Talk:Technocracy movement

Veblen's Soviet of Technicians

In the Section on Origins, the following statement is made, "Early technocratic organisations formed after the First World War. These included Henry Gantt’s "The New Machine" and Veblen’s "Soviet of Technicians". These organisations folded after a short time." Although Thorstein Veblen did suggest that a Soviet of Technicians could be formed, no such organization was ever established. It was simply floated as a possibility. If a citation cannot be made to an actual organization, I would suggest that this be rewritten.LAWinans (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Overlapping content

Much of the content of this article is similar to the content of Technocracy Incorporated. The History sections of the two articles are almost identical. Johnfos (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Any editor can remove a personal attack. A talk page is meant to discuss an article. An editor has made two personal attacks related to this subject on another editor. Another on the Energy Accounting page. skip sievert (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you politely the last couple of days to desist in making personal attacks... and looking from off site or old derogatory information. Since this has not been resolved... I have reported this situation here Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I am hoping this situation can be resolved without further escalation. Thank you user Johnfos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser_talk:Johnfos -skip sievert (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thermodynamics section

The thermodynamics section does not belong to this article. It is enough reference the summary sentence provided in the introduction of the article.--tequendamia (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I can shorten the section... but the idea of this being based on this concept is important. Scott cited Willard Gibbs as the main instigator (vector analysis) which he used to conceive of this concept. Here is a vid from their site with that info http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm - The section may be a little long though... and I will shorten it. skip sievert (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That goes better in a separate article. We cannot try to turn every reader of the article into a physicist. It is a different topic and in a completely different jargon, it is not what the readers should expect when they run into this page.--tequendamia (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead of an article is to describe information to follow. There is no point in not doing that. It may not be what you expect... but you previously thought it was an unrelated nice little social movement, which was not based on science or this concept, as you stated in your first edit, when you did a huge deletion of material that had been stable here for a long time. Give readers some credit. This does not lead the reader at all. It provides creatively written material to explain a pertinent background aspect. I halved or more the information at least. The basis of the information is thermodynamics... so it makes sense to give a background as to time and place and influences. This idea did not spring out of nowhere. The whole concept is based on energy economics and measuring energy thermodynamically - http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The Energy Certificate-r.htm opinions aside... those are the facts of the basis of these ideas... as presented ... so as an encyclopedia... this is our reporting job... hopefully done with some creativity and illumination. Presenting good and pertinent and directly related info. is the idea here. The article would not explain the subject as well if the fundamental aspects are not illustrated... that being done as neutrally and veritably as possible. skip sievert (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I insist in the creation of a separate article as the topic of thermodynamics is too advanced. I suggest a title like Technocracy and thermodynamics. And include a visible link from this page to that article.--tequendamia (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then do it. It seems like a pointless exercise though because the information here now in its shortened form will still be here... only expanded in a different page... which is not really necessary. I think it would not improve anything to do that. You have not made a reasonable argument for it. The information here now, as said, is integral to understanding the information in this article fully. Most likely it would get R.f.d'd... immediately or merged back here. I would not support the idea of doing that. If it were done... and I think it is a bad idea... it would be better to call it Technocracy technate design and thermodynamics so people know what you are referring to. I do not think you are giving people credit as being able to understand this. After all an encyclopedia is sometimes written at all levels of understanding... how else do you explain things to people as an editor. This is not a complex subject either. skip sievert (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is done. It probably needs a re-wording of the introduction.--tequendamia (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

O.K. But... the purpose of connecting an article to another page is to make a snippet of the info and refer to the mains article... Also I did the actual method of referring to the main article, which was a minor html issue... Too bad you did not title it correctly to begin with. This adds to confusion a little because Technocracy as a name or title can be a lot of different things... and the article is about the notable movement... hence the title... which is not a redirect could have been titled correctly as Technocracy technate design and thermodynamics... so... your main title muddied up the water a little. I changed the information completely... in the new section... but it is pointless and counter productive to understanding the subject... which is based on energy economics not to have at least a brief section now... about it... with a ref. to the main article you created... that is just the way formatting works here. The article you made needs a lot of work. I will work on it later... but I would appreciate it if the new section with the article reference is improved if possible ... but other wise not pointlessly removed. skip sievert (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Tiny Edits

Just reading through the history, I've noticed there are really far too many tiny ( 2) etc. edits right next to each other, which causes rather a lot of clogging up of the history, it would be better if made more use of preview function and combined these edits into single larger ones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebladed (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Attire

No mention is made of the Technocrat's brown-colored attire. I will attempt to find a reference. LorenzoB (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no brown colored attire. Some people involved at one time wore grey suits for some functions, but that is an incidental thing and probably not important in the article. skip sievert (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Adair thesis (which makes Technocracy seem much more interesting than this article does) there were not only grey and red uniforms but a fleet of grey and red cars. JQ (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Skip banned

As skip is now permanently banned shall we try and get this article up to academic standard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive75#User:Skipsievert_talk_page_postings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenhand (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Huge improvements

This article is much more interesting, informative and accurate than it was only a few months ago. JQ (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have made some progress. Thanks to all involved. -- Johnfos (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Buckminster-Fuller

Good article but I am suprised that there is no mention of Buckminster-Fuller who was a great proponant of engineering solutions to pollitical problems.

pendodecahedron (talk) 1 June 2010

America and Canada Section

The language written about the movement seems over the top in the American and Canada section.

For example,

Technocracy's heyday lasted only from June 16, 1932, when the New York Times became the first influential press organ to report its activities, until January 13, 1933, when Scott, attempting to silence his critics, delivered a rambling, confusing, and uninspiring address on a well-publicized nationwide radio hookup

What is the purpose of this content, except to act as a reference to the statement about the movements peak? Wouldn't a reference suffice instead of posting opinion pieces? I'm sure the radio address was controversial but to post something like this doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia standards. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree and will change it. Change it further if you think it needs it. The Hotel Pierre address was not considered a failure except in the media to my knowledge and because the content was controversial it has been argues that the media at this time started a full scale blitz attack against this group in question. And, these were editorials and opinion pieces as you said when published at the time and its not really appropriate. Fidel Drumbo 12:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check some more things out before I do. I thought it needed some attention first though. There are still some others in this section that need revising. I saw the same thing a minute ago on the Technocracy Incorporated article. It was a statement which linked them to fascism because of what they wore. Again, doesn't seem appropriate to put it in that context. I think I'll mention that on that talk page as well. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Any criticism of the technocracy movement has now been removed or watered down, see [1] and [2]. In terms of what Burris said, we now have: "According to author Beverly Burris, the Technocracy movement was interpreted as being non-democratic and controversial, and that may also may have led to it losing mainstream appeal". Was interpreted? May also may have led? Come on, what a whitewash. Johnfos (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I see from your past edits on the page Johnphos that you have dug up many aspects of the negative presentation of this topic. Also the article is full of critical appraisal of this group currently that has not been touched, so not slanting one way or another is more important.

Yes it is possible to say someone is a fascist because they wore a certain type of suit and saluted their group members in public, the article was slanted way negative. It is a known part of the past of the group that they were taken on by Hearst and other media outlets, and that info is still out there.

I see you attempted very diligently to have this article eliminated as an article for deletion because you think it is not notable, when this particular group was the basis of that movement so it is obvious that this historic group is significant culturally historically.

Are you interested in the actual debate on the article and presentation? You did not contribute or debate above just tagged. Fidel Drumbo 22:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

I really hope you reconsider your approach at contributing to these types of articles Johnfos. I have just looked at your history and see much of the contributions you've made are pretty one sided and negative overall. I think criticisms are fine, unfortunately you seemed to have overly presented one sided aspects of the group and movement. Such as describing a radio address as rambling and confusing? Which is fine but can be more neutrally presented. And claiming fascistic implications [[3]]? Instead of more appropriate and commonly agreed upon reasons for the decline of the movement such as the rise of the New Deal. It is commonly known that during times of depression or social unrest alternative ideas usually gain membership and notoriety and usually decline once stability is regained.

Also, another revealing aspect of your edits such as including "demise" which means death or end of existence or activity; termination etc of the movement and group which in reality is incorrect and misleading because the group is still in existence, show suggest you are not taking a neutral position on presenting this information. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

FidelDrumbo, I tried talking to you previously when you were User:190.141.115.209, and there seems little point in trying to open this up again. Johnfos (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Johnfos. Unless there are major disagreements in the presentation it is pointless to bring this type of argument up. I hope Johnfos can understand the opposing views on the way he presents information and can come to an agreement. So far, the edits done that are in question haven't been challenged. It is important to do this so both sides can come to an agreement and the subject is understandable and neutral to the reader. I hope this can pass and we can work better on improving this article in the future. It would be nice if you can respond to my post on the Technocracy Incorporated talk page Johnfos, I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter over there as well.

Getting back to the discussion at hand, I think there are other POV issues. Such as this...

The technocrats made a believable case for a kind of technological utopia, but their asking price was too high. The idea of political democracy still represented a stronger ideal than technological elitism. In the end, critics believed that the socially desirable goals that technology made possible could be achieved without the sacrifice of existing institutions and values and without incurring the apocalypse that technocracy predicted.

Where in the technocrats literature do they state they are Utopian? By definition a Utopia doesn't exist and will never exist, and I highly doubt technocrats would say such a thing. The only thing I've seen from them that would even come close to "Utopian" are "functional governance" and to "provide a better standard of living, conserve non-renewable resources, and ensure ‘an economy of abundance.’" Hardly anything to consider Utopian. I think using the word Utopia is fine but needs to be better presented as is shown in this article [[4]]

Another issue within this is a claim of an incurring "Apocalypse" presented by Technocrats. The definition of apocalypse is The complete final destruction of the world, esp. as described in the biblical book of Revelation. I haven't seen anything remotely connected to the technocrats claims. The only thing I've read is something along the lines of the price system "burning itself out" or a collapse as seen in these newspaper articles. [[5]] Saying Apocalypse is bordering comical or smear for Technocratic doctrines. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your statements above 68.226.118.248etc. Johnphos has not responded except to say he is not debating points here so far. All appearance is the article was over sourced to extremely negative opinion pieces which are then quoted and quoted and over sourced to those opinions. Adding information from the two newspaper articles you have found seems like a good idea [6] and [7] Currently the article is very overdone with inaccurate information which slants the presentation negatively. Fidel Drumbo 15:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed paragraph/blockquote for further debate.68.226.118.248 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Technical Alliance information

I have found some new information about the formation of the Technical Alliance and have restored that information in the Technocracy Movement and Technocracy Incorporated articles. You can see the reason for the edits Here on the Technocracy Incorporated Talk page. Input is appreciated. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Source of information from the Social Security Online webpage in the Technocracy section a little down the page, that has some group history. Added a couple of sentences from that to the article [8]. Everything I have read says you are right about the Technical Alliance and it not disbanding. That information was wrong. As far as I have read it was Hubbert that joined them in 1932? and pushed to have the information published as more members came along at Columbia University. Fidel Drumbo 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Still POV

As with Technocracy Incorporated, anything that could be construed as criticism, no matter how well sourced, has been removed from the page. One of the best sources we have is Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900-1941 by William E. Akin, published by the University of California Press, yet several references to this book have been removed.

Much unsourced material, and material from unreliable sources, has been added. Surepost.com, for example, is not a WP:Reliable source and should not be used.

In short you are trying to rewrite the history of the technocracy movement, which has left the article unbalanced and not neutral. Johnfos (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no POV Johnfos and the edits are not rewriting history. Material from the Technocracy Incorporated should be used to describe what they are. I've already added third party WP:Reliable sources that confirm what the group has said. There is no rewriting history. The Technical Alliance started in 1918, in 1930 became known as Technocracy(committee of Technocracy) and moved to a room provided by Walter Rautenstrauch [9]. They splintered around '33 and Howard Scott continued his survey as Technocracy Inc. Here is a link to a news article discussing this. [10] These links and the other third party sources I provided VERIFY the information provided about the Technical Alliance. The surepost.com link may not be a reliable source, but it confirms all the third party sources that have been used to verify the information or vice versa. If you have a particular issue with the surepost.com links then rewrite them using the other reliable sources provided. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 68.226.118.248. The article was not accurate in many places as documented above and over done with mostly information that could be described as overtly negative, unbalanced or single purpose to disparage the group, much of which was based on recycled not accurate information. Calling a group fascist because they wore a uniform or saluted other members seems ridiculous as the article previously did. Also sound libelous as the group is still around.

The Surepost site is the official site of the group and there is no reason it can not be used. Its like using Madonna's official site to confirm her touring or her attitude about something. It still contains critical information also, also wondering why an editor here was so keen on having the other article TechInc deleted in a request for articles for deletion, as the history of that article shows? None of the issues brought up here by 68.226.118.248 were addressed by the other editor. The book mentioned by the editor 'Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900-1941 by William E. Akin' was used to source things way too much, multiple multiple citations, is that a good idea to source so much to one thing for controversial information especially such negative information. Many other sources are available. Fidel Drumbo 21:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Exactly FidelDrumbo, I don't know what the fuss is all about. The edits that are in question are edits that never were challenged or edited to meet Wikipedia standards of neutrality and presentation. They were not neutral and made the article unbalanced. Two editors have come forth and acknowledged this. When the issues where brought up, Johnfos never participated in the discussion. In the future could you please do so Johnfos, or even after the edits are done, contribute to the discussion and give your input so we can agree on something. I still don't understand how you can think calling an organization and movement fascist as neutrally presented material. Do you have a proposal that both sides can agree on?

As for the history, The organization claims the Technical Alliance was the precursor of Technocracy Incorporated, became known as Technocracy in 1930 and Incorporated for such and such reasons. This is documented by the group and is notable and referenced with reliable sources. Are you really going to say Howard Scott and his organization are lying? That the information they provide are false along with the other third party sources? I honestly don't understand your argument johnfos. I need some more reasons beyond "it's not a reliable source" and "this is more of reliable source" when it conflicts with the group members(such as Howard Scott) who were actually involved in the Technical Alliance and other third party sources. A historical archive from a University and a Notable science magazine along with the organizations own words are pretty solid evidence and reliable sources. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously very enthusiastic about technocracy, and that's fine. But when it comes to pushing those views on Wikipedia that is simply unacceptable. Continue to complain about me personally if you wish, but all that I have said has been properly referenced and supported by various scholarly books. These are much more reliable than the self-published websites which you prefer. Are you really trying to say that the official website of Technocracy Incorporated is here, at surepost.com? Johnfos (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I take an interest in this movement as much as you have obviously done. I am not complaining about you personally. I'm sorry if it came out that way. Technocracy Inc. website is technocracy.org and technocracyinc.org, look at the bottom and you see it's copyrighted Technocracy Inc. Their main banner tells them to visit the main site(surepost). Also, if you go to Technocracyinc.org it redirects to the surepost site. Obviously they have some internal database issues. Still, how much proof do you need? This is Wikipedia after all.68.226.118.248 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That is correct as explained above by 68.226.118etc... and trying to make this contentious seems pointless, does not make sense. This is their main site [11]. And this site of theirs confirms that [12]. You are very obviously wrong but removed the link citation that goes to a non profit site that was used to present information from the official group. Odd, if you insist on that after having it pointed out that you are wrong.

Explain your actions further and as the other editor said, you did not participate in the editing debate. The issue is neutral presentation and balance of information. This really is a simple issue. Is a request for comment necessary to straighten this out? That would be a waste of time but it looks like that is where this is going. In the mean time I think it is perfectly fine to restore the official site. It was not being used for over-sourcing purposes just basic presentation. --Fidel Drumbo 16:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking a lot better

I think some of the edits done so far including the new ones by user Epipelagic make the article more neutral. Thanks if you are reading this. The edits that weren't referenced right was my mistake, I was going to rewrite it to fit the reference and I guess forgot to. Googlesalot (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do however have an issue to why the surepost like isn't a reliable source. What are the proving grounds for whether or not that website is connected to Technocracy Incorporated. We discussed some of it above and I also want to add that there is a directory that also gives the website (technocracyinc.org) which redirects to the surpost.com site[13] Googlesalot (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes two editors have come out against using a website that is the official website of the page in question, even though it is copyright material by TechInc and one has called it p.o.v. pushing, Johnphos by name... has attempted to have one of the articles deleted previously as being non notable, strange because it was a huge social movement and Tech-Inc group was the most notable of Technocracy groups and the group still exists. Also to insist they were fascists or fascist like or imply so directly that seems very uncalled for and seems like libel maybe, check this [14]

There is too much over sourcing to two authors also when many newspaper articles and other sources are available as described above in other talk page sections like these sources [15] and [16] for instance. --Fidel Drumbo 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Do not revert educational material that is copyright ok if used for education purpose

© Copyright 2003 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.

Wikipedia is a non commercial purpose. This is the link with the material on it http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_61689.htm

This information could have been edited if the person doing the editing out of it had wanted to. This is a good information link. If that person is so sure it is copy vio then edit the information do not delete the information. Fidel Drumbo 07:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but the noncommercial restriction is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA license on all Wikipedia text. Of course you could rewrite the information in your own words. Without rewriting, however, the text could be used only under Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content policy, including a rationale of why rewritten text would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. (BTW, even if the GSA license had been compatible, quoting it without attribution would be plagiarism.) —teb728 t c 09:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great. I rewrote it in my own words while trying to stay true to the citation [17]. I think it is far away from the original as to not be an issue now, but relays some basic info from the link. Thanks. Please comment further here on the re-edit if you think it needs more changing. Fidel Drumbo 11:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and work together. This is why we have a talk page.

It would be great if this article can get improved some more, but I wish the new editors could talk before they include material that was previously deleted or edited for having heavily negative language. ThanksGooglesalot2 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Overview

I've fixed some issues of neutrality in the overview section to clarify how the movement was perceived as fascistic. It still needs some work but I hope this can help with the issues editors have with that particular part of the article. If you have issues with this please say so on the talk page instead of reverting it. Thank you. Googlesalot2 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your edits are good, they make it more neutral.Meatsgains (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Noticed that this article and others have changed over the past few years

I looked at the history of this and the other technocracy article and noticed its size has waxed and waned over the years. It seems some other interesting articles also rapidly grows then slowly shrinks like the life cycle of a star. This would not be a problem if the article becomes more concise with no loss of content. I have occasionally read this technocracy article over the years and noticed some information I found interesting and useful for other articles and my edification has been purged and all the flavor seems to have been sucked out leaving less. this is not unique to this article, but also to many other unique articles I occasionally read and wonder why this happens because it seems to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia's goal. Just a passing thought about a trend I noticed.Septagram (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In 2009 there were certainly a lot of changes to this article, as discussed on this Talk page. The issue of overlapping content was raised, see [18], and much material that already appeared elsewhere was removed. Some unsourced material was removed. In November 2009, User:John Quiggin saw these changes as a "huge improvement", see [19], and said that the "article is much more interesting, informative and accurate than it was only a few months ago". Johnfos (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Some more unsourced material has been removed, and the article has now been merged with the Technocracy Incorporated article, following consensus at Talk:Technocracy Incorporated#Propose merge to Technocracy movement. Johnfos (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it okay to we put the Technocracy Symbol in this article?

I think I saw it before, I'm not sure. Should I add it? --Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

--- I found that there is already a discussion about it, but it got nowhere yet: Talk:Technocracy#Monad_and_Symbols
can we make a decission? --Arthurfragoso (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I have no problems with it being added. Johnfos (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

China

I wonder why I find in all the article and in all the discussion not "China", technocracy seems to be the best description of the Chinese government. --Pege.founder (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

China's high ranking government officials contain a high number of engineers (but few scientists), but they are from a limited number of fields and they do actually have a lot (and their number is rising) of lawyers among their ranks. Most importantly China does not have a technocrat (resource based) economy, they have a mix of communism and capitalism.195.169.213.92 (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why electric scooters? They use for 100 km only 0,5 kg coal from the own country instead of 2 litre imported oil. Later, the electric power from coal can be changed to electric power from wind and photovoltaic. This was in the 5 years plan 1991, now are 180 million electric scooters in China. The governemnt programs for electric mobility, the fast built up of photovoltaic and wind industry shows, this is technocracy. --Pege.founder (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not. 'Technocratic' implies a technocracy. China is not a Technocracy, and everything it is doing is according to their (Dengist) party lines.

—

I just wanted to add a small pet peeve to this comment. I know it's a nitpick, and from what I understand, the technocracy movement referred to this symbol as a "monad." But monad is a term with many meanings. The definition of monad as a reference to the Chinese yin-yang symbol they used is a rather obscure meaning of the word. I just wish the symbol wasn't described using a term as nebulous as "monad insignia," as though that had some obvious meaning. It clearly doesn't.

Additional Info & Comment

I think the authors have done a good job in this entry. It is always difficult attempting to provide information about a topic when people without substantive knowledge or understanding nit and pick constantly.

Recognizing that the entry is about the Technocracy Movement and not just the Howard Scott organization, "Technocracy Inc.", there are several things which could be added:

  * The movement was at its peak in the Thirties, but it didn't completely fall apart afterwards indeed it had a brief revival nationally during WWII when it proposed "Total Mobilization" for the War.
  * The movement retained considerable popularity in the northwestern United States and in British Columbia through the Fifties up to 1960
  * In California, the movement spawned a schismatic offshoot named "Utopian Society of America" that was similar to Technocracy Inc. but had a mystical tinge to its approach. The USA was active throughout the Fifties.
  * Several sections in the Upper Midwest chafing at the leadership of Howard Scott also split off creating an alternative called "TechnoDemocracy", they sought to mellow the authoritarian image of the movement.
  * And, of course, Jacques Fresco first proposed "Sociocyberengineering" as an alternative to Technocracy and this was the underlying ideology of his Venus Project (promoted by the Zeitgeist Movement) which morphed in the Network of European Technocrats.

I also note what I believe to be a minor error, the entry suggests that Gantt's "New Machine" and Veblen's "Soviet of Technicians" were alternative organizations. While Gantt did have members or associates, Veblen's Soviet was an idea and not an actual organization. LAWinans (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. A good resource about the "movement" but not about Technocracy Inc. is Donald Stabile's "Prophets of Order: The Rise of the New Class, Technocracy & Socialism in America" (Boston: South End Press 1984) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAWinans (talk • contribs) 15:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Technocracy movement is _not_ 'alone among the collection of radical movements of the 1930's'

With regard to "Though now relatively insignificant the Technocracy movement alone among the collection of radical movements of the 1930's survives into the present day" - this is inaccurate, see The Kibbo Kift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbo_Kift — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.67.162 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Technocracy movement is _not_ 'alone among the collection of radical movements of the 1930's'

With regard to "Though now relatively insignificant the Technocracy movement alone among the collection of radical movements of the 1930's survives into the present day" - this is inaccurate, see The Kibbo Kift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbo_Kift — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.109.212 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting history to that group. However it was active in the 1920's and stopped existing in the 1950's and was not connected to the U.S. or Canada region. Organizations established in 1920 Organizations disestablished in 1951 Kibbo Kift history organization. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Alone among the collection"

The citation from the SSA actually says "alone among THIS collection of radical movements" - THIS referring to the small number of radical movements described on that page. Without that crucial context, saying "Technocracy alone survives" is blatantly wrong, since it ignores, eg, fascism and communism. The SSA page didn't deal with those radical movement. Faulty (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would it? If editing the information helps then do that but removing the information is removing something important and cited by the U.s. government and that is a reliable source. If you rephrase it, fine, but interjecting fascism or communism neither of which was a contender in the u.s. from that time period is interjecting your ideas as an editor and then its your original research. That is why the citation is there, so people can see what the actual thing says. You making a comparison to Communism or Fascism has zero to do with anything here and is a false argument. Also you are just plain wrong again about the way it is presented, it says Though now relatively insignificant the Technocracy movement alone among the collection of radical movements of the 1930s survives into the present day, Your original research of saying communism and fascism were significant in the U.s. is wrong. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact is, that SSA page listed a small number of radical ideas of the 1930s, and then said "Technocracy alone among THIS collection of radical movements survives". The statement I removed didn't mention that the SSA was talking about only a small number of radical ideas of the 1930s. The implication was that all radical ideas of the 1930s are dead apart from Technocracy, which is clearly wrong. Faulty (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful about that reasoning. The link states clearly what it is saying. I changed it anyway into a direct quote now and added some side information to clarify any issues. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The link isn't this article, which is where the problem is. Your newest edits look clumsy, and go off at a tangent about something irrelevant to this page (you are literally describing your source, good grief) Faulty (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the point of disrupting the article or giving a false edit summary? Editing the information, you could have left the quote which is direct and dropped the other part. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit is clumsy and pointless, and you inserted it into the existing sentence structure without fixing the grammar that comes after. Faulty (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Howard Scott was a fraud

Howard was neither an engineer nor a scientist, when it was discovered by a journalist that he was a fraud, he himself and the Technocracy movement were kicked out of Columbia University.--213.147.167.250 (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)