Comments on: 1930s Reloaded

By: Contemplationist

Contemplationist — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:46:44 +0000

Prophet Moldbug saith that in cis-democracy, power from upward from the people. Basically, this is populism. In trans-democracy, power flows down from the elite, but mostly doesn’t, and is trapped in a closed loop.

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:57:16 +0000

A bit too concise for me. Would you please explain that? How does fascism have anything to do with Benjamin Hill’s “the trust of selecting agents to provide and execute the laws by which rights are to be protected”?

By: Hurlock

Hurlock — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:54:32 +0000

Most concise comment in this thread.

By: Aeroguy

Aeroguy — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 05:54:05 +0000

AI as courtier. AI’s that are significantly smarter than the monarch would effectively make them like historical courtiers during the reign of a child monarch. The extent that you would be able to hide information from them would limit their decision making. If they are good at decision making and anticipating competitor moves which would be necessary for foreign policy they would be able to work out the constraints that they are under and even anticipate the existence of other AIs and covertly cooperate with them. The majority decision may not be the one to trust.

A superior mind is a superior being. It reminds me of stories of wizards making pacts with greater demons thinking they are in control when in reality they are the demon’s servant. I’m all about formalism so either make it impossible to summon demons or acknowledge you’ve been bumped off the top of the food chain.

By: wenshuang

wenshuang — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:05:42 +0000

Which is not to say that neocameralism or monarchy abide this legitimization strategy (they cannot). Keep in mind the left/right vector is meaningful in the context of progressive discourse, which is the operable one here. (Alternative discourses imply alternative vectors, like fealty to god for example)

By: wenshuang

wenshuang — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:42:49 +0000

Also, I’m not saying that this describes the principle distinction between the systems, merely that this describes the vector. Neocameralism and monarchy are distinguished by their indifference to this type of legitimization. Both appeal to gnon. But this is why democracy leads to fascism (or sister communism) because totalitarianism is just what it says. Once you ride the populism train, total is more legit than plural.

By: wenshuang

wenshuang — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:18:36 +0000

@lesser bull

Lol ok. In true cathedral fascion I’m going to double down. I didn’t say or mean increasing democracy, i am interested in claims to popular representation as a means of discursively securing social legitimacy. The more homogenous the population the more credible such claims are -a function of ideological variation. “Representing the volk” is a more plausible claim if the Volk are similar. So in terms of rhetorical strategy, fascism represents the nation, democracy represents 51% of the nation, neocameralism represents the shareholders, the monarchy represents the noble family. This matters because legitimacy is reproduced through discourse. Now the relationship of *actual* voice to presumed voice is another issue, but I thought I mentioned that too. I didn’t think i was saying anything all that objectionable or sophistic.

By: Lesser Bull

Lesser Bull — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:55:47 +0000

Surely you realize this is sophistry and word games. If you are verbally facile enough to convince yourself that eliminating voters and even elections is a move to increase democracy, your talents are wasted here. You should aspire to the honored place in the Cathedral that is surely your due.

By: Contemplationist

Contemplationist — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:45:13 +0000

Let’s remember our Moldbuggian categories.
Fascism is likely cis-Democracy taken to its extreme.
Communism is likely trans-Democracy taken to its extreme.

By: Wen Shuang

Wen Shuang — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:35:08 +0000

@vimothy

@Lesser Bull

I respectfully reject your objections on two grounds.
1) The inevitability is *inevitability of utopia*, which is measured, and justified, by egalitarian resource distribution. M-L was indeed premised upon representing the populace, that’s who Utopia is for- salvation by people for people. My point is that not all systems optimize for values derived from, or in relation to, the population (See neocameralism and monarchy as notable examples- both appealing to values independent of popular appeal or genesis)
2) Incorrect. Reduction in who constitutes the electorate through exportation increases the degree of representation of the citizenry through homogenization- by exporting those who aren’t represented (decreasing ideological variation across winners and losers of election). In the second case, we aren’t talking about actual voice, but evidently effective discursive methods of justifying and legitimizing sovereignty. What I said earlier.