4 ms·

True, but, state craft also had paid snitches to watch, and report on state/king/etc unfriendly talk, which would sit in pubs, or just wander around listening.

True, but, state craft also had paid snitches to watch, and report on state/king/etc unfriendly talk, which would sit in pubs, or just wander around listening. They also had people spreading state policy/thought, too. Before wide scale monitoring, such as phones, then computers, then internet, massive numbers of people were paid to listen, even in modern times. Mass media was surely an important change, but our ancestors didn't let things go uncontrolled, for, while all of the above was being done internally, external enemies were spreading propaganda to crush foreign kingdoms. This sort of stuff has likely been happening since the dawn of humans, two villages rivaling over local hunting grounds or some such.

Ialdaboth 5y ago
Kings had secret agents and diplomats fooling around, sure. But you need the technical/societal advancements and the production surplus brought by modern civilization if you want to be able to run a totalitarian state.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Feudal cultures were far more limited and totalitarian in every possible way. Serfs literally weren't allowed to leave their villages without a good reason - like war. There was an intellectual monoculture with the Church using scare stories about the fate of the disobedient to terrify serfs into compliance. There was no access to books or personal development. You worked the land, you paid your tithes, and if you were lucky you survived the numerous famines, illnesses, bandit raids, and larger military campaigns, and passed your rented land on to one of your sons. The big difference between that kind of totalitarianism and the modern kind is the fact that the Church has been replaced a more diverse media. In fact there's less diversity than there appears to be. The liberal tradition means there's at least the possibility of independent thought, but it's less common than it might be. In the West, non-compliance and failure-to-be-useful are enforced with brutal economic sanctions. But you can at least think about starting a business and having some nominal independence - which wasn't an option in feudal times. But there's a proselytising corporate monoculture instead of a proselytising religious monoculture [1], and it's very hard for many to imagine that other systems may be possible - never mind better for them. [1] In many parts of the US, you get both.

Ialdaboth 5y ago

Kings had secret agents and diplomats fooling around, sure. But you need the technical/societal advancements and the production surplus brought by modern civilization if you want to be able to run a totalitarian state.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Feudal cultures were far more limited and totalitarian in every possible way. Serfs literally weren't allowed to leave their villages without a good reason - like war. There was an intellectual monoculture with the Church using scare stories about the fate of the disobedient to terrify serfs into compliance. There was no access to books or personal development. You worked the land, you paid your tithes, and if you were lucky you survived the numerous famines, illnesses, bandit raids, and larger military campaigns, and passed your rented land on to one of your sons. The big difference between that kind of totalitarianism and the modern kind is the fact that the Church has been replaced a more diverse media. In fact there's less diversity than there appears to be. The liberal tradition means there's at least the possibility of independent thought, but it's less common than it might be. In the West, non-compliance and failure-to-be-useful are enforced with brutal economic sanctions. But you can at least think about starting a business and having some nominal independence - which wasn't an option in feudal times. But there's a proselytising corporate monoculture instead of a proselytising religious monoculture [1], and it's very hard for many to imagine that other systems may be possible - never mind better for them. [1] In many parts of the US, you get both.