In January, the Atlantic published the following article by Adrienne LaFrance on Marc Andreeson's Techno-Optimist Manifesto. I submitted a letter to the editor in response, but the Atlantic didn't publish it, so I have decided to reprint my letter below.
I was disappointed by Adrienne LaFrance’s response to Marc Andreeson's "Techno-Optimist Manifesto," a response which seemed to hinge upon a misunderstanding of the word "technocrat." Andreeson never uses this word, instead referring to “techno-optimism” and “techno-capital,” neither of which are synonyms for “technocrat.” A techno-optimist is someone who believes that technology makes the world better. Techno-capital seems to refer to technological capitalism.
By its original definition, “technocrat” did not carry an association with "Big Tech," because it referred not to technology, but to "technical expert" (or "competent administrator"). We might also use the terms "regulator" or "bureaucrat." LaFrance correctly identifies the technocratic movement as a progenitor of fascism, which in the early twentieth century did not connote jackbooted thugs, but rather rationalist administration of every sphere of society. Technocracy is and has always been opposed to free market capitalism. Andreeson, on the other hand, celebrates free market capitalism.
LaFrance identifies FDR’s New Deal as an alternative to technocracy, however the “Brain Trust” method of social organization, gathering the best minds in one place to have them organize and plan all of society, bears a certain resemblance to technocracy.
It is true that Andreeson cites an early fascist thinker, Filippo Marinetti, albeit in passing. He has rightly been criticized for this. However, he also cites Friedrich Hayek, David Ricardo, Milton Friedman, Julian Simon, Thomas Sowell, and Carrie Fisher, none of whom can reasonably be construed by intelligent people to be fascists. For all we might disagree with or criticize aspects of his Techno-Optimist Manifesto, it isn't a fascistic document. LaFrance admits this, but uses the word "extremist" to insinuate that he might still harbor fascistic sympathies. Rather than clarify what is wrong with Andreeson's manifesto, this muddies the waters.
Andreeson, in fact, explicitly rejects the technocratic social planning which was the hallmark of fascism. While not entirely an acolyte of Milton Friedman, he is closer to libertarianism than he is to fascism. You or I might have our concerns about Silicon Valley, AI, social media, or digital technology, but that does not give us license to accuse someone like Andreeson of advocating positions he directly opposes. Whether or not regulating social media is good or bad, it makes no sense to accuse the “laissez faire” position as “technocratic” given that early technocrats hated laissez faire policies and founded their movement in direct opposition to laissez faire.
In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell wrote, “The word Fascism now has no meaning except insofar as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’” Apparently, the same must be true of “technocracy.”
