Been meaning to post this for awhile.
It speaks volumes that Land, the defacto leader of tech-com, chooses to reside in the autocratic PRC even though he hails Capitalism as saviour,
Not sure why some think Land supports ‘tech com’, just because he occasionally links to technology and science articles? He advocates collapse and reset, which would be very detrimental to the progress of technology and capitalism. Don’t really see this ‘HRx’ thing catching on either. NRx is already small enough that it doesn’t need to be further partitioned.
The pertinent question is, how much control should the ‘state’ have over commerce? For Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, it’s very little. For traditionalists, it probably much more. Also, how much intervention (bank bailouts, crony capitalism, technology funding, etc)? It doesn’t have to be black or white (anarcho-capitalism or statism). For example, I support free markets with some intervention, from a consequentialist perspective, as a way of optimally allocating resources, which is similar to the system we have now.
Perhaps, HRx (and most NRx) is about the ‘Great Man theory‘, as exemplified by the excitement over Trump. But others are more incredulous . Government ‘waste’ and inefficiently is in and of itself a byproduct of politics and won’t be fixed by more politics. Also, man is fallible, prone to biases and irrationality, versus algorithms. Although if algorithms are created by man, wouldn’t that make algorithms fallible too?
i guess it was inevitable that the trichotomy would become a dichotomy. and a fairly stale one at that.
(and it should surprise no one that things split along precisely these lines — even marxism has been perpetually divided down the middle between “anti-humanists” and romantic anti-capitalists (cf., althusser v. thompson)).
Yup, the trichotomy has become a dichotomy, as I wrote back in 2015. The establishment of the Hestia Society in early 2015 seems to have put the kibosh on the techno-faction. But also geopolitical events are playing a role, too, such as Trump, immigration, rape-fugees, and Islamic terrorism in France and California, putting race and nationalism on the forefront and pushing capitalism and commercialism to the periphery, whereas in 2013-2014 NRx was more focused on techno-monarchist secession, not immigration and nationalism. In fact, many of the earliest NRx thinkers were involved in the Silicon Valley techno-subculture, and since immigration plays an important role Silicon Valley tech economy, it’s expected that as the tides turn against immigration, techno-commercialism fall out of favor. Maybe the ‘old’ NRx was too self-centered, too enamored with technology and wealth and not about community.
I also don’t understand how techno-commercialism is compatible with ‘collapse’ and eschatological variants of NRx. Collapse would slow the progress of technology. It’s my understanding that techno-commercialists are more optimistic about technology, with the possibility of succession or a technocracy to replace our current inefficient system of government.
Maybe the breakkdwn is as follows:
HRx – heroic reaction
TRx = techno/commercialism reaction
ERx = esoteric/philosophical reaction (less about policy and bread n’ butter issues and more about the philosophical elements of ‘power’ ‘sovereignty’ ‘order’ etc)
NRx = elements of all of the above