Isn’t it though? The police were created to hunting down escaped slaves. The government was set up to keep the wealthy land owners in charge (only they could vote afterall). Schools were created to meet the needs of growing industry.
I’m struggling to find anything that was built specifically for the people and not the rich.
The government gives the working class a way to have their grievances heard and addressed in a way other than starting a rebellion.
Yes, it serves to keep the powerful in power, but that’s irrelevant to my point. It also serves to make sure the little people get taken care of well enough that we don’t kill the ones in power.
For a more specific example, see unions. The alternative to unions is plant managers getting killed.
I think you just made my point. The rich designed a system where they trade complacency for the illusion of control. And they didn’t have to give up any meaningful amount of power.
I agree with you that the systems we have built keep the powerful in power. That’s what they get out of the deal.
But the point of civilization has less to do with them, and more to do with interactions between regular people. If I have a dispute with you, for example, over some property, we can call on lawyers, police, regulatory bodies and similar to help us settle our dispute. We maybe don’t like the resolution, but, by and large, we accept it.
Without those systems, I could just beat you up, and take the property for myself. You’re only real option would be to kill me, and take it back.
Similar, we can do things like vote out our leaders, or move to other places. We have options besides burning down the castle, or setting up a guillotine.
Pretty sure feudalism got started because the raiders noticed that if they didn’t steal and burn everything and mostly prevented others from doing that, then they could extract more from the peasants in the long run. Nothing got hijacked, “civilization” structured around the threat of violence was exploitative from the start.
Nothing got hijacked, “civilization” structured around the threat of violence was exploitative from the start.
It’s not a threat of violence, it’s a preferable alternative to violence, for both sides. Revolts aren’t great for those in power, but they are catastrophic for a significant number of those not in power.
That’s not why we built them. They got hijacked for that, and they need fixing.
They were built so we had an alternative to killing each other over disputes.
Isn’t it though? The police were created to hunting down escaped slaves. The government was set up to keep the wealthy land owners in charge (only they could vote afterall). Schools were created to meet the needs of growing industry.
I’m struggling to find anything that was built specifically for the people and not the rich.
The USA didn’t invent the concept of police or government.
The first police were appointed to investigate and punish minor crimes commited agains civilians.
Maybe. I’m pretty sure the context is US capitalist society though.
The government gives the working class a way to have their grievances heard and addressed in a way other than starting a rebellion.
Yes, it serves to keep the powerful in power, but that’s irrelevant to my point. It also serves to make sure the little people get taken care of well enough that we don’t kill the ones in power.
For a more specific example, see unions. The alternative to unions is plant managers getting killed.
I think you just made my point. The rich designed a system where they trade complacency for the illusion of control. And they didn’t have to give up any meaningful amount of power.
And you are missing mine.
So help me see it?
I agree with you that the systems we have built keep the powerful in power. That’s what they get out of the deal.
But the point of civilization has less to do with them, and more to do with interactions between regular people. If I have a dispute with you, for example, over some property, we can call on lawyers, police, regulatory bodies and similar to help us settle our dispute. We maybe don’t like the resolution, but, by and large, we accept it.
Without those systems, I could just beat you up, and take the property for myself. You’re only real option would be to kill me, and take it back.
Similar, we can do things like vote out our leaders, or move to other places. We have options besides burning down the castle, or setting up a guillotine.
Civilization is about giving us that alternative.
Then why are most “uncivilized” societies have more egalitarian and non-violent than “civilized” ones?
And why has every civilization since the dawn of them been about using violence to uphold the status quo?
The institutions aren’t broken. They’re working as designed.
Uncivilized societies engage in violence much more frequently than civilized societies.
That’s the case for individual/personal violence, and also for institutional/mass violence.
Civilized societies are better than uncivilized society in anything they do collectively, be it science, production, or murder.
Since civilized societies are so much better at murdering, the few cases where mass murder does happen are much more significant.
However, such cases remain an exception, as opposed to what is the case for uncivilized societies.
Uncivilized societies may be harmless, but they are certainly not peaceful.
Civilized societies are more powerful, but they yield their power much more carefully.
I’ve done a bit of googling and the evidence I’m seeing doesn’t agree with you on several points.
For example, a war in NZ between Māori tribes killed roughly 10% of the population, while the US civil war only killed 0.5%
And this report from UNESCO agrees with my assertion that organized violence appeared not long after agriculture as a way to reinforce the status quo.
Pretty sure feudalism got started because the raiders noticed that if they didn’t steal and burn everything and mostly prevented others from doing that, then they could extract more from the peasants in the long run. Nothing got hijacked, “civilization” structured around the threat of violence was exploitative from the start.
It’s not a threat of violence, it’s a preferable alternative to violence, for both sides. Revolts aren’t great for those in power, but they are catastrophic for a significant number of those not in power.