It seemed to me that the essay you linked to with the words "oh yes it is" are in fact arguing that oh no it isn't. (See the second page, where we find the words "Therefore, technocracy in itself cannot be defined as a totalitarian ideology".)

By  Avram Grumer, at Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:57:00 pm  

Jim Crutchfield has collected some interesting information about the relationship between Technocracy and the IWW circa 1920:

http://www.iww.org/cic/history/scott.html

http://www.workerseducation.org/crutch/pamphlets/wiener/wiener.html

http://www.iww.org/cic/history/shovelstiff.html

By  Anonymous, at Friday, February 22, 2008 12:53:00 am  

Heinlein warned against Technocracy in Tunnel In The Sky and that was good enough for us.

By  Anonymous, at Friday, February 22, 2008 4:58:00 am  

Avram, I think that was the point. Ken's read that and remains unconvinced.

I just can't believe I've never heard the word "technate" before. Or that some second-string role-playing game company hasn't trademarked it.

By  David Moles, at Friday, February 22, 2008 8:35:00 am  

Heinlein warned against technocracy even earlier and more overtly than that, in his short story "The Roads Must Roll".

By  Anonymous, at Friday, February 22, 2008 9:27:00 am  

"I just can't believe I've never heard the word "technate" before. Or that some second-string role-playing game company hasn't trademarked it."

A better word would be 'Techmate' which is what happens when one is beaten by technology.

As for the quote which triggered the intial comment, no I don't think that is what most SF writers and readers think SF is for, I think it is an element sure, but not the main motive. I mean I like all the political references and ideas in the Fall Revolution and Engines of Light novels because I have been part of the scenes being shown/parodied/celebrated not because it reinforces any political message. If I agree with any of the political conclusions (or at least ones I think I see) drawn, it's merely a happy coincidence.

By  Anonymous, at Friday, February 22, 2008 7:49:00 pm  

"As I've put it elsewhere, it's as if Communism had fizzled in the 1920s but there was still a genre, called by its afficionados 'SR', that for some incomprehensible reason kept going on and on and on about tractors."

Brilliant. Har Har!

By  Anonymous, at Saturday, February 23, 2008 2:19:00 am  

Hmmm, I've only ever met one Technocrat -- gray clothing, symbol on the wall. He didn't talk about it, he just mentioned it was why he did what he did. I'd been looking for a good lightweight frame backpack, in the late 1960s, in rural Ohio. He sold the best available, out of his backyard workshop, at a real good price. I must've rode my bicycle upwards of 20 miles to get to him, too.

I've still got it. Not many things I've ever owned held up as well.

Seemed like a nice enough guy.

By  Hank Roberts, at Saturday, February 23, 2008 2:33:00 am  

To 'advise, to urge, to glorify and to denounce' - what's that but a clear statement of what, in the default view of many SF readers and writers, SF is primarily for?

A clear statement of what comments boxes are for?

By  Philip, at Saturday, February 23, 2008 3:16:00 am  

David, you got that right.

Mat - I didn't say 'most', I said 'many'. What I mean by the default is not that SF is still literally rooting for Technocracy, or for any other ideology or political view, but that we tend to explain it, justify it, criticize it as if it was all about advising on certain issues, urging certain courses of action, glorifying something (science, the human destiny, whatever) and denouncing or warning against this, that or the other trend or policy. In other words, as if it were in the service of something else.

And not, say, by saying: Science has provided us with vast new vistas of space and time and social possibility, and these inspire us to create amazing stories and other works of art.

By  Ken, at Saturday, February 23, 2008 8:45:00 am  

I've more generally referred to SF as "Enlightenment propaganda".

By  Anonymous, at Monday, February 25, 2008 1:19:00 am  

Ken, despite the new vistas opened up by science, do you not, by comparison, find the SF label closes many avenues?

Although it is quite a clubbable genre and seems to attract like minds (open ones, for the most part), as a latecomer to SF I have one hell of a time persuading the unenlightened that it's where much of the best literature of our time is to be found. And I've often wondered whether the perception of SF as a proselytising genre (cf Michael's commment about enlightenment propaganda) is one of the things that puts people off - that and choices made by marketing types in the big publishing houses. Wouldn't you prefer to see the best SF stripped of its brabarian covers and slugging it out with McEwan and co on the bookstands?

By  Anonymous, at Monday, February 25, 2008 11:54:00 am  

I thought we did live in a Technocracy - one where the technocrats work at the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF etc. and make decisions beyond the comprehension and reach of the public.

Perhaps the SF fraternity should write more about economics and less about shiny gadgets?

By  Anonymous, at Monday, February 25, 2008 3:09:00 pm  

I thought it was obvious that anyone who wanted to start a mass movement of SF fans would attract their fair share of nutters. Thankfully Hubbard took them off our hands.

The real battle, in my view, is between those who want to replace superstition, repression, etc, with real freedom; of thought, expression, and those (including communists, fascists and scientologists) who want to BE the new religion.

By  Anonymous, at Monday, February 25, 2008 7:34:00 pm  

And besides;

Those who insist that it's all and only about entertainment seem to be the ones trying to sneak their own propaganda under your BSdar.

I call it the Forsyth defence.

By  Anonymous, at Monday, February 25, 2008 7:38:00 pm  

Forgot to add:

Technocracy must have been well-enough known to be parodied. In the W.C. Fields film International House, whose excuse for a plot has Fields as the inventor of a new form of television (and Bela Lugosi as a White Russian general, a stretch for the semi-Kunist), one of the many unrelated segments features an act named (wait for it) "Colonel Stoopnagle and Budd". Their sign-off was

     ...and remember, 'Stoopnocracy is Peachy!'

---and I believe the same was found upon a sign behind them. I can't remember a damned thing else about their routine, but I do remember thinking, 'So _this_ is what killed vaudeville.'

The movie is silly, fun, and pre-{Hays Code enforcement}.

By  Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:06:00 pm  

dalziel asks: Wouldn't you prefer to see the best SF stripped of its brabarian covers and slugging it out with McEwan and co on the bookstands?

For some reason, this only ever seems to work with writers from outside the genre. SF written by mainstream writers gets marketed as mainstream, and read by people who wouldn't read anything marketed as SF.

My own The Execution Channel's cover copy and jacket makes it look like a thriller, but the book's always on the SF shelves. I suspect the booksellers know what they're doing.

By  Ken, at Saturday, March 01, 2008 4:06:00 pm  

'to advise, to urge, to glorify and to denounce'

It seems that it might still be valuable to do that without being a true believer in anything.

also...

By  Anonymous, at Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:35:00 pm  

It's not especially deep, but tractor-fandom was bouncing through my head when I caught this juxtaposition of equipment and literature...

By  Anonymous, at Monday, March 03, 2008 12:04:00 am  

I think Ken was a bit confused with the link to technocracy as not totalitarian. I think you could have an argument that the US version is (although I would say it is authoritarian which is not quite the same thing) but not the European version. As system that distributes power among the people can’t really be considered totalitarian.

By  Anonymous, at Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:47:00 am  

Yes, well, a system in which people contribute what they can, and get what they need, without a government, is also not totalitarian.

By  Michael, at Wednesday, April 09, 2008 12:51:00 am  

For people that do not know shit about this subject... you are sure highly opinionated.
The North American Technate TNAT

By  J.C., at Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:36:00 am  

Fancy bumping into you here Skip :-)

Small world as a say.

For those interested in the European effort, it can be found at: http://en.technocracynet.eu

Where a little flully of activity is growing as of late, I'm particularly interested in how their approach is one based upon looking at the results of experiments and deciding which is the best road to travel, rather than a dogmatic it must be done a particular way so often found in movements/organisations.

By  Anonymous, at Tuesday, July 15, 2008 7:06:00 am  

Spoken like a dumb ass Nanos.
NET is a fluff and ego group of bloggers that are currently blacklisted on Wikipedia for blatant conflict of interest and lack of notability.
Many consider them a cult that took information from a science based group... and dumbed it down into sociological control issues that revolve around their assumption to power theory.
It is 4 admin bloggers that are clueless as to the history and purpose of the connected ideas.
They have absolutely nothing to do with Technocracy Technate issues.

The original group studied the situation from 1918 until 1934 when they published the Technocracy Study Course... and was made up of some of the greatest scientists and most creative people of the 20th. century.
So sorry.. but what you said above is bullshit. History and Purpose of Technocracy. Howard Scott.

By  J.C., at Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:09:00 pm