5 ms·

A passing mention in one sentence, without any further exposition: this is not what I consider an adequate defense.

icegreentea2 7y ago
It might have to do with the fact that the parts of Sparta that this piece is 'defending' minimally interacts with that aspect of Spartan culture or society (if at all?). How does the fact that the Spartans had a brutal class of slaves undermine or interact with the article's thrust/claim that Spartans demonstrate that "that people crave more than individual liberty, full stop. People want actively to participate in the life of a community, too, and our politics ought to answer to that"?
- narag 7y ago
  Come on... look at this section: characteristics of Spartan society that many of them would object to, including relative economic equality, cultural egalitarianism, and military restraint. The Spartans are a strange case: They rejected anything resembling liberal democracy, abandoned commerce, industry, and trade, and by doing so, rose to preeminence in the Greek world and maintained their independence for seven centuries—far longer than any modern republic. So the saving features are keeping a terrible tyranny for seven centuries, "cultural egalitarianism" (nice euphemism) and "relative economic equality" (except between the 90% slaves and the 10% citizens). To create this paradise they just had to reject democracy, commerce, industry and trade. Nice deal!!!
- azernik 7y ago
  Because it absolutely interacted. That community and collective effort was built to suppress Helot rebellions by overwhelming military force. Their extreme of social mobilization was only possible or desirable because of common threat, in this case of their own making. You cannot separate the social structure of a ruling minority from a ruled majority, the former is always shaped by the interaction with the latter. See also the reports of drops in suicide rates and better social cohesion in war zones. That doesn't mean we should advocate a brutal civil war as a mental health measure.
  - icegreentea2 7y ago
    The article hardly attempts to say structuring our societies to maximize its ability to crush rebellions is a good thing. It does say that solely maximizing individual spheres of rights and opportunity of commercial profit may actually not be a great idea. I think this is hardly a controversial opinion. Like I agree that more context about helots would have shored up this article nicely, but I also think that all the chatter about its absence misses the point of the article.

It might have to do with the fact that the parts of Sparta that this piece is 'defending' minimally interacts with that aspect of Spartan culture or society (if at all?). How does the fact that the Spartans had a brutal class of slaves undermine or interact with the article's thrust/claim that Spartans demonstrate that "that people crave more than individual liberty, full stop. People want actively to participate in the life of a community, too, and our politics ought to answer to that"?

narag 7y ago
Come on... look at this section: characteristics of Spartan society that many of them would object to, including relative economic equality, cultural egalitarianism, and military restraint. The Spartans are a strange case: They rejected anything resembling liberal democracy, abandoned commerce, industry, and trade, and by doing so, rose to preeminence in the Greek world and maintained their independence for seven centuries—far longer than any modern republic. So the saving features are keeping a terrible tyranny for seven centuries, "cultural egalitarianism" (nice euphemism) and "relative economic equality" (except between the 90% slaves and the 10% citizens). To create this paradise they just had to reject democracy, commerce, industry and trade. Nice deal!!!
azernik 7y ago
Because it absolutely interacted. That community and collective effort was built to suppress Helot rebellions by overwhelming military force. Their extreme of social mobilization was only possible or desirable because of common threat, in this case of their own making. You cannot separate the social structure of a ruling minority from a ruled majority, the former is always shaped by the interaction with the latter. See also the reports of drops in suicide rates and better social cohesion in war zones. That doesn't mean we should advocate a brutal civil war as a mental health measure.
- icegreentea2 7y ago
  The article hardly attempts to say structuring our societies to maximize its ability to crush rebellions is a good thing. It does say that solely maximizing individual spheres of rights and opportunity of commercial profit may actually not be a great idea. I think this is hardly a controversial opinion. Like I agree that more context about helots would have shored up this article nicely, but I also think that all the chatter about its absence misses the point of the article.