Message from @NormanLord
Discord ID: 500819768987746304
Essentially I think the soviets we're onto something organizationally. They had workers councils which elected members to higher councils. I think that this fractal hierarchical structure may be effective in a context with different founding stock and principles
OP
Bringing the NazBol meme to life. It has occurred to me that one aspect of the Soviet system that I think might have been successful is the soviets (workers councils) themselves. A council would be formed and a leader elected, who would go on to be a member of a higher council. I don't think this way of structuring things has been tried in any other context. It solves a number of problems though. In a democracy, I think there's a huge problem with the size of a consituency. If you want the attention of your representative, your individual vote matters little to them. Also, you can't be personally acquainted with them. I think this structure would work even better with a smaller council. Every effective organization is a hiearchy, and I think building up rather than out is the key to making it work. If you had a group of 5 to 10 people who chose a representative, I think the social cohesion would be high enough to keep that representative responsive. The process is iterative and exponential. Looking at organizations as fractals I think allows for a useful vector of analysis. The branching factor of a hierarchy might be used to compare unlike groups like how in statistics the z score allows you to compare the distributions of different datasets. I think there is a relationship between a smaller branching factor and the effectiveness of the organization. Compare an NGO with a military. An NGO involved perhaps two levels at the least, the executive board and the membership. In a military organization, the ratio is small as I've described. The NGO usually at best can collect donations and get low effort actions done, such as signing a petition. The military organization can get its members in shape and to undertake mortal peril.
I think the Soviet structure could have this benefit. I think if we formed small groups, elected leaders from them who formed groups, and iterated this process we could come up with something pretty spectacular.
@Hektor definitely worth it, it's peak optics in American politics tbh
Another point I have made is that some figures on the alt right rose to their positions of power by being the first ones there
Oh yeah I remember that
I told you it's corporatism
My understanding of that term is that it's when the government and industry rule cooperatively
But that's beside the point
Whatever you call it there's no right wing organization I'm aware of that has ever had that structure. I'm open to counter examples.
Specifically small sub dunbars number groups of people who elect their leaders iteratively into a functioning hierarchy
Well that structure, generally doesn't last long without reverting to essentially a system of dynastic succession
The GAA in Ireland is run like that
@NormanLord From your perspective
Where did the "Irish are not white meme" come from?
Not that there's anything wrong with dynastic succession but that's what it devolves into
Gimme a sec to reflect on that
I guess just as a general dehumanisation tactic
Tho from my recollection it started as a half joke towards the English at their attitude towards Ireland
The English could never understand why we refused their religion, language, culture, government etc for so long, it's funny in many ways after we gained independence the remnants of the British civil service in Ireland kept the processes killing Ireland ticking over
Emigration, shrinkage of Irish speaking areas, declining church attendance so on and so forth
I've never given it much credence tbh, even I couldn't tell the difference between Irish and Brits at a glance
Dugin believes it's to do with the projection of behavioural norms onto ethnic classification, meaning only the English can really ever be "white" per se
I'm pro dynastic succession. One of the only arguments I have against monarchy is the succession problem. This structure might allow the beneifts of monarchy with some responsiveness to lower levels
It looks good on paper but if it's in conjunction with capitalism the current state kf affairs would be the same, you can buy votes with bribes if need be when there's fewer people voting in the really important elections
The ultimate question is from where does the power derive
Who holds the purse and sword, and how to they hang onto them
In the simplest example, a gang lord, has property, industry and wealth of his own to pay for men of his own to execute his own will
In a democracy, the military is paid by the exchequer, which draws money from mass taxation, which is sold and repackaged by politicians to voters, and the media makes those politicians electable
So no power rests in the hands of politicians who aren't independently wealthy in a democracy
I think one of the benefits of this approach is that you can have a personal relationship. If you see ads telling you to vote out Joe but you know Joe personally you've got more information. Also it's harder for money to corrupt when it needs to influence many different elections to influence the top
If concentric circles of voting takes place, not to say it's a bad idea, it's not, and has many historical precedents, the issue you run up against is fracturing of the national power structure
If there's a centralised military there's a centralised government and centralised power
That might be more of a feature than a bug. Absolutist states replacing feudalism preceded liberalism by placing everything into one large pot that could be taken over by subversive elements
Well there's your answer
You're a reactionary
I am
Neoreactionary is the label I choose
So what you propose is a mechanism by which the goals associated with that can be achieved
Which is broadly speaking what Dugin writes about
So I'd recommend reading his works
I'll add it to the list