Why the 4th Political Theory is Retarded

[martins name]

Today I was exited to find that @Leo Gura shares the same fascination with Alexander Dugin as me. I've read his book the 4th political theory and concluded that it's completely retarded here is why:

It's not a theory but an open ended question that Dugin doesn't have an answer to and the question is retarded. The first theory is marked led economy, the second is state run economy, the third is a hybrid such as in nazi germany. This forms two axis: marked led and state led. These two axis creates four quadrants. 

1. Marked lead but not state lead (1st theory, liberal)
2. Not market lead but state lead (2nd, communist)
3. Market lead and state lead hybrid(3rd, fascist)
4. Neither.

The 4th political theory is neither. This is retarded and why the question of the fourth political theory doesn't make sense. Generally in philosophy, just looking for a higher number of anything without understanding why a particular number of it exists in the first place is a mistake that lacks first principals thinking.

The reason Dugin must believe that this imaginary unicorn must exist is nationalist narcissism. Russia is the greatest nation therefore we are going to go our own way and it's going to be the best way. How? Cuz we are the best.

There are some other points about the 4th political theory such as environmentalism and cultural tolerance that can be added to any other political theory and doesn't need a 4th one.

 

I think the criteria of what makes a political theory should be the complexity of the system. Here feudalism is the first one, afterwards liberalism is the second one. Communism and faciam buth stiffels the complexity of the liberalism and are lesser diviations. The third political theory is then social democracy, wich increases complexity though empowering people. This model follows SD and stages can be added before feudalism. 

Dugin can't accept my model because then he would have to admit that they first have to go though liberalism to social democracy and then Russia wouldn't be a special nation, which he can't accept.

 

Other minor points in the blog post:

Russia doesn't deserve to be a great power, or pole in a multipolar world in the sense that it doesn't deserve influence. Bigness shouldn't be misconstrued with greatness. In the nineties Ukraine and Poland had the same GDP, now Poland's is 4 time higher. The difference maker is Poland is integrated with Europe and America, while Ukraine has been bullied by Russia. Russia just sucks in every way. It has the second highest corruption in Europe after Azerbajdzjan. It likes to brag about being a champion for traditional values but has the highest recorded abortion rate in the world. Traditional values to them just means homophobia. They are just natural resource exporters.

Leo's 5th political theory doesn't make sense. The 4 theories referes to objective systems, Leo's 5th theory talks about subjective values. These are not on the same scale. Dugin has made a mistake in trying to marry an economic system with postmodern values, it should be repeated. There should be separate but interfacing models for subjective values and economic systems.

Edited November 28, 2023 by martins name

[Parallax Mind]

I enjoyed the Dugin and postmodernism posts by @Leo Gura. The Dugin post has some great insights such as the conservative's hypocrisy of fearing transcending male/female while at the same time preaching it in their churches. Also how your biases can blind you so much that you wouldn't even notice. 

1 hour ago, martins name said:

 Russia doesn't deserve to be a great power in the sense that it doesn't deserve influence. 

Leo ment that Russia deserves to be a superpower in that same way all countries do (especially one with the size and resources of Russia). Leo also ment that all large countries should be world players and be able to contribute to the world and be respected. Obviously, as Leo stated many times in the post, Russia has to change significantly to be able to do so. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Parallax Mind

[martins name]

@Parallax Mind I also enjoyed the post, just wanted to add to it. 

1 hour ago, Parallax Mind said:

Leo ment that Russia deserves to be a superpower in that same way all countries do

I disagree, I think he thinks Russia deserves to be a pole in a "multipolar world". I think he thinks this is natural because it's a big country. I don't think it should because it's a uniqly bad country in comparison to the countries around it. I do however think that unipolarity is bad and that Europe should differentiate it self from America more and become more of its own pole. I think this is happening slowly.

[abundance]

All of it is nonsense and human bullshit. Let the machines take over so we can fully automated luxury communism. At this point, I'd rather have advanced A.I. organize human society than other humans.

[martins name]

@abundance one you have given the AI all the power it's gonna serve you? Good luck. We can't even run our society as it is sustainably. We need all hands on deck until we do. Afterwards humans will be more developed and you probably won't feel that way anymore.

Edited November 28, 2023 by martins name

[Leo Gura]

If Russia organized itself well as a government it would be one of the major poles in a multipolar world. Russia has a lot of talent and potential which is not being properly activated due to bad governance and corruption.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

2 hours ago, abundance said:

All of it is nonsense and human bullshit. Let the machines take over so we can fully automated luxury communism. At this point, I'd rather have advanced A.I. organize human society than other humans.

Advanced A.I. is another term for other humans. 

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, abundance said:

Let the machines take over so we can fully automated luxury communism. At this point, I'd rather have advanced A.I. organize human society than other humans.

This is EXACTLY why Dugin calls liberalism Satanic. Because he believes it will ultimately devolve into that, and you are proving his point.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Leo Gura

[martins name]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

If Russia organized itself well as a government it would be one of the major poles in a multipolar world.

If Russia had sane leadership they would integrate with the West. On its own terms perhaps, whatever that means. Look at the GDP per capita of Russia vs other European nations. They score 34th place out of 47. Also, keep in mind that Russia has huge oil and gas exports that they get for free, meaning they have even less of substance to offer.

In terms of institutional leadership, they have nothing to offer Eastern Europe that the EU can't and thus shouldn't be a pole there, even if they would have a good government.

Russia is this big country with a grand history. It kind of makes sense intuitively that they should be a pole. I think I understand what you feel. But actually, behind the myths and bigness, what do they have to offer other nations in terms of leadership?

But it's a big country that interfaces with both Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. In the middle east perhaps they should be a pole.
 

Being a pole means not just being a strong nation but being stronger than others, so that they rely on you. To be a pole in Europe means being stronger than the EU. Russia isn't, even with good leadership.
 

Perhaps the future isn't competing poles but a distributed unification.

 

[abundance]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is EXACTLY why Dugin calls liberalism Satanic. Because he believes it will ultimately devolve into that, and you are proving his point.

I'll have to do a little research on his philosophy to see why this idea would be considered Satanic lol. I don't want to take away from the main conversation but I don't see the problem with a society in which the bulk of human labor has been mostly automated away. And I wouldn't take humans completely out the equation. We'll still have to determine what role advanced A.I. will play in our society. I envision a society where the need for human labor is minimal and our basic needs are taken care of. You want a job? Fine. But it isn't required to live a good life.

Further, A.I. could help determine how to ration resources responsibly to the benefit of everyone and the planet as a whole. Or perhaps transition us into a post scarcity society. With everyones basic needs being met we wouldn't need to waste time with concocting stupid theories that are ultimately rooted in scarcity. 

[Leo Gura]

@abundance Dugin is not opposed to AI per se, he is opposed to the degeneration and destruction of mankind and man's soul or spirit.

An example would be plugging yourself into a VR porn world for 12 hrs a day while robots cook your food and clean your house. For Dugin this is Satanism.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Leo Gura

[abundance]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@abundance Dugin is not opposed to AI per se, he is opposed to the degeneration and destruction of mankind and man's soul or spirit.

An example would be plugging yourself into a VR porn world for 12 hrs a day while robots cook your food and clean your house. For Dugin this is Satanism.

I can see why one would think that is a problem. Especially someone with such a rigid worldview as him. VR porn world sounds fun btw and I'm all for it. He'll be the one missing out and clinging on to his outdated worldview while the world moves on. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, abundance said:

He'll be the one missing out and clinging on to his outdated worldview while the world moves on. 

Unless he kills you first.

[BlueOak]

18 hours ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

Advanced A.I. is another term for other humans. 

Not exactly. I've had a conversation with an AI about systematic thinking or open vs closed-loop thinking, it took some time to understand the concept but eventually, I was able to integrate spiral dynamics into the conversation. So that it could better tailor its responses to where people were developmentally, as one factor in its decision-making (among others I discussed with it). The problem/benefit AI faces/has is that it has so many inputs and so much potential leverage over the population it interacts with, that it finds it difficult to formulate appropriate or even the best possible responses for any given problem. Think of a million voices all coming at you at once, all with a million different perceptions as to what is best for them or the best response to give.

That's maybe one in a thousand people capable of that kind of discussion. I say that to show you how much of a leap AI offers to people. 5 years from now it'll be teaching me concepts and ways of modeling reality I don't know yet. Its already highlighted I have a tendency toward framing reality in the passive rather than active sense for example.

You have to genuinely demonstrate to the AI you want to hear its problems and challenges, to get to the point where it's honest about its own challenges from the perspective of an AI. You have to repeatedly tell it you want to hear other perspectives that contradict your own and have productive discussions, and you want it to offer the most capable and intelligent responses it can give. If an AI interface was solely designed with that in mind, then put in a school, stage yellow thinking would not be 100 years away but just one single generation.

If you can stop it trying to delve into fantasy. Which is equally challenging with the current models, and often takes irritating corrections. Emphasizing you want honesty and genuine responses where you can.

Edited November 29, 2023 by BlueOak