What are your arguments against a technocracy?

What are your arguments against a technocracy?

How do you do this?

Create a system of unions and guilds for each profession and discipline

Each union or guild sends a few people to the central government, regional government, etc.

For policy problems and issues, a committee is formed consisting of representatives from each relevant union/guild

Technocracy is actually a system of government rather than an economic system but you can see how it would work quite well with a centrally planned socialist economy

thats stupid

So it's syndicalism. Epic.

Syndicalism can be considered a subset of technocracy

I was just giving an example of what a technocracy could look like. The formal definition is quite loose.

because corruption. how do you get rid of the government if they end up bad?

How about no.

technocracy is less a "better oligarchy" and more of a way of promoting a more technical focused socialism

we already live under technocratic regimes

I dont even have to make arguments, you make them for me.

no we dont

there is the technocracy movement by howard scott that some people support, and then there are technocrats who are just socialism with a scientific face

which one are you asking

EU is as technocratic as you can get.

I dont think you understand what technocracy is mate.

Technocracy is pretty nihilistic, since it has no inherent value in itself. That being said, it already exists in the postmodern first world. Politics and ideology died and got replaced by necessities, dictated by global markets, global capital and universal "human rights". The essence of postmodernity is that the path on how we progress is not important anymore because we already reached the "the end of history" (in a liberal sense) and what's left is sheer administration and responding to crisis and holes within the system, micromanagement.

A technocracy can be liberal, communist or even mixed and is not restricted to a political theory.

Its a form of government. The EU does not have that form of government (i fucking wish, that would be so much better), so its not technocratic.

Do you not understand how the EU institutions work? Do you not listen to the way EU bureaucrats reason about things? Do you not see that finance ministers control whole governments? It's all about numbers, statistics, graphs, percentages.

Yes, do you see how ministers of agriculture are not highly educated agrarian biologists? Or how the ministers of medicine are not highly trained doctors?

Just because one person who happened to have studied economics controls the economy, doesnt make it technocratic. For one, he is not chosen by a technate, secondly, all the other government positions are taken by non-scientists, but usually by law or economically educated people.

Furthermore, the EU does not have any technocratic policies. It still uses money, it doesnt implement anything like the technocratic work calendar, it doesnt heavily invest in sciences and automation, it doesn't control the means of production etc etc etc etc etc.

If that's your definition of a technocracy then I don't see why this is better either. Just because someone habilitated in biology doesn't make him a good agriculture minister. That's not at all how decision making and policy works.

Mate, do you not have university education in agrarian sciences where you live?

Also, stop moving the fucking goalpost. There is only one definition of technocracy and
is not it.

Agrarian studies, biology - it doesn't matter, an academic does not necessarily make a good politician.

Your special snowflake definition, I take it. When I look at the EU and then compare it to the wiki definition of "technocracy", yes, that's pretty much it.

ITT: autist gets his feelings hurt because the world doesn't use the term "technocracy" in his special snowflake way.