Are Network States Compatible with the Dark Enlightenment?

In the Post-Liberal World, Can Balaji and Yarvin Coexist?

Curtis Yarvin via NYT

Even if you’re the world’s biggest superfan of liberal democracy, it’s impossible to not have some mild curiosity about the alternatives. Years ago, this meant flipping through the Communist Manifesto or reading some of the classic anarchist screeds. Today it means reading articles about network wtates or subscribing to Curtis Yarvin’s Substack to keep an eye on the Dark Enlightenment.

These aren’t the only alternatives to liberal democracy in the air. It’s also trendy to talk about Automated Luxury Communism or to daydream about technocracy with an automated abundance economy. But in terms of new conceptions of government that actually feel activated—that have the allure of being threatening and dangerous in this moment—network states and the Dark Enlightenment stand out.

Nonetheless, very little has been written about what network states and the Dark Enlightenment have in common, and even less has been written about whether or not they are compatible.

That’s the basic question I’d like to answer here: Are network states compatible with the Dark Enlightenment (i.e. Yarvin’s monarchical idea of CEO-run governments), or are these ideas fundamentally at odds to the point where you can only advocate for one and not the other?

Quick definitions:

Network States are envisioned as online communities, organized by shared interests and values, that use crowdfunding and collective action to acquire physical territory. They ultimately seek to achieve diplomatic recognition from traditional states. The idea of network states was detailed in the 2022 book The Network State: How to Start a New Country by entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan.

The Dark Enlightenment is an anti-democratic movement based on the writings of Curtis Yarvin. It’s a multifaceted movement, but for the purpose of this essay, I’m referring in particular to Yarvin’s monarchical vision of running countries like corporations, where the president is a CEO.

At a glance, network states and the Dark Enlightenment are quite dissimilar. And yet, from what I’ve seen online, the type of person who is attracted to one is very often attracted to the other, almost as if both projects contain a singular vision for how societies should be organized and governed. This type of person is generally politically right-of-center, an enemy of government bureaucracy, and a creature of the tech world. JD Vance is the prototype of this type of person, and it just so happens that he has been directly influenced by both Srinivasan and Yarvin.

What Network States and The Dark Enlightenment Have in Common

Aside from being two ideas floating around in the head of our Vice President, here are a few foundational similarities shared by network states and the Dark Enlightenment:

Rejection of modern democracy: Both see contemporary liberal democracy as inefficient, performative, and corrupted by incentives. Both believe governance should lean into technology to do away with inefficiencies.

Belief in startup-style innovation for politics: Both argue we should rebuild institutions from scratch, not reform existing ones. Both look to Silicon Valley-style management and tech as models for governance.

Preference for opt-in, high-trust societies: Yarvin wants “patchwork” polities where people choose their ruler by emigrating. Balaji wants ideological network states formed by shared missions and values.

Major Contrasts

View of authority: Where network states are emergent, use soft power, and rely on earned trust, the CEO government leans into hard power with top-down authority.

View of the individual: Citizens in the network state are seen as co-builders and members of an exclusive club. Citizens in the CEO government are regular citizens subject to the strong ruler. Alternatively, to the extent that the CEO government is actually run like a company, the citizens may be viewed more as customers rather than citizens in a traditional state.

How people join: Anyone can join a network state voluntarily, assuming they have ideological alignment. The CEO government is the same as any traditional state: you join by being born into it or by moving (to the extent that immigration is tolerated).

Role of technology: Technology is central to the network state, which relies on cryptocurrency and decentralized tools. In the CEO government, technology is important but its role is only supportive to the traditional, centralized government.

Tone/ethos: The network state is characterized by optimism, pluralism, and an ethos of “build your own world.” The CEO government is realist, hierarchical, with an ethos of “submit to competent rule.”

Long-term ideal: If network states were to take off, you might expect to see many smalltime sovereigns arise. If a CEO government were to thrive, you would see a single efficient government per nation-state.

Are They Compatible?

Despite their many dissimilarities, these two alternatives to liberal democracy could be made to work in harmony. Specifically, a network state could decide to use the CEO governance model that Yarvin advocates. But this only works in one direction. It would not be possible to turn Yarvin’s monarchic state into a network state. This speaks to the core difference between the two: while the network state is modular and pluralistic, Yarvin’s vision is unified and rigid.

In practice, this means that global leaders like JD Vance will find Yarvin’s ideas more useful, while the average person drawn to post-liberal ideas will find the most practical value in working to join a network state. Once a network state becomes successful, it could pivot toward Yarvin’s ideas for a management structure. This could be described as a sort of opt-in monarchism, becoming something like a digital Singapore.

This piece is not an endorsement of network states or CEO-run governments. In fact I generally consider myself a liberal democracy superfan. But the idea of a digital Singapore is pretty appealing. If this new Singapore had a functional currency and physical territories in desirable locations, I’d opt in.