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

>listening to this guy

Attached: DxnIesVU8AAkLbc.jpg large.jpg (675x675, 68K)

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

one more

Attached: 51CFTAu4gNL.jpg (332x500, 34K)

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

god what a beautiful man
literally drenched in sex

foucault did all this but way better

and foucault isnt even so great

lmao

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 , 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.

Attached: Chinese_cityscape_river_water_apartments_Shanghai-874463.jpg (1600x900, 295K)

Attached: 30fhlw.jpg (500x620, 91K)

>make independent city state
>get Waco'd ruthlessly

hmmmmm

Imagine being this dumb

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

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

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

What does this post mean?

Trips on trips

Attached: AB605454-C71E-449E-91E5-463BB99B44C5.jpg (1000x666, 39K)

Patchwork is Yea Forums blown up to real life proportions

Raise awareness online for him and his ideas.

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

Also men really do age like wine 2bh holy shit

Attached: 45433217084_d67a9545f4_k.jpg (1366x2048, 569K)

Patchwork requires globalization to succeed.

He is an ugly kike.

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).

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

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.

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

False dichotomy.

Attached: 1557356703125.jpg (957x621, 90K)

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

Denying that power exists is dumb asf.

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.

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

Attached: 20190508_163502.jpg (1251x960, 343K)

I think syndicalism would fit into this framework

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.

URBIT

More like URQUIT amirite

lmao solid reference

he's an artist not a janitor

Still makes me worried.

Attached: 1557223834838.jpg (1080x1350, 299K)

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.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-09 at 1.02.05 PM.png (910x741, 736K)

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.

Attached: 1000x-1.jpg (1000x667, 116K)

What are you referring to?

so he's a fucking leftist

uh oh

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.

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

Attached: gshbxvzpoy211.jpg (479x348, 54K)

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.

Land is a retard himself

updated version

Attached: D3Rm3ngUYAA4N9t.jpg (1200x834, 196K)

you actually have that backwards

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.

>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.

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.

I think that picture is actually from the early 90s

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?

>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.

you don't because that would just be retarded

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?

>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

Damn, Moldbug looks like THAT?!

essay upload

youtu.be/CFI-BBI-j-M