Eva Visser is educated as a historian, works at the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, and pursues a PhD in intellectual history at the Philosophy Department of the Erasmus University Rotterdam. The topic of her thesis is the technological-utopian discourse of the American Technocratic movement, that had its heydays in the 1930s. She contributed a chapter, “Planning the Technate. The Apolitical Politics of the 1930s’ Technocratic Movement in the United States and Europe”, to the publication Depoliticization before Neoliberalism (ed.: A. van Veen & T. Jung) that will be published by Palgrave Macmillan in August this year.
On January 8, a Truth Social post by US President-Elect Donald Trump titled “Oh Canada” which showed an image depicting Canada as part of the U.S., caused the desired uproar; those who were offended were accused of lacking a sense of humor. Since then, however, the U.S. government has expressed an intention to take control of the Panama Canal, has claimed Greenland, and has erased the Gulf of Mexico from American maps. In retrospect, the last line of Trump’s post was most telling: “Together, what a great nation it would be!!!”
(Technocracy Inc., 1940)
The claimed area would approximately encompass the following territory:
However, this map is far from new – it was created almost a century ago by Technocracy Inc.
American expansionist aspirations date back to the beginning of the colonization of the New World and can be summarized by the settlers’ slogan “Go West,” which was underpinned by theologians’ conviction that Christian civilization would move westward. This is also evident in the idea of America’s Manifest Destiny, which posited that the U.S. was destined to span the entire continent according to God’s plan, influencing both the Louisiana Purchase and the war with Mexico, which significantly enlarged U.S. territory in the first half of the 19th century. A secular version of these sentiments merged with the American faith in technology in the ideas of the Technocrats, who sought governance by technology. Technocracy derives from the Greek words techne (skill/making) and kratos (power/rule), and at the time, it did not yet carry the later association with bureaucracy.
The story of the Technocrats is a two-parter: they began as a research group and later evolved into a movement.
In early 1932, a group of scientists and technologists hosted by Colombia University (NY) took the name Committee on Technocracy with the aim of surveying the entire US system of production and distribution, to demonstrate that it could be made significantly more efficient if organized around technological possibilities rather than the market economy, which had contributed to the Great Depression.
Just a few months into their research, the Committee declared that the principal problem of contemporary society was the capitalist Price System (a term they took from sociologist and economist Veblen), in which goods were valued in monetary terms based on arbitrary, subjective criteria, causing inefficiency in production and distribution as well as technological unemployment. However, they also offered good news: if the social and political arrangements lagging behind technological advancement were updated, the impact of technology would be beneficial rather than destructive, and all Americans could be provided with ample food and goods.
The ensuing wave of attention in the press following their statement is hard to overstate. Howard Scott, the Committee’s leader, proved to be highly charismatic ans persuasive speaker, impressing audiences with his command of data on industrial practices and his technological-utopian enthusiasm regarding the promises of technology’s efficiency. As a result, grassroots technocratic organizations seeking to implement the Committee’s findings popped up in both the U.S. and Canada. When pressed for more details on their research conclusions, Scott elaborated on the collapse of contemporary capitalist democracy and the need for a new societal order. Most Committee members regarded Scott’s statements as unscientific, and the Committee inploded in January 1933.
Encouraged by the interest in his ideas – and confident in their purely scientific basis – Scott and a few others founded Technocracy Inc. in March 1933. Its goals were twofold: to promote education and research toward the technologic control ofeconomy and society, and to form a cadre of people capable of acting during the predicted crisis of the existing system. Within a year, Technocracy Inc. had amassed many thousands of dedicated members in both the U.S. and Canada who considered themselves the Technological Army of the New America. The central organization established rules and regulations for the emerging local Sectors and supplied them with educational materials – most notably, the Technocracy Study Course. The Study Course offered lessons on the fundamentals of natural sciences, human nature, natural resources, and energy, introducing “energetism,” a framework in which all matter was quantified as a certain amount of energy.
The Study Course also ellucidated how, in the new state – the Technate of America – society, as well as all production and distribution, would be organized on a continental scale. According to the Technocrats, the nation would need to extend its territorial boundaries and form a union stretching from the North Pole to Panama because, because “[s]uch a country would possess sufficient energy and mineral resources to assure posterity on this continent and continuation of a high energy civilization greater than any the world has thus far seen, for probably a thousand years under technological methods” (Scott, Introduction to Technocracy). Once formed, the Technate would be largely autarkic – able to limit foreign trade and withdraw from the world stage of politics – although it would maintain a superior army to deter invasions.
Technocracy Inc.’s slogan, “Functional Control is Imperative,” expressed the view that governance should be treated as an engineering task. Accordingly, the American Technate would be led by the supreme technologist, the Continental Director, supported by the Directors of the Functional Sequences (into which the production process was divided). Following state education, all citizens would be assigned to the work for which they were best suited. Personal freedom would be limited; however, in exchange, all citizens would receive a uniform, high, fixed income—paid in Energy Certificates—and enjoy a certain level of abundance. Furthermore, the population would benefit from a stable government, economic security, and ample leisure time, as working hours would be significantly curtailed. Since any political system was considered inherently inefficient, Technocracy Inc. considered itself completely apolitical. Besides, since technology would demonstrate the optimal path forward, discussion would be superfluous in the Technate.
Technocracy Inc. was a firmly led organization with a strict code of conduct. Its members were required to conduct themselves in the detached and confident manner appropriate for scientists and technologists. Therefore, the organization emphasized that its members should not employ moralistic or political concepts such as ‘justice,’ ‘right,’ ‘wrong,’ or ‘freedom,’ unless they were objectively analysed . Furthermore, the organization provided clear guidelines for the conduct of meetings, the content and design of publications, the use of its logo, the Technocratic salute, and a dress code—grey, chosen for its neutrality—and more. Membership of Technocracy Inc. was a commitment, and its carefully vetted members often spent several evenings each week at their Sector, partaking in discussion sessions, attending lectures, and following lessons on the Study Course.
For over a decade, Technocracy Inc. was a significant organization; during Scott’s annual tours of the U.S. and Canada, his lectures attracted hundreds—sometimes thousands—of people. However, the predicted inevitable collapse of the economy failed to materialize, and members began to question when and how the organization would assume control—something that was never specified. Furthermore, the organization was disfavored by the American and Canadian governments; from 1941 to 1943, Technocracy Inc. was banned in Canada because it was considered hostile to the state. These setbacks resulted in a decline in membership, although former members often remained interested in politics and governance. For example, Dr. Joshua Haldeman, one of Canada’s leading figures and a Director of Research, left the organization during the latter part of World War II and afterwards flew his family to South Africa in his own plane, where wrote about a plot for a world dictatorship. His daughter became Elon Musk’s mother.
This can be seen either as a coincidence or a continuation; nevertheless, comparing the ideas of the Technocrats and the Trump administration is interesting. The most striking similarities are the proposed land grabs – after which the country would retreat behind a wall of tariffs and rockets – and the belief that technology could bring an efficiency to governance that democracy could not achieve. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) considers data as vital for governance as the Technocrats considered energy. The differences are similarly striking: while the Technocrats sought to abolish the capitalist system and provide all citizens with a uniform income within a stable socio-political framework, the Trump/Musk government champions unfettered capitalism and thrives on disruption and chaos. The Technocrats aspired to govern as a proxy for technology itself, but it appears that technologist Musk seeks to rule directly – either the greater US or Mars.
