Changes

===Technocracy and Socialism===

===Technocracy and Socialism===

Daniel Bell, an influential sociologist,<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-Bell Daniel Bell]</ref> made a direct comparison between technocracy and early socialist theorists, particularly that of [[Henri de Saint-Simon]]. He wrote that "St. Simon's vision of industrial society, a vision of pure technocracy, was a system of planning and rational order in which society would specify its needs and organize the factors of production to achieve them."<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q6_56x5tB7gC&pg=PA76|last1=Bell|first1=Daniel|year=2008|title=The Coming Of Post-industrial Society|isbn=978-0465097135}}</ref>  Bell concluded that the "administration of things" is the "hallmark of technocracy".  G. D. H. Cole agrees with Bell, that Saint-Simon "anticipated modern notions of technocracy in his insistence on the master-function of the industrial experts and organizers".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s6UgAQAAIAAJ&q=anticipated+modern+notions+of+technocracy+in+his+insistence+on+the&dq=anticipated+modern+notions+of+technocracy+in+his+insistence+on+the&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWiu_hn6_KAhUM6yYKHTxGDGIQ6AEIKjAD|last1=Cole|first1=George Douglas Howard|year=1962|title=A History of Socialist Thought: Socialist thought, the forerunners, 1789-1850, Volume 1|pages=49}}</ref>

Daniel Bell, an influential sociologist,<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-Bell Daniel Bell]</ref> made a direct comparison between technocracy and early socialist theorists, particularly that of [[Henri de Saint-Simon]]. He wrote that "St. Simon's vision of industrial society, a vision of pure technocracy, was a system of planning and rational order in which society would specify its needs and organize the factors of production to achieve them."<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q6_56x5tB7gC&pg=PA76|last1=Bell|first1=Daniel|year=2008|title=The Coming Of Post-industrial Society|isbn=978-0465097135}}</ref>  Bell concluded that the "administration of things" is the "hallmark of technocracy".  [[G. D. H. Cole]] agrees with Bell, that Saint-Simon "anticipated modern notions of technocracy in his insistence on the master-function of the industrial experts and organizers".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s6UgAQAAIAAJ&q=anticipated+modern+notions+of+technocracy+in+his+insistence+on+the&dq=anticipated+modern+notions+of+technocracy+in+his+insistence+on+the&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWiu_hn6_KAhUM6yYKHTxGDGIQ6AEIKjAD|last1=Cole|first1=George Douglas Howard|year=1962|title=A History of Socialist Thought: Socialist thought, the forerunners, 1789-1850, Volume 1|pages=49}}</ref>

 

 

In addition, [[Upton Sinclair]] was very excited<ref>Arthur M. Schlesinger (2003). [http://books.google.com/books?id=UAjls3YykzgC&pg=PA463 The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-1933] Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 463.</ref> about the coming Technocracy movement and lauded its arrival.  He wrote:

In addition, [[Upton Sinclair]] was very excited<ref>Arthur M. Schlesinger (2003). [http://books.google.com/books?id=UAjls3YykzgC&pg=PA463 The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-1933] Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 463.</ref> about the coming Technocracy movement and lauded its arrival.  He wrote: