I'd thought I'd "replied" at least once or twice to this before 'Major-Major' put up his thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-technocracy-movement-that-was-successful.438493/
But I guess not as I can't find anything "I" posted on the subject outside that thread
I've some 'issues' with how MM gets from point-A to point-B and frankly "Technocracy" as we know it has severe issues with getting from "point-A" to "point-B" anyway which is one reason, (among many of course, see "Technocracy Inc" for example) it has seen surges of interest that tend to die down as the 'reality' seeps in.
First and foremost you need to have appeal which "Technocracy" as a general idea did, (and still does) but as a specific and plausible means of governance has some serious flaws. Secondly basing your entire movement on the idea that "after everything goes down the drain we'll be ready to take over" and then NOT having a coherent plan to actually show how you'd accomplish that goal, (whole "A-to-B" issue) is a big red (non-Communist
) flag. The other one being there's no mechanism for correction or even selection proposed other than "We will put 'experts' in charge and everything will be perfect" with nothing stating "who" will actually be in charge and "what" if anything can be done if things are NOT perfect. Granted this is rather obvious from the name as it is after all a "rule" by a "select" few just like any historic "-ocracy" (one could argue "democracy" is inclusive
) but "choosing" who that "select" group was going to be was rather 'vague' at best.
(Quite obviously in most case those that were actually involved in and 'members' of the "Technocracy" were prime candidates for the leadership but, bluntly, they were self selected BECAUSE they were members of the "Technocracy" which historically has not been as successful as one might hope. In most cases the speed and timing of "when" you joined the movement was also a major factor but that is/was the case of most political movements anyway)
Another major factor in gaining 'acceptance' is a movements ability to co-opt or gain the support and/or recognition of large and influential groups. The military, industry, intellectuals, or the general public as supporters and/or adherents is essential to gain credibility. More so for something like Technocracy which by its nature requires the support and cooperation of several large segments of society to function let alone have any power.
Quite obviously actually gaining "power" is probably more likely in a system where power can be concentrated and secured and where the 'system' itself is predicated towards such centralization. It is far more likely that places like pre-WWII Japan, Germany, Italy or nations that had a history of 'autocratic' rule would be "easier" than place like Britain, Canada, or the US where such 'autocratic' rule was less popular. (MM has a Technocrat being Vice-President when Roosevelt dies and moving on from there and while this is a possible POD I would point out that what is often considered 'autocratic' manner in which FDR "ruled" the US through the Depression and WWII was actually quite popular down the the 'local' level and STILL required constant 'massaging' and control at the national and State levels to keep together. I have grave doubts that going from a "New Deal Coalition" to a "Technocracy" especially a visibly abusive and controlling one would not be possible)
Still getting enough 'name-power' on your side is a definite "must" to have Technocracy that is more 'successful' than OTL. For example in the cited thread I pointed out that "co-opting" those in various branches of government and public life that are more 'technocratic' in nature will go a long way to gaining the needed support. Instead of 'marginalizing' the military as per the cited TL it would be far better to gain the support and trust of figures like "Hap" Arnold, Billy Mitchell, George Patton, (for example) and others who were more predisposed towards "technological" and/or "scientific" solutions. Similarly finding like-minded individuals in Industry, Business and other fields broadens and expands your base support. Mind you this will often mean finding a set of 'common' grounds for significantly disparate groups, (think "Henry Ford/Labor Unions" for example
) with less than optimal "solutions" in order to 'keep-the-peace' but unless you can manage to actually build a fully "autocratic" system, coalition and cooperation will get you further.
A major issue with Technocracy OTL has been that it is generally seen as less about a 'philosophy' or 'system' as it is more akin to a 'cult-of-personality' with all that implies to coordination and support. Scott of "Technocracy Inc" and Fresco of the "Venus Project" are well known examples.
In Scott's case, while a decent speaker and advocate at times his own 'personality' was the basis for many of the ideological and technical aspects of the movement he founded and were specifically reasons why he failed to gain advocates in critical positions. Claiming knowledge and skills he obviously did not have, (and his para-military fetish did NOT help) while also claiming infallibility and alienating the very segment of society he (supposedly) was basing his 'movement' on (engineers and scientist) he and the upper-echelons then compounded the problem by fixating on certain "obvious" concepts and would brook no alternatives or compromise. Thus the movement splintered again and again as personalities conflicted and no substantial work was done on the most basic issues.
Fresco on the other hand claimed no specialized knowledge but had a broad and basic plan to 'fix' the 'problems' he saw in society. He had the passion and ability to gather followers that expanded and evolved his basic concepts and accepted both criticism and critique as he kept 'moving' towards a total solution. Then "Zeitgeist" happened and what started out as a way to expand the message base and reach more people became bogged down in "internet activism" (trolling) and dilution of the 'message' in favor of political and other agendas.
To the point where Fresco washed his hands of any and all involvement between himself and the "Zeitgeist" group. He attempted to disavow any relations but by the time he died in 2017, (at 101) the majority of the 'traffic' that accessed his website and those that 'found' his work were re-directs from Zeitgeist websites or videos.
In both cases specifically the main issue was lack of visible progress towards 'actualization' of the basic concepts. Scott 'organized' a movement as did Fresco but they could not engage and motivate a "critical mass" of people and resources to demonstrate or actuate the concepts they espoused. Worse they couldn't get from "where-we-are-now" to "where-they-wanted-to-be" and had no clear method of even starting towards those paths. In both cases the 'claim' is made that they could not 'reach' or 'connect' with the proper people and/or organizations but that's clearly not the case as they both had access to and used current 'media' to a large enough extent that they DID have significant 'followings' of people. Just not the "right" people... Or resources, financing, support, whatever...
It's quite possible that the main reason both failed is in fact they were mainly based in the US where such organizations have a long history of failing. One could argue that had Hitler or Mussolini been "Technocrats" rather than "Fascist"then the movement would have been historically more 'successful' than OTL. (It's NOT like you can argue they didn't use "science" for their own purposes and it's not like the general misuse of 'science' to "prove" unscientific, but "popular" ways of thinking wasn't rampant in the 20s and 30s anyway)
In the end "success" is measured by how effective the effort is and for Technocracy to be 'effective' it has to both work within the system and arguably change the system at the same time. To do that you have to be organized, yes, active, yes, but you have to have a clear plan and means to implement that plan which no OTL group actually does. And that's not necessarily, (though again historically it is because of the way the groups that present the concept are organized) a "flaw" in the concept itself.
Randy
