Technocracy

Class struggle is not formally part of Technocratic ideology or Howardism. However, rejecting class analysis does not eliminate class structure; it simply removes it from consideration while it continues to operate in reality. If we refuse to account for class asymmetry, we are left negotiating with institutional actors whose moral and political positions are shaped by their material interests within capitalism.

Technocracy and energy accounting would necessarily restructure property relations and alter the distribution of economic power. Those who benefit most from existing property arrangements will predictably frame such restructuring as an attack on “property rights,” “stability,” or “quality of life.” These arguments are not irrational; they reflect incentive alignment. But if a technocratic movement treats these positions as neutral contributions rather than as expressions of structural leverage, it risks embedding compromise into its foundational design.

The result would not be a neutral technate. It would be a technate that preserves tiered advantage under a new administrative vocabulary — for example, through differentiated access to resources or energy allocations that replicate prior hierarchy. In that scenario, energy accounting ceases to function as a universal metric and instead becomes another mechanism layered onto inherited inequality.

Historical examples illustrate how economic power shapes moral justification. Pro-slavery thinkers such as John C. Calhoun did not defend slavery purely through overt cruelty; they framed it as economically rational and socially stabilizing. Similarly, labor exploitation has often been defended as necessary for competitiveness or efficiency. These cases demonstrate that when structural interests are at stake, moral language adapts to preserve them. Without class analysis, even systems that extract labor under asymmetrical conditions can be reframed as policy disagreements rather than as structural domination.

It is true that Howard Scott rejected class struggle on the grounds that energy accounting would ultimately dissolve it. However, that dissolution presumes successful implementation. During transition, class asymmetry remains operative. High-wealth actors possess disproportionate influence over political financing, media ownership, and agenda-setting institutions. As theorists such as Antonio Gramsci observed, dominant classes influence the production of “common sense” narratives that naturalize existing hierarchies. Any activist or reform movement therefore operates within an environment already shaped by property-preserving norms.

Refusing to acknowledge class structure under these conditions does not produce neutrality. It concedes strategic advantage to those who already possess structural leverage. A technocratic movement that ignores class power risks designing institutions that appear objective while remaining vulnerable to capture.

Recognizing class struggle, then, is not a romantic endorsement of perpetual antagonism. It is an acknowledgment of asymmetric incentives in a stratified society. Until those asymmetries are structurally addressed, they will continue to shape moral discourse, political negotiation, and institutional design. Technocracy cannot claim scientific rigor while ignoring structural power. Any system that fails to incorporate class asymmetry into its design risks becoming an instrument of the very hierarchy it seeks to replace.