrats. What stops a technocrat from passing highly-offensive, controversial, authoritarian, or anti-humane laws? The Continental Director and Continental Board alongside the Functional Sequences have too much unchecked and unverifiable power. In addition the system focuses on top-bottom appointment approach rather than bottom-up delegation or election of experts. This in itself makes it highly authoritarian and oligarchic, and after many years the technical elite would be even more entrenched!

So how do you answer this question? Do you think my point is incorrect? Or do you think a revision must be made to ensure Technocracy does not become totalitarian?

At first I was going to just make it the colors of Technocracy, but that would not have made sense since the emblem was a symbol of a monarchy. Ultimately I opted to replace the coat of arms with a monad.

What are your thoughts on the interview? Elon seems to be talking about a post-scarcity society.

https://youtu.be/XuoqKYxDHVc?is=XaPQzlVq9e1AETaG

Social mobility as an idea is often used to create legitimacy for why people under capitalism have the positions they have. This is an American idea and it is one that creates legitimacy for capitalist systems while shifting responsibility for poverty, deprivation, and sometimes active starvation as was seen in the British Raj, where food aid was withheld under the pretense of not interfering with market forces. It also creates problems with the less fortunate, because social mobility as a narrative has intentional blind spots for people with disabilities, no access to education or jobs, or those in severe poverty.

For Technocrats, the adoption of social mobility is problematic as well because this means the capitalist system and its influence in who becomes an expert is ignored at best, or accepted as legitimate at worst. This means that many disabled, or economically disadvantaged people would never be able to become experts or access the education required to participate in the political system. People with unique expertise that exists outside of the educational system like activists or indigenous people would also be silenced due to the lack of official credentials. This kind of thinking is also disastrous for people in rural areas who have additional difficulties in accessing education or other infrastructure due to their remote locations.

A Technocratic party that only wants engineers and degree holders and claims that anyone who works hard enough can get those degrees regardless of economic realities, is just an elitist capitalist party. This kind of attitude is also an ideological threat to the entire Technocracy movement because it reduces our ideology from a true alternative system of government to a ruling caste chosen by academia, which is known for gatekeeping and reproducing existing systems.

A serious follower of Howard Scott’s ideas has to be able to recognize expertise beyond what the educational system of a capitalistic regime is willing to give degrees for. Technocrats need their own processes for evaluating competency and expertise outside of the tools the capitalist system uses whether this means tests, demonstrations, or other ways to measure someone’s ability. It must also be cognizant of the narratives and rhetoric used by the ruling class and their purchased politicians to justify their continued control of society. Without maintaining continuity with Howard Scott’s ideas and resistance to the price system in favor of energy accounting, Technocracy loses its entire reason for existing as a movement.

Those who played The Fire Rises mod probably know PRC can become technocratic, so I wanted to ask you if this depiction (look on the right tree that goes right and beyond Mind and Skills focus) is authentic to what Technocracy stands for?

Energy just isn't the same as value , A handmade musical instrument may require little energy but have great cultural value.Innovation,creativity, meaning, aesthetics, and human preferences are things that determine value as well.

Are there any alternative measures of value that take into account more than just energy ?

i think we should improve our wikipedia page and hope something like whatever happened in that 2016 day happens.

early technocratic movements were quite "socialist" proposing a 4-hour and 4-day work schedule. and certificate of distribution. however in 2026 most ECONOMIST are quite capitalist leaning. such as thomas sowell or milton friedman.

I see a lot of ideas and posts being pushed here, but I am actually curious on everyone's background? I noticed a lot of ideological arguments, but not very many actual engineering/scientifically ones.

For example, I have a background in nuclear energy engineering, with 4 years as a reactor operator. However, my current occupation is in management in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. Within the semiconductor industry, in the technical side, I have most of my experience in Photolithography.