History #1 :: 12-03-2020
I recently read a book that described Western Civilization in terms of the classic debate between Plato and Aristotle. (Fmd ->The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization by Arthur Herman) Before I explain, ask yourself ‘why has Western Civilization led the world in technology, economy, and food production?’
For the past 250 years the entire world has copied the things we have invented. Japan is famous for improving our designs. China has built an entire economy by mass producing the things we have created and in the process acquired much of our technology. India is not much different, and the Middle East needed our technology to develop their oil industry.
We out produced every other country to win two world wars. We discovered fusion and the transistor. We obliterated small pox from the planet. We went to the moon. We drove the USSR into bankruptcy. We learned how to produce more food per acre than anyone ever thought possible. We invented the personal computer.
Other countries have made contributions to the modern world also, most notably Scotland in the 18th century where the literacy rate was so incredibly high. Think Adam Smith. (Fmd-> How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It: by Arthur Herman) And of course other European countries have contributed also – thus the term ‘Western Civilization’. But why did the USA become the leading superpower? What drove us to the pinnacle of social-economic advancement, only to be hated by the people who have benefited the most from it?
The question can be answered in a variety of ways, but I find the “Great debate” to be the soul of our energies.
Plato, who was a student of Socrates, promoted the idea that the polis or city or state was of greater importance than the individual. The one must be subservient to the whole. His student, Aristotle, took the opposite stance, that the individual should be held above the state.
During the early years of the Catholic church, Greek philosophy was part and parcel to the dogma that grew from so many intellectuals, priests and monks. They recognized this classic conflict and without ever deliberately setting out to do so, they used the opposing themes to strike a balance in their own emerging Christian beliefs. Any time one argument went too far, someone would come along to reel in the out lander and find compromise… a middle ground. Thus the great debate served as a referee within the church (and much of the society) to moderate policy and law – the social contract so to speak. Strangely, the pagans within the falling Roman world ruled by citizen consent to a large degree.
You see, there is a time and a place for each outlook, and it takes just a wee slice of wisdom to recognize where the square hole is and where the round hole is.
An army must respect the whole while controlling its individuals. Otherwise, that army would be destroyed in its first battle. Likewise a corporation must care for its own survival at the cost of any given single worker. In the case of governance, however, honoring the individual as a sovereign entity has proven to be more beneficial for everyone involved – from top to bottom.
Kings worshiped their kingdoms and their word WAS THE LAW. In this case the individual was put above the group for better or worse. For many periods the king was believed to be divine or at least appointed by the divine and therefore kings always sought approval from the pope … until Henry VIII. However, before Henry along came King John of England and here was a terrible man. He was so abusive to his own nobles and commoners that the Magna Carta was drawn up in 1215 whereby they forced him under pain of death to sign it. He did.
The document was crude but the gist of it was to say that the king must abide by the agreements within it that protected the barons and landowners. And although it was worthless parchment at the time, it did set a precedent that was brought back from its dusty home years later, time and again in fact, to seed the concept that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
It is a simple idea, yet deep and profound when coupled to Aristotle’s theme that the individual must be honored as a sovereign entity and treated respectfully. And here there is no avoiding the fact that these concepts intersect / run in parallel with / are influenced by / Christianity. The founders of our government were Christians and deists. To a man they acknowledged a ‘creator’. So this idea of equality under the law fit neatly inside their world view as it does today for many of us. For in a literal as well as theoretical sense, we are all created equally.
Eventually, this viewpoint became fundamental to the American Revolution. For the first time in history the concept of ‘inalienable rights’ was codified. Additionally, our constitution says that these rights may only be revoked under another noble and well thought out idea, that of due process. Aristotle wins!
So the answer to ‘why has Western Civilization led the world in technology, economy, and food production?’ is simple. Our constitution UNLEASHED the common man to make his life better. It created a motivational factor never before seen on the planet. It gave new meaning to ‘meaning in life’ !
Alas, a concept is only as good as its practice. Without faith it dwindles, becomes corrupted, is forgotten or ignored. Karl Marx provided such corruption beautifully when he argued for the masses to unite in order to confiscate the means of production from the ‘oligarchy’. (Stay tuned for that one!) He wanted a utopia for the common man and woman whereby everyone’s needs are met equally in the sharing of the wealth.
Fmd -> https://www.livescience.com/42980-what-is-communism.html
Now this is Plato at his best. It sounds great…. until you realize that Price’s law shows clearly that a small segment of the population does the majority of the work. (Fmd-> https://brainlid.org/general/2017/11/28/price-law.html )
Add to that a few other economic realities …. like without capital investment you can’t start a business … and Marx becomes more and more laughable. Yet his theory was sold, adopted, and put forth into action under the auspice that ‘Capitalism has failed’.
The truth is, capitalism is not perfect. However, capitalism is an economic theory, not a system of government. People often times confuse these terms because our system of government adopted capitalism as its economic driver. When the monopolies took over industry at the turn of the 20th century, government stepped in to regulate them and break them apart. Now there was competition again and so long as we play on a level field, that competition will aid the common worker …. somewhat.
Since the dawn of time there have been hierarchies and classes of people. You can complain about it, but there simply is no way of avoiding the fact. The question becomes, how do the upper classes treat the lower ones?
Marx viewed the all of history as one class struggle after another. He believed there were those who oppressed and those who were oppressed. And in this analysis he was obsessed to the point of tunnel vision, as though there were no other factors within society deserving consideration. He opted for a “classless” society. Unfortunately, this is not only impractical, it is mathematically impossible. He predicted that capitalism would destroy itself. That too turned out to be false, yet the world wide communists continue to preach the sermon while taking active steps to destroy capitalism before it destroys itself. Again, you have to ask, “Why do these people think like this?”
Communism arises from socialism and devolves into tyranny every time, every where it has ever been tried. It is a machine designed to bankrupt the very people it proposes to lift up. Yet because China has fended off the inevitable failure of their state – not without years of starving people under Mao, millions dying – there are those who believe the Chinese Communist Party (Chicom) has discovered the way to make communism work by using a corporate structure owned by the state that manages the economy. This is the oligarchy. Strangely, this oligarchy of wealthy “capitalists” is entirely contrary to the communist theory. That is why you hear so many espouse, “No. We want a democratic socialist government. Not communism.” Thank you Bernie Sanders.
There are also those who have simply been bought.
Others look at China as no more than a “slave” state albeit using modern terminology. Ask someone who lived there. Don’t take my word. Unfortunately, those living under the Chicoms are not at liberty to report from their country so we can’t interview them.
Nevertheless, we now find an alarming number of Progressives who wish to see a “reset” of sorts. They have picked up where the Soviets left off and quietly taken steps to subvert our government in order to usher in the same communism that the Chicoms are now practicing. In fact, they are less and less quiet.
The long term strategy has been to create the circumstances necessary for a coup of sorts, preferably an election whose results will be honored.
It has been years in the making, an alliance of oligarchs, bureaucrats, media mongols, and politicians. This is the new hierarchy. These will be our masters. We have been voting our way into communism, not seeing the long term conclusion to our action. Along the way we have surrendered our rights and gone into hiding. In 2020 we literally went into hiding. I find this to be the smoke, but Covid scrambles my conspiracy theory because it was so unexpected. A planned catalyst? A useful idiot?
On Jan 1st, 2020 things were never so good for so many people. Capitalism was providing a rising tide and while the rich got richer, so did the poor. It’s not a perfect world, but by any measure things were improving in every department.
Then we decided to kill the golden goose under the guidelines of the CDC. An election was at stake.
The founding principles of our constitution are a way of governing that is as close to perfect as we, the human race, have ever come. The fact that nothing works perfectly is not a reason to discard a perfect principle. Now we need Plato again.