3 ms·
I don’t doubt this is the case in modern times but I doubt they have spied on the poor since the beginning of time since there was little reason to spy on power
by mc32 1y ago
I don’t doubt this is the case in modern times but I doubt they have spied on the poor since the beginning of time since there was little reason to spy on powerless illiterates. They spied on known enemies or rivals sure but not on the masses since there was little reason to do so. It was also costly to do so.
- stronglikedan 1y agoMaybe not "spying" per se, but oppressors have always kept enough tabs on the oppressed to keep them oppressed for as long as possible, often without the oppressed knowing exactly how. Maybe "spying" after all.
- mc32 1y agoI think it helped that things were more tribal back then. Enemies could sack and pillage if opportunity presented itself. That presented peasants/commoners/etc. a disincentive to defect. It's not like an outsider would be friendly to a defector in most cases. This provided a bond to the local warlord/chieftain/etc. Essentially it was a fear-factor to not defect because things would be worse. Plus, these people had few possessions. They basically only had their labor and the clothes on their backs. They had very little power. A population that had tenuous leadership would soon be easy pickings for a neighboring rival to swoop in and potentially make things worse.