I was reading up on old soviet and Japanese architecture, and I couldn't stop reading about the Khrushchevka and the Danchi. I was fascinated by the low-cost and modular nature of the Krushchevkas and the easy public access of the Danchi and thought that it would be a great idea for the US to incorporate some state sponsored housing of the same type. Granted, the US does provide government subsidized housing, but I'd like to touch on the modular housing aspects, and then I'll focus more on the problems with US government housing and some potential solutions.

The Krushchevka is the stereotypical Eastern-European apartment building. Concrete walls and the bare essentials. These houses would be comprised of mass-produced modular homes in order to make them cost-efficient and to help speed up the construction process. These were mainly built in mind for only the needs of the citizens who needed homes and are a bit drab, but served their purpose well.

Every floor will have small housing units composed of a bedroom unit, a bathroom unit and a combined kitchen and living room area. There would be a security room on every level except for the lobby level, in which it will be divided into a mail room and a secretary desk. Security offices will house police units to deal with any crime on their level. These units will be simple police officers, with SWAT Teams and other units only being available outside the main building. Guards will be on duty during the night in order to keep residents safe.

Prov. Housing Floor Plan By u/IdleIdealogue

I think that assassinations and violence are what happens when laws and legal systems fail to protect people, so from that perspective you can argue the breakdown of society is way overdue. I think technocrats should speak out in favor of Luigi Mangione since from a logical rationalistic perspective, I cannot think of a reason to sympathize with the CEO, besides police possibly harassing you or maybe if you are scared of the current society falling into chaos. What do you guys think?

Hey! I’m pretty new to the ideology and subreddit. Though I like a lot of the ideas of technocracy, as with the current political climate and way things are going I have lost a lot of faith in the people to vote for the right things. The only thing I dislike, particularly of older versions of technocracy however is the more autocratic leaning side of things. As while it would probably be better than a normal authoritarian figures, it does nothing to ensure those in charge are actually held responsible in the event they just use their position corruptly or for personal interest. So my question would be if you are more democratically oriented: How would you implement democracy in combination with technocracy?

I was doing some research and i found out that other than the US even in other countries there were technocratic parties or some sort of. The only socio-technocratic party in Italy in the '50s, who gained 173.227 vote back in 1958. I'm talking about the Movimento Comunità whose leader was Adriano Olivetti.

I come from the same area as him so i know about his factory but i never knew that he had a party. He had an manufactury in Piedmont, the Olivetti. They produced computers, tablets, smartphones, printers and other business products as calculators and fax machines. They created the world's first electromechanical calculator capable of performing all four operations and printing the result, the Divisumma 14, and the first programmable desktop computer, Programma 101. I report what is written in an article about him and his ideas:

"Adriano Olivetti believed in meritocracy and that the personnel management system was based on the enhancement of people and not only on the capitalization of the worker's work."

"He developed innovative welfare policies, such as the scientific development of the reduction of work fatigue, the professional enhancement of technical and cultural training and, moreover, the enhancement of the knowledge of the productive forces."

"According to Adriano Olivetti's ideas, in fact, the factory had the task of combining profit and professional growth and only thanks to constant learning would it be possible to build a virtuous community where work was not interpreted as a punishment, but as a tool through which to elevate one's individuality and increase the well-being of the community."

"Thanks to the structuring of specialization courses, the promotion of cultural events and free access to libraries made available to employees – and their families – a virtuous circle was generated that made it possible to create a learning community, in which there was both the possibility of improving everyone's professional background, and the opportunity to allow access to culture to those who, due to unequal social conditions, he could not afford to study."

"The choice to believe, ahead of its time, strongly in the formation was, undoubtedly, an element that has distinguished the history of Olivetti. Thanks to these measures, each employee was allowed to feel valued: the worker, in this way, before feeling like a mere instrument of production, perceived himself and was considered as a man part of a community; community that gave him the opportunity to grow both professionally and personally."

"The extraordinary nature of Olivetti's vision can be summed up in the desire not to act with the sole aim of improving the productivity of the company, but the telos towards which to strive was to improve something deeper such as the living conditions of people."

Link of the references, unfortunately it is in Italian: Il modello Olivetti. Lavoro, comunità e formazione | Il corriere della sicurezza

I have been following the technocratic movement for several years now. I have read through international literature and would like to share my view of the situation here. A lot of time has passed since the heyday of Technocracy Inc. The world situation has changed a lot and especially the balance of power between different states and alliances. I would like to briefly outline my view on the current interpretation of ‘technocracy’:

1. ‘Social Technocracy’: by this I mean all possible supporters of Technocracy Inc. who are in favour of radical change. They want to create a completely new state. Undifferentiated and with a lack of education, you would only call them socialists.
2. ‘Liberal technocracy’: By this I mean a group of people who mostly want to harmonise democracy and technocracy. They are more interested in reforms of democratic states. I think of Dr Parag Khana, the Peoples Action Party of Singapore or maybe Mario Draghi.

These two movements have more differences, of course. And this is something that is repeatedly referred to, especially in this subreddit and in particular by the ‘social technocrats’. But I am of the opinion that this will not get us anywhere. Many parties and movements are struggling with the ‘revolutionary’ camp and the ‘reformer’ camp. And yet, in the end, they all succeed. The ‘reformers’ (in our case the ‘Liberal Technocrats’) are pragmatic and have realistic, realisable plans on how to change things as quickly as possible. But they lack a vision, a utopia. The ‘revolutionaries’ (in our case the ‘social technocrats’) provide this supplement. They have a long-term roadmap and know where they want to go in the long term. What I'm saying is that both sides need each other in order to appeal to a broad mass of the population. But in the technocratic movement, there doesn't even seem to be any points of contact between the currents. In my opinion, that is a huge mistake. Instead of distancing ourselves from each other and emphasising our differences, we should focus on what we have in common. And by that I mean both the positive similarities and the negative ones. I am currently collecting the positive similarities in a document and may share them here at some point later. In the next part, I would like to focus on the negative similarities. I am 20 years old and study Media and Communication Management in Hamburg, Germany. However, I was born in East Germany and come from a working class family. This cultural background alone probably gives me a different perspective on the following things than many on this subreddit. Especially to the US-American culture, I always notice differences. That's why I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you to share your perspectives on the topic so that I have more diverse input. I see a big disadvantage in both parts of the movement in marketing. If you were to ask someone on the street in Germany what they mean by technocracy, they would probably answer something along the lines of ‘New World Order’ and ‘conspiracy’. In other words, in Europe at least, the term has been standardised by right-wing ideologues. And I don't see any way of effectively countering this. We have a similar problem, at least in Germany, with a term that I hear and read again and again: Technocracy is the ‘third way’ between Western democracies and communism. Admittedly, this branding has not been so widespread since the fall of the Soviet Union, but it could become more relevant again with the rise of China. There is a big problem with this in Germany specifically: Hitler used it to promote fascism. In fact, this is why the technocratic movement also failed in Germany in the 1930s. Hitler used it to seduce the technocrats and then killed most of them. Most of the documents and books on the subject were subsequently burnt. Until a few years ago, when a historian found several hidden manuscripts of the German Technocratic Movement in the attic of an acquaintance and published them in a book. But enough of this history lesson. What I want to say with the whole text here: If we want to advance Technocracy in the world, we need at least two things.

1. the ‘Social Technocrats’ must join forces with the ‘Liberal Technocrats’, create common structures and reflect on what they have in common.

2. a common branding is needed that is not already occupied or does not have particularly negative connotations. This is the only way we can appeal to a broad mass in the ‘Western’ world.

Feel free to share your thoughts and ideas!

People have a tendency to want to include as many people in their groups as possible. However, the Technocracy movement simply is not for everyone if it is meant to stay true and conducive to its purpose. It is theoretically possible for some right-wing ideas to be compatible with rightism, but there is a lot we must unpack and analyze before we can have that discussion. I am going to separate both cultural rightism (Reactionary thought) as well as economic rightism separately so these ideas can be discussed coherently.

First, you need to really understand their ideology which is difficult because they speak in ways that make their desires and ideas less immediately identifiable as problematic or offensive to the average person. We can separate their talking points into “The spoken part” and “The quiet part”

For example, when the spoken part is “I’m scared of white people becoming a minority in America” it’s practically an entire manifesto in one sentence, and I will explain why.

1.  They realize (Whether they admit it or not) that minorities are treated badly in the country, but Instead of changing society to treat minority groups better, they just want to make sure they never become one.
2. They believe white people have some sort of inherent right to be the majority group of the country. This goes back to eugenics and white supremacy.
3. The implications become dark when the possibility is considered of actions being taken to alter demographics, such as increasing white birth rates or decreasing others. Mass support for deportations, removal of public services and excessive policing seem to be a manifestation of this.

The modern rightist will never say these things because they know they would be too extreme for potential viewers to be radicalized. However, before a person can get warmed up to these more extreme ideas, rightist propaganda exists to ridicule cherry-picked examples of leftism and/or pure misinformation to create the impression of progressive ideas being extreme or the lifestyles of modern people living outside of traditional established ideas (Which may be based in colonial ideologies) being nonsensical or ridiculous. Examples are ridiculing women who embrace feminism or dress in alternative style, or ridiculing gender identities that fall outside of gender-binary. These people either do not have good intentions, or are being influenced ideologically by people who do not have good intentions. Religion can fit into this as either establishing what is considered traditionally acceptable or putting social pressure on people who do not conform. To say the very least, cultural rightism is based on a very distorted basis of what is actually going on in the world and what issues are important in politics.

Getting cultural rightism out of the way, we move on to the issue of economic rightism. Policies that fall under economic rightism tend to favor elites of the country, business owners, wealthy people, or even those who have conflicting incentives with the working class such as landlords or anyone who makes profit from land, labor, or capital. Marxism defines this, and explains in great detail how the ruling classes use economic systems to extract labor and the value of services from the rest of humanity, and how right-wing economic policies exist to keep these economic systems going and prevent any of the current beneficiaries of capitalism from losing their privileged status. Monarchies fall into the category of economic rightism in most cases but they tend to lean culturally right for their own preservation. These things do not have a good performance record for the economy for the entire population, more so for the ruling class and it is why socialist states are so hostile towards the accumulation of wealth if they allow it at all. 

Singapore which is believed by many to be a technocracy is an example of what a right-wing technocracy would be in practice, an authoritarian state making great progress, but with 25% of the population in poverty and an authoritarian conservative government that punishes its citizens for not voting how they want. Singapore is technocratic as far as meritocracy, but rightism makes it so the main beneficiaries are the ruling class of their society just like in any other capitalist regime in the world.

I’m not saying that a person who participates or previously participated in rightism cannot be a technocrat, but they should be ready to experience quite a whiplash once the data does not support anything they stand for and clashes with most things they believe. Technocratic policy making and theorizing does not serve the psychological motives of having arguments with strangers online, getting angered constantly or scapegoating groups of people for life problems. Of course, you can incorporate any vaguely-right wing ideas into a technocracy if they are supported by holistic and unbiased data. 

Hi everyone i'm new and i don't know if this an argument who's already been covered but i think that before the technocratic state structure there is a need for a mentality that favors the collective well-being rather than the individual. I tend to think of man as a social wolf, accepting a contract with society and the creation of a government, not for the common good, but more as his selfish chance to gain something.

In my opinion, in a technocratic society there is no class consciousness, but there is a social conscience, in which the deserving and honest are rewarded for their efforts and decisions are made in the interest of the nation (security, health, economy) or humanity (climate change). But unfortunately, due to the advance of individualistic measures due to capitalism, this is increasingly distant from reality, especially the closer we get to the high organs of government or to the high administrative offices. The same can be said of any kind of totalitarian government of both the left and right parties.

The social measures of right-wing movements saw their peak with figures such as Camillo Benso, Otto Von Bismarck and Michael Thomas Sadler and their decline with the horrors of Nazi-fascism and today they are represented by right-wing populism. Left-wing movements have abandoned the workers who said they were defending. In my opinion the totalitarian and dictatorial derivations of communism show us a path not to follow.

We are in a historical moment in which measures are needed for the present and future community, we need a social mentality because without it society would not understand the decisions taken by a technocratic state or, even worse, would go against them, even if they are in their interest. Tell me what you think, i'm open to criticism.

Ps. sorry for my english but it's not my first language

In the Google Docs link provided is my outline for my first Technocracy YouTube video, I would like for you to take a look at it make changes, add comments, anything you think would make it better. Then after a few weeks I'll compile your thoughts into a script, and as such starting to edit the video with video and voicing, then post it to our Reddit page as a test viewing, then if all goes well post our first ever comprehensive Technocracy video, in over a decade, to YouTube!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aR3pS6t4oohGbdkQoR1AoZ0oDemmX7Ao-kYIfv_VkHk/edit?tab=t.0

https://preview.redd.it/ii4xbkmgfo4e1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f0c1d8506440f656d7481b82ed0d87b2797bddc

1. Weave together the best aspects of all ideologies into one coherent narrative. iMost of the content on the internet seems to be the same left-right paradigm .However, there is a movement called ”pluralist economics” that aims to foster dialogue among the major schools of economics. This could be an opportunity for technocrats or anyone else interested in social change to integrate the conflict perspective of sociology, common in post-capitalist discourse, as well as the topic of race and gender relations, into a larger framework of how large, complicated systems work. I believe that a balanced form of corporatism is best for running modern economies since, while you may disagree with the ability of ordinary people vote on or create laws, more people would probably agree that they should have a stake in making decisions where they work. We should also encourage interdisciplinarity on issues beyond economics, which brings me to #2:

#2. Embrace spirituality and build community. Of course there are aspects of religion that are harmful, but even from a purely scientific standpoint religion can be useful. It wouldn’t have survived this long if it wasn’t. The words “religion” and “ligament” have the same root word, which means “to bind”. It’s also important to acknowledge that, while it’s true that the government is not the enemy of civil society and the government must do more than the bare minimum of enforcing laws, the hard work of building community must come from the people themselves. At most, the government can lend a hand.

Below are several links to websites that I believe can provide a useful framework to build upon:

https://thenextsystem.org/next-system-project-comparative-framework

https://radicalcentrism.org

https://developmentalist.org/

https://ssir.org/#

https://renewal.org.uk/

https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/

https://autonomy.work/

https://democracyjournal.org/

https://www.sociocracy.info/

https://www.strongtowns.org/

https://sase.org/

https://www.socialeurope.eu/

Each political group has their unofficial PR squad to push their ideas. Tankies have Second Thought, LibSoc has Vaush, Libertarians have Reason TV and Conspiracy Theorists and the Alt-Right has Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh. But when I search for Technocratic media on YouTube, I see very little creators pushing Technocracy in their videos. This brings me to the main point of this post, why do we have a lack of influencers or influence amongst the general populace? Why have we pretty much gone from an influential movement in the 1930s to near irrelevancy? The idea of having qualified people leading the government is seen as a good idea from my friends outside of Reddit, who are either conservatives or liberals.

The reason why we don't have much notoriety is because, simply, we don't have the influencers to push it. The internet also proves to be a powerful goldmine for people to educate, as we have seen with the alt-right and 4chan and many leftists turning to YouTube and Twitter to hear the ideas of these influencers. I believe that if we push our media influencers, hold conventions and exploit the internet's power to suit our ideas, that we can garner more supporters.

However, the ideal influencer for us is someone who can take all these ideas and dumb it down to those who aren't educated enough to understand our ideas in their full magnitude. We need someone to be seen as relatable, sympathetic, but also as strong and intelligent as well. As the left and the liberals don't have a good strong man and the right has no one who is educated to the degree of being capable to understand basic physics.

Time, forward!

-II

As we all know, on Nov. 5th, America voted for a highly unqualified felon to run the country. Since then, he has announced that RFK Jr will lead HHS, Pete Hegseth will lead the DOD, and Elon Musk will run the new DOGE despite Elon's near-apocalyptic intentions for the government of the United States of America.

Seeing as all his secretary choices are all unqualified and his economic policies will lead to financial ruin, I see the next two years as an opportunity to spread our movement as we tried to in the thirties, but with the caveat being that we will have to provide more to the American people than we did back then.

I propose that we start sending our best engineers, and scientists out to local elections to start with, as to achieve our goals, we need to have one foot into the door of governance. We need to ramp up education of our movement to the populace in order to increase popularity. We'd also not need to focus on identity politics as the Dems had, as that was a major turn-off to male voters who wanted to focus more on the economy rather than allowing people to go by they/them on their legal documents. Furthermore, we need to use these 2–4 years to build our base if we want to have a shot at reviving the Technocratic dream amongst Americans. Many Americans want qualified people in power, so we must promise that to them. I also see this as a time to appeal to the centrist and Dems who feel let down after the 2024 election (and the subsequent party division) and to give them hope of a brighter future.

In short, we must take advantage of the political opportunities that this time period gives us. It may be the only opportunity for another century!

Time, forward!

-II

I am an Atheist, but I've always wondered how religion would exist within a Technate given that Christian Pastors often lie and spread falsehoods in order to gain money. Also, what's the policy in general regarding Religious Organizations and Cults, and how would religious zealots be kept out of power? Is religion even able to coexist in a state where empirical evidence reigns supreme over superstition and myth?

Not sure if this has been proposed before. I want to see if it actually holds any weight or if it's a bad idea.

Anyone above 18 can create a white paper. A white paper is a list of proposed policies that the writer would like to see enacted. Groups of people can create them. All white papers start at rank 1.

The papers are put into a public space (both online and in physical locations, maybe libraries or somewhere similar). They are discussed, iterated, and voted on. They rise in rank, with the number of required votes to get to the next rank increasing with each rank.

Once they reach a certain rank (let's just say rank 10), they are sent to the government of technocrats who now have a mandate to implement the policies.

Thoughts?

Many people can easily realize that arguing online with one person about politics is a waste of time. However, activism and spreading ideas to change or improve the political system can often end up in a similar situation where the energy and emotional labor involved does not get your ideas and influence as far as possible. 

The reason that many political discussions are as pointless and frustrating as they are is because many people living in the United States do not have actual ideologies they articulate and follow consistently. They want the candidate they view as better to win elections so they are constantly shifting and reforming their wishes and desires to match whatever the ruling class approves as a candidate for the elections they control. The politics that people believe within electoral societies based on liberal ideas are based on an idea that everyone has a valid opinion and through voting, the largest number of people get the decision they want. There is no objective truth in this ideology, it accepts what the largest number of people decide as the truth. Technocracy is an ideology based on scientific facts and data, so we are basing our decisions on the most objective facts we possibly can in our current time period and within our modern understanding of the world. This naturally also makes us incompatible with modern people who make emotion-based decisions unless those decisions are supported by the data. After a certain point the discussions are just completely unproductive.

Writing theory is more productive than speaking with other individuals who are just seeking out things to argue about, but even better is bringing attention to the theory and the ideas of technocracy. Writing theory is the most logical and effective way to participate in technocracy, because t. The theory is either well-received because it is intelligent and accepted by the community to advance and shape the ideology further, or it is ignored for not being a good application of the theories or the ideology. Accepted theory contributes to the overall ideology and gives outsiders more information about technocracy and the general thought process behind it which encourages compatible people to participate.

Mseli project is a project that aims to normalize sending and receiving appreciation messages.

Currently we are trying to help communities become more united and connected through the daily appreciation tradition.

If you believe appreciating the technocracy movement and efforts of all those who are working to make the movement grow, please vote:

View Poll

I've seen many democrats and other educated people disgruntled by the election results over the past few weeks and a lot of them have even started to express resentment towards Trump supporters who actively voted against their own interests(either politically or economically) just because Trump promised to deport immigrants and make economy great again. And while we don't know how effectively Trump will be able to implement his and his cronies' agenda, what we can say is that it will lead to pain and hardship for many Americans if even a fraction of his plans are enacted. With this setting in mind, I believe that we have the perfect opportunity to promote Technocratic thinking and ideals among the greater public.

While this is going to be more difficult to do with ordinary people as many them either don't care, are too focused on personal problems to want or be able to learn, or would be actively against our movement; there is still a large portion of the population here that can be swayed over to our side. As far as I know, the easiest possible candidates are scientists, highly educated/trained workers in STEM fields, and students and professors found in academia. In my opinion, I think the best way to try to convince these people is promote Technocracy as a more meritocratic form of government and ideology. By showing that democracy, as the way they imagine it, has led to many of the current problems and hardships we experience such as climate change, economic inequality, pollution, government waste and incompetence, demagoguery, etc. Especially due to the problems directly caused by the Trump administration, we can have people advocate for more competent and educated leaders in government. And thus promote the idea that those in charge should be have earned their post based on their skill and merit instead of elected by a popularity contest. If not, then at least have them be more open to the idea of a scientific form of governance.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong in my view of this or do we actually have a chance to promote Technocracy more?

Mseli project is a project that aims to normalize sending and receiving appreciation messages.

Currently we are trying to help communities become more united and connected through the daily appreciation tradition.

If you believe appreciating the technocracy movement and efforts of all those who are working to make the movement grow, please vote:

View Poll

This whole thing about a technocracy just randomly shot to my mind and I‘m a delusional person and thought to myself I could do that. So I got to reddit and saw that people already gathered here but no one ever heard you (atleast I didn’t). But why? Why? How would it be possible to establish a technocratic state in our world? Im new to all of this, and the subreddit itself so id be glad for any information to be enlightened.

I’ve noticed that subreddits with huge followings tend to become echo chambers, and one thing that really stands out is how a large percentage of the users just don’t have much insight into the topics being discussed. It often feels like the majority of people in these spaces lack any real depth of understanding or critical thinking. The content ends up being over-simplified or driven by people who are just parroting popular opinions without adding anything valuable. As the subreddit grows, this effect seems to get worse, with less intelligent input dominating discussions. Moderation also tends to become more controlling, which kills genuine conversations.

Do you feel the same way? Or have you found any exceptions to this?

Hello, to my fellow Technocrats. As a Socialist Technocrat myself, I'd like to pull answers from around the community pertaining to the question for empirical evidence of Technocratic governance and or Technocrats in power being empirically proven to have been beneficial for having a Technocratic method of political organization. What evidence do we have to justify the political opinion that Technocrats and Technocratic governance should replace the current existing Liberal-Democratic Republics of our time?

Guaranteed smart leaders are better than good ones. Hopefully, you can figure out why.