4 ms·

In the Turchin model of societal collapse, discussing elite overproduction alone is not helpful at all. The model calls for 3 pillars: - elite overproduction a

In the Turchin model of societal collapse, discussing elite overproduction alone is not helpful at all. The model calls for 3 pillars: - elite overproduction and limited job opportunities - wealth pump and inequality - declining of popular wellbeing and growing resentment Thus, it only makes sense to consider elite overproduction within this framework.

alexpotato 7mo ago
Isn't this partly what explained the Arab Spring uprising in Egypt? e.g. the government made university education free, lots of people went to university, there was now excess supply of college educated professionals, this led to unhappy young professionals, in turn led to unrest etc etc.
- ftmootnomoat 7mo ago
  The problem with educated youth who understand the game is that if there’s no room for them to join the ruling class they become very angry. They will want to topple the elite so they can replace them.
  - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
    > The problem with educated youth who understand the game is that if there’s no room for them to join the ruling class they become very angry. My experience/observation is that only few (university-)educated people really do understand the game. Only a subset of them actually make serious attempts to understand the rules of the game, and of those, most get to believe in often very dangerous falsehoods about what the rules are.
    - sillywabbit 7mo ago
      What game-changing insights did the philosophy and political science classes leave out? I'm all ears.
    - ftmootnomoat 7mo ago
      The rules are simple and ancient: noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners. What’s sophisticated are the layers of ideology and falsehood that made people believe that aristocracy was dead.
      - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
        > The rules are simple and ancient: noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners. This does not describe the current situation: even if we just consider net worth, there are at least 2-3 rather separated kinds of elites: - the "aristocracy": what you name "noble blood" - "old money": there is some partial overlap to "aristocracy", but not the same; for example think of family with a long pedigree, but not necessarily of aristocratic origin, think of family empires that have a standing in some industries over multiple generations. - "new money": people who got rich in particular by building some internet company. Their values and attitudes are quite different from "old money". These are three quite different groups of people. So, it's much more complicated than "noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners". -- And this is just the "already net worth rich". For example there exist groups of intelligent people who are highly ambitious, but aren't given a chance, so they look for allies, and sometimes they succeed. In some sense the classical hacker scene can be considered as an example. Some of them actually got rich by founding some internet startup.
      - csa 7mo ago
        > The rules are simple and ancient: noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners. This is a great narrative for folks who want to be fatalistic. From my view: - Much of what you call “nobles” and “commoners” are more about values than blood. Yes, “noble” values are difficult to develop if you’re not born in that class. That said, these values are easier to learn and develop today for a wider group of people than has ever been true in the past. - Some people think the “noble” side is all rainbows and unicorns. The noble class is shedding its weak non-stop. It may take a generation or two before a branch of a noble family becomes common, but it happens often, and it’s a source of great consternation to that branch when it does. > What’s sophisticated are the layers of ideology and falsehood that made people believe that aristocracy was dead. Did anyone actually think the aristocracy was dead? The relative power of the aristocracy dipped a bit mid-20th century, but what they may have temporarily lost in economic power was gained in social and political power.
- citrin_ru 7mo ago
  May be it was one of factors but unlikely the main one. University education was free in the USSR but it was a stable authoritarian state for decades (until eventually collapsed for reasons having little to do with education).
smallmancontrov 7mo ago
...which is where the "Marx in a Moustache" critique comes from, because it's all just immediately downstream from inequality. If you can slap a moustache on economic inequality, you avoid academic accusations of unoriginality and the popular antibodies against "he who must not be named." This is good for the author, but for the reader? It's about as useful as trying to stick a fake moustache over that magnificent beard.
keybored 7mo ago
Political theorists like that word resentment. Maybe they took it from Nietzsche.

alexpotato 7mo ago

Isn't this partly what explained the Arab Spring uprising in Egypt? e.g. the government made university education free, lots of people went to university, there was now excess supply of college educated professionals, this led to unhappy young professionals, in turn led to unrest etc etc.

ftmootnomoat 7mo ago
The problem with educated youth who understand the game is that if there’s no room for them to join the ruling class they become very angry. They will want to topple the elite so they can replace them.
- aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
  > The problem with educated youth who understand the game is that if there’s no room for them to join the ruling class they become very angry. My experience/observation is that only few (university-)educated people really do understand the game. Only a subset of them actually make serious attempts to understand the rules of the game, and of those, most get to believe in often very dangerous falsehoods about what the rules are.
  - sillywabbit 7mo ago
    What game-changing insights did the philosophy and political science classes leave out? I'm all ears.
  - ftmootnomoat 7mo ago
    The rules are simple and ancient: noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners. What’s sophisticated are the layers of ideology and falsehood that made people believe that aristocracy was dead.
    - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
      > The rules are simple and ancient: noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners. This does not describe the current situation: even if we just consider net worth, there are at least 2-3 rather separated kinds of elites: - the "aristocracy": what you name "noble blood" - "old money": there is some partial overlap to "aristocracy", but not the same; for example think of family with a long pedigree, but not necessarily of aristocratic origin, think of family empires that have a standing in some industries over multiple generations. - "new money": people who got rich in particular by building some internet company. Their values and attitudes are quite different from "old money". These are three quite different groups of people. So, it's much more complicated than "noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners". -- And this is just the "already net worth rich". For example there exist groups of intelligent people who are highly ambitious, but aren't given a chance, so they look for allies, and sometimes they succeed. In some sense the classical hacker scene can be considered as an example. Some of them actually got rich by founding some internet startup.
    - csa 7mo ago
      > The rules are simple and ancient: noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners. This is a great narrative for folks who want to be fatalistic. From my view: - Much of what you call “nobles” and “commoners” are more about values than blood. Yes, “noble” values are difficult to develop if you’re not born in that class. That said, these values are easier to learn and develop today for a wider group of people than has ever been true in the past. - Some people think the “noble” side is all rainbows and unicorns. The noble class is shedding its weak non-stop. It may take a generation or two before a branch of a noble family becomes common, but it happens often, and it’s a source of great consternation to that branch when it does. > What’s sophisticated are the layers of ideology and falsehood that made people believe that aristocracy was dead. Did anyone actually think the aristocracy was dead? The relative power of the aristocracy dipped a bit mid-20th century, but what they may have temporarily lost in economic power was gained in social and political power.
citrin_ru 7mo ago
May be it was one of factors but unlikely the main one. University education was free in the USSR but it was a stable authoritarian state for decades (until eventually collapsed for reasons having little to do with education).

smallmancontrov 7mo ago

...which is where the "Marx in a Moustache" critique comes from, because it's all just immediately downstream from inequality. If you can slap a moustache on economic inequality, you avoid academic accusations of unoriginality and the popular antibodies against "he who must not be named." This is good for the author, but for the reader? It's about as useful as trying to stick a fake moustache over that magnificent beard.

keybored 7mo ago

Political theorists like that word resentment. Maybe they took it from Nietzsche.