You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on "NRx" vs. "Prog" Assumptions: Locating the Sources of Disagreement Between Neoreactionaries and Progressives (Part 1) - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Matthew_Opitz 04 September 2014 04:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (340)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 September 2014 01:03:16AM 2 points [-]

Plenty of people call themselves progressive. That doesn't mean that they see themselves as adhering to something called progressivism. Otherwise link to a few American politicians who use the term progressivism to describe their own policies.

Since most prominent neoreactionaries are American, that's probably the sense in which they mean it.

From what I read of neocon thought, I don't think that's the case.

American leftists are aware of the novel policy tools you mentioned, but they're likely to see them as means to regressive ends.

There were no multinational corporations a hundred years ago. You can't regress to a state of multinational corporations as they are in their nature a new phenomenon.

To quote Moldbug Cthulhu always swims left. That was part of the Marxist idea of history. Sooner or later the left wins, because it's the right side and we know it's the right side because sooner or later it wins. We know this because when we look at the past the left always won. Somehow it's not the freedom of the individual worker that rises as time goes on but corporation have became people that also claim their freedom. Those corporations seem even better at claiming freedom than workers.

Neoliberalism also destroys traditional values of nation states but not in the way socialism does. To Molburg it might be both Cthulhu but the difference matters a big deal in the modern political discourse.

Comment author: Nornagest 05 September 2014 01:08:17AM *  5 points [-]

Plenty of people call themselves progressive. That doesn't mean that they see themselves as adhering to something called progressivism. Otherwise link to a few American politicians who use the term progressivism to describe their own policies.

Don't make too much of the "-ism" suffix. Neoreactionaries generally don't believe the overwhelming majority of modern politics to be dictated by members of a capital-P Progressivist sect, vivid cathedral analogy notwithstanding; instead, they see said politics as conforming if unchecked to a vaguely Marxian notion of progress ever leftward (because Cthulhu), which is roughly unitary since the late Enlightenment (also because Cthulhu), and which they sometimes call progressive (because that's the neutral word for a leftward tendency in American politics). "Progressivism" then is merely how you form the word for the corresponding ideology.

But since you asked...

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 September 2014 07:52:26AM 3 points [-]

Lately Cthulhu brought deregulation of the financial sector, corporate personhood, reduced maximum tax rate and Investor State Dispute Settlement.

Of course neoliberalism that produces those policies and with lately drives much of Cthulhu's direction can be thought of as an extension of left liberalism of the 19th century but today's left doesn't like it. Of course the cathedral produces corporate personhood and the cathedral deregulated the financial sector but if that's what you call "progressivism" people that call themselves progressive aren't in favor of that.

they see said politics as conforming if unchecked to a vaguely Marxian notion of progress ever leftward

Today's left doesn't. It doesn't like that corporations gain more and more powerful as things progress. It's afraid of technology. Just look at GMO. Do you see today's left celebrating GMO's as valuable progress that moves society forward, the way the left did celebrate nuclear power in the 1950's and 1960's?

Of course the cathedral produces GMO's but if you label that position that supports GMO's as progressivism than people who self label as progressives don't really hold that position strongly.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 September 2014 01:13:39AM 3 points [-]

There were no multinational corporations a hundred years ago.

Ahem

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 September 2014 07:28:36AM -1 points [-]

The first sentence of the article:

The East India Company (EIC), originally chartered as the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, and more properly called the Honourable East India Company, was an English, and later (from 1707)[1] British joint-stock company,

Comment author: Lumifer 05 September 2014 02:51:20PM 6 points [-]

...and?

Let's take any contemporary multinational, say Sony. Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Sony Corporation (ソニー株式会社 Sonī Kabushiki Gaisha?), commonly referred to as Sony, is a Japanese multinational conglomerate corporation headquartered in Kōnan Minato, Tokyo, Japan.

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 September 2014 03:29:10PM -2 points [-]

Actually the sentence you cite does contain the word "multinational' while the above sentence I cited doesn't.

There a trend that modern multinational corporations don't feel like they belong to any single country. Of cause they tend to comply as much with local laws as necessary to avoid getting into trouble but they don't they themselves as belonging to any single nation.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 05 September 2014 04:05:30PM 5 points [-]

The East India Company had its own currency, military vessels, and colonial governors. It effectively functioned like an independent state, much like our modern corporations seem to want to one day.