{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02453385672227674, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.296296296296297, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Capitalism, Socialism, and Technocracy

An alternative to the Hobson’s choice may be called “exitocracy.” In such a regime, exit would be preferred to voice when possible. This would enable people to experiment, as Dewey advocated, but without attempting to understand or predict the ideas and behavior of millions of anonymous others, as technocracy expects us to do. Exit is not a panacea for social problems, but it may be a superior remedy to those offered by technocracy, which make exacting epistemic demands. An exitocracy would facilitate exit by creating a robust private sphere, enabling capitalist competition to provide alternative solutions to people’s personally experienced problems, and an equally robust program of socialist wealth redistribution to enable people to pay for these solutions. Public goods, though, would still have to be provided in traditional technocratic fashion. This raises the question of whether the critique of technocracy is best seen as institutional or, instead, as cultural.