Introduction
Nick Land's Neo-Reactionary Trichotomy presents a view of the political world through a Neo-Reactionary (NRx) lens. It aims to evaluate the relevance of the historic Three Estates within modern societal and political frameworks. Once the Three Estates are considered applicable to today's context, the analysis moves to identifying whether the interaction among these estates is constructive or detrimental. In a functioning trichotomy, the Three Estates operate in synergy, each supporting the other. However, when imbalances occur, it leads to an unhealthy trichotomy, characterized by discord and dysfunction. Specifically, in the NRx view, this dysfunction is seen in the Clergy, with the remaining estates becoming so estranged that they no longer see each other as allies.
In the NRx view, the Three Estates—originally from medieval European structure, particularly the French—remain relevant. NRx suggests that today's equivalent to the medieval clergy is out of touch with the common people and the nobility, disrupting the balance that once existed. This has led to a significant divide, with each estate pursuing separate paths to address political issues, unlike the unified and cooperative methods of the past.
The trichotomy is a lens through which NRx ideals and assumptions are viewed. Yet, I suggest revising this framework with an alternative worldview that shares resemblances but has different foundational beliefs. Should one consider a more accurate model available, it ought to be brought forward. In the NRx context, there's a critical oversight stemming from their conviction that truth is manifold while falsehood is singular. Although reality can indeed present a spectrum of truths and singular origins of untruth, this notion contradicts the NRx schema, particularly its binary Friend-Enemy Distinction, indicating a critical inconsistency in their ideology.
The trichotomy's framework deliberately excludes anarchism and theocracy, and this exclusion is rooted in practical considerations. The premise is that while an infinite number of political ideologies exist in theory, the trichotomy focuses on those with tangible applications in reality. It aims to reflect political systems that are not just theoretical but have been proven to operate within the bounds of the real world. Therefore, it narrows the scope to a more pragmatically conceivable political landscape. Anarchism is often left out because, despite its aspirations to replace current societal structures with non-hierarchical alternatives, it tends to overlook the inherent need for governance and order, leading to unsustainable power vacuums. Theocracy, on the other hand, operates on a different plane, merging spiritual doctrines with earthly governance, a concept difficult to place on a political spectrum that seeks to distinguish between the secular and the spiritual. Moreover, theocratic systems can vary widely and fit at multiple points across the spectrum, confounding their categorization within a political trichotomy that seeks to maintain a clear distinction between the temporal and the eternal, which theocracies often blend.
The trichotomy's philosophical dimensions carve out the ideological distinctions between Left and Right, grounded not in overt political labels but in profound philosophical tenets such as metaphysics, purpose, and knowledge theory. Within this trichotomous framework, ideologies are situated: the far-right is epitomized by an unwavering commitment to a rigid hierarchy, while the far-left branches into two aims—absolute control by corporate entities or total egalitarianism. Progressing from right to left, one transitions from illiberal to liberal viewpoints. While the Left is united in its ultimate goal, it is split in the means to achieve it, with one path leading to strict social stratification and the other to the eradication of class distinctions entirely. At the top left of the trichotomy is a bisected blue dotted triangle, symbolizing the political spectrum within the bounds of what is publicly acceptable, known as the Overton Window.
A Reevaluation of The Trichotomy
The traditional trichotomy, rooted in the historical Three Estates, demands reconsideration to fully understand liberalism, necessitating the acknowledgment of a fourth group: the merchant class. Political movements are fundamentally driven by metaphysical beliefs, and here, the clergy's deviation due to spreading heretical ideas influenced the other estates. As the merchant class rose to prominence, it began to reshape societal structures and even managed to align with parts of the nobility and the burgeoning bourgeoisie. Marxism should not be seen as a corruption of these estates but rather as an effort to overhaul the liberal capitalist milieu from which it emerged. Both capitalism and communism aim for similar ends but diverge sharply in their methodologies to achieve these outcomes.
The Problem of Marxism
Giovanni Gentile points out two main critiques of Marx's theory: one, Marxism is seen as an ideology that evolves from capitalism; and two, Marx is deemed an inconsistent idealist who often contradicted himself. Gentile posits that Engels and Lenin aimed to correct these flaws, infusing Marx's abstract ideas with a vulgar materialistic interpretation that could be applied in the real world. Consequently, "Real Marxism" as envisioned by Marx was never actualized due to these internal contradictions. Leninism, therefore, is an adaptation of Marx's original thoughts, not their pure embodiment. This is highlighted by the dissonance between Marx's public commendation and private criticism of the Paris Commune, failing to align with his own socialist ideal. Engels and Lenin exhibited this discrepancy as well, though not as markedly as Marx.
Marx and Engels originally described their ideology as Scientific Socialism, a term we now often replace with Marxism or communism. Since I've argued that no system can be purely Marxist, all practical implementations are derivatives of Lenin’s interpretation of Marxist principles. Lenin set the benchmark for what is considered Scientific Socialism. Variations from this standard, such as those by Stalin and Mao or Deng who upheld class unity but strayed from orthodox methods, should be labeled differently and positioned further to the right due to their unorthodox approaches that diverge from Scientific Socialism. Trotskyism is an exception; although Trotsky was Lenin’s intended successor, Stalin took control. Post-Stalin, the Soviet Union's trajectory swung back towards the hard left, aligning more closely with Trotskyist ideology, especially during the purges.
The classification of capitalism as a leftist concept surprises many, but it's based on a clear rationale. Communism assumes the existence of capitalism as a necessary precursor. Marx acknowledged capitalism's role in breaking down national barriers, social structures, and customs, effectively dissolving authentic identities to create marketable ones. These commodified identities are often oversimplified versions of the original or entirely new constructs promoted by corporations, irrespective of their long-term viability.
The Third Position and Monarchy
Monarchy can exist independently from the Third Position, which is particularly evident in the case of liberal monarchies. Although the Third Position has historical connections to monarchical systems and shares certain philosophical and economic principles, it is distinguished from traditional monarchy by its modern context and technological progression. The Third Position can be seen as a contemporary iteration of monarchical principles, with differences arising from the specific national solutions proposed by each movement or monarchy.
In states that lean towards illiberalism, there is a deliberate effort to maintain a balance in the social structure, avoiding the extremes of class division seen in both Capitalism and Communism. These states aim for Absolute Hierarchy to ensure long-term societal stability. Decisions regarding whether to erode or reinforce class distinctions are made based on the perceived threats to the nation and the immediate and future needs of the society. An illiberal monarchist or Third Positionist state considers the holistic well-being of its people a priority, striving to maintain stability and uphold a clear social hierarchy through this governance approach.
Very cool