How did we grow from Egalitarianism to Plutocracy?

[coberst]

How did we grow from Egalitarianism to Plutocracy?

Bands of 5 to about 80 individuals generally comprised the social grouping in primitive human societies. We find this sort of social grouping presently in our closest non human relatives such as gorillas and chimpanzees. These human groups were normally “egalitarian” in structure in that there would ordinarily be a leader who was often followed but each member fit into a structure within that society wherein each member maintained equality with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges.

These bands slowly morphed into tribal structures, which typically contained hundreds of individuals. The tribe held many family groups, called clans, and they were normally fixed in place rather than being nomadic. The tribe held land in common, everyone knew everyone else. Just as bands these tribal groupings maintained an “egalitarian” system of governance. Information and decisions were spread across the whole group. While there was a “big man” he had no independent decision making authority. The “big man” obtained his status through achievement and not through inheritance. The tribe had no bureaucracy.

“Band organization is often described as “egalitarian”: there is no formalized social stratification into upper and lower classes, no formalized hereditary leadership, and no formalized monopolies of information and decision making.”

Bands shaded into tribes and tribes into chiefdoms. Through the year 1500 AD chiefdoms were still spread over much of the land now called the USA. Chiefdoms ranged in populations from several thousand to several tens of thousands. The rise of chiefdoms started about 7500 years ago. Because individuals had to be controlled such that they did not just kill people strange to them the chief had to be invested with authority to discipline the population. Commoners had to show ritual respect to the chiefdom.

“The most distinctive economic feature of chiefdoms was their shift from reliance solely on the reciprocal exchanges characteristic of bands and tribes…A simple example would involve a chief receiving wheat at harvest time from every farmer in the chiefdom, and then throwing a feast for everybody and then serving bread or else storing the wheat and gradually giving it out again in the months between harvests.”

At best the chiefs used this redistributive system to do good by providing services to the group, at worst the chiefdoms functioned as plutocracies. In modern society plutocracy is the standard rather than the exception; as is so evident to even the most disengaged and uncritical observer.

As we see the movement from social structures such as bands where egalitarianism was the way of life to chiefdoms and from there to present day plutocratic economies one is forced to ask the question “Why do the common people tolerate the transfer of their hard earned wealth to the plutocracy?”

Throughout the ages the plutocrats have managed to accomplish this feat in four different ways: 1) disarm the population; 2) make the masses contented through distributing ‘bread and circus’; 3) promise happiness by providing ‘law and order’ when chaos is pervasive throughout the land; and 4) through organizing religions and various other ideologies.

Ideology was a common mode for controlling the masses in all social formats, and these various ideologies often morphed into religion. Temples and public works were means for keeping focus upon the cape rather than upon the Matador. These means kept the focus off of the chief they also provided the rationale for transferring wealth and the necessary bureaucratic organization into the hands of the plutocracy. Religion also provided the bonding required for the common people to offer their lives in combat for the society. All of this makes the society better able to overcome adversaries in wars of conquest.

Quotes from Guns, Germs, and Steelby Jared Diamond

[Kindle]

“Why do the common people tolerate the transfer of their hard earned wealth to the plutocracy?”

This is a very good question. However a better question might be, "How do we stop it"?

The "redistributive system" is really being bulldozed through the Congress of the United States at a very rapid pace these days....................

[Devonin]

You can't have capitalism without plutocracy. I'd go so far as to say that plutocracy is just the inevitable consequence of capitalism.

As long as the capitalist system remains the dominant economic paradigm in the world, so to will plutocracy remain the dominant political/social paradigm.

Can't have it both ways.

[OpenMind]

Devonin;1163215 wrote: You can't have capitalism without plutocracy. I'd go so far as to say that plutocracy is just the inevitable consequence of capitalism.



As long as the capitalist system remains the dominant economic paradigm in the world, so to will plutocracy remain the dominant political/social paradigm.



Can't have it both ways.


We had taxes and tithes before capitalism emerged. communism also has its taxation system.

[Devonin]

I said capitalism, not taxes. What's your point?

And more to the point, if you are paying tithes to your "lord" in exchange for being allowed to continue to live on the land, that's mercantile exchange, that's functionally capitalism. How is tithing the lord a percentage of your crop any different from labouring at a retail outlet and tithing them your time in exchange for currency?

And pure communism doesn't actually have taxes, because that implies you are being paid income out of which is coming a percentage to the government, whereas in actual communism, nobody would be getting paid an income at all, simply benefitting from the subsidization meeting your various needs.

Also, how were those systems in any way, shape or form egalitarian? I'm not sure what you're even trying to say here.

[coberst]

Kindle;1163213 wrote: “Why do the common people tolerate the transfer of their hard earned wealth to the plutocracy?”

This is a very good question. However a better question might be, "How do we stop it"?

The "redistributive system" is really being bulldozed through the Congress of the United States at a very rapid pace these days....................


If we knew why we behave in this fashion we might better comprehend how to change that behavior.

[coberst]

Devonin;1163215 wrote: You can't have capitalism without plutocracy. I'd go so far as to say that plutocracy is just the inevitable consequence of capitalism.

As long as the capitalist system remains the dominant economic paradigm in the world, so to will plutocracy remain the dominant political/social paradigm.

Can't have it both ways.


That might be correct. It reminds of the adage that when the sparrows need a better diet we must feed the horses more oats.

[OpenMind]

Devonin;1163302 wrote: I said capitalism, not taxes. What's your point?



And more to the point, if you are paying tithes to your "lord" in exchange for being allowed to continue to live on the land, that's mercantile exchange, that's functionally capitalism. How is tithing the lord a percentage of your crop any different from labouring at a retail outlet and tithing them your time in exchange for currency?



And pure communism doesn't actually have taxes, because that implies you are being paid income out of which is coming a percentage to the government, whereas in actual communism, nobody would be getting paid an income at all, simply benefitting from the subsidization meeting your various needs.



Also, how were those systems in any way, shape or form egalitarian? I'm not sure what you're even trying to say here.


Well now, Devonin, you did indeed say capitalism - so did I. In fact, I said capitalism and taxes all in one sentence. I say this in case you're as blind as you think I am. But I read posts properly before I reply to them.



The feudal system was not any kind of capitalism, particularly for the common folk. Neither were the markets where goods were exchanged. You could, of course, argue black is white. It's quite possible though convoluted.



Mercantile exchange. In this respect, the commoners did not have access to capital and were not allowed access which was only the right of the baron or landlord or the church. Furthermore, they were not allowed to move out of the area. Mercantilism is based on capitalism but the poor farm workers had no capital.

Technically, communism was based on tithing the commoners. Sorry to have used the wrong term, Devonin. It must have been very confusing for you. Tithing and taxing are one and the same to me. They are percentile payments, either in cash or in kind, to someone in authority.



Where did I mention an egalitarian system in my post? Somehow, I'm not surprised at your final statement.

[Devonin]

But I read posts properly before I reply to them.


I said you can't have capitalism without plutocracy, to which you responded "There were taxes and tithes before captalism"

Your response had nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say anything about taxes or tithes in the statement to which you were responding. Put another way, you phrased that as though you were raising an issue with my statement, except that what you said is in no way somehow counter to what I said.

Even though there were taxes and tithes before a named economic system called capitalism, my statement remains "You can't have capitalism without plutocracy" and your reponse didn't address that statement at all.

So no, I'm not blind, just failing to see why meeting a statement of "Apples" with "But also, oranges!" is relevant to anything.

The feudal system was not any kind of capitalism, particularly for the common folk. Neither were the markets where goods were exchanged.Sure it was, though yes, not for the common folk. The reason why maybe you don't see how the fuedal system could be described in capitalistic terms is that you're treating the common folk as though they were actually people, and not property.

Among the ones who actually -counted- as people by their standards, the market functioned rather along capitalist lines. Look at modern manufacturing and pretend that all the machinery and technology is actually people, and today's capitalism doesn't "work like that" either. Replace 'factories' and 'machines' with 'serfs' and you can see how capitalism could still exist at that point.

Tithing and taxing are one and the same to me. They are percentile payments, either in cash or in kind, to someone in authority.Well, tithing and taxing aren't the same, that's why they are seperate words. Technically, it's only a tithe if you are giving a tenth portion of something to someone else. And while a tithe is a -kind- of tax, tax is a much further reaching word.

You're suggesting that 'carrot' and 'vegetable' are the same thing. In one sense yes, in others, no.

Where did I mention an egalitarian system in my post?You didn't. So in a thread about plutocracy and egalitarianism, your post mentioned neither plutocracy nor egalitarianism, nor addressed anything in the text you quoted when making the post, so perhaps you can understand the confusion as to what point you were trying to make in the first place.

Somehow, I'm not surprised at your final statement. I suppose I can take this to mean that you understand how what you posted had nothing to do with the discussion or the text in the quote box to which you were referring, but I suppose it would give you too much credit to not just conclude that you were trying to take a shot. I'm...uh...hurt? Or something?

[OpenMind]

Devonin, please accept my apologies for my delay in replying to your post.

Quote:

But I read posts properly before I reply to them.

I said you can't have capitalism without plutocracy, to which you responded "There were taxes and tithes before captalism"

Your response had nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say anything about taxes or tithes in the statement to which you were responding. Put another way, you phrased that as though you were raising an issue with my statement, except that what you said is in no way somehow counter to what I said.

Even though there were taxes and tithes before a named economic system called capitalism, my statement remains "You can't have capitalism without plutocracy" and your reponse didn't address that statement at all.

So no, I'm not blind, just failing to see why meeting a statement of "Apples" with "But also, oranges!" is relevant to anything.

In Coberst’s OP, the main criteria used to compare plutocracy with chiefdoms was the manner of redistribution. Quote: “The most distinctive economic feature of chiefdoms was their shift from reliance solely on the reciprocal exchanges characteristic of bands and tribes…A simple example would involve a chief receiving wheat at harvest time from every farmer in the chiefdom, and then throwing a feast for everybody and then serving bread or else storing the wheat and gradually giving it out again in the months between harvests.”

At best the chiefs used this redistributive system to do good by providing services to the group, at worst the chiefdoms functioned as plutocracies. In modern society plutocracy is the standard rather than the exception; as is so evident to even the most disengaged and uncritical observer.

As we see the movement from social structures such as bands where egalitarianism was the way of life to chiefdoms and from there to present day plutocratic economies one is forced to ask the question “Why do the common people tolerate the transfer of their hard earned wealth to the plutocracy?”

Your post referred, to by yourself in post #9, did not mention taxes and tithes as you state, but I had presumed (perhaps wrongly) that you had read the entirety of Coberst’s OP. The reference in the OP to the redistributive system is the reason for my post that you so vehemently challenged.



Quote:

The feudal system was not any kind of capitalism, particularly for the common folk. Neither were the markets where goods were exchanged.

Sure it was, though yes, not for the common folk. The reason why maybe you don't see how the fuedal system could be described in capitalistic terms is that you're treating the common folk as though they were actually people, and not property.

Among the ones who actually -counted- as people by their standards, the market functioned rather along capitalist lines. Look at modern manufacturing and pretend that all the machinery and technology is actually people, and today's capitalism doesn't "work like that" either. Replace 'factories' and 'machines' with 'serfs' and you can see how capitalism could still exist at that point.

Capitalism, as I learnt in Social Science, is a productive process for making profit. This is agreed to by this definition from dictionary.com:

capitalism

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


Origin:

1850–55;



The existence of property ownership does not constitute a capitalist economy. It is also a moot point as to whether the common folk, or serfs as they were often called, were considered property in the legal sense. It is clear that they were treated as property by those in power but I wouldn’t think it was actually the case that they were property. The system in operation was managed by barons, lords and church representatives who all answered to the monarch (at least where the UK was concerned). All citizens were subjects of the monarch and not the property of those in charge of the regions of land. The terms of land ownership in those days still apply today. Freehold and leasehold are terms used to indicate the rights given to the landlord but the land belongs to the monarch in its entirety. This is still so today.

You may consider that the existence of capitalists at the time is indicative of capitalism. However, while capitalism requires capitalists to invest money into the process, capitalists before capitalism came into being during the industrial revolution did not invest in processes for profit. Capitalists can and did exist without capitalism.



Quote:

Tithing and taxing are one and the same to me. They are percentile payments, either in cash or in kind, to someone in authority.

Well, tithing and taxing aren't the same, that's why they are seperate words. Technically, it's only a tithe if you are giving a tenth portion of something to someone else. And while a tithe is a -kind- of tax, tax is a much further reaching word.

You're suggesting that 'carrot' and 'vegetable' are the same thing. In one sense yes, in others, no.

I believe the sense of what I meant is reasonably clear and did not require a comment. The definition of tithe indicates that it can be considered to be a tax [dictionary.com]:

tithe

 –noun

1.

Sometimes, tithes. the tenth part of agricultural produce or personal income set apart as an offering to God or for works of mercy, or the same amount regarded as an obligation or tax for the support of the church, priesthood, or the like.



2.

any tax, levy, or the like, esp. of one-tenth.



3.

a tenth part or any indefinitely small part of anything.







My own dictionary agrees that a tithe is a tax. I concur that the word tax has a second and unrelated definition besides contributing to the state.



Quote:

Where did I mention an egalitarian system in my post?

You didn't. So in a thread about plutocracy and egalitarianism, your post mentioned neither plutocracy nor egalitarianism, nor addressed anything in the text you quoted when making the post, so perhaps you can understand the confusion as to what point you were trying to make in the first place.

You posed a question which was, quote: “Also, how were those systems in any way, shape or form egalitarian?”

Taxes and tithes apply to both systems. Therefore, I saw no need to mention either. As far as I was concerned, this was self-evident and addressed in Coberst’s OP. Perhaps I was wrong.

Quote:

Somehow, I'm not surprised at your final statement.

I suppose I can take this to mean that you understand how what you posted had nothing to do with the discussion or the text in the quote box to which you were referring, but I suppose it would give you too much credit to not just conclude that you were trying to take a shot. I'm...uh...hurt? Or something?

When I was a young boy, there was a saying we would use – “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” So, quite honestly, I cannot imagine why my words would hurt you or why you felt the need to be sarcastic.

On the other hand, I too am having a problem understanding your first line in your initial response to me. Perhaps you could enlighten me. I quote: “I said capitalism, not taxes.” It’s not your choice of verb that I question but the purpose behind the statement. That you wrote “capitalism” is clearly written down in your post.

Initially I thought may be you were implying that I was illiterate. Yet, it is clear that I am not since I could not participate on this forum if I were. I consider you too intelligent to resort to sarcasm just because someone disagrees with you or because you do not understand what they have written. But I can tell you that statements such as this, which I have seen you use in other threads to other posters as well, put my back up and appear to be belittling. I sincerely hope that I am wrong as I am sure you know how that feels.

[coberst]

“The tradition of the classical economists, who attempted to base the law of the market on the alleged propensities of man in the state of nature, was replaced by an abandonment of all interest in the cultures of “uncivilized” man as irrelevant to an understanding of the problems of our age.”

It is my opinion that God created classical economists so that they might create justification for the desires of CA (Corporate America). Needless to say, I have never been taught classical economy in any college and university.

The gap between the propensities of “uncivilized” and civilized sapiens has been vastly exaggerated, in the economic sphere especially, because, I suspect, it serves the purpose of classical economy. If we citizens have faith that our modern society is more natural and God given, we will be less likely to cast a critical eye upon our economic and moral culture. Like the Matador and the bull in the ring, our policy makers seek to attract the eye of the adversary to something other than the cape handler.

“The role played by markets in the internal economy of the various countries, it will appear, was insignificant up to recent times...In its economics, medieval Europe was on the level with ancient Persia, India, or China…Max Weber was the first among modern economic historians to protest against the brushing aside of primitive economics as irrelevant to the question of the motives and mechanisms of civilized society…For one conclusion stands out…it is the changelessness of man as a social being…the survival of human society appear to be immutably the same.”

Anthropological research has discovered that primitive peoples acted first to safeguard their social position; the economic system did not drive social behavior but social interests drove economic considerations. Primitive people valued material goods primarily as a means and not as an end in it self. The maintenance of social ties was number one.

Imagine the terrible consequences heaped upon the social outcast in primitive societies. In such societies obligations are reciprocal because it serves both the social needs and because it best serves the individual’s give-and-take needs best.

Not to allow reason for jealousy was an accepted principle. Human passions were directed principally toward noneconomic ends. “It is on this one negative point that modern ethnographers agree: the absence of the motive of gain: the absence of the principle of laboring for remuneration; the absence of the principle of least effort; and, especially, the absence of any separate and distinct institution based on economic motives.”

The two principles of behavior of primitive societies, not primarily focused on economics, was reciprocity and redistribution.

Reciprocity worked primarily in matters organized around family and kinship. The male who, through slackness, fails to provide for his family suffers in his reputation. The broad “principle of reciprocity helps to safeguard both production and family sustenance”.

The principle of redistribution is likewise effective in matters that involve the common chief. A substantial portion of all wealth is distributed by the chief. This matter of storage and distribution is overwhelmingly important; to existing divisions of labor, in trading with other communities, taxation, and public defense.

Both of these factors “cannot become effective unless existing institutional patterns lend themselves to their application. Reciprocity and distribution are able to ensure the working of an economic system without the help of written records and elaborate administration only because the organization of the societies in question meets the requirements…”

Quotes from “The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time” by Karl Polanyi