3 ms·

>Most history professors I've known refer to the dark ages as the "so-called dark ages" because that time period served as proof-positive that you can have civi

by lsc 9y ago

>Most history professors I've known refer to the dark ages as the "so-called dark ages" because that time period served as proof-positive that you can have civilized society without the state. Eh... there was a state, it was just that the economy was way more directly violence-based than states before and after. I mean, all states use violence, sure. But the Romans and most of the world after the renaissance mostly distributed money through mechanisms that weren't directly about violence. Yeah, they used violence to enforce the rules, but if you wanted to get rich, you went into business or something, you didn't go learn to be a better fighter. In the dark ages? that wasn't the case. Wealth was distributed based on your military service to the person who owned the local land. If you wanted to rise economically, during the dark ages, your best bet was to go to war, fight well, and force some wealthy guy on the other team to surrender to you. Ransom him back to his family, and you have it made. Both before and after the dark ages, while soldiering had it's rewards, unless you became a general and took over your society (which still happens from time to time) you really weren't going to get super rich as a soldier. Before and after the dark ages, you were better off going into trade.

jstewartmobile 9y ago
It was a long time ago, but I recall them using the word "state" in the same context we currently use it, which is typically a layer of government above the lowest level of organization. Being sans-state is not the same thing as anarchy. Of course there was violence, but since this was not a time known for having the best records, it is anyone's guess as to whether there was more or less of it. In the last 20 years, our imperium has destroyed several sovereign states and killed hundreds of thousands or millions (depending on who you ask) for absolutely no damn reason. Centralization is typically better at directed goals (such as violence) than decentralization, so your assertion that "the economy was way more directly violence-based" is on shaky ground. Our economy is very violence based, it's just that most of it has been abstracted away from direct contact (see Smedley Butler). Just shrink the concept down to personal computers. Did you prefer the wild-west of the 70s/80s that gave us Apple IIs, Amigas, Commodores, Ataris, PC-88s, and numerous others, or did you prefer the late 90s when Microsoft seemed to have the whole thing on lock-down?
- lsc 9y ago
  You are missing what i mean by being a violence based economy. Of course, you can't have property without violence. I'm not even saying that the dark ages were more violent than other ages. (I think they might have been, but it's largely irrelevant to the point I'm making about a 'violence based economy') My point is just that in the dark ages, you accumulated wealth through you yourself or through people who directly worked for you committing acts of violence. Not by simply operating within the rules of society (which are, of course, enforced with violence) as you would do today. Today? Directly being a, uh, violence technician as it were, or even being higher up in the chain of command in the organizations that handle violence in our society just isn't that remunerative. You've gotta be way up the officer ladder before you make as much money as I did out of high school as a UNIX technician. I mean, I know I messed up some connotations there; I certainly have nothing against the 'violence technicians' as I put it; I recognize that they are important. I just prefer to live in a world where Truman fires MacArther and not the other way around, if you know what I mean.
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    I think your take on the early middle ages has been abstracted through the lenses of modernity, drama, and materialism. There were so many different arrangements, cultures, and value systems in play at that time, and obviously some of those elements came into conflict with each other, but to extrapolate that into a summary of the entire age is a mistake.
    - lsc 9y ago
      I suppose it would be... difficult for me to see anything except through the lens of materialism. But I think that's true of most people; the number of people who don't see the world in a fundamentally physicalist way is... shrinking. (This is controversial; the religious in my country have been flexing their muscles, and there is open debate as to if this indicates a resurgence of belief, or just the religious seeing the majority slip from their hands thrashing to turn back the clock while they still have the strength. I personally believe the latter, but I don't have evidence that is any more solid than anyone else.) I do think I would be a better person if I was better able to understand how the religious people saw the world... but it's just not something I've been able to do. It's very difficult, really, for someone who doesn't believe faith is good in and of itself to understand people who do. I read on the subject; the most sympathetic and relatable portrayal I've found so far is Jeung's "Answer to Job" But... while it's fair to criticize me for not really understanding spirituality, If you are arguing that the dark ages were not dark for, uh, metaphysical reasons, I think our values are so different that we can't really have a meaningful debate.

by lsc 9y ago

jstewartmobile 9y ago

It was a long time ago, but I recall them using the word "state" in the same context we currently use it, which is typically a layer of government above the lowest level of organization. Being sans-state is not the same thing as anarchy. Of course there was violence, but since this was not a time known for having the best records, it is anyone's guess as to whether there was more or less of it. In the last 20 years, our imperium has destroyed several sovereign states and killed hundreds of thousands or millions (depending on who you ask) for absolutely no damn reason. Centralization is typically better at directed goals (such as violence) than decentralization, so your assertion that "the economy was way more directly violence-based" is on shaky ground. Our economy is very violence based, it's just that most of it has been abstracted away from direct contact (see Smedley Butler). Just shrink the concept down to personal computers. Did you prefer the wild-west of the 70s/80s that gave us Apple IIs, Amigas, Commodores, Ataris, PC-88s, and numerous others, or did you prefer the late 90s when Microsoft seemed to have the whole thing on lock-down?

lsc 9y ago
You are missing what i mean by being a violence based economy. Of course, you can't have property without violence. I'm not even saying that the dark ages were more violent than other ages. (I think they might have been, but it's largely irrelevant to the point I'm making about a 'violence based economy') My point is just that in the dark ages, you accumulated wealth through you yourself or through people who directly worked for you committing acts of violence. Not by simply operating within the rules of society (which are, of course, enforced with violence) as you would do today. Today? Directly being a, uh, violence technician as it were, or even being higher up in the chain of command in the organizations that handle violence in our society just isn't that remunerative. You've gotta be way up the officer ladder before you make as much money as I did out of high school as a UNIX technician. I mean, I know I messed up some connotations there; I certainly have nothing against the 'violence technicians' as I put it; I recognize that they are important. I just prefer to live in a world where Truman fires MacArther and not the other way around, if you know what I mean.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  I think your take on the early middle ages has been abstracted through the lenses of modernity, drama, and materialism. There were so many different arrangements, cultures, and value systems in play at that time, and obviously some of those elements came into conflict with each other, but to extrapolate that into a summary of the entire age is a mistake.
  - lsc 9y ago
    I suppose it would be... difficult for me to see anything except through the lens of materialism. But I think that's true of most people; the number of people who don't see the world in a fundamentally physicalist way is... shrinking. (This is controversial; the religious in my country have been flexing their muscles, and there is open debate as to if this indicates a resurgence of belief, or just the religious seeing the majority slip from their hands thrashing to turn back the clock while they still have the strength. I personally believe the latter, but I don't have evidence that is any more solid than anyone else.) I do think I would be a better person if I was better able to understand how the religious people saw the world... but it's just not something I've been able to do. It's very difficult, really, for someone who doesn't believe faith is good in and of itself to understand people who do. I read on the subject; the most sympathetic and relatable portrayal I've found so far is Jeung's "Answer to Job" But... while it's fair to criticize me for not really understanding spirituality, If you are arguing that the dark ages were not dark for, uh, metaphysical reasons, I think our values are so different that we can't really have a meaningful debate.