[ExI] Money and Human Nature (was Re: Capitalism, anti capitalism, emotional arousal)

[Tara Maya]

> Stefano wrote:

> European aristocracies, OTOH, used certainly to have a more lavish lifestyle. But even there, at the origins of feodalism, you were not the owner of the land you ruled on, and the king (or the higher vassal) could take it away at any moment if you did not perform the duties for which it was entrusted to you: military protection, economic production, enforcement of laws, administration of justice, resolution of conflicts, collection of taxes... Paradoxically, it was the new ideas brought by capitalism that achieved to make them essentially parasitic classes, especially in continental Europe.
> 
> Moreover, the idea is still widespread in the West that those who (at least officially) rule a country need not be the richest people in that country, or even that they should forfeit the control of any significant assets they may have during office. 
> 
> What many consider a distortion is the fact that today poorer, albeit theoretically more powerful, rulers are in fact over-influenced by richer private citizens, or much more often headless, self-referential institutions, cartels and circles, such as bankers and speculators,  without any office or answeerability or visibility, through corruption, lobbying, campaign financing, media control, etc. 


Actually, what distinguished medieval European (and Japanese) feudalism was that lords had a great deal of stability of inheritance and property rights (and so did "free men") compared to "absolute monarchies." The situation was quite different in the Middle East, for instance, where the ruler could and did replace "nobles", including appoint eunuch slaves to the positions of greatest power. Eunuchs and slaves were the extreme example of the perfect loyal drones. They had no lineage to protect, so they wouldn't fight for their own land rights, and since they owed their power directly to the calif or sultan, they protected him to protect themselves. This lack of secure lordly property rights, combined with polygyny (and no primogeniture) made Middle East politics much volatile than European politics. Essentially, there was a civil war every time the government changed from one king to the next.

Capitalism, like autism, is a spectrum. Even a little bit of respect for property rights is better than no respect, and a little bit more is better than a little.

By the way, the complaint that the greedy, money-grubbing rich and the conniving, scheming money-lenders have too much influence is not at all new, and long antedated the formal practice of capitalism. The complaint was heard all the time in the middle ages (in both Europe and the Middle East). Nor is there anything at all new (or noble) about the Occupy cries to "Behead the Bankers!" (and yes, I have heard this, seen it on a sign, and saw it repeated by a friend on Facebook.) This is just the same old, old, old ugly that resulted in pogroms against the Jews, who were hated because they were owed money. 

It's so much easier to kill your lender than to pay back loans… then as now.