I was thinking yesterday about the worst ideology on the planet. I think it’s even worse than Leninism. Clerical Fascism. Clerical Fascism is a system of Government that supports church rule of the state while maintaining the Fascistic elements of state violence, hyper collectivism, absolute loyalty to the state. To round it all of the ideology is a supporter of Fascistic Corporatism, the economic standpoint in which the Government gives corporate welfare and subsidies to the company they feel has served the state the best. This all becomes worse when the religious element is added. The Church is in complete control of the State and because in Fascism, the State controls the people, the religious authorities are free to brainwash the entire populace with God. What do you think is the worst ideology? And why?
Belgium is pretty terrible, ain’t it?
But the real worst ideology is altruism.
King Leopold’s Ghost anyone?
I’ve always thought that anarcho-capitalism was just a recipe for disaster
It is but its also salvageable and can be bent into libertarianism. Totalitariansm is much harder to kill. If it revolves around a single individual (Stalinist Russia, Francoist Spain, Leopold’s Congo “free state”, etc.) it usually crumbles after they die or otherwise lose power. However, if there is a good line of succession, tyranny may continue indefinitely, which is a problem. And if the dictator is toppled suddenly you might get a brutal civil war (Congo/Rwanda anyone?)
It would be dysfunctional, but your respective freedom would be defined by literal corporate overlords.
I would say any form of anarchism lol.
what about anarchist spain?
That is the one time anarchism came close to working, though since it only lasted around 2 years and on a relatively small scale in the middle of a war it might not apply as well scaled up. On the other hand, the anarchists in Ukraine weren’t so great
Even though it lasted awhile still. I don’t think anarchism is truly sustainable on a large-scale, maybe small scale like world-ends and then people have to work together to live without gov, but even then if a community gets large enough it will have to form a government in order to keep stability and all that. IMO.
It also depends on the resources and culture of a region. The anarchist CNT-FAI was set up in Catalonian, a region known for its strong economy and left-wing culture (think of it as the San Francisco of Europe, but also with its on language and ethnic sub-group). So when the CNT-FAI finally rose up and into power, the groundwork for their anarcho-syndicalism (regional rule by democratically-elected workers’ unions) was already in place and the people were, for the most part, willing to accept it. The system that they had was actually pretty good to live under, but part of the reason that it worked so well in Catalonia was the scale and nature of the reason. A little over a decade earlier another, similar anarchist group rose up in Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. While anarchists love to glorify them (partly due to their flag, which looks like an anarchist’s version of a pirate flag), they committed many atrocities and weren’t actually all that great at forming a good government (or non-government, idk, anarchy is confusing).
In my mind, anarchy can work on a small scale in certain locations and with certain factors applicable. However, it’s not a universal end-all-be-all that works everywhere, something which anarchists refuse to admit. While anarchist city-states and enclaves might work reasonably well under the correct circumstances, scaled up it just becomes a logistical mess.
Oooh difficult. I mean I hate capitalism and state socialism but I think the worst one is Neo-Reactionism, whose inventors such as Curtis Yarvin, who call it the Dark Enlightenment. It’s basically absolutely no economic regulation by the government but ridiculous over regulation in private lives. So Stalinist Russia but where Stalin is the CEO of a corporation instead of a country. But the corporation runs the country. Nasty.
Basically corporate autocracy. How’d reactionary go from Bismarck to that?!
I think he is using hyperbole. It doesn’t really support full blown capitalism because that leads to internationalization, the old reactionism from which I have been reading seems to be more focused on capitalist industries within their States, rather than outside.
Plenty of options to chose from. However clerical fascism, Stalinism, anarcho-primitivism, and Nazism are some of the worst
He doesn’t call it neoractionary(ism). Its just been given that name by some other dude. He calls it like formalism or revisionism or something.
Oh I didn’t say that? My bad
Edit: He actually prefers being called a restorationist lmao