|
MP3
ALBUM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DUBROOM
ARTICLE SECTION |
|
|
| Neoconservativism:
The Cult of Techno-socialism |
Neoconflict:
Who is the Enemy?
The actions taken by the Bush Administration
in the aftermath of 9-11 have caused
muckrakers from across the political
spectrum to take a closer look at the hidden
hand guiding the current President.
Researchers, both left and right, have
identified the same enemy: a faction of the
elite known as neoconservatives. The
exposure has led to mounting opposition
against the neoconservative agenda from
numerous grassroots activists.
Now, several
neoconservatives are launching a
counterattack.
|
|
The strategy is one of vilification. In an article
for National Review, Michael Rubin characterized
the neocons' opponents as anti-Semites obsessed
with conspiracy theories (Rubin). Max Boot
continued with the "conspiracy theory"
angle, claiming that the neocons' opponents have
overactive imaginations:
“A cabal of neoconservatives has hijacked the
Bush administration's foreign policy and
transformed the world's sole superpower into a
unilateral monster. Say what? In truth, stories
about the 'neocon' ascendancy-and the group's
insidious intent to wage preemptive wars across
the globe-have been much exaggerated. And by
telling such tall tales, critics have twisted the
neocons' identities and thinking on U.S. foreign
policy into an unrecognizable caricature.”
(Boot)
Why have the neocons' retaliation been so
aggressive? Do they simply wish to "set the
record straight"? Are Rubin and Boot merely
trying to correct several misconceptions over
neoconservatism? The tone of their rhetoric and
apologetics suggest another motivation:
obfuscation. The neocons realize that continued
exposure will eventually lead to the destruction
of even the most well constructed disguise. One
individual who realizes that the neocons have
camouflaged their real intentions is Pulitzer
Prize winning author Seymour Hersh. Hersh
characterized the neocons in the following way:
"...one of the things that you could say is,
the amazing thing is we are been taken over
basically by a cult, eight or nine
neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the
government" (Hersh). Cults are usually very
adept at the concealment game. Many times the
masquerade is so effective that a group's own
members do not even realize they are part of a
cult. What lies at the center of the cult of
Neoconservatism?
The Neoconservative cult has always paraded around
under a patriotic, pro-American, anticommunist
facade. What lies behind this veneer? Frank
Fischer answers this question in his book
Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise:
"...neoconservativism is at base an elitist
ideology aimed at promoting a new group of
conservative technocrats." (172)
What is a "technocrat?" A technocratic
society, or Technocracy, can be defined as
follows:
“Technocracy, in classical political terms,
refers to a system of governance in which
technically trained experts rule by virtue of
their specialized knowledge and position in
dominant political and economic institutions.”
(Fischer 17)
Professor Carroll Quigley also wrote about a
dictatorship of "experts," suggesting
that a cognitive elite "will replace the
democratic voter in control of the political
system" (Quigley 866). Of just such a
democracy of "experts," Freemason and
Fabian socialist H.G. Wells stated:
“The world's political organization will be
democratic, that is to say, the government and
direction of affairs will be in immediate touch
with and responsive to the general thought of the
educated whole population.” (The Open
Conspiracy: H.G. Wells on World Revolution, 26)
Literary critic and author W. Warren Wagar
comments on this statement:
“Read carefully. He did not say the world
government would be elected by the people, or that
it would even be responsive to the people just to
those who were ‘educated.’” (Wells, The Open
Conspiracy: H.G. Wells on World Revolution, 26)
Wells would elaborate on the concept of
Technocracy in his novel entitled The Shape of
Things to Come. Disguised as "science
fiction," Wells' roman a' clef propagandized
the masses on behalf of world government. In its
pages, one finds an elucidating portrait of the
technocratic tradition that spawned
neoconservativism.
The Technocratic Roots of Neoconservatism
In The Shape of Things to Come, Wells calls
Technocracy an "expressive and significant
word." In The Technocrats: Prophets of
Automation, Henry Elsner states that Technocracy
became the "new word of 1932" (1). With
the Depression sinking to its nadir, the
technocratic Weltanschauung "exploded into
public attention" and "marked the
conversation of millions of Americans" (1).
The epidemic scope of this ideational contagion is
made evident by the prolific media exposure that
it enjoyed:
“In the closing months of 1932, as the
Depression deepened and national politics seemed
to be drifting helplessly, speculations about
Technocracy swept across the country in almost
every available form. The high point was reached
in January, 1933. The New York Times alone had no
less than sixty articles on Technocracy that
month. Forty-one periodical articles and seventeen
books and pamphlets on Technocracy were included
in the standard indexes for the beginning of
1933.”(7)
In The Shape of Things to Come, Wells succinctly
characterizes this phase of popularity as an
"outbreak." Indeed, the 30s witnessed
the rampant metastasis of technocratic thought.
Elaborating on the epidemic of Technocracy, Wells
writes:
“Everywhere in that decadence, amidst that
twilight of social order, engineers,
industrialists and professors of physical science
were writing and talking constructive policies.
They were invading politics.”
Wells characterizes the men who would comprise the
technocratic movement as follows:
“Now the skilled and directive men of the
collapsing order of the twentieth century were of
an altogether livelier quality. Their training was
not traditional but progressive, far more
progressive than that of any other class. They
were inured to fundamental changes in scope,
method and material. They ceased to be acquiescent
in the political and financial life about them
directly they found their activities seriously
impeded.” (The Shape of Things to Come)
Wells proceeds to reveal a Fabian strategy of
gradual ideological assimilation: "The
movement spread from workshop to workshop and from
laboratory to laboratory with increasing rapidity
all over the world" (The Shape of Things to
Come). Indeed, Technocracy did spread. James
Dowell Crabtree expands on the pandemic breadth of
this ideational contagion:
“Technocracy has spread from America to other
parts of the world. In many recent articles, the
People's Republic of China's new generation of
leaders have been called 'technocrats,' as were
some leaders in the former Soviet Union.” (148)
In fact, technocratic concepts have pervaded the
very fabric of socialist totalitarian regimes
throughout history. Author Frank Fischer
elaborates:
“In practice, the technocratic concept of the
administrative state has been most influential in
the socialist world of planned economies. Given
their emphasis on comprehensive economic and
social planning, the technocratic theory is
ready-made both to guide and to legitimate the
centralized bureaucratic decision-making systems
that direct most socialist regimes. Easily aligned
with the ideas and techniques of scientific
planning, particularly those shaped by Marxist
economists, technocratic concepts have played an
important role in the evolution of socialist
theory and practice.” (25)
It comes as little surprise that the technocratic
movement would initially pledge its support to
Franklin D. Roosevelt's overtly Marxist New Deal.
Indeed, many adherents of Technocracy believed
FDR's policies for economic recovery would
facilitate the nation's final metamorphosis into a
Technocracy. In the early days of the 1932
election, economist Henry A. Porter published
Roosevelt and Technocracy. The book concerned
itself with a pivotal question: "Will
TECHNOCRACY be the 'New Deal?'" (45). Based
on his examination of New Deal policies, Porter
gravitated towards the affirmative.
In fact, Porter voiced his resounding approval of
FDR and other closely aligned New Deal liberals:
“Only skillful statesmanship--the statesmanship
of a Roosevelt, and sound economic principles —
the principles of Technocracy, can lead us out of
the valley of Chaos and Despair into which we are
plunging.” (71)
There was good reason for the technocratic
movement's initial support of Roosevelt. The
socialist founder of the Nationalist movement,
Edward Bellamy, heavily influenced FDR. Bellamy
authored Looking Backward, 2000-1887, another
piece of sci-fi predictive programming literature
that proselytized readers on behalf of global
socialism. James Crabtree synopsizes the book as
follows:
“Inadvertently, Edward Bellamy and his Looking
Backward, 2000-1887 tapped into the latent
American faith in technology as the solution to
humanity's every problem. Looking Backward is a
science fiction novel, telling the story of a man
from 1887 thrust into the future and learning of
all the changes that had taken place in America
during the intervening century. In the year 2000
all wants are met. Society has eliminated
non-progressive institutions that were corrupt in
the 1880s and replaced them with a government-run
industrial state. In Looking Backward everyone
could retire at the age of 45 after a life of
serving in a job for which he or she was best
suited. Bellamy's future was indeed Utopian.
Bellamy characterized society as machine. Whereas
in 1887 it was a machine badly managed and
inefficient, in the year 2000 society was well
run. His 'everyman' character, Julian West, found
himself in a future where the 'regime of the great
consolidations of capital' had been overthrown and
the 'concentration of management and unity of
organization' had taken control. Whether he meant
to or not, Bellamy had defined the managerial
concept of society. What is more important, he
gave many people an ideal of an industrial, or
technological, state towards which to strive.
(7-8) ”
Looking Backward would later become
"officially recommended reading for members
of the Technocratic movement" (Crabtree 8).
In fact, the Nationalist movement that sprouted
from Bellamy's sci-fi predictive programming could
be considered "a precursor to the
Technocrats, and its members
'pre-Technocrats'" (Crabtree 8). Henry Elsner
delineates the various commonalities shared by the
technocratic movement and Bellamy's Nationalist
movement:
“Despite differences in detail, a number of the
basic principles of organization are remarkably
similar in Bellamy's and in technocratic. (1) The
organization of all industries into a few
large-scale, publicly owned units, administered by
technical experts who are selected from within the
ranks of the units concerned. (2) A bureaucratic
rather than an industrial-democratic organization
of the workplace. (3) Equal, independent income
issued to all members of society as a right of
citizenship. (4) Income distribution through a
nonmonetary accounting system wherein the
registration of items purchased serves as an
automatic means of estimating future production
requirements. (5) The elimination of a political
government, i.e., officials other than those at
the heads of the productive, distributive, and
professional units, and the abolition of political
parties. (221)”
Yet, Elsner correctly identifies various
differences between Bellamyism and Technocracy
(223). These dissimilarities suggest that
Bellamyism acted as a conceptual segue, "a
transition between an older, essentially
pre-industrial 'utopian' societal socialism, and
technocracy" (223). Indeed, Technocracy did
appear on the horizon and would give way to the
New Deal. Shortly after being sworn into office,
Roosevelt outlined his plan for economic and
social recovery in the book Looking Forward
(Crabtree 105-06). The title itself seemed to be
an allusion to Bellamyism:
“By picking 'Looking Forward' for the title,
Roosevelt almost certainly thought to follow in
Bellamy's footsteps and produce his own version of
Looking Backward that would serve as a model for
future society.” (Crabtree 106)
In Looking Forward, Roosevelt wrote: "A
greater efficiency [in government] than we have
heretofore seen is urgent" (71). Within this
statement, one immediately discerns the
technocratic preoccupation with governmental
efficiency. This preoccupation is probably
attributable to the mutual doctrinal foundation of
both Technocracy and New Deal liberalism:
Progressivism. In particular, the ideational
strand of Bellamyism is evident.
The precursory technocratic concepts of Bellamy
found some fragmentary expression through the
policies of the New Deal. One manifestation of
Bellamyism was the Social Security Act, which was
inspired by a retired physician named Dr. Francis
Townsend (Crabtree 105). Townsend's concepts were
cribbed from Bellamy's Looking Backward (Crabtree
104). Among one of his theoretical policies was a
federal program that would have allocated $200 a
month to unemployed citizens over the age of sixty
(Crabtree 104). According to Townsend's
conjectural program, the recipients of this
financial assistance would have thirty days within
which they would be required to spend the $200
(Crabtree 104).
While the Townsend Bill did not enjoy passage by
Congress, it did inspire the Social Security Act
that was successfully signed into law later
(Crabtree 105). Diffuse in its transmission,
technocratic thought remained at the root of this
New Deal machination. Crabtree explains:
“In this way, one might say that the Technocrats
did indeed have an indirect influence on the New
Deal, by way of one of the contributors to their
doctrine (Bellamy) to an activist who espoused
their ideas of guaranteed income (Townsend) and
finally into law.” (105)
In addition to this program of "guaranteed
income," FDR's administration would introduce
a plethora of government agencies. These would
included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC),
the Public Works Administration (PWA), the
Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), and,
most notably, the National Recovery Administration
(NRA) (Crabtree 106). What was initially a small
federal government was soon transformed into a
massive bureaucracy. In some ways, this new
"[c]entralized and functional" monolith
was similar to the continental administration
promoted by Technocracy Inc. (Crabtree 106).
Moreover, its impact upon America's Federal
government would leave a "permanent
mark" (Crabtree 106). Big government was born
and Technocracy's rise in the West had begun in
earnest.
Historically, FDR's overtly socialistic policies
clashed with the anti-statist sentiments of many
Americans. Yet, neoconservatives, who have been
consistently characterized as
"anticommunist" and
"pro-American," supported the New Deal.
Irving Kristol, the "godfather of
neoconservatism," states in his book
Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea that
neocons: "...accepted the New Deal in
principle..." (x). Later in his book, Kristol
writes:
“In a way, the symbol of the influence of
neoconservative thinking on the Republican party
was the fact that Ronald Reagan could praise
Franklin D. Roosevelt as a great American
president-praise echoed by Newt Gingrich a dozen
years later, when it is no longer so
surprising.” (379)
Why were neoconservatives so amicable towards the
socialism of the New Deal? The answer is because
Roosevelt's Marxist proclivities harmonized with
the neoconservative variety of Technocracy. It is
interesting to note that "godfather"
Kristol was a Trotskyist in his youth. Kristol
makes it clear that he is unrepentant: "I
regard myself lucky to have been a young
Trotskyist and I have not a single bitter
memory" (13). The statist tradition found in
Marxism is also carried on by the neocons. This is
another point made clear by Kristol: "Neocons
do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about
the growth of the state in the past century,
seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable"
("The Neoconservative Persuasion").
Marxist economic theory remains firmly embedded
within neoconservative ideology. Several
neoconservative ideologues have espoused socialist
ideas. Arch-neocon William F. Buckley has written:
" Congress shall appropriate funds for social
welfare only for the benefit of those states whose
per capita income is below the national
average" (qutd. in Epperson 49). Commenting
on Buckley's statement, researcher Ralph Epperson
writes:
“This writer [Buckley] advocated a newer brand
of Marxism: "From each state according to its
ability, to each state according to its
needs" (emphasis added). This writer
advocated that the national government divide the
wealth, taking it from the wealthier states and
giving it to the less productive. Pure Marxism,
except the writer involved both the state and the
federal governments rather than just the federal
government as Marx envisioned. This is only
expanding Marx one step: the result is the same.
Property is distributed by the government just as
before. The shock is that this new thought came
from the pen of William F. Buckley, Jr., hardly a
paragon of Marxism. But notice that Buckley's
intent is the same as that of Marx: to use
government to redistribute Consumption and Capital
Goods. (Epperson 49)”
No doubt, these Marxist proclivities were a
consequence of neoconservativism's technocratic
heritage. Of course, there are those who would
argue that the technocratic tradition has been at
variance with Marxism. Indeed, technocratic and
Marxist theoreticians have feuded on occasion.
Yet, the common thread of state socialism binds
both, as is evidenced by their closely aligned
economic policies and virtually identical
outcomes. The petty differences between
theoreticians become inconsequential. Technocracy
was a logical outgrowth of earlier variants of
socialism. The ideational continuum appears to
have been a drift from Bellamyism to Technocracy
to New Deal socialism. Neoconservativism is the
latest segment in this larger continuity of
thought.
From Technocratic to Technetronic
Since the 1970s, the next developmental stage of
Technocracy "has been both theorized and
hailed under the banner of
'postindustrialism'" (101). Examining this
shift in technocratic thinking, Fischer states:
"contemporary technocratic theories are now
theories of postindustrial society" (101).
Yet, some technocratic ideologues regard
"postindustrialism" and
"postindustrial society" as potentially
misunderstood or derisive characterizations. One
such ideologue is Zbigniew Brzezinski, former
national security advisor to President Carter and
the chief inspiration for the geostrategy being
currently implemented by the neocons. Eschewing
the "postindustrial" portraits of
Technocracy, Brzezinski fancies the euphemism of
"technetronic" society (101).
Brzezinski's "technetronic" model is no
less elitist or anti-democratic than its
theoretical progenitors. According to Brzezinski,
this new stage in Technocracy's evolution will
witness the ascendance of a
"scientific/technical elite" that would
seize control of the "essential flow of
information and production" (Fischer 103).
This epistemological cartel would subsequently
direct its consolidations of knowledge toward the
scientific subjugation of the masses. Fischer
elaborates:
“Increasingly, scientific knowledge will be used
directly to plan almost every aspect of economic
and social life. In the process, Brzezinski avers,
class conflict will assume new forms and modes:
Knowledge and culture will replace material needs
in the struggle between the scientific/technical
elite and the masses of people who will have to be
integrated into and subordinated in the
postindustrial system.” (103)
Although accurate, Fischer's synopsis of
Brzezinski's vision is stated in somewhat
euphemistic terms. Yet, Brzezinski's own portrait
is far more authoritarian in character. In Between
Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era,
Brzezinski more vividly describes the
"gradual appearance of a more controlled and
directed society" (252). With painful candor,
the former national security advisor proceeds to
paint his technocratic picture for the future:
“Such a society would be dominated by an elite
whose claim to political power would rest on
allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered
by the restraints of traditional liberal values,
this elite would not hesitate to achieve its
political ends by the latest modern techniques for
influencing public behavior and keeping society
under close surveillance and control.” (252)
In short, Brzezinski's "technetronic"
society, the "postindustrial"
incarnation of Technocracy, is the
"scientific dictatorship" advocated by
Aldous Huxley. This "scientific
dictatorship" has always represented the
fulfillment of technocratic doctrine. Akin
reiterates:
“The technocrats attempted to pull all of these
strands--their faith in positivistic science;
their mechanistic view of man with his essentially
animal-like irrationality, his desire for
security, abundance, and tranquility; the
organizational imperative caused by natural
inequality; and the dominance of
technology--together into one functional ideal
whole. It resembled Aldous Huxley's Brave New
World and the managerial society that James
Burnham deplored; it could lead equally to B.F.
Skinner's Walden Two.” (148)
This, the technocratic agenda of a fully
functional "scientific dictatorship," is
the objective to which the neoconservatives have
resolutely committed themselves. One needs to look
no further than the Patriot Act, Homeland
Security, and other recent
neoconservative-conceived machinations to see the
intimations of this emergent "scientific
dictatorship."
By now, there should be no more confusion over the
true identity of neoconservatism. They are not the
Godly statesmen endorsed by America's evangelical
Christian establishment. Nor are they the
pro-American anticommunists portrayed by left-wing
ideologues. They are a cult of techno-socialists
and the outgrowth of an older conspiratorial
traditional. The post-September 11 world is
swiftly becoming the tangible enactment of their
Utopian doctrine: Technocracy.
Sources Cited
Akin, William E. Technocracy and the American
Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900-1941.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: California UP, 1977.
Boot, Max. "Think Again: Neocons"
Foreign Policy January/February 2004.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Between Two Ages: America's
Role in the Technetronic Era. New York: Penguin
Books, 1976.
Crabtree, James Dowell. Progressivism, the New
Deal, and the Technocratic Movement of the 1930s.
Dayton, Ohio: Wright State University, 1995.
Elsner, Henry. The Technocrats: Prophets of
Automation. New York: Syracuse UP, 1967.
Epperson, A. Ralph. The Unseen Hand: An
Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of
History. Tucson, Arizona: Publius Press, 1985.
Fischer, Frank. Technocracy and the Politics of
Expertise. Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications, 1990.
Hersh, Seymour. "We've Been Taken Over by a
Cult." Democracy NOW! 26 January 2005.
Kristol, Irving. Neoconservativism: The
Autobiography of an Idea. New York: The Free
Press, 1995.
"The Neoconservative Persuasion." Weekly
Standard, 25 August 2003.
Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope: A History of
the World in our Time. New York: Macmillan, 1966.
Rubin, Michael. "You Must be Likud!"
National Review Online, 19 May 2004.
Wells, Herbert George. The Shape of Things to
Come. 1933. Electronic Text Collection. Ed. Steve
Thomas. U of Adelaide Library. 29 Oct. 2003.
The Open Conspiracy: H.G. Wells on World
Revolution. 1928. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger,
2002.
About the Authors
Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed history and
the shadowy undercurrents of world political
dynamics for roughly eleven years. In 1999, he
completed his Associate of Arts and Science
degree. He is working to complete his Bachelor's
degree, with a major in Communications and a minor
in Political Science. Paul has authored another
book entitled The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The
Dark Side of Social Engineering, From Antiquity to
September 11. Published in November 2002, the book
is available online. It can be purchased as an
e-book (ISBN 1-4033-6798-1) or in paperback format
(ISBN 1-4033-6799-X).
Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The
Hidden Face of Terrorism. He has also written
articles for Paranoia Magazine and B.I.P.E.D.: The
Official Website of Darwinian Dissent. He has an
Associate of Arts and Science. Currently, he is
studying for a bachelor's degree in Communications
at Wright State University. During the course of
his seven-year college career, Phillip has studied
philosophy, religion, and classic literature.
Their book, The Ascendancy of the Scientific
Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic
Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century, is
available online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISCLAIMER |
|
In
case the article on this page was quoted from
another source, the two following statements
apply:
-1- Fair Use policy applies since the quote is for
non-profit educational and research purposes only.
For more information, go to: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
-2- The DUBROOM has no affiliation whatsoever with
the originator of the articles nor is The DUBROOM
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
|
|
|
ADVERTIZEMENT
www.reggaeloops.com |
|
|
|
|
|
