The meaning which refers simply to rule by engineers is not the relevant one. If we're using the word to mean the advocation of the specific use of technology to affect socio-economic political change, then it's far broader than just the Technocracy Inc. movement.
The banner in particular reads "The solving of mankind’s problems and abolition of government via technological solutions alone", but the FAQ specifically addresses the Technocracy Movement of the 30s and its plan.
I'm trying to work out whether I am a technocracy advocate or not you see, so it's best to list some differences between the capital "T" example of the concept and my own views.
Important differences between my idea of "techno-decentralism" (which I have considered, perhaps more pretentiously, calling "Distributarian Technocracy") and the Technocracy Movement:
- The TM calls for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production; I want private ownership spreading out and expanded and oppose the abolition of private property in the extreme.
- The TM wants to create what basically looks like a command economy based off of energy accounting (and looking through various faqs and wikis I'm having a hard time finding any democratic process in the system which would allow consumers to affect what is produced, other than vague allusions to allowing the consumer to get what is desired), whereas I desire (after sufficient funding of AI, robotics, and other technology to make this possible) a mixed economy system of municipal socially owned automated facilities (so all may survive), wide spread private ownership of robots, additive manufacturing units, and so on (so all can be independent), as well as being open to potential higher level techno-capitalistic processes in which the renting out of robotic labor takes the place of selling your own labor power (so there is the possibility of enterprise and economic competition).
- The TM seems confused about whether it is for the abolition of government, or achieving government which is finally "functional". It just comes across as someone getting confused about Marxism and then adding energy money. What is de facto permanent state socialism and reliant on engineers to manage production and energy cannot wither away to fulfill "From each according to his contribution...". You want the abolition of politics, surely not government. In either case, the plan for the Technate is inherently anti-pluralist, and leaves thin space for the masses to generate their economic realities.
So if I share the desire to use technology politically to overcome the current system of economics and government, but oppose the Technocracy Movement's plan - for the abolition of private ownership and democracy to be replaced with a command economy (does it incorporate democratic centralism or consumer councils; I'm not sure) based off scientific energy and resource accounting by the "functional government" Technate which will abolish government - do I still fit the bill as a technocracy advocate? How much room for extreme factionalism is there here? How wide a range of political programs does the definition of "technocracy" cover?
A society without toil. A society of robotic property.