Technocratic Socialism, as a movement, seeks to balance sober construction/implementation of good policy with social activism needed to achieve popular support and desired ends. It can afford some principles that define it and ideally provide for appropriate trust, but not to neglect political realities of participating in a broader pluralism than it would create.
TS is committed to moderate rule-of-law, but also accepts direct action as a method of activism. There is a natural tension between these intuitions, and it is navigable. We desire good laws that shape public behaviour and define the state, and feel that for good laws there generally should be consequences for breaking them, but we recognise that not all present laws are good enough to meet that standard and also recognise that because law is a blunt instrument, there are times when it makes sense to break the law in order to promote the public good (or even to live a reasonable life). There are instances where we support direct action in a fully visible form and encourage activists to meet the legal consequences for their acts, and other instances where we support direct action in an anonymous try-to-get-away-with-it form; the second form is primarily for where laws are particularly despotic, the first for when a law is generally good but too blunt to adequately handle a given situation, but any detailed party position or individual framework of this is presently beyond the scope of a general TS definition. More broadly, we expect direct action to be careful and well-planned, and if it does property damage or similar for it to be based on a relatively concrete analysis of whatever social justice issues are at stake; hanging a banner or embarassing a person may be done on more abstract analyses, and recording/publishing private information may be done as a "fishing" operation, but destroying equipment or more harmful forms of direct action need a very strong justification as they're more incompatible with the norms we generally support as part of our commitment to rule-of-law.More broadly, we expect direct action to be careful and well-planned, and if it does property damage or similar for it to be based on a relatively concrete analysis of whatever social justice issues are at stake; hanging a banner or embarassing a person may be done on more abstract analyses, and recording/publishing private information may be done as a "fishing" operation, but destroying equipment or more harmful forms of direct action need a very strong justification as they're more incompatible with the norms we generally support as part of our commitment to rule-of-law.More broadly, we expect direct action to be careful and well-planned, and if it does property damage or similar for it to be based on a relatively concrete analysis of whatever social justice issues are at stake; hanging a banner or embarassing a person may be done on more abstract analyses, and recording/publishing private information may be done as a "fishing" operation, but destroying equipment or more harmful forms of direct action need a very strong justification as they're more incompatible with the norms we generally support as part of our commitment to rule-of-law.
As a socialist philosophy, it is tempting to take part in the broad political solidarity that exists between state-socialist and anarchosocialist perspectives, but this solidarity is not to be entered lightly; an unlimited commitment to an ill-defined solidarity rightly taints any movement that participates in it, regardless of the focus of that kinship. Defining the shape of appropriate solidarity, and feeling no obligation to step beyond it, is a means of preserving reasonability. This is particularly important because TS emphasises rule-of-law and institutions much more than other common forms of socialism, and perceptions of the justness of direct action within a protest are likely to be evaluated on a very different bar by a TS than, say, by an anarchosocialist. Thus: a TS organisation rejects the "nobody talks everybody walks" standard of solidarity often offered between socialists. If direct action is performed which is considered to-be-opposed by a TS org, TSs should not feel obliged to keep quiet about it to police. TS organisations should generally offer to pool resources with other socialist organisations, or offer a reasonable amount of use of TS-managed facilities to such other organisations, as a courtesy. TS organisations should strive to maintain friendly relationships with other socialist organisations, and to take part in conferences with them, and to take part in common causes with them as possible, with the understanding that no such courtesies may be done as part of an expectation of lack of public criticism of such organisations, nor as part of any practice that requires practices of democratic centralism, nor with expectation that such cooperation may occur under "corrective" conversational privilege for some identities. Also, claiming to be socialist or any essentialist definition of socialism are not sufficient to trigger what solidarity is normally due; socialist organisations that are either specifically objectionable or that cross general ideological lines that a TS org finds important (e.g. supports ethnic homelands) are not due solidarity.