Title speaks for itself.

So I was thinking about how our fate depends on AI, experts, and leaders, and how the CEO of a company like OpenAI should be an expert in the field as well as clearly ethical/humanist, not just some novice that has charisma and leadership, because our future depends on both guiding and building AI for an overall optimal outcome. That's where the problem is, the experts are busy working while the people with leadership skills and basic knowledge of the field do all the management and decision-making/guidance. This ultimately means that we will have to rely on future AI to lead us into an optimally designed future, as our best experts are too busy at work to decide what to do with what they're making.

Forgive me but I neeed to have a little rant/storytime.

I was introduced to Technocracy around 2020, I was fascinated the ideology but Technocracy is essentially antidemocratic.

Rule by experts absolutely does not equal rule by the majority.

So I did what I was indoctrinated to do and shield away from it. Democracy is the most important practice in the good ol United States! Who would ever give it up?

Not to mention this was just around Biden's win. I had faith that at the end of day that the majority would choose the right thing.

That faith is dead.

The election buried it.

The climate is going to be destroyed, abortion is going to be banned, LGBTQ+ rights are going to be destroyed.

All because the majority elected a man based on his economic policies, policies that actual experts say is complete madness.

Please welcome me, fellow technocrats, because I'm done with Democracy.

People view Howard Scott’s model of technocracy as being outdated, ideological, or in some way not as good as just putting the experts in charge regardless of the government system that exists. We live under capitalism, so the experts are going to say that the best course of action is to give all the political power to billionaires or other departments or organization that are indirectly controlled by billionaires since these people have always exerted undue influence on many parts of society, especially in the United States where plutocracy is the way that the government operates and major privately owned corporations are the ones who provide funding and resources to all of the elected representatives. 

Even members of the ruling class in America such as Elon Musk see themselves as technocrats because since they have the funds to conduct and facilitate research, they can simply justify the policies they want by controlling the scientific studies that they conduct and pay for. In their minds, they would be running a country with scientific governance but the science would be so influenced by them to cherry pick their desired policies, that it would be no different than the systems we have now. The only difference is that anything that the ruling class wanted would be justified with some biased studies.

The scientific method does not exist in a vacuum and with enough studies done to get the conclusion they want, any nation on the planet could claim to be a technocracy. And if we are defining technocracy as the rule of experts in general, why would any government not just claim their politicians are experts in politics since they know how the political systems work and gain power within them? Even an anti-science regime like America could claim to have technocratic principles since they have different agencies managing over things like the environment or public health. Technocratic principles themselves are good, but any successful government needs some scientifically based principles simply to stay in power because without them any policies put out would be completely unhinged nonsense. 

I’m not saying it’s bad or that anyone is wrong for calling themselves a technocrat if they aren’t following the model of Howard Scott or Energy Accounting, but I think that you’re just pro-science and pro-meritocracy. Both of those things are good, but I think that if your technocratic goals can be satisfied under any government system, why be a technocrat? It is almost like being a Marxist-Leninist solely for the desire to get universal healthcare. It is technically correct, but your goals are relatively moderate which makes participation in a more radical ideology feel out of place. Additionally, any changes made to further technocratic principles can be undone by the ruling classes of capitalist regimes since the billionaires would continue to hold all of the wealth and power.

This does technically make Technocracy an ideology, but that just means a set of ideas and principles. Even a set of beliefs that lead you to avoid having an ideology is paradoxically an ideology. As such, nobody who is conditioned to live in a society is free from ideology which makes the whole conversation pointless. I do not mean to put down the non-ideological technocrats or those who think differently, but I hope I have successfully illustrated why the Technocracy movement exists in the form that it does.

Good morning/afternoon/evening people of this subreddit, im just a guy who's looking for a new ideology to subscribe after loosing faith in my old beliefs, and I'm interested what is Technocracy to you guys?. Ofcourse i could just Google search it but i really wanna know what it is to a person who believes in Technocracy.

Average Age

Average Age

Trying to see where the age appeal of Technocracy Reddit is. The stereotype is teenagers so curious if that is true with this group. This data could also help for coordinating future growth of Technocracy as a movement. Remade to fix errors.

View Poll

Both technocrats an monarchists agree that generally, being ruled by few people that know how to reign is better than being rule by everyone if that everyone is stupid. They diverge whatever, in how that ruler should be chosen.

But let's suppose a royal family whose royals are thoroughly educated in how to do good, that also have limits in their power instead of being absolutists of course. Considering how having a monarch can be good for tourism and help national unity, do you think that some form of monarchism, maybe even just a cerimonial one, be of use for a technocracy?

Edit: I'm just curious, not saying that I think it would be the best option. As a lot of you said it probably wouldn't be very useful most of the time

apparently that and technocracy are not the same thing... here the wiki if y'all don't know what it is.

I know Technocracy technically shouldn't have an ideology it closely aligns with, but it seems lots of people have their own opinion where it should lean towards.

This doesn't mean directly align with, it's more of a generalisation of where you think it should align, whether with energy credits or not.

View Poll

After years of exploring technocracy, I’m realizing that my approach makes me an outlier here, especially within the Reddit technocracy community. In my view, technocracy should be about flexibility, adaptability, and governance driven by evidence—not ideology. But lately, this movement seems bogged down by rigid, almost dogmatic stances, especially a strong anti-capitalism focus that stifles any real discussion on how technocracy could actually work in practice.

I first got into technocracy in middle school when I discovered the idea in a book on government systems. I saw it as a model that could adapt, learning from science and real-world data to improve society. But my experience here has diverged sharply from that vision. In this subreddit, there’s such a fixation on anti-capitalism that any conversation about a practical, adaptable technocracy goes out the window. It’s become an echo chamber for what technocracy “can’t” be, rather than a space for exploring what it could be.

From what I’ve observed, there’s another big issue. Even within this “technocracy” group, there’s constant debate over who the “true” experts are, to the point that they can’t even agree on foundational issues. It’s ironic—a movement supposedly about governance by experts can’t reach a consensus on who those experts should be. It’s become more of a meme than a serious pursuit of solutions. If early technocrats like Veblen and Scott were around today, would they be stuck in these rigid arguments, refusing to adapt to the reality of the 21st century? This inflexibility is actually counterproductive to what technocracy claims to support. It’s a big part of why technocracy failed as a movement in the 1930s—it got tangled in its own ideology rather than evolving with society.

So if this group wants to stay rooted in the 1930s, that’s their choice. If they want to fixate on someone else’s technocracy model, that’s fine too. But stop acting like “This is the Way,” as if you’re the Mandalorians of technocracy, especially when people come in asking, “Shouldn’t technocracy be flexible?” Because by its own definition, technocracy is meant to be adaptable, using data and science to determine what works best in practice.

My reasoning for becoming more vocal and joining these groups now is to embody a true technocratic mindset—to change the world for the better by being flexible and adaptable, using data and science to help educate, reform, and redefine a progressive future rather than a regressive one. This is a wake-up call: if technocracy is ever going to be relevant, it needs to be flexible, not trapped in a single, outdated model. Until this group can embrace that, I’ll continue advocating for a dynamic, realistic approach to technocracy outside of this space.

In thinking about technocratic approaches, I coined the term Scottian to describe those who see Howard Scott’s model as a flawless, all-encompassing vision of technocracy—believing that true technocracy inherently requires anti-capitalism, a non-profit economy, and a centralized system. For Scottians, a technocratic society cannot coexist with profit-driven or capitalist structures, holding Scott’s model as the only viable path despite practical limitations.

To explain this, I often use Vernian as an analogy. Just as some people treat Jules Verne’s fictional works as literal truths, Scottians hold Scott’s vision as an absolute, idealized model without adapting it to real-world complexities. This isn’t to equate the two directly but to help clarify how I came to the term Scottian.

Personally, I believe technocracy should be adaptive, learn from human error, and evolve based on practical outcomes—moving beyond any idealized concept to something truly effective. So, how many here would consider themselves Scottians?

Equation Setup: (if someone more familar with Reddit has a suggestion for me to add equitation's more clearly, please, please DM me)

Consider the outcome O of implementing a system as a function of human adherence H, environmental consistency E, and the model's inherent design effectiveness D.

Idealized Outcome (Utopian Model): O_ideal = H × E × D This equation assumes perfect adherence (H=1), stable environments (E=1), and a flawless design (D=1). This leads to an optimal outcome.

1. Reality with Human Error: In reality, human adherence (H) is rarely perfect due to factors like self-interest, diverse motivations, and varying levels of cooperation. Let's represent human error as H<1. When H decreases, the outcome O falls short of the ideal. O_real = (H<1) × E × D
2. The Fallacy: Assuming that H=1 ignores human variability and fallibility, leading to an overestimation of the effectiveness of rigid models like Scott's technocracy. This assumption is the "human error fallacy."

Avoiding the Fallacy with Techno-Democratic Thinking:

To mitigate this, a techno-democratic model introduces feedback loops and adaptability to account for real-world variations in H. In a techno-democratic approach, public input and adaptive governance allow adjustments to the model over time.

Revised Outcome Equation:

O_adaptive = (H_feedback) × E × (D+A)

Where H_feedback represents enhanced human adherence through ongoing adjustments, and A stands for adaptability in design, allowing the model to respond to changes. By acknowledging that H<1 due to human error, technocratic-democratic thinking incorporates adaptability and public accountability to continuously improve O, leading to a more resilient and effective system.

I seem to have ruffled a few feathers in this channel, which is good—that’s what technocratic thinking is all about! However, I’m seeing a lot of focus on ideology here. So I’d like to challenge this channel. If I’m wrong, I’ll accept it. But isn’t ideology fundamentally opposed to the technocratic process?

Ideology, by definition, is a set of beliefs or doctrines that individuals or groups hold onto, often resistant to change regardless of new data. In contrast, technocracy is about adapting and evolving based on empirical data, not clinging to rigid beliefs.

The modern technocratic process, as I see it, should align with the Reddit definition here: using scientific methods to manage resources, optimize welfare, and guide society. Yet many here seem to be defending Technocracy Inc., an outdated ideological model from Howard Scott. If you believe in Scott’s model, then show me the data supporting it. I’ve searched thoroughly, and I haven’t found any real-world model or empirical evidence backing his ideas.

Why are we focused on an ideological vision that hasn’t been proven, instead of the adaptable, evidence-based process that technocracy should represent? Isn’t that the exact opposite of the purpose of this channel?

Howard Scott’s Technocracy Inc. is often referenced as if it represents true technocracy, but that’s a misconception. Scott’s vision was heavily ideological and focused on replacing capitalism with a rigid, centrally planned “Technate” driven by an “energy theory of value.” This approach treated technocracy as an all-or-nothing system, rather than a flexible, pragmatic way of solving problems.

True technocracy isn’t bound to any single economic model or system. Instead, it’s about using expertise and data to address real-world challenges, regardless of whether the solutions are capitalist, socialist, or something else. A real technocratic approach adapts to what works, without pushing a strict ideology or tearing down existing structures unless there’s strong, practical evidence that it’s necessary.

Modern technocracy values what’s effective, not what fits into a specific ideology, and Scott’s rigid vision doesn’t capture that.

I often see discussions treating technocracy as if it’s a strict, standalone system—something that would replace or compete with existing ideologies like socialism or capitalism. But technocracy isn’t really about creating an entirely separate political structure. It’s more of an approach to decision-making, a mindset that emphasizes solutions grounded in expertise, data, and evidence over ideology.

Technocracy works best when integrated within existing systems. Rather than imagining a full “technocratic government,” maybe we should focus on incorporating technocratic principles into our current frameworks to make them more effective and solution-oriented. Imagine government policies shaped by experts in their fields, driven by data and results, and refined through transparent, evidence-based processes.

I’m exploring these questions and examining modern problems through a technocratic lens on my channel, The Technocratic View. I have a system in mind where a technocratic approach is intertwined with the democratic process and a republic of representatives—combining expertise and data-driven decision-making with public accountability and representation.

How can we start integrating technocratic thinking more effectively into our current systems? Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts. I'm just joining the channel.

I still have one big question: how would a corporation raise money to grow if traditional funding sources weren’t available? If there’s little to no private ownership of shares, no banks, and no stock exchanges, then regular capital markets wouldn’t work. Plus, if there’s no profit motive, people wouldn’t really have a reason to invest. So, how would corporations actually get the resources and funding they need to grow in that kind of system?

I’m curious about the link between technocrats and transhumanists.

I am new to all this technocracy and I would like to know the bases of this

In corporatism, professions are divided into guilds, who negotiate on salaries, benefits ect.

This system is fairly similar to technocracy.

Let's discuss!

If you imagine that something that is much more knowledgeable than humans and tireless like humans manages humanity in an issue such as management, everything will start to become much better. Of course, artificial intelligence is not at an end at the moment, but it can be much better when it develops in the future, and it is much more difficult to hack than expected, so the problem of hacking can also be solved with occasional checks, everything can be improved in a much better and more rational way.

Technocrats may wonder how they should view actually existing socialism, historical examples of socialism, and even modern countries such as the US or European nations in terms of political development. This does not mean technological development which can be separate and we have historically seen cases of technologically advanced societies actually being more primitive politically if we look at the technocratic markers of political development.

If we understand the four phases of development being religious, nationalist, marxist, and technocrat then we can look at historical societies as not just being exactly at each stage, but typically combining characteristics of these different stages, such as Christian nationalists and Socialist states with extremely nationalistic ideas and policies. For example, we see that many right-wing extremists as well as monarchists (Yes, people exist who advocate monarchy in the modern world) are somewhere between the stages of religious and nationalist. Modern China, Stalin and Mao would be in stages between nationalist and marxist. Modern Russia is even less politically advanced than the Soviet Union, regressing towards nationalism with religious backing. We can also begin to understand similarities in different societies in different stages in development, with the most barbaric societies in world war 2 being cult-like and therefore both religious and nationalistic in nature which shows how they are even more primitive and less politically developed regardless of their technological capabilities.

Many western societies are easily categorized as nationalistic, since they are engaging in various forms of colonialism and imperialism. From this point of view, we can even determine that liberalism is a nationalistic ideology and it all begins to make sense. However, regions of the country as well as some sectors of the population can be more politically advanced leaning into early marxism, or more primitive leaning into religious or tribalistic ideologies they apply to politics. However it should be noted that many liberal ideas are not progressive because they try to end the mistreatment of people and improve living standards through ways we would consider nationalistic and not Marxist. The ideas of creating more black billionaires or improving the standards of LGBT by allowing them into the military are extremely nationalistic ideas, because they serve to integrate minorities into a nationalistic and capitalistic society rather than progress it towards the next stage of development which is Marxist. 

Party politics is also a good example of nationalistic thinking because all the parties of modern societies assume the national identity of the society, but represent the different social classes and interests which give an illusion of social cohesion, national unity and collaboration between all the social classes for the betterment of the nation. In marxist societies, it is understood that the origin of political parties are economic social classes and as such, a society with more equal distributions of wealth would find political parties redundant.

If you’re wondering what a society would look like once it passes the stage of Marxism where nationalism is entirely abandoned, you would find traces of the proto-technocracy. Many marxists and socialists can accomplish similar things to technocrats, but people are unlikely to accept ideas that are more politically advanced than what they understand because it will sound idealistic or unrealistic to them. The technology exists nowadays that allows technocracy or other ideologies to the left of marxism or communism to exist in the modern world, but political development is constantly being sabotaged and even violently suppressed which is why the world is stuck with nationalistic, religious regimes dominating most of the world with a few societies managing to evolve into nationalistic Marxist ones, usually requiring extremely large militaries or needing to constantly deal with interference and external sabotage from the less politically advanced societies that fear revolutions and the downfall of their ruling classes and social orders.