Naturally, the ideology seems opposed to communism, which suggests it is a bourgeois ideology.

Technocracy is not a bourgeois ideology. It means rule by experts, rather than politicians, and gives decision-making power to experts in those fields, whatever those fields may be.

I don’t think you could call western bourgeois democracies technocracies in the slightest. They sometimes have a thin veneer of “experts”, whose only purpose is to provide justification for the decisions the capitalists already made to increase their profits.

Its 100% a goal of communism to elevate the level of education of all, and empower experts in science, ecology, women’s issues, etc to the level of political decision-making. The main point is that as long as experts don’t constitute a separate class (IE private owners of production who extract value from producers), and we’ve removed the capitalist class, then there shouldn’t be any problems. This was basically Marx’s refutation of Plato’s republic, which idealized a state run by experts (who would be impotent if they hold no economic power, and there’s no such thing as political power without economic power). In short you’ll never get a society run by experts, if economic power remains in the hands of a property-owning class. A technocracy requires a workers state.

I also think there’s a weird “left brain vs right brain” or “liberal arts vs sciences” false-dichotomy that some leftists hold that really makes no sense, which leads to all these strange arguments. Why is there a separation between things like women’s issues, and electrical power distribution into “science” and “not science”? Don’t both fields have experts who analyze evidence and come up with solutions to problems?