3 ms·

Citation needed on that one :) How do you think elites took control, other than through mutual obligation? E.g., if you farmers grow the grain and give us some

Citation needed on that one :) How do you think elites took control, other than through mutual obligation? E.g., if you farmers grow the grain and give us some, us warriors will protect you from the other tribe who would burn your homes, enslave your children, and steal your food. Or, us priests will resolve your disputes according to our tribe's values, and intercede with the gods to ensure the rains come.

int_19h 5y ago
Originally, mostly by direct violence or threat thereof. The thing about extracting profits from other people is that you can invest them into more warriors, which can be used to subjugate and then control more people to extract profits from them etc. That's how most modern countries originated.
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  On the violence imposed by nobility, I agree, the threat of violence, indeed, claiming the sole right to use violence, has been inherent to, well, being a noble, or being a government. That said, the nobility weren't monolithic, so Lord X being an asshole could find himself replaced, with the people's blessing, by Lord Y. Or, as seems to have happened several times in ancient history, people walked away from a complex society they found uncompelling. Societies splintered, sometimes just people gave up on it altogether and reverted to older patterns of life that involved less warring princes throwing your children into cenotes. And likewise, there was a limit to how much violence you could use sustainably - killing all your farmers was a bad move. Obviously, the people holding the monopoly on power gradually developed ideas to prevent this mobility, serfdom was a favourite during feudalism. But, mutual obligation still existed between commoner and noble. A noble who didn't defend his peasants when they were attacked was violating an ancient contract. Likewise, it wasn't commoners that were thrice-killed in PIE derived cultures - when you really needed to get the attention of the gods, you had to send someone of noble birth. And lastly, there were a bunch of peasant revolts. A few of them even succeeded. (Far too few, IMO, but bless them for trying). And they generally arose when the commoners felt that the nobles hadn't held up their end of the bargain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts It's a very complicated thing to try to generalise over, but am I seriously wrong to state that from tribal society upwards, that everyone in that society is expected to fulfill their obligations to others in that society? That was pretty much my main thesis :) Interesting side tangent on this - in areas where different societies (typically, but not always) sharing a culture fiercely fought each other, the concept of hospitality-as-an-unbreakable-law often developed. While it imposed mutual obligation on host and guest, it was also a mutual obligation between the societies - why would I extend hospitality to people from tribe X, if they never extend it to us? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality#Global_concepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality#Global_concepts It's a very fascinating subject all round, and I think that trying to frame it all as exploiter and exploitee sacrifices a lot of nuance. As for "that's how countries developed", I rather disagree. The concept of a nation is very new in human history. Germany and Italy as countries were, well, I guess the prototype for the joke that a nation is a language with a navy.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    I don't have a problem with the notion of social obligations in general, in a society where there's actually a working mechanism by which these can be determined by consensus. But none of our existing societies are like that. The elites are not monolithic, yes, and there's violence between them, too. But that violence is used to settle the question of who gets to exploit the rest of the population. Ditto wars. Now, the elites did adopt the "mutual obligation" language (among others - "divine right", for example) to claim legitimacy. However, when one looks at the actual obligations involved, and especially at the history of them being fulfilled or ignored, and the consequences of ignoring them for either side, it's fairly obvious that the "contract" is very skewed and ultimately based on coercion. The concept of a nation is different from the concept of a country, or a state. Nations are indeed relatively recent - unlike states. It's an artificial abstraction that allows the elites to channel popular discontent away from themselves and against "foreign enemies", which is why nationalism and populism go hand in hand so often. Whenever politicians start to talk about "national interests", it means that either someone is trying to rob them, or they're trying to rob their subjects.

int_19h 5y ago

Originally, mostly by direct violence or threat thereof. The thing about extracting profits from other people is that you can invest them into more warriors, which can be used to subjugate and then control more people to extract profits from them etc. That's how most modern countries originated.

EdwardDiego 5y ago
On the violence imposed by nobility, I agree, the threat of violence, indeed, claiming the sole right to use violence, has been inherent to, well, being a noble, or being a government. That said, the nobility weren't monolithic, so Lord X being an asshole could find himself replaced, with the people's blessing, by Lord Y. Or, as seems to have happened several times in ancient history, people walked away from a complex society they found uncompelling. Societies splintered, sometimes just people gave up on it altogether and reverted to older patterns of life that involved less warring princes throwing your children into cenotes. And likewise, there was a limit to how much violence you could use sustainably - killing all your farmers was a bad move. Obviously, the people holding the monopoly on power gradually developed ideas to prevent this mobility, serfdom was a favourite during feudalism. But, mutual obligation still existed between commoner and noble. A noble who didn't defend his peasants when they were attacked was violating an ancient contract. Likewise, it wasn't commoners that were thrice-killed in PIE derived cultures - when you really needed to get the attention of the gods, you had to send someone of noble birth. And lastly, there were a bunch of peasant revolts. A few of them even succeeded. (Far too few, IMO, but bless them for trying). And they generally arose when the commoners felt that the nobles hadn't held up their end of the bargain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts It's a very complicated thing to try to generalise over, but am I seriously wrong to state that from tribal society upwards, that everyone in that society is expected to fulfill their obligations to others in that society? That was pretty much my main thesis :) Interesting side tangent on this - in areas where different societies (typically, but not always) sharing a culture fiercely fought each other, the concept of hospitality-as-an-unbreakable-law often developed. While it imposed mutual obligation on host and guest, it was also a mutual obligation between the societies - why would I extend hospitality to people from tribe X, if they never extend it to us? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality#Global_concepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality#Global_concepts It's a very fascinating subject all round, and I think that trying to frame it all as exploiter and exploitee sacrifices a lot of nuance. As for "that's how countries developed", I rather disagree. The concept of a nation is very new in human history. Germany and Italy as countries were, well, I guess the prototype for the joke that a nation is a language with a navy.
- int_19h 5y ago
  I don't have a problem with the notion of social obligations in general, in a society where there's actually a working mechanism by which these can be determined by consensus. But none of our existing societies are like that. The elites are not monolithic, yes, and there's violence between them, too. But that violence is used to settle the question of who gets to exploit the rest of the population. Ditto wars. Now, the elites did adopt the "mutual obligation" language (among others - "divine right", for example) to claim legitimacy. However, when one looks at the actual obligations involved, and especially at the history of them being fulfilled or ignored, and the consequences of ignoring them for either side, it's fairly obvious that the "contract" is very skewed and ultimately based on coercion. The concept of a nation is different from the concept of a country, or a state. Nations are indeed relatively recent - unlike states. It's an artificial abstraction that allows the elites to channel popular discontent away from themselves and against "foreign enemies", which is why nationalism and populism go hand in hand so often. Whenever politicians start to talk about "national interests", it means that either someone is trying to rob them, or they're trying to rob their subjects.