[intalentive]

Technology did change the world, and technocrats did shape it. This was part of what Burnham called the "managerial revolution". In the 1930s the fascists, communists, and New Dealers all took the reins and governed their societies in new technocratic ways. It has never really changed ever since.

The permanent war economy of the United States never ceased, the constant monetary tweaking by the Federal Reserve never ceased, the "nudge units" and public relations firms that manage opinion never ceased. The television was and is a technocratic tool. The birth control pill, and pharmaceuticals generally, were and are technocratic tools. They are technological means by which to manage populations. As Yuval Harari puts it, the answer to "unnecessary people" is "drugs and computer games".

The main difference between the original technocracy movement, and what actually played out in history, is that the technicians and engineers operating the machinery of population management were never really in charge. They were merely instruments -- means to an end. Aldous Huxley explained the situation in 1958:

"By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manip­ulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms -- elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest -- will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitari­anism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slo­gans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial -- but democracy and free­dom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of sol­diers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit."

Today the biggest challenges to the Western technocratic oligarchy are 1) loss of narrative control via the internet, 2) external threats from other great (technocratic) powers, and 3) internal decline and incompetence.

[walleeee]

4) energy and materials scarcity and compounding ecological externalities

this of course affecting not only the Western regimes but technocratic rule everywhere

[trhway]

> In the 1930s the fascists, communists, and New Dealers all took the reins and governed their societies in new technocratic ways. ... They are technological means by which to manage populations. As Yuval Harari puts it, the answer to "unnecessary people" is "drugs and computer games".

while "New Deal" have a lot of issues, note that 2 other approaches totally failed. At least for some time we considered them as failed ones. Unfortunately, a bit refreshed for some external appearance they start to be more and more popular again by populistically riding the issues of the "New Deal" approach while we all start to collectively forget why those 2 lost.

[intalentive]

Seems to be working fine in China. Bad management happens, and does not refute the idea of management itself. Good management works.

[trhway]

For some time it worked in Germany and USSR too. Paradigm shifts are natural part of technology development. Somewhat similar to large companies, societies without individual freedom tend to have harder time making through such paradigm shifts, either failing completely or doing it slower and much more inefficiently, and as a result lose to the more efficient societies with individual freedom.

[mohamedkoubaa]

I think it's reductive to call China fascist or communist.

[chermi]

What is working in China? Because it certainly isn't communism if that's your point.

[jdub]

The USA didn't New Deal hard enough to keep up with the rest of the "Western" world's more humane form of capitalism, which you can see in how consistently the USA lags behind other countries in measures of actual human progress and comfort.

While most "Western" countries suffered through similar technocratic, neoliberal turns in the 80s, they were built on a stronger social democratic base than the USA.

And don't get fooled by "horseshoe theory" ignorance: Fascist states were/are authoritarian by definition. Communist states were/are authoritarian by culture.

[fsagx]

The USA oligarchs were watching Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler and New Dealed just hard enough to blow some steam off and keep things mostly as they were.

If you believe Smedley Butler, at least some of those USA oligarchs were big Mussolini fans.

[Micoloth]

I found this comment very insightful - and it's interesting to see that it is downvoted even if there are zero replies trying to make some counter arguments..