In this article, I will examine key features of RNM, both existing and projected, in an attempt to derive the underlying ideology behind the system. This is much harder than it seems, because any practical implementation of an ideology will have regional variations. For example, Fascism of the 1940’s in Germany was different to Fascism in Italy in the same time period. Germany had concepts of master races, whereas Italy did and many other quite profound differences that set them apart. Further, not everyone agrees on the definition behind an ideology, which is interesting as many people profess to believe in something, yet can’t tell you exactly what that is. Certainly, there are lot of books, even by men who defined these political ideologies, but there is never a bullet point checklist to determine where you may fit in. From my understanding, its because this may help clarify an accusation of plagiarism.
Political and Social Theory
In the upper right-hand corner of this article is a diagram of the 'Political Compass'. Its a good way of looking at political positions. Rather than just left and right, the compass add the concept of up (Authoritarian) and down (Libertarian), thus splitting an economic position from a social one. So, let's now map this to well know political positions and figures of History.
I think the one thing that is not explained in the political compass is that it is, in any practical sense, a sphere or globe much like the Earth. I'm not sure if this is understood officially. But I will explain it. An extreme capitalist position is one without rules, which in effect, permits large scale exploitation (a form of theft) and accumulation of wealth. In any society, if this capital is not injected back into the economy, it creates an oligarchy with more say in how the nation is run than a group of the same size from a poor background. As time progresses, that oligarchy gets smaller and smaller, if left unchecked, until there is only one person or a small group with the vast majority of wealth and political control, with everyone else being equally poor. That is, in any practical sense, communism. On the social scale, an extreme libertarian position mean you can do whatever you like, survival of the fittest, which in a practical sense means chaos, disorder, mass death which eventually coalesces into a single group in control, with a strong leader or group. That is, it eventually becomes Authoritarian.
As we can see, perspective plays a role here. Whilst some view economic deregulation as a capitalist dream, others see it as a stepping stone to communism by increments. While some see liberal values as freedom, again, others view it as a stepping stone to form of dictatorship. The key difference is that one group is living in the moment, the other looking to the future. Both are correct.
The developers of modern democracies where thus far more intelligent than we give them credit for. The oscillation between left and right political positions, keeps us alive and free. To promote one exclusively, is to bring about the other, it will simply drift in increments with each generation and a lack of counter-balance to force re-calibration. So, in order to preserve your political position, you must periodically lose the battle for it.
Surely we can arrest this process at a point? The short answer is no, the long answer would require a course in physics (yes, it applies here). This said, Newton's First law is the crux of the issue:
An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Choice is an unbalanced force and thus our political system cannot remain at rest without eliminating your ability to choose. The idea of democracy is to place bounds on that choice, not remove it. Interestingly, with dictatorships, which are generally short lived in modern times, the elimination of choice drives the collapse and accelerates the decay. Thus, the only way to hold a nation or an entire world in a political viewpoint for any amount of time is the application of a military force whose mind cannot be changed. In a practical implementation, that would be a computer driven dictatorship. To be functional though, you would need the machine to be entirely autonomous, otherwise it will be subject to political drift within a group. I would argue that would be no different than any dictatorship and a breakdown would be expected within a century, given modern collapse rates.
I base this on analysis of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the year 2000, around 80% of the population still want Communism, today that figure stands at a little over 50%. Thus, the idea that the population, or the people, are the driving force of change is a falacy in modern terms, it is the ruling class that changes and introduces those changes to an otherwise disinterested population. That process took 69 years. If we take it from the time of the death of Stalin, which is arguably a new era in Soviet Communism, we're looking at 38 years.
There were certainly external factors here, but ultimately, this was internal change as the Soviet Union had sufficient firepower to address any external threat, especially any existential threat.
If we look at a place like North Korea, we can potentially expect a natural collapse in the course of the next 20 years. With a dictator, the process is slightly different and generally lasts through their lifetime, but my expectation is that dynastic rule in North Korea has come to a close. Already we are beginning to observe more Western influence there, from products to tourism and the slow creep of expectation is upon them.
This is the interesting thing about extremism of any form, because 'an object in motion' will continue unless acted upon by another force, the political compass tell us the only place for the nations to go is to democracy. Each of its oscillations are economically right (remember its a sphere). Its a bit like standing at the North Pole, all directions are South. A democracy has oscillations in the left and right. The converse is true for Neo-liberalism, or far economic right, in that both its economic oscillations are to the left. What this tells us is, what has been stated above, neo-liberalism and Communism, are the same thing from a practical perspective, it is merely belief that separates them, rather than anything tangible. The belief arises because of intent and a focus on a limited set of properties, rather than objective examination and comparison of the properties of the big picture. Intent is meaningless.
Thus, after we pass in any practical sense, the mid-point of any axis in any quadrant of the political compass we enter what could be termed the 'Tropic of Irony', or 'Zone of Hypocrisy'. That is, we begin to observe real manifestations of the polar opposite position. As an example, as with approach Authoritarianism, for a certain segment of the population, mainly those aligned authoritarian and those opposed, their actions are equivalent to that of Libertarian. That is, they set their own rules and the expense of others.
Having a good grasp of this is important when dealing with psychological operations dealing with ideologies and is vital for placing something like RNM in its appropriate context.
Is RNM Fascist?
To answer this, I will seek various statements across the web which see to define fascism, which show real goals in the various ideologies and compare them with RNM's behavior. A substantial match would confirm this, however, the inability to obtain that match will rule this ideology out.
I will start with some definitions found here:
The state must gain glory through constant conquest and war.
With RNM, glory is not the heart of the program. The only functions war provides are cover, revenue and distraction.
Union between businesses and the State, with the state telling the business what to do, with nominally private ownership.
From what I have observed, this is present, but mainly performed through RNM prompting and with key companies. The knock on effect is simply market forces, crony relationship and assets. But is this a 'union'? I don't think RNM could be classed as a 'union', but rather 'interference'. I do suspect some are business owners are aware of the interference and its nature, but probably the broader shareholders, staff, etc. Given this, its just a form of central planning.
Actual idealism, centralized government, social Darwinism, planned economy, anti-democratic, meritocratic, extreme nationalism, militarism, racism (Nazism). Traditional and/or exaggerated gender roles. One party system.
Actual idealism, which demands that the nation adhere to how people feel rather than abstract ideals, is actually Libertarian. An abstract ideal, such as human rights, is actually Authoritarian, as it is imposed by force regardless of how people actually feel. Its presence in Fascism, which is Authoritarian, is the product of the 'Tropic of Irony'. We could argue that this is a form of cognitive dissonance, the basis of madness and that view would be accurate to an extent.
With respect to RNM, actual idealism is not to be found. RNM dictates how you feel, rather than being driven by it. To RNM, how you feel is a means to an objective, not something it ensures you have a political voice on.
Whilst there is an argument for cognitive dissonance, or a lack of personal integrity, I personally think that the picture is more complex. Rather than an individual having a single political compass, they have many political compasses which are issue specific. On some issue I may be economically right wing, on another I may be Authoritarian and on yet another issue I may be a Socialist. The reasons behind this may be complex, for example any Socialist view I have may be rooted in moral values, whereas for someone else it may be purely ideological or a result of a personal experience.
This said, the tangible result of such complexity is that when implemented in a state, which has a single political compass ultimately, it means the state does have a form of cognitive dissonance, or an identity issue. It kind of sits in both polar opposite camps simultaneously if based upon extremism. This is an unstable situation and it must collapse in time.
Centralized government is much harder to pin down. RNM ensures continuity between governments is maintained, thus government in the classical sense is irrelevant. Further, its not a political authority, at least not one that many would be aware of. But, in practice, that's a fair description. So, yes, this is present in RNM.
Social Darwinism, the theory that the strong survive in society, is not present in RNM. This is because RNM attempts to script lives and any natural order could not exist. Social Darwinism has long been discredited, probably because people didn't like to be thought of as failures in nature, but the general concept is accurate. Like it not, the system works in a particular way and you are either fit to succeed in that or not. There are additional elements, such as parents with money, place of birth, etc., which are random and have a substantial effect, but Social Darwinism still applies.
A planned economy is certainly present in RNM, without question. Its rigging the system, but that's a form of planning.
Anti-Democracy is present, but its because in order to predict the future you can't have people messing it up by exercising choice.
RNM is not meritocratic, this would be a form of disorder in the planning. In a scripted environment, no major success is product of skill, luck, taking risks or achievement. It is simply what is in the script.
Extreme nationalism is not part of RNM. In order for this to function, it requires participation of other major government, nominally in the form of not shooting satellites down or as a direct partnership. Technically, that's not extreme nationalism, but a form of globalism, especially if it functionally reduces the number of independent nations.
Militarism does form part of RNM, its primary tool is the application of force.
Traditional and/or exaggerated gender roles is not really a part of RNM. If this crops up, its simply a product of the solution, rather than an ideological position. This said, some observations of RNM have suggested the inclusion of functions that are unnecessary in the scripting of an environment, unless it will encompass everyone making future prediction 100% perfect.
RNM is not a one party system, there is no party. Its a script completely developed by an AI. It will have investors who expect ROI.
Planning is based on projected labor output rather than money.
Planning is based upon money. Specifically, returns for the investors.
Private ownership of business is contingent upon submission to the direction and interests of the State.
Private Ownership is contingent on the script the AI is running.
Strict class structure believed necessary to prevent chaos (Italian Fascist). All class distinctions are eliminated (German Nazi).
Class structure is a product of the script the AI is running, whatever provides the greatest returns.
There are a lot more definitions and I could probably do an entire book on this, but from the above analysis it is already clear that RNM is not fascist. It shares very little in common with this ideology.
Is RNM Capitalist?
I think we only require a single definition for this:
an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and the investment of capital and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined mainly in a free market, rather than by the state.
The answer is no, with #RNM this is a fake process and is determined by the state (defacto or otherwise). This a process which increases with time, transitioning silently away from capitalism to a planned economy.
Is RNM Communist?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
If RNM has a philosophy I think it would be 'From each according to his defined role, to each according to their defined role'. That's a fairly similar concept.
All people are the same and therefore classes make no sense.
Under RNM, classes are merely roles in a script, as such all are in a real sense the same. This covers all major social, political and economic roles. The differences may be tangible in society, but they are not the product of choice, work or ability. As such classes make no sense in reality, just to maintain the illusion of classes.
The government should own all means of production and land and also everything else.
Given that RNM is in control, which is the purpose of ownership, then RNM would own everything. Government implies those in control of RNM, not necessarily the government we elect.
People should work for the government and the collective output should be redistributed equally.
This ideal was never present in any functional communist society. It wasn't present in the Soviet Union, China or North Korea. There was always a reward based hierarchy where people had additional material goods depending on their role in society. The same is present with RNM.
dictatorship of the "proletariat"
common ownership of the tools of production
This is a concept, in practice, the tools of production were in government hands. The same is true for RNM.
no private property
Another slippery one, as RNM controls the individual, the individual has no private property.
equality between genders and all people
All are puppets...but some puppets are more equal than others. Typical.
Usually anti-democratic with a 1-party system.
Oh, that's there too.
Rejection of free markets and extreme distrust of Capitalism in any form.
A communist society is stateless, classless and is governed directly by the people. This however has never been practised.
No change there then.
The concept of property is negated and replaced with the concept of commons and ownership with "usership".
Economic planning coordinates all decisions regarding investment, production and resource allocation. Planning is done in terms of physical units instead of money.
RNM puts a spin on this, to mask itself in fiat economies, it is done in terms of money. But we do observe an underlying current to move to a resource backed economy which would restore the former ability.
all religious and metaphysics is rejected.
Another slight twist, this is leveraged to leveraged to hide behind perception. This is a mockary, which is the same thing.
Either the collective "vote" or the state's rulers make economic and political decisions for everyone else. In practice, rallies, force, propaganda etc. are used by the rulers to control the populace.
That's got RNM written all over it.
Government in a Communist-state is the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers.
RNM is the agent of change.
So, this is one hell of a plot twist. Communism is back and its big, really big. It has hidden itself behind the perceptions of the general public and infect the US and much of the Western world as a desire of immortality and quests for Empires. In the West, it is presented as Neo-Liberalist Fascism, but that's the same thing as Communism from any functional perspective.
The really worrying aspect is that US's supercomputers appear to be involved and this goes straight to the White House and Congress.
Hello, Comrade Computeroff. Well played.