and it makes sense if you think about how a Middle Class might have evolved post-Magna Carta. And much (most?) of the West is Slouching Towards Socialism, at least.
But think about the supposed endpoint. You get to what I'll relu…
and it makes sense if you think about how a Middle Class might have evolved post-Magna Carta. And much (most?) of the West is Slouching Towards Socialism, at least.
But think about the supposed endpoint. You get to what I'll reluctantly call True Communism and, in theory, no one's in charge. Everyone just contributes and partakes equally - in theory. But some lazy untalented envious comrade weighs down the whole commune. Some Kulaks are More Equal than Others. I think it all collapses, some strong people take control, and it cycles back around like : Communism --> Feudalism.
If we're lucky, post-apacolyptic a la Mad Max or The Book of Eli.
If things go way South, we evolve into Morlocks and Eloi.
Evil people always figure they'll be the one holding the whip.
Re: evil people always figure they’ll be the one holding the whip
I am reminded of a conversation I had with a co-worker. I wouldn’t have called him evil back then. He seemed to be a genuinely nice guy. But in discussing politics he fancied himself to be a communist. He was naive and ignorant of history. I quickly gave him a synopsis of what happened under Mao in China and all the people who were starved to death or massacred, and how the rest lost their freedoms of speech, religions, etc. In a “but these go to eleven” moment, he replied that it wouldn’t be a problem for him because he would be one of the people in charge under a communist takeover of our country. As you say, holding the whip. Never mind what happens to the masses. Needless the say, my history lesson made no impact.
A sorta high-stakes game of Musical Chairs, you say?
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
It never does in the moment, because he has to defend his side of the argument. Long-term though, with a bit more witness and experience of injustice, and his thinking on that score might evolve with help from the leaven you sowed.
That sounds just like one of my commie sociology professors in college. He painted a utopian picture of how we would all work some hours in the morning and then enjoy our free time in the afternoon. Then we would all be dancing together in the evening. And he really believed it.
Difference between heroic and messianic - the latter are authoritarians, thus prepared to enforce “the good” upon others; while the former lead by example.
Yes, we go round and round in these civilizational circles. It's all based on where power lies within society. When power is disbursed and distributed, you get a middle class and rights, but when power is concentrated you get tyranny and feudalistic systems. Changes in technology cause changes in the allocation of power. Firearms made peasants far more dangerous and the elite far more vulnerable. You had to treat the common man better because they made up the bulk of your army, and later the bulk of your productive tax base. During the industrial revolution they needed us to run their industrial base and man their industrialized armies, so they bribed us with social welfare systems. Today, automation and social welfare systems have made the many of the common man unproductive, and since the elite don't need us, they will treat us worse than cattle. The only thing they need from us in the Western "democracies" is our consent through our vote, but soon they won't even need that anymore. The one thing that was prevalent (but rarely taught about) in old feudal systems and empires was rebellion, uprisings, and revolution. The Roman's spent far more resources quelling uprisings than conquering new lands. The history of medieval Europe is littered with uprisings. As the bard said, "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."
Generally agree, but I'd quibble about the term 'feudal'. Feudalism isn't consolidated power like tyranny, and it could almost be argued to be the reverse. It's basically a loose hierarchy of landlords who each have to consider the concerns of their own peasants and vassals as well as their recognized overlord, whom they are not necessarily forced to obey. I think feudalism could be considered the political organization you get when the population is dense enough that there isn't enough spare land to allow farmers to just move elsewhere, but sparse enough that you don't have politically dominant populations concentrated in cities and making their living through commerce and administration.
I'll amend that. Feudalism is the consolidation of power by the aristocratic classes. There was division of power between the king and his lords, but the structure was very hierarchical. Peasants, who made up 95% of the population, had virtually no formal rights, and only some traditional rights. The gap between peasants and aristocrats was so great that aristocrats didn't even see peasants as people. Feudalism occurs when the population as a whole is not productive enough to support classes outside of those required for basic survival, plus the rulers. For urban areas to exist, farmers must produce a significant surplus. During the Middle Ages, towns began to grow as farming technology improved. The moldboard plow replaced the Mediterranean straight plow in Northern Europe, and monasteries produced new agricultural innovations. Wealthy towns were the bane of the feudal aristocratic elite. What made them dangerous was the accumulation of wealth, and thus power. In "The Prince" Machiavelli warns his pupil to destroy any free city within his realm. Lower-level aristocrats didn't have to obey their lords, but failure do so could result in death and land confiscation. The law, if there was any, was used as a weapon against your foes.
communism sounds good on paper, everyone equal for the law. but who upholds the law? I think it is a system that can only operate on paper. Even ants have a queen and 'supervisers"
Communism doesn’t look good even on paper because it’s necessarily founded on atheism, and we can all see what a disaster that has created over the last 50 years or so.
Wrong. Communists are atheists. They think the state will save you. That's really all the refutation that need be said, but among the other differences that could be mentioned, Christian monks typically take vows of poverty, to own nothing. Communists propose equality, enforce poverty for the masses, and enrich themselves.
As soon as you understand iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma patterns you understand why evil people think that. They are like the casino house, and profit much more than the mere odds advantage, they can outlast because they can out-stake all comers.
I've seen variations of this diagram : Feudalism --> Capitalism --> Socialism --> Communism
https://tinyurl.com/znhu8wzw
and it makes sense if you think about how a Middle Class might have evolved post-Magna Carta. And much (most?) of the West is Slouching Towards Socialism, at least.
But think about the supposed endpoint. You get to what I'll reluctantly call True Communism and, in theory, no one's in charge. Everyone just contributes and partakes equally - in theory. But some lazy untalented envious comrade weighs down the whole commune. Some Kulaks are More Equal than Others. I think it all collapses, some strong people take control, and it cycles back around like : Communism --> Feudalism.
If we're lucky, post-apacolyptic a la Mad Max or The Book of Eli.
If things go way South, we evolve into Morlocks and Eloi.
Evil people always figure they'll be the one holding the whip.
Re: evil people always figure they’ll be the one holding the whip
I am reminded of a conversation I had with a co-worker. I wouldn’t have called him evil back then. He seemed to be a genuinely nice guy. But in discussing politics he fancied himself to be a communist. He was naive and ignorant of history. I quickly gave him a synopsis of what happened under Mao in China and all the people who were starved to death or massacred, and how the rest lost their freedoms of speech, religions, etc. In a “but these go to eleven” moment, he replied that it wouldn’t be a problem for him because he would be one of the people in charge under a communist takeover of our country. As you say, holding the whip. Never mind what happens to the masses. Needless the say, my history lesson made no impact.
What happens when there are far fewer "whip-holder" positions available than applicants for the job? I hear it's violently competitive.
A sorta high-stakes game of Musical Chairs, you say?
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
― Thomas Sowell, Super Seriously Smart Guy
Yo *fist bump*
It never does in the moment, because he has to defend his side of the argument. Long-term though, with a bit more witness and experience of injustice, and his thinking on that score might evolve with help from the leaven you sowed.
"he replied that it wouldn’t be a problem for him because he would be one of the people in charge under a communist takeover"
Or first up against the wall.
Some even don't even want to be in charge. They think it's all just going to be FREE:
https://ifunny.co/picture/hey-hey-heyhey33810158-id-what-are-y-all-going-to-98vhYZwRA
That sounds just like one of my commie sociology professors in college. He painted a utopian picture of how we would all work some hours in the morning and then enjoy our free time in the afternoon. Then we would all be dancing together in the evening. And he really believed it.
+1 Drum Circle
"he replied that it wouldn’t be a problem for him..."
That's evil, right there - - to have so little regard for one's fellow citizens.
Difference between heroic and messianic - the latter are authoritarians, thus prepared to enforce “the good” upon others; while the former lead by example.
Yes, we go round and round in these civilizational circles. It's all based on where power lies within society. When power is disbursed and distributed, you get a middle class and rights, but when power is concentrated you get tyranny and feudalistic systems. Changes in technology cause changes in the allocation of power. Firearms made peasants far more dangerous and the elite far more vulnerable. You had to treat the common man better because they made up the bulk of your army, and later the bulk of your productive tax base. During the industrial revolution they needed us to run their industrial base and man their industrialized armies, so they bribed us with social welfare systems. Today, automation and social welfare systems have made the many of the common man unproductive, and since the elite don't need us, they will treat us worse than cattle. The only thing they need from us in the Western "democracies" is our consent through our vote, but soon they won't even need that anymore. The one thing that was prevalent (but rarely taught about) in old feudal systems and empires was rebellion, uprisings, and revolution. The Roman's spent far more resources quelling uprisings than conquering new lands. The history of medieval Europe is littered with uprisings. As the bard said, "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."
Generally agree, but I'd quibble about the term 'feudal'. Feudalism isn't consolidated power like tyranny, and it could almost be argued to be the reverse. It's basically a loose hierarchy of landlords who each have to consider the concerns of their own peasants and vassals as well as their recognized overlord, whom they are not necessarily forced to obey. I think feudalism could be considered the political organization you get when the population is dense enough that there isn't enough spare land to allow farmers to just move elsewhere, but sparse enough that you don't have politically dominant populations concentrated in cities and making their living through commerce and administration.
I'll amend that. Feudalism is the consolidation of power by the aristocratic classes. There was division of power between the king and his lords, but the structure was very hierarchical. Peasants, who made up 95% of the population, had virtually no formal rights, and only some traditional rights. The gap between peasants and aristocrats was so great that aristocrats didn't even see peasants as people. Feudalism occurs when the population as a whole is not productive enough to support classes outside of those required for basic survival, plus the rulers. For urban areas to exist, farmers must produce a significant surplus. During the Middle Ages, towns began to grow as farming technology improved. The moldboard plow replaced the Mediterranean straight plow in Northern Europe, and monasteries produced new agricultural innovations. Wealthy towns were the bane of the feudal aristocratic elite. What made them dangerous was the accumulation of wealth, and thus power. In "The Prince" Machiavelli warns his pupil to destroy any free city within his realm. Lower-level aristocrats didn't have to obey their lords, but failure do so could result in death and land confiscation. The law, if there was any, was used as a weapon against your foes.
Just as an aside, you know monasteries were communes - communist.
True, but the Catholic Church is a hierarchy. Just like the communists.
communism sounds good on paper, everyone equal for the law. but who upholds the law? I think it is a system that can only operate on paper. Even ants have a queen and 'supervisers"
Communism doesn’t look good even on paper because it’s necessarily founded on atheism, and we can all see what a disaster that has created over the last 50 years or so.
No, lack of religion is not where it fails. It fails because it tries to “fix” natural human hierarchies via force
I already said it above, but I'll say it here as well. As an aside, monasteries were and are communes - communist.
Wrong. Communists are atheists. They think the state will save you. That's really all the refutation that need be said, but among the other differences that could be mentioned, Christian monks typically take vows of poverty, to own nothing. Communists propose equality, enforce poverty for the masses, and enrich themselves.
"Pure" communism has been tried by good hearted people over the years. I am unaware of a positive outcome. https://fee.org/articles/how-communism-almost-ruined-the-first-thanksgiving/
No, you don't understand - _Next Time_ we'll get the right people in charge. *nods vigorously*
Next time, Lucy will hold the football just right for a perfect kick.
Good grief.
As soon as you understand iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma patterns you understand why evil people think that. They are like the casino house, and profit much more than the mere odds advantage, they can outlast because they can out-stake all comers.