Is Social Order Important?

GE Morton · Post by **GE Morton** » February 13th, 2019, 10:50 pm

Alias wrote: ↑February 12th, 2019, 10:37 pm
Oh, surely, yes. The lower the wages, the higher the profits. The more insecure the workers, the more labour you can squeeze out of them and the less benefits they demand.

Well, that parrots Marxist dogma, but it is false in theory and usually in practice. The price of labor, like the prices of everything else traded in a free market, is determined by the law of supply and demand. Employers pay what they must, but no more than they must, to obtain workers with the skills they need --- just as they pay for everything else they buy (and just as you pay for the the things you buy). That means employers cannot arbitrarily set wages, any more than they can set the prices of the steel or energy they must buy. If they offer less than the prevailing market rate for a particular skill set, they will have few or no takers. If they offer much more than that rate, they'll be forced to raise prices on their products, and become uncompetitive.

That dogma is vacuous for two reasons. First, it is anachronistic, in that it views "labor" as essentially unskilled muscle power, of the supply of which, in modern economies, far exceeds the demand, and whose market value is therefore low. Most workers today are not selling muscle power; they're selling a wide variety of skills. "Workers" embraces everyone from research chemists at drug companies to professors at universities to physicians at HMOs to corporate lawyers to bank lending officers to cops to car salesmen to journeyman plumbers to airline pilots to burger flippers at MacDonalds. Employers have little control over any of their wages.

The second problem with the dogma is that it rests on an unfounded, spurious moral assumption: That employers have some paternalistic responsibility for the welfare of their employees, which entails a duty to pay them a certain minimum wage (a "living wage") and provide them with various benefits.

They have no such duty. No person has any unassumed, a priori duty to promote the welfare of any other person. One acquires duties to others only by taking some action --- by entering into a contract or making a promise, or by bringing a child into the world, or by injuring someone, thereby incurring an obligation to pay damages.

But of course, if you insist employers have such duties, then some moral argument for the origins and basis of that duty will be required.

If a worker is unsatisfied with the wage or salary his employer is paying, it is his responsibility to acquire a new skill set, one better rewarded in the market. The employer is not his father, rich uncle, or guardian angel. The personal welfare of his employees is not his concern, except to the extent it affects their ability to do the work for which they were hired --- any more than the welfare of the owner of the store where you buy your groceries is your concern. Your interests and his coincide at the point of sale, and your relationship extends no further. You have no obligations to one another other than those implicit in that transaction.

(more later)

Alias · Post by **Alias** » February 13th, 2019, 11:20 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 13th, 2019, 10:50 pm Well, that parrots Marxist dogma, but it is false in theory and usually in practice. The price of labor, like the prices of everything else traded in a free market, is determined by the law of supply and demand.

Where's a free market? Where has one of those ever been observe in real life?
Anyway, the post parrots capitalist dogma whole and is irrelevant to how governance and social organization adapts to a central value-structure.

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » February 14th, 2019, 3:53 am

Maybe there are good and bad on both sides and framing the other position held as being dogmatic is likely not the most productive way to discuss the topic unless you’re only looking for some new ammunition in tit-for-tat arguments that do little more than find new and colourful ways to avoid the problem at hand.

Post by **Belindi** » February 14th, 2019, 8:11 am

Alias wrote: ↑February 13th, 2019, 12:55 pm The worker-employer conflict was only one example of value-systems. I used business interest, military might and theology as principles on which a nation-state can base its social structures, as possible alternatives to what I presume Athena means by "human values", where the central concern of government would be the welfare of citizens, their families and communities.

Business interest at the center would place emphasis on wealth-accumulation; the government would commit the bulk of its resources to the protection of property, enforcing rights of ownership both physical and intellectual, facilitating commerce. It would keep corporate taxes low and the flow of capital free of interference. Such a nation would indoctrinate its young in a reverence of financial success and gear its education system toward jobs training and deference to wealth; it would encourage competition rather than co-operation; place productivity at the top of the virtues and laziness at the top of the vices. Such a society It would have a numerically small elite, living in luxury, wielding vast political power, and a large underclass living in poverty with no political power. It would have extensive law-enforcement facilities and a high crime rate.

Military interest/conquest at the center would require a government to commit most of its resources to weapons development and production, armed forces recruitment and deployment; public parades and spectacles. It would show little concern for the daily affairs of the populace, so long as they had enough to eat and stayed physically fit and reproductive. It would be influenced, if not entirely staffed by military ranks; it would train its young to discipline and obedience; it would teach courage and loyalty as the prime virtues, despise cowardice and punish dissent by death. Its governance would be streamlined, even minimal, with few public services or conveniences. Working people would have little leisure time and rudimentary education. There would be no surplus population due to a high infant and child mortality rate. There would be a very low crime rate, except for political offenses.

A nation with a god or ideology at the center of its values bases all law and organization on some canon. The bulk of its resources are devoted to public buildings, accoutrements, ceremony, protocol and bureaucracy. How it's organized depends on the particulars of the ideology, but individual human welfare is never its main concern. Indeed, it often makes a virtue of sacrifice, hardship and suffering. The education is severe, limited to the doctrinal authority and basic skills. Piety is exalted; blasphemy is punished. The society is strictly hierarchical, intolerant and conformist. Status is achieved by patient service and attrition. It tends to have a high rate of internal intrigue and back-stabbing for this reason. The standard of living for most people is low; therefore general crime rate is low; the law-enforcement harsh, as individuals have few legal rights.

Each of these value systems would have a different effect on how people grow up, behave, think, feel, interact, prioritize their requirements, spend their leisure time and relate to their government and the world.

Alias, did you intend the three models to comprise all possible models?

Aren't the business interest model , the military conquest model , and the god or ideology (theocratic) model all based upon ideologies each of which legitimates an elite's preference?

GE Morton · Post by **GE Morton** » February 14th, 2019, 1:47 pm

(cont'd from previous post)

Alias wrote: ↑February 12th, 2019, 10:37 pm
When government is mainly concerned with the interests of business, it legislates tax cuts for the wealthy and saves the difference in revenue on social services. This is not news. Nor is it nonsense, however the general public has been brainwashed.

I agree that government should not be concerned with the interests of business. Nor should it be concerned with the particular interests of any other demographic faction, economic strata, or interest group. It should be concerned only with protecting the rights of all of its citizens, from the depredations of criminals and foreign invaders. It has no business delivering any "social services" to anyone, because it cannot do so without violating someone's rights. As for whether tax cuts for the wealthy are justifiable, it depends upon what those rates are --- if they exceed the value of the benefits the taxpayer receives from government, then they certainly should be cut.

A just tax system apportions taxes according to the value of the benefits each taxpayer receives from government services. I.e., you pay for what you get, just as you pay for everything else you buy. If you leave the supermarket with one six pack of beer, you pay for one six-pack. If you leave with a case, you pay for a case. No taxpayer has any duty to pay for government services received by someone else, any more than he has a duty to pay for someone else's beer.

Yes. They [the ancient Greeks] were far more familiar with their environment; more aware of their governance; more in control of their collective decisions.

"More familiar with their environment"? You can't be serious. While the biological writings of Aristotle deserve great credit for launching study of the natural world in a systematic way, his and his fellow Greeks' knowledge and understanding of that world --- of which they were familiar with only a small portion --- was primitive in comparison to that of modern biology, ecology, genetics, biochemistry, etc. What are you thinking here?

More significantly, they were not threatened by industrial pollution, environmental degradation, weapons of mass destruction and climate change.

No. They were threatened with cholera, smallpox, various plagues, drought, astronomical rates of infant and maternal mortality, and wars with neighboring states. "Infant mortality was a fundamental cause of death in the ancient world. It is estimated that a staggering seventy-five per cent of children born in Rome did not live until the age of ten. Typically, if a mother gave birth to ten children, only three might live into adulthood."

https://www.ranker.com/list/common-caus ... hilgibbons

Those risks claimed many more victims, proportionally speaking, than those you mention. "A rough estimate (gleaned from tomb inscriptions that give ages) is that half of Romans who lived to age 15 – and therefore escaped juvenile mortality – were dead before age 45."

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/lif ... -2009.html

Many on the Left hold a wistful, romanticized image of life in ancient and primitive societies, a psychic atavism left over from our tribal, primate ancestry. If they actually had to live in one of those societies for a day or two they'd be jostling for seats on the next bus out.

Not if they [moral precepts] are philosophically respectable (meaning rationally defensible). Sound moralities are not based on subjective interests and preferences, or upon emotional states.
No. They are based on the requirements of communities of people; on the understanding that subjective states vary, but basic needs are constant; on an understanding of what makes humans co-operative instead of combative.

I largely agree with that. But it raises the questions: What are those requirements, what does induce humans to cooperate? What needs are to be counted as "basic," and what duty does Alfie have to meet a "basic need" of Bruno's?

Post by **Belindi** » February 14th, 2019, 4:02 pm

GEMorton wrote:

They were threatened with cholera, smallpox, various plagues, drought, astronomical rates of infant and maternal mortality, and wars with neighboring states. "Infant mortality was a fundamental cause of death in the ancient world.

These are all self limiting. Climate change and environmental degradation are permanent and increasing after a certain point in the processes.

Alias · Post by **Alias** » February 14th, 2019, 5:44 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑February 14th, 2019, 8:11 am Alias, did you intend the three models to comprise all possible models?

No, they're just the most familiar examples of large-scale social organization. Meant as an outline, only, of how the central ideal/principle/value manifests in all aspects of society. I meant nothing more elaborate than to show value models to which Athena's may be compared.

Aren't the business interest model , the military conquest model , and the god or ideology (theocratic) model all based upon ideologies each of which legitimates an elite's preference?

Yes... But there had to be some compelling reason for that particular group to become the elite. Then, in case of foreign conquest, the new rulers have to sell enough of the colonized population on their own ideal to prevent continuous insurrection. In situations where the system was not imposed by military force, the elite has to convince the populace to accept - preferably embrace - their ideology, in order to secure their position. They always have plenty of apologists and spin-doctors, public relation personnel and missionaries, theorists and facilitators, agents, brokers and spokes-persons. (Sometimes they're passionate advocates who go off on a word-association rant with little provocation. Sometimes they're cool, cynical publicists, looking to their percentage.)
In fairness, there are also benefits in each kind of system for large parts, if not all of, the general population. Usually, the benefits are loudly extolled while the costs are hidden or discounted. The balance of costs and benefits changes all the time, and it takes an adroit political administration to keep any "ship of state".

Alias · Post by **Alias** » February 14th, 2019, 9:06 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 14th, 2019, 1:47 pm None of that is relevant here. I already understood that your pov is different from mine and that you can articulate it very thoroughly. But you're nit-picking a side-issue.
[the ancient Greeks were far more familiar with their environment; more aware of their governance; more in control of their collective decisions.]
"More familiar with their environment"? You can't be serious. While the biological writings of Aristotle deserve great credit for launching study of the natural world in a systematic way, his and his fellow Greeks' knowledge and understanding of that world --- of which they were familiar with only a small portion --- was primitive in comparison to that of modern biology, ecology, genetics, biochemistry, etc. What are you thinking here?
I was thinking that people were more familiar with their environment.
That's nothing to do with the state of science - every age has the most advanced science science to that point in time and they do not compare it to what will be known 2000 years hence. Familiarity is about knowing the place where you live and the people who inhabit it, where the grapes and olives come from, where the roads and footpaths go, who's likely to show up for an oration, when ships land and what they bring, what colour twilight is in early spring and what flowers bloom in fall.
From nothing I read would I conclude that the ancient Greeks suffered from angst or existential dread. The risk of disease and death are always with us; the prospect of extinction or engulfment is not. Statistical life expectancy has little effect on the confidence and control people feel.

[ Sound moralities are based on the requirements of communities of people]
What are those requirements, what does induce humans to cooperate? What needs are to be counted as "basic," and what duty does Alfie have to meet a "basic need" of Bruno's?
Any mob of meerkats can figure that out. Every one of those primitive tribal peoples did. They applied the same principles with variations according to the demands of their life-style. There are many ways to adapt a simple set of principles and encode it into a value-system and social organization.

Post by **Belindi** » February 15th, 2019, 6:51 am

Alias wrote:

Aren't the business interest model , the military conquest model , and the god or ideology (theocratic) model all based upon ideologies each of which legitimates an elite's preference?

Yes... But there had to be some compelling reason for that particular group to become the elite. Then, in case of foreign conquest, the new rulers have to sell enough of the colonized population on their own ideal to prevent continuous insurrection. In situations where the system was not imposed by military force, the elite has to convince the populace to accept - preferably embrace - their ideology, in order to secure their position. They always have plenty of apologists and spin-doctors, public relation personnel and missionaries, theorists and facilitators, agents, brokers and spokes-persons. (Sometimes they're passionate advocates who go off on a word-association rant with little provocation. Sometimes they're cool, cynical publicists, looking to their percentage.)
In fairness, there are also benefits in each kind of system for large parts, if not all of, the general population. Usually, the benefits are loudly extolled while the costs are hidden or discounted. The balance of costs and benefits changes all the time, and it takes an adroit political administration to keep any "ship of state".

I understand all your reply except for "Yes... But there had to be some compelling reason for that particular group to become the elite. "
I cannot see past personal power as the only compelling reason for an elite to become an elite. Am I missing something?

Alias · Post by **Alias** » February 15th, 2019, 1:10 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 6:51 am I understand all your reply except for "Yes... But there had to be some compelling reason for that particular group to become the elite. "
I cannot see past personal power as the only compelling reason for an elite to become an elite. Am I missing something?

Maybe you're overlooking history. How did it happen? I can't suppose that a bunch of cavemen were standing around a carcass and one of them said: "I want more than my share of that." and the others all nodded okay. Even if he was the biggest and could beat any of the others, he couldn't beat them all. How did he get allies? How did he convince the other people that he was better than them?
You have to look at how a society developed to its present organization to trace back the roots of power and wealth. Ours (I'm presuming North America) were established by monarchies that had a traditional aristocracy. Their forebears got to be aristocracy mainly by loyal service (most often military) to a god-anointed monarch, who had the power to bestow lands and honours. That couldn't have happened, unless the people already believed in a god that could, and wanted to, make one baby a duke and a thousand other babies serfs, for their whole lives - no returns, no substitutions. Somebody first had to convince the people to accept such a state of affairs. That somebody was a mighty foreign occupation force.
There, you can trace a military tradition, a chain of command that starts in Heaven. Hardly anybody could challenge such a tradition. There were conflicts between faction, between claimants to various thrones, between religious denominations. The general population took sides or tried to keep out of the way, but did not question the fundamental right of monarchy and aristocracy.
So, when they came across the ocean, the kings granted huge tracts of Native's land to whomever they liked; sent troops to protect the colonies and subdue the natives; navy to secure their supply routes and ports; gave out deeds and titles, mineral and shipping rights, franchises and governorships at whim. And the settlers accepted that hierarchy as the natural order. Even when they declared against English or Spanish or French rule, the established local aristocracy remained in charge.
And it's not just a desire for personal power. Some aristocrats are weighed down by their responsibility and make sacrifices, even to the death. See, tradition pervades everything and everyone in the society: they're trained from birth to a whole belief system and the morality it imposes on all its members.

Post by **Belindi** » February 15th, 2019, 5:52 pm

Alias wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 1:10 pm
Belindi wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 6:51 am I understand all your reply except for "Yes... But there had to be some compelling reason for that particular group to become the elite. "
I cannot see past personal power as the only compelling reason for an elite to become an elite. Am I missing something?
Maybe you're overlooking history. How did it happen? I can't suppose that a bunch of cavemen were standing around a carcass and one of them said: "I want more than my share of that." and the others all nodded okay. Even if he was the biggest and could beat any of the others, he couldn't beat them all. How did he get allies? How did he convince the other people that he was better than them?
You have to look at how a society developed to its present organization to trace back the roots of power and wealth. Ours (I'm presuming North America) were established by monarchies that had a traditional aristocracy. Their forebears got to be aristocracy mainly by loyal service (most often military) to a god-anointed monarch, who had the power to bestow lands and honours. That couldn't have happened, unless the people already believed in a god that could, and wanted to, make one baby a duke and a thousand other babies serfs, for their whole lives - no returns, no substitutions. Somebody first had to convince the people to accept such a state of affairs. That somebody was a mighty foreign occupation force.
There, you can trace a military tradition, a chain of command that starts in Heaven. Hardly anybody could challenge such a tradition. There were conflicts between faction, between claimants to various thrones, between religious denominations. The general population took sides or tried to keep out of the way, but did not question the fundamental right of monarchy and aristocracy.
So, when they came across the ocean, the kings granted huge tracts of Native's land to whomever they liked; sent troops to protect the colonies and subdue the natives; navy to secure their supply routes and ports; gave out deeds and titles, mineral and shipping rights, franchises and governorships at whim. And the settlers accepted that hierarchy as the natural order. Even when they declared against English or Spanish or French rule, the established local aristocracy remained in charge.
And it's not just a desire for personal power. Some aristocrats are weighed down by their responsibility and make sacrifices, even to the death. See, tradition pervades everything and everyone in the society: they're trained from birth to a whole belief system and the morality it imposes on all its members.

Thanks Alias. By " personal power "I did not mean unproductive bullying. I meant ability which was appropriate to the situation where it would be to the advantage of the less able to concede leadership. I believe that there are natural leaders. This scenario I think would apply to hunters whose leaders were priest kings who, I understand, were deposed by ritual killing, when they became too frail for the job. this would be a simple savage scenario devoid of the inertia that a "whole belief system " would impose. At what developmental point in the human past would a whole belief system, an ideology, take hold?

A traditional king long ago in old Europe, and if the Old Testament is to be believed in the Middle East, was a king of a smallish kingdom , a tribe. 'King' is cognate with 'kin'. Usually the king was descended in the male lineage and often in the male locality although this could vary. I think we have left history at this juncture and got into social anthropology. Later, of course, through conquests and clever marriages kingly dynasties joined up and kings became monarchs of more people and more land with the powers that you describe.

I think that social anthropologists often believe that whole structure of a society is integrated so that belief in for instance patrilineal or matrilineal descent, or matrilocality, or patrilocality, is intrinsic to the means of subsistence including labour and division of labour between the sexes. These in turn depend upon the climate, the land and terrain, or water. The moral codes and the god and other myths that legitimate the moral codes serve the means of subsistence which are the base from which the activities and beliefs of the people in the society are built up from.

In modern times an ideology is often imposed from above for instance communism, or ISIS, or Nazism. Capitalism developed out of monarchy in early modern times and was more a bottom-up procedure unlike communism, ISIS, and Nazism.

Alias · Post by **Alias** » February 15th, 2019, 8:49 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 5:52 pm I believe that there are natural leaders.

Maybe so, but that's a difficult ability to test. In the execution of a particular co-operative project, you can easily tell who is best qualified to organize and supervise, but in administrative posts, there are no established criteria until fairly modern times.

This scenario I think would apply to hunters whose leaders were priest kings who, I understand, were deposed by ritual killing, when they became too frail for the job.

I'd be a little careful with those designations. Afaik, primitive societies generally separated the leadership from the priesthood - though I don't say there can't have been exceptions. In the South American civilizations, governance and religion were closely overlapped, as they were in ancient Egypt - but that's already a complex organization whose administration requires multiple skills and layers of personnel.

this would be a simple savage scenario devoid of the inertia that a "whole belief system " would impose. At what developmental point in the human past would a whole belief system, an ideology, take hold?

Why do you suppose people with a savage and direct solution to one particular problem (succession of leadership) lack a belief system? In order to carry out an act so drastic as killing the revered leader, one must have pretty solid moral underpinnings.
Every world-view is a belief system and, though you may not see the complexity from outside, there is a whole lot of interconnected assumption and a well-understood set of rules, rights, roles, prerogatives and obligations.

A traditional king long ago in old Europe, and if the Old Testament is to be believed in the Middle East, was a king of a smallish kingdom , a tribe.

All sorts, from nomadic Mongols to the formidable empire of Babylon had kings in that same period. Though kingship probably originated in the chiefdom of smaller clans, a great variety of events took place in a great variety of locales under a great variety of circumstances, so i don't think we can assume a uniform path of political development from prehistory to solidly documented nation-states.

I think that social anthropologists often believe that whole structure of a society is integrated so that belief in for instance patrilineal or matrilineal descent, or matrilocality, or patrilocality, is intrinsic to the means of subsistence including labour and division of labour between the sexes. These in turn depend upon the climate, the land and terrain, or water. The moral codes and the god and other myths that legitimate the moral codes serve the means of subsistence which are the base from which the activities and beliefs of the people in the society are built up from.

Yes, that would be generally safe to assume. That last bit is what I meant by needs dictating values and morals.

In modern times an ideology is often imposed from above for instance communism, or ISIS, or Nazism.

Not only modern times. How do you think Europe became civilized and Christian? Conquest also formed and reformed the organizational and doctrinal development of empires in South America, Asia and Africa. Imported ideology is hardly a new thing!

Capitalism developed out of monarchy in early modern times and was more a bottom-up procedure unlike communism, ISIS, and Nazism.

How do you see the differences? What makes you think communism or Nazism didn't have some grass roots, like fundamentalist Islam or Zionism? You need a very big army to impose a foreign, or unpopular ideal.
Capitalism as we know it today grew out of the Industrial Revolution. It didn't replace monarchy, but tempered it by the rise of a larger, more vigorous middle-class wealthocracy to share power with with the landed aristocracy. For a while, the nouveau riche were shunned by the blue-bloods, but eventually, with the decline of the importance of agriculture (which is ironic, since that very same landed class had secured sources of food abroad) the numerically smaller aristocracy was displaced and subsumed.
But even in the New World, it was those land and mining and water grants from the crown that established a colonial aristocracy, which became the 'natural' leaders who organized the federation and independence of colonies. In time, they, too, were displaced by nouveau riche industrialists as the American aristocracy. In that sense, there was movement up the power structure. But the new aristocracy was just as dependent on inherited wealth and the long-ingrained deference of the lower classes (not to mention slaves, indentured servants, destitute immigrants, dispossessed natives and government-supported armies to insure their right to oppress those unenfranchised groups) quickly assumed the privileges of an aristocracy. The pyramid gets fatter, squatter, taller, steeper, more and less pointed - but its basic structure has not changed at all.

Post by **Belindi** » February 16th, 2019, 8:18 am

Alias wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 8:49 pm
Belindi wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 5:52 pm I believe that there are natural leaders.
Maybe so, but that's a difficult ability to test. In the execution of a particular co-operative project, you can easily tell who is best qualified to organize and supervise, but in administrative posts, there are no established criteria until fairly modern times.
This scenario I think would apply to hunters whose leaders were priest kings who, I understand, were deposed by ritual killing, when they became too frail for the job.
I'd be a little careful with those designations. Afaik, primitive societies generally separated the leadership from the priesthood - though I don't say there can't have been exceptions. In the South American civilizations, governance and religion were closely overlapped, as they were in ancient Egypt - but that's already a complex organization whose administration requires multiple skills and layers of personnel.
this would be a simple savage scenario devoid of the inertia that a "whole belief system " would impose. At what developmental point in the human past would a whole belief system, an ideology, take hold?
Why do you suppose people with a savage and direct solution to one particular problem (succession of leadership) lack a belief system? In order to carry out an act so drastic as killing the revered leader, one must have pretty solid moral underpinnings.
Every world-view is a belief system and, though you may not see the complexity from outside, there is a whole lot of interconnected assumption and a well-understood set of rules, rights, roles, prerogatives and obligations.

A traditional king long ago in old Europe, and if the Old Testament is to be believed in the Middle East, was a king of a smallish kingdom , a tribe.
All sorts, from nomadic Mongols to the formidable empire of Babylon had kings in that same period. Though kingship probably originated in the chiefdom of smaller clans, a great variety of events took place in a great variety of locales under a great variety of circumstances, so i don't think we can assume a uniform path of political development from prehistory to solidly documented nation-states.

I think that social anthropologists often believe that whole structure of a society is integrated so that belief in for instance patrilineal or matrilineal descent, or matrilocality, or patrilocality, is intrinsic to the means of subsistence including labour and division of labour between the sexes. These in turn depend upon the climate, the land and terrain, or water. The moral codes and the god and other myths that legitimate the moral codes serve the means of subsistence which are the base from which the activities and beliefs of the people in the society are built up from.
Yes, that would be generally safe to assume. That last bit is what I meant by needs dictating values and morals.

In modern times an ideology is often imposed from above for instance communism, or ISIS, or Nazism.
Not only modern times. How do you think Europe became civilized and Christian? Conquest also formed and reformed the organizational and doctrinal development of empires in South America, Asia and Africa. Imported ideology is hardly a new thing!

Capitalism developed out of monarchy in early modern times and was more a bottom-up procedure unlike communism, ISIS, and Nazism.
How do you see the differences? What makes you think communism or Nazism didn't have some grass roots, like fundamentalist Islam or Zionism? You need a very big army to impose a foreign, or unpopular ideal.
Capitalism as we know it today grew out of the Industrial Revolution. It didn't replace monarchy, but tempered it by the rise of a larger, more vigorous middle-class wealthocracy to share power with with the landed aristocracy. For a while, the nouveau riche were shunned by the blue-bloods, but eventually, with the decline of the importance of agriculture (which is ironic, since that very same landed class had secured sources of food abroad) the numerically smaller aristocracy was displaced and subsumed.
But even in the New World, it was those land and mining and water grants from the crown that established a colonial aristocracy, which became the 'natural' leaders who organized the federation and independence of colonies. In time, they, too, were displaced by nouveau riche industrialists as the American aristocracy. In that sense, there was movement up the power structure. But the new aristocracy was just as dependent on inherited wealth and the long-ingrained deference of the lower classes (not to mention slaves, indentured servants, destitute immigrants, dispossessed natives and government-supported armies to insure their right to oppress those unenfranchised groups) quickly assumed the privileges of an aristocracy. The pyramid gets fatter, squatter, taller, steeper, more and less pointed - but its basic structure has not changed at all.

I meant a natural leader of a particular cooperative project. Single -issue leaders belong to the category of having achieved their status. For instance Martin Luther King, or young Greta Thunberg. I agree that administrative posts require special qualities. A natural leader of this single issue sort might be an administrator in a new role for instances the right wing Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador, and Saint Paul in his quest to extend the cause of Christ and'or the Christ myth. In the circumstances of a group of hunters who have just killed an animal I'd guess that the natural leader would be someone who achieved status for that specific occasion maybe for having displayed special skill, or else someone whose ascribed status was already known to the group.

The killing of the priest king may require very little or any of governing ethics, of ideology. It would be a natural cause and effect action to kill the individual who was the main player who threatened the family with reduced efficiency.The slaughter of dangerous individuals is hardly limited to ancient societies.

i don't think we can assume a uniform path of political development from prehistory to solidly documented nation-states.

I agree and if i am to be any sort of a good historian I must remember that. However the main justification for history is that it helps us to discover who we are in time, change, and causation so we need to generalise. I accept your implicit warning against seizing generalisations, espcially as generalisations are so seductive. Athena's original question probably comes from her need as a thinking person to discover if possible in the light of the human past who we are.

Whether or not an ideology is imposed from above, or else evolves from subsistence needs and old tradition, and both together I suppose differs from case to case . In the cases of famous innovators such as Muhammad, and Constantine, there were pre-existing ideologies such as Judaism, and Middle East Christianity. By "imposed from above" I am thinking of deliberate whole policies not piecemeal changes through trade or colonisation: I mean not like Britain became gradually Romanised but like how Muhammad produced the Koran as a whole ideology, or how Constantine is reputed to have thought out the political advantage of the whole Christian ideology, or how Lenin who is called 'the architect' of the socialist revolution was in the position of creator of something novel albeit made from pre-existing needs.

h_k_s · Post by **h_k_s** » February 16th, 2019, 9:02 am

athena wrote: ↑February 6th, 2019, 3:43 pm This is my second attempt to discuss something I think is very important and I hope my form is improved. I am curious about how philosophical people think about the difference of the New World Order and the old world order. Part of my curiosity comes out the fact that philosophy has been a strictly male domain until just recently and I think there might be something missing in the fully male perspective. Like the importance of females in human societies.

Eisenhower's term for the New World Order is Military Industrial Complex. As we can see, this is a society with full employment of men and women and merit hiring that has nothing to do with family relationships.

The old world order was very much about family order. The class divisions of Europe and the occupations men could follow were very much about the family a person was born into. I am unaware of any significant difference between India's caste system and Europe's class system, except Europe became modernized sooner than India.

Those born into the upper classes having the most personal power, and more of this personal power than is held by individuals in the New World Order. There is less personal power in the New World Order because most things are controlled by policies, not individuals in the New World Order. Also, rarely did women hold power in the old world order, in contrast to the New World Order where gender is considered unimportant and hiring is a matter of merit.

In the old world order traditional women did not hold much power and were certainly denied political power, but they held a very important position in the family order of things and society as a whole. Their feminine role had a very significant social impact, that might be changing in the New World Order? Is this change best for humanity or could there be some human problems emerging from the change in how we order ourselves? Is socialism feminism, or will such concerns die when we get further from family values and more into economic values? Since Rome military men have taken care of their own but is this the same as assuring all children, disabled and the elderly get education, nutrition, and medical care?

Any thoughts about those comments?

If you count Ayn Rand then there is at lease one well known female philosopher. She preferred using fiction as her platform, rather than Socratic dialog with the reader.

h_k_s · Post by **h_k_s** » February 16th, 2019, 9:04 am

athena wrote: ↑February 6th, 2019, 3:43 pm This is my second attempt to discuss something I think is very important and I hope my form is improved. I am curious about how philosophical people think about the difference of the New World Order and the old world order. Part of my curiosity comes out the fact that philosophy has been a strictly male domain until just recently and I think there might be something missing in the fully male perspective. Like the importance of females in human societies.

Eisenhower's term for the New World Order is Military Industrial Complex. As we can see, this is a society with full employment of men and women and merit hiring that has nothing to do with family relationships.

The old world order was very much about family order. The class divisions of Europe and the occupations men could follow were very much about the family a person was born into. I am unaware of any significant difference between India's caste system and Europe's class system, except Europe became modernized sooner than India.

Those born into the upper classes having the most personal power, and more of this personal power than is held by individuals in the New World Order. There is less personal power in the New World Order because most things are controlled by policies, not individuals in the New World Order. Also, rarely did women hold power in the old world order, in contrast to the New World Order where gender is considered unimportant and hiring is a matter of merit.

In the old world order traditional women did not hold much power and were certainly denied political power, but they held a very important position in the family order of things and society as a whole. Their feminine role had a very significant social impact, that might be changing in the New World Order? Is this change best for humanity or could there be some human problems emerging from the change in how we order ourselves? Is socialism feminism, or will such concerns die when we get further from family values and more into economic values? Since Rome military men have taken care of their own but is this the same as assuring all children, disabled and the elderly get education, nutrition, and medical care?

Any thoughts about those comments?

More and more women have been taking over big corporations. They have not necessarily been any less destructive or greedy. But if you are keeping score on an us (you) against them basis, your team is definitely starting to catch up.