Our 10,000 Year Struggle Against Aristocracy

by: Gislebertus

Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 14:00


(A very welcome expansion on a comment I made in a previous post.  10,000 years in less than 10,000 words?  Pretty much! - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)

In a recent blog post here, Paul Rosenberg explained the inability or unwillingness of the "serious people" in charge of our nation to address its fundamental problems: "It's the same old elitist aristocratic death grip that we've been struggling against for the past 10,000 years."

That's an excellent observation, one not often made, and I'd like to elaborate on it. Below is a basic outline of that struggle.

The First "Progressives"

In early human civilizations, a small ruling class of people controlled society. The ruling class was composed of military leaders and priests, and wealth and power were concentrated in their hands. This ruling class directed the vast majority of people, who made a living as farmers and tradesmen.

Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian societies were all structured this way. This sort of aristocracy appeared wherever civilization sprang up, not only in the Fertile Crescent, but in Asia (the Shang dynasty) and the Americas (the Olmec empire).

Not all civilizations followed this pattern, however. Around 2500 B.C., the Minoan people living on the Mediterranean island of Crete started building a more equal society. Their society represented a leap forward for humanity, taking on the general outline of what we now call "progressive."

The advances made by the Minoans show up clearly when their society is compared to that of their contemporaries, the Egyptians:

Gislebertus :: Our 10,000 Year Struggle Against Aristocracy

Egyptian vs. Minoan

ECONOMY

Egyptian: Based on harvesting natural resources. Almost everyone is a farmer, growing crops in small plots of land according to the Nile's flood cycle. Wealth from agricultural surpluses is concentrated in the hands of a few.

Minoan: Based on manufacturing and trade. Many people are artisans and traders, making bronze tools or trading them overseas. Wealth from widespread commerce is distributed among many.

GOVERNMENT

Egyptian: Political power is centralized. All-powerful Pharaohs claim kinship with gods. They run the empire with the help of soldiers and priests. Government buildings are off-limits to most people.

Minoan: Power is decentralized. The king claims no divine authority. He runs the country with the help of civilian administrators. Government buildings are used by all citizens.

CULTURE

Egyptian: Exclusive and stolid. Art is rigid and static. It's meant to be seen by rulers and priests. Men have higher status than women.

Minoan: Inclusive and vibrant. Art is dynamic and colorful. It's meant to be enjoyed by regular people. Men and women have roughly equal status.

MILITARY

Egyptian: Militaristic. Waging war is prestigious. Armies are used to conquer neighboring peoples, take their wealth, and enslave them.

Minoan: Peaceful. Waging war is unpopular. Ships—the best in the world—are used for trading, not to invade or conquer other peoples.

QUALITY OF LIFE

For most Egyptians, life is hard.

For most Minoans, life is good.


Unfortunately, a volcano on the nearby island of Thera erupted around 1600 B.C. Tsunamis smashed the Minoans' port cities and crippled their maritime economy, volcanic ash smothered the agricultural economies of their trading partners, and Minoan civilization was thrown into a decline from which it never recovered.

Classical Civilizations Make Progress

For 500 years after the volcanic eruption, the Mediterranean world experienced a "dark age." When civilization returned, it mostly followed the aristocratic pattern: the Assyrian and Persian empires were run by god-kings who controlled powerful armies and a priest class. They invaded their neighbors, accorded low status to women, and kept wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.

But around 500 B.C., citizens in two Mediterranean city-states built more equal societies.

In Athens, citizens overthrew their tyrant king and established a Democracy. Lawmakers were chosen by lot, juries were composed of one's peers, and citizens could vote to banish any leader who gained too much power.

A class of rich aristoi, or "the best" people (from which our term Aristocrat derives), still existed in Athens, but regular people had more political power than they'd ever had before.

At the same time, Romans banished their king and established a Republic. They split executive power between two men, each elected by the people to one-year terms. The Senate, an elected body of around 300 citizens, voted on laws and managed public funds.

Rome, while a Republic, was essentially aristocratic: a small number of rich landowning families controlled the Senate. But regular people still had power—they elected a rich landowner called a Tribune to protect their rights against the Senate. Also, Roman law applied to all citizens of all social classes.

As citizens in a democracy, Athenians prospered. They became wealthy through overseas trade, and made amazing advances in art, literature, architecture, and science. Their city was the most beautiful in the world. But by attempting to dominate neighboring peoples, and entering into a series of unnecessary wars, the Athenians devastated and impoverished their society.

Militarism ended the Roman Republic as well. Regular people in Rome gained more rights and became wealthier over the centuries—until Rome began winning wars against its neighbors. Wealth became concentrated in the hands of a few rich families who seized newly-conquered territories. Middle-class landowners spent years fighting in the wars instead of tending their farms, fell into debt, and lost their lands to their rich creditors.

A popular tribune attempted to reverse this process by enforcing a law that distributed public land to veterans, instead of allowing it to be taken by rich families. The rich families killed this tribune and his followers, and Rome soon became an empire. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and neighboring peoples were invaded, oppressed, and enslaved.

European Societies Show Progress

Medieval Europe basically followed the ancient pattern of aristocracy: wealthy landowners controlled society with the help of soldiers they paid, and almost everyone else was a poor farmer. Court life was splendid, but for most people life was squalid. The landowners constantly fought each other to acquire more land.

What moved Europe beyond the ancient empires was a new force for progress: the Church. Its priests were not directly aligned with military rulers. The Church "leveled" society by making beautiful churches accessible to all, and by providing social assistance to the poor. It also fostered meritocracy by offering advancement to men of any background based on their ability.

As farms in Europe became more productive, agricultural surpluses led to an explosion of trade. The Dutch traded cloth they wove for leather tanned by Italians; people from Spain traded their spices for wine produced in France. Merchants, bankers, and traders—not just landowners—could now make a good living.

In the 1300s, Bubonic plague killed one out of three people in Europe and devastated society. (Douglas Rushkoff makes a good case that the plague was brought on by aristocrat-induced wealth inequality.) But as Europe recovered in the 1400s, its emerging middle class of merchants rebounded as well. Educated and capable, the merchants began to get rich. By the 1500s, commerce and finance had replaced landowning as the source of wealth and power.

Although the source of wealth and power had changed, how societies handled them still mattered:

  • Peaceful societies that distributed wealth and power among a large number of citizens flourished. Most people in them had a nice life.
  • Militaristic societies in which power and wealth were concentrated became unstable. Life was hard for all but the very few on top.

This can be clearly seen in mid-1600s Europe by comparing the Spanish Monarchy to the Dutch Republic:


Spanish Monarchy vs. The Dutch Republic

ECONOMY

Spain: Based on harvesting natural resources. Almost everyone is a farmer, growing crops. Military men take gold mined overseas. Wealth from agriculture and gold is concentrated in the hands of a few elites. Financial mismanagement by a small elite bankrupts the country.

Holland: Based on manufacturing and trade. Many people are merchants and traders, buying and selling goods overseas. Wealth from commerce is distributed among many kinds of citizens. A thriving stock market with wide participation fuels prosperity.

GOVERNMENT

Spain: Political power is centralized. A hereditary king rules with the assistance of soldiers and priests. Royal palaces are off-limits to most people.

Holland: Power is decentralized. There is no king. The chief executive and legislators are elected. Government buildings are open to the public.

CULTURE

Spain: Exclusive and stolid. Art is rigid and static. It's meant to be seen by rulers and priests. Men have much higher status than women. Social mobility is nonexistent. No matter what people do, good or bad, they can't change their place in the social order.

Holland: Inclusive and vibrant. Art is beautiful and accessible. It's meant to be enjoyed by regular people. Men and women have more equal status than anywhere else. Social mobility is the highest in the world. Through education and enterprise, people rise in the social order.

MILITARY

Spain: Militaristic. Waging war is prestigious. Armies are used to conquer overseas peoples, take their wealth, and enslave them.

Holland: Peaceful. Waging war is unpopular. Ships—the best in the world—are used mostly for trading, not invasion or conquest.

QUALITY OF LIFE

For most Spaniards, life is hard. Most people are poor, illiterate peasants. Society makes no effort to help the poor, or to bring them out of poverty.

For most Dutch people, life is good. Most people are educated and middle-class. The poor are helped through public funds and institutions. (orphanages, almshouses)


In the 1700s, as science began explaining the mysteries of the natural world, a group of French thinkers began studying human society with scientific rigor. These Philosophes noticed that most people lived better when they had a say in government and when their society was tolerant.

They believed in progress. That is, the Philosophes thought that by pursuing science and abandoning religious superstition, people could harness the natural world for their own benefit and live peacefully with one another.

Their ideas spread throughout Europe, and became the core of a worldwide intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment. Its fundamental belief in human progress led directly to the revolution that spawned the United States of America.

The American Revolution: a Progressive Enterprise

The leaders of the American Revolution were heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinkers, so naturally the United States was founded on progressive ideas. They're described in the Declaration of Independence:

"All men are created equal."

"Governments derive their powers from the consent of the Governed."

In other words, every citizen—a president, a clerk, a multimillionaire, a fruit picker—has the same rights and is bound by the same laws. And the nation's leaders work for its people—not the other way around.

At that time, most nations still operated according to conservative ideas: the rich and powerful should have special rights and privileges, and regular people had a duty to obey their "betters."

American colonists saw the problems with this sort of society firsthand: they were oppressed by a rich, powerful king who refused to obey his country's laws, treated them like criminals and second-class citizens, and prevented them from engaging in manufacturing and trade.

Progressive-minded colonists considered this unacceptable. They started and led a rebellion against the King's rule. They risked their lives to make progress and install a new system of government based on Democracy.

Conservative-minded colonists, called Tories, did not support the rebellion. They supported the King's rule, were afraid to change it, or thought that the costs of political progress outweighed its benefits.

Fortunately, the progressive-minded colonists prevailed and won their independence—with help from France, the birthplace of the Enlightenment. Tragically, conservative-minded colonists insisted on preserving an old evil that would tear the new nation apart: slavery.

A War for Social Progress

The struggle over slavery intensified in the years leading up to the Civil War. Progressive-minded Americans worked to improve society through the abolition of slavery, while the conservative-minded strove to extend the existing system of forced, unpaid labor.

Society in free states was different from that in slave states, and these differences fit the historical pattern of conservative versus progressive:


Slave States vs. Free States

ECONOMY

Slave States: Based on harvesting natural resources. Almost everyone is a slave, or a farmer growing crops for rich landowners (sharecropping). Wealth from agriculture is concentrated in the hands of a few.

Free States: Based on manufacturing and trade. Many people are artisans and traders, making goods and trading them overseas. Wealth from international commerce is distributed among many.

GOVERNMENT

Slave States: Political power is centralized. Rich landowners hold office. Religion is used to control people. Voting rights are sharply restricted.

Free States: Power is decentralized. Regular people hold office. Religion is used to uplift people. Voting rights are expanded.

CULTURE

Slave States: Exclusive and stolid. There is little social mobility—most regular people stay locked in social roles that don't change.

Free States: Inclusive and vibrant. Social mobility is common. Immigrants and regular people improve their place in society.

MILITARY

Slave States: Waging war is prestigious. Armies are used to conquer neighboring peoples, take their wealth, and enslave them.

Free States: Peaceful. Waging war is unpopular. Ships—the best in the world—are used for trading, not invasion or conquest.


The struggle between Progressive and Conservative elements of American society took on a character that has persisted to this day:


CONSERVATIVE
Exploited fear, bigotry, and hate to maintain a system in which a small group of people control everyone else. Ignored Jesus' message of kindness and inclusion, while cherry-picking Bible passages to justify oppression. Preserved an economy in which workers are exploited. "Overall prosperity doesn't matter, just as long as we're on top."

PROGRESSIVE
Appealed to the "better angels of our nature" to build a society in which all citizens have equal rights and opportunities. Followed Jesus' example—take care of the poor, and treat everyone with respect and kindness. Created an economy in which workers have more rights. "Overall prosperity will increase, and we will all share in that prosperity."


Like conservative societies throughout history, the slave states were militaristic; they declared war on the free states. Like progressive societies throughout history, the free states had developed advanced technology, manufacturing, and infrastructure; this enabled them to win the war.

After the war ended, another characteristic of the struggle between Progressives and Conservatives emerged: Whenever Progressives move our nation in a positive direction, Conservatives fight to roll back those gains. Conservatives in the former slave states used terrorist groups and unconstitutional laws to prevent progressive-minded citizens from voting.

The Progressive Movement is Born

As the Industrial Age dawned in the 1800s, something unprecedented happened: the economic activities that had always fostered a more equal distribution of wealth and power—manufacturing, commerce, and trade—were now being used to concentrate wealth and power.

As industry and mechanization began to dominate the United States' economy, a new aristocratic class of American emerged: Big Business tycoons. A small number of men built vast commercial empires in coal, oil, railroads, manufacturing, and newspapers. They did it by creating monopolies, or "trusts:" once their corporations achieved dominant positions in their markets, they gobbled up competing companies or drove them out of business.

These tycoons strove to amass huge private fortunes, often at the expense of their employees and customers. Children worked long hours in dangerous factories. Immigrants burned to death when the sweatshops they worked in caught fire. Tainted food and medicines killed the people who bought them. Poor laborers died by the thousands in unsafe mines, and were kept poor by union-busting and monopolistic "company stores." Wars were sparked by newspaper barons.

The tycoons got away with this by buying political power. They used their wealth to fund the campaigns of politicians who did their bidding. Once in office, their political friends fought legislation for the public good that the tycoons thought might inhibit their ability to make private money.

Another reason the tycoons got away with exploiting regular people is that they owned large numbers of newspapers, through which most citizens got their information. Because they owned newspapers, they were able to suppress stories about Big Business exploitation. By the same token, they were also able to run columns that made Big Business domination of society seem like a good thing.

Industrial workers worked long hours in mines and factories, and saw their employers getting very rich while they themselves stayed poor. Farmers worked hard in their fields, yet stayed poor as monopoly railroads charged high fees to ship their crops to market. These regular people rebelled against the aristocracy of wealth that kept them poor, and their rebellion became known as the Progressive movement.

Women marched for the right to vote. Journalists known as "muckrakers" sidestepped big newspapers owned by press barons, and wrote stories for magazines that exposed horrible working conditions and Big Business corruption. Workers fought fiercely for the right to join a union:

  • The owners of a steel mill in Homestead, PA tried to break the steelworkers union. They cut wages, locked out the steelworkers, and turned the mill into an armed fortress. The workers then struck, and organized to prevent replacement workers from entering the plant. The governor, whom the steel mill's owners had helped elect, sent in state troops to end the strike and break the union.
  • A railroad car company, which owned the housing employees rented and the stores they shopped in, sharply cut employees' wages without decreasing rents or prices. Its workers struck, which prompted a massive strike by 120,000 other railroad workers. The president then sent Federal troops to break up the strike and arrest its leader.
  • The owners of a coal mine in Matewan, WV cut the pay of workers who tried to unionize. The miners struck anyway, and the owners hired armed agents to break the strike. The mine owners sent in undercover agents to goad the miners into violence, and murdered the local police chief who supported the miners. This led to an armed insurrection of over 10,000 miners.

Some privileged Americans were also Progressives. Just as in ancient Athens, where noblemen helped establish a democratic government, some people in the upper classes of American society helped curb the power of Big Business tycoons to monopolize markets and dominate regular people.

In 1901, the president, born into a wealthy and prominent family, began a campaign to regulate Big Business. His administration enforced a law, passed years earlier, that prohibited companies from monopolizing markets through conspiracy. During his administration, over 40 major corporations were sued for antitrust or price-fixing violations.

He encouraged arbitration between companies and striking workers, and came to the defense of workers fighting for a better life. During a mine strike, he threatened to use the Army to seize the mines and operate them until the mine's owners agreed to arbitration to settle the strike.

The Progressive movement made gains across the board: The Federal government began inspecting food and medicines to protect citizens, and gave low-interest loans to farmers. The Federal Trade Commission was established to stop unfair trade practices. New antitrust laws were detailed and explicit, and could no longer be used to stifle unions.

Nonetheless, conservatives still retained the power to block social progress: Child labor was outlawed by Congress, but a conservative Supreme Court declared this unconstitutional. The first minimum-wage laws were passed, but the Supreme Court invalidated those, too.

The United States Becomes Progressive

American society was progressing, but big companies still dominated regular people. When the U.S. economy boomed in the 1920s, almost all corporate profits went to the people who owned and ran big companies, not the people who worked in them. Investors and CEOs became very rich, but most people's wages increased only slightly. More than half of all Americans were still poor.

While industrial production skyrocketed, most Americans didn't have much money to buy the goods that were produced. Demand for goods stagnated, but the value of the companies that supplied them soared, as the wealthy few looked for places to invest their surplus cash.

This imbalance in supply and demand led the nation's stock market to crash catastrophically in 1929. Almost overnight, companies lost more than half their value, and thousands of banks failed. The economy declined sharply, millions of jobs were lost, and one-third of Americans fell into poverty.

The president tried to revive the nation's economy through conservative policies. His administration gave vast amounts of financial aid to large banks and corporations, and much less to regular people. It didn't work—the economy remained depressed.

He also used the military to control regular people. When thousands of unemployed war veterans marched to Washington to urge Congress to pay their promised bonus immediately, the president ordered the U.S. Army to remove them. Soldiers used bayonets and tear gas to remove the veterans, and several veterans were killed.

In 1932, Americans elected a new president in a landslide. This new president's economic program was progressive; it focused on improving the lives and fortunes of regular people:

  • Public works programs put millions of unemployed people back to work.
  • Unions were encouraged and supported.
  • Federal money funded electrical systems in rural areas.
  • Child labor was abolished.
  • Minimum wage guidelines were accepted.
  • Government programs were created to keep the old, sick, and unemployed out of poverty.
  • Banks and financial markets were regulated.

This program, Progressives reasoned, would revive the economy by enabling regular people to earn more money to buy things. It worked. In seven years, the economy grew by one-third. Consumer spending grew by one-third, and business investment increased fivefold.

Unemployment remained high, however. Conservatives blamed this on business regulation, the increased power of unions, and government spending. Progressives thought that the government needed to do more to increase the purchasing power of regular people, and should spend what was necessary to do that.

It turned out the Progressives were right. When the U.S. entered World War II, massive government spending on the war effort all but eliminated unemployment. The government awarded huge contracts to corporations, which hired millions of new employees to do the work. To help pay for this spending—and prevent war profiteering—taxes on the very wealthy were raised to very high rates.

Job discrimination against minorities and women was outlawed, and a shortage of labor increased wages across the board. Higher wages for regular people, combined with more progressive tax rates (the higher the income, the higher the rate), sharply narrowed the income gap between rich people and everyone else.

After the war ended, most of the Progressive economic policies that prevailed during the war years were continued. Unions remained strong, markets were regulated, and tax rates were progressive. As a result, the United States became the most prosperous nation on earth. Its economy grew strongly for the next 25 years, as U.S. companies sold their goods and services to the world's largest middle class.

Making the Nation More Progressive

In the post-World War II era, the United States played a leading role in the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. It turned its former mortal enemies into friends, and helped establish international institutions that brought stability to world politics.

Most Americans had come to prefer meritocracy to aristocracy, and the nation's best colleges, which had previously educated privileged Americans, began basing admission on merit. New government programs enabled many more people to get a college education.

Other government programs focused on eliminating poverty, improving education in poor areas, and providing medical care to older citizens. These programs were successful. The number of Americans in poverty was cut in half, poor children began performing better academically, and millions of older people began receiving health care they hadn't before.

The arts thrived. American painters, architects, musicians, and playwrights reached heights of creativity and accomplishment. Conservatives exploited overseas threats to gain power and reduce the freedom of regular people, but they were only partially successful. For most Americans, life was improving.

However, while life got better for most Americans, the descendants of slaves in the former slave states were kept in a state of poverty at the lowest level of society. They weren't allowed to vote, to use public facilities, or do the same jobs as everyone else. People who tried to change this system were persecuted; if they persisted, they were killed.

Throughout most of the 20th Century, this system persisted. To get the former slave states to support Progressive policies for the nation, Progressives agreed not to try and improve the status of slave descendants. But in the 1960s, Progressives decided to help the slave descendants gain equal rights and opportunities. Laws were passed that guaranteed the right to vote for all citizens, that opened public facilities to all, and that expanded job opportunity.

Life began to improve for the descendants of slaves, but many people in the former slave states resented these changes. Conservatives, both rich and poor, didn't want a more egalitarian society. Rich Conservatives regarded the regular people who stood against social progress as their natural allies, and began to cultivate them as a base of support.

The Modern Conservative Movement

Back in the 1930s, when the Progressive president made it clear he would favor the interest of regular people over those of the super-rich, several owners of the nation's largest banks and corporations tried to stage a military coup to replace him with a new cabinet officer whom they controlled. Their plot failed when the general they recruited to lead the coup exposed their plot to Congress.

In the 1960s, rich Conservatives again set out to dominate society and fight what they saw as a Progressive threat. Instead of trying to grab power by force, this time they sought to build popular support. Their goals were to get Conservatives elected to public office, and to persuade the general public that the nation should be run according to Conservative ideas.

To attain these goals, a small group of Conservatives with lots of inherited money and Big Business wealth began to organize. They funded and founded a network of foundations, publications, and political groups to serve specific purposes:

  • Their foundations justified and promoted conservative ideas.
  • Their magazines and newspapers disseminated them.
  • Their political groups bankrolled Conservative politicians.

This network was—and still is—organized like 1890s industrial and banking trusts, with a small number of very wealthy people serving on interlocking Boards of Directors.

Politicians backed by this Conservative network soon won most Congress and Senate seats in the former slave states. Since outright prejudice was unpopular in other states, Conservative presidential candidates made coded appeals to oppression that resentful people in former slave states understood, but seemed innocuous to others.

Using the former slave states as solid voting bloc, and the power of the presidency, Conservatives succeeded in rolling back or crippling many government programs that benefited regular people. They also deregulated markets and industries. At the same time, they used their network to demonize and damage Progressive ideas and institutions:

  • Because regular people had used their government to distribute wealth and power more equally in society, Conservative politicians, writers, and pundits put forth a message that government was inherently bad.
  • Because regular people had used unions to force large companies to treat them well, Conservatives passed laws in the former slave states that made it almost impossible for people to unionize, and national laws that sharply reduced the power of unions.
  • Because estate taxes prevented an aristocracy of wealth from emerging, Conservatives lobbied against what they called "the death tax."

When the Soviet Empire collapsed, and Capitalism triumphed over Communism, Conservatives used this to their advantage. They maintained that the more Capitalism in society the better, and that unregulated Capitalism was even better still. If vast disparities of wealth resulted, that was the Will of the Market, and not to be questioned.

Conservatives also cultivated and mobilized religious fundamentalists who opposed social progress that benefited women and homosexual citizens. The votes and activism of religious fundamentalists soon played an important part in getting Conservatives elected.

This political action by rich Conservatives brought them more political power, which they then used to obtain more wealth, which they in turn used to obtain more power in a feedback loop.

Where We Are Now

Rich Conservatives have been very successful at restructuring our society so they could aggregate and retain power and wealth. The richest one percent of Americans now controls a third of the country's wealth, while the poorer half of Americans control only three percent.

They have not, however, achieved a decisive victory against Progressivism. From 1992 to 2008, they moved aggressively to wipe out Progressive institutions and crush their political opponents once and for all; the subsequent election of a president descended from slaves proves that they failed.

Because the policies they implemented made life obviously worse for most Americans and almost brought on total economic collapse, rich Conservatives have lost the initiative—they can no longer set the nation's political agenda. However, they still retain the power to block significant social, economic, and political progress.

Their greatest remaining power is "soft:" the fact that Conservative ideas dominate political debate. Conservative ideas suffuse the political culture in which our elected leaders operate, to the point that even well-meaning leaders discount obvious, tried-and-true solutions because they're not Conservative in nature.

But that's a subject for a subsequent blog post.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I Don't Necessarily Agree With Everything Here (4.00 / 5)
For example, the Church was largely aligned with the feudal power structure, and easily did as much or more to legitimate hierarchical rule--the "divine right of kings" and all that--as it did to provide an alternative.

But big-picture view is pretty good, on balance, and it's good to get our heads up high for a long view in the midst of so many day-to-day struggles.

It's particularly helpful to realize just how much we are part of a much larger struggle, that has consistently reasserted itself time after time, in various different places all across the globe.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Good point about the Church (4.00 / 3)
Good point, Paul, about the Medieval Church not being an entirely positive force. Within a few hundred years, it became a center of autocracy in its own right. But at least the Benedictines and Franciscans got the ball rolling, eh?

Although you'd never know it from reading/watching most news media, I see an increasing number of people realizing the power/privilege vs. equality/abundance nature of this struggle, and siding with the latter. For example, I was talking with a Republican at the dog park the other day, and he said, "You know, I think those guys at BP and on Wall Street are really out to screw guys like you and me."  


[ Parent ]
Nicely done! (4.00 / 2)
I too quibble with the characterization of The Church, as they were, for a very long time, the largest force for brutal oppression in Europe as a whole. They were, after all, the ones who chose who became literate and who didn't. Until Gutenberg anyway.

Oh, and the Dutch. It should also be pointed out that their frenzied market approach to everything also led to the Tulip Mania, which destroyed their economy for a very long time.

Still, in distilling that time span into so few words, one must take the odd shortcut!

You finished up very well. The dialectical comparisons lead naturally into this:

Conservative ideas suffuse the political culture in which our elected leaders operate, to the point that even well-meaning leaders discount obvious, tried-and-true solutions because they're not Conservative in nature.

Yep. And there is the distinction that needs to be made within the polity. I have a friend who considers himself a "conservative," to whom I've been asking questions like this: "Do you prefer a rising standard of living for all or most people, or do you prefer a lower standard of living for all but the wealthiest?"

He indicated he preferred the former, so I said, "Well then, you're a progressive and not a conservative. So welcome to the club!"

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
The Dutch ain't perfect, that's for sure. (4.00 / 1)
In addition to pioneering stock market crashes, they introduced some of the Thuggiest Football Ever to the World Cup. Did you see those two leg-breakers they had playing in the midfield, kicking the bejesus out of players they outweighed by 50 lbs?  

[ Parent ]
Yeah. Not too classy, that. (0.00 / 0)
They were kind of a cross between the Oakland Raiders (mindless lashing out), San Diego Chargers (Undisputed Masters of Choke) and Beavis & Butthead (no explanation needed).

They should wear darker clothes if they're going to behave like that, so as to make them less noticeable.  

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
The low countries (0.00 / 0)
Well, when you're in a fight with magicians and wizards, sometimes you don't have any choice but to use a club. More often than not you'll lose, but at least you have a chance. (The Germans, perhaps in deference to what the world still remembers about their impolite history, were extremely polite, and therefore had no chance at all.)

Whining afterwards about losing isn't cool, but embarking on butchery in the first place is understandable, if not exactly kosher.


[ Parent ]
Merchants fostered slave-trade (4.00 / 1)
I greatly appreciate this post, but also want to quibble about another point. The US South was militaristic and supported slavery, but it was the northern traders who were actually engaged in the slave trade. They also traded in tobacco and rum. So the evil was broader than your simplified model indicates.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I have a few quibbles too. (4.00 / 1)
Mine are that Minoan Crete, Athens, the Dutch Republic and the pre-Civil War North were not as great or progressive as described.  

After all Crete did have an empire where the Mycenaean Greeks were subjects, Athens did have slaves and also had its own empire, Holland did conquer the Indies, and the North did treat the Irish immigrants as wage-slaves and waged constant warfare on the Indian tribes.  But it is true that they were much better than the alternatives of the Middle Kingdom, the Persians, Spain and the South.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!


[ Parent ]
Reminds me of Veblen (4.00 / 4)
Not as acerbic, of course, but except for The Devil's Dictionary, maybe, what ever has been? Like Bierce, Veblen was also funny. The first time I encountered invidious consumption, and pecuniary emulation, I cracked up. It was kinda like finding Fellini's Vatican Fashion Show peeping out from the pages of the Journal of Sociology.

Anyway, job well done, Gislebertus. For sure, Glenn Beck should add it to his reading list; it would certainly teach him a thing or two -- or three, or four....


As the internet restored freedom of the press (0.00 / 0)
the country and the world has become more populist (right and left).

It's hard to control people when you cannot control the channels of communication.

Many old folk think that crap like "Newsweek" and "Larry King" are the be all end all of information dissemination. Young folk know better. If this trend holds, the electorate will be far more transformed than even by demographic changes.

Imagine a world wherein people actually have a clue what is happening?!

Unprecedented.


You know, I wonder about this (4.00 / 2)
Water is free, too, until someone with an army builds a dam upstream. Perhaps the experiments of the Chinese in damming the Internet will prove to be full of unforeseen holes, or too expensive. I have no idea how that will turn out, but even if it doesn't, there's stil one more hurdle, I think.

Users of the Internet are at present easy to identify, despite the best efforts of child pornographers or Julian Assange, and once identified, they can be carted off and done with as the administrative powers see fit -- as was the case with Lynne Stewart, among others. In a society where civil liberties are iffy, and the population passive, not only will no one say them nay, no one who might oppose them need even know about it.

I suppose that as the technology evolves, we might possibly happen onto a William Gibson scenario, where the cowboys (democrats, hackers, criminals, etc.) battle ito a draw in cyberspace with the forces of control, but I don't see it as inevitable. Once the Internet finally completes the destruction of television, I suppose we'll be able to get a clearer view, but at the moment, I do wonder....


[ Parent ]
Thank you (0.00 / 0)
I wish this could go viral. Especially the part about Progressive founders. Clear answer to the Tea Party folks that believe that the nation was founded on conservative principles.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


The role of religion in history is complicated (4.00 / 2)
Take Christianity in ancient Rome.  Traditionally it appears that Religion in antiquity was largely to justify the power structure, and this is particularly evident with the cult of Jupiter in Rome.  Then along comes this Romanized Jewish cult that bears no allegiance to the Emperor, that tells people there is more to life than the temporal plane  There were lots of cults that the Romans tolerated and even endorsed (think of the cult of Mithras that became popular among the legionnaires), but this was different.

Eventually Constantine realized that he needed Christianity to hold the Empire together, and adopted it as the state religion.  At that point of course the justification for the authority of the Emperor came straight from God, subverting the original idea that had been such a source of appeal for Christianity.  And eventually Theodosius would outlaw the pagan cults in a power struggle with the aristocrats, who clung to the cult of Jupiter.

Christianity has had a moderating influence, even as it has aligned itself with the ruling power structure.  It led to the banning of gladiatorial games in Rome, which were essentially institutionalized human sacrifice.  In the Dark Ages, it eventually curbed the brutish practices of the regimes that had replaced Roman rule.  Chivalry, the European version of bushido, was an honor code to reign in the bully boys in the gentry that reflected this moderating influence.  And sometimes the Church had to struggle to retain its independence from aristocratic control, e.g., the fascinating story of the tussle between Gregory VII and Henry IV at Canossa in 1077.  And whatever you want to say about e.g. warrior popes like Julius, that was all about the Church becoming independent of the control of despots like the Borgias.

In this country, there is a lot to be said e.g. about the role of religious institutions in civil rights.  Obviously there have been other recent influences that have not been so positive.  We have our own Christian Taliban dominant in the South, for example, and on matters like gay marriage and contraception organized religion is increasingly at odds with its congregations.  So like I said, the role of religion is complicated.  OTOH knee-jerk anti-religion is neither justified nor helpful.


Thank you Taylor (4.00 / 2)
First - this is an outstanding (short) blog post. But I want to emphasize the outstanding while recognizing that to tie it together required a lot of short cuts.

Second - Taylor, you are correct about the Catholic Church. It was primarily an outsider religion until Constantine took control of it to support his position as Emperor. Notice, though, where Constantine ruled. It was in the eastern Mediterranean in the wealthy part of the Empire.

The western Empire was already collapsing economically. It had never been an economic unit. It was a military unit that was held together by the Roman Army and by grain from Egypt that was shipped across the Mediterranean.

The northern tribes became larger, more settled and wanted to take parts of Europe for their own, and the Roman Empire was too weak to stop them. The Roman legions had never been very numerous. The economy couldn't support them. They were just superbly well-trained and extremely mobile. As the German tribes became larger and better trained, the Romans were swamped. The result (with other factors) was that the western empire fragmented into numerous small, isolated and economically self sufficient princedoms. The most important part of the story at this time was the the western Catholic Church was the only source of communication between the various princedoms. They also provided the only trained clerks to the mostly illiterate soldiers/bandits who gathered bands together to create each of the princedoms. Other than members of the church and of the armies and the ships of the vikings, there was no significant travel in western Europe north of the Mediterranean. The only thing unifying Europe was the Church.

The church was not allied with the feudal leaders. It created the environment that allowed feudalism to appear. Since the unity that permitted was all the kept the predations of the Vikings from being even worse than they were, that was a very good thing. But that was not an environment that lent itself to progressivism.

Later on the Church joined in with the feudal barons and princes to also run some of the princedoms. But there still was very little trade between them. Just read the history of the Rhine River, for instance. A castle every kilometer to kilometer and a half, each stopping merchants and charging a tax to pass if they didn't steal the cargo outright. The forest was too dense to plow roads through. The thing that made the Church barons different other than literacy was their their baronies were not passed through the family by inheritance. They remained as property of the Pope. That may in fact have been the initial creation of the system of corporate ownership rather than having the occupant of each office own the office he held as inheritable property.

The Church really became oppressive after the nation-states began to form and consolidate with France in the lead. But the church remained the source of literacy and of clerks until the invention of the printing press. By that time the Church itself was quite corrupt as the Protestants carefully pointed out.

Another thing. What seems obvious to me is that landlocked or mostly landlocked nations were militaristic and oppressive, while sea-based nations were traders and a lot more democratic. They had to be, since a king who send a ship out has no control over that ship until the captain gets back. Crete, Athens, and then the north sea societies were all trading nations from the Hanseatic League down to England and Holland. They had less dependence on walled cities and on farmers than did the more landlocked nations.

Spain was itself mostly land based, and its society had been purely military from the time of the takeover of the Iberian peninsula by the Muslims until the time of the fall of Granada the only way to power and wealth was to capture more land by war. Then they headed across to the Americas and created the Spanish Empire. But they never created a trading empire. Spain taxed the locals and dug for gold and mineral wealth. The other thing they did was take control of the Papacy for several centuries. The Spanish militarists and the Catholic Church together became extremely conservative and anti-progressive. There's a good reason why one of the first results of the Mexican Revolution was to completely kick out the Catholic Church.

My argument here is that the Catholic Church was not inherently bad through its existence. It is only as it has become more and more irrelevant that it has become more conservative and oppressive.

Again, Gislebertus. This has been an excellent post.  


[ Parent ]
Well, here I am again with my tribal point of view. (4.00 / 2)
Gislebertus starts with the rise of the Ancient Near East civilizations stating, "In early human civilizations, a small ruling class of people controlled society."  Of course that only takes us back 6,000 years, not 10,000.

Personally, I'd rather go back at least 30,000 years and do so by looking at prehistoric, hunter/gather tribal culture, which is easy to do since we have a few such societies till extant, and even more were so in the recent past.

In these tribal cultures there were no aristocracies.  Leadership was by chiefs or elders who informally developed that status by decades of participation in the tribe.  This was an informal democracy.  Decisions were made through debate and often operated on consensus.  

Wealth was shared.  The idea of some people in the tribe going hungry, or not having a home, or being deprived of the medical benefits of the shamans was not even considered.  Personal wealth could be accumulated so some were wealthier than others, but this difference was never very great and never was about "income."  The hunters, usually men, worked as a team and the kill was shared with all.  In a same way the gatherers, usually women, also worked as a team and their produce was also shared.  Those who became wealthier than others proved their wealth by giving it away to others.

Hunting and gathering never created much wealth, but it also didn't take up a lot of time, like an agricultural economy does.  So tribal life had lots of leisure time which was spent in ritual, ceremony and art.  Everyone was an artisan and everyone was a musician.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said that we have certain inalienable rights.  I've thought a lot about how to get behind that and have an actual rationale for what rights are.  I've decided that a "right" is what no one in a tribal society would ever consider it right to deny to a tribal member, those things that are just right for all tribal members to have simply because they are members of the tribe, those things they never need to earn.  Obviously this then includes life and liberty.  But it also then includes FDR's freedoms from, for as I said, tribal society would never conceive that a tribal member should be denied food, housing, health or safety without a due process that would mean banishment for some crime.

The Neolithic Revolution and the Industrial Revolution drastically increased wealth, but the progressive fight for the last 6,000 years has not been to create something new, but to find a way to have the primeval tribal egalitarianism in the newer culture.

I'm suspecting that in the early agrarian societies between tribal hunter/gathers and the rise of the "civilized" empires that the small, independent agrarian village operated more like the egalitarian hunter/gather tribe.  I suspect it was only with the rise of the bronze age and the resulting technological improvements in weaponry that military aristocracies arose to change things with the innovation that some could "rule" over the many.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!


I Take It For Granted That Pre-Agricultural Societies Tend Toward Egalitarianism (4.00 / 1)
Humans have a combination of egalitarian and hierarchical tendencies, which tend to be relatively well balanced in small group environments mirroring those we evolved in.  I think the evidence for this is pretty overwhelming. (Without denying that there is wide variation, however.)  Much larger and more intractable problems arise when surplus-producing societies of greater size develop, and hierarchical forces are reinforced in ways that don't occur in small group settings. That's why the emphasis on the most recent era of human history--that's when the problems escalated dramatically.

So, I really don't see these perspectives as being opposed to one another.  The progressive battle has always been to reign in the hierarchical tendencies that were not nearly so toxic and difficult to control in the small groups that we humans originally evolved in.  And thus it's true that what we're trying to recreate is something ancient, it's also something new, since the large group setting (ultimately involving the whole human race when dealing with issues like nuclear arms control, global warming, etc.) is something new.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
God-kings, etc. (4.00 / 1)
I sometimes occurs to me to ask whether, if we'd known what was coming from the Pharaohs on, we'd have so happily given up the perils of a hand-to-mouth existence. (Which assumes that devoting ourselves to the nastiness of surplus creation was an entirely rational decision, which of course it wasn't.)

So.... We've gone from being leaves in the wind to being the wind itself. I'd shout an unqualified hurray!, but if you look at the Gulf of Mexico today, check your outdoor thermometer, or start counting the nuclear warheads in President Obama's hip pocket, you have to wonder if we haven't just been preparing ourselves for a more decorative extinction.


[ Parent ]
God-kings, etc (4.00 / 2)
I doubt that in societies where most people never traveled more than 50 miles from the place they were born they had much choice. The problem is that existing societies grew more densely populated and climates changed. The individuals there did what they had to in order to survive or they died.

I've often wondered at the engineering problems faced by the early priest-engineers on the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates. Even small tribes support their holy men, so these guys had the time to realize the problems that their societies were facing and they clearly did things to take control of the water upstream. Around the same time literacy was invented for some reason. That became another tool those priest-engineers used.

Rather clearly Naomi Klein's shock doctrine was applied as floods or droughts occurred to get the population to follow the orders of the priest-engineers since they were the only ones who had any answers and they had the secret weapon of literacy. Invasions would also cause a similar social reaction. And if the priest-engineers did not have engineering answers to the problems they had the priestly answers of ritual to apply.  


[ Parent ]
I've observed this (4.00 / 2)
And my thoughts tend toward survival of the fittest operating at a group level to explain the dearth of aristocratically dominated hunter-gatherer societies.  If your tribe has a class of do-nothings who skim all the wealth, make terrible decisions for their own benefit and leave everyone else poor and sick, that tribe is not going to do very well should the need to fight off a competing tribe arise.

It's only in the abundance of settled agrarian society that you can withstand the waste of an aristocracy.  Your competitors are other agrarian societies, and they also tend to have their own parasitical aristocracies, which tends to level the field.


[ Parent ]
Oh, I definitely agree that the perspectives aren't opposed to each other. (0.00 / 0)
My thesis that the small agrarian village before the rise of bronze age civilization was more egalitarian, similar to the tribal hunter/gather society would mean that the increased wealth initially was compatible with a continued egalitarian society.

I don't think that militarized aristocracies arose within these societies.  I think what happened is that some other hunter/gather tribes realized that with only a little more effort than given to hunting they could instead raid the wealthier communities and end up with more wealth.

One of the problems that the tribal hunter/gatherer groups had is that they didn't see the concept of people as including other tribes.  While they were all still hunter/gatherers this ingroup/outgroup dynamic didn't lead to constant raiding simply because there wasn't that much to gain from raiding other tribes.  When a new tribe "invaded" the area of a tribe, the more usual practice than war was for the weaker tribe to just move on.

But with the rise of settled, wealthier communities it became realistic to become raiders.  Eventually these raiding tribes, now experts at warfare, realized that instead of raiding they could conquer and rule.  In a sense the raiders domesticated their victims.  

Another new thing that we have been dealing with since then is overcoming this ingroup/outgroup psychological mindset.  The change from hunter/gatherer to raider to military aristocracy took the ingroup/outgroup dynamic from something between societies to something within societies.  Our 10,000 year struggle is in many ways a struggle to undo that mindset in a society.  But now we also need to undo that mindset between societies too.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!


[ Parent ]
Moving beyond our society's excessive individualism (4.00 / 1)
One of the reasons I consider myself Progressive is that I like hanging out with Progressive-minded folks. And one of the reasons I like hanging out with them is that they know things-- like the history of the Roman Empire, the origins of Christianity, and the politics of tribal societies. I think the comments here are very astute and well-informed.

One of these days I'd like to create a whole Web site that examines the fundamentals and dynamics of civilization's old "the privileged vs. the people" problem, relating it to our current political situation in the U.S. If I do, I'll include an updated version of this post that incorporates all these comments. The contrasts drawn will be less good/bad, more better/worse, reflecting the observations that even the most progressive societies and institutions had faults.

"Why can't modern stratified societies be more like egalitarian tribal ones?" is a great question. According to the Spiral Dynamics model (google "Spiral Dynamics" for more info on it and some good explanatory infographics), it's because the very success of tribal societies in providing for the tribe as a whole gave individuals the means to pursue their own goals according to their own desires, independent of the tribe.

According to this model, our society's current problem with its ruling class--no sense of duty, excessive individualism--is an example of the Orange "achiever" meme run amok, and that it'll take a shift in consciousness toward the Green "communal" meme to solve the problems Orange has created.

Looking at our society from that perspective, I see the Orange to Green shift occurring and gaining speed and power. Music, fashion, and young folks' hairstyles are starting to echo those of the 1970s, when Green consciousness arose (and was soon stomped in the popular culture by Reagan-era Orange). Driving a luxury car or living in a big house isn't so much of a big deal anymore, and is even becoming "uncool." Gordon Gekko-type businessmen are increasingly perceived not as sexy, powerful predators, but as unsavory, anachronistic parasites.

This model was employed in South Africa after Apartheid to guide Mandela's government in making progress/avoiding destructive conflict; although South African society is still very stratified, at least it hasn't been Mississippi Burning. Maybe it could be used to make progress here as well. What do you think?


if (4.00 / 1)
The shift from orange to green makes it possible to pass laws that curtail the activities of the Gordon Gekkos, then I am fully supportive.

If on the other hand, the thinking is to rely on normative and social pressure to alter behaviour, I fear the Gordon Gekkos don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks, and the fact that social pressure makes others less likely to behave like that only makes it easier for actual sociopaths to succeed using anti-societal techniques.

Someone wise made the point recently that well meaning people who cut down on gasoline usage end up making fuel cheaper for shit heads who deny climate change or peak oil by lessening the demand for it.

So when market mechanisms are in play, my presumption is that social pressure only works if it results in the democratic will to pass and enforce laws.  


[ Parent ]
An answer for you. (4.00 / 1)
When you look at the question "Why can't modern stratified societies be more like egalitarian tribal ones?" I think you will find the answer lies in the efficiencies possible through task specialization.

In a tribal society everyone can do the same set of tasks or jobs as everyone else. There is no need for a class of specialist coordinators who are supported by the food producers.

Farming changes that. Someone has to specialize in growing food, while others specialize is distributing it and making tools to grow things. Farmers cease to be mobile, so fixed markets have to be created for exchanges. These grow into towns. The traders step in and start exchanging things - for a share in the exchange. You get coordinators who exist and are supported by the food producers grow because they make the system work and support much larger groups of people. So wealth begins to develop in the towns that grow up as centers of coordination.

Then you get the parasites. The bandits go after the accumulated wealth. Wealth is easier to steal than to create. The towns then establish military and engineering specialists to protect against the bandits. The bandits develop coordinators who become captains and generals, and the successful bands develop hierarchies of both military and engineering specialists. just as do the towns that successfully defend against the bandits. The farmers are stuck in one place and depend on the military to defend them. Further specialization, you see. (For today, look at the Internet, spamming, ID theft and other crimes and the growing number of specialists to deal with such things. Internet warfare is an all new specialty.)

I think that this or some similar process explains stratified societies, particularly in societies where the only training for children was in the family. In such a case when you needed an engineer to build city walls (or pyramids or flood control), you would go to someone experienced in such engineering or to his sons. They'd demand public support to get the work done and the core of a society stratified by birth exists. An apprenticeship is a slight extension of this when the engineer does not have enough trainable sons in his family.

You can see a lot of this social process in recent history in the development of American big business and factories around the turn of the 19th century. The class of wealthy traders hired specialists who knew how to assemble factories (production engineers - largely trained in apprenticeships - I think the Germans were the first to build special training institutes for such engineers and technicians) and the merchants hired labor to staff them. (The core was usually merchants because they understood the markets and the necessary forms of transportation. Again it is specialized knowledge.) The labor was largely immigrant and did not speak English, so they were looked down on much as today's conservatives look down on those who speak Spanish as a first language. Chicago was probably the poster city for this kind of development in America.

The wealthy traders considered themselves superior to everyone else because they owned the hierarchy they dominate, while the engineers (and the new class of hired managers that grew up to coordinate these businesses) consider themselves superior to the workers who don't speak English and who eat strange foods and worship strange gods in strange ways.

I think you will find that the source of hierarchies is task specialization (which includes growth of specialized branches of knowledge) to gain greater production efficiency. It's the requirement to coordinate between people performing different specialized tasks that creates the coordinating classes.

The one other specialist group is the group of rich merchants who create the factories (and ponzi schemes.) Their specialization is today called entrepreneurship and requires access to large sums of money for it to function. They have the inherent power to create and to destroy the production and sales organizations that actually do the work of building and marketing goods and services. Socially they quickly become in-bred and narcissistic, especially in the second generation of wealth and later.  

This is, of course, a severe oversimplification. For one thing I have crunched in the hunter-gatherer to farmer-town shift with the more recent industrial revolution rather indiscriminately. But It's good enough for a blog comment, right?


[ Parent ]
I Think You Missed Two Important Aspects Of Ancient Greece (0.00 / 0)
I think its important to understand the Greek view of mortality and how this view shaped their actions in life and their view of the polis and community. These two things are the foundation of a liberal/progressive world view, in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Ya... (You can get right to the point at 52:31 of this lecture.)

One of the most striking aspects of Greek society was the lack of a strong religious authority that settled questions concerning existence. The Greeks attempted to settle questions of existence amongst themselves and through debate. They acknowledged the existence of the Gods, but that did not stop them from using reason to determine the nature of reality. The atomists theorized that atoms and emptiness were the basic units of reality. Some theorized that fire or water were the foundations of reality. The crucial point is that they emphasized that the world was a rational place and the Gods were simply other participants in this reality. In a highly authoritarian society, for example, where religious elders made the final determinations on such matters of whether the earth was the center of the universe, this faith in reason and in the notion that the world was rational would have been suppressed in order to maintain religious authority over ideas.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox