zlacker

>>antono+(OP)
Technocracy had both socialist proponents like Charles Steinmetz and also anti-communists racists/fascists like Joshua Haldeman (Elon Musk grandfather). In some ways technocracy is the acknowledging of the necessity of economy planning to transcend capitalism but without taking into account class struggle. That way, it can be seen like a good-willed engineer dream that doesn't wants to face social reality or thinks socialist like planning can be implemented just by convincing capitalists it's advantages for the entire society (somewhat like the old utopian socialism / fabianism)... or, it can be used as an ideological cover-up to sell the dream of a brighter future but without questioning the billonarie class, the concentration of capital or the property of the means of production, while avoiding taking explicit positions in every class struggle instance.

I think this new version is the latter case, a bad rehearsal used as a veil of the ascent of fascism in the States.

>>nahuel+Bi
> I think this new version is the latter case, a bad rehearsal used as a veil of the ascent of fascism in the States.

I've found over time that one man's utopia is another's hellish nightmare. This is true of every utopia and should be a pretty strong argument against implementing them at all.

>>throww+Fm
I see this in some cities. They are very clean looking, no litter, no graffiti, very shiny windows. Then you think about how the people must be treated to make this be true.

>>direwo+oA
> Then you think about how the people must be treated to make this be true.

People who have all their needs met (food and safety, social, etc) tend to want to make the world around them better. I would wager the nice looking places are more likely to have well-treated people.

Places that look like dumps are the ones more likely to be populated by people who are treated poorly.

>>mullin+9G
unrealistic expectation. The city is hyper–clean because anyone who litters is shot.