this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
385 points (96.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43950 readers
992 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, they called it that, but most of the population was literal slaves and like 1% of the population was actually rich and male enough to participate in the political process in any way. Same story with the Republic of Venice and all the other pre-modern republics, it was basically monarchy by council. Power actually derived from the masses is new within the last couple centuries or so. I don't think people realise this enough.
The British Empire started the same way, but suffrage fairly continuously expanded over the decades, whereas Athens had a tendency to slip back into a dictatorship for spells.
That's probably part of it - science started creeping along with the invention of agriculture, although it was too slow for contemporary people to notice - but don't forget Europe wasn't the most happening place to start with and had just dealt with the black death. If it was population the Enlightenment should have long since happened in China or India. Actually, I think Roman Europe might have been more populous than early modern Europe, but I'm not sure.
Same story for wealth, and most cultural explanations.
It's not obviously connected, but it shifted at about the right moment in history and military matters flipping on their head could have had enough of a political impact to completely change everything like that. My working theory is something like, non-linear attrition for smaller groups favours the side that has more mass support. Before projectile weapons were dominant the French Revolution might have been crushed like every other peasant rebellion, basically.
When the US was founded it excluded about 94% of the people from within its borders from participating. Slavery existed on a mass scale throughout the world's early, liberal (so-called) democracies, or often their economy was subsidized by slave labor abroad in their colonies. So if slavery didn't exist within their immediate borders, it existed for the people their political & economic system subjugated. The idea that industrialization or "democracy" (not even sure how you are defining it, really) came into existence suddenly isn't accurate, although there are revolutionary periods where social change came suddenly or breakthroughs in technology that occurred that reshaped social production. Those didn't ever occur in a vacuum, and those discoveries were only able to affect the social system in so far as the social system was developed in such a way that they could be utilized.. Often those big revolutionary changes in the social system were due to contradictions (compounding antagonistic relationships) within the social system itself becoming untenable. Trying to shoe-horn a somewhat obscure military "law" isn't really going to explain how those changes occurred in a realistic way, because human society is much more complicated than that. You seem to want to reinvent the wheel here, you should try reading Marx, you might find it quite satisfying.
On your last point, the French Revolution was crushed ultimately, although the new social order retained changes that were beneficial to its new ruling class. But weapons themselves aren't necessarily going to singularly shape the way in which social conflict resolves. Military technology is important to these developments, but ultimately a part of the larger social system that is always changing to either maintain itself or undergoing revolutionary change.
Yup. And by today's definition, I don't think that's a democracy.
I'd define it as one end of a continuum of incentives for leadership. In a modern democracy, pissing off the voting public is a guaranteed lose condition. In North Korea all that matters is keeping the the people just below you loyal and the people just above you happy (yes, I see your domain, no, I don't want to hear your conspiracy theories right now, I'm having another conversation). Kim Jong Un doesn't need to care if his people are starving as long as his generals keep their soldiers in check for him, who will in turn keep the civilians in check. Maybe he does, I think some dictators do, but he doesn't have to.
Agreed, it didn't happen suddenly at all. It took centuries of both reform and revolution and counter-revolution. But, it did happen unexpectedly after a lot of the same, and I fear it going away again if I don't know why it's here.
Also, I'm not sure if industrialisation is connected to the growth of ideologies, although I suspect it based on timing and certain shared ideas.
Agreed. That's the only variable I can find from the last 2 centuries that didn't exist anywhere in the preceding 50 centuries or so, though, at least to date. My next best guess is that the awareness of progress itself fueled it.