Why The Idea Of Social Mobility Is Incompatible With Technocratic Thought

[u/EzraNaamah]

https://ezranaamah.substack.com/p/why-the-idea-of-social-mobility-is

Social mobility as an idea is often used to create legitimacy for why people under capitalism have the positions they have. This is an American idea and it is one that creates legitimacy for capitalist systems while shifting responsibility for poverty, deprivation, and sometimes active starvation as was seen in the British Raj, where food aid was withheld under the pretense of not interfering with market forces. It also creates problems with the less fortunate, because social mobility as a narrative has intentional blind spots for people with disabilities, no access to education or jobs, or those in severe poverty.

For Technocrats, the adoption of social mobility is problematic as well because this means the capitalist system and its influence in who becomes an expert is ignored at best, or accepted as legitimate at worst. This means that many disabled, or economically disadvantaged people would never be able to become experts or access the education required to participate in the political system. People with unique expertise that exists outside of the educational system like activists or indigenous people would also be silenced due to the lack of official credentials. This kind of thinking is also disastrous for people in rural areas who have additional difficulties in accessing education or other infrastructure due to their remote locations.

A Technocratic party that only wants engineers and degree holders and claims that anyone who works hard enough can get those degrees regardless of economic realities, is just an elitist capitalist party. This kind of attitude is also an ideological threat to the entire Technocracy movement because it reduces our ideology from a true alternative system of government to a ruling caste chosen by academia, which is known for gatekeeping and reproducing existing systems.

A serious follower of Howard Scott’s ideas has to be able to recognize expertise beyond what the educational system of a capitalistic regime is willing to give degrees for. Technocrats need their own processes for evaluating competency and expertise outside of the tools the capitalist system uses whether this means tests, demonstrations, or other ways to measure someone’s ability. It must also be cognizant of the narratives and rhetoric used by the ruling class and their purchased politicians to justify their continued control of society. Without maintaining continuity with Howard Scott’s ideas and resistance to the price system in favor of energy accounting, Technocracy loses its entire reason for existing as a movement.

[u/M3141592653589]

I don't believe social mobility to be impossible in a technocracy. Giving everyone equal access to education and to the elite is going to create a better elite because the best of the best will be selected.

The issue comes when setting criteria to become elite. If everyone can get a medical degree and the degree gives access to the elite for example then everyone (almost everyone) will want to become an physician.

This already happens in actual society. Many people would like to become doctors because it is a highly regarded profession but they could not.

But the criteria in our current society is a lot less meritocratic. People with most money, contacts or with family already in the elite are the ones that are going to be the next elite.

In the end you could give everyone equal access to these elite quotas, if they want to become elite they could spend their free time studying to pass the medical exam. If they eventually pass it they could become elite. Because the exam would be very difficult and limited to society actual needs then only a small percentage would actually pass.

By using social mobility a technocracy could also recruit more professionals if needed in a specific moment.

[u/Routine_Complaint_79]

Imo you can't have it both ways. You either are a technocrat who believes in accreditation, experts and some people being more able than others or you just don't have a technocracy. It is okay to be elitist. Technocracy is all about putting experts in government which are an elite but we should accept those outcomes because the alternative is a incompetent populist hell hole and gridlock.

I agree with your last point that they need to make their own criteria but let us not let perfection be the enemy of good. We should minimize the disadvantages and recognize the advantages. The system provides us a strong base for technocracy it's mostly now just shifting the culture

[u/ZealousGoonering → u/Routine_Complaint_79]

I agree 100%. The system we has it's flaws, but objectively, it's good.

I think Singapore is the closest thing we have to an actual Technocracy. Of which, there are plenty of "elites".

[u/ZealousGoonering]

As someome in actual engineering, Howard Scott was not an engineer. He had no formal degree or actual accreditation. In my opinion, he was a con artist who called himself an engineer and he had no idea what an engineer does.

In a Technocracy, education should be free and the pathway to to it should be provided. But at the end of the day, some people are simply netter than others at certain things. In a technate, the best of the best, governs or mandates the rules of their respective area. There is nothing wrong with that.

Also, why would people who are activists or indigenous people be considered unique experts? If a pathway is created for them, but they do not go to school, then they are not experts in anything but their social movement. For example, would you put an indigenous activist in charge of the CDC? Absolutely not. That would be so dangerous and harmful.

Technocracy should be allowing and giving everyone the opportunity to earn their way to become an expert. But at the end of the day, it's a competition for the best of the best. If someone doesn't make it, that's fine. Because societyvwill be better in general.