My interpretation of psychohistory is simple: it's science fiction about what science fiction itself would look like if it turned into a real science.
It has all the things science fiction does (attempts to predict the future, large scale social dynamics scenarios, etc), plus a hint of what science used to look like in the public perception at that time.
It's kind of provocative. That line of thinking implies science fiction authors need to be more science and less fantasy (exactly what Asimov himself did by starting to more textbooks and less characters).
As I say above, Asimov appears to have been partly influenced by Marxism, which has long claimed it can predict the future tendencies of history by scientific means. (The reality has proven to be different, but one or two things are right e.g. ownership falling into fewer and fewer hands.)
I understand some regimes have weird ideas, totally true.
Marx however never tried to make exact scientific predictions in the lines of psychohistory. He made behavioral philosophical predictions (so did Adam Smith and many others, and all sorts of people of various political alignments still do).
It's a nitpick. I definitely don't want to discuss semantics related to "isms".
Did Asimov flirted with communist ideas? I definitely think he portrayed similar ideas in Foundation, but I cannot say he endorsed them. Take the idea of individuals being able to shape the history (as opposed to the state being the vehicle for change). That is definitely not communist thinking.
I think Asimov encountered such ideas (pretty much inevitable on any university campus), but he never took them that seriously. And Marx himself lived long enough to point out he himself was not a Marxist! Marx and Engels themselves were influenced by Hegel. Marxists don't pretend to tell you what today's lottery results will be, but they will continually tell you what they think is about to happen on the macroscale and how to get there. (Plato's Philosopher Kings were also, like Seldon, there as an elite to influence the direction of society without much public involvement.)
Governments and global businesses certainly do try and use futurologists and influence the direction of future society through techniques such as "psychological nudging" and control of information etc. The most obvious is climate modelling, where they try and project what climate change will do and how to deal with it. The roll out of AI in the early 2020s reeks of a planned PR operation, although the results have not always been what was expected. The design of the Covid lockdowns was the result of strategic planning from tabletop wargaming exercises for various pandemic scenarios, also producing mixed results.
Psychohistory results partly from Isaac Asimov's brief flirtation with Marxism... Because Marxists have long had the notion that they can predict future tendencies in scientific terms, even though they keep having to retcon the results when things go differently than expected.
Now instead of the Foundation series' Hari Seldon, we have the WEF's Yuval Noah Harari, who is set up as some kind of scientific oracle for our past and future.
This post is sort of ignorant. Bro needs to learn NetMF style ultrarapid eigendecomposition)matrix factorization algorithms, read The Nature of Order, and touch grass.
It has all the things science fiction does (attempts to predict the future, large scale social dynamics scenarios, etc), plus a hint of what science used to look like in the public perception at that time.
It's kind of provocative. That line of thinking implies science fiction authors need to be more science and less fantasy (exactly what Asimov himself did by starting to more textbooks and less characters).
Of course it will never exist.