Socio-cultural evolution and intellectual enablers of statism/was Re: [extropy-chat] RE: letter concerning presidential growth

[Technotranscendence]

On Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:02 PM Jack Parkinson
isthatyoujack at icqmail.com wrote:
>> Getting back to socio-cultural evolution, I think Alan
>> simplifies this to an extreme.  Not only do his
>> statements make it seem he thinks it's linear and
>> constant everywhere, but also that it's always a
>> progress.  I think it's far to say the future is an open
>> issue and that any gains made today can be lost
>> tomorrow.  (On a political note: the failure to see
>> this is probably why some people are willing to
>> trade hard won freedoms, such as the right to
>> property or freedom of expression, for things they
>> judge as progressive, such as the Prussian welfare
>> state of wealth redistribution and nationalized
>> healthcare that sadly has captured the imagination
>> of elites on both sides of the Atlantic since 1900.)
>
> There may not be a linear/progressive evolution
> apparent in superpower social systems but they do
> have some historical similarities.

I never claimed they had none.  Nor was I only talking about superpower
social systems -- if you mean by that term what I think you mean.
Alan's statements that I responded to seemed to point to a notion that
socio-cultural change follows not just some similarities, but definite
linear/uniform/progressive ones.  IIRC, he said something like Europe
has had 1000 years and the US only 230 -- meaning that in another 770
years the US will be like Europe today?  I don't know, but statements
like that make me think he believes that.

> One important point I think is that they are/were all
> underpinned by some non-economic rationale -
> something moral, aesthetic, altruistic, noble,
> philosophical etc etc.

Well, yes.  One can hope to keep conquered peoples in thrall or keep
internal dissent down without some kind of ideological rationale, be it
the glory of Rome, Napoleon, the Empire of Liberty, or World Communism.
Plus, you'll be hard pressed to find many rulers ever make claims like,
"We're evil, hate others, and rule solely through force."  Such an
ideology makes for a good fictional villains, but would be make for
short-lived rule of any elite professing it openly.

> By way of quick and non-comprehensive example:
> 1) The US: Freedom, equality, justice, family values
> and humanitarian treatment for all etc....
> 2) The British Empire: Notions of fair play, unimpeachable
> honesty, the work ethic, ideas of nobility of service, free speech.
> 3) The USSR - Collective sharing, comradeship, grass-roots
participation in
> the political process, caring for the underdog etc ...
> 4) Ancient Rome/Greece: A fine appreciation of the value of
intellectual
> discourse, interest in pure research, patronage of the arts etc...
> 5) China: Valuing education, aesthetics and culture above all else -
and
> therefore appointing poets and artists as governors and rulers...
etc...
>
> In each case above, it seems to me that the Empire's failure begins
when it
> starts to routinely compromise it's own ideals in the interests of
> expediency. In this regard, US phenomena such as the current
trade-offs of
> personal freedoms for 'security,' the suspension of individual rights
'to
> fight terror,' the reintroduction of torture, and internment without
trial
> of alleged terrorists - are all more than disquieting examples of
wrong
> action. They are symptomatic of the decline of a superpower.
>
> As the front-line commanders will always say - 'We had to destroy that
> village in order to save it! Sir!'
>
> Contemporary politics are to a great extent about putting the cart
before
> the horse. But, there is no merit in abanding a set of values in order
to
> protect them. All action taken, should be taken (and judged) in light
of how
> it reflects the values it allegedly promotes, defends and represents.
>
> Isn't this how we judge a true statesman and world leader? This is a
person
> whose actions are not just correct in the sense of timing, execution
and
> format. But they are directly linked to and representative of, the
values
> and philosophy of the vast majority of the people - this is a true
'voice of
> the people' - a leader with immense personal integrity and the respect
of
> all.
>
> Unfortunately, such people are not common. The best you can say of the
bunch
> we work with is that (usually) they try in their limited way. No
wonder the
> Chinese thought it best to appoint poets, artists, and calligraphers
as
> senior political figures. They were not silly - they well understood
the
> shortcomings of the officials they appointed - and they were prepared
to
> tolerate inefficiencies in trade and resource management in order to
ensure
> that the underlying cultural values were maintained at all costs. And
the
> system worked... The cat got skinned in yet another way...

Much of what you say rings true to me, though I would say that there are
natural elites -- i.e., people who get there by earning it -- and then
there are statesmen and world leaders -- people who get there because
they gain control of institutions that use force.  The two do not
typically overlap and when they do, the outcome is not always good.  You
can often get a man or woman who believes in a set of ideals and is
willing to mass murder to bring about those ideals.  (Side note:  I'd
prefer corrupt communists who allow black markets and don't enforce
Marxism severely to hardcore ones who stick to their values and butcher
the black marketeer and collapse the whole economy.  Wouldn't you?  It's
not just integrity that counts.)

Another side note:  Regarding China, I think part of this has to do with
winning over an intellectual elite.  We see this in most nation states
today.  The government supports a huge number of intellectuals directly
or indirectly who really play no other role in society than justifying
the state's rule.  Sometimes these are open court intellectuals, such as
the cadre around the American VP.  Other times they serve in media or in
other secondary roles.  In a stateless society -- in other words, in a
society where people weren't forced to pay for these intellectuals -- 
most of them would have to find other work.  Others have dealt in more
detail with this phenomenon.  See, e.g., "Toward a Theory of State
Capitalism: Ultimate Decision-Making and Class Structure" by Walter E.
Grinder and John Hagel III at (this is a PDF file):

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_7.pdf

It's a great but long essay, so if you just want to see their remarks on
intellectuals, go to pages 72 and 73.

Regards,

Dan
    See "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification" at:
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html