World Oligarchical political power

[MoreCoffee]

An excerpt from a book:

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age,
there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle,
and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne
countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their
attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the
essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous
upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always
reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium,
however far it is pushed one way or the other The aims of these three groups
are entirely irreconcilable.

The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change
places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim--for it
is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed
by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside
their daily lives--is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in
which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is
the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods
the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always
comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their
capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the
Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they
are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their
objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of
servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group
splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the
struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never
even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an
exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of
a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human
being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no
advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has
ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of
the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the
name of their masters.

It is so like the way the world around us works isn't it?

Can Christians participate in this kind of endless struggle for the kind of power that the worldly want and exercise over others?

 

[tango]

It reminds me of the saying that under capitalism man exploits man and under communism the reverse is true.

It can be strangely refreshing to stop caring about things like social class and assets, although to reach such a stage generally requires the accumulation of a certain level of assets or an unusually simple lifestyle.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It reminds me of the saying that under capitalism man exploits man and under communism the reverse is true.

It can be strangely refreshing to stop caring about things like social class and assets, although to reach such a stage generally requires the accumulation of a certain level of assets or an unusually simple lifestyle.

Another quote from the same source ... it looks relevant to your comment.

It had long been realized that the
only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege
are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called
'abolition of private property' which took place in the middle years of
the century meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer
hands than before: but with this difference, that the new owners were a
group instead of a mass of individuals. .... In the years following the
Revolution it was able to step into this commanding position almost
unopposed, because the whole process was represented as an act of
collectivization. It had always been assumed that if the capitalist class
were expropriated, Socialism must follow: and unquestionably the
capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses,
transport--everything had been taken away from them: and since these
things were no longer private property, it followed that they must be
public property.

But the problems of perpetuating a hierarchical society go deeper than
this. There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power.
Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that
the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented
Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and
willingness to govern. These causes do not operate singly, and as a rule
all four of them are present in some degree. A ruling class which could
guard against all of them would remain in power permanently. Ultimately
the determining factor is the mental attitude of the ruling class itself.

 

[psalms 91]

Only the truly rich or as you say a simple lifestyle are truly free

 

[MoreCoffee]

Only the truly rich or as you say a simple lifestyle are truly free

It's a case of eyes that see unreality. The richer one is the more likely that one knows what is true and at the same times believes (sees) what is untrue.

 

[psalms 91]

Or the one who explouits the system

 

[MoreCoffee]

Or the one who explouits the system

you need to explain what you mean by "the one who exploits the system" in what why are they an oligarchy exercising power over nations and over the world?

 

[psalms 91]

The very wealthy control governments and people simply by heir power

 

[MoreCoffee]

The very wealthy control governments and people simply by heir power

Yes, that is how wealth and power go together under capitalism.

 

[psalms 91]

doesnt matter the system it is all the same in that regard

 

[MoreCoffee]

The very wealthy control governments and people simply by heir power

Yes, that is how wealth and power go together under capitalism.

doesnt matter the system it is all the same in that regard

Yes, it is the same with both communism and with capitalism. But it may be only slightly similar - though far from the same - in tribal or family based small communities. It ought not to be that way among Christians where no one is to lord it over others and those who lead are to be the servants of all and where giving is voluntary and some from among the brethren are to lead in worship and in teaching but not in economics and property.

 

[tango]

Another quote from the same source ... it looks relevant to your comment.

It had long been realized that the
only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege
are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called
'abolition of private property' which took place in the middle years of
the century meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer
hands than before: but with this difference, that the new owners were a
group instead of a mass of individuals. .... In the years following the
Revolution it was able to step into this commanding position almost
unopposed, because the whole process was represented as an act of
collectivization. It had always been assumed that if the capitalist class
were expropriated, Socialism must follow: and unquestionably the
capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses,
transport--everything had been taken away from them: and since these
things were no longer private property, it followed that they must be
public property.

But the problems of perpetuating a hierarchical society go deeper than
this. There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power.
Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that
the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented
Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and
willingness to govern. These causes do not operate singly, and as a rule
all four of them are present in some degree. A ruling class which could
guard against all of them would remain in power permanently. Ultimately
the determining factor is the mental attitude of the ruling class itself.

What is the book you're quoting from?

It makes sense that power concentrated in too small a group is vulnerable to being dislodged and seized. I often think the main benefit of government initiatives that are notionally aimed at helping the "little man" (minimum wage legislation, welfare systems etc) are more about preserving the status quo and thereby helping those at the top. If the masses at the bottom realised they could potentially introduce a new system that didn't rely on centrally mandated currency, for example, the power inherent in having the sole right to produce these bits of paper we call "dollars" (or pounds, or euros, or reminbi, or whatever else) would wane rapidly.

Of course governments attempt to counteract such things by insisting that barter transactions be reported as taxable income based on the notional value of the items traded, but good luck with enforcing it if people decide not to comply.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What is the book you're quoting from?

It makes sense that power concentrated in too small a group is vulnerable to being dislodged and seized. I often think the main benefit of government initiatives that are notionally aimed at helping the "little man" (minimum wage legislation, welfare systems etc) are more about preserving the status quo and thereby helping those at the top. If the masses at the bottom realised they could potentially introduce a new system that didn't rely on centrally mandated currency, for example, the power inherent in having the sole right to produce these bits of paper we call "dollars" (or pounds, or euros, or reminbi, or whatever else) would wane rapidly.

Of course governments attempt to counteract such things by insisting that barter transactions be reported as taxable income based on the notional value of the items traded, but good luck with enforcing it if people decide not to comply.

The quote is from a book within a book. The inner book is called THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM

 

[tango]

The quote is from a book within a book. The inner book is called THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM

Not a title that trips off the tongue. What's the outer book?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not a title that trips off the tongue. What's the outer book?

1984

 

[psalms 91]

lol

 

[MoreCoffee]

lol

An excellent dystopian novel with a serious theme and serious analysis of the theory of government and classes.

 

[psalms 91]

and coming true before our eyes

 

[MoreCoffee]

and coming true before our eyes

Some of it, yes, certainly we do seem (in the west) to be creating a surveillance state so although we have no immortal big brother and no one party state we do have eyes watching far more than is good for us.

 

[tango]

Some of it, yes, certainly we do seem (in the west) to be creating a surveillance state so although we have no immortal big brother and no one party state we do have eyes watching far more than is good for us.

Supported by the people who endlessly chant their mantra of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". That worked really well for Jean Charles de Menezes.