4 ms·

Doesn't feudalism arise out of weak (practically non existent) centralized power structures? Despite the rethoric of late (particularly in Trump America) I thin

by 627467 6y ago

Doesn't feudalism arise out of weak (practically non existent) centralized power structures? Despite the rethoric of late (particularly in Trump America) I think most of the world (including the US) is heading towards stronger Nation States not weaker... And not because the State is claiming that power, but because society seems in line with it. The speed with which many western democracies allowed/tolerated extreme measures to be taken during the covid pandemic in a syncronized manner just shows how people rely on the State when push comes to shove.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago
The state has not become weaker but its power is usually used in different ways than before. Remember, the age old debate of whether the state should let the free market operate, or regulate away market failure, with bitter debate on this for over a century. Neoliberalism breaks out of this framework altogether. It says that the job of the state is to actively force an unregulated market everywhere. This active roles means discouraging unions, being part of international free trade agreements, bailing out businesses, encouraging allowing monopolies, etc. This is what the power of the state is used for today. Of course, the power is not unlimited, so in times of great need like today, we do get a temporary halt to economic activity. See for instance, http://cult320sp15.onmason.com/files/2015/01/Harvey.NeoliberalismAsCreativeDestruction.pdf http://cult320sp15.onmason.com/files/2015/01/Harvey.Neoliber...
mindslight 6y ago
The direct pandemic response was delayed by at least a month, and basically consisted of telling everyone to stay home and not much else. Now we're getting bored of it, so it's ending. That doesn't seem so powerful to me. Meanwhile the financial response of cutting interest rates started two weeks earlier, which certainly seems like the state trying to appease capital.
- 627467 6y ago
  Agreed on the description on how the State wielded the power (not very effectively I'd argue) yet I'm not claiming that the State knows what to do with power (specially in such pandemic situation), I'm merely describing that the people seem to have accepted very quickly and with little resistance whatever the State decided (late or not)
  - mindslight 6y ago
    It's hard for me to judge, despite being quite libertarian, because to me the closure orders were finally in line with what I had already been doing. The closure orders certainly seemed abrupt compared to the past several decades, but not necessarily in the context of previous pandemics. I get your general point with regards to say the "patriot" act, mass surveillance, etc. But on the other side of that, intelligence agents have complained of there simply being too much data to sift through. So once again it could be a kind of miswielded faux power rather than actual power. I think you'd have to dig into the historical record to really find out. I'm not a big reader of history, but many things from the past seem more authoritarian. I mean, the draft. Can you even imagine that today?
    - 627467 6y ago
      Many (liberal) countries still hold mandatory military services. I think there was much more resistance to the general consensus around 9/11 and other "man made catastrophes" than this one. "Science" has shut off any debate and human creativity.
      - mindslight 6y ago
        You say '"science"', I say reality. There isn't much room for creativity, because nobody wants elective exposure when the spread is still fundamentally unmanaged and growing. There is no middleground of prudently half-exposing yourself. Rather you go out only when you have to and mitigate that exposure as much as possible. The political debate is basically driven by people wanting others to ignore the problem, so that they themselves will be less disrupted. For military service, specifically the US has moved away from the draft though. It's much less authoritarian to effortlessly cheerlead for sending employees off to die, versus being so whipped up that the majority of the population is willing to go themselves. Mandatory military service only works when people trust the government. If USG attempted to institute a draft for its next nation building exercise, it would find out how little support its wars actually have.
    - kitotik 6y ago
      > I mean, the draft. Can you even imagine that today? Not in the US, no. 1) Theres not a reason to when there are so many poor people who volunteer for the promise of 3 hots and a cot, healthcare, and an education 2) The workarounds that >=middle class would have to do to keep their children exempt would be harder to keep quiet in the age of social media 3) If >= middle class kids were actually forced into service, it would be much more difficult to garner wide spread support for military actions 4) There’s much more legal flexibility now than there used to be. It’s not really required or useful to formally declare war and open up a draft.

by 627467 6y ago

abdullahkhalids 6y ago

The state has not become weaker but its power is usually used in different ways than before. Remember, the age old debate of whether the state should let the free market operate, or regulate away market failure, with bitter debate on this for over a century. Neoliberalism breaks out of this framework altogether. It says that the job of the state is to actively force an unregulated market everywhere. This active roles means discouraging unions, being part of international free trade agreements, bailing out businesses, encouraging allowing monopolies, etc. This is what the power of the state is used for today. Of course, the power is not unlimited, so in times of great need like today, we do get a temporary halt to economic activity. See for instance, http://cult320sp15.onmason.com/files/2015/01/Harvey.NeoliberalismAsCreativeDestruction.pdf http://cult320sp15.onmason.com/files/2015/01/Harvey.Neoliber...

mindslight 6y ago

The direct pandemic response was delayed by at least a month, and basically consisted of telling everyone to stay home and not much else. Now we're getting bored of it, so it's ending. That doesn't seem so powerful to me. Meanwhile the financial response of cutting interest rates started two weeks earlier, which certainly seems like the state trying to appease capital.

627467 6y ago
Agreed on the description on how the State wielded the power (not very effectively I'd argue) yet I'm not claiming that the State knows what to do with power (specially in such pandemic situation), I'm merely describing that the people seem to have accepted very quickly and with little resistance whatever the State decided (late or not)
- mindslight 6y ago
  It's hard for me to judge, despite being quite libertarian, because to me the closure orders were finally in line with what I had already been doing. The closure orders certainly seemed abrupt compared to the past several decades, but not necessarily in the context of previous pandemics. I get your general point with regards to say the "patriot" act, mass surveillance, etc. But on the other side of that, intelligence agents have complained of there simply being too much data to sift through. So once again it could be a kind of miswielded faux power rather than actual power. I think you'd have to dig into the historical record to really find out. I'm not a big reader of history, but many things from the past seem more authoritarian. I mean, the draft. Can you even imagine that today?
  - 627467 6y ago
    Many (liberal) countries still hold mandatory military services. I think there was much more resistance to the general consensus around 9/11 and other "man made catastrophes" than this one. "Science" has shut off any debate and human creativity.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      You say '"science"', I say reality. There isn't much room for creativity, because nobody wants elective exposure when the spread is still fundamentally unmanaged and growing. There is no middleground of prudently half-exposing yourself. Rather you go out only when you have to and mitigate that exposure as much as possible. The political debate is basically driven by people wanting others to ignore the problem, so that they themselves will be less disrupted. For military service, specifically the US has moved away from the draft though. It's much less authoritarian to effortlessly cheerlead for sending employees off to die, versus being so whipped up that the majority of the population is willing to go themselves. Mandatory military service only works when people trust the government. If USG attempted to institute a draft for its next nation building exercise, it would find out how little support its wars actually have.
  - kitotik 6y ago
    > I mean, the draft. Can you even imagine that today? Not in the US, no. 1) Theres not a reason to when there are so many poor people who volunteer for the promise of 3 hots and a cot, healthcare, and an education 2) The workarounds that >=middle class would have to do to keep their children exempt would be harder to keep quiet in the age of social media 3) If >= middle class kids were actually forced into service, it would be much more difficult to garner wide spread support for military actions 4) There’s much more legal flexibility now than there used to be. It’s not really required or useful to formally declare war and open up a draft.