The Republic of Virtue and Technocracy
POSTED BY: nanite1018
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 18:42
VIEWED: 6702
PAGE 1 of 4
Hello everyone. This has two purposes, the first being to see if ANYONE has more information on the Republic of Virtue (Robespierre's ideas, one of his speeches was titled that i think). Can't find much, and wikipedia isn't much of a help. So if anyone has information, it's much appreciated. I read about it (some) in my history textbook, and just want more information. After that, probably a discussion about it.
The other is to discuss the idea of technocracy. I cannot make up my mind about it. Nor can i gather much information, particularly not on the ideas of H.G. Wells, Veblen, or Saint-Simon. Can't find any texts of their ideas anywhere, just a little smattering of the basic ideas and such. From what i can gather from wikipedia and web searches, technocracy is basically a meritocracy where technical experts govern and manage society. So i'd like some more info if anyone has some, it'd be much appreciated. In any case, it seems like it might work, and may be a pretty good system. But i'm not sure, partly because it's difficult to get detailed information.
thanks in advance!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Republic of Virtue:
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/virtue.html
Saint-Simonism is a 19th century socialist movement named after Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Count of Saint-Simon.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-simonisme
Thorstein Bunde Velben was a Norwegian-American Sociologist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen
H.G. Wells, of course, is well known. He was an avid socialist, like many intellectuals during the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.G._Wells
I assume everyone is familiar with Wikipedia and know that the information on these sites must not be taken as the final word, but it might offer some degree of introduction to help the discussion along. I am quite unfamiliar with Technocracy. My impression is that it is a socialist movement that attempts to realize the goals of socialism, not through the standard class struggle, but through education and the advancement of science, specifically technology that will, presumably, replace the working classes, thereby (in theory) allowing everyone to rise out of the proletariat and into the bourgeoisie. And reading the above wikipedia sites seems to have reinforced my impression.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Robert Heinlein, the Science fiction author, has written several fiction pieces that touch on technocracy, most notably some of the short stories in The Past Thru Tomorrow
The only other suggestion is the low-tech option: find a *G*O*O*D* public library and read a bunch of books- biographies of Wells, Veblen, etc. Biographies of Robespierre or histories of the French Revolution would probably deal with the Republic of Virtue.
Probably have to mine thru tons of dross to find the nuggets of information you're seeking, tho'- probably take a long time...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, I have no sources because I studied this back during the actual enlightment. I have some gut feelings I remember about it:
1. It was a totally unattainable ideal because it relied on having "the perfect people." No one with vice was a member of the republic, they were exiled, cleansed, etc. which is why all the execusions.
2. Robespierre was completely unwilling to compromise, and when it became clear that his goal was impossible, he went insane.
On technocracy,
The potential problem with this system is one of ideas. The basic flow of ideas, dissent, difference of opinions, when put through a process with some sort of evolutionary controls, is what creates good ideas. Most technocrats operate as a brain trust. Think tanks ponder problems with their strong academic backgrounds, talk with their trusted friends, and all come up with solutions for the world from their version of reality. This tends to be extremely dangerous. The small warped perspective, without conflicting ideas, schemes and plans until it comes up with an untested 'solution' which it then puts into action.
This is essentially what created Bush/Clinton, which is to say Cheney et al.
I'd support a variation of this, but it would have to have some way to get ideas from the public, and some way to remove bad technocrats.
The other major snag in this idea is that it could lead to socialism. A healthy society effects change from within, through the behavior of its citizens, which guide a demand or need for change, which is then instituted. Most of what americans would call 'progress' has come through this process. Whether it's social progress such as civil rights, suffragettes, or scientific progress such as vaccines, alternative fuels, etc., the actions of citizens initiate and steer the course, and the govt. adds only a guiding hand to prevent citizen movements like the KKK from becoming the final change. In a system where decisions are made at a top level by people who by the systems own definition are "superior" to the general populous, the process could potentially degenerate into a top-down decision making process.
The basic flaw in top-down systems is not one that most people usually catch on, which is that no one has a monopoly of ideas. If one takes a look at progress in the soviet union vs. the united state, the trends become clear. At a certain point, the soviets were ahead of us technologically, but as the bureaucracy grew, and the power structure solidified, the top-down process started to take hold. Regional division heads lost the ability to make priority decisions regarding their own projects, whether they be electronics development, or medical research, and ultimately someone at the kremlin was making the choices. This problem led to some rather spectacular FUBARs such as Chernobyl, when a kremlin deputy official over-ruled the local power plant manager and ordered the #4 reactor, which had no cooling system, to fire up. The official knew nothing about nuclear power, and was unaware of the certainty of the result. There are actually quite a few stories like this, and they clearly increase over time. By the 1980s, the rampant chaos of the US had clearly defeated the socially engineered USSR in a race for the technological edge.
I suppose, in theory, you could have a corporatocracy, where corporations had shares in the govt., and paid to run it at a fixed rate.
Generally I think there should be some sort of meritocracy, but I'm no fan of academics or think tanks. Mainly I think the competition of ideas is necessary.
So, I guess my gut feeling is, it could be great, or a disaster, but it depends on the details. Without further design I think it would probably start out okay, and then degenerate into a top-down structure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An example of an actual technocracy would be the free software movement. Most contributions are made freely, their incorporation into the kernel depends on the say-so of the big kahunas or a distributed technical committee (for Debian distro.) Significant bragging rights go to the perspon whose code actually appears in the kernel.
I know this isn't exactly on-topic, but I was thinking about how to create a technocracy that is responsive to public need w/o putting politicians in charge, seeing as 85% or more of politicians are either actively corrupt or go-along-get-along types.
Regulatory agencies, school boards, special districts (water, sanitation, flood control etc.) and bureaus get into trouble when politicians are in charge because most politicans haven't the faintest clue what kind of service they're supposed to be delivering or (more importantly) how best to go about it. Public organizations are usually filled with teachers, engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, accountants etc. who have boots-on-the ground experience that is subverted, wasted, or thwarted by politicians (like Villaraigosa in LA) who want to be seen as some kind of magician. Politicians, when they get involved at all, tend to create dramatic, sweeping, unrealistic sound-bite type "solutions" that usually interfere with sound planning and managment.
Since most public organizations are service organizations, it seems to me that the best way to handle them is to:
1) Define goals. Is the BLM supposed to conserve Federal forests or "get the cut out"? Are schools supposed to be teaching reading, writing, and 'rithmetic, instilling self-confidence, or simply acting in loco parentis?
2) Create a governing board from the employee roster. But because employees can become insular and unresponsive to the people, the governing board must stand for election and at least two proposed governing boards must be put forward.
3) Ensure quality control by creating uniform and intercomparable tests that are published. For schools, it would be a nationwide test. For public hospitals it would be patient outcomes (adjusted for severity of presenting illness for example.)
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The usual.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Technocracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)
Technocracy isn't socialism, nor a socialist movement.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Chernobyl was caused by a low power test, to see if they could safely shutdown the reactor without external electrical power. Turns out they couldn't.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This problem led to some rather spectacular FUBARs such as Chernobyl, when a kremlin deputy official over-ruled the local power plant manager and ordered the #4 reactor, which had no cooling system, to fire up. The official knew nothing about nuclear power, and was unaware of the certainty of the result.
The reactor was already running, it was being shutdown for maintenance.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
Didn't say it was, said it could develop into socialist-style top-down command structure without a careful design.
You may be right on chernobyl, just recalling the story from when it happened. I'm pretty sure I'm right about the bureaucratic detail.
Signym,
There's a disambiuity problem. Technocracy has been used in several instances to mean different things, I think this one was specifically called as a hg wells ref., which meant a rule of the competent. It doesn't really have anything to do with technology. The free software is not a meritocratic oligarchy, it's practically total anarchy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, it is a reference to H.G. Wells style technocracy, or the sort referenced in the wikipedia article under "technocracy (bereaucratic)".
Anyone else have anything good? In terms of websites.
I personally think the Republic of Virtue is wonderful. And possible, but only under the right conditions. Although i disagree with the death penalty and the Terror, i agree with Robespierre's political ideals, at least as far as outlined in his speech about the republic of virtue.
As to technocracy, i really can't make up my mind. I do agree with meritocracy, and i think a world state would be a good thing, if done right. I just feel a little uneasy about the whole anti-democracy sentiment in Wells' ideas. I understand why he felt that way, since many people simply don't seem fit to have an equal say as others (i mean if you can't read, should you be able to vote? And if you are racist, homophobic, and want a theocracy, or wish to establish absolute totalitarian control and ruthlessly slaughter all who oppose you, should you get to vote? I mean, i realise there aren't many like that, but even normal people simply vote with their party nowadays, unthinking. idk).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME