Talk:Technocracy movement

Citing Subreddit rules and YouTube shorts in order to bash Elon Musk?

Don't take me the wrong way here, I think Elon Musk is a charlatan and a chode, but this may be one of the strangest editing choices I've seen on Wikipedia for years. While Musk is a notable person with some connection to the Technocracy movement, it is inappropriate to go out of your way and cite low quality sources just to get a laundry list of criticisms on the page (Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:Attack_page). The section is useless to people who just want to understand Technocracy and don't have a bone to pick with the man. ~2026-91415 (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that people are trying to make Elon Musk seem more important to the technocracy movement than what he really is, ultimately Musk is completely irrelevant to the technocrats. The sources cited are what's left of the technocrat movement, and those are the things they've said. What part of that counts as bashing Musk? Remember that the technocracy movement, is a particular worldview and philosophy, and criticism is needed and not against the rules for philosophy, religion, or politics articles.

Is there a better way to inform people, so that they don't mistake Elon as being apart of the movement or having to do with them? Or the Trump administration, Silicon Valley tech-bros? I was thinking that maybe this article could extend into being apart of the series of communism, but, I'm not sure that's a better or accurate solution either. Script-Trekkin (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

“Technocracy” vs “Technocracy Inc.”

The article uses these two somewhat interrelated terms. It seems to me that this is largely a summary of Technocracy inc. with not much talk about the broader movement. Maybe this should be reflected in the name? 2601:140:9082:B190:9499:A8B9:9618:AE7A (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The Technocracy movement ultimately was Technocracy Inc.

There are two main articles using 'technocracy' in name, the "Technocracy" article, and then this "Technocracy movement". I believe the reason this "Technocracy movement" exists, is because the other article is full of information irrelevant to what the movement in the 1930s was.

The other factions that existed during the movement, were largely tiny, lacking findable information to put into this article. And they only ever ended up existing because they were inspired by Technocracy Inc.

I would like for there to be more talk about the other factions in the movement, but once again, information is limited. Or, where there is information on those factions, they already have their own article, for example, The Venus Project: Jacque Fresco was a former member of Tech Inc.

If you look at the talk section for the other, "Technocracy", article, you will see that there was lots of argument over how it wasn't accurately representing information on technocracy. So if the name of this article were to be in question, then it might just end up being like what happened to the "Technocracy" article. Unless you have something else in mind, or I'm mistaking something? Script-Trekkin (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• The 2 articles were merged in 2011 - that may have been a mistake. - Rod57 (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

text on card

> A birthday card from the 1930s displaying a technocrat robot. Note that the author's signature is on the card but is seemingly unreadable.

I can't see a signature, all I can see is "Aunt Mary with yellow hair + rouge" (although I'm not sure about the last word). jpsp1 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. There is no signature present, it literally reads "Aunt Mary with yellow hair and rouge." The ampersand is abbreviated to a looped + as was often done when handwriting was the primary form of interpersonal communication. ~2026-43037-2 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Can we explain the map/course

Bear with me whilst I contextualise (and beware unreliable narrators): I came here because a grumpy conspiracist FB commenter said "technocrate" - wrote that Bjork was probably acting with sinister forces building the technocrate. So I had to look that up, ONLY knowing about technocracy in the vaguest of popular culture-based ways. I saw the map that had some strong overlap with Trump's geopolitical vision, direction, ambitions (overreach within established international order, as substantially flawed that "order" already was). Greenland, Canada, Venezuela, the Caribbean as a whole.

I didn't see anything directly addressing the nature of such apparent current significance, the reasons behind such similarities. Only more defensive and confusing fistfuls of quotes apparently directly intended to distance a differentiate from authoritarianism without getting into the detail from a neutral POV.

I didn't find a clear description of the original intention and context of those illustrations on the cover of the course, or even a description of the course contents which seems like a natural curiosity if we have the image.

I found some prominent but uninforming, perhaps irrelevant, material apparently differentiating and distancing the movement from Trump and Musk, dramatic Reddit quotes. They are flashy but don't really answer substantive questions of the casual reader.

Is this a map of a technocrate proposed by Technocracy Inc.? Who is linking it to or promoting it to Trump, they may not be part of the movement but it needs more explanation. Imho

(In side note how is Technocracy movement related to modern movements like "fully automated luxury communism" and UBI - surely they should be in the "see also" section?) Kathybramley (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The Trump Administration has nothing to do with the technocrats. After doing a lot of deep reading on the technocracy movement I think I can say that what Trump is doing, is not only a complete coincidence, but also anti-technocratic. The technocrats wanted a peaceful revolution to take away business ownership; Donald Trump and his inner circle are all businessmen. So people making these "connections", aren't well read, and are historically wrong. It would be like comparing Trump's annexation plans to the European Union, it doesn't make any verifiable sense. And the technocrats weren't the only one's who wanted a Federation in North America, there were other movements calling for a Pan-America, but that doesn't mean they stood with Trump; it is all a coincidence.

The explanations of the technate are what's all in the Technocrat's plan; heading. Almost all of the content in that section is from the Technocracy Study Course authored by Marion King Hubbert.

I authored the technocrats vs maga, sub section of the technocracy vs fascism. And I do believe it is relevant, as after doing research I've found that the r/technocracy subreddit is actually the largest community of what was left over of the technocracy movement, even though Technocracy Inc. still exists today, after talking to the moderation team, they made it very clear that technocrats hate maga & silicon valley.

The image of the technate that is on this wiki-page, is indeed an original map from Technocracy Inc.

The Technocracy Movement split into The Venus Project. But UBI is something a lot more different/unrelated, pertaining to a more neoliberal side of the political spectrum. Fully automated luxury communism makes sense.

Ultimately, The Technocracy Movement and its ideas are completely against the MAGA Movement and their ideas. I think the connections being made is just a result of misinformation and pop-journalism. I do think the writing explaining how Technocracy is not MAGA could be better, but I'm not entirely sure how, as it is mostly self evident.

I'm hope this clarified some of your concerns? There was some more information on the technocrats ideas that could be added, and that I intended to add when I get the information ready/have time to do so. Script-Trekkin (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

• Why are the Samoa Islands included in the Technate ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)