If you calculate the number of days peasants were required to work for their lord in England, it is actually less than the number of days we currently work for the government. In the middle ages, the non-nobility held rank, owned land, had trades and were blessed by the benefits of capitalism. Honestly, I think communism is worse, and there is little comparison.

Thanks for posting that Robert. Over the years I’ve learned a lot from ET at SDA and much of those posts should be taught in our universities instead of the anti-capitalist, anti-American envy we get now from our tenured Professors. It is unfortunate to read conservatives here bashing ET’s optimism about mankind’s ability to adapt to changing environments. It is quite frankly similar to the BDS we got from the progressives as they deemed W an idiot for being optimistic about the universality of the desire and need for democracy.

Interestingly, regarding Karl Popper (whose 2 volumes on Open Society I’ve tried to read but while his ideas are great, his style is incredibly detailed to the point of boredom sometimes) is used by George Soros on his site “Open Society” at Soros.Org where this quote appears by Soros:
“Popper's philosophy made me more sensitive to the role of misconceptions in financial markets and the concept of reflexivity allowed me to develop my theory of bubbles. This gave me a leg up as a market participant.”

To make it more interesting, Glen Beck went after Soros day after day last Fall. But Beck totally misinterpreted Karl Popper and deemed him to be a bad guy simply because Soros had championed Popper on his site. When in fact it was Soros who had twisted Popper to suit his own image.

Trudeau was often known as a Philosopher King, a title taken directly from Plato. (Interesting also the name of a prominent British newspaper.)

I prefer the approach of Solon, who reformed ancient Athens, then sailed off into exile. Predictably, the Athenians failed to hold to his reforms. But at least they had to work this out themselves, and learn from the experience. The Guardian model perpetuates and entrenches the entitlement of the few and the ignorance of the many.

Society is stronger when the many gain responsibility, experience, and capacity. That's something the elitist Guardian model eschews.

Ya know I endorse ET's views.....on this....
The current growing rejection of the DemocRATs and OBOZO is the rejection of elites.

Where I part company with ET is although the ME must reject the elitist 2 class system for a 3-class capitalist/democratic model....although they must...they won't.

It's the old saw of taking the horse to water...

Horses are generally smarter than muzzies....

But sasquatch, my point is that the ME nations have no choice. They can't sustain their populations using the two-class economic mode.

In the West, in the 13th century, it was the same problem. And boy, did the old guard rulers, the nobles and the church, fight against any change. The result?

1)Repeated famines and plagues. These would reduce the populations for a bit and then, they'd increase again;
2)Repeated wars as the govts tried to get more resources. These would deplete both the population and also, destroy the current economies;
3)Periods of rigid authoritarianism as the church fought back against the 'heresy' of individuals questioning the 'knowledge base' of the time, and fought for more freedom.

Until finally, the massive population increases meant that the old economic mode crumbled, they had to enable private individual market businesses and trade, they had to move economic production off the fiefdom, out of the control of the landed gentry and into a market trade economy based on surplus for trade.

At the same time, the intelletual mindset was changing. There's Abelard's famous 'dubitando'; I doubt. Allowing doubt to emerge, allowing questions to emerge (see the famous 12th c tale of Perceval who was chastized for not questioning what was going on)...allowing individuals to examine and explore the objective world..Galileo, Da Vinci.

Acknowledging that there WAS such a thing as an objective material world to examine..this led to science and technological change. [Notice how the Islamic world is akin to the 12th c in Europe with its rejection of individualism, questions, dissent, and the reality of the objective external world.]

I'm saying that the Islamic world has no choice but to change its economic and political infrastructure. It can't sustain its population using its current method.

Certainly, as did the Church and nobles in Europe, the religious powers and the tribal dictators of the ME will try to retain their power. But..it's like a tipping scale; the weight of the population increases have tipped the scale...and the infrastucture must change.

There is a long middle period in which the third level flourished. The revolutions of 1776 and 1789,
and the English Civil War, were not without effect; nor was the rise of Protestantism. The consequences were good educational systems,
open to everyone; and indeed, increased social mobility. We now have punitive taxation on the middle class, and the destruction of the public educational systems.

This to some extent has been accompanied by the
destruction of religion. We have no more Scotch presbyterian teachers doing their duty to God by
educating His people.

Of course these developments have occurred in very different ways in different jurisdictions.
The public educational system is not and has not been the same in England as in France, for example.

But in any event, the thrust is clear: many want the reversion to a two level system.

ET wrote:
"Until finally, the massive population increases meant that the old economic mode crumbled, they had to enable private individual market businesses and trade, they had to move economic production off the fiefdom, out of the control of the landed gentry and into a market trade economy based on surplus for trade."

Yes, this was happening in the high Middle Ages, and yes the landed gentry, and the church fought against the emergence of the third (middle) class, and the concept of upward mobility in general.

But curiously, it was the massive population decrease (and subsequent labour shortages) that came with the Black Death that busted the whole thing wide open. Because this situation brought mobility both between, and within all of the classes. Peasants could now become farm labourers for cash wages. Or they could become traders. And some of the new moneyed people were eventually elevated to the status of nobility. I think the real issue is how societies become immobile. Constipated if you will. And then things start to stagnate, until something (often some emergency) busts things open again. Sometimes it is a population increase, but sometimes it is a population decrease. But the main point is that something gets things moving again.

Just as long as you realize that there can also be conservative elitists who think the same way, that only they should run things, and that others should follow their orders and their lead. These are the sort of people who are afraid of wide-ranging discussion, who jump up and down at the first sign of deviation from the party line, and who think that they are indispensable to the effort to overthrow political correctness.

It then turns into a parallel political correctness of the right, that is well parodied on SNL with that blonde lady on the talk show who endlessly repeats one word as if she has just had an audience with the Oracle.

Getting it in balance is difficult now, the leftist brand of political correctness is so ingrained into most peoples' thinking that when the less political folk hear the dialogue between left and right, they tend to tune out, thinking they are hearing two equal and opposite versions of madness.

A good example is with climate change, how the push back against global warming turned so readily to talk about an impending ice age. There is almost no evidence for this whatsoever, the reality remains that we are almost steady-state and showing very slight increases or decreases on a decadal time scale. But the right wing ideologues who are on steroids want to push back with the "impending ice age" equal and opposite reaction.

In this lies a lesson, we elitists of the centre are the ones who should be in charge. Then everyone can go home and we'll close down everything, and bang on the drum all day.

Robert, thanks for this thread and your conversation with ET. It is extremely interesting to read the broad range of historical knowledge expressed here. I envy the ability of so many to articulate this knowledge. It is too bad that more of society will never read this or be taught this knowledge in the places of learning, but rather be subjected to misinformation and brainwashing.

I have to agree with sasquatch somewhat. If the ME does not adopt the 3 class system we are in big trouble as we are already being hobbled by those who would impose a 2 class system here in the west.

@ 12:24am Peter wrote: "Just as long as you realize that there can also be conservative elitists who think the same way, that only they should run things, and that others should follow their orders and their lead. These are the sort of people who are afraid of wide-ranging discussion, who jump up and down at the first sign of deviation from the party line, and who think that they are indispensable to the effort to overthrow political correctness."

I absolutely agree! The best example I ever heard of this was a woman in the Eastern U.S. who was fed up with Obama and wanted to do something to help defeat him at the polls. She went to her local Republican constituency office and found them to be beyond arrogant and condescending. She immediately started her own Tea Party group and effected massive change in her district & state.

I apologize for not recalling all the details of this story but heard it on John Batchelor's show about a year ago. I think it related to this though.

I cannot tell whether it was ET or Robert who wrote this comment,

"Degrees don't mean much, quite frankly. Anyone can write their opinions and dress it up with lofty words. It doesn't mean a thing other than a spotlight on their own vapidness."

but it annoys the hell out of me. I think the basic ideas in the post are excellent, and they have been said before, but frankly I get sick and tired of the argument that all degrees are worthless.

It was individuals with degrees that put man on the moon, it was individuals with degrees that invented the amazing electronic devices which enabled all that is possible with the Internet (including this blog), and so on and so on and so on. The bottom line is that making substantial advances in a field requires years of study - that's just how it works in this day and age.

Stop painting those with degrees with such a broad brush! Are you suggesting that we return to the dark ages? I'd have to say that the quoted message at the start of my post pissed me off more than anything I have read on SDA in a very long time - which is saying something because I rarely find much that I disagree with here.

Yes, some degrees don't mean much, but that is a painfully simplistic view of things. And yes, universities are not what they used to be, and they have to a large degree been hijacked by left-wing nuts. Agreed, agreed. But do you *seriously* think the world would be a better place if the desire to dig deep into certain subjects was absent from the human race? It appears that's exactly what you think.

"...many, many, many Ph.Ds who are ignorant, arrogant, isolated bigots, trapped in the emptiness of words"

What a comment.

I know many, many, many Ph.D's who are nothing like what you describe. Indeed I am struggling to think of a single Ph.D I know who fits your description.

We must associate with different people.

Welcome back, ET.

As Glenn Reynolds did, maybe you just needed a break.

Stick around, please, I've missed you.

Mad Mike

ET:
I'm saying that the Islamic world has no choice but to change its economic and political infrastructure. It can't sustain its population using its current method.

Why should they change when they may very well be able to take over productive societies and demand tribute. It's worked for centuries.

Yes, ET it's nice to see they have finally released you :)

@ TJ at May 23, 2011 12:55 AM

There are two PH.Ds in my immediate family and although they are quite competent in their chosen field they are truly dumb as a stick when they step out of their comfort zone. Neither has a lick of common sense and they are both proof positive that education has little bearing on basic intelligence. And yes, they are both arrogant and have a superiority complex.

ET, I would be interested to hear how you reconcile your view that the ME will be able to avoid exchanging one set of elitist rulers (the dictators) for another (the Islamists). From all indications that I am aware of, the Islamists are making remarkable progress toward their goal of turning western civilization back into a two-tiered system, so why wouldn't they be able to also take over the ME?

Exactlyl, peterj. My brother also has a PhD. In his area of expertise he's great, but outside that he can be abysmally ignorant while imagining himself to be well informed.

"I'm saying that the Islamic world has no choice but to change its economic and political infrastructure. It can't sustain its population using its current method."

They don't need to; they only need to fight enough wars to whittle the population down.

There are several different ways to deal with a massively expanding population which is faced with limited resources. The Brits did it by sending their new generations on globe-spanning missions of discovery and conquest. The Japanese dealt with it by going to war. China did it by instituting the one-child policy. North Korea is dealing with it through an iron-fisted monarchy/theocracy/generic-dictatorship. Now, granted, all such attempts seem to eventually lead to liberal capitalist democracies, but there's no grantee on how long it will take, or how many lives and resources will be lost in the process.

ET
You wrote previously that The Iranian 'revolution' was decades ago and is an invalid comparison to what is going on now.
Why?
At that time Iranian population was rapidly growing, like today population of Arabic ME.
Iran had quasi-democratic ruler (shah) like today quasi-democratic rulers in ME.
Iranian revolution was democratic from the start with islamists/fundamentalist, democrats, communists and others fighting and demonstrating against shah rule. Today Arab Spring has also demonstrations in which democrats, islamists and others together demonstrate against totalitarian rulers.
And in Iran Islamists/fundamentalist were best organized among all demonstrating people. Like today in the ME.
And so it was Islamists (because Khomeini people were somewhat equivalent to today's Sunni Islamists) who won in Iran. I hope it won't be Islamists who win in the ME, now. But I have my doubts.
*****
You also write:In days past it would be the tribal elders of one clan that ruled over the other clans. In the feudal period it would be the nobles and the church. The elite prevented the lower class from gaining power; kept them uneducated, dependent on the financial and 'saviour' powers of the nobles/church who owned all the means of production (the land), owned all means of hope and salvation from your supposed sins (the church), all knowledge.Keeping the unanointed peasantry down became difficult only when the population increased beyond the 'organizing capacity' of such a two-tiered system
It was so, but when lower classes found that they can own means of production they choose to revolt against the nobles and impose their own tyranny, tyranny of the mases. They choose to continue doing that even when they became well educated. It seems to me that you missed the Russian Revolution, the communist rule in half of the Europe and in the majority of Asian countries and you are missing the events going on Europe. I would like to direct your attention to the events now going on in Spain which show rather different politico-economic direction from the one you are talking about.
They show direction leftward.

I understand that it is popular not only on this blog to think that western democracy is the next stage of political life in all countries, however I think it is a fallacy. Because modern economy can well work without western-style democracy [see: China]. You may be right talking about three-layered economic structure, but it does not follow that this kind of economic structure will necessarily result in western style democracy. Or in democracy at all.

Anyway, I think I will remind you of this conversation again in a year from now.
Ta Ta.

"They don't need to; they only need to fight enough wars to whittle the population down."
Alex
Never thought so, but I agree. Close by they have a primary enemy state (remember: Nakba?)and some of them are really, really eager to start something.
(by the way, in Egypt the price of bread is getting up..........rapidly, and tourism is down)

well et, you forgot the part about how the humanities grads that populate the civil service sally up to the billionaires who have created, via such mechanisms as proxy voting in the boardroom, their own 3rd, uber elite class. THEY are the ones originating out of the middle class to go on to create monopolies and oligarchies. THEY are the ones who resist change by making sure no one follows in their footsteps; (zero sum games all over the place).

it has to do with capitalism is its own worst enemy; a capitalist that really succeeds in 'creating' wealth (actually there is a finite amount of wealth at any givien moment, they just want it all for themselves and thus steal it from the middle and lower classes) are the ones who resist change.

the 'intellectualists' of which you refer are merely the identifiable parties who trade away the upward mobility of their fellow citizens for their own security in the model you describe.

much like the vichy french, the eastern bloc communist leaders prior to 1989 and so forth.

how else do megacorporations wind up paying ZERO taxes from time to time? why do lobbyists outnumber members of congress?

at least socialism brought us out of the dark ages. and dont confuse it with communism which is the bizzare offshoot of socialism; it is merely where, like the grand expanse of the universe, things 'circle around' and you wind up where you started. under the present capitalist model the only difference with ultra extreme socialism is that all property is held in a few private hands instead of the state. but the power boys at the top in either case still enjoy all the perks of an inherited position.

in the capitalist model proposed on web sites like SDA, the much clamoured 'tax cuts' are merely a means to permit the theft to continue.

the uber elites will always find a way to keep ALL other challengers at bay. this is why the old saying 'rich get richer poor get poorer' is even more true today. you are all part of that; you gleefully celebrate the fall of socialism until one day you find yourself falling further and further behind when privatization removes access to the resources we once all had a share in.

“THEY are the ones originating out of the middle class to go on to create monopolies and oligarchies.”

ella, in a globally connected economy the only monopolies and oligarchies THEY are able to create are those goods and services supplied by government and delivered by government unions. Ironically THEY reside in big centrally planned government. THEY have turned out to be the parasites that Marx was predicting would happen while his original target, free enterprise, has been subjected to heavy competition as time and distance narrows in the global economy.

Thus the best example of elites moving society toward a 2-class system is government unions who have a monopoly on certain services and get themselves in behind the castle walls of government and behave like parasites seeking rent from the hosts in the private sector outside the walls.

ping says “the uber elites will always find a way to keep ALL other challengers at bay.” …. That can only happen now in a government monopoly.

But the economy always rights itself eventually as the graph yesterday on SDA shows with Obama’s Keynesian spending killing jobs because those in the castle sought too much rent from the productive middle class. That causes a rise of Tea Parties reminiscent of those in Boston that started the American Revolution and the cycle goes on.

Similarly the elites in the ME have taken too much from the peasants and the peasants are now revolting with Tea Parties of the ME. And while the next steps are uncertain, the thrust toward a middle class determining how they want to be ruled is a certainty. Because 2 tired tribalism cannot work in large populations in a globally competitive “Open Society”.

Pretty good read.
Basic idea that can be summed up with the neat little phrase that neo-feudalism won't work no matter how much lipstck they put on it.

"That can only happen now in a government monopoly."

you dont get it; it all boils down to the enormous cost of running for office.

in the great US of A that requires the candidate to sell their soul to the highest bidder via the lobbyist. that's the link; 'pass this bill in favour of my megacorp and you get a blank cheque to pay for all that advertising'.

they're not stupid, the same offer is made to the incumbent and challenger, it's a cost of doing business.

Canuckistan is no different, just a smaller scale with fewer attack ads.

as far as public service unions, well, the shrewed manager will find a way to minimize staff currying favour with the masters to the point where interaction by the public consists of unending voice messages, automated scripted responses and lonnnng lonnnng waitng lines. the only unknown here is whether a return to the middle ages where staggering wealth amongst the top 1/10th of 1% coexists with(but never has to smell the stench of) the swirling masses. but unlike that time, technology and the descendants of the patriot act will conspire to constantly nip dissention in the bud. it will happen. so SDA, what are your contingency plans with the Stasi come smashing down YOUR door for some inoccuous blog post? hmmm?

"you dont get it; it all boils down to the enormous cost of running for office."

How much did "Vegas" spend?

Yes, well just a word from a non-intellectual here, a voice from the underclass, if you will. While it is easy to blame the Church, we should remember that although it was mainly the upper-classes that could send their children to a "university" or academy, most of it was done by private tutors, etc., it was, up until only recently in history, the Church that offered education to the masses. And Scholastica was the first woman to be allowed a university education and it was the Church that demanded "holy days" wherein it insisted the peasants be given days off in some sort of regularity, to enjoy their laborious lives. And it was royal nomination of the Church prelates that gave them control of many Church decisions. In fact, it would be a good thing, I think, were education and charities be given back to the Churches to handle.

Hear! Hear! larben!

The Church is the proverbial whipping boy, perhaps because it can stand up for itself -- or, at least, God can.

Whatever faults and failures of the Church -- and they are many, given that Jesus's hands and feet are now entrusted to mere mortals, fallen, weak, frail, often self-serving, human beings -- it is an institution that founded hospices/hospitals for everyone, not just Christians, and, as larben has pointed out, educational institutions for everyone.

If you check out the history, for instance, of Toronto's public health and educational institutions, almost without exception, you will find a Christian religious foundation.

Although I agree with much of ET's argument about elites keeping "the peasant class" down, I'm not clear that her assertion that "the Islamic world has no choice but to change its economic and political infrastructure [my emphasis] is realistic or reliable. It seems more to be wishful thinking on her part.

The Islamic world most definitely does have a choice -- as we all do -- and it remains to be seen whether or not they will be willing to make changes. It's quite possible that the Muslims in the ME could decide to continue as they are, with total chaos ensuing, in which case, we're all in deep trouble -- which we are at present, because the ME is in chaos their mayhem is negatively affecting the whole world -- especially as they are importing it to the West.

TJ - I wrote that sentence about PHDs. I meant arts and humanities degrees; not science degrees. And since I'm in the academic world - for many years - I can assure you of the many who fit my description of both ignorance and arrogance in the degree world.

Karl - no, I disagree that it was the "Black Death' that caused the emergence of a middle class. The definition of a middle class is not that they earn wages; the definition is that they are able to start up independent private businesses. And no, you can't have someone free to work on a farm or be a trader until you have an economy that functions within market trade!

Patsplace - and exactly how is an economically and militarily weak nation going to demand tribute?

Dirtman- the reason for the necessary change from a two-class to a three-class is because the two-class economic mode, which prevents the formation of a middle class private business economy...can't sustain the population. It's irrelevant who the Rulers of this two-class system are; it's the economic mode that is the real problem.

Alex - yes, a first step in trying to prevent change is to reduce the population to the carrying level of the current economic mode. This can be 'unconscious' of course. So poor nutrition, plagues, diseases..will work for a short time. Wars do the same. Even conscious efforts will do it - and most non-industrial ancient tribes worked to keep their populations below the critical threshold. But as you also point out, this can't be maintained. In Europe, the richest biome on the planet, the population rises eventually necessitated a change in economic and political modes - and the same is occuring in the ME, due not to a rich agricultural biome but oil!

Ella - the 1979 Iranian 'revolution' merely exchanged one set of elite Rulers of a two-class system for another. It was not a revolution and did nothing for deep structural change in the economy. The population increase of the time had not moved beyond the carrying capacity of its economy. What is going on now with the movement of the people for freedom IS a symptom of an inadequate economy.

You state that the lower class 'found' they could own the means of production'. Really? How did they find that they could they own it? The land? The energy sources? You are ignoring that the means of production had to change from local agriculture to market production of goods and services.

Tyranny of the masses? How? These nations also developed constraints to whim by the rule of law.

The Russian (and Chinese) Revolutions were to move peasant, local, agricultural economies into industrial economies. It took the West 400 plus years to do this - and these Eastern Revolutions did it in one generation. That's why they are defined as 'revolutions' and not developments.

The 'mode' of so rapidly destroying an old economic infrastructure and setting up a new one was by totalitarianism. Communism. Communism like all utopian ideologies (socialism, fascism) dreams of a perfect society and is always two-class. However, both the Russians and the Chinese realize that such an economic mode can't sustain the populations. They've both had to move into market capitalism of private businesses. Democracy is inevitable.

There is no such thing as 'western democracy'. There is only democracy. Period. Democracy is a political mode that will necessarily emerge in an economic mode based around individual private small to medium businesses in a market economy. Democracy empowers this economic middle class.

No, the problems in Europe with riots in the streets are about the 'entitled to my entitlements' population resisting the socialist economy.

What has developed over the post WWII years after strong economic growth was a removal of more and more of the population from the wealth producing sector: students, early retirement, tax evasions, welfare population, minimum wages, migrant workers.

And a reduction of the wealth-producing capacities of the middle class, of independent small and medium size businesses by govt taxes and control.

This is unsustainable and eventually, a critical threshold has been reached where the wealth producing sector can't sustain the consumer sector of the population. That's what's going on in these parts of the world.

ping - the arts and humanities grads are part of a two-class infrastructure. And socialism did not 'bring us out of the dark ages' - a totally meaningless sentence.

And, as nomdeblog points out, these people are not wealth-producers. That's vital; how does a society produce wealth? Not by its bureaucracy. Not by a socialist control of resources.

batb - with regard to the Church, I am not talking about the Christian religion nor about its duties towards its followers but about the emergence of the 'church' as a political and economic power, very like a monarchy, in the period from about the 5th to 16th century. This power fought the other 'titled rulers', the nobles and monarchs for control of the European economies.

As for the necessary transformation of the ME nations to free market capitalism, a middle class and democracy, I say it's inevitable because of: the size of their populations and the inability of a statist two-class economic mode to sustain this size of population.

This has nothing to do with free will choice of the individual; many prefer the security of the 'old way of life'; many do not want the risks within a free market middle class economy. After all, being taken care of by fate, god or the state is often emotionally prerable to having to rely on oneself.
What I mean by 'no choice' is that IF these populations do not move into a sustainable economic mode, THEN...they will move into a dependent state. This could mean several things:

- reduction of nutrition...leads to massive famines, diseases
- wars. Problam: they cannot economically manage to carry out any sustainable wars. They will thus move into internal fighting;
- dependency on the rest of the world. Won't work; the rest of the world, which is over-socialized, can't sustain both their own AND the massive ME populations.

So- changing their economic mode..and thus their political mode..is actually the best solution. And, what makes it easier to occur - faster than it did in the West - is modern electronic communication systems. They can see what other lifestyles exixt; it's not hypothetical as it was in the 15th century in Europe.

It must be wonderful to be an anthropologist. You can look at the world through marxist/materialist eyes and apply any cause to any situation without evidence and have the slobbering masses eating out of your hand.

Democracy no more 'naturally' springs into being thanks to a rich environment than life spontaneously sprang into being in a mud puddle. The native state of mankind is that of an elite ruling the masses. Only when there springs to mind that there should, for what ever reason, be equality of mankind does democracy even begin to emerge and even then there is ultimately an elite ruling the masses and eventually that elite has destroyed the democracy that gave it birth. The present outbreak of democracy is traceable to the Christian ideal of the priesthood of the believers and St Paul's statement that faith in God removes all social, ethnic status. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus".

ET, thanks for your response -- and, Joe, thanks for yours.

I suspect that the Muslims' moving into a dependent state, meaning famines, disease, wars, and dependency on the rest of the world, is the likeliest scenario for the reasons that Joe gives: Democracy doesn't spontaneously spring into being from a stagnant (Islamist) mud puddle.

"The two-tiered socialist system is, actually, the most basic sociopolitical system on Earth. It's essentially tribal,"

Correct. So is any form of collectivism.Collectivist systems only work in small family or tribal groups because you do not mind existing solely for the collective when it is truly all related.When the collective state is you direct relatives, working for the state is almost the same as working for your own benefit.

However, when a society matures, specializes and expands and there are numerous productive self-reliant INDIVIDUALS unrelated to each other, free market laisez faire economics and free democratic republican socio-political structures serve the needs of the most individuals while keeping tribal combative bloodshed over power, land and resources at a minimum.

Not being collectivist peasants, or from tribal society, academics like Marx and Engles believed tribal collectivism could be adapted to large industrial societies. The past 100 years has proven this to be a grossly errant theory. When transferring the powers given tribal elders to a small leadership cabal of a collective super state, the result of concentrating such power has always been despotic austerity and nation-killing political corruption.

Had Marx and Engles consulted a behavioral scientist or social archeologist about the limitations of oligarchic collectivism, we may have escaped the last 100 years of trauma and 30 million lost lives defeating such a bad idea.

joe - heh, so now I'm a marxist? Shows what little you know of marxism; i.e., you know zilch about marxism. Don't you know that marxism rejects the middle class? Don't you know that it rejects private enterprise and individual wealth production? sheesh.

No, my analysis is based on material reality..and no, 'materialism and material reality' are not the same thing.

By 'material reality' I mean that all living organisms, as material entities, live within a material environment. Do you know what 'material' means?
In the case of our species, we live within a particular ecological biome; this means that we must economically adapt to the material realities of that biome. Arable soil, climate, water, resources, plant and animal types etc.

This then, in turn, defines the size of our population. And, this size defines how we organize ourselves as a society; politically. Our species, by the way, must live within a group; that's because our knowledge is not genetically but socially stored and learned.

Are you aware of these non-marxist facts about reality?

Second - it's absolutely untrue that 'the native state of mankind is an elite ruling the masses'. Wrong again, joe.

No, the earliest and most wide-ranging form of sociopolitical organization is what is known as the Hunting and Gathering Band. And there are no leaders! I'll bet you didn't know that.

It's a small population living as a group, making consensual decisions. It can only support about 30 people in a particular group. I'd suggest some books for you to enlarge your knowledge but I doubt that you would read them; you don't seem interested in facts.

The 'ruler ruling the masses', i.e., a two-class societal structure only emerged when agricultural economies emerged on this planet. There is no consensus on why agriculture developed; it was about 10,000 years ago (and our species has been around for about 100,000 years! All hunting and gathering!).

But when it developed, it enabled larger populations. And these larger populations organized within a two-class infrastructure. That's tribalism, where one clan has the authority to rule over the other clans. It provides stability and security.

No, democracy has nothing to do with any religious ideology. After all, you are suggesting that a particular political mode of organization 'sprang up' in someone's mind due to a Christian idea..and don't bother to explain how that idea itself emerged and was accepted!

Certainly, Christianity emerged in a changing economy and was indeed focused, unlike the other religious beliefs of the time (animism, polytheism, judaism) on the individual rather than the collective. This is important; Christianity is based around the individual will; not the collective will. And that was a monumental change.

But what was going on that such an ideology emerged and took root? It was the changing population size and resultant economic mode..and resultant political changes.

The Roman expansion of control over Europe and the ME, with their introduction of roads, irrigation and water supplies, trade and military security, currency, linked towns etc..meant that a networked trade economy emerged. This meant that the old previously isolated peoples had to collaborate, be neighbours. It meant that you had to free yourself from group ideologies and, as an individual, get along with different peoples.

That's the basis of Christianity. And it has nothing to do with democracy but about individual self-responsibility, the use of reason, making responsible choices and..getting along with others.

Democracy is a political mode and emerges to give power to a middle class economy. These people are indeed, as are Christians, operating as free individuals, and must get along with 'others'. But, the two are not necessarily linked - and you don't need to be religious or have 'faith in god' to be democratic.

The essay might meet the sterile academia's requirements but it lacks any knowledge of "Human factors". Muslims in Muslim nations are brainwashed from birth, their idea of freedom is Sharia Law. Democracy is an affront to their beliefs, there is going to be a globally food shortage in the next 12 months and millions of poor Muslims are going to starve to death that would by ET's third class group.

occam - thanks; very nice comments.

Nice to have ET back. It's been a while. TJ I have worked with some PhDs that exceeded that description. They had all the faults listed plus a few. We were told to hire 3 PhDs and we did. Organizational requirements so they did not have to be competent but two weren't even close. For one it was his first real job and he was in his late forties early fifties.

"Karl - no, I disagree that it was the "Black Death' that caused the emergence of a middle class. The definition of a middle class is not that they earn wages; the definition is that they are able to start up independent private businesses. And no, you can't have someone free to work on a farm or be a trader until you have an economy that functions within market trade!"

But I never said that the Black Death caused the emergence of the middle class. The middle class had been emerging though the 11th and 12th centuries. And they were being "put in their place" more or less effectively. But the labour shortages caused by the Black Death allowed greater social mobility.

I agree with many of your points, but I do not agree that it is always population growth which leads to the changes you describe. How do you contend with the fact that the pace of social change in Europe increased dramatically AFTER the black death, when Europe lost 30% of its population? What do you do with the fact that the Yeoman farmer came into his own AFTER the Black Death? What do you do with the fact that AFTER the Black Death in England laws were passed which tried to reduce wages for farm labourers back to pre-plague levels? Laws which were unenforceable and ignored, because landowners faced with the prospects of letting their crops rot in the field, and so paid what the workers demanded. And in the years that followed, many former serfs became tenant farmers, which increased their control over their business. And, (as I said before) many of these tenant farmers went on to purchase their land as the manorial system of the Middle Ages collapsed.

To be sure, all of this social change was in the cauldron before the Black Death came. But most historians agree that the Black Death was the fire which finally put the kettle to boil.

As for the Islamic World: Do they have no choice but to change? People always have choice. I wonder that it might take some great calamity for real change to come.

"One class, the anointed, are deemed by birth, education etc. to be Guardians, Rulers, Wise Men..."

Moral of the story: you morons should have finished high school.

ET wrote: "No, the earliest and most wide-ranging form of sociopolitical organization is what is known as the Hunting and Gathering Band. And there are no leaders! I'll bet you didn't know that."

ummmmm ..... no. That is not even close to accurate. Hunter/Gatherer societies had leaders. Ever heard of the "Chief"? the "Big Man"? Shaman? Theuy organized themselves differently, but they did organize themselves under leaders.

BTW, ET, you don't have a PhD in a science. You have one in anthro, probably the silliest and least-defensible "discipline," one with virtually no empirical analysis, and that makes its students half-assed amateur historians, half-assed amateur economists, half-assed amateur political scientists, half-assed amateur sociologists. And if you wanted to be around better academics, you should have taught at a better school.

"The present outbreak of democracy is traceable to the Christian ideal of the priesthood of the believers and St Paul's statement that faith in God removes all social, ethnic status."

lol. Honestly, I think this is 90% of the reason I come to SDA. You just don't get these clowns anywhere else!

“Certainly, Christianity emerged in a changing economy and was indeed focused, unlike the other religious beliefs of the time (animism, polytheism, Judaism) on the individual rather than the collective. This is important; Christianity is based around the individual will; not the collective will.”

ET is that why Jews tend to be progressive? And capitalism seems to have historically “sprung” from Christianity? Ergo Max Weber and his book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”

The other thing that might have had influence is that as society moved from hunter gatherer to tribalism to an agricultural society that trades surplus crops, that it was the Christian idea of tolerance to other religions (because that was what was economically necessary to make things commercially viable) that caught on. Perhaps the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity because it was a tolerant culture that worked better than others that excluded.

Can an argument be made that economics drives religion and not the other way around? Because if Constantine hadn’t converted based on his observation that Christianity is better for the economy, than the growth of Christianity might have been stunted.

Alex if I had a head like yours I'd pop it before it festers. The problem with you materialists is that you are completely lacking a vital dimension. Watching you and ET spout off is like watching a two dimensional cartoon in a three dimensional world. Not everything is reducible to materialistic causes. Ruling out religion as a modifier of social outcome despite overwhelming evidence is like saying climate change is caused solely by mankind. Each underlying philosophy produces its own kind of society. The voodoo in Haiti produces the poverty you see there. The animism in some parts of Africa produces the kind of society you see over there. Islam produces a type of society, Marxism/materialism/scientism produces a type of society. Evangelical Christianity produces a type of society, Catholic Christianity produces a type of society. As I have too often quoted, "Man does not live by bread alone". Yes materialism has a role to play in the formation of a society but it is not the sole determinant of said society's formation. Far more important is how individuals in that society view themselves in relation to the world around them, other people with whom they interact and the relationship they have with their deity. If I believe you and I are equal because we both are under the same god I will treat you different than if I believe that the god we are under has mandated me to rule over you.

karl - the 'chief', Big Man' and Shaman are not found in Hunting-Gathering societies but in tribal societies that are based in an economic mode that enables a larger population.

'Chief' is a common term' for both pastoral nomadic economies and horticultural economies as is shaman..'Big Man' is a common term used in swidden or wet horticultural economies.

Again, the hunting/gathering societies have no leaders. I'd suggest reading Richard Lee's works on the San/Dobe !Kung.

karl - the changes that you describe take place over many generations. As I said, it took over 400 years for the West to move from a two-class to three-class economic mode. You are right; the changes were ongoing in the 11th, 12th centuries. I don't agree that a singular event, even one as decimating as the Black Death would tip the scale unless that scale had already reached the tipping point. Any 'event' would then break stability but the focus has to be on the scale's gradual slope not the particular 'flick of the switch'. (I think there are too many metaphors in that example!)

And yes, in the ME, it might take some great calamity to 'flick the switch' there as well. You are right.

nomdeblog - yes, economics drives religion not the other way around. Specifically, the ideology is the 'surface level' while the economic mode is the deep infrastructure. We are more conscious of the surface level (and that doesn't mean superficial!) and tend to focus on our beliefs but we can't ignore the deep infrastructures.

Yes, Christianity is a unique religion in that it specifically focuses on the individual rather than the group, that it requires you to choose the religion rather than be 'born into it'; that it asserts that the individual has free will and makes free choices and that the individual must 'love they neighbour'. All of that functions within an economic mode that is based on free markets and trade with others. So - Constantine chose Christianity for its ideological robustness in a market economy.

Hayek said something similar, I think it was in "The Road to Serfdom". Trying to run a society of millions with the tribal morality that works for a hundred fails because it just doesn't scale. Ask yourself "does the Government love me?"
The only thing that does work is a self organizing system where the decisions are made by the people who are affected - local democracy and a free market.

It would be nice if these socialist Guardians would actually read Plato's Republic instead of relying on the Cliff's Notes summaries. One uncomfortable section in book 5 seems to be roundly ignored by them:

"...if our rulers and their auxiliaries are to be worthy
of the name which they bear, there must be willingness to obey in the
one and the power of command in the other; the guardians must themselves
obey the laws, and they must also imitate the spirit of them in any
details which are entrusted to their care."

Then there's this description of the Guardian that no modern Guardian could bear to hear:

"Then now let us consider what will be their way of life, if they are to
realize our idea of them. In the first place, none of them should have
any property of his own beyond what is absolutely necessary; neither
should they have a private house or store closed against any one who has
a mind to enter; their provisions should be only such as are required
by trained warriors, who are men of temperance and courage; they should
agree to receive from the citizens a fixed rate of pay, enough to meet
the expenses of the year and no more; and they will go to mess and live
together like soldiers in a camp. Gold and silver we will tell them
that they have from God; the diviner metal is within them, and they have
therefore no need of the dross which is current among men, and ought not
to pollute the divine by any such earthly admixture; for that commoner
metal has been the source of many unholy deeds, but their own is
undefiled. And they alone of all the citizens may not touch or handle
silver or gold, or be under the same roof with them, or wear them, or
drink from them. And this will be their salvation, and they will be the
saviours of the State. But should they ever acquire homes or lands
or moneys of their own, they will become housekeepers and husbandmen
instead of guardians, enemies and tyrants instead of allies of the other
citizens; hating and being hated, plotting and being plotted against,
they will pass their whole life in much greater terror of internal than
of external enemies, and the hour of ruin, both to themselves and to the
rest of the State, will be at hand.

Imagine Strauss-Kahn or Ted Kennedy having to endure such a life. They would quickly sour on the idea of "public service."

Generally, a nice piece. However, what the author, Popper and many others never seem to appreciate is that Plato's whole point about the "Philosopher King", and thereby elites, was that such a thing was impossible and unreasonable to want.

Popper did not have nice things to say about Plato, here’s a few:

"I believe that Plato's political programme, far from being morally superior to totalitarianism, is fundamentally identical with it."
________________________________________
"Why did Plato claim, in the Republic, that justice meant inequality if in general usage, it meant equality? To me the only likely reply seems to be that he wanted to make propaganda for his totalitarian state by persuading the people that it was the 'just' state."
________________________________________
"What a monument of human smallness is this idea of the philosopher king. What a contrast between it and the simplicity of humaneness of Socrates, who warned the statesmen against the danger of being dazzled by his own power, excellence, and wisdom, and who tried to teach him what matters most - that we are all frail human beings. What a decline from this world of irony and reason and truthfulness down to Plato's kingdom of the sage whose magical powers raise him high above ordinary men; although not quite high enough to forgo the use of lies, or to neglect the sorry trade of every shaman - the selling of spells, of breeding spells, in exchange for power over his fellow-men."

ET writes, “economics drives religion not the other way around . . . Yes, Christianity is a unique religion in that it specifically focuses on the individual rather than the group, that it requires you to choose the religion rather than be 'born into it'; that it asserts that the individual has free will and makes free choices and that the individual must 'love they neighbour'. All of that functions within an economic mode that is based on free markets and trade with others. So - Constantine chose Christianity for its ideological robustness in a market economy.”

Two points of clarification: Re “economics drives religion not the other way around”: the first Christian Church was comprised of Jews in a far-flung corner of the Roman Empire, who believed in the resurrection of Jesus, whom they believed to be both God and man. I don’t believe the beginning of the Christian Church had much to do with economics. Re the individual and the group: the Church is “the Body of Christ”, “the Priesthood of all Believers”, “a Cloud of Witnesses”, “the Company of Saints”, etc., etc., etc. Yes, in Christianity the individual is of inestimable value. However, there is no Christian without the community and no community without the individual Christian: they are inextricable.

(Joe @ 11:53. Well said. Thanks.)

"Alex if I had a head like yours I'd pop it before it festers."

Yeah, I know. It's quite obvious that intelligence is a scary concept to you.

"The problem with you materialists is that you are completely lacking a vital dimension."

Yep - we don't make stuff up.

"The voodoo in Haiti produces the poverty you see there."

You're hilarious :D Go on, tell another one!

"As I have too often quoted, 'Man does not live by bread alone'."

That's right; he needs apples, too :p

ET:

"Again, the hunting/gathering societies have no leaders. I'd suggest reading Richard Lee's works on the San/Dobe !Kung."

I'll check out the book, if I get the chance, but your premise seems rather unlikely to me. If we look at any small band of animals, we almost always see some kind of "pecking order" amongst them. More importantly, when we look at our closest relatives in the animal kingdom - chimps, bonobos, etc - we invariably see a power structure. The bonobos are somewhat unique in that they tend to be organized around a matriarchy, but, regardless of the details, they DO have leaders. I'm not sure why you think our primitive ancestors would have been any different, and I'm certainly not aware of any data which supports that conclusion.

Forget about your economic/thrological theories.

Economics led to the rise of feudalism. Charles Martel needed calvary, especially heavy horse, and the only means to finance that was feudalism.

England moved away from feudalism, for military reasons early. Whereas continental aristocrats could not risk arming the peasantry with such a powerful weapon as the long bow, the English did. This increased the value of the yeomanry and decreased the value of the knight on the battlefield.
Then gun-powder arrived further eroding the military value of heavy horse and eroding the value of castles.
Add to this the arrival of the movable type printing press and literacy increased..further eroding the social structure and hearalding the reformation.
Add in the age of discovery and colonialism...making direct, immediate direct control, thousands of miles hence, difficult and possily impossible.
This with the coincidental arrival of the horse-shoe and horse collar allowed the surplus heavy horses to be effective, efficient draft animals....increasing commerce and allowing bigger hosts of yeomanry to be supplied in the field.
Oddly enough, a yeoman armed with a firearm could inexpensively with little training counter the heavy horse...but the pikeman protecting him increased the value of the yeoman even further.
The result was the force equation shifted from the aristocratic knight to the yeomanry...reducing the influence of the arisocracy and the clergy (a parrallel aristocracy) givng rise to the towns and the reformation. Democracy then became inevitable....espicially in Britain...who had really pioneered the shift with the emphasis to archers ab initio.
What is upsetting the 2 tiered ME is the unavoidable need to increase literacy and education for nation states to effectively man, maintain and deploy modern weapon systems.

The sort of faculty-club philosophizing being engaged in supra is all well & good in principle, and I enjoy it too, yet it remains that case that in practice what is known as modern civilization would crash & burn in short order without the one class of earned (not anointed) intelligent meritocratic elites we have all become completely dependent on for our very way of life: The Sons of Martha.

Our silicon foundries currently create more transistors per annum than our farms harvest grains of wheat & rice combined. Without such technologies and the global utility infrastructure they allow, all aspects of modern life, from food for the masses to medicine for the sick, would be impossible. And how many people actually know how to design & implement working global utility infrastructure?

When people sarcastically ask, "What would we do without elite experts?", the correct answer is: "You would die, darling". No, the central problem with all this fashionable anti-elitism that has become so trendy lately on all sides of the aisle is that its practitioners are actually using the term elite to mean someone I don't like, rather than its simple English definition of best. And that's not a good thing, for as Confucius noted, "When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty".

Professor Rosling summarized the situation well, I think, when at the end of his The Magic Washing Machine talk he said, "Thank you industrialization, thank you steel mill, thank you power station, and thank you chemical processing industry". So it is that arguing about whether your god is better than their god, or whether their hegemony is worse than your hegemony, is ultimately useless, you see, because it's not sociology or politics or theology or art or even science that brings good things to life: it's intelligent, meritocratic, elite engineering.

Agree Vίtruvius that we need the kind of elite who are “experts”. But there is another kind of elite that we conservatives don’t need and that is an elitist. That is a state of mind of one who thinks they can and deserve to lord over us.

In short that is the difference between the Progressives and Conservatives. Conservatives promote the idea of experts competing for the best solution (be it the best mouse trap or the best political policy); ie a meritocracy. Whereas the Progressives promote the idea that their elitist machine deserves to head up a 2 class system to rule us peasants.

When people sarcastically ask, "What would we do without elite experts?"

When people ask that, they're referring to the likes of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, not Gordon Moore.

And elite also means "ruling class", not just "best", which is what is being discussed here.

ET, very nice exposition. I encapsulate the Liberal/socialist/statist mindset as "People are stupid, they must be controlled."

Its -the- principle of socialistic thought. You can see it in every policy. Gun control is perhaps the best example, the very Platonic Form of socialist striving as it were.

I like to encapsulate my political philosophy as "Get out of my face, I'm busy."

The elite includes socialists with Our Free Money, no?

Yes, Oui, oui, says Taliban Jacques Bloc.

Our socialism "triggers higher costs for other help they receive, such as subsidized rent, child care and student loan repayments."

...-

"Star | Penalized for working? Disabled lose 50 cents on every dollar earned

Like everyone who receives a monthly cheque from Ontario’s disability support program, Sharon Burfind loses 50 cents on every dollar she earns in her part-time job.

The meagre amount of earnings she and other disabled people keep then triggers higher costs for other help they receive, such as subsidized rent, child care and student loan repayments.

“The rational person would say ‘What’s the point of working?’ ” says Burfind, 60. “The majority of people work to get ahead, not to get behind.”

...-

"Debt crisis hammers equities, euro"

"Doubts about Europe’s ability to manage its debt hammered markets on Monday, knocking the single currency, driving up bond yields and dragging down equities in Europe and elsewhere.

Wall Street looked set to join in the flight from risk. U.S. stock index futures pointed to losses at the open.

Economic data in Europe and China pointed to marginally slower growth in the second quarter.

But investors were mainly digesting a block of bad news about the euro zone crisis, a political and fiscal struggle to bring the huge debt in peripheral economies to heel.

Following a three-notch cut of Greek debt by Fitch Ratings on Friday, which pushed the country deeper into junk status, rival Standard & Poor’s cut its outlook for Italy to “negative” from “stable” on Saturday.

Markets have generally separated Italy from other parts of the euro zone periphery during the crisis, which has led to bailouts for Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Spanish voters, meanwhile, added to the angst, becoming the latest electorate to punish sitting European governments for the current economic climate.

Investors are increasingly concerned that voter rebellions against austerity plans could cause bailouts and budgetary pact agreements to unravel, leaving large swathes of debt in jeopardy.

[More]"

http://www.jacksnewswatch.com/

I can't believe there is nary a mention of Thomas Sowell throughout this entire post!

Check out "Vision of the Anointed," "A Conflict of Visions" and "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" for an excellent meditation on the conflict between the "anointed" and the "benighted."

ET - "Dirtman- the reason for the necessary change from a two-class to a three-class is because the two-class economic mode, which prevents the formation of a middle class private business economy...can't sustain the population. It's irrelevant who the Rulers of this two-class system are; it's the economic mode that is the real problem."

I understand your point, but there's a conflict. All indications are that the Islamists are moving to take over the ME and at the same time, are engaged in a long term effort to take over the West. There will be a two-tiered system of Islamic rulers and everyone else. The second tier (everyone else) may well be further divided into a middle class and workers, the Islamists really won't care, as long as they rule. This is hardly condusive to democracy.

We in the west already have knowledge, yet we are succumbing to islamic rule. Europe is much farther down this path than are we. Do you expect them to reverse it? The activist courts are aiding and assisting the islamist conquest. The people, cossetted all their lives, don't know how to fight for freedom, they take it for granted. Rebellion such as is happening in the ME is the only way to reverse the trend but the Europeans won't do that, they'll just submit. Europeans seem to have lost the will to exist. They're in demographic collapse (no offspring to speak of) solving that problem of sustaining the population. Perhaps, should the ME throw off islamic rule, they will become modern and go into a demographic deline of their own, poviding fertile ground for the re-emergence of a two class system.

Capitalist democracy is a historical aberration, a tiny blip that we've been fortunate enough to live in. It isn't the inevitable outcome of history. Western civilization is flooded with individuals, politicians, organizations and religions intent on reverting us back to the two class system. Odds are they'll succeed.

While I agree with Vίt in principle I have problems with agreeing with him in the practical. Yes there are elites in every area of human endeavour. The problem arises when an elite in one area thinks that their elitehood should extend to all other areas or when their eliteness is far less than they imagine. Just as an example a group of farmers came to hear the government expert tell them what the government was about to do with the coyote problem. The government expert haughtily declared that all the male coyotes would be captured, castrated and released. One old farmer piped up with "Sir I think we have a problem here. Them coyotes is a eatin' our sheep not screwin' em".

ET: What are some examples of these pure hunter gatherer non tribal societies wherein there is no leadership except for a consensual model? In my studies I never heard of such a thing. But then, there was a lot of theoretical revisionist thinking that entered (and was entering) the field of ethnography during the late 80's and early 90's. But that tended to have a lot to do with some of the theories of consensual governance that were all the rage at the time in fields like feminist studies. This type of revisionism was pictured in movies like "Dances with Wolves", which bore little resemblance to any actual societies. The closest example of what you are talking about might be in some of the Australian Aboriginal groups. But they definitely had Shamen, and other leaders. But if you have evidence, I am certainly willing to reconsider my position.

Tom Paine - you should check out what Plato says about how the Ruled should live; they are essentially mindless workers.
Markaduke - No, Plato's Republic was his model society; he believed it. The criticism of it as unworkable came from Aristotle.

Alex - I hate to bring up 'expertise' but there's a great deal of research on hunting and gathering societies and the lack of leadership. As I said, check out Richard Lee's fieldwork; then, there's Lee and I. DeVore's edited work 'Man the Hunter'. That's just two of the most well-known. Indeed, there is an intense focus in these groups against anyone thinking too much of themselves or taking on any special role; you will be mocked and belittled to prevent such 'hubris'.

sasquatch - yes, I'm aware of all those historical details. [Have you been reading J.D. Bernal's history?] But I don't agree that it was for military agendas; one has to ask - why was there a need for such aggression? It comes down, in the end to: economics.

vίtruvius - you know that my term of 'elite' doesn't refer to meritorious, innovative engineering.

dirtman - I am far more optimistic than you are; I don't think people will give up that easily. And no, capitalist democracy is not a 'blip'; I think it's the 'essential' mode for a large industrial population. That's because it, alone, enables innovation and progress.

karl- sorry - I didn't see your post. I think I answered your question with my suggestion to Alex to check out Richard Lee's fieldwork and books on the Dobe !Kung/San of the Kalahari. See also the Lee and Devore edited book on 'Man the Hunter'.

These people are not defined as tribes but bands; they do not domesticate plants or animals but, as the term describes 'hunt' and/or 'gather'. They move on when they have depleted an area; that is, they do not settle. As such, they maintain low populations and operate within an egalitarian mode. There are, as noted, no leaders. None. And they go to great lengths to prevent any one individual from thinking too much of himself. Check out Lee's experience: 'Christmas in the Kalahari'.

You only get leaders, acknowledged as such, when the population of a society reaches a threshold where authority moves from 'the spirits' to the work of men. That is, when the economy moves from hunting and gathering what is naturally there in the environment, to people working to produce food.

This occurs within the domestication of plants and animals. And..you have to first, have such animals and plants that can be domesticated and a lot of areas on this earth lack such. But when you have domestication of food, then, you move into a situation where human authority over this wealth production must be acknowledged. So, you have authority to own the land, or farm the land, or own the animals.

Then, these are settled rather than migratory societies, so, you must have authority to make decisions about continuity of the power-to-make-wealth. Who gets the land, the animals..and so on.

So, leaders - usually hereditary (elections would be disastrous in such economies) emerge..and these people ensure continuity of both the economy and the society.

But for the hunting/gathering societies, which are mobile, which must be flexible in both their movements AND their membership (anyone can join a band)..well, a 'settled' leader would not be functional in such a mobile, flexible mode of life. Ultimate authority belongs to the spirits.

What a way to spend the long weekend!

Good grief................

ET:

"I hate to bring up 'expertise' but there's a great deal of research on hunting and gathering societies and the lack of leadership."

I'm sure there is, and I'll do some reading when I get the chance, but I was hoping you could provide a quick blurb to support it.

How about this, then: at least tell me whether, using your definition of "leadership", a group of Chimps or Bonobos, or a Pack of wolves, would be considered to "have leadership". Because, if your answer is "no", then we're arguing semantics, whereas if it's "yes" for all three then we have an actual disagreement. If that's the case, I'd love to see you explain what could possibly have caused the social behavior of early man to be so widely divergent from the behavior of other species within the Great Ape family.

It is not the case, Waterhouse, that « elite also means "ruling class" », as you wrote at 13:37. I just double-checked my copies of Webster's IIId and of the Complete OED, and in no case is "ruling class" included as a definition of elite. Ergo, you are doing just what I said: using elite in a personal connotative sense, for something you don't like, rather than in a communicative denotational sense. Indeed, actually having an "elite ruling class", which roughly translates into "good rulers", is a good thing, which is why it's good to have The Right Honourable Stephen Harper as our Prime Minister (as opposed to our legacy of recent prime ministers before him who were not that good ~ that is ~ they were not elite leaders). It's all well and good for people to say, "Well, Vitruvius, you know what I mean", but then why not say what you mean? Do you know what you mean? Do you know what is meant by what you say? In this medium all we have are words ~ we can only read what's on the page ~ we can't read your mind.

ET: You must be careful not to place too much emphasis on one scholar's opinions on such things as leadership in hunter/gatherer societies. I am well aware of the differences between hunter/gatherer and agrarian societies. In my undergrad degree (history and anthropology) we studied many different scholarly opinions on such things. The notion of "leaderless societies" was in vogue with some, but rejected by others. In my opinion, the very notion is an extrapolation of the notion of the "noble savage" which was so popular in Enlightenment period Europe.

But in my opinion you are oversimplifying something that is more complex. The bushmen of southern Africa are a hunter gatherer society. But so are the Blackfoot of Western North America. As are the Tsimshian of Northern BC. The latter practiced no agriculture. They lived off the sea, (in particular Salmon, and oolichan grease, which was an important trade item). But they were not nomadic. They lived in towns, had a tribal system, had leaders, etc. They were hunter gatherers, but not nomadic.

And not all agrarian societies completely gave up nomadic life either. The Malicete of my home province of New Brunswick spring to mind. They gathered in villages to farm in the St John River Valley during the summer, but were nomadic hunters in the winter. And they gathered what they could all year round.

Yes, many of these societies relied on "the spirits" for guidance, as you say. But often (I would say usually) it was through the ministrations of a Shaman. It is true that in some societies (eg: the Bushmen) the Shaman did not have particular importance as a leader. But among others, they did.

Again, I agree with much of what you say. But I do not agree that one may make such sweeping statements as you are saying that Richard Lee is making. But then, it has been 20+ years since I have done much reading in ethnography, so I will admit that I am just going by memory here, and that is a chancy thing.

ET:

I wasn't defending Plato. I was merely pointing out that those who pretend to be the modern Guardians are selective in their reading.

Aristotle, too, believed that there are people fit only to be slaves. Nowadays those people would be described as the lowest quartile of the IQ bell curve.

karl- your undergraduate degree didn't provide you with the extensive research and analysis of others in the field of economic and societal and religious modes. I'll bet that you used one of these 'master textbooks' in undergrad cultural anthropology. I considered them too slick and never assigned them to my students.

I gave you Lee's outline as a readily available source; there are others. [The term 'Bushmen' is not used nowadays].

Your outline of other peoples ignores that a settled economy, even if primarily living off 'hunting/fishing' can't be compared to a migratory band. Gathering, by the way, is no different from 'hunting'. The key is that neither domesticates or controls the food source.

And most certainly, the FACT of societies without leaders has absolutely nothing to do with the romanticism of Rousseau's Noble Savage. It's a fact based on extensive fieldwork. They do not have leaders; they do not have shamans.

The different societies - in my first year class - I taught that there were ten basic societal structures - are not fiction; they are factual.
The different political modes - those without leaders, those with leaders - some by merit, some by hereditary authority, some by election - are all closely linked to a particular economic mode (that was what I taught in the third year and graduate level).

So - I suggest that up-to-date research on this type of economic mode might have more validity than your old undergrad first year course.

Now who is leaning on her PhD?

And there is no need to get insulting. I know that they are not called Bushmen (or Hottentots for that matter). What exactly was the point of that?

Anyway, I am glad to see that you have moved up to 10 basic societal structures. Earlier it seemed you were only speaking about 2. I brought up the Tsimshian and Malecete in order to make the point that it is not as simple as a plain hunter/gatherer nomadic vs Agricultural and settled paradigm, as it seemed to me that you were implying. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. And I certainly would not care to stack my expertise up against one of your obviously superior education.

By the way: The romantic notion of the noble savage was erroneously attributed to Rosseau.

ET - "capitalist democracy is not a 'blip'; I think it's the 'essential' mode for a large industrial population."

While the ME has a large and growing population it lacks the industrial part. Large populations alone can be controled by an elite class as demonstrated by China for decades. It is only because the leadership decided to relax control to some extent that capitalism, wealth and freedom are growing there. The rapid progress that Islam is making in the West would seem to indicate that our societies can indeed revert to two class.

Incidentally, I do hope you're correct. It's just that activist juciciary, special interest groups, socialist policies and encroaching islamism fill me with despair.

karl- I tried to provide you with facts - and you continuously rejected them. That's why I eventually suggested to you that possibly, quite possibly, I might know what I was talking about.

No, I never talked about only two types of societies- but I was comparing two types of economies: socialist vs capitalist (two vs three class) and two types of political organization: tribal vs democratic.

As for Rousseau and the noble savage - the fact that he was a romantic idealist and considered that man was 'essentially good in the natural state of nature' - and that this is the definition of the 'noble savage' suffices to align the term with him.

dirtman - What the ME lacks is the small industry and small/medium size private businesses. These are what must be developed.

No, the Chinese control of the population could not be maintained; you are suggesting that the growth of capitalism etc in China is due to the 'leadership deciding to relax control'. No, the leadership has no choice but to relax control. The people - who are closely networked with other Chinese elsewhere in the world - tend to ignore the govt and focus heavily on..earning money. Chinese people are heavily committed to capitalism, to earning money, to getting rich, to buying prestige items (BMWs, Gucci, Hermes..all of that).

No, I don't think that the West can move into a two-class society. The population can't be sustained within such a no-growth, no-wealth producing mode.

I certainly agree with you - the plethora of socialist agendas, the notion that everyone has a 'right' to whatever..paid for by someone else; that work is irrelevant to compensation; that govts should fund everything...it's a mess. But, this mess is becoming public - and people (eg the Tea Party) are starting to wake up and fight back.

Academics are our elite betterssssssss, they write great tomes on their theorys but basically they're dumber than tree stumps.

Nice to see Karl Popper mentioned so many times, and since there seems to be the usual level of confusion on who said what I will leave you with something that is especially apropos to these kinds of discussions -

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper

ET: I saw you provide me with the name of a scholar. Not facts. I heard you restate the same point several times, without providing evidence to back your points. Repeatedly calling something a fact does not make it so. I named several examples of societies which I thought were pertinent to the discussion at hand. You never did engage with any of them, aside from a snarky comment about how "nobody calls them Bushmen anymore".

I do not doubt that you know your stuff. Neither do I have a problem acknowledging that perhaps I did not adequately understand the point you were trying to make.

As for Rosseau: You said "As for Rousseau and the noble savage - the fact that he was a romantic idealist and considered that man was 'essentially good in the natural state of nature'" - and that this is the definition of the 'noble savage' suffices to align the term with him.

I would point out that Rosseau never said that man was essentially good in the natural state of nature. He held that the natural "goodness" of a man in the state of nature was akin to the goodness of an animal, that is to say neither good nor bad. The noble savage idea was that man unencumbered by civilization was naturally moral and good was propagated (at least in part) by the Earl of Shaftesbury, in opposition to Thomas Hobbes who argued that man in his natural state is inherently wicked ("war of all against all"). But for whatever reason, whenever people hear the term "noble savage" the associate it with Rosseau, though he neither used the term, not agreed with the premise (or at least not unequivocally).

In any case, this is a digression from the main discussion, namely your assertion that population growth is the key factor in a society moving away from a feudal society. And I still contend that it is not as simple as that. If it were, we would have seen the massive population depletions of the Black Death leading to a retrenching of feudalism, or at least to a slowing of the progression toward a three class structure. But instead we see the opposite.

patricia - academics and intellectuals (and they are not the same) are not all endowed with the capacity for reason. Indeed, my point is that many academics/intellectuals lack such critical faculties. It is very easy, as Aristotle wrote, to engage in sophistry with words. Have you ever heard of the Sokal hoax? Google it and you'll find out about academic sophistry and ignorance. It's alive and well.

What we are discussing is not keeping people in ignorance but acknowledging that the non-academic, the non-intellectual, is quite capable of critical analysis, of gathering information and working out his own life. He doesn't need an Elite Guardian Government to oversee his every step. And, we are discussing how two-class or socialist modes of government are based around this ideology of an Elite set of guardians.

As for your comments about the 'super-rich' and 'their multinational corporations' - piffle. That's nonsense.

Multinational corporations are developed by shareholders. Rarely by one individual. Their investments enable the corporation to engage in large scale industrial devt, in building cars, planes, trains etc..that are beyond the fiscal and operational capacity of small and medium size business.

So, these large corporations are vitally necessary to a global economy. Furthermore, they enable a networked global society where people can communicate and interact better - via the products of these 'mega-corporations'. That includes computers, electronic communication systems, medicines and so on.

What's your objection to the results of the work of these 'mega-corporations'?

As for wealth - a growth economy must produce a surplus of wealth above what is necessary for current consumption. That wealth is used for investment in future-oriented continuity and growth. In research and development, in innovative research that takes years to develop. No small business, no non-profit business can afford to invest that many years in the future.

A society that produces no wealth is in trouble; and a society that produces wealth but then distributes all its wealth for current consumption - which is what so many people who are hostile to wealth want - is in serious trouble.
A society must invest; it must produce wealth, and not small amounts, but massive amounts so that it can innovate, produce more goods and services..and continue into the future.

What conservatives want - is not to stop this wealth production and the function of wealth -...that's the naive romantic view of the socialists..who want to consume all wealth right away...What conservatives want is to prevent the socialist mode of govt that removes wealth for distibution for current consumption, and thus prevents a future! That means - reduced taxes.

And conservatives want the elite bureaucrats to get their meddling noses out of everyone's life and allow people to make up their own minds about how to raise their children, what to eat, how to live etc.

So, your rant against wealth is pure socialism. In itself, it lacks evidence of any critical reasoning on your part.

karl- I'll stand by my point about population growth as the major cause of moving from a two-class to three-class society.

The various plagues - and there were many - in Europe from the 13th through 16th century were not enough to prevent regeneration of the population. What you are ignoring is that the European biome is the richest on earth and thus, in itself, is able to support constant high population growth. Thus, depletion by war, famine and disease does not affect that biome's capacity to enable high population growth.

And by the time of the Black Plague itself, the 14th century, the movement into a three-class infrastructure was well on its way, for over two-three hundred years. There was no going back from the realities of universities, new medical and scientific innovations, new sources of energy, and a mindset that was increasingly focused on the right to ask questions, dissent..and..move into a market economy.

Because of these factors - the capacity for rapid regeneration of population and the changes in perspective and knowledge that already existed - there could be no return to the 'feudal age'.

ET:

You wrote: "So, your rant against wealth is pure socialism."

There is no ranting against wealth in and of itself in my comment. Read. And read it again. Try to comprehend.

There isn't anything wrong with wealth. What is concerning is a group of people who worship wealth and the wealthy beyond all else and will fight to the death on their behalf. This is against basic morality and against Judeo-Christian values.

"And conservatives want the elite bureaucrats to get their meddling noses out of everyone's life and allow people to make up their own minds about how to raise their children, what to eat, how to live etc."

What does this mean, exactly? Are you against seatbelt laws, against laws restricting children from smoking? Are there laws I'm not aware of that tell us what to eat and what not to?

I'm not sure what you're referring to - you seem to be going into cuckoo conspiracy territory...

Or was that part just for the peasants to keep them supporting low tax rates for your wealthy Galtian ubermensches?
;)

Very interesting to follow this thread.

ET said "I certainly agree with you - the plethora of socialist agendas, the notion that everyone has a 'right' to whatever..paid for by someone else; that work is irrelevant to compensation; that govts should fund everything...it's a mess. But, this mess is becoming public - and people (eg the Tea Party) are starting to wake up and fight back."

I sure hope you are right about this and the evolvement of the ME. There are powerful forces here and in the ME working to prove you wrong.

Perhaps another word other than some form of "elite" should be used to describe those who feel they have a right to impose their ideology whether secular or religious on others.

It's interesting, on this day, perhaps, that Queen Victoria’s role was, I think, important to that part of the evolution of civilization via which the more primal measurements of successful human accomplishment are slowly becomming supplanted by the sorts of human- serving global engineered infrastructure that I have previously mentioned here, and as explained in this Britain: Blood & Steel, II, & III episode of Engineering an Empire.

It is on this foundation of engineering accomplishments, from the Persia of 10,000 years ago, through to our modern global trans- national engineered utility infrastructure systems, that the high standards of our quality of life stand, for as Gary Numan noted: We Know You ;-)

patricia - to whom are you referring when you talk about the 'group of people who worship wealth and the wealthy beyond all else and will fight to the death on their behalf'? Please be specific.

Yes, I'm against seatbelt laws and laws telling children not to smoke. You know, we can THINK for ourselves and decide to use a seatbelt and not to smoke. We don't need a law for such decisions.

Equally, we can do without the, eg, San Francisco law that requires fast food restaurants to serve vegetables with each meal.

Sorry but I don't know what 'Galtian ubermensches' means.

ET

1) You are writing about Iran: The population increase of the time had not moved beyond the carrying capacity of its economy. What is going on now with the movement of the people for freedom IS a symptom of an inadequate economy.
Wrong.
" Iran's population boom started before the 1979 Islamic Revolution (in 1976 the fertility rate was 6 children/woman)," And it was population growth, inadequate economy and botched economic reforms which resulted in democratic revolution in Iran (title Islamic was added later, after Khomeini triumphed over democrats and communists). Iranian revolution -causes, demands and the course - was very similar to the causes and demands of the people in the present day Middle East.

2) You are talking about democracy but your definition is assuming that certain economic system must result in certain political system because.... it must. It is what some people learning history think "The war had to be won by country X or country Y, it could not be different, because.....it could not." Future -economical, political, --is open-ended, but you assume that future is close ended, that some processes must be so because they must. It is like belief in politico-economic predestination and as such it is false

3) You are saying that , the problems in Europe with riots in the streets are about the 'entitled to my entitlements' population resisting the socialist economy.
ET have you read their demands? Because if you did you would not have written such thing.

Regarding Iran, Middle East and the academia powers of prediction: I found out that majority of academics did not predict Iranian revolution and this very year they were surprised by the start of the Arab Spring. .They also misjudged Green Movement in Iran and were wrong regarding developments and the aftermath of Cedar revolution in Lebanon. Academics were sure of Arab victory during the war which i/o victory brought Nakba, and they thought that socialist Iraq will become leading economic country with Saddam Hussein in power.
With that much statistical success in predicting major political and economic changes in the Middle East you have to understand my skepticism reading the socio-economic theories which purports to predict future of the people in the Middle East.

Oh, and ET I thought you are in academic world. Your style just shout it ;-)

"Galtian ubermenches"

She's mixing Nietzche and Rand.

ella - No, I said that the population in Iran in 1976 had not yet reached the critical threshold requiring it to move into a three-class economic mode. I stand by my point. They just exchanged one dictator for another.

Yes, that's right. The organizational systems of a society are all necessarily interconnected. So, within a particular type of economic organization, you will always get a particular type of political organization. Always. It's fascinating but you can research this all over the world. Nothing to do with predestination. It's about societal organization...which is itself based on population size.

For example, within a non-industrial no-growth horticultural economy, you'll get a two-class tribal political mode. This ensures stability of the economy. Within an industrial economy, which is a growth economy, you must move into a three class organization..and since the political system always empowers the wealth-producing sector of the population..then this means, democracy. Democracy is the political mode that empowers the largest class..and in an industrial economy..that's the middle class.

With regard to 'resisting the socialist economy' - I worded that badly. I meant resisting changes to the socialist economy...The economic results of socialism are disastrous and require that the nations reduce their socialist distribution.

I'm not sure which academics you refer to; it's hardly mind-shattering to predict that a two-class economy, based on a statist monopoly of one major industrial source of wealth, in that size of population could not sustain the population. The economic capacity of two-class and three-class organization is well-known. It's basic economics!

The UN's 2002 Report on Arab Human Development showed the impoverishment of the population and the two-class structure. Statistics revealed the massive population growth, and the fiscal GDP problems sustaining that population..and the problems with being a one-industry economy. So, it's just basic economic reality. The fact that there was a huge tectonic shift coming was the basic reasoning for the Bush policy on democracy..which was to empower the grassroots people to move into change.

As for my being in the academic world - you suggest that you came to this conclusion by yourself! Heh - did you miss my open declaration that I have a PHD in the original posting by Robert? Have fun.

Vίtruvius, interesting presentations by the History Channel. Obviously some of us should watch the History Channel more often. These clips bear out an expression I heard once that engineers and generals build countries and empires and politicians and lawyers destroy them.

"said that the population in Iran in 1976 had not yet reached the critical threshold requiring it to move into a three-class economic mode. I stand by my point."
Oh, you may stand by your point for as long as you wish, but it does not change the reality. They did exchange one dictator for another, but that was not protesters original desire.
As it is not a desire of the people in the Arab word today.

Having read ET's posts I am beginning to believe that like Liberalism Anthropology is a mental disease. I mean get serious what real science would allow you to make statements like "It has to be" without any evidence in support of your theory and all kinds of evidence to the contrary. Could you imagine the disaster if such an attitude were common in the design of commercial aircraft?

"But sir I think the wing might fall off if you don't attach it to the fuselage".

"Don't worry son it will stay in place 'cause it just has to be."

"But SIR".

"Now son don't you argue with me". "Your degree is not as good as my PHD" "Why right here is a book written by some guy with a PHD who says you don't need to attach the wings to the fuselage".

"But sir the fuselage just fell off the wings"

"I know without looking that the fuselage did not fall off the wings so run along son you're beginning to bug me and you know how cranky I get when someone disagrees with my 'It just has to be'".

"OK sir but just to let you know the engines are now rolling down the tarmac".

"Now look here son when you get a PHD we can talk about airplane construction until then go read this book because the guy who wrote this book has some really great theories".

"Did he ever build an airplane?"

"That doesn't matter son because it just has to be and I know because I have a PHD!"

What about the USA at the time of the revolution? Primarily agrarian society. Relatively low population density. A significant portion of the population wanted some sort of manoral system (especially in the south). And yet they ended up with a republic, with a 3 class system.

Joe - the problem with your 'argument' is that it is empirically and logically weak. I won't deal with the ad hominem because the fact that you use it is your problem.

But, the problem in your argument is your unexamined assumptions.

First, you assume that IF someone says that X and Y are necessarily related, that this is false.
Your second unexamined assumption is that societal organization is random. No, it isn't.

What you would discover, if you read even a most basic text on ecological sociopolitical organization, is that societies are 'logical adaptations to specific environments'. The organizational infrastructures of societies are not random; they are not 'by chance'; they are instead, functional adapatations to specific environments.

Every population has to sustain itself and to do so, it has to first, deal with the material realities: soil, water, climate, animals and plants. These determine the size of the population that can sustain itself in that area.

And so, the society organizes itself to function within those constraints. The 'six system organizational modes are: economic, political, legal, familial, educational, religious.
These are all networked and linked. They support each other - and you can't have disparities in one system..That is, when the Europeans insisted that the native people 'elect' a leader - this was destructive to the native mode of hereditary leadership..which ensured no individual competition.

What is remarkable is how, when you examine societies all over the world, a limited number of distinct models are obvious. And they are the same type of model in similar environments! These are obviously not the result of whim. Or any Big Leader. Or random. Or diffusion. They are rational adaptations to the environment.

So - in a given environment, you can predict with great accuracy, the type of societal organization that can function. [That used to be a basic question in my first year class - and you had to provide examples and analysis.]

The fact that you are unaware of these models, which are based on empirical evidence, is your problem. But your argument is weak because of your refusal to acknowledge that man is rational and as such, adapts in a logical manner to his environment..and that societies are logical modes of organization.

Karl- the USA in 1776 was hardly an agricultural society in the manner of a manorial feudal mode. It was a capitalist market economy - and was an offshoot of the already well-established British capitalist market economy. The overpopulation of Britain was dealt with by this immigration and colonization and the resources of the 'new world' assisted in the industrialization of Britain.

The US was already operating in the three-class system; the population there were already middle class entrepreneurs. You couldn't have had a Tea Party without such independent thinkers and the US Declaration and Constitution are basic examples of this freedom and rationality. And this entrepreneurial individualism 'settled the west'.

The south was indeed a different model, operating as manorial, agricultural, two-class. No middle class. And, non-industrial, with its dependence on human labour. You could not have a single nation operating within two such opposite economic and political modes. It was impossible - and that was the reason for the civil war.

ET: But the 3 class system emerged in the 13 colonies despite considerable pressure from the beginning of settlement to make it a 2 class system. Whether it was the mercantile system of the north, or the plantation system of the south (really just a variation of the same thing), the British governors actively fought against any sort of free market wherein a free individual with an idea could develop a business. They used laws, tariffs and other trade restrictions to require residents of the colonies to provide Britain (and for the most part, only Britain) with the goods she desired. And in return, Britain severely limited the ability of the colonists to purchase the goods that they desired from anyone but British merchants (eg: The Molasses act, 1733). They were also forbidden the right to produce many of the commodities that they desired(eg: The Iron Act, 1750). And they were forbidden the right to export certain commodities to other nations, or even to neighbouring colonies (eg: The Woolen Act, 1699). All of this was calculated to prevent the emergence of a capitalist market economy within the colonies, and to feed the capitalistic market economy in Britain. No, they were not trying to impose an anachronistic feudal system (though the plantation system in the south did resemble it in some respects). But they were certainly trying to maintain a 2 class system. Those who governed, and those who produced resources, and purchased products in order to feed the British capitalistic market economy. This type of system prevailed in small pockets in places like Newfoundland right up into the early part of the 20th century.

But despite the fact of extremely low population density in the colonies at the time, the British were unable to enforce these systems, though not for lack of trying. A lively smuggling trade ensued. People built ships of their own. Farmers settled on land where they had been expressly forbidden to settle. People made iron and rum, in defiance of the law. Farmers settled in the mountains, and turned their corn into whiskey, and sold it on the black market. All of this happened in a land with a relatively low population density.

In my view, the driving factor of such things is opportunity. And often, high population density mitigates against opportunity. But when there are fewer people, but lots of opportunities, the old social classes matter less than getting the job done, no matter who does it. To go back to my example of the Black Death for a moment: One of the results was acute labour shortages, especially farm labour. Previous laws forbidding peasants from leaving the land of their Lord were ignored, as the landowners were concerned with getting their crops in, and would offer higher wages in order to entice their neighbour`s peasants to come work for them. Laws attempting to suppress wages to pre-Black Death levels were also ignored for the same reason. Landowners were often forced to sell off portions of their estates to (former) peasants who now had the cash to purchase land, and become small freeholders who paid taxes in cash from the sale of their produce, rather than in the produce itself as in the previous feudal system. This same labour shortage affected many of the trades, which had long been in the control of the guilds. This helped lead to some of the technological advancements related to these trades. It also led to the rebirth of technologies that had been employed centuries earlier in the Roman Empire. During the Middle Ages, the guilds fought against many such innovations (and continued to do so well after the Black Death), but the horse was out of the barn. And again, I reiterate. This all happened AFTER the Black Death, after a calamitous population decline.

Yes it is true that there had been famines and plagues before. But none of them had been as profoundly unsettling to the European economy as the Black Death. To suggest this is akin to saying that 9-11 was not a major factor in touching off the war on terror, because after all, buildings had fallen down before without causing a war to break out.

In my view, this evidence would call into question your thesis that the emergence of a capitalistic market economy is ALWAYS caused by population growth. Not that I would remove population growth from the picture. Rather, I would say that there are a number of factors in play, and that while one may see similarities, that each situation is also in some ways unique. Therefore, I think it is spurious to say we can know for certain that the Islamic world has no choice but to develop a three class structure.

karl- I think we'll have to leave it. I acknowledge your historical research and knowledge but you analyze history using a 'linear events' approach while I use the deep infrastructural approach of 'la longue duree'.

I consider that the movement to a three class system took place long before the Black Plague; it simply kicked the final doors open so to speak.

So, I stand by my view that population growth in the ME will move them from a tribal two-class infrastructure to a three-class market economy. The two-class economic mode simply won't sustain the population.

I see societies differently than you do; I don't see them as unique but as logical systems of adapting to environmental realities. These realities include the population size.

Thanks for your input; as I said, I acknowledge your research but I see societies within a different analytic framework.

Yes, we have probably flogged this horse to death. But in my defense I will say that I do not necessarily subscribe to a strict linear events approach to history as you suggest. But neither do I subscribe to a strictly "long term historical structures" approach either. I do not say that events override structures. But neither is it accurate to say that structures override events. I do not believe that history is destiny. I try to take a line somewhere between the two approaches. Events like the Black Death, or perhaps historical/philosophical events like the publishing of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" (in my view, more important to the emergence of the 3 class system in the USA than population) are the wild cards in the equation that make history take the interesting turns that it does. And that make it impossible to predict the future based upon analysis of the past.

Or as Mark Twain put it: "History does not repeat itself. But it often rhymes."

Good comment lookout (12:42) and, on the other hand, you too, ommag @ 3:53!