Yarvin on Democracy, Leftism, and Julius Evola
The introduction to this series should be read first. It has the index to all posts in this series.
Blue Pill, Red Pill
In his second blog post, Curtis Yarvin makes what he calls a case against democracy. He begins by pointing out that we are all steeped in democracy and its values from birth, and it’s hard to change. To help see things differently (of course using The Matrix image of the red and blue pills) he offers ten statements about democracy and an alternative view. He doesn’t discuss any, so all discussion is mine. I’ll look at three, the first, and two chosen by the highly Enlightenment method: the 15th decimal digits of pi and e.
First PIll
blue pill:
Democracy is responsible for the present state of peace, prosperity, and freedom in the US, Europe and Japan.
red pill:
The rule of law is responsible for the present state of peace, prosperity and freedom in the US, Europe and Japan.
So close. Yarvin doesn’t ask himself where the rule of law comes from, nor why it’s working. I’d say that in a democratic polity most people think they have a voice in deciding laws, so they are generally willing to obey the laws. That leads to the good stuff, which encourages further acceptance of laws. Of course, there are other reasons depending on the nature of the individual and their sense of participation in humanity. Some people obey out of fear, or because that was engrained in them from birth. Others think about the alternatives, and agree to be bound. And there are many other possibilities.
Yarvin doesn’t ask himself who are the people who refuse to obey, like the current administration and its leaders. Are they acting like they live in a democracy? No. They act like they’re rulers. And it’s easy to see that a majority of people don’t like it. Of course the current administration goes much farther than others, but Yarvin might have noticed the abuses and corruption of the Bush administration, or that it pushed us into pointless wars and then failed at them. Maybe he suddenly has.
Third pill
blue pill:
The disasters of fascism and communism demonstrate the importance of representative democracy.
red pill:
Fascism and communism are best understood as forms of democracy. The difference between single-party and multiparty democracy is like the difference between a malignant tumor and a benign one.
Yarvin calls fascism and communism single-party democracies. But they were not democratic at all. They were all managed by a single person whose decisions were his own and were final. How exactly are they different from the monarchy he wants to install?
Fifth pill
blue pill:
Power in the West is held by the people, who have to guard it closely against corrupt politicians and corporations.
red pill:
Power in the West is held by the civil service, that is, the permanent employees of the state. In any struggle between the civil service and politicians or corporations, the civil service wins.
The premise here is that some person or group in each “Western” nation has ultimate power. It’s just as false that “the people” have ultimate power as it is that the civil service has ultimate power. Anyone who watched the Bush Administration run things would know this. The civil service is and always has been reasonably accountable to the political leadership, more in Republican administrations than in Democratic.
Yarvin doesn’t mention the role of the courts in all this. It’s a telling omission.
Leftism
In this post, Yarvin tells us that the essential idea of leftism is that intellectuals (he prefers the term “scholars”) should run the world. Scholars are indistinguishable from priests.He asks:
Can anyone find an exception to this rule—i.e., a mass movement that is generally described as “leftist,” but which does not in practice imply the rule of scholars, or at least people who think of themselves as scholars?
I’d guess he means that the ideas that justify and organize a leftist mass movement come from intellectuals. For example, Karl Marx justified and motivated the leaders of the Russian Revolution. John Locke justified the American Revolution and the form of its new government.
But that’s true of any revolution. There may be grievances, but grievances can be solved by negotiation or tweaks to the order of things. Regime change requires a replacement for the ideology that supports the existing regime. Does Yarvin understand that this applies to himself, to Ayn Rand, to all those right-wing jerks he cites?
1. In comments on my last post, people noted that Yarvin was going to debate Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor with a specialty in democracy. Afterwards, someone posted what looked like a transcript of the debate on Blue Sky. It was taken down and the account closed, but I read it before it disappeared. Yarvin’s arguments felt like a ball falling down a Pachinko board, bounding from pin to pin with no clear connection. Or, as the WaPo described his blog posts, he was “wildly discursive”.
At one point he said that Harvard doesn’t teach conservative thought. For example, no one teaches the thought of Julius Evola. This is from the Wikipedia page on Evola:
He viewed himself as part of an aristocratic caste that had been dominant in an ancient Golden Age, as opposed to the contemporary Dark Age ,,,.. In his writing, Evola addressed others in that caste whom he called l’uomo differenziato—”the man who has become different”—who through heredity and initiation were able to transcend the ages. Evola considered human history to be, in general, decadent; he viewed modernity as the temporary success of the forces of disorder over tradition. Tradition, in Evola’s definition, was an eternal supernatural knowledge, with absolute values of authority, hierarchy, order, discipline and obedience. Links and fn. omitted.
Evola was a major factor in Italian fascism, with ties to German fascism. After WWII he was closely involved with far right-wing Italian politics. It gets worse: “Evola wrote prodigiously on mysticism, Tantra, Hermeticism, the myth of the Holy Grail and Western esotericism.”
So, Harvard doesn’t teach a marginal weirdo fascist. That’s what Yarvin thinks is a gotcha.
2. I’m on the road, and my main book for this trip is War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy. It’s set in Russia between 1805 and 1812, and give a history of the Napoleonic Wars from the perspetive of Russia and five aristocratic families
Here’s how Tolstoy describes the attitude of one of his characters, Nicholas Rostov, towards Tsar Alexander I:
Rostov, standing in the front lines of Kutuzov’s army which the Tsar approached first, experienced the same feeling as every other man in that army: a feeling of self-forgetfulness, a proud consciousness of might, and a passionate attraction to him who was the cause of this triumph.
He felt that at a single word from that man all this vast mass (and he himself an insignificant atom in it) would go through fire and water, commit crime, die, or perform deeds of highest heroism, and so he could not but tremble and his heart stand still at the imminence of that word. P. 467, Kindle edition.
Does Yarvin feel that looking at Trump or Musk?
As a trans woman, I will never stop laughing at conservatives using the blue pill/red pill analog without realizing that it’s about choosing to be transgender.
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and common, your username will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
Re: #2. I’m not sure Yarvin is all that happy with Trump, et al. He seems more like a person who loves to articulate how much he hates everything and everyone. He’s close to being a nihilist. His theory of what a good government might look like is wildly hypothetical. But that saves him from taking any position that might be empirically tested.
Yarvin is like Humpty Dumpty – he uses a word like democracy to mean what he wants it to mean, even if that meaning is not remotely the accepted definition.
That would be ok if he defends his definition by resort to historic meaning or linguistics. I’m betting that he doesn’t..
The rule of law and democracy are not mutually exclusive.
His blather about civil servants would make sense only if civil servants could pass on their position to some they choose. Yarvin seems to parrot the right wing line that the federal government is infested with leftists and the leftists are able to stay in power. However, it might just be that government service attracts a certain kind of person. Maybe government service creates “leftists”.
Or maybe government jobs attract people who are driven to serve the public through work, and Curtis Yarvin has absolutely no fucking clue what that means because he’s never had to work to make anybody else happy let alone had any interest in doing that.
“Fascism and communism are best understood as forms of democracy. The difference between single-party and multiparty democracy is like the difference between a malignant tumor and a benign one.”
Well, that is certainly an opinion. If democracy encompasses forms that are rule of just a few people, isn’t monarchism or dictatorship just an extreme form or single-party democracy? Seems very Humpty-Dumpty.
“Can anyone find an exception to this rule—i.e., a mass movement that is generally described as “leftist,” but which does not in practice imply the rule of scholars, or at least people who think of themselves as scholars?”
US socialism of the 19th to early 20th centuries? It was union and labor-led, not scholar-led. Actually, besides technocracy, I can’t think of any movement that implies the rule of scholars
I can’t think of any form of government that puts scholars in charge. Real scholars don’t want to be in charge. They like studying and talking about stuff with their colleagues and occasionally outsiders. Your guess of the reforms of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries is better than anything I came up with.
That’s why I proffered my understanding that scholars provide a framework for a different ideology. But who knows?
“Real scholars don’t want to be in charge.”
And they also may fear being in charge. Despite their gaining mastery, many scholars only see “how much they still have to learn” or they come to realize how much simply is unknowable—and so they become increasingly less confident in their belief in their personal suitability to act or lead. In terms of the Dunning-Kruger effect this is represented on the (mostly neglected) far right-hand side of the diagram (in Wikipedia). In cases such as these, they might need to be reminded: “You only know plenty.”
A good friend graduated from Annapolis several decades ago. He used to say that the service academies were less interested in top scholars, which private schools tended to drool over, than all-rounders, who had a bias toward action. In simplest terms, doing what can be done is much preferred to thinking too much about what should be done, and only then getting around to doing it.
That seems right to me. Effective politicians tend to do the same.
What I was taught was that you go for solutions you can work with and improve, rather than going for unattainable perfection.
Sounds like the preferred product would be likely to “Ready, Fire, Aim”
[Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “JJ” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your established username. You have a total of (4) usernames so far, beginning with your original username J J Hayden and JJ Hayden, Julius Hayden, and JJ. Creating new usernames constitutes sock puppeting which is not permitted. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]
I despair, honestly. Why, with the tribulations and disgust Agent Krasnov causes, is this Yarvin person (who resembles a Simpsons character and sounds like the Unabomber) taken so seriously as to be in the position to recommend a complete change of our government? Yikes! We’ve been hijacked!
From an old pseudo-hippie chick to a real one, I think allowing very young people to earn huge sums of money in tech when they have never learned how to be human is an absolute danger to society at large, not to say THE ultimate danger. I recall my alarm in 1992 on hearing a very proud wealthy grandmother boasting about a granddaughter who, after graduating from business school, scored a job earning $120,000/year. I could only think “what does she know about life going from a coddled existence to instant personal wealth?” I worked for wealthy people for a few years & they all regarded younger people in their circles who did not achieve wealth as people who failed to succeed.
And every last one was a republican. I love your description of Yarvin. To me he resembles my boyfriend from long, long ago but that man completely understood that he had much to learn.
Only men can nurture the belief that they remain absolute masters of a world defined–by them–in abstractions and pseudo-intellectual phrasings. Most men get shorn of this delusion by middle age. (Women, it need hardly be said, live with the “violence” of nature starting early on.)
The men who don’t, the cave-dwellers like Yarvin, ought to die on their own starved vine, victims of the airless, hermetically sealed mental environment they create for themselves. What distinguishes Yarvin from his pathetic ilk has nothing to do with his mediocre output; it lies entirely in the usefulness his “ideas” posed to careerists like Vance, who gave them air.
It’s incumbent upon us now to leave them behind, forgotten, where they belong.
Besides petulantly whining about Democracy, does Yarvin address how to replace his idealized CEO leader should they (is it always “he” in Yarvin’s musings?) turn out to be capriciously corrupt? In theory, and in practice, Democracy provides a means to replace elected officials.
I haven’t seen anything to suggest he has a theory of change. The WaPo article I linked suggests he hadn’t thought through much of anything.
Excellent series so far. I read W&P many decades ago with a Dr. Fiene as my (excellent) guide through this and other Russian literature. Tolstoy’s critique of the ‘Great Man’ theory is thorough, though the work offers more than that. I look forward to your further critiquing of Yarvin’s sloppy and chaotic thinking. We’re either of his parents devotees of Larouche?
Yarvin’s claim that Communism and Fascism are different versions of democracy is dishonest and anti-intellectual. It seems to be a garden variety attempt to say that moving from a representative democracy to, say, Trump’s Fascism isn’t that much of a change, and most people should be happy with it. After only three and a half months of Trump, we have already seen how false that claim is.
IIRC, the fascists, the Chinese communists and other communists, and African dictators like Mugabee all claimed they were single party democracies. (Apologies Rayne if this is a different name – it’s probably been decades, but I think I did comment once or twice in Marcy’s early years.)
[FYI – you’re good, I see (3) comments under this username and email address. Carry on and welcome back to emptywheel comments! /~Rayne]
I’m pretty sure that Trotsky and other Bolsheviks said they had a “single party democracy.” Until Stalin showed what they really had.
Other examples of “single party democracies”: Chinese Communist parties, African strongmen like Mugabee. Not sure about Hitler, Mussolini or Franco.
LOL. I’m pretty sure Stalin described Soviet-era elections in Poland as democratic, more than one Roman emperor thought himself a god, and Trump thinks he’s 6’3″ and weighs 190 lbs. Doesn’t mean any of it is true.
Yarvin’s claim that power in the West is held by govt civil servants, who are antagonists of elected politicians, is grossly over-simplified. He supports Trump’s view that only the whims of elected politicians, or at least the chief elected politician, count.
Civil servants, who represent precedent, due process, and the rule of law, restrain the chief executive. That makes civil servants inherently illegitimate, and justifies their immediate firing by the chief executive, without due process or a planned transition. Doing so is not only justified, but obligatory. It’s a foundation for chaos and dictatorship, not legitimate govt.
He must have played hooky the day they explained why the Civil Service system exists.
Yarvin is a petulant adolescent incel who probably couldn’t find a date to the prom. But he has a ton of money and the ear of the bitter Queen who owns Palantir. I won’t say his name. I have a high school education and can easily tell he is an idiot. The old saw that he is what a stupid man thinks what a smart man sounds like applies here. None of this changes the fact that he has a large disaffected following which includes the President of our country. Like Steven Miller, he needs to be put in front of a camera as much as possible. The more people see and hear these folks, the more repulsive they become. They are not camera shy. They crave attention.
Negative feedback loops are well known in engineering and science as the only systems that are “stable.” Moreover, positive feedback loops are also known as always “unstable.”
A leader that has no negative feedback loop (such as courts and civil servants) is inherently unstable and we have numerous examples over history of the very bad outcomes with this sort of leadership.
Yarvin apparently wants to sell himself as a deep thinker, deserving of praise for his thoughts. He is more akin to the drunk at the end of the bar who cannot shut up about the immigrants who live next door to him in his apartment that are advancing themselves due to their hard work.
“A leader that has no negative feedback loop (such as courts and civil servants) is inherently unstable …”
Pol Pot is one breathtaking–and recent–example. For those who want to know more consider watching these movies:
— The Killing Fields
— Swimming to Cambodia (Spalding Gray)
Also Shawcross’ book, “Sideshow,” covers some of the same ground, and has a few early notes on Pol Pot’s “scholarly” years in Paris, which provided him the basis for his ideas re: social reorganization.
“Sideshow”. Read that book 40 years ago! I’ve never before met anyone who read it. It was in a class at UMass that was a deconstruction of the Vietnam War. When the American wormhole became post modern. I am pretty sure the professor was ex-Harvard. Marxist, before “every” university professor was a “Marxist”. Tragic what Kissinger and Nixon did.
The Yarvin philosophy seems to be a mash up of late night booze and drug gab fests in Billionaire Tech Land. He throws half-formed ideas out there with the hope that someone will flesh them out or not. Or he takes ideas and extrapolates to the point of absurdity.
The concept of the civil servant ruling class sounds suspiciously like the older notion that unelected bureaucrats run governments. The dreaded Administrative State. Whether a government is a democracy, a monarchy or a dictatorship, the people who are tasked with implementing the directives of the policy makers can exert a lot of power, especially if the policy directives are vague and there is little oversight. Yarvin’s solution – a constitutional monarchy, with oligarchic overseers – is not a solution, because they still need implementers with good instructions and oversight.
Perhaps the futuristic solution is to automate implementation, through robotics and AI. But who programs robots and AI then becomes the new Administrative State.
“Carl Schmitt is central to Yarvin, both in his longing for a literal king-as-god figure who resides above the law, and in his view of politics as essentially war against one’s enemies.”
https://strangematters.coop/fascist-economic-debates-peter-thiel-curtis-yarvin/
There is a direct line between the Trump administration’s policies and the Nazi philosophy of Schmitt. Based on a belief that the ruler of the body politic stands above the state and law, the Trump administration understands itself empowered (if not obligate) to remove enemies – at present, in large part, select immigrants – from the United States.
Per Schmitt, the power to cull enemies from friends is expansive and unfettered save by the will of the ruler. The attack on birthright citizenship is a direct manifestation of this. To understand the philosophical underpinnings of the Administration’s behavior is to recognize the scope of the danger.
IMO, we use the idea that these policies are a direct line from Nazis. I believe this to be short sighted. From what I have learned, the Nazi philosophies and policies were learned from post reconstruction United States through the civil rights movement. Even the genocide visited upon the Jewish people of Europe was based upon our own genocide of our indigenous population. Sure, the line runs through the Nazis, but it finds its source here. I believe this is why fascism has taken root among republicans. After the civil rights movement, the billionaire class were afraid of the power of the vote. So they harnessed our innate racism to take that power back. It has worked.
The issue is not I think the history of American reactionaries. Ideas, like actions, have a history and the issue is what is the source of the ideas that animate Trump, and Miller, and Musk et al.
We know that Musk is familiar with Yarvin, and Miller and Yarvin, are both familiar with Schmitt. Trump reads Hitler’s speeches and Hitler was certainly familiar with Schmitt. Perhaps the following will resonate, if not with you then others.
“That is the basis of Nazi legal theory (Carl Schmitt). The law and the Constitution are just there so we can find the person, the Leader, the Furhrer, who breaks them, who makes an exception.” Timothy Snyder, X.
Expanding on this in in On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, Snyder explains:
“the legal theorist Carl Schmitt, explained in clear language the essence of fascist governance. The way to destroy all rules, he explained, was to focus on the idea of the exception. A Nazi leader outmaneuvers his opponents by manufacturing a general conviction that the present moment is exceptional, and then transforming that state of exception into a permanent emergency. Citizens then trade real freedom for fake safety.”
I’ve never read Yarvin’s blog or books and I’m thankful to Ed Walker for this commintery. What I know is from second hand sources and I feel like Yarvin could just as easily be the author of a “how to pick up woman” blog who has never gotten laid. His work seems more involved with process than outcome. People are messy, have never been, nor will never be efficient. I’m sure he sees others as bodies, static in time no matter what the moment may be, and not as lives that have beginnings and strive for a future. It’s hard to build a utopia and once finished fit people into it.
I’m not a scholar in political philosophy, but all of Yarvin’s ideas that I’ve read just seem half thought-through and missing the nuance and understanding of how complicated and interconnected the world really is. His use of “red pill – blue pill” already forces thoughts and choices toward binary consideration and outcomes. A better analogy would be the plastic box of multi-colored pills, with compartments labeled Monday through Sunday, which my mom relies on.
Also, thanks for not using Yarvin’s picture in this post. He skeeves me out.
The picture of Yarvin used several times on Ed’s Yarvin-related posts SHOULD skeeve you out.
More importantly, others need the same association between a mental image of Yarvin and the thoroughly-sketchy, half-assed philosophy Yarvin espouses. Remember that you alone may not be the target audience; many people still need to be introduced to and skeeved out by Yarvin.
I had your previous comment in mind when I decided to go with a portrait of Tolstoy. I think it is almost the exact opposite of that Yarvin pic. Tolstoy is a brilliant writer and thinker, and a fine historian of his era. That’s not Yarvin.
For the reasons Rayne stated, I’ll use the Yarvin pic in at least some of the future posts in this series. Yes, I am going to soldier on.
Many thanks, Ed. Always informative.
Yarvin and his disciples (Musk, Thiel, Vance, etc.) want to turn us into an Ayn Rand dystopia.
Yarvin claims that he isn’t a libertarian, or a Randian. I read his explanation, it’s part of the formalism post. I didn’t grasp it, so I skipped over it in my post.
Relating this metaphysically, this comes down to the freedom of choice. In the formalists epistemology, the individua has no freedom of choice, they must stay within the form. This stance would eliminate an individuals’ freedom to chose any action outside the form and thus their freedom of choice. One of the defining characteristics of of our shared reality is that we each do have that option to chose. It appears to me that formalism is just another way of suicide of the soul.
[Moderator’s note: see your comment at 4:13 pm ET. /~Rayne]
Mr Walker
Have you encountered the acronym TESCREAL in your reading of Yarvin? I will not try to pretend I understand it completely, but what o do understand is hair on fire frightening. Dr Wheelers blog here is read far and wide. I believe there is a lack of understanding to what exactly is happening and who is making it happen. It goes beyond fascism into something much more sinister. I believe An open exploration of this movement here might begin a conversation that is urgent.
Not yet, but that term is a perfect summation of the crackpot theories these weirdos have adopted. It’s impossible for normal people to take these ideas seriously,
The idea that we can change the nature of humans by force of will is at the root of totalitarianism, according to Hannah Arendt. See this post:https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/03/29/the-origins-of-totalitarianism-part-7-superfluous-people/
These people have real power. They must be taken seriously
Trying to think of the guy who really, really hated scholars. Who tried to kill every single one in his country…ah yes, Pol Pot
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and common, your username will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
My assumption is that the Tech Billionaires Boys Club like Yarvin because he provides a patina of philosophic legitimacy to their lust for power. My question is why do they bother? After all, they, in their minds, are Masters of the Universe. But, perhaps, I am wrong and they find Yarvin’s less than intellectually rigorous discussions enlightening.