Archives for posts with tag: empire

The Mechanism

March 17, 2025 //
0

“The resistance that had been everywhere at first faded as the years went on.
The spectacles were exciting. Being amid the crowds was exciting.
The certainty, the unity—the pleasure in being superior to the scorned minority,
as well as the Dostoevskyan pleasure in overthrowing everything
—was exactly what had been missed.
Politicians, business leaders and others who should have known better
—and some who later deeply regretted it—drifted to his side, quietly,
often one by one, drawn by the thrill of power, plus the useful patronage it could give.
There also was the pleasure, relief, in not being targeted themselves.“
David Bodanis, The Art of Fairness: The Power of Decency in a World Turned Mean (2021)

Life, in general, is about species evolving in a given set of circumstances. If the circumstances allow it, live will appear. And survive for as long as the circumstances remain livable. We must keep in mind that life changes the environment in which it evolves.
Social life, the human kind in particular, is about cultural species evolving in given sets of circumstances. For as long as the circumstances remain livable, cultural species will continue to evolve. To put their culture to work and to build civilizations. Each set of circumstances influencing both the culture which inhabits the circumstances and the civilization being built there.

Currently, there are three main categories of cultures. Imperial, democratic and incomplete.

I will start by noting that those cultures which are ‘incomplete’ have remained so because they didn’t have enough time to make ‘full use’ of the limited resources they had at their disposal.
The difference between the imperial and the democratic cultures being the fact that the imperial ones stagnate as soon as they reach a certain level of development while the democratic ones continue to evolve for as long as they manage to remain democratic. To retain their ability to change as soon and as far as they need in order to survive. To maintain their democratic character.

Need proof?
Are you familiar with any empire which had lasted for long?
The Egyptian? 33 dynasties covering 3 millennia? Is that long enough for you?
Well, not so fast. ’33 dynasties’ actually means 33 different empires. It was very seldom that a dynasty ended when/because there was no available successor… Most dynasties were removed from power rather than petered out. And, nevertheless, who cares about why a certain dynasty was replaced by the next one?!? The simple fact that it was replaced is enough for me. The replaced dynasty was no longer able to cope! Hence it had to make place for the next one. Another set of decision makers, naturally following a (however slightly) different mantra.

Don’t believe me? Consider any other empire. Evaluate the duration for which each dynasty had managed to hold the helm. And compare it with the fact that the Roman Republic had survived, as a functional democracy, for almost 5 centuries.

And no, Europe isn’t the only place where democratic forms of self-rule had happened during human history. Kurultai, Loya-Jirga… The mere existence of the concepts is proof enough for the budding democracies which might have developed in those places, given enough time and resources.

Then, if democracy is so much ‘better’ – as in more helpful towards the survival of a certain set of mores/culture – then why is it so ‘scarce’?

Well, for democracy to remain functional, at least some wise men need to remain both strong and focused on the job at hand. Otherwise, the helm will be confiscated by the would be strong but not so wise….

And why is it that good times tend to make weak people?
First of all, good times tend to weaken ‘the people’. Not as much to weaken the individuals living a good life as to make them careless. To take the good times for granted. To convince them that ‘times’ will continue to remain good regardless…..

Not having to struggle for their day to day existence tends to make ‘some of the wisest, happiest, and most peaceful men and women to spend much of their time alone at home, steering clear of UNNECESSARY drama, negativity and chaos’.

This being how successful democracies sometimes succumb to tyranny and how empires eventually crumble under their own weight.

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game, teleology

To whom it may concern

February 1, 2024 //
0

History doesn’t go anywhere.
It pesters us with lessons.
Until we figure out their meanings.
Or until there’s no one left.
No one left to be pestered!
Darwin 2.0

One of the recurrent lessons history is peppered with:
‘Imperia always fail. Sooner or later, eventually all imperial social arrangements end up in abject failure.
Empires as well as monopolies.’

And no, the Pharaonic empire didn’t last for 3000 years.
What happened there was 30 something successive empires. Read dynasties.
Whenever a dynasty lost its grip, its empire folded. Whenever a new dynasty took over, it presided over a new empire.
Same thing happened in modern France. Same territory, same population, same culture, 5 republics and two empires since 1789. The fact that the last three republics have been consecutive doesn’t merge them into a single one.

Europe has been the scene of a whole host of wars. Some of them worldwide wars.
Since the French Revolution, all empires which had attempted to subjugate their neighbors have failed.

Napoleon’s attempt had initiated the German ‘coming together’ and turned Russia’s attention back to Europe.
Napoleon the 3rd had helped Bismark to finalize Prussia’s taking over the rest of what we currently call Germany.
WWI was started by people who had no clue and put on hold by people who had no vision. Started by imperialistically thinking people who didn’t see any need to evaluate the consequences of their countries going to war and put on hold by (other) imperialistically thinking people who continued the well established tradition. Again, without any attempt to evaluate the consequences. Hence the vanquished - the only vanquished that was still standing at the end of the war, Germany – was presented with a hefty bill. And made to pay crippling war reparations. Which clumsy actions had prepared the scene for Hitler’s advent to power.
WWII – or, more exactly, WWI 2.0 – was ended by far wiser decision makers. Who had chosen to integrate the vanquished rather than deepening the trenches.
Although fought with ‘softer’ weapons, WWIII – also known as the Cold War – fits perfectly. It was also lost by the aggressor. Not as much won by those resisting as lost by the empire attempting to widen its grasp.

What we currently have on our hands, WWIV, is a ‘pinnacle’.
Putin attempting to revive Russia’s ‘old glory’ and the reaction of the ‘free world’ are a case study. And a horrible remake. Mistakes already made since the French Revolution have been reenacted as if never happened.
The aggressor failed to realize that at some point his actions will beget a reaction. That even if that reaction will be late, it will surely come about.
The ‘good guys’ have forgotten – never really cared to understand? – the lessons of WWI and WWII. No real attempt to integrate post communist Russia into the democratic fold had been made. Not in an organized manner, anyway. Everybody was happy that ‘history had finally reached its end’ and Russia was left to its own devices. Even worse, it was treated as a no-man’s land. Mutatis mutandis, post-communist Russia had been treated just as South America and Africa had been treated after they had been discovered by the Europeans.
Even worse, the ‘good guys’ have forgotten – or had never understood – that a bully has to be stopped early. And that the easiest way to stop a bully is to encourage his ‘sycophants’ to free themselves from his influence. And to help, in earnest, those who are bullied to overcome their plight.

Now, almost two years after the aggression organized by Putin against Ukraine has become ‘hot’, there still are people who consider Ukraine should negotiate. Should accept the inevitable.
Other consider that helping Ukraine is ‘money down the drain’. That there’s no way for Ukraine to win.

The way I see this, we’re back in 1942.
Nazi troops were controlling most of Europe and most of North-Africa. But the signs were already there.
Russia, nor Britain, didn’t collapse under the onslaught. The nazis had been driven out from Moscow’s suburbs and Leningrad remained out of reach.
From there on… Hitler kept making stupid moves. Until the Third Reich crumbled under its own weight. Helped by the Allied bombardments.
And let’s not forget the huge amount of western weapons and munitions shipped by Russia’s then allies to Murmansk. Nor those hauled using the Iranian railway.

Now.
Will we relearn the lessons which are readily available to us?
The lessons we should have already learned?
What’s keeping us?
Does anybody still think Putin, or any other dictator, will ever stop?
Tired of waiting? Be glad Ukraine isn’t.
Be glad Ukraine isn’t tired of fighting!


Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, Trust

Government

May 17, 2022 //
0

Can we do without it?
And if not, how much of it?

– If ‘no government’, then who would pay for the army we need to defend ourselves?

Ooops… you’ve just answered the ‘why does Russia ‘encourage’ the trolls who push ludicrous libertarian ideas’ question. Which trolls attempt to achieve two things at once. Weaken the concept of free government and give libertarian-ism a bad rep. Transforming libertarian-ism into yet another form of extremism.

Let’s get serious and try to find an answer to ‘why, and how much of it, do we need government?’

The boring one would be: ‘Whenever one government falls, another one takes over. The interregnum is always bad so… let’s get used to it’.

‘Getting used to it’ works only for very short expanses of time. Left on its own, all ‘government’ becomes sloppy. So sloppy that it soon becomes such a burden that even the most ‘used to it’ lose their patience.
Government, all of them, need to be kept on a tight leash. Otherwise it will soon cease to perform as intended.

– But if you have to keep it on a tight leash, why bother with any in the first place?
Can’t we do without such a bothersome pet?
What’s the point of the whole thing, anyway?

Instinctively, we’re against ‘government’ for two reasons.
It costs us a lot and it used to represent the interests of the ruler.

Until 10 000 or so years ago, we didn’t need ‘government’.
People were living more or less like the modern day Sun People still do. In the Kalahari desert… small bands roam the place, living of the land. The bands are small – so that they might find sustenance, they don’t have any ‘private’ property to protect, hence they don’t need government. Neither did our ancestors.

As soon as people ‘invented’ agriculture – raising ‘tame’ animals at first and working the land soon after, things had changed dramatically.
The advent of agriculture brought two things. An increased productivity and private property.
Soil has not been born equal. Both pastures and arable land can be good, passable or bad. People wish to have the best. Those who already have it are willing to defend it and those who don’t are willing to steal it.
Increased productivity means that those who produce are able to hire people to protect their ‘means of production’. Their property. As a consequence of fighting for it, some people accumulate more and more of it.
More and more ‘means of productions’ – property, means an ever increasing need for ‘management’ and an ever increasing need for ‘protection’. Soon you have a very ‘wealthy’ owner – the lord of the place, call it what you like or use the name given to him by his subjects, the people who perform the day to day management of the ‘whole-sale property’ and those who protect it from ‘marauders’. Both the ‘managers’ – read ‘government’, and the ‘protectors’ – read ‘army’, used to be under the direct supervision of the local lord.
For a while – for as long as the lord kept everything in balance, everybody was happy. The ‘peasants’ were happy because thy were safe, the ‘managers’ were happy because the wise lord used to appreciate their work and ‘compensated’ them accordingly, the ‘protectors’ were happy because they were well fed and taken care of. According to this article, the great Egyptian had been built by willing people, not by slaves.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html
But soon enough, the lord had become estranged from his people. Government had become an instrument used to extract more and more wealth from the peasants while the army was used to protect the government against the people and, whenever possible, to increase the property of the ruling lord by stealing some from the neighboring ‘lords’. The ’empire’ was born.

But this development could take place only in certain circumstances. Where those below the ruling lord had nothing more to do than to obey. Where the best subject was the disciplined one. Where autonomous thinking and imagination were frown upon by the ruler. Where one mind was enough.
Whenever the ‘environment’ mandated the individuals to remain relatively autonomous, proto-democratic forms of self government had been experimented. From the nomadic pastoralists of the Central Asia to the sailing communities in Ancient Greece and Medieval Scandinavia. Those driving herds or sailing ships need to be a lot more independent-minded that those who just tile the earth. No offense intended here! Simple observation will notice that where the geography of the place had allowed it, somebody had ‘built’ an empire. The Nile Valley, the Middle East, the Russian plain, China, Mexico…
Where ever the geography of the place was fragmented enough by sail-able sea, proto-democratic forms of self-management had been developed. The sailing Ancient Athens versus the land-locked Sparta, Medieval Scandinavia versus Medieval France…

Fast forward to present day.
When we have two forms of government.
The more or less democratic ones. Those under whose ‘guidance’ discussions like the present one can happen.
And the more or less authoritarian ones. Which actively discourage autonomous thinking.

Mind you, there are no ‘perfect’ governments.
There’s no perfectly democratic arrangement anywhere on Earth. Because we are imperfect human beings.
And there’s no ‘perfect’ authoritarian government. Because no government can survive for long if it attempts to centralize the decision power. The closer a government gets to being perfectly authoritarian, the smaller is the crisis needed to topple it. Unless it is supported from the out-side but that’s another topic.

So. It is fairly simple to understand how authoritarian governments fail. Too much ‘stiffness’ makes it impossible for authoritarian governments to evolve. To find solutions for whatever challenges pop up constantly.

But what can go wrong with the collective forms of self-rule? With the participative forms of social self management? Otherwise known as democracies?
Lack of enough popular involvement. Due to a sense of apparent safety, initially. And to a feeling of apparent impotence, soon after.
Lack of enough fore-sight. Those who should know better become distracted, for whatever reasons.
Too much opportunism. More and more of the ‘insiders’ use ‘the power of the government’ to fulfill their own, private, goals instead of making sure that ‘government’ works properly.

And what does that mean?

A government works properly when the community which self manages itself using that particular (form of democratic) government survives in the long run.
When those momentarily working inside the government make things happen for the community at large.
When people, both inside and outside the government, follow, in spirit, Kennedy’s words.

Am I being naive?
Maybe… But wouldn’t it be a nice thing to have?
A nice thing to chase, anyway?

And what better way to chase ‘it’ than voting for people who at least pretend to be honest? Who at least make the ‘right’ noises? Whom we can hold accountable whenever they break their promises?
Instead of voting for those who promise barrels and barrels of ‘pork‘?
https://grammarist.com/idiom/pork-barrel/

Ideological pork or hands-on pork, I don’t know which is worse…

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crises, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, collective identity, democracy, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, religion, skin in the game, teleology, time