Is Technocracy Totalitarian?

Article Index
Is Technocracy Totalitarian?
Technocracy as a Service
All Pages
Technocracy is a loaded word in contemporary society. In Europe of the early 21st century, the term "technocracy" in general and the epithet "technocrat" in particular holds the dubious honor to be one of the most used curse words in the academic world. Therefore, when the well-intentioned N.E.T. member proclaims his/her allegiance to the European Technocratic movement, he/she could often expect to be met with distrust or ridicule, simply because his/her peers have been accustomed with the term "technocracy" as a definition of a bureaucratic structure devoid of democratic legitimacy.

The dominant political movements of contemporary Europe all have accused their opponents of being "technocrats", the left accuses the right of being technocratic, and the right accuses the left of being technocratic. It should be said that neither of the two political movements, or the academic institutions, holds any awareness of the theories espoused by the technocratic movement, or of the history of the technocratic movement. Therefore, many young technocrats have been treated with condemning hostility of the people from their surrounding environment, who often think that we have some form of hidden agenda.

Another source of suspicion is that while most people do agree with our problem analysis, a lot of people look with suspicion at our proposed reforms, which are undoubtedly leading us to a future which is inherently different from the reality we currently enjoy. For generations who have experienced Hitler and Stalin, the Cold War and the War Against Terror, wary of change and afraid of a return of the dark ages, all such proposals - not only our - are greeted with some hostility, because of the experiences of totalitarian thinking.

Sentiments and prejudices are harder to beat than outright arguments, not because they are more eloquently expressed, but just because of their vague and unexpressed nature. Therefore, the well-intentioned technocrat could do everything right in debate, appearance, and intention, and yet only be rewarded with silence for his/her hard work. Aware of this problem, I have chosen to set together an article which explains why technocracy is not a totalitarian ideology, and why it is not authoritarian either.

What is totalitarianism?

Totalitarianism is a term coined to describe a particular type of political regime which mainly existed during the 20th century. It is a type of regime which is driven by an urge to transform the entire society after a specific ideological or religious programme. To achieve that goal, the totalitarian regime utilises mass-mobilisation of the population, surveillance, and tries to exert political and ideological dominance over both the public and personal spheres of society[1] .

We all have seen those documentaries about Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR and Mao's China, regimes which killed millions of people. In those documentaries, we are seeing the full level of control exerted by the ruling parties, the marching soldiers, the statues of the "great leaders", the cheering masses of people, the barbed wire, the concentration camps, and we are feeling distressed.[2]

Would all ideologies or social programmes which are espousing an alternative to the current price system automatically become totalitarian, and start to persecute religious, political, ethnic minorities? Would all forms opposition or questioning of the current order automatically lead to the killing fields of Kampuchea?

What characterises a totalitarian ideology?

A totalitarian ideology is, as characterised by the philosopher Karl Popper[3], an ideology which is basing its premises on determinism, namely, that history is predetermined to take its course towards the inevitable utopia or dystopia at the end of the tunnel. Especially marxian communism is characterised by the almost religious faith in the "science" of dialectical materialism. Marxism in itself is not totalitarian, but the leninist interpretation of marxism has developed this deterministic idea into an almost theological standpoint, where the working class, unaware of its historical mission to destroy capitalism, must be lead by a "vanguard" of "proletarian intellectuals".

This has lead to what could be considered an ideology where all aspects of society should be directed for the good of building the new society. Even if one would not call that totalitarianism, it is surely different from Technocracy which do not aim to change the human being.

Fascism is not that developed as an ideology (we are talking about the fascism of Benito Mussolini and not the contemporary European fascists here), but is equally plagued by the deterministic idea about the struggle between the states (instead of between the classes as in the case of communism), much like the game Age of Empires and all of its off-shots. National socialism espouses race as the dividing factor.

That is another characterisation of a totalitarian ideology, namely that it divides the history in a struggle between a set of fixed groups, ranging from the subjective of history (the Vanguard, the Italian state, the Aryan Race or, as Eduard Limonov recently put it out, the "Misfits"), to the enemies of the new order (the bourgeoisie - who apparently could be everything from free peasants to people who have glasses - the other states and, of course, the Jews).

To simplify it: a totalitarian ideology is an ideology which is searching for an absolute, a sort of a substitution for religion, and it demands a total transformation of the individual and the reality to adapt to the new order, the secular kingdom of Christ, which will be an eternal Utopia (except in the case of Italian fascism which imagined an eternal struggle between the states). In a totalitarian movement or state, all forms of expression and endeavours which question the official policy are trampled or shut down by the leaders.

Some totalitarian ideologies are unfit for rule because of their internal inconsistency. Among them I would characterise Ayn Rand's Libertarian Objectivism as a prime example.

Popper contrasted the totalitarian, or Closed society, with the Open society.

The Open society is a society where the official value foundation is based around the scientific method[4] , namely, that all hypotheses need to be tested out again, again and again, and where the channels of information are transparent and open for the general population to take part of and to partake in. The scientific method is also called falsificationism since it is never contend with accepting a fact for truth, and always looks forward to testing its postulates.


One could contrast the scientific method with monotheistic fundamentalism.

Scientific Method:  Hypothesis  => Test => Report => Peer Review => Publication => Fact => Hypothesis

Fundamentalism:  Prophecy => Truth => Stick to it

One could clearly see that totalitarianism has a lot in common with fundamentalist interpretations of religion (something which also could explain why militant atheist groups like marxist-leninists bother to persecute religion, a move which often has contrary effects in relation to intended results).

Submitted Articles

 Earth Organisation for Sustainability | Designed by  Design by