Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A lesson for 2020?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    We have a more recent example in the former Jugoslavia. Once Tito was gone, the nation disintegrated into its former components. This is true of most empires that rely on forceful personality to maintain cohesion. Iraq underwent the same national fragmentation, the disparate elements having been held together by force.

    Of course, the biggest single example on our lifetimes is the failure of the Soviet Union once Communist control was withdrawn.

    Under the right circumstances, however, one can make a very good case for the benefits of a benevolent dictatorship, despite the inherent oxymoron contained in that term. The primary problem facing America right now is a singular lack of strong leadership coupled with a vision for the future. We haven't had that kind of leader since Kennedy.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Simplified:

      Men use "stuff" to get sex.

      Women use sex to get "stuff."
      The wisdom of the ages.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

        Didn't you serve on a USS Intrepid?





        Rimshot
        Sure did...but probably not THAT one!
        ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
        IN MARE IN COELO

        Comment


        • #49
          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

            Very, very interesting stuff, and definitely worthy of further examination and discussion. On this count:



            I'd say that what did in Alexander's empire wasn't its ethnic diversity, but the inability of his generals to effectively project any singular image of Alexander's true successor palatable to the people, while at the same time overcoming each others destructive ambitions. In the end they compromised by dividing his empire, each ruling independently of the others, and on occasion warring with one another. The ability to define and designate and secure a succession is what ended Alexander's empire. If there had been a plausibly legitimate "Son of Sikander" -- legitimate not just legally, but possessed of Alexander's charisma and authority -- then it would have been conceivable that his empire would have lasted beyond his death.



            Sounds like Robin Dunbar's Rule of 150.



            I would add that their revolutions weren't just violent, but radical -- in that they sought not just to change the economic situation, but the very nature of the men they sought to govern. Christianity is similar in that respect, in that it seeks to change not so much the external world, but man's internal nature. In support of that aim all of those movements have developed long and quite abstract intellectual and academic traditions. Their materials aren't always easy to digest and understand, so those movements require not only physical acts on the part of their adherents, but intellectual and perhaps spiritual, as well. All that requires a great deal of effort. Today's progressivism and populism, on the other hand, make so such demands. "You can have it all education, health care, foreign vacations, video games, designer jeans -- all the price of flicking that little lever in the polling booth. You don't even have to read!" It's what Lenin would have derided as "revolution without struggle," a critique which, when the early Bolsheviks leveled it, veritably dripped with derision and contempt. Regardless of who said it -- Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Friederch Engels, or The Who -- a revolution of the wallet alone is no revolution at all. If the revolution doesn't happen between your ears, it will be rather quickly rendered a farce.
            I had heard of the rule of 150 before but not paid much attention to it. It is certainly a good place to start when considering social organization. The concept would seem to lend some support for representative government as opposed to direct democracy. You could also use it to argue that elections involve too many voters and that representative bodies themselves are too large. It is actually an area where the Russian Soviets had good ideas on political organization with party cells of a few people forming the bottom rung of political organization with various subdivision leading up to the Politburo. Soviet experience unfortunately showed that the links between divisions were easily broken or ignored. That said it addresses a cognitive limit not a limit on instinctual adaptation. I'm mainly concerned with why what "feels" right often goes terribly wrong as in emotional intelligence is not very intelligent. Jordan Peterson offers an excellent example when he talks about what to do about the very real problem that 20 percent of the population lacks the cognitive ability to function in a technological society. Peterson puts the emotional answers of both the left and right in perspective by saying the left thinks anyone can be trained to do something productive and the right thinks that there are jobs that anyone can do. They both may have been right when most people lived in villages but it becomes increasingly difficult to realize in the modern world.

            One of the areas we seem to continually disagree on centers around the influence of intellectual movements on the general population. When you say that the various "isms" have "long and quite abstract intellectual and academic traditions. Their materials aren't always easy to digest and understand, so those movements require not only physical acts on the part of their adherents, but intellectual and perhaps spiritual, as well. All that requires a great deal of effort" .you are missing how cultures actually work. All our intellectual achievements are a kind of "swarm intelligence" they are the work of many people over many generation in which culture evolves. A person doesn't need to "understand" calculus to put it to work anymore than they need to understand the origins of language to communicate. Neither technological nor political revolutions take place "between the ears" of any individual. Marx for example was not particularly revolutionary he just repackaged ideas that had a long history updating them to appeal to people immersed in the industrial revolution.

            A less important side note is that I wouldn't throw Christianity in with the other revolutionary ideologies. Christianity appears to have started as an eschatological cult. It wasn't about reforming the world so much as getting ready for the end of the world. This eschatological origin is at the heart of many of it's problems such as why get married and have children if the world is ending or for that matter do anything worldly. In this way it is similar to Buddhism which can also be nihilistic from a materialist's perspective. The other revolutionary traditions you mention are most definitely concerned with material change not only to social structures but right down to what property rights you have. That property rights and social organization are inseparable is something Christianity seems to have ignored. Again who needs property if the world is soon to end.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
              They all had their propaganda arms just as the current "central planning committee" of buffoons has theirs. The willingness of people to turn their lives over to bureaucrats is little different than the instinct to have a king or savior. It is simply nonsensical.

              Trump is a board room dictator not a political dictator but that kind of subtlety is lost on people who have been parasitized by the mainstream media.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                Very, very interesting stuff, and definitely worthy of further examination and discussion. On this count:



                I'd say that what did in Alexander's empire wasn't its ethnic diversity, but the inability of his generals to effectively project any singular image of Alexander's true successor palatable to the people, while at the same time overcoming each others destructive ambitions. In the end they compromised by dividing his empire, each ruling independently of the others, and on occasion warring with one another. The ability to define and designate and secure a succession is what ended Alexander's empire. If there had been a plausibly legitimate "Son of Sikander" -- legitimate not just legally, but possessed of Alexander's charisma and authority -- then it would have been conceivable that his empire would have lasted beyond his death.



                Sounds like Robin Dunbar's Rule of 150.



                I would add that their revolutions weren't just violent, but radical -- in that they sought not just to change the economic situation, but the very nature of the men they sought to govern. Christianity is similar in that respect, in that it seeks to change not so much the external world, but man's internal nature. In support of that aim all of those movements have developed long and quite abstract intellectual and academic traditions. Their materials aren't always easy to digest and understand, so those movements require not only physical acts on the part of their adherents, but intellectual and perhaps spiritual, as well. All that requires a great deal of effort. Today's progressivism and populism, on the other hand, make so such demands. "You can have it all education, health care, foreign vacations, video games, designer jeans -- all the price of flicking that little lever in the polling booth. You don't even have to read!" It's what Lenin would have derided as "revolution without struggle," a critique which, when the early Bolsheviks leveled it, veritably dripped with derision and contempt. Regardless of who said it -- Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Friederch Engels, or The Who -- a revolution of the wallet alone is no revolution at all. If the revolution doesn't happen between your ears, it will be rather quickly rendered a farce.
                What really did Alexander's empire in was simply size. This was a problem with all great empires in ancient times. The problem was simply one of communications over distance.

                When you have a vast empire, the difficulty of communications in ancient times was such that local rulers could usurp Imperial power and would if given a chance. So, any far flung empire-- like Alexander's-- was very much prone to collapse and ending up as a number of smaller ones ruled by his seconds or underlings.

                As for today's Left, they want a utopia where they have no cares or worries and everyone is exceedingly happy. It's simply a delusion that will never happen and that in turn makes them unhappy and angry, so they act out as the petulant children they are.

                Comment


                • #53
                  He isn't in the Board Room and he is President of a country. Those are quotes ,the media is the enemy of the people. Four quotes from politicians. QUOTES or didn't Trump say that?
                  "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                  Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                  you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X