Devin and Andrew have been explaining to me (in the comments) a Moldbugian view of the world:
If I understand properly, Leftism is mostly a coherent single entity, pursuing relentlessly the distribution of power. Rightism, on the other hand, is a haphazard collection of folks, all of whom are opposed to leftism, and so have to unite against it, even though some groups (David Duke Racists, Mike Huckabee Compassionate Social Conservatives, Karl Rove neo-cons, and Ron Paul libertarians, to pick 4) would all of them prefer to have nothing to do with the other groups. Problem is that the progressive machine is so big and so horrible that you take the allies you can get.
I hear it. I don't like it much. Ct seems to describe an awful lot of Western history post-1791. It doesn't seem to describe much of anything before 1648. My two big problems:
1. I don't understand why we're accepting (apparently arbitrary, and tailored to fit his hypotheses) Moldbugian lines that start with the age of absolutism. There is a good explanation for why one would: This is the dawn of the age of literacy, and someone historically minded like Moldbug will have a heckuva time finding reasonable quantities of work from before then. Gutenburg wasn't adopted immediately...and took a while to spread...and so really the 1600s were the dawn (early morning anyhow) of literacy. That this coincided with the age of absolutism is very likely coincidence.
2. This doesn't seem to be taking BBdM's serious study of politics into account. Politics -- the distribution of the goodies available in society -- goes on in absolutist societies as much as non-absolutist ones, and the best growth rates/standards of living thus far are the constrained democracies (Early US, Singapore now, etc.)
I like better the combination of Moldbug, Rand and Jacobs:
Mencius Moldbug is right: Harvard is, and has always been a seminary. The religion has dropped God, but continues uninterrupted.
Jane Jacobs is right: There are fundamentally 2 standard ethical systems -- the trader and the protector.
Ayn Rand is right: There is a universal conflict between Atilla and the Witch Doctor, where both of them want you to subordinate yourself to their cause.
As of right now, the Witch Doctor, in the guise of the Academy, is ascendant in the conflict of who gets to make you serve. In the middle ages, the relative strengths were reversed. In neither case is life good for the individual.
The only thing that makes life better for individual people is the continuing creation of wealth/value through trade. And Rand spoke truth to power by exalting the Jacobsian trader, and disparaging both varieties of slave-holder who would restrain the trader.
If I remember correctly, though, Marx has a better handle on the problem:
Throughout history, you have the upper classes, the middle classes and the lower classes. Revolutions consist of parts of the middle classes trading places with upper classes.
Neither the Church of Harvard nor the Military-Industrial-Complex (as per Chomsky) are separate, much like the Church and State in Midieval Europe. They intermarry, interbreed, and together become a single mass of entrenched privilege with no need for revolution. Now, the bourgeoisie controls not only the means of production, but the means of education as well.
The only path out is to invent economic structure, and undermine the state church faster than it can keep up. This is happening. The progressive edifice is massively cracked, and no one is paying attention. Economic forces are stronger even than that Cthuloid beast...and where newspapers go now, so too goes Collegiate education within 15 years...and much of K-12 as well. Since the center of the Progressive edifice has been the ownership of the Means of Education, those of us in our 20s or 30s will live to see the day when again the Atillas are a bigger worry than the Witch Doctors.
Back...suddenly to the original point: there really are 3 positions. Pro-church (of Harvard), Pro-MIC, and anti-both. I'll grant that right now the Church of Harvard seems so large a threat that it's difficult to see it as transient. But the economic chickens are flying home, and it's not going to be pretty, especially with no one paying attention well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I hear it. I don't like it much. Ct seems to describe an awful lot of Western history post-1791. It doesn't seem to describe much of anything before 1648.
That is correct. The left-right divide refers to one particular movement of scholars/priests that originated out of Calivinism. We can trace this movement back to the early 1600's, perhaps late 1500's, but after we lose the trail. But from the mid-1650's we do see one continuous movement/social network/set of institutions that comprise the left.
The left-right divide as defined, does not apply to 13th century France, renaissance Italy, ancient Rome, etc, etc.
In broader terms, I think there are basic castes to a society that have vied for power: the merchant, the scholar/priest (they are the same thing), the soldier. I might also include the populist demagogue as another force vying for power, I'm not sure though.
The left is one particular movement of scholars that is trying to seize and wield power.
My own take is that historically a merchant aristocracy has been the best form of government that existed in the real world. Examples include the early U.S., Britain during the 1700's and 1800's, the Dutch Republic, Carthage, Venice, etc.
Devin,
Thanks for the followup. I think we're speaking the same language now.
We can agree that the left is the party of the priests of Harvard, who are the reformed (un-theist) reformed (Unitarian) reformed (Calvinist) reformed Churchmen, and who constitute a single continuous host for the memeplex since at least the mid-1600s. I haven't checked the history of ideas myself, but as an idea, it ties together a bunch of other stuff (Eric Hoffer on Marx, Gaia as religion), and the flow from pope to Calvin to Jeffersonian Deist seems solid.
They do currently seem to be winning the eternal struggle between the military and the church for the treasures gained and created by the merchants.
I don't buy the populist demagogue as a real force. Generally, as per BBdM (or Marx), that demagogue is some power-player on the border of the selectorate, and uses the populace as one of several weapons in his (attempted) coup.
I need to pursue the Merchant Aristocracy idea a bit. Probably a terminology conclusion
Clearly, places where merchants are more free to do business thrive as compared to places where they're not: they generate positive economic growth --- which is the nectar of the gods. Places where the aristocracy grows rich off the merchant surplus (all the examples you listed) tend to keep the deal going for a while, but I think that all the examples you listed eventually dropped because of some combination of:
a. the aristocracy became greedy and began to try to squeeze golden eggs out of the goose, and skimp on giving him his bread.
b. some merchants became princes, and then kept the other merchants down (capitalists don't like capitalism after they succeed).
But as we look at this...there are the wealth-creating forces (the merchants, some farmers + craftsmen), and the wealth-taking/confiscating forces (military, priesthood, state apparatus).
If you are happy talking castes, that's great by me. I read 4 castes: 1. Military 2. Priesthood 3. Merchants 4. Lower class/worker. We can agree that #2 is ascendant right now. #1 ascendant would likely be no better. And #3 has bifurcated into the merchant princes, and the individual merchants. Of course the merchant princes have used the apparatus of the state to prevent the roadside merchants from competing.
I'm a hardcore advocate for the lower half of #3...the people who might become merchant princes if we get out of their way. And I think that #1, #2, and half of #3 are all working hard to make sure it doesn't happen.
And so I worry that focusing overmuch on the #2s forgets that the merchant princes are nearly as much of a threat...more perhaps because the priests don't know how to squelch entrepreneurism, while the merchant princes do.
What a great conversation!
I was gonna enthuse that even before I got to the end -- and then the end really sharpens the Aretae attempt at value-add:
I'm a hardcore advocate for the lower half of #3...the people who might become merchant princes if we get out of their way. And I think that #1, #2, and half of #3 are all working hard to make sure it doesn't happen.
And so I worry that focusing overmuch on the #2s forgets that the merchant princes are nearly as much of a threat...more perhaps because the priests don't know how to squelch entrepreneurism, while the merchant princes do.
All plausible and interesting to me.
Maybe I'll think of something substantive I want to add, but until then, again: Great conversation!
I don't buy the populist demagogue as a real force.
I think that's a good point. The most successful independent (ie not a solider, merchant, or scholar) demagogue that I can think of is Huey Long.
I think the merchant aristocracies declined because either a) they devolved into democracies due to the ratchet effect of increasing suffrage or b) they were military defeated by other countries (often democracies or soldier ruled states)
Category a) includes the U.S. and Britain. Category b) includes the Dutch republics, Venice, Carthage.
When the aristocracy degenerated into a democracy, the different castes competed for power using the tools of democracy. The intellectual/scholar caste promoted socialism, which they promised would be a workers paradise managed by a caste of self-less intellectuals. The merchants would try and buy elections. And the soldier caste appeals to the masses with jingoism. Or get you get a demagogue who rolls all three up into one philosophy, aka, Nationalist Socialism.
more perhaps because the priests don't know how to squelch entrepreneurism, while the merchant princes do.
I'm not sure about this. Historically intellectuals have
managed to a pretty complete job of squashing entrepreneurism, in many different countries.
I do agree that merchant princes will lobby for state backed favors and barriers to entry. But is this an innate problem of rule by merchant princes? Or is this because the structure of our particular political system favors the factional interest over the greater interest. For instance, imagine instead of our current Congress, you had a Senate elected on the principle of one vote for every dollar of income tax you pay. Would that Senate create a far more entrepreneurial environment? Or would the Senate create all sorts of laws giving advantages to big the companies? I actually think the former, but I'm not sure.
Also, I think that rule by soldier is less bad than most people think. Rule by soldier tends to get a bad name because it sucks for people getting conquered, and because rule by soldier is common in violent times. But if I live in violent times, such 400AD on the Asian steppe, I'd much rather have Atilla as my king than a merchant or a scholar or Congress. And once soldiers have finished conquering, and peaceful times have returned, soldiers can be quite good as kings because they tend to maintain order but otherwise let people go about their business. The Roman emperors from 33BC to 190AD are a good example, as is someone like Akbar.
I'd still rather have rule by the merchant. But I'd take the soldier over the scholar.
Post a Comment