Quoting Terry Pratchett from memory: "They thought a king would make them free."
The thing is, feudalism works out really well for the king. Works out all right for the dukes, earls, and barons. Works out OK for the knights, and less well for the peasants. Those who advocate such stuff almost certainly think that they're not going to be the peasants. (They are also almost certainly wrong. If this dream/nightmare ever comes to pass, people like Moldbug will probably be used as useful idiots and then slaughtered like livestock as soon as they don't serve the purposes of the rulers. The rulers will be people who really understand power, not people who can write online screeds well.)
I'm sure some of it is good, honestly. But I think it's especially important to go to primary sources when people are talking about politics because (on all sides!!) people will often use imprecise language to make you think that something is worse than it actually is.
Feudalism/Democracy/Socialism/Capitalism/etc. ceased to explain reality a long time ago.
Regardless of one’s ideological starting point, the complexities of the modern world will necessitate an org chart which is both very broad and very deep.
A better explanation of what we have—and will continue to have barring some cataclysm—is laid out in Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution” and Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy.”
Exactly. That's also a big part of why Mao and Stalin had such high body counts--position maintenance.
Even Hitler was not immune. There's a story in Speer's biography where he was lecturing the gauleiters for wasting materials and skilled laborers on their McCastles when the military was in dire need. After the lecture, Speer was warned by Hitler to never do this again. Speer noted that this was the first and only time he had ever seen Hitler visibly afraid and shaken. No one is indispensable.
Similar issues arose in ancien régime Europe for the same reasons (nobles of the robe).
Of course, if we bomb, starve, or plague ourselves back into the stone age, that would definitely flatten the org chart, and forms of government would regain their distinctions.
I think Yarvin's only beef is the same one held by most of our malcontents. They aren't upset because our system is evil (it is). They are upset because they aren't at the top of it.
edit: Will also add that China is perfect example of this. In the first generation, Mao starved the peasants and executed his enemies. Once the patriarch was pushed aside,
the system scaled-up and took control, and now we have a nation which is regularly held up as an example (or even a necessity!) by our own Western elites.
The thing is, feudalism works out really well for the king. Works out all right for the dukes, earls, and barons. Works out OK for the knights, and less well for the peasants. Those who advocate such stuff almost certainly think that they're not going to be the peasants. (They are also almost certainly wrong. If this dream/nightmare ever comes to pass, people like Moldbug will probably be used as useful idiots and then slaughtered like livestock as soon as they don't serve the purposes of the rulers. The rulers will be people who really understand power, not people who can write online screeds well.)