Over here on Reactionfuture, I am staking a claim to a conceptual system which is inherent in the Moldbugian theory. This is that governmental systems can be broadly split into two groups. One such group is extinct on the political stage, but lives on in non-political arenas where it is lauded. The other groups is so predominant in the political arena, that all political theories since have been mere variations of the accepted underlying premise. These two groups are of course 1) secure power systems in which no division and competition between power centres is in place, and authority flows down, and 2) unsecure power systems in which power is constrained and balanced.
Of the first group, the last incarnation on the political stage would seem to me to have been Tsarist Russia. Other such examples included the East India Company and other various charter companies of the Empire, all of which was covered by Moldbug. These political structures are in possession of very clear structure, a set direction of authority, and no division of power against itself, or constraint by sections of the same governance.
Of the second group, we have The Republics following the American War of independence and the French Revolution, Communist states, socialist states, Fascist states and every state in the world at present except the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, the first of which is still subject to “checks and balances” and the second is murky politically (it will be interesting to see a formally constitutional KSA.) These all belong in the same family tree.
Given this, Libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, fascism, socialism, communism, objectivism, neoreactionaryism, paeloconservatism, the alt-right – all of them are unsecure power ideologies. That advocates of neoreaction claim otherwise perplexes me, but they do. The second, the very second, that you advocate for any legal or formal checks against governance in your system you have introduced a systemic flaw which will lead to all sorts of insanity.
The citing of corporations (sovcorp) and other entities such as the East India Company by Neoreactionaries is quite bizarre when looked at through this lens, as in effect they are advocates of A) a secure system which has authority flowing down, with no competition in the structure, and no binding by itself and B) constitutional governance in which governance is bound against itself and constrained by law. So which is it? you want a wet/dry tall/short skinny/fat dog? Because a company charter is not the same as a constitution.
Let’s look at it another way, let suppose that tomorrow we decided that Apple Inc should have a constitution. For some reason the very idea of this sends liberals into spasm, even though they advocate for this for political corporation (nations.) This makes no sense.
So tomorrow, CEO Tim Cook the tyrant despot that he is, is gloriously pressured into enacting a constitution as a result of some uprising in a random office in a backwater town which no one would have heard about if the lawyers and other agitators making up the new Apple parliament hadn’t gotten coverage of from their pals in the media. This constitution breaks the back of the tyranny and dark ages of the Apple board, ending the absolute rule of the evil CEO lineage that included Steve Jobs the wicked. This constitution grants the creation of an Apple Inc parliament to ensure participation in the political outcomes of Apple and stop the excess of the Apple CEO. This stops Tim Cook from randomly firing everyone for example, and running off with all the money in the company.
This game has played out the same every time. The parliament takes over in the name of the people, instituting the Democracy/ Republic/ Peoples Republic/ Soviet Republic of Apple. Maybe Tim Cook transfers to a neutered figurehead in time to save a salary, maybe he puts up a fight and gets fired by a bunch of marketing/ legal department revolutionaries. The Democratic board is now in place in the name of the people of Apple, and wanting to secure its power, as those in that situation are want to do, they begin the work of undermining competitors. You get the idea…
And yes, I did state Libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, fascism, socialism, communism, objectivism, neoreactionaryism, paeloconservatism, the alt-right etc. are frankly the same thing. The only real difference is whatever wish/platform you place over the systemic mess of unsecure power.