An Essay on Civilization

[Anashtih]

It's partly political in nature, but I'm putting it here because it contains a lot of philosophy and even a bit of psychology. It's an essay I wrote last year when I was bored. I'm only 17, and it's not the best, but could you tell me what you think?
Oh, and I think I might've been a wee bit messed up when I wrote the last couple paragraphs. I don't remember :lol:

By nature, every government, church, and ruler is fundamentally flawed. The very concept of order that man has tried to achieve since the dawn of time is precisely that which prevents its realization. The irony of this situation, however, falls upon the deaf ears of those who mock and ridicule any form of human diversity.
These are the men who have gone down in history as great kings, beloved monarchs, respected conquerors, and admired leaders; the men we have to thank for the militaristic imperialism that has established every power-hungry nation in history. Only a handful of these nations have survived, the vast majority having crumbled beneath the indomitable weight of pure human indifference, but the few that have remained have stagnated, gorging on power, wealth, and land stolen from weaker nations. These few have survived through mainly two methods. The first, far simpler and far easier is fear. For a while, it is very useful, but it always falls in the end. The second, a far more devious plan, is through decades of conditioning.
Its introduction into social interaction has, for the most part, been far more insidious than one might have expected, but its main weakness is that it always starts the same way: a promise of freedom. Even as the last propaganda-laden words flow from the /tyrant’s/ mouth, the seeds of hope in equality begins to sow themselves into the minds of the gullible audience. Over a course of years, the last vestiges of individuality are replaced with a blind, unwavering loyalty to a cause that this pathetic husk of a man has never and will never understand. In the end, all that remains is a drone, one ant among a million, a population of obedient servants who revel in the mindless bliss of servitude from which there can be no return.
The Earth of Brave New World or 1984 is not so disturbing because of any inherent quality, but because when an intelligent person reads of it, he will draw parallels between those worlds and ours. The America of today may not be ruled by Soma, and the United Kingdoms may not encourage the sexual experimentation of children, but the truth is that those worlds are closer than you think. Even as 1984’s protagonist hides from the sensors that dot his house, like that of any other, your average American citizen may be spied upon the government through his phone or computer, all because of a wonderful piece of legislation, known as the Patriot Act. /It’s for your own good/.
Even now, our “civilized” government employs torture upon suspected terrorists, almost all of whom are immigrants from the Middle East, and some of which are imprisoned for that reason only. Meanwhile, every true American grieves for the several thousand civilians killed in the undoubtedly brutal attacks on September 11th, but never gives a thought to the several hundred thousand killed at 8:30 in the morning, in two of most populated cities in Japan, or even the firebombing of the exclusively civilian target of Dresden, Germany, in World War II. Granted, these are events of the past, but wasn’t 9/11 an event of the past twenty-four hours after it occurred? Even recently, horror tales can reach those who are willing to listen. From the thousands of civilians killed in Vietnam, the civilian casualties in El Salvador, the mistreated inmates at Abu Ghraib, and the Iraqi women and children slaughtered, all for “freedom”.
Is this truly freedom? As you sit in your armchair after grabbing your government-paid paycheck, watching the news about the latest news about some poor little kidnapped white girl, do you feel liberated? Content knowing in the back of your mind that for every story you hear about some poor white darling, several stories are ignored, simply because of the bigotry and racism so prevalent in this country?
Even the 1st Amendment no longer protects you, thanks to the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Smith Act, and the Patriot Act, not to mention the fact that if the government wants you, you’re theirs, whether you deserve it or not. Not even the grace of an angel could save you once you’ve fallen into the fell clutches of “Homeland Security”. Does anyone else hear a ring of “Gestapo”?
There have always been politicians who have told you how and what to think. I will do none of that. I simply present the facts, and leave them to you to interpret as you will. In my opinion, no man has ever gotten the whole of the truth completely out, but by the various literature of many authors we can piece it together.
Nietzsche was closest, most probably, along with Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. These men, particularly the former, realized that the problem with society is that society itself is the problem. Whenever men band together, the mob rules and terror ensues. I wonder how many quaint village folk have attacked innocent Iraqis, as opposed to poor, misunderstood Frankenstein?
For oh so long, America has been considered the haven of the free, but in truth it is naught but a haven of the stupid, corrupt, and blind. The problem is government. Not the government; any government. No group can ever rule in a completely fair way; it is impossible. The only thing that will help is the destruction of this so-called order, and pave the way or a new era of peace.
Believe me or not, I don’t care. But if you get even a grain of wisdom from this, share it. In time, maybe we can shake off the chains of mindless servitude.

[mykittyhasaboner]

"For oh so long, America has been considered the haven of the free, but in truth it is naught but a haven of the stupid, corrupt, and blind."-this makes a great quote, and great essay comrade!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Anashtih, thanks for this, but I am not sure it belongs in Philosophy. I think it would be more at home in Theory.

[Anashtih]

Alright, thanks.

[ckaihatsu]

It's partly political in nature, but I'm putting it here because it contains a lot of philosophy and even a bit of psychology. It's an essay I wrote last year when I was bored. I'm only 17, and it's not the best, but could you tell me what you think?

Oh, and I think I might've been a wee bit messed up when I wrote the last couple paragraphs. I don't remember


Hi, I'd be glad to go through this essay because it deals foremostly with the issue of civilization, which to me is the crux of politics, and of class struggle. It's an excellent topic to be examined by teens, and then throughout the rest of one's life.



By nature, every government, church, and ruler is fundamentally flawed. The very concept of order that man has tried to achieve since the dawn of time is precisely that which prevents its realization. The irony of this situation, however, falls upon the deaf ears of those who mock and ridicule any form of human diversity.


This thesis of yours is too black-and-white -- by terming the institutions of social order as "fundamentally flawed" you're invoking an almost religious approach to the topic of civilization, introducing a damnation as wholesale as "original sin" -- this blanket pessimism colors your entire essay.

I will not posit that human society has been either 'orderly' or 'chaotic' -- both are idealistic descriptions that are each too crude to be of service in describing human society in one word. In dealing with such broad, sweeping spans of time and populations the closest we can get to a description, in a general sense, is to say that societies have been 'complex'. This is a middle ground between 'order' and 'chaos', and to approach any more accuracy we have to deal with specifics, and then reach conclusions on those specifics.

I have developed a framework with which to examine history, and I hope you may find it helpful:

History, Macro-Micro
http://tinyurl.com/2dafgr


Also, I'd like to introduce an excerpt from Harman's _A People's History of the World_, which I find to be an invaluable resource. This deals with the point in human history when feudalism began to give way to mercantilism, freeing up human labor into a new mobility. Both the feudal system and the emerging mercantilist system could both be described as 'orderly' -- they could both be described as 'fundamentally flawed' as well.

What did change for the better -- to address your allusion to human diversity -- is that the freeing up of labor from fixed lands allowed for more mobility and intermixing. We can point to this as being a solid qualitative development in human history.




Harman, _A People's History of the World_, chapter 3, "The Birth Pangs of a New Order", p. 199
http://www.istendency.net/pdf/4_03_birth_pangs.pdf

This does not mean that the Bohemian estates stood in some crude way for ‘capitalism’ or the ‘bourgeoisie’ against feudalism. The estates represented three layers of society—not only the burghers, but also (and with more influence than them) the two feudal groupings of the great lords and the knights. Even the burghers’ representatives
were not wholly bourgeois, since they often owned land which they ran along feudal lines. But as Polisensky has shown, changes were taking place which undermined the feudal character of rural life in areas of Bohemia. Many landowners, nobles and burghers were replacing serf labour or rent in kind by fixed money rents, growing industrial crops, and encouraging the growth of small towns and forms of handicraft production on their lands. There was an incentive to improve methods of production in agriculture and industry, and a spread of ‘free’ wage labour. The unfree labour a peasant had to provide could be as low as one day a year. Feudalism was far from finished across Bohemia as a whole. But there was a compromise between it and new, embryonically capitalist, forms of production. As Polisensky puts it, ‘The whole great edifice of feudal obligation, both personal and occupational, was being undermined by a series of pressures which tended in their different ways to liberate production from its fetters’.92 The result was that Bohemia was economically dynamic and did not suffer, at least until the 1590s, the economic stagnation and peasant impoverishment of the adjoining German lands.

The estates system of government, with its careful balancing of different interests and religious tolerance, provided a framework within which such economic change could occur slowly and peacefully. Members of all three estates could see reasons to defend a structure which allowed them to coexist peacefully and profitably. Even some of the greatest feudal magnates found themselves resisting forces which aimed to drive all of Europe back to feudalism.




These are the men who have gone down in history as great kings, beloved monarchs, respected conquerors, and admired leaders; the men we have to thank for the militaristic imperialism that has established every power-hungry nation in history. Only a handful of these nations have survived, the vast majority having crumbled beneath the indomitable weight of pure human indifference, but the few that have remained have stagnated, gorging on power, wealth, and land stolen from weaker nations. These few have survived through mainly two methods. The first, far simpler and far easier is fear. For a while, it is very useful, but it always falls in the end. The second, a far more devious plan, is through decades of conditioning.


In this paragraph you're relying too much on the "great men" approach to history. Yes, history has been very much driven by towering personalities installed in positions of great influence and command, but at the same time they could not have commanded such great power without there being a condition in society which enabled it to happen.

Imperialism itself is a stage that only advanced capitalist nations can attain -- before the development of sufficient capital a nation may be a colonizing nation, but at that point in development the economic dynamic is very different -- the exploitation of human and natural resources from its colonies leads into a 'primitive accumulation of capital' -- building up enough of a pool of capital to enable industry, and then *later*, finance-based imperialism and militarism.

Many less-developed, "weaker" nations did not crumble due to indifference, but rather because they were *conquered* by superior military and economic force. A government's use of fear and conditioning are actually measures of last resort, used over more independent, prosperous populations -- if a country can simply roll in with its tanks and cheap goods it does -- it wouldn't *have* to use sophisticated means.



Its introduction into social interaction has, for the most part, been far more insidious than one might have expected, but its main weakness is that it always starts the same way: a promise of freedom. Even as the last propaganda-laden words flow from the /tyrant’s/ mouth, the seeds of hope in equality begins to sow themselves into the minds of the gullible audience. Over a course of years, the last vestiges of individuality are replaced with a blind, unwavering loyalty to a cause that this pathetic husk of a man has never and will never understand. In the end, all that remains is a drone, one ant among a million, a population of obedient servants who revel in the mindless bliss of servitude from which there can be no return.


This "promise of freedom" postulate is also too crude. Again you're looking at the condition of countries in their more advanced stages, after many more primitive stages have been superseded -- a nation must resort to propaganda that targets the individual because there is nothing else left to promise -- the citizens of more-economically-primitive countries would first be fed propaganda that promised national liberation, or ethnic liberation, or later on, protectionist terms for its manufacturing industries.

The realm inhabited by tyrants and individuals is one which is very industrialized and either First World or very close to it. The term 'drone' brings to mind assembly-line production, with its division of labor into regularized roles with interchangeable labor participants.

You're also being very dismissive of the roles that working people can play, in terms of organized rebellion -- you use the term "a population of obedient servants who revel in the mindless bliss of servitude from which there can be no return." By using this characterization *you're* being one person who is using a fatalistic attitude to dehumanize the masses of any potential for resistance and self-liberation.



The Earth of Brave New World or 1984 is not so disturbing because of any inherent quality, but because when an intelligent person reads of it, he will draw parallels between those worlds and ours. The America of today may not be ruled by Soma, and the United Kingdoms may not encourage the sexual experimentation of children, but the truth is that those worlds are closer than you think. Even as 1984’s protagonist hides from the sensors that dot his house, like that of any other, your average American citizen may be spied upon the government through his phone or computer, all because of a wonderful piece of legislation, known as the Patriot Act. /It’s for your own good/.
Even now, our “civilized” government employs torture upon suspected terrorists, almost all of whom are immigrants from the Middle East, and some of which are imprisoned for that reason only. Meanwhile, every true American grieves for the several thousand civilians killed in the undoubtedly brutal attacks on September 11th, but never gives a thought to the several hundred thousand killed at 8:30 in the morning, in two of most populated cities in Japan, or even the firebombing of the exclusively civilian target of Dresden, Germany, in World War II. Granted, these are events of the past, but wasn’t 9/11 an event of the past twenty-four hours after it occurred? Even recently, horror tales can reach those who are willing to listen. From the thousands of civilians killed in Vietnam, the civilian casualties in El Salvador, the mistreated inmates at Abu Ghraib, and the Iraqi women and children slaughtered, all for “freedom”.


You raise valuable political points here -- certainly I agree that capitalism has long exhausted its progressiveness, and for centuries has been merely exploitative and going in circles, politically. Dystopian tales like _1984_ and _Brave New World_ will always have a current relevance as long as we continue to live in post-manufacturing, imperial-finance conditions. In lieu of political progress to truly democratic, demand-based consumption, we have layers of parasitic administration and management above us, not only adding no real value to the economy but actually siphoning off and expropriating real value. In earlier times capitalists could at least be said to have built up factories and other investments that -- through exploiting labor -- led to the production of tangible goods. Capitalism these days, in the developed Western countries, is almost entirely parasitic, either destroying people's lives abroad and within, or else hollowing out investments and stripping assets -- only a resistance from organized labor and its mass political expression will be sufficient to stop the rampage and have any hope to move society along to a better place.



Is this truly freedom? As you sit in your armchair after grabbing your government-paid paycheck, watching the news about the latest news about some poor little kidnapped white girl, do you feel liberated? Content knowing in the back of your mind that for every story you hear about some poor white darling, several stories are ignored, simply because of the bigotry and racism so prevalent in this country?


Good point here. I especially appreciate your noticing of the political pay-off in exchange for service / loyalty to the ideology and status quo of nationalism.



Even the 1st Amendment no longer protects you, thanks to the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Smith Act, and the Patriot Act, not to mention the fact that if the government wants you, you’re theirs, whether you deserve it or not. Not even the grace of an angel could save you once you’ve fallen into the fell clutches of “Homeland Security”. Does anyone else hear a ring of “Gestapo”?


The logic of nationalism requires an "us-versus-them" mentality. Whenever the nation-state encounters its latest crisis -- measurable through its implosion of credit -- the starkest issues / problems of its existence come to the fore, like its borders / immigration policy. It requires fresh blood, new pools of cheap labor to exploit, if it is to have any chance of re-infusing value into its monetary system, but at the same time its deeply reactionary political identity prevents it from welcoming outsiders with open arms.



There have always been politicians who have told you how and what to think. I will do none of that. I simply present the facts, and leave them to you to interpret as you will. In my opinion, no man has ever gotten the whole of the truth completely out, but by the various literature of many authors we can piece it together.

Nietzsche was closest, most probably, along with Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. These men, particularly the former, realized that the problem with society is that society itself is the problem. Whenever men band together, the mob rules and terror ensues. I wonder how many quaint village folk have attacked innocent Iraqis, as opposed to poor, misunderstood Frankenstein?


Here your unwarranted pessimism shows itself again. You blithely equate society to a pitchforks-and-torches mob, when I'm sure you realize that human society has been able to make enormous gains in culture, art, science, and even humaneness because of its development of the productive forces. The modern civilizations that First World countries have produced are a marvel to behold, and to live in, if one has the means. More millions have been able to live enlightened, self-realized lives than would have been possible if we still lived basic lives under the feudal system. The potential for travel is the only argument I would need to make here.

At the same time I understand the dark side of the modern era -- yes, an imperialist society will send provincial types of its citizens out to fight its wars in foreign lands, so I don't mean to apologize for the horrors of the modern nation-state. You seem to be saying that if people simply lived in villages there would only be a sole outcast, or scapegoat, like Frankenstein's monster, as opposed to the genocide we see meted out by current, mercenary-type armies.



For oh so long, America has been considered the haven of the free, but in truth it is naught but a haven of the stupid, corrupt, and blind. The problem is government. Not the government; any government. No group can ever rule in a completely fair way; it is impossible. The only thing that will help is the destruction of this so-called order, and pave the way or a new era of peace.

Believe me or not, I don’t care. But if you get even a grain of wisdom from this, share it. In time, maybe we can shake off the chains of mindless servitude.
__________________
And thus I clothe my naked villainy with old ends, stolen forth from holy writ, and seem a saint, when most I play the devil.


First World countries like the U.S. *have* been a haven for many -- Europe became so riven with the conflicts that arose out of a lack of a globalization policy that the U.S. served as a sort of pressure-release, at least for awhile. I just saw an excellent movie, "Sweet Land", which does a superb job at illustrating some of the freedom (and challenges) experienced by earlier generations emigrating from Europe.

On this last part you're revealing your anarchistic tendencies -- I would strongly disagree with you that *any* government is problematic. Certainly any capitalist government is problematic, but the only force which can overcome capital and nations is the international working class. A government based on the cooperation of global labor would easily smash the exploitation of its own and would free up the hampered productive forces to work for the good of humanity, tending to the fulfillment of human need, rather than the ever-spiralling accumulation of capital for its own sake.

I'd like to quickly point out that that's what the mechanism of capitalism does -- it is *very* good at accumulating reserves of capital for investment purposes -- early on this was a relatively progressive thing which allowed large-scale industries and mass production to form, producing for mass markets. But the mechanism is stuck in that one mode, and so it endlessly, mindlessly exploits labor and accumulates capital, even when there is no progressive application for all that capital.

There's nothing wrong with playing "devil's advocate" as long as you understand both (or all) sides of the situation you're participating in. Thanks for sharing the essay -- all the best with the rest of your political development.


Chris





--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, labourstart.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Anashtih]

Finally someone criticizing it. I truly do appreciate it. One of my main goals is to improve my writing, and that won't happen if people don't point out the issues as bluntly as possible. If I may, though, I'd like to respond to a few of your points.
Foremost would be this one:

Here your unwarranted pessimism shows itself again. You blithely equate society to a pitchforks-and-torches mob, when I'm sure you realize that human society has been able to make enormous gains in culture, art, science, and even humaneness because of its development of the productive forces. The modern civilizations that First World countries have produced are a marvel to behold, and to live in, if one has the means. More millions have been able to live enlightened, self-realized lives than would have been possible if we still lived basic lives under the feudal system. The potential for travel is the only argument I would need to make here.
You're probably right, but the "pitchforks-and-torches mob" is all I've ever really encountered around me. The community I live in is 5,000 people in Kentucky. I've encountered levels of racism, sexism, and homophobia that have almost made me sick. On top of that, I've been ridiculed for years for the fact that I have Tourette's Syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or that I have a tendency to act awkwardly in social situations. So I might be wrong, and I might underestimate the good people, but I guess it's hard for me not to.


This thesis of yours is too black-and-white -- by terming the institutions of social order as "fundamentally flawed" you're invoking an almost religious approach to the topic of civilization, introducing a damnation as wholesale as "original sin" -- this blanket pessimism colors your entire essay.
I'd like to elaborate on the point I made a bit. The reason that I said every organized institution is fundamentally flawed is that it is made up of people, and more than anything else, people are susceptible to greed. Even the greatest leader has made, and will make mistakes based on a desire for personal gain. That's a reason I'm a leftist: I believe that any large amount of power placed in the hands of an individual is dangerous because no person is immune to something all humans experience. Fascism is a prime example of this, as is capitalism. Theocracy, however, is on a different level, as I can only imagine the pride and arrogance a person would gain if they believed themselves to be the product of Divine Mandate.


Imperialism itself is a stage that only advanced capitalist nations can attain -- before the development of sufficient capital a nation may be a colonizing nation, but at that point in development the economic dynamic is very different -- the exploitation of human and natural resources from its colonies leads into a 'primitive accumulation of capital' -- building up enough of a pool of capital to enable industry, and then *later*, finance-based imperialism and militarism.
At the beginning, you mention only imperialism, but you end also mentioning militarism. There have been multiple cases of militarism being responsible for the rise of a weaker nation, almost always due to the quality of leadership. I suppose a well known example would be Attila the Hun. I realize, of course, that at that time, the Huns were by no means weak, but I'd guess very few people at the time would have guessed he could do so much damage.


By using this characterization *you're* being one person who is using a fatalistic attitude to dehumanize the masses of any potential for resistance and self-liberation.
This is not what I meant to do at all. I suppose what I'm trying to convey is that there are people out there who realize there is a problem and are willing to get involved in fixing it, and the people who don't desire freedom because they think they already have it. I'm not sure how many of these people could ever be convinced otherwise.

One thing I failed to mention was that fascism and capitalism present serious problems because they are so focused on preserving the status quo once a certain point has been reached. Brave New World shows this. The people have no conflict in their lives. They create sports equipment to play with, and play sports to use the equipment they've created. The way I see it, life becomes pointless if the entirety of your existence is based on perpetuating a state of stagnation.

Anyway, you have some very good points I hadn't considered. Could you possibly recommend some other works by this Harman? I'd be interested to learn more about his ideas.
Once again, thanks for the review.

[ckaihatsu]

You're probably right, but the "pitchforks-and-torches mob" is all I've ever really encountered around me. The community I live in is 5,000 people in Kentucky. I've encountered levels of racism, sexism, and homophobia that have almost made me sick. On top of that, I've been ridiculed for years for the fact that I have Tourette's Syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or that I have a tendency to act awkwardly in social situations. So I might be wrong, and I might underestimate the good people, but I guess it's hard for me not to.


Well, I'm sorry to hear it -- all I can say is that you'll need to travel and have interactions with a larger circle of people, based on shared interests and pleasures.



I'd like to elaborate on the point I made a bit. The reason that I said every organized institution is fundamentally flawed is that it is made up of people, and more than anything else, people are susceptible to greed. Even the greatest leader has made, and will make mistakes based on a desire for personal gain. That's a reason I'm a leftist: I believe that any large amount of power placed in the hands of an individual is dangerous because no person is immune to something all humans experience. Fascism is a prime example of this, as is capitalism. Theocracy, however, is on a different level, as I can only imagine the pride and arrogance a person would gain if they believed themselves to be the product of Divine Mandate.


Well, I guess I have to agree that if a person is given unfettered control, even over the lives and deaths of thousands, or millions, of others, then the temptation to run roughshod over those people's lives would probably be too great to resist.

The types of societies you list: fascism, capitalism, theocracy, monarchy, are all based on elite rule of differing sorts -- the point of being a leftist is to organize and fight for a society that transcends elitist rule.



At the beginning, you mention only imperialism, but you end also mentioning militarism. There have been multiple cases of militarism being responsible for the rise of a weaker nation, almost always due to the quality of leadership. I suppose a well known example would be Attila the Hun. I realize, of course, that at that time, the Huns were by no means weak, but I'd guess very few people at the time would have guessed he could do so much damage.


Again, this "great leader" approach to history is bullshit -- one cannot simply examine the personages in history without also noticing the qualities of the society in which they operated. I've attached an excerpt, again from Harman, to the end of this post which speaks to how China became divided *prior* to the invasion of the Huns.



This is not what I meant to do at all. I suppose what I'm trying to convey is that there are people out there who realize there is a problem and are willing to get involved in fixing it, and the people who don't desire freedom because they think they already have it. I'm not sure how many of these people could ever be convinced otherwise.


So you're describing two different groups of people. For the first type I would recommend asking them what they think a possible way forward would be. You can tell what their political orientation is by comparing their responses to this diagram I created:

Ideologies & Operations
http://tinyurl.com/yqotq9


For the second type they are basically nationalists, in that they are comfortable with the status quo. They are used to leading their own lives for themselves and their own circle of family, friends, and associates. All you have to do with this type is ask them if they think that everything is okay with the world, or if there might possibly be some issues / problems out there that might need addressing. This can serve to break them out of their shell and admit that a larger world exists outside of their own lives. Then once they've provided an answer you can treat them like the first group.



One thing I failed to mention was that fascism and capitalism present serious problems because they are so focused on preserving the status quo once a certain point has been reached. Brave New World shows this. The people have no conflict in their lives. They create sports equipment to play with, and play sports to use the equipment they've created. The way I see it, life becomes pointless if the entirety of your existence is based on perpetuating a state of stagnation.

Anyway, you have some very good points I hadn't considered. Could you possibly recommend some other works by this Harman? I'd be interested to learn more about his ideas.
Once again, thanks for the review.


I'd suggest really reading _A People's History of the World_ thoroughly -- that will be enough for the short term, though Harman has published a considerable amount of other material.

Society is absolutely in a state of stagnation -- it has been since since the last truly progressive political development, which was the victory of the Northern states over the South in the U.S. Civil War. This freed the slaves from feudal conditions and turned the U.S. economy to a system of wage-slavery instead of chattel slavery. We won't be freed from wage slavery until the international proletariat stages a revolution to seize control of the means of mass production, thereby freeing itself from capitalism's dictates.

Take care, all the best.


Chris




Harman, _A People's History of the World_, "Chinese Empire", pp. 113-115
http://www.istendency.net/pdf/3_02_chinese_empire.pdf

Many Western writers have concluded that the dominance of neo-Confucianism blocked the path of capitalist advance in China. They have seen its hostility to ‘the spirit of capitalism’ as keeping Chinese society stagnant for millennia. Others have emphasised the ‘totalitarianism’ which supposedly stopped Chinese economic development.26But, as we have seen, in the Sung era Chinese society was far from stagnant. Non-Confucian ideas (Buddhist, Taoist and Nestorian) not only existed but were found in print. And officials who in theory stood for Confucian pieties in practice behaved very differently. Patricia Ebrey, for instance, has shown how a widely distributed Sung advice manual for the gentleman class, Yüan Ts’ai’s Precepts For Social Life contradicted many neo-Confucian tenets. The writer ‘assumed one’s goal in business was profit’, and expressed ‘business-like attitudes’, so that ‘those fully committed to...neo-Confucianism would have to abstain from most of the activities [he]...describes’.27 There was a gap between the prevalent neo-Confucian ideology and the activities of the merchant class. But it was a gap that class could tolerate so long as the economy was growing and it was becoming richer and more influential—just as the first European capitalists hundreds of years later were prepared to work with monarchic states and accept their official ideologies so long as these did not impede the making of money.

The peculiarity of China which weakened the ability of the merchants and wealthier tradesmen to transform themselves into a full-blown capitalist class was material, not ideological. They were more dependent on the officials of the state machine than was the case in 17th and 18th century Europe. For the state officials were indispensable to running a major means of production—the massive canal networks and irrigation works.28 This gave the Chinese merchants little choice but to work with the state machine,29 even though that state was absorbing an enormous proportion of the surplus and diverting it from productive use—spending it on the luxury consumption of the court and the top officials, and on bribing the border peoples.

[...]

The historian John Haegar writes, ‘By the end of the southern Sung, much of the countryside had been impoverished by the same forces which had sparked the agricultural and commercial revolution in the first place’.33

But before any symptoms of internal crisis could mature—and any clash of interests between the merchants and the officials come to the fore—an external crisis tore the state apart. In 1127 an invasion from the north cut China in half, leaving the Sung in control only of the south. In 1271 the whole country fell to a second invasion.

The first invasion did not fundamentally alter conditions in the north. The conquerors, the Jürchen, were a people already organised in a state patterned on Chinese lines and ran their half of China, the Chin Empire, with Chinese-speaking officials. Effectively there were two Chinese empires for almost 150 years.

The second invasion was much more serious. It was by Mongol armies which had spread out from their central Asian homeland in the previous century to rampage west to central Europe and south into Arabia and India, as well as east into China and Korea. Mongol society was dominated by military aristocrats who owned vast nomadic herds. They were superb horsemen and had the wealth to acquire up to date armour and armaments. The result was a military combination that few armies could withstand.34 But they had little administrative structure of their own. For this they depended upon the services of peoples they had conquered.

[Mod-ist]

Every word of that essay is completely right and i ammend you because of the world censorship act of 74AD.

As for the 9/11 quote, i totally agree with the fact that no one compaires it to dresden, hiroshima or nagasaki. they were major points in world war 2, but because we live in the countries that supposedly won, they're like air. you never spare a thought for it, but its because of it that you're alive. in no way am i supporting them, but the media revolves too much around things that happen in the allied countries of ww2. In history, we didn't get a detailed explanation of why any of dresden, hiroshima or nagasaki happened, yet we get a day to day diary of some soldier on the beaches of dunkirk, and a detailed account of how hitler and mussolini died. we just got told that hiroshima and nagasaki happened and thats why we won. no pictures of what the cities looked like afterwards, just , and these are the teachers exact words, hiroshima and nagasaki were nuked by amerikkka in 1945, so japan surrendered and we won. It's outrageous.

[Comrade Krell]

The saddest thing for America is that their political class have built up this image of America and in particular American jingoism as completely superficial and insincere, American politicians are like telly marketers saying 'God bless America, just tell me your credit card number', and the elite have to harbor this media message to the outside world that Americans are all God-fearing, simple etc. This view of course is totally contrary to the truth, most Americans are incredibly complex in their thinking yet they can't seem to escape this view which the right-wing tries to portray as Truth to the world.

[Kronos]

Anashtih, check this out. I don't know who wrote it, but some of if it great, some of it nonsense.

WISDOM OF THE AGES BY ILLUMINATI

The study of the history of mankind on Earth until now leads to the following self-evident conclusions:

1. The causes of all human miseries from the beginning till the end are humans themselves.

2. That as long as humans retain their instinctive and animal-like characters it’s not possible to have a perfectly civilized society as required in an ideal world. Efforts through the ages by various governments, religions, and monarchs have lead to the same conclusion.

3. All humans without exception are born lazy and greedy for resources (most importantly food, mates and land) by nature (it’s another matter if they suppress these instinctive characters but they’re present in all of them anyway however much they suppress it), and it’s this simple fact only that led to the beginning of the slavery and the empires (firstly, Roman Empire under Julius Caesar, Augustus and Nero), the beginning of money (to get work by others rather than ourselves), and finally the Illuminati and the monarchs themselves (to get work done from others by any means).

4. That human needs (and other animals’ needs) themselves lead to the death and decay of the lower species just for their survival.

5. That the only best life-forms on Earth are the non-carnivorous plants which gather their energy directly from the Sun. However, the plants suffer due to lack of animal-like characters (like their immobility and lack of brain and communication) which leads to their destruction and persistent consumption by animals.

6. That other than humans, other animal-species exist on earth which suffer by the same means and ends, and the only organisms remaining happy are the monarchs or the dictators only, even in lower animal-species e.g. bees and lions.

7. That the way of life is to establish happiness and justice for all (not only humans but other life-forms as well), and to make each one of us progressive and stronger through the ages.

8. That Nature supports survival of the fittest, and this leads to unnecessary fights between animal and human populations which ultimately result in the miseries of all, and the establishment of only short-term peace for another war may be going to take place for a new incumbent.

9. That if such an order prevails as it has ever been, it will be disastrous for the whole world, and a revolution is needed to end the human and other living-beings’ miseries once and for ever.


That the measures to check these suggested are by the Illuminati as under:

1. Checks to refrain human population from conducting vices through religion and laws have failed as they’re not perfect and some notable people throughout history have gone to any extent against religion and laws, notably many criminals and tyrants (e.g. Napoleon, Hitler, and Alexander the Great) just for want of limited resources.

2. That the only perfect measure to curb this situation and that which will lead to permanent establishment of happiness for every life-form on Earth is the creation of a genetically engineered life-form (thankfully due to the advancement of life-sciences) by humans which will have the best available characteristics of both humans and plants (i.e. it will have the brain and the work-performing abilities but will have the survival characteristics of the plants – to survive without food by taking energy directly from the sun.). It’ll be more intelligent than humans, shall have the power to reproduce by will (which will not lead to burgeoning populations), shall be peaceful, co-operative and happy by instinct, and will love the establishment of justice among all life forms on Earth and beyond.

3. That a genetically-engineered form should be released which causes sterilization of all animals on earth so that they produce no further resource-consumers or children as there’s already shortage of resources on Earth.

4. That whoever performs these tasks shall be the true recipient of God’s blessings for the establishment of happiness once and for all on earth and that which will lead to further stronger species as this species will be able to improve itself further through its knowledge rather than useless, futile and ever-persisting struggles.

5. That the only other viable alternative to the above suggestions is the establishment of a world-government and world-currency but that will also only lead to the happiness of a few top-people rather than for all living-beings, and each one in the human population shall have to receive the so-called Mark of the Beast as prophesized by the Bible through body-implants, war-time efforts, and compulsory ID cards.

[ckaihatsu]

> Some historical periods are so dynamic that a person who lives to be fifty years old can remember sweeping changes that have come in his own lifetime. Such a time has been the last century of the modern age. Such a time, also, began in Europe in the eleventh century. A man could see new towns rise and grow before his eyes. He could observe new undertakings in commerce or government. It is hardly too much to say that all the cities that Europe was to know before the modern industrial era sprang up between about 1050 and 1200. The population of western Europe, which had been sparse even in Roman days, and which was even more sparse after 500, suddenly began to grow more dense about the year 1000, expanded steadily for two or three hundred years, and then, from the fourteenth century, did not again abruptly increase until after 1800. The people of the High Middle Ages did not develop the conception of progress, because their minds were set upon timeless values and personal salvation in another world, but the period was nevertheless one of rapid progress in nonreligious or "secular" things. It was a period in which much was created that remained fundamental far into modern times.

> Palmer & Colton, _A History of the Modern World_, p. 23



> Roubini then outlines the further stages in a financial meltdown – the commercial property market collapses, a bank goes bust, there’s a wave of corporate defaults. If it all comes to pass, “Total losses in the financial system will add up to more than $1,000bn and the economic recession will become more protracted and severe.” Roubini’s thoughts are no longer dismissed as ravings. Goldman Sachs economists now agree with him. Coming from the big business mainstream, they totted up total possible losses as $1,156bn

> When insufferably smug capitalist commentators come over all apocalyptic, then you know something’s really up with their system.

[...]

> Could this happen? Sure. Capitalism is out of control. It’s not delivering the goods. And it’s not just in the USA. The alarm and consternation that has greeted every bit of bad news from the States in Tokyo, London and Shanghai shows that (as we predicted in World economy in crisis - The financial panic: where are we now?) the idea that the rest of the world can decouple and float away on its own from the economic problems in the USA is a fantasy. Even if capitalism doesn’t fall over and crush you this time, it will always be a threat to the welfare and happiness of workers all over the world. It’s high time we got rid of it.

> http://www.marxist.com/us-slides-into-recession-whos-next.htm




Using the two excerpts above as bookends, I'd like to make the point that the very notion of stored value -- from past labor -- is predicated on there being something in the future to put it into, to invest in. Without a plan for putting the capital into motion there's no need in the present for the stored value, or capital -- it may as well not even exist.

The latest financial bubbles, in virtual real estate (dotcom), wars of aggression in the Middle East, telecom, energy, housing, food, and carbon credits, are all nonproductive sectors -- it's basically the capitalists' floating craps game looking for a venue to play in.

So what really separates us from life on the farm? Civilization itself is predicated on substantial innovations, massive works projects that serve as "the next big thing" for rulers to use as hype and as a carrot to lead us along into working for them.

I would argue that the past century or so was about four top-level developments in modern civilization which the bourgeoisie used to ensnare millions and then fight over in their world wars: industrialization, modernization, standardization, and digitization. Could these developments have been enacted in less destructive ways, without the bourgeoisie? Absolutely.

So what's after digitization? Should we wait around to find out, from the likes of corporate raiders? They're obviously not the desired leadership for any kind of decent future for humanity.


Chris




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u