From to Wallerstein served in the U.
Posted on March 3, by Scott Alexander I have heard the following from a bunch of people, one of whom was me six months ago: They seem to be saying things that are either morally repugnant or utterly ridiculous.
And just as well try to give a quick summary of the sweeping elegaic paeans to a bygone age of high culture and noble virtues that is Reaction.
But there is some content, and some of it is disconcerting. I started reading a Wallerstein thesis about Reaction after incessantly being sent links to various Mencius Moldbug posts, and then started hanging Wallerstein thesis in an IRC channel with a few Reactionaries including the infamous Konkvistador whom I could question about it.
Obviously this makes me the world expert who is completely qualified to embark on the hitherto unattempted project of explaining it to everyone else. Trying to sum up their Wallerstein thesis seems like a good way to first of all get a reference point for what their ideas are, and second of all to make it clearer why I think they deserve a rebuttal.
I have tried to be charitable towards these ideas, which means this post will be pushing politically incorrect and offensive positions.
If you do not want to read it, especially the middle parts which are about race, I would totally understand that. But if you do read it and accuse me of holding these ideas myself and get really angry, then you fail at reading comprehension forever.
I originally planned to follow this up tomorrow with the post containing my arguments against these positions, but this argument took longer than I thought to write and I expect the counterargument will as well.
Expect a post critiquing reactionary ideas sometime in the next…week? This is the post where I argue that modern society is rotten to the core, and that the only reasonable solution is to dig up King James II, clone him, and give the clone absolute control over everything.
The imperial Chinese thought nothing could beat imperial China, the medieval Spaniards thought medieval Spain was a singularly impressive example of perfection, and Communist Soviets were pretty big on Soviet Communism.
Meanwhile, we think 21st-century Western civilization, with its democracy, secularism, and ethnic tolerance is pretty neat. Since the first three examples now seem laughably wrong, we should be suspicious of the hypothesis that we finally live in the one era whose claim to have gotten political philosophy right is totally justified.
Speak out against the Chinese Empire and you lose your head. Speak out against the King of Spain and you face the Inquisition. Speak out against Comrade Stalin and you get sent to Siberia. The great thing about western liberal democracy is that it has a free marketplace of ideas.
Everybody criticizes some aspect of our society. Noam Chomsky made a career of criticizing our society and became rich and famous and got a cushy professorship.
I say we need two Stalins! You have found a way to criticize the government in Stalinist Russia and totally get away with it.
Who knows, you might even get that cushy professorship. Western society has been moving gradually further to the left for the past several hundred years at least. It went from divine right of kings to constutitional monarchy to libertarian democracy to federal democracy to New Deal democracy through the civil rights movement to social democracy to???.
No, fifty times faster! If you start suggesting maybe it should switch directions and move the direction opposite the one the engine is pointed, then you might have a bad time. Go back to sterilizing the disabled and feeble-minded. If you really need convincing, suggest re-implementing segregation, or how about slavery?
See how far freedom of speech gets you. In America, it will get you fired from your job and ostracized by nearly everyone. Depending on how loudly you do it, people may picket your house, or throw things at you, or commit violence against you which is then excused by the judiciary because obviously they were provoked.
Despite the iconic image of the dissident sent to Siberia, this is how the Soviets dealt with most of their iconoclasts too. And Western society just happens to have a really strong progressivist immune system ready to gobble you up if you say anything insufficiently progressive.
We medieval Spaniards are way too smart to fall for the balance fallacy! Since you are a citizen of a repressive society, you should be extremely skeptical of all the information you get from schools, the media, and popular books on any topic related to the areas where active repression is occurring.
That means at least politics, history, economics, race, and gender.
This is not nearly as paranoid as it sounds. Since race is the most taboo subject in our culture, it will also be the simplest example.
Almost all of our hard data on race comes from sociology programs in universities — ie the most liberal departments in the most liberal institutions in the country.
Most of these sociology departments have an explicit mission statement of existing to fight racism.The idea that societies move toward a condition of similarity—that they converge in one or more respects—is a common feature of various theories of social change. The notion that differences among societies will decrease over time can be found in [ ].
The German school of fencing (Deutsche Schule; Kunst des Fechtens) is a system of combat taught in the Holy Roman Empire during the Late Medieval, Renaissance, and Early Modern periods, as described in the contemporary Fechtbücher ("combat manuals") written at the time.
The geographical center of this tradition was in what is now Southern Germany (Augsburg, Frankfurt, and Nuremberg). Immanuel Wallerstein is the former President of the International Sociological Association (), and chair of the International Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of .
In Wallerstein's publication, World-System Analysis, he proclaims that world-systems theory is "a protest against the way in which social scientific inquiry is structured for all of us at its inception in the middle of the nineteenth century.".
In The Capitalist World-Economy Immanuel Wallerstein focuses on the two central conflicts of capitalism, bourgeois versus proletarian and core versus periphery, in an attempt to describe both the cyclical rhythms and the secular transformations of capitalism, conceived as a singular world-system.
Wallerstein divides the history of the capitalist world system into four stages, which for our purposes can be simplified and divided into two basic phases: Stages 1 and 2: This period follows the rise of the modern world system between