2024 Philosophy, Politics, & Economics Society Keynote Lecture :: Westin New Orleans Hotel, New Orleans, LA :: J. Bradford DeLong :: U.C. Berkeley :: brad.delong@gmail.com :: as prepared for...
History demonstrates that hierarchical polities and the periodic outbreaks of what we would now call true Communison occur. Hierarchies of whatever stripe end up wanting to take more than the producers want or can give. Disfatisfaction with the elites results in various revolts and the desire for a more equal society, so that it is more like "win-win" for the majority. The C20th saw both monarchies, dictatorships as hierarchical and extractive/parasitical, as well as commutarian (e.g. USSR, PRC).
But our genes were honed in deep time for social hierarchies, so the wolves would always find way to exploit the sheep and recreate hierarchical societies.
Has this dynamic changed at all? I don't think so.
Has the reduced scarcity of necessities and rapid technological advance changed the dynamic? To some extent. Just as "new" technologies combine older technologies, so that they proliferate through machine diversity (the equivalent of biological radiation of species), so do the number of niches associated with that diversity.Societies can fragment into groupings around particular technologies and eke out existence that for some become very lucrative, and even difficult to steal from.
However, that diversity makes it very difficult to solve and agree actions that would be good for all groups. Hence we cannot solve nuclear weapon proliferation and global heating to name just 2. This will lead to destruction, a winnowing of the global population, and even, in extremis, eventual extinction.
We are at a potential fork in the road. Either assert the "dominant society" approach that leads to conflict, or find a solution that ensures cooperation and action to ensure all the diverse groups can live with. We have tried with the League of Nations, the United Nations, many international institutions, all of which have failed to reach truly equitable results. Either we solve the cooperation problem, or...
Einstein argued that we're wired for both hierarchy and non-hierarchy. If we're all that wired for it, the long epoch of hunter-gatherer bands becomes rather hard to explain, doesn't it?
While hunter-gather societies are/were more egalitarian, that doesn't mean that there wasn't structure. Even families tend to have a dominant individual. Once group populations exceed teh Dunbar number, some sort of hierarchy becomes necessary to coordinate action, e.g. moving to a new location. This paper inducates some sort of structure and group size. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2706200/
I am also aware that while Humans had common ancestors with the ape lineages, we really do not have data on how our ancestors organized themselves. All we have is contemporary humans societies to make inferences.
I'm not denying the circumstantial or even psychological need for hierarchy. I'm questioning the hypothesis that ancient genetics somehow impose narrow options. (I'm also not sure how many households are heavily dominated by single residents.)
Are we back to the nature vs nurture debate? Purely anecdotally, when the search for ESA's next astronaut was televised, one lesson that was noted was that a team deemed equal needed someone to lead to be effective. That isn't hardwired in, but is learned. More generally, apes also use a mix of genetic predisposition and culture (learning) that results in social hierarchies, whether chimpanzees, bonobos, or gorillas. Human cognition helps in being specific about organization, whether leaders are assigned temporarily for tasks or permanently, such as inherited monarchies.
Is not the social theory that is presented excessively influenced by the technological determinism of Marx and Engels? The Chinese invented gunpowder and the compass centuries before they were ‘re-invented’ in Europe, but no age of gunpowder and transoceanic conquest came from China. This suggest a degree of autonomy of the social-political order from its underlying technological basis that is (much) larger than the narrative seems to allow.
In extrapolating the future of the world economy you seem to ignore a recent development that is truly unprecedented in human history, namely, demographic depression unrelated to catastrophic events. This should have also implications for the pace of technological development, also bearing in mind that, to put it mildly, even in modern times not all societies have proven equally adept at promoting technological progress and technology adoption.
"Looking out at you, audience, I think that had you lived in that age you, like, me would be frantically trying to sign up as one of those tame accountants, propagandists, or bureaucrats, for few among us are sufficiently gym rat-like to have done well marching the Spanish Road in the Tercio de Flandes to join the army of Alessandro di Parma."
Had we lived in that age, many of us (well, at least those who survived illness and malnutrition) would undoubtedly been much more gym rat-like than the audience you were looking at. I expect from that audience, quite a few would have ended up as subleaders or functionaries in armies. Let us not overlook the effort and persistence that gated entrance into that audience.
Brad, “What useful analogies can come from a culture where the belief that slaves should be grateful to be slaves—for, except for the accidents and injustices of history and fortune, slaves are slaves by nature—goes without question? For that was, overwhelmingly, the attitude of the élite gang.”
This is actually a very useful analogy—this is exactly how it often is between bosses and workers in big corporations and small businesses (i.e. run by the capitalists). Have you read Sohrab Ahmari’s “Tyranny, Inc.: How Private Power Crushed American Liberty—and What to Do About It”?
From the back cover: "Over the past two generations, U.S. leaders deregulated big business on the faith that it would yield a better economy and a freer society. But the opposite happened. Americans lost stable, well-paying jobs, Wall Street dominated industry to the detriment of the middle class and local communities, and corporations began to subject us to total surveillance, even dictating what we are, and aren’t, allowed to think. The corporate titans and mega-donors who aligned themselves with this vision knew exactly what they were getting: perfect conditions for what Sohrab Ahmari calls “private tyranny”.
I’ve experienced this first hand in several jobs I've had, including ones in which I already had a Ph.D. I also experienced this with my family and the Catholic Church growing up in the 1950s-60s--my father and the priest/nuns were "the boss." Since I retired, I've been reading you and other bloggers and books to see if someone has a solution to this problem. So far, I haven't found any.
Elite dismissal of underlings has waned, but what about a) self-congratulation and b) fear of falling? In a world of such lavish maldistribution, don't those two Old Factors of overclass-sustaining situations still operate, including in and on the shape and direction of technologies?
There you go again!!! 1870 when my grandfather was 10 years old. Living in frontier Oregon and getting little in the way of education. Joining a religious cult, RLDS and remaining a farmer all his life. He did help his children survive the Great Depression by not getting loans to fund joining the advance from horse and plough to tractor and plough. Mom told me he was the only farmer who owned his farm between Visalia and Tulare.
"My guess is that the relative contrast in benefits between joining the élite gang on the one hand and becoming more productive on the other is one of the things at the root of the discrepancy between the rate of technological growth now and that of previous civilizations."
This is brilliant! How would one model it? Technology as a function of non-gang pop?
The basic Malthusian model would say the elite gang costs only pop density, not income per capita. It would also say the elite needs to have low fertility, to die often in battle, or to often slip down the social ladder into the impoverished masses.
My peabrain thought, that the technologists of the era had exclusionary rules to limit who got into the club. Son followed father. That limited new ideas coming in which may have limited advance. There are still such clubs in our current society. Harbor and river pilots come to mind.
History demonstrates that hierarchical polities and the periodic outbreaks of what we would now call true Communison occur. Hierarchies of whatever stripe end up wanting to take more than the producers want or can give. Disfatisfaction with the elites results in various revolts and the desire for a more equal society, so that it is more like "win-win" for the majority. The C20th saw both monarchies, dictatorships as hierarchical and extractive/parasitical, as well as commutarian (e.g. USSR, PRC).
But our genes were honed in deep time for social hierarchies, so the wolves would always find way to exploit the sheep and recreate hierarchical societies.
Has this dynamic changed at all? I don't think so.
Has the reduced scarcity of necessities and rapid technological advance changed the dynamic? To some extent. Just as "new" technologies combine older technologies, so that they proliferate through machine diversity (the equivalent of biological radiation of species), so do the number of niches associated with that diversity.Societies can fragment into groupings around particular technologies and eke out existence that for some become very lucrative, and even difficult to steal from.
However, that diversity makes it very difficult to solve and agree actions that would be good for all groups. Hence we cannot solve nuclear weapon proliferation and global heating to name just 2. This will lead to destruction, a winnowing of the global population, and even, in extremis, eventual extinction.
We are at a potential fork in the road. Either assert the "dominant society" approach that leads to conflict, or find a solution that ensures cooperation and action to ensure all the diverse groups can live with. We have tried with the League of Nations, the United Nations, many international institutions, all of which have failed to reach truly equitable results. Either we solve the cooperation problem, or...
Einstein argued that we're wired for both hierarchy and non-hierarchy. If we're all that wired for it, the long epoch of hunter-gatherer bands becomes rather hard to explain, doesn't it?
While hunter-gather societies are/were more egalitarian, that doesn't mean that there wasn't structure. Even families tend to have a dominant individual. Once group populations exceed teh Dunbar number, some sort of hierarchy becomes necessary to coordinate action, e.g. moving to a new location. This paper inducates some sort of structure and group size. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2706200/
I am also aware that while Humans had common ancestors with the ape lineages, we really do not have data on how our ancestors organized themselves. All we have is contemporary humans societies to make inferences.
I'm not denying the circumstantial or even psychological need for hierarchy. I'm questioning the hypothesis that ancient genetics somehow impose narrow options. (I'm also not sure how many households are heavily dominated by single residents.)
Are we back to the nature vs nurture debate? Purely anecdotally, when the search for ESA's next astronaut was televised, one lesson that was noted was that a team deemed equal needed someone to lead to be effective. That isn't hardwired in, but is learned. More generally, apes also use a mix of genetic predisposition and culture (learning) that results in social hierarchies, whether chimpanzees, bonobos, or gorillas. Human cognition helps in being specific about organization, whether leaders are assigned temporarily for tasks or permanently, such as inherited monarchies.
Is not the social theory that is presented excessively influenced by the technological determinism of Marx and Engels? The Chinese invented gunpowder and the compass centuries before they were ‘re-invented’ in Europe, but no age of gunpowder and transoceanic conquest came from China. This suggest a degree of autonomy of the social-political order from its underlying technological basis that is (much) larger than the narrative seems to allow.
In extrapolating the future of the world economy you seem to ignore a recent development that is truly unprecedented in human history, namely, demographic depression unrelated to catastrophic events. This should have also implications for the pace of technological development, also bearing in mind that, to put it mildly, even in modern times not all societies have proven equally adept at promoting technological progress and technology adoption.
"Looking out at you, audience, I think that had you lived in that age you, like, me would be frantically trying to sign up as one of those tame accountants, propagandists, or bureaucrats, for few among us are sufficiently gym rat-like to have done well marching the Spanish Road in the Tercio de Flandes to join the army of Alessandro di Parma."
Had we lived in that age, many of us (well, at least those who survived illness and malnutrition) would undoubtedly been much more gym rat-like than the audience you were looking at. I expect from that audience, quite a few would have ended up as subleaders or functionaries in armies. Let us not overlook the effort and persistence that gated entrance into that audience.
As well, many of us who are less hale and hearty would've died of childhood diseases.
Brad, “What useful analogies can come from a culture where the belief that slaves should be grateful to be slaves—for, except for the accidents and injustices of history and fortune, slaves are slaves by nature—goes without question? For that was, overwhelmingly, the attitude of the élite gang.”
This is actually a very useful analogy—this is exactly how it often is between bosses and workers in big corporations and small businesses (i.e. run by the capitalists). Have you read Sohrab Ahmari’s “Tyranny, Inc.: How Private Power Crushed American Liberty—and What to Do About It”?
From the back cover: "Over the past two generations, U.S. leaders deregulated big business on the faith that it would yield a better economy and a freer society. But the opposite happened. Americans lost stable, well-paying jobs, Wall Street dominated industry to the detriment of the middle class and local communities, and corporations began to subject us to total surveillance, even dictating what we are, and aren’t, allowed to think. The corporate titans and mega-donors who aligned themselves with this vision knew exactly what they were getting: perfect conditions for what Sohrab Ahmari calls “private tyranny”.
I’ve experienced this first hand in several jobs I've had, including ones in which I already had a Ph.D. I also experienced this with my family and the Catholic Church growing up in the 1950s-60s--my father and the priest/nuns were "the boss." Since I retired, I've been reading you and other bloggers and books to see if someone has a solution to this problem. So far, I haven't found any.
Elite dismissal of underlings has waned, but what about a) self-congratulation and b) fear of falling? In a world of such lavish maldistribution, don't those two Old Factors of overclass-sustaining situations still operate, including in and on the shape and direction of technologies?
There you go again!!! 1870 when my grandfather was 10 years old. Living in frontier Oregon and getting little in the way of education. Joining a religious cult, RLDS and remaining a farmer all his life. He did help his children survive the Great Depression by not getting loans to fund joining the advance from horse and plough to tractor and plough. Mom told me he was the only farmer who owned his farm between Visalia and Tulare.
The peabrain and Gift Exchange.
A couple of basic ones.
Couples joining in a sexual union
Parents giving children life and nurture in return for care and comfort in old age.
In this paragraph, These people were the gang: thugs-with-spears, add priests.
Do not the propogandists the professor refers to include priests?
"My guess is that the relative contrast in benefits between joining the élite gang on the one hand and becoming more productive on the other is one of the things at the root of the discrepancy between the rate of technological growth now and that of previous civilizations."
This is brilliant! How would one model it? Technology as a function of non-gang pop?
The basic Malthusian model would say the elite gang costs only pop density, not income per capita. It would also say the elite needs to have low fertility, to die often in battle, or to often slip down the social ladder into the impoverished masses.
My peabrain thought, that the technologists of the era had exclusionary rules to limit who got into the club. Son followed father. That limited new ideas coming in which may have limited advance. There are still such clubs in our current society. Harbor and river pilots come to mind.