/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13082626]

how do we realistically implement patchwork, in the Moldbugian sense?

[Anonymous No.13082633]

>>13082626
>yeah we better trust someone that looks like an early 90s code monkey

[Anonymous No.13082658]

>>13082626

The trick isn't to implement a patchwork, but to implement a patch.

[Anonymous No.13082667]

>>13082626
>patchwork
what is it?

[Anonymous No.13082706]

>>13082667

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-positive-vision-part-1/

It's a pretty large read, but I'll give you the gist, and also keep in mind Moldbug is fairly entertaining for what it's worth, though not as much as Nick Land:

Basically, the patchwork recognizes the tendency for aggregation, standardization and absolute commodity fetishism of the nation state (you'll often see it referred to as the Cathedral - as a way of conjoining also the role of the media, academics, mega-corporations, etc. apparatuses into the nation state's consolidation). So, as a means of setting back such grand, all encompassing and all devouring hungry beast, Moldbug proposes to cut the world (or a subset of it, as he believes even a Rwandan patchwork-state would spread and effectively end Democracy worldwide) into small city-states ruled by what are effectively private corporations, all equipped with a counseling board and everything else you'd expect from a corporation. There's a lot more into it such as the concept of Exit in detriment of the concept of Voice, but it will always keep coming back to it being micro-corporate ruling and preventing aggregation of oligopolies (which is the situation we have today - thanks to Democratic ruling).

[Anonymous No.13082730]

you guys might enjoy this

[Anonymous No.13082748]

>>13082626
>>13082706

Also, to answer the OP, unfortunately some African warlord where no one cares too much about him is probably in the best position to pull something like that off - and well, it'd mean giving up his powers to attempt turning his own state into a multi-axial platitude. Then there's the fact that this whole scheme would be run by Africans, so there's that. Perhaps China can implement that in their African "colonies" eventually (they'll surely want to keep their own state big).

You could say that Singapore is kinda one patch already too, and it just needs more neighbors that are like it for the whole thing to flourish. The good thing is that neighbors in this context is not really a geographical thing. Even the UK leaving the EU and adopting a corporate style rule within their parliament would already be a step towards it.

[Anonymous No.13082822]

>>13082658
whats the difference?

[Anonymous No.13082871]

Moldbug is a retard and I have no idea why Nick Land sucks his cock so hard.

[Anonymous No.13082885]

>>13082822
not that guy but it seems he's recommending starting the process by building a functional patch yourself and the rest will work out naturally. the whole idea of patchwork is that it's organic and resistant to being implemented top down, so pattern the political geography on the functional geography.

[Anonymous No.13082888]

>listening to this guy

[Anonymous No.13082899]

>>13082871
Nick Land has become the definition of a boomer, which is why he has so much trouble understanding the concept; the eye cannot see itself directly

[Anonymous No.13082906]

>>13082730
one more

[Anonymous No.13082941]

>>13082885
so basically, if I find enough people to participate in a commune centered around my startup, everyone else will follow suit?

[Anonymous No.13082967]

>>13082888
god what a beautiful man
literally drenched in sex

[Anonymous No.13082995]

foucault did all this but way better

and foucault isnt even so great

[Anonymous No.13083000]

>>13082888
lmao

[Anonymous No.13083002]

>>13082941
that would be the idea. there's no guarantee that will happen, but if your patch is successful it may incentivize them to do the same or at least enter into a positive relation. think about how politically Europe moved from Hobbes to Locke, from friend-enemy to friend-rival conditions (and from there to Kant and theoretically friend-friend relations). whatever your patch is, even if it is a patch of one, it can still work. devolution (see >>13082730, wherever else) ties into this also. when in doubt, make the thing smaller until you have a functional polity capable of contract formalism that incentivizes interested parties into trust-based relationships. if said relationships become profitable over time those around you may find they are more willing to adjust their own attitudes accordingly.

patchwork is opposed to centralized planning and how it is implemented. this is not to say that large and functional neocameral states don't also have a value: the France of Louis XIV or Frederick the Great are improvements over earlier and more expressly feudal arrangements of clan or kinship ties. but in the current world it seems to be the case large and top-heavy organizations have to go the other way once they get too large and streamline themselves down to smaller patches, for any number of reasons. beyond a certain horizon Land seems to think that universalist religious fervor becomes the binding substance and this is always bad for business. he prefers fracture and schism wherever he can, however much this does present interesting problems later on for r/acc types. but the schism isn't desirable purely for the sake of schism; it's more to keep everyone involved honest about the nature of business. and of course if a thing is working and is reasonably stable over time there's no need to be an anarchist about it purely for the sake of anarchy; everything is provisional in that sense.

but generally speaking, the production of solvent examples and test-cases seems to trump ever-greater exercises in political theory that will never be able to keep up with the baked-in volatility of the market and market processes on human psychology. so make it work for you first and then see how it works on those around you would seem to me to be the idea.

[Anonymous No.13083285]

>>13082871

[Anonymous No.13083291]

>make independent city state
>get Waco'd ruthlessly

hmmmmm

[Anonymous No.13083364]

>>13082995
Imagine being this dumb

[Anonymous No.13083428]

The patchwork will emerge organically, it will not have to be top-down designed.

[Anonymous No.13083439]

>>13082706
if you replace the word "corporation" with "union" just sounds like syndicalism.

[Anonymous No.13083449]

>>13083439
10 minutes inside of a Best Buy is enough to know that this is not a preferable state of affairs

[Anonymous No.13083468]

>>13083449
What does this post mean?

[Anonymous No.13083483]

>>13083000
Trips on trips

[Anonymous No.13083503]

Patchwork is 4chan blown up to real life proportions

[Anonymous No.13084015]

>>13082626
Raise awareness online for him and his ideas.

[Anonymous No.13084017]

>>13082633
>What the fuck did you just fucking say about me you little prog bitch?

Also men really do age like wine 2bh holy shit

[Anonymous No.13084058]

Patchwork requires globalization to succeed.

[Anonymous No.13084080]

He is an ugly kike.

[Anonymous No.13084098]

>>13082730
Isn't this essentially, The Pentagon New Map?"
>The world can be roughly divided into two groups: the Functioning Core, characterized by economic interdependence, and the Non-Integrated Gap, characterized by unstable leadership and absence from international trade. >The Core can be sub-divided into Old Core (North America, Europe, Japan, Australia) and New Core (China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Russia). The Disconnected Gap includes the Middle East, South Asia (except India), most of Africa, Southeast Asia, and northwest South America.
Integration of the Gap countries into the global economy will provide opportunities for individuals living in the Gap to improve their lives, thereby presenting a desirable alternative to violence and terrorism. The US military is the only force capable of providing the military support to facilitate this integration by serving as the last-ditch rule-enforcer. Barnett argues that it has been doing so for over 20 years by "exporting" security (US spends about half of the world's total in military spending).

[Anonymous No.13084103]

>>13083449
Ok, Dennis Miller, but this isn't the Factor. You'll have to put more effort into explaining yourself.

[Anonymous No.13084135]

>>13082888
>>13082626
>>13083285
>>13084017
I remember seeing this pen name in the Asia Times ranting about monetary policy to the expat boomer audience. It can't be the same guy.

[Anonymous No.13084163]

Patchwork is laughable.
Either you require all those patches to be monarchic+capitalist, in which case it's globally totalitarian.
Or you say each patch chooses their own system, in which case it's exactly what we have today.
The whole thing underlies the undercurrent that the weak don't actually have to fear the strong. IRL, everybody will colonise just as much as soon they can steal resources from the outside

[Anonymous No.13084192]

>>13084163
False dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.13084217]

>>13084080
That's a good thing.
A non-ugly non-kike would be a boring normie with no interesting thoughts.

[Anonymous No.13084395]

>>13084192
Denying that power exists is dumb asf.

[Anonymous No.13084591]

>>13082626
I don't know but I'm pretty sure NRX has evolved past patchwork-monarchy. THe elephant in the room is that Washington exists and will try to send Democracy (=oligarchy) to you unless something is done about it.

[Anonymous No.13084886]

>>13084395
He doesn't deny that power exists. His whole system is about managing it.

[Anonymous No.13084900]

>>13083439
I think syndicalism would fit into this framework

[Anonymous No.13085052]

>>13084591
Meh, that's nonsense. NRx is not an activist movement, nor are they in a hurry. Really Moldbug suggests a triad of Formalism-Patchwork-Passivism. Any one of these can be done separately. Passivism is being done quite successfully by several groups.

[Anonymous No.13085330]

>>13082626
URBIT

[Anonymous No.13085341]

>>13085330
More like URQUIT amirite

[Anonymous No.13085347]

>>13084103
lmao solid reference

[Anonymous No.13085371]

>>13085341
he's an artist not a janitor

[Anonymous No.13085465]

>>13085371
Still makes me worried.

[Anonymous No.13085801]

>>13084098
maybe. he's got a bunch of interesting maps in it, including ones of the US. this seems to me like a very useful way of looking at things, because you can basically imagine what the politics and ideology of a given area will look like by considering the functional geography. it just seems like such a smarter way of considering these issues than in terms of Red/Blue. of course Red/Blue will always exist, and there are shades of Red and Blue et cetera, but...well, you get the idea.

even Wallerstein's ideas of Core-Periphery make sense also ofc, it's just that in the US today and elsewhere there are now cores within cores. Silicon Valley is undoubtedly some kind of Core and it has its own ideology that goes with it. but a lot of the stuff that is being talked about on Twitter and elsewhere surrounds imho the legitimacy of these Cores themselves. progressivism is the ascendent ideology in those places where it rules, but since 2016 we've begun to see pushback against it, and this is now taking place all over the world - in the UK, France, Italy, all that. i am personally of the uninteresting and unremarkable opinion that progressivism is the ideology of late capital, and for that reason exports itself along with capitalist production everywhere.

however, we obviously live in a world that not only cannot be conceived along 19C lines, it is increasingly incapable of being conceived along 20C lines also. progressive identity politics suck, but there's also this other question about whether or not authoritarian non-progressive politics are any better simply because they aren't that. Trump seems to be doing all right so far with his vision of things, and it's anybody's guess as to how that will play out. China is a wide-open question, from what i have read they come off the losers in trade wars with the US. the US suffers also in those, though not as badly. ironically it looks like the EU benefits the most from that, just in time to watch everybody want to leave from it because of the politics of remaining in...

anyways we are indeed of some new maps and ways of understanding all of this stuff.

[Anonymous No.13085975]

>>13084058
true, but consider the obverse: globalization does not necessarily require patchwork to succeed. it may indeed be hostile to it (and this is exactly what insano-leftist politics do, although authoritarian politics of all kinds can turn smaller states into satrapies if they desire). effective, functional patches would be the best argument for globalization. that said patches wouldn't necessarily be bastions of globalization themselves is ironic but waddaya gonna do. to me it just makes sense: if you want your patch to look reasonably good, play nice with globalization but play smart and try and avoid just being colonized completely by chasing the big bucks. this is by no means an easy or simple proposal, because it's hard to avoid getting steamrolled by corporate and media giants. in the academic world, the juggernaut is intersectional leftism.

but why can one not imagine an intersectionality that doesn't necessarily always trend left? this is where the rubber meets the road, because the key phenomenon imho here is poverty, or human ignorance, and the rest. if you *want people to fail* and rig their psyche so that they do fail, you can wind up with awesome welfare states and awesome welfare state thinking. if you can reverse the trend and incentivize success and positivity and long-term, sustainable, high-time preference thinking you will reap the rewards of this over time. it's hard to do, obviously, and not everybody can be Singapore. but Paul Kagame is trying to do something like this, and he's working with Rwanda. he's no hero either.

in the US, especially now, when everyone is terrified of automation and of radicals on both ends of the spectrum it's a Herculean task no question.

[Anonymous No.13086086]

>>13084192
What are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.13086108]

>>13084900
so he's a fucking leftist

uh oh

[Anonymous No.13087197]

>>13086086
It doesn't have to be either or. It can be any combination of the two. In fact I am not at all convinced that those things are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.13087237]

>>13085801
>american high speed rail
curse boomer politicians for holding us back from what china and japan have already achieved

[Anonymous No.13087252]

>>13083439
No because you vote in unions. Hes idea is for micro-corperations with no voting. Like a corporation, and the only people that would have a say are those who are given shares or who are able to join the board.

[Anonymous No.13087255]

>>13082871
Land is a retard himself

[Anonymous No.13087263]

>>13087237
updated version

[Anonymous No.13087264]

>>13082871
you actually have that backwards

[Anonymous No.13087276]

>>13082941
No, you will quickly get invaded by existing nation states, which is why the whole idea of the patchwork is a non-starter. No neocameralist has ever come up with a convincing mechanism that allows patches to coordinate against this.

[Anonymous No.13087287]

>>13084163
>Or you say each patch chooses their own system, in which case it's exactly what we have today.
Based "the point went over my head" retard poster.

[Anonymous No.13087382]

>>13087276
Well, no neocameralist has asserted that it must happen now or in the near future. And in any case, neocameralism and patchwork are separate theories.

[Anonymous No.13087706]

>>13082633
I think that picture is actually from the early 90s

[Anonymous No.13089251]

>>13087276
If invasion of small states in inevitable why is the number of countries in the world continually and successfully increasing?
If patchwork is too decentralized to work exactly how much decentralization is possible? Or do you want a world government?

[Anonymous No.13089561]

>>13089251
>If invasion of small states in inevitable why is the number of countries in the world continually and successfully increasing
It's not, you're not seeing a long term tendency behind a short term trend. There were hundreds of thousands of sovereign political units in the world 4000 years ago, now there are less than 200. Patchwork already existed and was replaced.

[Anonymous No.13090065]

>>13082626
you don't because that would just be retarded

[Anonymous No.13090942]

>>13089561
What if the true long term tendency is that which brought us from the imperial Romans to patchwork, and that the height of modern imperialism was itself a detour?

[Anonymous No.13091059]

>>13082941
>so basically, if I find enough people to participate in a commune

if you persuade an entire state then yes, commune doesn´t do jack shit

[Anonymous No.13092721]

>>13082888
>>13084017
Damn, Moldbug looks like THAT?!

[Anonymous No.13092913]

essay upload

https://youtu.be/CFI-BBI-j-M