[nucklepunche]

Lately I have been interested in technocracy. I am starting to sort of drift in that direction politically. Most technocrats tend to be sort of anti-nationalistic and while technocracy isn't associated with pacifism or militarism it is not explicitly militarist, I guess a technocrat could go either way. The more and more I look at technocracy though I notice a few key things. Technocracy is anti-democratic as is fascism. Technocracy is meritocratic as is fascism. Technocracy is anti-capitalist but also decidedly not socialist or communist as is fascism. Technocracy has these parallels to fascism. It seems to me that fascism seems to add a huge dose of nationalism and militarism to this mix, which technocracy rejects. I'd like some fascists to explain if my notice of parallels are reasonable, and what differences. Are there any similarities or is this merely superficial? Certainly I tend to think that technocracy and fascism seem to have much different philosophical roots and aims. Perhaps you might say technocracy is a tad closer to the original platonic vision, sort of with technicians replacing philosopher kings?

[CounterChaos]

Technocracy is anti-democratic

I disagree - it is just a tool that can be applied to any ideology..............

[Wolfman]

Technocracy is anti-democratic as is fascism.

Technocracy in theory replaces Democracy with a better system. In practice, Fascism tends to end up just end with the current leader appointing his replacement with whoever he wants replacing him.

Technocracy is meritocratic as is fascism.

Fascism in practice isn't really meritocratic. It tends to end up with the leadership just kind of doing whatever they want. I'll give credit to the Italian Fascists, in that they seemed to have tried, but they didn't seem to try very hard.

Technocracy is anti-capitalist but also decidedly not socialist or communist as is fascism.

Fascist governments tend to be about as Anti-Capitalistic as modern Singapore. The majority of the economy was still realistically in private hands, it's just that the economy was directed by the government.

And if you ask a Technocrat, they'll tell you Technocracy is not a government system anyways.

[nucklepunche]

I'm talking fascism in theory, not in practice. Fascism in practice was historically capitalism combined with authoritarian populism linked with social conservatism. Fascism in theory is not populist in the least.

[Wolfman]

Plenty of Fascists who talk theory are quite willing to throw all of that aside to gain a small amount of power. I question if what Fascists say they want, and what they plan on doing are really different things.

[starman2003]

Plenty of Fascists who talk theory are quite willing to throw all of that aside to gain a small amount of power.

The nazis hoodwinked a lot of people, claiming to support worker aspirations--hardly consistent with fascism in theory. Once they got power, however, the left-leaning element was crushed, and theory pretty much prevailed.

[Rei Murasame]

How is the support of worker's aspirations not a part of fascism's theory? Just because Nazi Germany may have crushed the worker tendency in it particular iteration, doesn't mean that the other fascist countries did the same.

[starman2003]

How is the support of worker's aspirations not a part of fascism's theory?

Are you kidding? For one thing fascism favors the elite not the proles. Also, it is necessary to limit the aspirations of the masses for a higher standard of living, because maximizing national power requires emphasis on tanks etc not individual amenities.

Just because Nazi Germany may have crushed the worker tendency in it particular iteration, doesn't mean that the other fascist countries did the same.

The most serious, state-power oriented ones did; the proles didn't get much pay in fascist Italy either.

[Rei Murasame]

Have you looked at Japan? If not, I may have to bring you up to speed on how the situation went there, it was not exactly like what you had described (in fact rather far from it).

[Wolfman]

The nazis hoodwinked a lot of people, claiming to support worker aspirations--hardly consistent with fascism in theory. Once they got power, however, the left-leaning element was crushed, and theory pretty much prevailed.

I'm not talking strictly about the Nazis. But, it's probably worth mentioning that the only thing the Nazis really did that was in the best interest of the German People was essentially the economic policies of Hjalmar Schacht, which ended in 1939 when Hitler fired him, and later imprisoned him for having a moral compass. Pretty much everything else that happened under the Nazis was counter to the interests of the German People. The Italian Fascists did some good for the Italian Economy, but Mussolini was essentially a tinpot dictator, and basically every other Fascist movement (with the possible exception of Japan) was trying to install a tinpot dictatorship.

[starman2003]

I'm not talking strictly about the Nazis. But, it's probably worth mentioning that the only thing the Nazis really did that was in the best interest of the German People was essentially the economic policies of Hjalmar Schacht, which ended in 1939 when Hitler fired him, and later imprisoned him for having a moral compass. Pretty much everything else that happened under the Nazis was counter to the interests of the German People.

Eugenics wasn't a bad idea at all, even if it was corrupted by racial notions. Even Shirer admitted that the Hitler Youth was beneficial in some ways, such as producing healthier young people.

The Italian Fascists did some good for the Italian Economy, but Mussolini was essentially a tinpot dictator, and basically every other Fascist movement (with the possible exception of Japan) was trying to install a tinpot dictatorship.

I don't think Japan was, strictly speaking, fascist.

[Rei Murasame]

Why not? That looks like a convenient escape.

[Tribbles]

Technocracy is cool, but the founders of Technocracy made a theory that is almost similar to marxism and historical material-dialectism.

I made a small thread about it in the communist sub-forum:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=134632

My own ideas on Technocracy is basically a merging of experts and union (employer and labour-side) representatives, giving them all some juridical powers. Only advisory-powers become a bit shallow for a political system.

I want to have both a strong-man Fuhrer-type leader, and accountability - so that's why I have not given the new-parliament a right to fire the government in my draft for a simplified form of corporativism (They can only reject his proposals)
http://bildr.no/view/992058

But is it realistic? Or would one power-plattform have to beat the other, and become the dominant part?

[Wolfman]

Eugenics wasn't a bad idea at all, even if it was corrupted by racial notions. Even Shirer admitted that the Hitler Youth was beneficial in some ways, such as producing healthier young people.

Eugenics should not include destroying Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and those became amputees during WWI. The majority of the people murdered in the Holocaust were not people potentially weakening the German bloodline, even if you do buy into eugenics.

I don't think Japan was, strictly speaking, fascist.

So, installing a tinpot dictatorship is what Fascists are after?

[starman2003]

But is it realistic? Or would one power-plattform have to beat the other, and become the dominant part?

History suggests the latter. People often think they can have their cake and eat it too--"strong Fuhrer-like leader and accountability." Of course, ultimately there's accountability in any system; no leader that screws up badly can expect to survive.

Eugenics should not include destroying Jews..

Of course not; racial criteria should play no part. And I have nothing against jews provided they're unaffiliated with AIPAC or similar groups.

So installing a tinpot dictatorship..

Fascism is about installing dictatorship alright--with vision and integrity in pursuit of a better world not personal aggrandizement.

[Daktoria]

Fascism is about the folk community. Whether or not it coincides with technological dedication and efficiency is ambiguous.

That said, technological invention would inevitably stagnate. The militarism of a fascist regime would exterminate inventive personalities in alienating them for not being laboriously violent.

[Wolfman]

Of course not; racial criteria should play no part. And I have nothing against jews provided they're unaffiliated with AIPAC or similar groups.

It shouldn't, but the Nazis felt otherwise.
The majority of the people murdered in the Holocaust were not people potentially weakening the German bloodline, even if you do buy into eugenics.

Fascism is about installing dictatorship alright--with vision and integrity in pursuit of a better world not personal aggrandizement.

Then Fascism is apparently just another utopian masturbation, since no Fascist State has actually improved the country it ruled, with the possible exception of Imperial Japan.

[Far-Right Sage]

Wolfman, what you may or may not consider "in the interests of the German people" is entirely subjective and your wild and worthless accusation that the government acted against the interests of the people as a whole (interests according to your own specific value system) has no basis in reality.

As for economics, it's silly to speak of "capitalism" in Germany of the era as it exists today.

Then Fascism is apparently just another utopian masturbation, since no Fascist State has actually improved the country it ruled, with the possible exception of Imperial Japan

This couldn't be further from the truth in any way, shape, or form.

To deny that Germany was improved in almost every possible manner is to take a strikingly ideologically-charged view of history, as even rightist intellectuals will admit to the benefits of Soviet industrialization.

[Wolfman]

Publius, what you may or may not consider "in the interests of the German people" is entirely subjective and your wild and worthless accusation that the government acted against the interests of the people as a whole (interests according to your own specific value system) has no basis in reality.

Start naming things that the Nazis did that actually improved the lot in live of the German people. The only thing you could say is the economic policies of Hjalmar Schacht. The rest was either a wash or against the interests of the German people.

[Far-Right Sage]

I suggest you do much reading on the subject.

From conservation and animal protection to the first anti-tobacco health program to reclaimation of lost territories to the massive construction of a national freeway system, your entire narrative is disproven even at a quick glance from the works of anti-Nazi historians.