What is the most radically right-wing system concoctible?

[Vetalia]

Probably ISIS tbh. They literally despise all things modern and want a holy war between their strict interpretation of Islam (they basically consider only themselves to be real muslims) and everyone else until the whole world is conquered by Islam and forced to convert or die. I can't think of anything more fascistic and reactionary, between IsIS's use of genocide to change the demographics of their caliphate, their maltreatment of women and their belief that this is the end of the world. I dare anyone to find something further right wing and extremist than ISIS. The Nazis may be on par with them but they weren't more extreme ideologically

I still think the Khmer Rouge are the worst right-wing system. ISIS was bad but at least they tried to create a functional state.

Maybe as a dark horse Macias Nguema in Equatorial Guinea.

[Rojava Free State]

Probably ISIS tbh. They literally despise all things modern and want a holy war between their strict interpretation of Islam (they basically consider only themselves to be real muslims) and everyone else until the whole world is conquered by Islam and forced to convert or die. I can't think of anything more fascistic and reactionary, between IsIS's use of genocide to change the demographics of their caliphate, their maltreatment of women and their belief that this is the end of the world. I dare anyone to find something further right wing and extremist than ISIS. The Nazis may be on par with them but they weren't more extreme ideologically

Seriously? I get it but Nazis are spoken of as devils, ancient and feared. It's odd seeing people worse than people treated like a prophesized Great Darkness.

Not saying they weren't evil. I'm saying they weren't morally worse than ISIS. Same level maybe but not worse

[Rojava Free State]

Probably ISIS tbh. They literally despise all things modern and want a holy war between their strict interpretation of Islam (they basically consider only themselves to be real muslims) and everyone else until the whole world is conquered by Islam and forced to convert or die. I can't think of anything more fascistic and reactionary, between IsIS's use of genocide to change the demographics of their caliphate, their maltreatment of women and their belief that this is the end of the world. I dare anyone to find something further right wing and extremist than ISIS. The Nazis may be on par with them but they weren't more extreme ideologically

I still think the Khmer Rouge are the worst right-wing system. ISIS was bad but at least they tried to create a functional state.

Maybe as a dark horse Macias Nguema in Equatorial Guinea.

Weren't the Khmer Rouge communists?

[Vetalia]

Weren't the Khmer Rouge communists?

Nominally, but they went off the deep end big time and pretty much repudiated every leftist doctrine in Communist theory in practice.

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

The most radically right-wing system possible is probably some kind of society founded on mass slavery, as in French Haiti, the Congo Free State, or Manchukuo, mixed in with a Fascism society based on Führerprinzip; in that society, then, there is a total and complete hierarchy, as one man or woman completely dominates over a mass of slaves.
quote="Talatorrum";p="35839212"]
That sounds like a plausible answer but fascism has often adopted the economic style of corporatism which has often been described as economically center.

Like populism, Corporatism is so broad and vague an ideology to the extent that it is a key feature of both Nordic social democracy and Interwar fascism.
In practice, there is no singular fascist economics; in Italy, for example, the state nationalized much of the industry, and in Germany, the state privatized much of it. That being said, fascism's effect was generally to destroy independent, usually socialist, trade unions in favour of fascist trade unions totally subservient to capital (a more "right-wing" move, I suppose), while at the same time making capital subservient to the state - and unlike in democracies, this is not to the left, because both a capitalist business and a dictatorship are fundamentally hierarchical institutions.

Yes, but the goal of fascist, "corporatist" organizations is collective work for collective gains while the goal of capitalists in capitalist organizations is individual gains. Also, heirarchy can mean many different things. To some, it means inequality, but it can also be a system of mutual obligations

In practice, every fascist state except for Nazi Germany and arguably Imperial Japan (which I would argue wasn't very fascistic, because it was fundamentally traditionalistic, not modern and revolutionary, which fascism very much is), quickly became just another bureaucratic authoritarian state.

And in any case, hierarchy is very much NOT the same thing as collectivism. The two are frequently related, to be sure, but not necessarily so; look up "horizontal collectivism" and "vertical individualism" for reference. If the people are economically equal and cooperative, it's not really a hierarchy, it's a heterarchy. The people may have different roles and different obligations, but they're fundamentally subjugated to roughly the same amount of labor and roughly allocated the same amount of resources and through that economic power, and equal distribution of economic power is very much not hierarchical and very much egalitarian.

[Vetalia]

So Communists get the Right Wing Award.

I can't remember the guy who proposed it but there's a theory where the extreme left and extreme right are like a horseshoe where they actually bend towards each other rather than spread further apart.

[Vetalia]

Fair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

A little Wikipedia magic solved my conundrum.

[Darussalam]

[Rojava Free State]

(Image)

Nice

[Saiwania]

Nazi Germany was so much more superior to ISIS. They were uniformed, in charge of an actual industrialized nation, had hierarchy, had a police, education system, etc. An entire society. ISIS on the other hand, were a bunch of savages that did conquest and terror for the sake of it, rather than for a specific Führerprinzip or world order.

[The Grims]

Nazi Germany was so much more superior to ISIS. They were uniformed, in charge of an actual industrialized nation, had hierarchy, had a police, education system, etc. An entire society. ISIS on the other hand, were a bunch of savages that did conquest and terror for the sake of it, rather than for a specific Führerprinzip or world order.

ISIS did have a policeforce and their own coins. All based on looking flashy.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Nazi Germany was so much more superior to ISIS. They were uniformed, in charge of an actual industrialized nation, had hierarchy, had a police, education system, etc. An entire society. ISIS on the other hand, were a bunch of savages that did conquest and terror for the sake of it, rather than for a specific Führerprinzip or world order.

Did you know what they both have in common? They're both shitty systems that committed genocide, and other repressive tactics.

[Saiwania]

Did you know what they both have in common? They're both shitty systems that committed genocide, and other repressive tactics.

The Third Reich was wonderful, for those who could benefit from it. The main flaw was that many people under the Reich's control or jurisdiction could've been utilized for better purposes than for slave labor. The Nazi system was good so far as how it was organized, but could've done with some streamlining and minor tweaks. I like how for example, the German military had entire divisions worth of foreign volunteers or conscripts. If the Eastern Europeans could've been incentivized, they'd have fought against the Soviets with vigor.

[Conserative Morality]

Nazi Ancaps.

[Conserative Morality]

Did you know what they both have in common? They're both shitty systems that committed genocide, and other repressive tactics.

The Third Reich was wonderful, for those who could benefit from it. The main flaw was that many people under the Reich's control or jurisdiction could've been utilized for better purposes than for slave labor. The Nazi system was good so far as how it was organized, but could've done with some streamlining and minor tweaks. I like how for example, the German military had entire divisions worth of foreign volunteers or conscripts. If the Eastern Europeans could've been incentivized, they'd have fought against the Soviets with vigor.

I too love the organizational system where multiple departments and individuals are given overlapping authority so they constantly fight one another instead of actually getting anything done.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

I myself might consider a mix between feudalistic monarchism and a heavily racialized social meritocracy.

My nation. A nation ruled by megacorporations and talking heads, which enforces its imperialistic will over foreign nations and over its own citizens. It is a police state, with cameras in the streets and police wielding tanks and toxic gas. There is false democracy, where one can only win through being backed by the above-mentioned megacorporations. Minorities and others are given casual discrimination, and those who resist are put to work as slaves, while those who accept it are used as 'examples of diversity' and as political tools. The average worker is paid only enough to live, and any attempts at improving their working conditions are likened to extermination camps and are told that their working conditions will only be made worse if they do so. The economic world is filled with liars who are funded to support corporate economics as a large con of trillions goes around the world, with entire nations being owned by corporations and bloodshed is normalised on the news as people are made apathetic to politics through entertainment and drugs. Corporations are more powerful than nations and effectively own the world, as large recessions are staged by 'too big to fail' corporations that take billions from public hands as preventable disease and starvation are considered daily facts of life.

The worst thing is that, despite all of this being in public view, a vast majority of people still believe that the system is the best in the world.

Welcome to the modern world, my idealistic child.

[Chestaan]

A strict hierarchial system with rulers, ordinary workers and slaves. Both of the lower castes would be highly confined in their actions either through explicit legal means (the slaves), economic means (the workers) or a mix of both.

[Forsher]

When you are born you are given a number.

Everyone with a lower number you must obey the commands of without question or you will face punishment they shall devise, by commanding others to do it to you.

You can command anyone with a higher number than you similarly.

A perfect hierarchical straight line.

EVERY MAN A KING!!!

I feel like there must be some sort of generational & familial correspondence in numbers to enhance the inequality. Perhaps you get the average of your initially assigned number and your parents' numbers? And maybe the children can fight among themselves to inherit parental numbers (if they so choose).

People with only one stated parent would either have an outrageously high secondary number or no number at all...

I'm also not sure people could be convinced that this system makes sense without some kind of "explanation" for it. Having a familial link would greatly enable the ability to discriminate as well, since it becomes not merely a question of "your number" but also who you are.

[Rojava Free State]

Nazi Germany was so much more superior to ISIS. They were uniformed, in charge of an actual industrialized nation, had hierarchy, had a police, education system, etc. An entire society. ISIS on the other hand, were a bunch of savages that did conquest and terror for the sake of it, rather than for a specific Führerprinzip or world order.

#1 ISIS had a defined army
#2 they had their own news magazine
#3 they had coins
#4 they had drones
#5 they were working on using automated cars for terror attacks
#6 they didn't do it just for the sake of terror, they did it to conquer the world for their radical ideology
#7 they were no more savage than the nazis who gunned down villages full of innocent civilians
#8 why are you giving off mad neo Nazi vibes?

[Ostroeuropa]

When you are born you are given a number.

Everyone with a lower number you must obey the commands of without question or you will face punishment they shall devise, by commanding others to do it to you.

You can command anyone with a higher number than you similarly.

A perfect hierarchical straight line.

EVERY MAN A KING!!!

I feel like there must be some sort of generational & familial correspondence in numbers to enhance the inequality. Perhaps you get the average of your initially assigned number and your parents' numbers? And maybe the children can fight among themselves to inherit parental numbers (if they so choose).

People with only one stated parent would either have an outrageously high secondary number or no number at all...

I'm also not sure people could be convinced that this system makes sense without some kind of "explanation" for it. Having a familial link would greatly enable the ability to discriminate as well, since it becomes not merely a question of "your number" but also who you are.

This runs the risk of two people averaging out to the same number and ruining the perfect hierarchical system.

As for explanation, obviously you're smarter and more intelligent than people younger than you, right? You've lived longer, experienced more, and so on.
This is also true for people older than you.

Self-interest does the best.

By the time you're old enough to have the potential to question the system, you're already advancing up the hierarchy and have a bunch of peons raised to obey you, and obviously they should know their place and not be upstarts. So you support the system, as even if you vaguely suspect those above you shouldn't be there, obviously those below you should, obviously, so there must be *something* to it, and if you wait long enough you'll get more and more influence anyway.

Questioning your superiors has the built in gaslighting mechanism of;
"Ah you see? You are not yet old enough to understand the wisdom of this system, this is precisely why we are in charge."

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Nazi Ancaps.

Something that should not even be possible, but somehow are.

[Talatorrum]

Maybe a state that is controlled by a single monarch who has the complete authority to do and command whatever he wants. The theoretical monarch would construct a system of lords who have their own inherited ranks of power, these lords would then gather their knights to force and oppress the commoners into working for them without question. The marauder knights would then go to the areas where the working class population would be living and then they would hypothetically rape, murder and plunder the commoners. The stolen materials that have been gathered by the downtrodden people would then be distributed to the lords and the king and additionally to this authoritarian perversion of feudalism, the populated areas who do not contribute positively to the economy would then be made examples of in the most brutal way fashionable to the aristocracy.

[Bear Stearns]

An authoritarian technocracy that fully embraces eugenics and the biosciences as part of its sense of identity and takes a very Darwinian outlook on life.

[Talatorrum]

An authoritarian technocracy that fully embraces eugenics and the biosciences as part of its sense of identity and takes a very Darwinian outlook on life.

That sounds sounds like a pretty good contender but the state might support an increase welfare and some other practical social projects due to this system being primarily focused on the best objective outcome.

[Forsher]

An authoritarian technocracy that fully embraces eugenics and the biosciences as part of its sense of identity and takes a very Darwinian outlook on life.

That sounds sounds like a pretty good contender but the state might support an increase welfare and some other practical social projects due to this system being primarily focused on the best objective outcome.

I don't think it would. I see this proposal as being entirely "principled" and not at all practical. That is, to the extent it holds "best objective outcomes" to be the end outcome those can only result from doing the process "right" (e.g. use eugenics to make the human population its "best" genetic self) and not any post-hoc adjustments (e.g. welfare). To a large extent it'd probably be a tautology... the best outcome is defined to be the one that eugenics creates.

It's the difference between an employer who wants you to fill in a form in red ink whilst sitting in a bath of milk and wearing a rubber duck and the one who doesn't care how the form was filled in as long as it's filled in.