Technocratic movement

:This article is a movement supporting the use of technology to enhance society. See Technocrat (disambiguation) for other definitions.

Opposition

The movement is too obscure to attract much criticism. However, technocrats themselves would argue that those in "power" (politicians and heads of corporations) are a form of organized opposition. The movement would claim that they have helped spread a negative connotation to the term and any ideologies that seem related to the movement. More so, they say that those in power have spread much propaganda to convince the public that what we have now works well and is the finest form of government and economic system that works. Many people who just learn about the movement stand in opposition because:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Critics argue that planners in the technocracy cannot detect demand with sufficient accuracy (in a market economy, price signals serve this purpose). Technocrats argue that they would use energy credits to track demand, and that production would follow demand.
• Friedrich Hayek's criticism of socialism may apply: a technate manages the use of resources. Thus it necessarily must prevent some people from forming businesses, or refusing to produce products at a loss, purchasing things as they wish, etc. Since it necessarily interferes in economic freedoms, to enforce its economics, it will eventually and necessarily develop a police-state to enforce its economic rules. It will, therefore, either become a tyranny, or fail in its economic goals.
• Proponents of a market economy state that there's no possible way to eliminate the scarcity of products in the modern world, especially with the large variety.
• The theory that 95% of the populace could be unemployed seems extremely suspect given the low unemployment rate in modern capitalist societies, especially in light of the history of such societies since the development of this theory in the early 20th century. Technocrats, on the other hand, see such societies as inefficient and wasteful, and feel that technologically driven unemployment should decrease the hours that people would be spent laboring.
• Removing the price system and ridding an area of capitalism are impractical and potentially disastrous.
• Some people would argue that the movement is too closely related to communism
• Some argue that technology cannot solve all of our problems. Technocrats argue that most of our problems are caused by misuse of technology, and conversely, proper use would eliminate most of our problems.
• The movement makes an assumption that the price system environment of scarcity causes poor human behavior. Opponents suggest the movement relies on a highly idealised and perfect humananity. The movement does not take into account negative emotions: greed, jealousy, contempt, revenge, etc. Technocrats argue that human behavior will reach this idealized state because people would be living in a world of abundance. Technocrats find it hard to believe that someone would steal their neighbor?s television in a technate because they could just get their own.
• Opponents say that the movement lacks organization and a clear path.
• Some argue that people too easily accept the movement because it offers things like equal distribution of productive capacity and more vacation time without any concrete evidence.
• Opponents argue that naturally scarce things (gold, diamonds, the Mona Lisa) are impossible to distribute equally. Technocrats argue that today, mostly everything people consume is made by a machine and in some form mass produced; naturally scarce things are so scarce that they will not have an effect on the technate.
• Opponents also maintain that human beings are essentially selfish and that a vast majority of human beings would choose not to work at all in a society of abundance, so many so that the technate itself would fail to function given the small number that would work for the good of society. Technocrats counter this by saying that the culture and values of the technate would discourage this type of laziness and that no citizen would risk the public shame that would go along with refusal to work, the shame being due to the implication that the unruly citizen is happy freeloading off of the technate. Also, the educational system of the technate would encourage each individual to find what he or she is good at, and it would instill a strong work ethic into each citizen.