I really don't think that I have been reading enough philosophy. To this end I have decided to start reading more and to writing about what I have read on this blog. Left with downtime at work waiting for the AI to finish its programming, I thus read as an example of a modern philosopher Mencinus Moldbug's Formalist Manifesto. Suffice to say that I am not impressed. As such, I will be starting a series responding to his manifesto, starting this week with his introduction.
Indeed, anyone can really think anything, and while there is nothing new under the sun, this does not preclude new discoveries. The irreverant opening is clearly positioned to position Moldbug as an outsider without academic credentials. Which as a large part of his philosophy is the idea of the Cathedral with him being outside the Cathedral and thus better able to critique its foundations. In another article about democracy he makes this point more explicetly saying, "Suppose you were a Catholic in 16th-century Spain. Imagine how hard it would be for you to stop believing in Catholicism."
This is true, however, it is likewise just as hard convincing the new convert to Protestantism that Catholicism is not a tool of satan himself. Afterall, look at what those filthy papists did do Bohemia?
Indeed, being outside of the Cathedral and thus defining onesful purely in opposition to it is the issue that has plagued modern conservatism as we will discuss below. As such while I do understand why the bold claim of, "I just invented an ideology", does require defense, as someone who in his younger years developed my own ideology only to discover I had renamed minarchism due to my lack of education I am sympathetic, it also serves as a slight 'freshening' of the well. But let us take his objections seriously.
His objections can be summed up as thus. First of all, ideologies require age, and second of all as ideologies are old, it is impossible that he has improved upon them. These are inherently conservative objections, however, they are not addressed in the manifesto. For, his justification is that the four ideologies he identifies, progressivism, conservatism, moderatism (not an ideology), and libertarianism, each have significant holes that either warrant its complete dismissal, or have lackings that require patching.
As in, 'ideologies require age', but we have a present need. 'How could you improve on something so old', here is a flaw within an ideology. This is a roundabout way of answering the objections in that it fails to answer the first. I do think that the first doesn't require as much answering, and indeed he alluded to its answer in the very next paragraph and by dismissing every ideology which was invented or discovered prior to the year 1900. As these ideologies he seeks to disagree with are young and indeed are the dominant American ideologies, this refutes the claim that ideologies require age. It is also a premise that only a conservative would make, and given that he proceeds to insult then, I doubt they stick around to understand the allusion. One might say that while I do agree he has a right to attempt to combine the various peices of philosophy in a new configuration as long as he has done his due diligence. However, this is a clear attempt to building report with a specific audience and thus a rhetorical trick. His lack of credentials is his credentialist shield. Such a trick does not invalidate his argument, however, it deserves to be called out.
Rather than focusing upon these two objections directly as stated above Moldbug seeks to point out that there are fundamental holes within the ideologies that either merit dismissal or patching. We shall address each of these with my own personality thoughts.
But first, Moldbug says, "there are a couple of beautifully aged traditional ideologies" which I have an immediate disagreement with. These couple of aged traditional ideologies his called Progressivism and Conservatism. Now as these are vague terms we shall do a little assuming and presume that he means the greater Democrat and Republican ideologies that dominate the United States and political discourse. As this essay was written in 2007, Conservatism shall be represented by Bush-Reagan conservatism while Progressivism by the academic ideologies that he decries elsewhere as the Cathedral.
Given these two definitions, one wonders then what exactly his definition of 'aged' and 'traditional' is. Afterall, progressive thought, while it has its roots in Marxist critical theory, largely formed after the academic adoption of Postmodernism in the 60s. I'm certain that the Truman style democrats would vehemently disagree with the Obama era progressivism given it was Harry Truman himself that declared the US a Christian country. In less than 100 years the left wing has obviously embraced a novel form of ideology.
Likewise, the modern conservative ideology, pejoratively called neo-con, has similarly recent origins. Pre-Trump conservatives largely organized themselves around the principles of free trade, deregulation, and foreign intervention. Later in the article Moldbug states exactly this saying, "The modern American conservative movement...is paradoxically much younger than the progressive movement..." While I do question his use of much, this is largely true. However, the exact lines and political family tree are to complicated and beyond the scope of this article. As such, we shall utilize our best faith assumption of when Moldbug holds these ideologies started, that is with FDR and Reagan. Given these two starting points, I again question the wording 'beautifully aged.' Neither of these ideologies are more than one hundred years old.
Completely unaddressed are ideologies such as Confederalism, those who hold to the Articles of Confederation, Neo-Confederatism, actual Neo-Confederates not Alt Right weirdos, Jeffersonianism, Constitutional Conservatism, and Hamiltonian Federalism. To be less niche, the Corporate Democrats and Rand Paul Conservatives are both ideologies that hold sway. Most damning is that his formalism would require modifications to the US Constitution, yet Moldbug fails to address its foundations, that is not only Hamiltonian Federalism but also Jeffersonian Federalism and Madisonian Federalism. Jefferson Federalism it should be noted is not Jeffersonianism, but rather Jefferson's strict spell-it-out-for-me interpretation of the constitution.
This is of course ignoring ideologies from Anarchism to Scholasticism, to Totalitarianism that are seemingly ignored. Now, you might say that this is beyond uncharitable as one could not possibly address every random political ideology. Afterall, spending ink attacking niche ideologies such as Ustachism or Synarchism when the time is indeed much better spent in attacking the ideologies dominant within our system. Instead, my critique is aimed at him all but saying that everyone falls within these four ideologies. By presenting Formalism as a cure for ills, he naturally opens himself up to the question of do other ideologies have such a cure. If Moldbug had merely stated these are the dominant American ideologies then besides my pointing aggressively at Constitutional Conservatism, I would not be spending so much of my own ink attacking this line. To put it simply, Moldbug really needs to understand that 100 years is young for an ideology. Though of course, this would ruin his 'freshening of the well' rhetorical trick.
And now we get into the meat of Moldbug's answer to his critics. Namely, he can invent a whole new ideology because the previous ones have serious issues that require fixing. It is this reasoning why I think he opens himself to the, 'but what about x ideology' criticism that I highlighted earlier.
The first that his highlights is Progressivism, devoting an entire paragraph to exposing the inherent flaw. This flaw is, in his own words, "the vast majority of writers and thinkers and smart people in general have been progressives." One wonders genuinely how this is a flaw. While he is correct that, "...this might slightly impair one’s ability to see any problems that may exist in the progressive worldview," this does not logically lead to the idea that progressivism is incorrect. Indeed, this argument, that institutional capture means the truth is distorted or non existestant, is the very argument that Postmodernists make and Postmodernism is the very heart and soul of Progressivism. As such one must either be Progressive in some way to accept this or we must conclude that there really isn't any issue with Progressivism.
Afterall, could we not imagine a universe where Formalism is the dominant ideology and has achieved institutional capture? Why then Progbug could write "the vast majority of writers and thinkers and smart people in general have been formalists." and consider Moldbug's own ideology refuted in its entirety. As I think Moldbug would rightfully call foul, I think that we are safe in calling foul on him with the same logic.
And as are all Formalists.
Okay, I shall. Now Moldbug turns to Bush-Reagan conservatism and his towering edifice of logic is that conservatives are cretans. I feel like I do not have to spill much ink in even addressing it as it is a blatant Ad Hominen. Given again the goal of explaining what the holes are in the current ideologies in the US, calling neocons cretans says more about Moldbug than it does them.
His second objection however has much more weight and really deserved a much longer examination and proper logical throughput. That is, "It also suffers from the electoral coincidence that it has to despise everything that progressivism adores" which Moldbug describes as, "a bizarre birth defect which does not appear to be treatable."
Why is this a birth defect Moldbug? Why is it not treatable? I shall not do his work for him on this. As such, his holes are barely asserted and certainly unproven.
From Conservatism Moldbug turns to Centrism or Moderation as he calls it. His attack upon it is that "It is an absence of thought." I do appreciate his thought experiment of a moderate finding himself in 1907 Austria as it forces the reader who is moderate to place himself in these shoes. The reader is made uncomfortable with the thought that he, who defines himself as non-radical, would have been radical. But, to summarize my objections, there are multiple reasons to be in the center, and not all of them involve 'absence of thought.'
However, this is where my appreciation ends. For, Moderation is an extremely vague term. The astute reader will note that I, unlike Moldbug, specifically defined Conservatism as Bush-Reagan Conservatism. This is as opposed to many many other forms of conservatism as diverse as Abe Conservatism to Traditionalist Conservatism. They do indeed have an ideological point that unites them all, namely, adherence to the status quo, or a set of values in opposition to attempts to subvert them. This is where Moldbug really should have discussed the question, 'does defining yourself based on opposition invalidate yourself as an ideology,' in much more depth, else, not brought up the initial objection. It is slightly tiresome to spend so much time attacking positions that I quite frankly consider irrelevant to the truth of Formalism.
Likewise, Moderation is a similarly vague ideology which is united around a common ideal. There are democratic Moderates, and monarchist ones, and, as Moldbug correctly highlighted, Habsburg Moderates. This however does not invalidate Moderation as an ideology. The foundations of Moderation is the supremacy of consensus as opposed to majority rule when governing.
So if we were to un-conflate the Moderate, the a-politicist, and the parrot of the status quo, the a-politicist, who rarely turns out to be such, would most likely shrug his shoulders and disagree quietly. I have found very few men who went pressed have zero values, rather a-politicism has far more to do as an ideology with non-involvement in the political realm. This ideology holds in whatever time you are in. Moderate likewise has no serious qualm as despite their objection to the state of affairs in 1907 Austria, they would wish to effect change only through broad consensus and compromise. This is not a lack of ideology on their part, and makes me of the opinion that a bit more Latin could have been beneficial for Moldbug.
The astute read will note that this is broadly similar in affect to conservatism, in that Moderation serves as a foot on the brakes while progressivism hits the gas. The argument of Moldbug against Moderation is that hitting the brakes is not an ideology as you do not wish to go anywhere. However, humans have two feet and thus can largely agree with progressive aims, but still think that consensus should be the primary method of change whether because of Burkean Conservatism or epistemological uncertainty. Indeed, Moldbug says that Formalism is an answer to effecting change without violance. Most critically, he missess that Moderation is arguing that consensus is that answer.
I could thus argue, Moldbug, you don't believe in anything, afterall, you want all existing power structures and arrangements to be maintained
However the parrot of the status quo, one whose ideology is that the status quo is an inherent good, would indeed have issues, as I mentioned above, in 1907 Austria. They would either have to compromise their own morals or cease to be Moderate parrotors of the status quo.
As such, we can see that all three of the four named ideologies lay undefeated. All three did not have their essence refuted, only a conflated caricature that was created purely by Moldbug's imprecision. Which means that the foundation upon which Moldbug argues for the necessity of Formalism is rather shaky. Of course, this does not mean that Formalism is wrong, merely, that his introduction is.
At this point I quite frankly have nothing to refute. Afterall Moldbug asserts, "...libertarianism is an extremely obvious idea...". Why? I mean, just because Moldbug wishes to live in a Libertarian society does not mean I would. Libertarianism has a bundle of assumptions and derivations from those assumptions that render it rather unthinkable to assert almost as an axiom. Now, it is possible with the correct framing to do this and to still create a philosophically coherent and rigorous essay, I in my previous article on duties of a state, did indeed presume universal ethics and as I have nicknamed 'Physicist Ethics', the belief that while ethics is accessible via reason, this reason must be consistent with moral intuition, I did not presume to declare the opposite as wanting. Instead my assertion is that given these premises, the conclusion naturally follows.
To propose a better framing, given Libertarianism, Formalism naturally follows. This is epistemologically humble as well as preventing this long, sort of irrelevant digression at the beginning of the article which serves only as a rhetorical device. Moldbug is not convincing anyone but die hard libertarianism of his ideology, where upon one wonders as to the purpose of himself writing? I think that he would say to me that he would like to demolish the Cathedral, however his unsupported assertions speak only to those outside of it.
So far, the manifesto has dedicated itself toward justifying its own existence. Logically, this is unnecessary, I don't recall other philosophical works beginning in this way, for if Formalism is correct then Moldbug does not need to commit the very wrong that he accuses conservatism of, defining itself in opposition. By bringing up these ideologies, Formalism is tied to these ideologies irrevocably. It positions itself as solving the ills that they have created. Progressivism is to ivory towery, conservatism is cretiny, and Moderation is to plastic. However Libertarianism is great, all we need is Formalism stuff.
For the sake of giving his argument its proper due, I shall drop these protests next week in order to examine purely the logical flow of his arguments. But for our final article, we shall indeed double back and interrogate every single assumption. It is ironic that given Moldbug's entire pitch for the dark enlightenment is in opposition to the Cathedral, he has done exactly what he has accused them of and allowed himself to be stepped in his own assumptions and biases.
Published 2026-03-27
Enjoyed this post? Subscribe to get notified when new posts are published.