The future of politics?


So, I found this io9 article about possible future governments interesting. The two that I was most curious about is the polystate and the neo-reactionary movement. I’m curious what you guys think about these two or any of the others on the list.

Also, feel free to talk about other forms not on the list too.


I’ve been arguing for Demarchy for years, it seems. I just didn’t know it had a name.


That’s probably more likely and even doable in the very near future. Part of the problem in our modern states seem to be corruption and entrenched interests. This could be a solution?


If the neo-reactionaries look like they will get what they want then I will immediately renounce pacifism. I don’t know how the polystate would work even in theory.

Demarchism is the only one I can see actually working without ending up as a dystopia, although libertarian communist seasteading (instead of libertarian capitalist) might be an interesting thought experiment.


Agreed! Their vision of the world sounds pretty terrifying for those of us who aren’t on top. But interestingly, I do think that they are also speaking to some of the serious discussions that emerged out of postwar french philosophy that had some serious questions vis-a-vis the Enlightenment and modernity. Foucault is the one I’m most familiar with, but I think that this was a general trend in philosophical circles, especially in the 50s through to the 70s. I think they just take it in the opposite direction from someone like Foucault, who thought that modernity had not freed us, but had deeply colonized us, to the point where we’ve internalized our own subjugation. I’d think Foucault would argue that the democratic impulses found in the enlightenment were mere gloss and needed to be a much truer form of democracy - he was certainly anti-state because it hindered democracy and freedom. These neo-reactionaries are clearly anti-democracy and aspiring elitists. They think of themselves as being at the top of the social and cultural ladder and as such, they deserve to tell the rest of us plebeians what to do.

I could buy into a demarchism, too. Though I am intrigued in the concept of a poly-state. The book that Weinersmith wrote seems like he meant it as something of a thought experiment. But some are actually proposing a real world version of this in order to solve the Israel/Palestine peace stalemate. While most are all about the two-state solution, others have floated a version of a single state solution. Mostly, this would mean opening up equal citizenship for Palestinians in Israel. But (and I’ve been looking for an article I read along these lines a couple of years ago, but can’t find it) someone floated a bi-national state where people are in a single geographic state, but are answerable to different government structures. Here is the wikipedia on the one-state solution - which compares it to the Bosnia example. however, it’s not a true polystate as I’ve seen it described thus far:


This topic was automatically closed after 981 days. New replies are no longer allowed.