I really wasn't quite sure if this was history, politics, or abstract ideas but given it's more about philosophy and history I figured this made the most sense.
ok so I'm sure everyone is familiar with fascism, Socialism, Democracy, Capitalism, and communism right? well back at the dawn of the 20th century there was another approach being developed that's kinda been sitting in the background mostly unnoticed.
Technocracy.
Derived from the Greek Technos for skill and Kratos for power (as in the political or governing type).
Technocracy in a nutshell is two things.
The first is having your leaders be experts in their fields rather than whoever has the most power or powerful friends.
in modern society power is governed either by wealth or connections/social groups, and occasionally by fame but in a technocratic society it takes the lead from meritocracy in that the most capable people are given power instead.
from there you apply the scientific method to solve problems with an emphasis on balance and sustainability, both in your personal life and the nation as a whole.
in a nutshell though a technocracy is a meritocratic society with an emphasis on the most capable being given the ability to decide.
a democratic subgroup being that you elect from a pool of ideal candidates rather than the popularity contest democratic republics seem to often turn into.
Starting in the early 20th century the idea was coined by William Henry Smyth in 1919 who stated "Technocracy is the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers".
now this was originally centered on the workers having a say in the industry they work for which back then was primarily industrial work but of course things change as they do with the 1920's leading up to the great depression and kind of torpedoing things with people trying to solve it thus leading to the idea being mostly lost or ignored for the last nine decades.
^^^^^ - a sign in a depression era town about the local technocratic party and meetings of it.
Technocracy really began to form as a movement in the late 1920's when the Technocracy movement was founded by one Howard Scott who at the time tried to solve the economic side of things with " an energy theory of value " which breaks down anything into the energy required to make it, theorizing that "that the sole scientific foundation for the monetary system was also energy", and that by using an energy metric instead of a monetary metric (energy certificates or 'energy accounting') a more efficient design of society could be made.
This reached it's peak in 1933 when scott gave a confusing and ill prepared speech on public radio (this the era before Television), causing the movement to lose support until late 1948 when between infighting and a loss of public support the party for the most part vanished.
These days what technocracy comes down to though is this.
everything has a cost, primarily the resources, labor, and time that goes into creating it, be it growing food, purifying water, or producing an playstation 5.
ideally money sets a value of what all that is worth, technocracy sets a standard of what it's worth and uses that as the basis for a technocratic economy.
Leadership would be chosen not by having a single leader but instead being very similar to the American senate and house, being comprised of experts in each field rather than members of each state.
this could actually be applied on the state level and keep the federal system as is in theory for governance if you wanted to push for a technocratic democracy with councils of experts making decisions on each level depending on the level of the decision needs to be made on.
The presidential equivalent, rather than just being a representative or figure head elected by the people would be chosen from a number of diplomats and people with a long history of leadership eliminating undesirable candidates.
the real trick here though is that decisions made by experts would be considered after weighing all the options and considering them with their experience in their various fields, using the scientific method of theorizing, hypothesizing, trialing, testing, and concluding the best course of action before deploying it.
Technocracies as a concept are incomplete, but in theory with some work could be a great system that could rival capitalist republics and balance them out with socialist tendencies without taking either path.
keep in mind, I'm not an expert, but I lean technocratic myself having seen the follies of the systems of today, and the past, and unfortunately there's a lot to be said about putting people who know what they are doing and use in field experience and well reasoned and researched solutions to problems into power over how things are done today.
ok so I'm sure everyone is familiar with fascism, Socialism, Democracy, Capitalism, and communism right? well back at the dawn of the 20th century there was another approach being developed that's kinda been sitting in the background mostly unnoticed.
Technocracy.
Derived from the Greek Technos for skill and Kratos for power (as in the political or governing type).
Technocracy in a nutshell is two things.
The first is having your leaders be experts in their fields rather than whoever has the most power or powerful friends.
in modern society power is governed either by wealth or connections/social groups, and occasionally by fame but in a technocratic society it takes the lead from meritocracy in that the most capable people are given power instead.
from there you apply the scientific method to solve problems with an emphasis on balance and sustainability, both in your personal life and the nation as a whole.
in a nutshell though a technocracy is a meritocratic society with an emphasis on the most capable being given the ability to decide.
a democratic subgroup being that you elect from a pool of ideal candidates rather than the popularity contest democratic republics seem to often turn into.
Starting in the early 20th century the idea was coined by William Henry Smyth in 1919 who stated "Technocracy is the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers".
now this was originally centered on the workers having a say in the industry they work for which back then was primarily industrial work but of course things change as they do with the 1920's leading up to the great depression and kind of torpedoing things with people trying to solve it thus leading to the idea being mostly lost or ignored for the last nine decades.
^^^^^ - a sign in a depression era town about the local technocratic party and meetings of it.
Technocracy really began to form as a movement in the late 1920's when the Technocracy movement was founded by one Howard Scott who at the time tried to solve the economic side of things with " an energy theory of value " which breaks down anything into the energy required to make it, theorizing that "that the sole scientific foundation for the monetary system was also energy", and that by using an energy metric instead of a monetary metric (energy certificates or 'energy accounting') a more efficient design of society could be made.
This reached it's peak in 1933 when scott gave a confusing and ill prepared speech on public radio (this the era before Television), causing the movement to lose support until late 1948 when between infighting and a loss of public support the party for the most part vanished.
These days what technocracy comes down to though is this.
everything has a cost, primarily the resources, labor, and time that goes into creating it, be it growing food, purifying water, or producing an playstation 5.
ideally money sets a value of what all that is worth, technocracy sets a standard of what it's worth and uses that as the basis for a technocratic economy.
Leadership would be chosen not by having a single leader but instead being very similar to the American senate and house, being comprised of experts in each field rather than members of each state.
this could actually be applied on the state level and keep the federal system as is in theory for governance if you wanted to push for a technocratic democracy with councils of experts making decisions on each level depending on the level of the decision needs to be made on.
The presidential equivalent, rather than just being a representative or figure head elected by the people would be chosen from a number of diplomats and people with a long history of leadership eliminating undesirable candidates.
the real trick here though is that decisions made by experts would be considered after weighing all the options and considering them with their experience in their various fields, using the scientific method of theorizing, hypothesizing, trialing, testing, and concluding the best course of action before deploying it.
Technocracies as a concept are incomplete, but in theory with some work could be a great system that could rival capitalist republics and balance them out with socialist tendencies without taking either path.
keep in mind, I'm not an expert, but I lean technocratic myself having seen the follies of the systems of today, and the past, and unfortunately there's a lot to be said about putting people who know what they are doing and use in field experience and well reasoned and researched solutions to problems into power over how things are done today.
Awesome Site's I'm a part of.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spooky's General guide to wires and cables.
We are dreamers, shapers, singers, and makers. We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, crystal and scanner, holographic demons and invocation of equations. These are the tools we employ, and we know many things.
My Items