CopyRight @ 1996
08/21/94 more discussion about future methods of social organization
overall view of society past and .. fut ... Power
PECON economic models
Models models models... leave all value judgements at the door.
This is actually hard to write, because it demands consideration
of very foreign or esoteric values.
Plato described the Utopia that was Atlantis. Its population
was composed of peasants, warriors and priest kings. It was a
schematic description of a stratified society. Note that a priest
king would be far different than a military king and priest king
does not necessarily denote religion.
Various economists have offered descriptions of national
wealth and what is done with it. It has a lot to do with the form
of the society and its resource strategies. Look at from a few
different points of view, including human nature.
Consider the ruling classes of ancient Egypt. Do not forget
the lack of philosophical sophistication that would be an aspect
of everyday existence. The view of the ruling class would have
been based largely on ownership. Their view of society would
mostly relate to their class. Their view of
Consider the view of a Pharoah of Egypt towards their
slaves. It was a matter of ownership and productivity of the
slaves. What was the nature of the slaves and what was the
relationship between their race and the ruling class? The
earliest farmers would have been extremely timid. A group like
that, from the point of view of the ruling caste, would have been
useful animals to domesticate.. Their wealth included the
potentials of the lower classes of the society that they "owned".
It is not strictly a one way street. As said, the ruling class
gives an organizational focus that is absolutely essential.
Sometimes the wealth of the society was used for defense. Since
much of ancient warfare was largely family spats of the ruling
classes, war had few benefits to the lower classes. Mostly it was
a matter of who their ruler was going to be.
All military ruling classes originated as pastoralists. When
it came to subjugating agricultural civil groups, they looked at
them as more animals to domesticate. They did not question their
right to rule other humans anymore than they questioned their
right to rule goats and horses.
How about a more developed society?
Consider the views of the castes of a stratified society.
The may rulers consider themselves to be the owners of the
society or they may consider themselves the leaders of the society.
What is the real relationship between the members of a society
and the wealth of the society. Are the leaders exploitive or
wasteful of the resources and wealth of the society? How does
their leadership relate to the organizational form that is
essential to the creation of the wealth of any society? What we
see in history are a number of different situations within
similar forms of society. Most are variations on the relationship
between the rulers and the ruled. In a stratified society, the
ruling caste may not recognize any responsibility to the rest of
the society.
Take an egalitarian view. Considered from the view of
inclusive fitness, one might say that the best way to insure
their genetic survival is to promote the survival and development
of the "best" of their "group". That is to say that the superior
part of the group uses the inferior part to support their
survival, which insures the genetic survival of the inferior
part, even if it endangers their family survival.
Consider it from the point of view of an economic
conservative. All the market will bear. The wages are not enough
to live on.. get new workers. Views like that were what led to
the term wage slave. It includes perceptions of a great
difference between the workers and the owners with no
responsibility of the owners (economic ruling class) to the
workers.
As a tool of comparison, here is a description of the
perfect society. All classes work for the benefit of the society
with the understanding that the rewards of the organizational
system that is the society, more than offset the limitations and
costs imposed by the society. Leadership is awarded by merit and
drive. It is rewarded by social approval and subsequent status.
A large part of the function of leadership is to provide
drive and motivation. It is fair to say, that without the self
centered leadership of history, almost nothing would have occurred
that would be called progress. That statement just begs to be
answered by describing a viable society created another way, but
without an aggressive element. That seems difficult. What about
leadership based on foresight rather than desire or expediency?
Also, how much did the imperial rulers actually provide
leadership to the rest of the society. Since the time of
Alexander, the conquerors utilized the local rulers to enforce
what their decrees were. Often this had little immediate effect
on the local "producer" classes.
Remember, the concept of ownership is used and developed
because it serves a purpose. Ownership is a concept most
developed by the ruling classes. It is not dictated by nature
as much as it is dictated by the society. As such, some concepts
of ownership, developed for the same ruling class that created
and implemented the aggressive value systems of the stratified
society, may be as transient as the stratified society and its
aggressive value system.
Whether the organizational body is a caste, an elected group
military caste or economic class, its inclination will be to
expand its resources and control. The members of the society are
dependent on the organizational body, but they are in competition
with it for resources and rights.
What are the benefits of the society and what is the wealth
of a society? Society is the big give and take. Most wealth is
used as a tool. A wealthy family or group stays wealthy only
if it uses the wealth as a tool of productivity. Even if they
flaunt the trappings of status and wealth, most of their wealth
must be tied up as investment. Much of the wealth of the economic
ruling group must be in long term investments that constitute
much of the wealth of the society. Much of the productivity of
the individual goes to the economic ruling groups and is invested
under the that ownership. The concept of individual ownership and
free enterprise is based on the efficiency of individual self
interest and responsibility. So here is a view of the economic
ruling group as a conservator of the societies wealth.
An update of Plato's analysis might say that the society
would be composed of technicians and economic kings or what has
been called the investment class". Both farmers and warriors now
are technicians. Religion is now a technical occupation. A priest
king implies a rule with the survival of the community as
paramount goal. A military king is looking out for their own
caste. An economic king is looking out for their wealth...
Much of the investment class work as technicians. Often the
technicians that husband wealth, are not the actual owners.
Would it be said that the investment class holds ownership as a
element of the social organization.
Clearly seen, if there were not great constraints to prevent
it, wealth would just be wasted. Wealth is transferred from the
lower and middle economic classes to the investment class. The
investment classes enjoy the privileges of wealth as recompense
for responsible management of the wealth of the society. They
force economy and efficiency on the rest of the society.
Were that it were so in the real world.
We consider the pyramids to be great monuments, but they
were built to fulfill the aspirations of the leadership, not
those of the laborers. At the same time, wealth relates to
status, and that goes with the nation.
All power structures from management to kings want power
over the group that they organize. One way of doing this is to
promote worker replacability. Having occupation dependent on
technical training rather than caste aids this. It is normal for
power structures to grow and attempt to increase their control.
They follow similar rules to those governing biological
organisms. Unfortunately, the survival of the organization then
becomes the most important objective, above function or even the
good of the society that the organization is supposed to serve.
That does not even factor in the effect of human stupidity, greed
or ego. The upshoot is an ongoing competition between the
individuals of the society and its organizational structure. This
is a clean schematic description. In the real world, it gets mean
and dirty to the point that the organizational system becomes a
parasite or oppressor of the society it is supposed to be
serving. This is especially dangerous when religion does it.
So how might we avoid some of these problems. The first
problem is the human product, the second is beliefs and the third
is the organizational form as described by law.
All in all, until human nature changes some, ownership is
going to be a necessary part of our organizational form. The
competition between the privileged and the middle classes will
continue. The society must be able to evaluate the performance
of the investment class. The wealth was created largely by the
society. If the interests of the privileged classes become too
different from the rest of the society, as is the case when the
class becomes a related caste, the society must replace or
realign the warders of society's wealth. Luckily, ego is usually
a creative force and so does not always damage the ability to
lead. The results of the effects of wealth either destroy a
person or teach them morality.
Back to utopia.. Could we select individuals with great
potentials when young and groom them to be able to husband
wealth as an essential function of the society. The present
system works pretty well and is based on demonstrated ability.
What would any change look like or
serve? How would employee owned companies fit in this?
Individuals that hire their own managers to increase their own
efficiency. At that point your, utopia is all technicians,
including technicians to husband wealth. Some technicians would
be "investors", enjoying privileges, for the responsibility of
husbanding the societies wealth in a free market. It sounds like
what they say about government, but with private ownership to
instill necessary responsibility. Self interest is presently far
more reliable than "human better instincts".
The American political system largely relies on competition
between power groups to insure that no one power group gets too
much control. This is the balance of power between the three
branches of the government as well as the competition between
political parties.
How much is ego gratification a factor in the desire for
power?
and can avoid the potential
corruptions that come with wealth. Humans like the trappings of
status and wealth. The enjoy the distractions and kinetic
pleasures of a life focused on status and wealth
Anyone who is wealthy probably got that way because they
like wealth.
So how about power? What is it anyway? Wealth is a
reflection of resources and status. Does power relate to the
leadership role or to politics? Like wealth, a modern view of
power is far removed from what it was in humanities simpler past.
Power is most easily viewed in its primitive forms. The power of
the military is the power to tax under threat of death. Perhaps
power could be considered the ability to control the resources
or other factors of a society's survival.
Power is the ability to enforce the holders will and choices. Its
consequence is very like wealth
Power refers to one person or group with power over others.
It can relate to competition, giving a selective edge to the
power group. Very often it relates to a desire for control of
resources or survival in a world ruled by war. Often it is a
testament to egocentricity. In that clear connections can be
seen between wealth and power, and that power refers to both
wealth and military might, the nature of power will change as the
nature of wealth and war change.
Another change related to power is that power relates more
directly to status than does wealth. In some ways they are the
exact same. Status, relevantly, relates to reproductive success.
In any society where monogamy and birth control exist, there is
less potential reproductive advantage to extreme status. Often
status is a distinct liability to the family of the powerful. In
the past, status very often allowed great reproductive success
outside the legal economic unit of the family. Children born
outside the family were often more likely to successfully
propagate than the actual family members subjected to the hazards
of wealth and power.
Those who desire wealth and power are often going to have to
choose between that and family.
Back