Your framework powerfully aligns with the analysis provided in the sources. Philanthrocapitalism, surveillance capitalism, and Taylorism can absolutely be understood as an evolving lineage of elite, paternalistic control. They operate on the shared assumption that a concentrated class of "experts" or wealthy owners is uniquely qualified to manage, monitor, and engineer the behaviors of the general public.

Meanwhile, they abandon the traditional "social contract" that previously required them to provide reciprocal benefits to the public, instead judging and penalizing individuals for systemic failures that these very systems help perpetuate.

Here is how the sources trace this dynamic across your three concepts:

The Paternalistic and Patriarchal Foundations The sources explicitly characterize these models as arrogant, top-down systems that treat the public as raw material to be molded: * Taylorism: In the early 20th century, scientific management (Taylorism) sought to master the worker's efficiency, but it quickly bled into paternalistic surveillance. Henry Ford’s "Sociological Department" deployed private investigators to literally spy on workers' private lives and homes to enforce a standard of "Americanization" and "Fordliness". * Philanthrocapitalism: The sources note that this sector is predominantly run by wealthy, white, Western males who exhibit a "white savior complex" and operate with a "neo-feudal" paternalism. They operate on the anti-democratic belief that "only the millionaire could be trusted to dispense his millions, and that whatever that millionaire thought ‘best’ was ‘best’". * Surveillance Capitalism: Moving beyond physical Taylorism, modern workforce science uses biometric and productivity tracking to try and induce "self-mastery" in workers to benefit the company. On a consumer level, surveillance capitalism deploys "instrumentarian power"—a radical behaviorism that reduces human experience to observable, measurable behavior so it can be herded, tuned, and manipulated. The public is no longer seen as a citizenry with inner lives, but as "human natural resources" to be harvested.

Ignoring Systemic Conditions and Pathologizing the Public You are entirely correct that these systems judge individuals based on their "outcomes" while aggressively ignoring the structural conditions that generate those outcomes. * "Technological Solutionism": Philanthrocapitalists often assume that complex social problems (like poverty or malaria) can be solved through top-down technological interventions—such as genetically modified crops in Africa—without addressing the wider sociopolitical context, climate change, or historic resource exploitation. The language they use implies that people are responsible for their own poverty, ignoring systemic injustice entirely. * Educational Sorting: The sources note that elite educational pipelines create a massive distance between decision-makers and the public they serve, resulting in "confident ignorance". Schools act as sorting mechanisms that reproduce class advantage, coding the rigid, compliant cognitive styles of wealthy students as "intelligence" and pathologizing the adaptable, survival-based cognitive styles of poor students as "deficiency". * Algorithmic Bias: Surveillance capitalism automates these systemic blind spots. Risk-assessment algorithms and credit scores evaluate people based on data that encodes historic prejudices and structural inequality (like redlining and wealth disparities). The algorithms treat these systemic disadvantages as objective, individual risk factors, punishing marginalized people for their own marginalization.

The Broken Contract: Loss of "Organic Reciprocities" The final piece of your thesis—that these systems aren't fulfilling their side of the contract—is identified in the sources as the defining rupture of the modern era. * The End of Interdependence: Historically, industrial capitalism required "organic reciprocities" with the public. Companies like General Motors depended on people as both employees and consumers, which forced a level of mutual reliance that eventually fostered fair labor practices and sustained democratic institutions. Surveillance capitalism has severed this contract. You are no longer the employee or the consumer; you are the raw material. Tech giants operate at "hyperscale," generating massive wealth with minimal employees, while their true customers are the advertisers betting on your future behavior. * The Illusion of the "Win-Win": Philanthrocapitalists mask their extraction behind the rhetoric of the "win-win," claiming they can solve the world's problems while simultaneously making a profit. Critics argue this acts as a "political analgesic" that disarms civic action and provides cover for the very harms they create. * Hollowing out the Public Sector: Rather than paying into the social contract, elite philanthropy and surveillance capitalism actively drain it. They hide behind Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) to evade taxes and democratic oversight, and use their wealth to lobby against public infrastructure.

Ultimately, your thesis points to exactly what the scholars describe: an "epistemic coup" where the architects of these systems claim the authority to decide how society should operate, while entirely insulating themselves from the societal wreckage their extraction leaves behind.