Why Not Authoritarianism?
Basic RWP Argument Against Authoritarianism
This is a passage straight taken out of my upcoming manifesto which summarizes the opposition of Right Wing Progressivism towards authoritarian organization of politics. It comes within a context in which I establish how selection and organization dynamics work in synthesis to produce progress that I refer to as an open system, contrasting it to a closed system in which selective pressures are not working properly henceforth not stimulating self-organization to become efficient. One of the foundational assumptions of such a manifesto is to redesign the polity system in a way that will make it match systems which exist within a moving equilibrium that is subjected to synergic exchange and self organizational dynamics of its elements. In other words, the goal of Right Wing Progressivism is to rework our present polity system so it matches the structure of the market in which the forces of supply and demand, price signals, quality control and other phenomena produce an open self-equilibrative system oriented towards dynamic optimization.
Some words may be new to you, while a lot of it may appear like blank statements for they were proven in the early sections of this and other chapters (that is why I didn’t feel the need to prove them again). When the political section of the manifesto finally becomes published - you will not be left confused. A few people who have had the exclusive privilege to read most of the chapter on Political Progress were thoroughly impressed by it.
Context: On Political Progress:
Polity is the main organizing place for Right Wing Progressivism for it is the place where both the private and the public ends meet producing a unity in synthesis. The organizational doctrine through which these processes are to occur can be termed as Tectocracy - a political theory and praxis allocating the organizational powers to the most competent thereby reflecting the dynamics observed in the market and other successful systems.
If we look at the chronology of time, the early polities emerged as racketeering systems of a particular family which eventually evolved into developing a series of symbolic justifications of authority in the form of monarchy and religion to then develop into mechanisms of sharing power either through the forms of a constitutional monarchy, or a republic. All of these changes were accompanied by the proliferation of new political theories, populational differentiation (specialization) and the emergence of the civic society as the prime social regulator (integration). If I were to find the main common denominator of these evolutionary processes, it undoubtedly is the process of continuous differentiation that eventually becomes enough of a force of its own to challenge the prevailing mores of the polity and secure more power for itself. Elucidating further, as differentiated elements begin forming cooperative and competitive relations with one another there arises a large demand in the form of security, regulation and organization which assumes the role of the state and its bureaucracy thus setting the polity on the road that will forever depart from being the personal property or a racketeering target of a particular tyrant and his family.
The next evolutionary stage in the development of politics is the formation of the civic society as the primary regulator. Unlike the former stage, the civic society is not only concerned with the protection of economic freedoms such as property or other regulatory dynamics but also with cultural and ideological processes of the state and its people. In closed authoritarian systems civic society emerges only partially without developing plural systems of ideological organization and thought. Instead the task of political organization is placed into the hands of bureaucrats who assume the responsibility of functioning as the mediator between the governor and the governed. In open democratic systems a civic society emerges in full force and develops systems of ideological organization and control that comes to shape both the governor and the governed thus de-facto becoming the main unofficial force of political organization. They begin to form institutions and organizations which proceed to educate and shape both the rulers and the ruled in their image thereby setting a never ending loop of continuous autopoiesis of the civic society over the entirety of the nation by self-reproduction.
The civic society is relatively heterogeneous both between and within nations given the differentiated nature of the polity, yet it does contain certain common elements present within itself that happen to be largely universal - the advocation of accountability, integration and continuous differentiation. It serves as a regulatory apparatus of both the governors and the governed, akin to a rudimentary mechanism for self-regulation within the body politic. Practically all Western states could be described as states in which the civic society combined with the bureaucratic apparatus assume the main responsibility of governance for the absolute majority of both economic, cultural and political elites happen to be graduates of institutions and believers of the ideals which were created and formulated by the members of the civic society. However, as you will learn throughout this chapter, the integrative (homogenizing) dynamics of the Western regulator class have begun to proliferate over its organic differentiative dynamics, thereby limiting the extent of political progress.
To reiterate, the present evolutionary lineage of the polity has first emerged as being the property of a particular ruler organized by force, towards a state in which the rulers begin consolidating the polity through symbols and sharing of power with the differentiated elements, towards a state in which a mediary between the rulers and the ruled becomes the main political force of the polity. Attentive readers will recognize that these dynamics are similar to the dynamics that are observed in economical evolution in which systems of property and exchange begin to be organized around optimizing synotic exchanges between the differentiated elements that form the economy thereby giving rise to progressive expansion and development of the economy. Protection of private property, taxation system, regulation and welfare all serve the function of the mediator between differentiated elements of the economy such as: firms, sectors of the economy, buyers and sellers, employers and the employees, the state and the individual, the nation and other nations just like the civic society serves as the primary function of the mediator between the governor and the governed, between the state and the people, between the people and the people and between the state and the state. Both economical and political regulators rise in response to the same dynamics - as social forces differentiate and form synotic relations with each other, a form of disorganization arises that must be mediated by an organizing regulator which integrates these differentiated elements into a common system.
In such a context political progress can be understood as the continuous improvement to the self-organizational dynamics of the polity away from closed systems that produce incompetence, monocracy, injustice and statics towards open systems that produce competence, democracy, justice and dynamics. At the present stage of our political statics, a regulator class in the form of bureaucracy and civic society did emerge, yet it emerged as an entity that is free from any kind of democratic or competitive selection. It lacks a proper education and understanding of the world and as a result is blind to the market signals of the polity. As a result, it begins to transform the polity into a closed system centered around itself while in order for progress to occur such a class must be organized as open, competent, democratic, just and dynamic. That is the task of this chapter, but before I lay out the principles of organization of the polity system in which the self made regulators divorced from institutional pressures and market inefficiencies shall rule to their maximum, it is important to recognize the limitations of our current system and why it needs an urgent replacement.
Against Authoritarianism
The main line of criticism that Right Wing Progressivism levels against Authoritarianism is that Authoritarianism operates as a closed system in which homogenizing dynamics proliferate over the dynamics of differentiation which results in a decrease in progressive development that is proportional to an increase in stagnation, corruption and unfreedom. As authoritarian power begins concentrating, a new class emerges in unity of protecting its interests’ against any potential challenges, thereby killing off the political agency of the people. The population becomes apathetic to the matters of politics, and the culture of civic engagement subsequently dies. This removes the last barrier for an autocrat to engage in things that the public scrutiny would otherwise not allow an autocrat to engage in inside a framework of a society with a functioning civic culture. Furthermore, in such an organization of politics, the ruling party conservatizes itself, and alternative solutions to problems are either begin not being acknowledged (if they happen to come from outside of the ruling party) or worse the political problems begin to be reinterpreted as solutions henceforth causing their accumulation.
In contrast, in open systems, the polity is highly competitive and transparent for it is open. All political problems which arise within it are acknowledged and the responses to them are generated organically from below and are not being repressed from above. An open system is a self-organizing system with working feedback loops and as a consequence is most closely reminiscent of the market dynamics.
My basic argument for choosing an open system over a closed one is that if Earth and other planets self organize and function properly without a command structure, if the economy self organizes and functions properly without a command structure, if evolutionary dynamics, the biosphere and systems of social exchange as well as other synotic processes self organize without a command structure, then it follows that the political system as any other system should also work in accordance with the laws of nature as opposed to the laws of the maximum application of force. If self-organization has given us the freedom of will and action to shape our environment and the selective pressures which permeate across it, it is not up for some particular differentiated element to take the agency away from us. Agency resides within the people and such form of a positive freedom must remain inviolable.
The rightoid obsession over strong leaders appears to be entirely an aesthetic preference uttered by a person totally unfamiliar with general systems understanding of reality. Whenever people fantasize about autocracy - they imagine that they will be ruled by an enlightened despot like Napoleon, Catherine the Great or Augustus. But in reality they will most likely be ruled by Putin, Assad or any other leader whose primary motivation for rule is keeping power. Occasionally we may see leaders like Nayib Bukele, but they are only authoritarian in a sense that they are abusing executive powers. They cannot be regarded as authoritarians in the classical sense for they are still operating within the broader context of the open system - they were simply given a large amount of executive authority to fulfill a certain task. Yes they have an insane amount of public support, but not out of the public's loyalty to them, but because they are fulfilling the popular demands of the public. The moment Bukele ceases to satisfy the public's will, his approval rating will drop as hard as Zelensky’s for as long as El-Salvador operates as an open system.
****
Please consider supporting this channel financially. As a token of appreciation, you'll receive fresh content at least twice a month. Every month a paid chapter from the manuscript that I'm working on will be released here, along with some of its sections (like this one) for free. What you have just read were two small sections from an upcoming chapter titled that deals with Political Progress in which I propose a political evolution, organization of the branches of government, reform of the taxation system, reform of the voting system to benefit the most competent, abolition of presidents as well as critique the dominant mores of our current lefty-centric conception of politics. I may publish another free chapter next or the following week before I will release the paid version of the chapter (which is currently over 50 pages in length or about ~27,000 words in length while the entirety of the manifesto now approaches ~90,000 words in length) by the end of March. My goal is to make at least $300 on Substack so I could quit my job with the money I saved and relocate to a better place where I could quadruple my work efforts on both the manifesto, Substack and YouTube. The faster I attain this goal, the sooner I will quit my job and begin focusing on both YouTube, Twitter and Substack.
At the end of this journey I will likely release a free version of the manifesto, but I don’t know when that will happen for the work required on this project exceeds any other projects that I have undertaken in my entire life including YouTube. This is a big project, so I will need your partial support.