ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL COMPONENTS OF 700 YEAR CYCLES
1) QUALITY OF LIFE: Average is GNP/ total population, distribution important
2) AREA: The area in sq Km or better fraction of maximal area.
3) LAWS: Number of laws and the overall respect for laws.
4) ECONOMICS: This is the study of value and flow of value
6) SEX DOMINANCE: Male dominated phases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8. Phases 6,7 and 9 women appear in positions of power.
7) TRADE: Ease and safety of commerce, ability to travel safely.
8) RESPONSIBILITY: Individual vs collective, reward incentive.
9) COLLECTIVISM (vs INDIVIDUALITY): Limited phase 5,6,7 abandoned in 8 rampant 9 major cause collapse of empire.
10) GENERALIST vs SPECIALIST: Increased specialization to over-specialization, causes collapse when trade halts.
11) Art, Music, crafts, production: QUALITY AND QUANTITY
12) SOCIAL MOBILITY: Declining social mobility rigid caste, position by birth not ability destroys incentive.
13) DIVERSITY & POLARIZATION: Diversity is valuable, polarization and fanaticism without compromise is destructive.
14) RELIGION: STAGE Phase
1 New founding 3
2 Secondary "amplification", "definition" 3-4
3 Growth, Formal organization, respectability 5
4 Hierarchy, becomes majority and dominant 6-7
5 Mature, conservative, intolerance of differences 8-9
6 Contradiction, Loss of faith, disaffection 9-10
7 (next phase) Resurgence, reform 1-2
8 Repression of competing religions 3-4
15) CIVIL CONSTRUCTION: The size and number of projects.
16) LUXURY: FREE TIME: LEISURE: Excess wealth, leisure class phases 4-9 lack 1,2,3 reduction 7 & late 9 -10.
17) FRACTION OF POPULATION NEAR POVERTY & HOSTAGE, TERRORISM:
18) PHILOSOPHICAL MOTIVATION:
1) Military The Warrior Era (per Sarkar)
2) Religious The Intellectual Era
3) Economic The Acquisitive Era
4) Social The Laborer Era
19) Loyalty to EMPIRE vs NATIONALISM/REGIONALISM/PROVINCIALISM:
20) INDIVIDUAL SECURITY, SAFETY:
21) DELEGATION, ARMS and ARMIES: We each must provide our own security, and that this can not be totally delegated. Over-specilization and monopolistic police/ military are fatal.
22) LAW ENFORCEMENT: Increasing complexity, insecurity, failure.
23) FRACTION INVOLVED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MILITARY. increasing
24) THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM: Primitive, then more complex to failure.
25) Privacy versus Public Intrusion: Increasingly invasive.
27) TAXES: Increasing. Taxes once initiated never go down.
28) CIVIL SERVICE: Increase slowly 3,4,5 jump well above 10% at start 7 dip in 8 jump mid phase 9 above 10% again.
2) Gold- Silver bimetallism
4) Silver- Base metal (copper, brass, bronze, or tin of old)
5) base metal only (Nickel, cupro-nickel, Zinc and Al recently)
6) base coins with script- circulating debts - bank notes
7) Un-backed script - bank note - etc. "paper economy" alone
8) collapse system, acceptance of money (Gold Coin etc.) only.
(note new invention of credit, plastic, electronic currency may - even probably will alter pattern)
30) INFLATION: Always up, jumps at close of wars.
31) MIGRATION: Masses in phase 9,10,1; individual 5,8
32) EXPLORATION and ADVENTURE: phase 5 dominantly, 8,9 recently
33) FORM of GOVERNMENT: Amateur, Republic, Professional, mob -Democracy, elite(Imperium), (elite) oligarchy, nominal oligarchy without real control, uncontrolled inertial government, anarchy.
ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL COMPONENTS OF 700 YEAR CYCLES
In the graphical representation of the 700 year cycle the horizontal
axis or ordinate is time, but there is no stated scale for the vertical or abscissa. This scale is primarily subjective indicating the rise of the empire and the ebb and fall of the empire, but it is a complex sum of many factors. This is a discussion of some of those social components.
We will begin with a closer much more detailed examination of the
700 year cycle, or perhaps more properly the 1400 year cycle. Each of the cycles are an abstraction of the life of an entire empire with millions of individuals. The phases are an abstraction of a whole complex social climate, with a myriad of possible factors. The simplification process done in the process of abstraction has reduced this complexity to a single word or single concept to represent the whole series of complex interaction and conditions. We need to try to examine a few of these components in some detail for the entire cycle. There are more than 50 factors which follow a repeat pattern within all 700 year cycles, whether monolithic or fragmentary, and we will examine only about thirty of these social components.
QUALITY OF LIFE: This can be precisely defined as the total Gross National Product divided by the total population of the Empire or the Culture. This is the "average" wealth that each individual has with which to live. Because the wealth is NOT distributed by an average process, it may be more of a fictional measure than what any one group of people really enjoy. But it does give some idea of the overall quality of life.
This variable can be further defined and better studied to give a
much better picture of conditions by knowing the real distribution of the GNP. Thus there usually is a minority who enjoy a higher standard of life with consumption of more than average wealth, and a great mass of peasants who are well below average. So long as the range of distribution is not too extreme the civilization is in good health. As this range becomes extreme with a few extremely rich people living in opulent luxury at one end of the scale, while a great mass of workers live in extreme poverty near starvation or in starvation at the lower end of the scale the civilization is sick or at least in poor health.
In the early stages of the 700 year cycle the distribution is less extreme with perhaps a 10:1 up to a 50:1 or even 100:1 ratio from the peasant to the King. But this is quite tolerable as there is only one king, & the numerous peasants are relatively well off. As the empire "progresses" (if indeed this is progress-which it is not) then the ratio from the top to bottom increase to 1000:1 then even 100,000:1 with the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" and even worse there are more and more of the rich for the poor to support. This large social difference lays the foundation for disintegration of the social structure.
The problem is not so much distribution of EARNED value, but of
mal-distribution of UNEARNED values. This MAL-distribution of obviously stolen and unearned wealth leads to the illogic of collectivism, a demand for re-distribution of the wealth. If the unearned wealth were given back to those who really produced it, then this would be ethical and help the culture. In reality what happens is the thieves and politician (synonyms usually) who have ill gotten values protect themselves from the re-distribution and the wealth is taken from the big and rightfully rich producers who have specialized in high productivity rather than stealing by force to obtain their wealth. This then destroys the incentive of these people, and thus destroys their productivity.
As a sub note taxation, which will be discussed later in more detail, has two distinct components: Valid return and mal-taxation. The taxes that are collected and returned to the exact same people from whom they were collected in real services are constructive to the stability of the social system and the government. In fact if the service are more efficient in "mass production" such as Army/ Navy/ or city service like water, they help. But if the taxes are NOT returned to the exact same people from whom they are taken, and are a form of "redistribution of the wealth" (i.e. theft) they are destructive of the social system. This mal taxation destroys the incentive to produce since they remove that much reward from the producer. They destroy the incentive to produce also for the person to whom they are given unethically. The recipient has no incentive to earn by the exact ratio of the values he is given without effort to his total consumption. If the person is totally supported on welfare, they have zero incentive to earn.
This comes form the illogic of collectivism, also frequently mis
-named and called communism and socialism. The indigent poor who probably deserve to be poor because of not being willing to work, demand "bread and circuses" or food and amusement. In Rome that was in the form of "dole" and free games at the Circus Maximus. It translates in today's words into medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, ADC and food stamps and free TV. While the initial intentions usually may have been noble, the results are always catastrophic. Thus distribution and redistribution of earned wealth is a tricky question virtually always mis-handled in any "democratic" system if the voters are allowed to vote themselves "bread and circuses" at someone else's expense. As a partial cure I would suggest that once it is democratically decided who pays the taxes, that only the tax payers to the exact extent of value paid be allowed to decide where those taxes are to be spent. Those who don't pay should have no say.
AREA: The geographical area under the political control, that area in square KM which is dominated by the empire follows something resembling the double peak wave used in the overall analysis. It can best be "normalized" by dividing the area at any other time by the absolute maximal area. Thus the peaks for all empires will be 100% of the maximal area. This then will allow the wave patterns to be compared easily and will allow us to compare such empires as the Old Kingdom of Egypt with the British or the Roman Empire which were of far greater absolute area.
There is an anomaly here - when the empires split into two (or more)
administrative districts, then the percent area drops instantly to 1/2 or less of the previous value giving a "step" discontinuity. Taking the case of Rome, the empire was sub-divided into 4 governmental district, two Augusti each with one Caesari nominally under them, and reporting to them. The concept was to divide the work load to allow each of the four to pay full attention to his portion of the empire, and thus provide better administration for a government that had become too big a job for any one man.
The reality was that as soon as these men free with their legions
(army), and collecting taxes and coining money - out from under the tight control of the "big boss" then their own enormous political ambitions caused them declare independence and to rebel against their "superiors". Constantine had to fight of his "subordinates" in turn, and defeat and kill them, thus getting back to one man rule once again. Simply put he found out the hard way he could not trust anyone with that much power. The good intentioned theory foundered on human motivation and ambitions.
In order to avoid discontinuities we can use a 20 year moving
average (or some other similar number) to soothe out the curve, thus cutting out such rebellions, and step functions.
LAWS: This can be measured in two ways, the number of laws and the overall respect that the society has for its own laws. Note that in general the respect for laws is inversely proportional to the number of laws. As the civilization starts there are few laws written down and expected behavior is just what is customary, "everyone knows" with a local chief or mayor or king who settles breaches of the custom rather quickly and without much argument. His word IS law. The contract in phase 3 or 4 is a frequently simple handshake, and enforced by reputation and personal honor. As the empire grows, more and more laws are published, and the system becomes more and more complex. This increases to the point where it collapses of its own complexity and un-intelligibility.
The number of tiers of law depends upon the complexity and size of
the empire. In the bigger empires four levels is typical and at present five layers of "law" exist in our present U.S. society.
At first there is a core of law (a "constitution") which is relatively simple, and everyone knows them and breaches are dealt with rapidly and rather summarily. The murderer is executed publicly within at most a few days of being caught. Everyone knew that was the penalty for that crime, and the penalty deters other would be criminals- or at least it gives them cause to stop and think. The thief is punished, and if possible restitution made quickly and without any major argument as to "justice" -everyone particularly public officials, pride themselves on being "just".
In the second period numerous secondary laws are published meant to implement the core laws of the central government (King/Emperor). These only rarely conflict with the general core intent. It is all too easy to compare and find contradictions.
The third period finds very numerous third tier laws based upon the secondary laws (not the primary code) and these have a tendency to be in conflict with the primary code since they came from and were based upon amplification from the secondary not the primary sources. These also tend to be self contradictory and are so numerous that the people no longer know of all of the rules. This is where the "lawyer" class comes into being. They study and know most of the laws, and interpret them for the average person. This unethical "charging for justice" will later help destroy the respect for the law and thus the whole system.
The fourth period sees a myriad of laws so complex & confusing that noone, particularly including the lawyers, can understand them all. In fact they probably are totally incomprehensible, and grossly self contradictory. At this point we must ask the question of whether the people ethically can be held responsible for such a code? If they do not know what the law IS how can they obey it other than accidentally? Further, if the enforcement is by more or less average citizens, (police, or the local constable or sheriff etc.) they will not be able to enforce what they do not understand. Thus the respect for the law deteriorates severely. The law collapses on its own complexity, and is replaced by a simpler "primitive" code, "custom", what the people believe.
An even worse ill takes place in "representative government" where
the "congressmen" or MP's no longer do what their people really want. The laws are not "popular" laws but imposed by a social "elite". That is further destructive of respect. One example of this sort of nonsense in the U.S. is the imposition of a 55 mph speed limit by un-elected "elite" bureaucrats, using indirect methods, and imposing the burden of unpopular enforcement on the local police. The stigma of dishonest and unethical enforcement also falls not on the shoulders of the un-elected non-representative, but on the poor hapless "cop" who is now faced with dishonor for enforcement of an unpopular law. The system here deserves no respect, you should not be held in contempt of court (legislation) when the court (legislator) is actually contemptible!
The fifth period happens when the government starts issuing so many
complex regulations, "guidelines", codes, and other similar document that have the force of law, that no one can even keep up with the number let alone the content. Note that these are being issued by a myriad of non- elected officials who are NOT answerable for their actions. They are enforced outside of the justice system, and to be blunt usually are arbitrary and capricious. The majority of these are in direct conflict with the core code, the Constitution , and in fact if closely examined are diametrically opposed to that code / Constitution. They were disseminated not for the benefit of the people, but for the benefit the bureaucrat and or some influential minority - frequently a monopolistic minority such as the AMA, ABA, Insurance Companies, etc. who is parasitic upon the public. The public has learned to ignore the law. They just "do what is right". The complex upper layers deserve nothing but contempt. The foundation was sound. Yet there is no respect for the fundamentals since they are confused with the larger mass of toilet paper that has been issued. Indeed the mass is less than toilet paper since it can not even be used for that small purpose any more. I can not heap enough scorn on the illogic and people who participate in the destruction of their society by such actions. Yet we are faced with that very situation today. People have forgotten the fundamentals and "thrown the baby out with the bath water" and the legal system has decayed into contemptible judgments and delayed judgments, and incomprehensible actions.
One suggestions to halt this destructive behavior is first to
prohibit creating jobs or paying bureaucrats who are not answerable directly to the public or any (every) member of the public. The second suggestion is to require that every law be traced as part of the passage process to the constitution or base code, and that the proposed law also be representative / democratic. With the modern communications it is possible for each proposed new law to be ratified by the entire population. I would suggest that any law which could not command enough interest and respect that at least 50% of all voters would take time and effort to vote for it probably is unnecessary, detrimental, and thus destructive of society. Thus nonsensical laws would be "pocket vetoed" just by people refusing to ratify them.
Remember that the verb "to govern" is always opposed to the word freedom. Thus the least government is the best government. Thus the least number of laws is also the best number.
One key problem throughout history is one of protection of a
minority from the majority. That is the difference between a Republic where the rights of the minority is protected, and specifically protected from the abuses of the majority; and a Democracy where the will of the majority will prevail. Plato had sufficient to say about that difference. Yet a mechanism is necessary to assure a Republic, since the majority of men like all too well to dominate and to tell others what they must do. I would suggest that any law which so offended 20% of the voters should be repealed by that small a number voting for repeal. Thus only essential laws would be passed and only laws which did not offend more than 20% of the public could remain in force. WHile that would not provide absolute protection for a minority, it would go a long way toward protection of a minority unless the minority was so obnoxious that it did not deserve protection.
ECONOMICS: This is the study of value and flow of value, and it does follow the 700 year cycle. The value must be measured in terms of some real, tangible and valuable commodity such as Gold, Silver, Copper, Iron, or perhaps a composite of several such. The currency (discussed later in this chapter) goes through an inflationary progression such that "dollars" (Pounds, Pesos, etc.) must be specified in "1932 dollars" or some such specific unit to be meaningful.
The total value perhaps can best be expressed in GNP (Gross National
product). But land and Capital accumulation also are part of economics, as is trade and trade balance. In general the total GNP builds up following a "yeast" growth curve, peaking with only slight increase in phase 5 and 6, or even with a decline in phase 6. The GNP then again grows in the reform phase and finally collapses to less than half the peak in late phase 9 and even further in phase 10. The stagnation term applied in phase 6 and in the latter part of phase 9 perhaps best describes the economic pattern of those times. The time of rapid grown is past, and things decline to where the total wealth left to be distributed is less, and thus everyone tends to suffer. However the lower economic classes suffer far more and the rich elite hardly know that there is a loss in productivity.
Trade, also covered in more detail a bit later, builds in the first
part of the 700 year cycle, falls in the bureaucracy phase and is rejuvenated in the reform phase. It is drastically curtailed in the late collapse phase when pirates and raiders of all sorts make trade very difficult to impossible. Those raiders also include governmental thieves, called tax collectors, but in this case the taxes are confiscatory. Thus the risk does not justify the effort, and traders turn to other occupations, (like piracy).
MORALS/CUSTOMS: The social values, customs, and value - ethical systems follow a definite pattern. The early society is based upon strength- "I got a gun you don't" type logic. This is where the Knight is right just because he can inflict his will on the peasantry. A god way to look at this is a primitive society where they do not have much time to worry about right and wrong, with few complex issues to confuse the mores - morals of the day. As the society becomes more and more complex with more factors interacting, the religious values enter more into the actions and customs. The people have time to worry about what is right, rather than being preoccupied with just getting enough to eat.
By phase 5, luxury, a fairly complex set of customs have been built up, and these are mostly founded upon the necessities of yesterday. In phase 6 and 7, stagnation and Bureaucracy, the sophisticated thieves find rationalization - pseudo reasons- to justify doing the unethical things that they want to do. There is a marked erosion of the prior simple values, and competing options are at least considered. As a further comment, new religions seem to start almost exclusively in phase 3, so the new customs inspired by that new religion also are being twisted and changed to fit the needs/ wants of the sophisticates in phase 6 and 7. Thus the "purity" of the religion in phase 3 is prostituted in phase 6 & 7. In phase 8, reform, there is a reform in morals and an attempt to return to the "pure" ethics of phase 3. In addition there is a suppression of dissident or competing factions in this phase. In phase 9 and 10 the morals have become so decadent that they stand virtually for nothing. People have forgotten the basis for their customs, and thus society as a whole is so corrupt that it has no "virtue" to recommend it.
As an example of this I have asked people repeatedly "What is the
purpose of marriage"? Most give some sort of self centered answer but virtually none can answer the question. Yet marriage is - or perhaps I should say WAS - one of the key customs in our society. Marriage was invented to provide a means of raising children, it is an economic contract between tow people for the benefit - NOT of themselves - and not "for eros love" - but for the love of their children. Because we have forgotten that little basis, we have all the stupid and silly arguments about single sex homosexual marriage today- which would fail - reductio ad absurdum - if we just held the dark proposal up to the light of a definition of what marriage is and what purpose it served - what it was for. We also have equally stupid arguments about abortion, which would disappear if we taught everyone - particularly the children - good ethics suitable for a five year old to understand in the first place. Or the ethics of execution of murderer also reduces to clarity once we under-stood that we are just applying that person's OWN ETHICS to them, and insisting on consistency. They by their actions demanded the death penalty - they killed for their own "convenience" so we must insist that they also be killed, since they can not be turned loose lest they kill again, and can not support themselves, thus execution is no more than the "humane" thing we do for a dog or horse when they are in a hopeless situation - we put them out of their misery. These killers are sub-human, and have proven so by their actions. They want to be treated by OUR ethics, not theirs and we are silly enough to be confused by our own lack of understanding of the real issues.
The religion tends to have very devout followers in phase 2,4,and 5,
to decline in phase 6 and 7. a rejuvenation to devout practice (with a lot of hypocrisy) in phase 8 and it falls apart in phase 9,10 of the cycle. Fanaticism can appear anywhere, but it becomes a nuisance most in the later phases, as there is no antidote for it. Earlier cycles have enough moral turpitude to resist fanaticism, but later the immunity of sound fundamentals is lacking.
SEX DOMINANCE: The society is male dominated in phases 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and in 8. In phases 6,7 and 9 women tend to appear in positions of power in politics and exhibit dominance. Note that only in the stagnation and bureaucracy phases, and the phase 9 equivalent do women appear in politics. I counted 54 reigning Queens in Empires, and of the 54 cases 48 were related with a major catastrophe for the Empire / society within about 10 years of the Queen's death. That also implies 6 out of 54 were successful. Women rarely if ever can have any political control associated with a government in the appearance - founding stages of a dynasty. They certainly do not lead armies in annexation and conquest, and only in the "downhill" portions can they be accepted as rulers. The reform period, phase 8, calls for masculine assertion and aggressiveness; male dominance, and control. Active military leadership generally precludes women from actual rule. Yet the following collapse phase leading into anarchy has many examples of reigning queens. Only with a well established society, not needing decisive military action, and in the decadent phases is it possible for women to rule. They must be propped up by loyal generals, and must not face decisive crises where they must make rapid and correct decisions. They can not lead in military matters, and their social policies, while well intended, are disastrous for the civilization.
Examples: The earlier Han and the later Han dynasty AD 25 are
separated by Empress Wang Mang who murdered prince P'ing tried to rule China -actually ending the earlier Dynasty. Shortly after the time of Queen Elizabeth and "Bloody Mary" (not a good time as she had to be removed from power) the Cromwellians beheaded the King and ended his reign and that dynasty. Tut Akn ATN (Aken Aton etc.) allowed, granted women particularly Nefertiti, positions of prominence, and his inept reign ended the 18th dynasty with the "heresy" period that the Egyptians in the 19th dynasty later tried to erase from the history books. The end of the long Victorian period was followed by the disastrous World War I which sapped much of the will of the British Empire. Cleopatra was the end of Egyptian home rule, and that dynasty.
What can or should be done about that? If, as I suspect, the
monarchy of England ends with Queen ELizabeth II, then the case will have been proven, but it also will be a self solving problem as there also will be no more reigning "imperial" queens to worry about. The Netherlands hardly is imperial today.
There is sexual dominance in yet another way still to be discussed.
Women historically were the "gatherers" while men were the "hunters" in primitive society. Even in agrarian societies, the men went out to work, plowed the fields, kept the animals, and the women took care of the house, hearth, and home, and the garden near the house. Spinning and weaving were considered woman's work. The "distaff" in fact is the word and classical symbol for women and woman's work. Women were overall considered inept in politics, despite perhaps a few counter examples like Cleopatra, and Catherine the Great of Russia. The concept of women voting until about 1850 was just not considered. The track record since then has not done much to inspire confidence in their judgement either. The testosterone tyrants triggering terrible wars is not perhaps very awe inspiring either.
The social structures in much of our present US society is heavily
biased toward women, and against men. The divorce courts regularly rape the husband, and close examination of the causes, incentives and reward, reveal women have strong incentive to obtain divorces. They get more of the "joint" estate, the custody of "their" children and "child support" which in many cases is enough for them to live on as well.
Marriage is designed to withstand bad times, and it even flourishes
in the face of adversity. Marriage can not withstand prosperity. In times of prosperity, and in particular in times with great excesses of wealth, such as Rome, women have exercised their option of "breach of contract" and gotten everything that they wanted without any of the cognate marital obligations.
ETHICAL POINT: The parent who pays the bills for the children also must have the custody. This is equal and cognate reward for responsibility. With this loss of "their children" as a probable penalty, most women would stick marriage out, and the divorce rates would fall dramatically. The threat of loss of "their" children is necessary in times of prosperity, as is the custom in Japan. It helps there - but is not a complete panacea as there are numerous other factors as well to consider. Women were homemakers prior to WWII. After WWII the women who "went
to war" in production plants never went back to the home. They continued to work. The freedoms and the lure of an extra pay check have more or less destroyed the traditional home, & traditional role playing concepts. This is not the first time this happened, and it leads to collapse to the social structure in each case.
Women were allowed to act like men, to "drive chariots", to compete
in business and such, only in the decline phases of any civilization. The "woman's lib" in Rome circa 350-400 AD only resulted in a few thousands of still unhappy women who were second rate in all that they did, and with the collapse of Rome a complete repression of all women's rights, allowing them to do only "classical" women's work for hundreds of years. There is a balance which must be struck. But the present "equality" but without real equal responsibility; equal vote about how to spend taxes, but without requiring equal productivity in wealth put into the system is unethical and socially destructive. The use of the US welfare systems is more than 4/5 by women.
A failure to recognize the basic sexual differences and to strive to
accommodate them rather than to try to wish them into equality is NOT the way to go. We must face reality first.
All men are created UNequal, and we better recognize that fact. Then
we can - we SHOULD - try to accommodate the differences to maximize the potentials and options for happiness of every different person. But the present position of the pendulum is so far off center that a major and repressive swing will be needed. Unless we are to have revocation of all political women's rights such as voting, and a return to protectionism and husband "ownership" of wives which is the historically dominant theme, we need to restore balance in reward.
Biologically men sexually dominate women, men are sexually active,
and have the inherent psychology as well as the socially taught factors to revert to that position. Women are normally passive, even helpless, and "acted upon" at the four most important times of their lives:
- their own birth - at defloration - at conception - and birth of their own children. Thus they are naturally biased toward that sort of passive receptive psychology. Men are naturally aggressive, and creative / innovative and adventurous at least partially because women demand that of them. Men are extroverted because they must look outside of themselves for fulfillment. Women are introverted since a major part of their pleasure and fulfillment is internal. Women generally want to stay at home with their children, and lack the aggression that goes with testosterone. We must not ignore historically successful trends and institutions and the reason for their success. The present woman's lib almost certainly will be a social disaster. The repression of women in the past may have ben bad, but the "femi-nazi" movement will also result only in major and extreme backlash in the next centuries.
Society must accentuate freedom of action and freedom of choice for women (and men). But "equality" is totally asinine. Viva la difference! We must recognize that basic differences exist, and accommodate to them. Women and men have different needs, aspirations, values, and mental outlooks. N.b. Diversity is in itself a value. We should accentuate the difference if anything. Difference also is no excuse for mistreatment - or worse. Women usually are willing to swap considerable freedom of choice for security in which to raise children. That is called marriage. In recent history they have been demanding (and getting) full freedom from obligations and full financial support, which is a breach of the concept of marriage. The relationship between self responsibility and reward has been broken. The worst part is that they and society can not recognize the breach of ethics for what it is. The bride promises (in veiled terms-("thy desire shall be to thy husband" - earlier "with my body I thee worship") sexual intercourse on demand to their husbands. Then they find it "inconvenient" and want to go back on the bargain. Literally they sold themselves wholesale. Prostitutes sell their services retail, and the usual legislation is aimed only at elimination of the "unfair" competition. (Who is harmed by prostitution? It is a "victimless crime", an oxymoron.) The wife fears loss of her support since she is NOT living up to her part of the bargain, keeping "her" male satisfied sexually so that he would not even want to go looking for pleasure elsewhere. Men rarely go looking for other women unless the wife is also at fault. Returning to the main social issue, the wife now finds by divorce she can have "her children" and "her house" and still get full support while not needing to keep her part of the sexual bargain.
Women fight with words. Men are stronger, and tend to use physical force. While force is reprehensible in any case, one must recognize that as much pain can be inflicted with words as much as from blows. Courts are places where battles are fought with words, thus women have excelled, and dominated the courts to where justice has become injustice. They have chosen the battlefield where they can win. Which means that men have no choice left and must now resort to other fields of battle where they can win. Thus a rule of law and accommodation in courts, avoiding violence and force, but which has become corrupted and thus unjust, must / will be replaced, sadly, with strength, coercion, and pure brute force. The elements of cooperation which are the foundations of civilization itself have been destroyed; and with it, the civilization will fall. We must be sure that reward is never separated from responsibility, and that need or desire do not become motivation for coercion of use of force.
While the above paragraphs accentuate and outline present problems, the same general breach of ethics has happened in every recorded cycle. The mesopotamian society had different sexual customs, but these were still broken. The Temple of Ishtar demanded that every girl prostitute herself at least once to honor the goddess of love prior to contacting individual marriage. Because of differing assumptions including the man planting HIS "seed" in the woman and thus the baby was his and his alone, the whole rationale differs a bit, but no matter what the assumptions, the breach of that basis happened. Egypt was much more egalitarian between sexes, but the same breach of the basis ethic happened for equally illogical, but different reasons. The key is that understanding the sexual customs, of the times and reasons behind them in later phases the system always broke down, and women were again subjugated and dominated. The more abusive they were prior to subjugation, the more servile they were forced to become afterwards. This is degrading to both sexes. But if women (and men) know "their place" and "their duties" and assume them, then (men and women) will also automatically tend to assume their place and roles as well. It takes two people to pick a fight. One can help the other to overcome problems. "He drew a circle to cut me out, but love and I had the wit to win, we drew a circle that drew him in."
TRADE: Trade -the ease and safety of commerce and the ability to travel safely within the empire and also between empires follows the 700 year cyclic pattern. Commerce in the period of anarchy that starts the cycle is difficult to impossible. There are pirates and other types of thieves that require any merchant to be so heavily armed that they in effect are ships of war, or on land the merchant requires a small army to protect anything of value. Thus any profits are eaten up in protective and defensive costs. Some trade in small very valuable items exists, but bulk shipping is out of the question.
By phase 3 trade within the young empire is relatively safe, and by phase 5 long trade routes can exist. There usually are "customs" duty, or port duty or entry taxes, perhaps near 10%, on entering a new different nation or empire, but the taxes are used to guarantee safety of passage, and are far less costly than maintaining an army or navy to do the same job. Earlier and even in this period outside of the empires feudal lords charge a "extortion" passage fee, demanding far more than the any real service they provide. In fact the merchant is really paying "Dane geld" a form of extortion for those feudal lords not to attacked them. These parasites set up shop along the main rivers and place their artificial barriers across "natural" trade routes.
Later in phase 6 and 7 the imperial fees increase with the
increase in bureaucracy as the tax thieves rationalize the way to get their hands on more and more, for less and less real benefit. The governmental meddling and petty power hungry tyrants also proliferate in paperwork, and other demands. The real safety also declines, particularly in late phase 7 as the efficiency of the government falls to such an extent that they can not and do not fully suppress robbers and such. In phase 8 - one of the key reforms is a total suppression of any thievery except that which is officially condoned by the emperor prince himself. The petty barons who put up artificial barriers all are swallowed up and disappear. But the imperial fee is increased, as the "local" taxation is decreased, with a more or less neutral effect on trade as a whole. Trade is made easier by good roads, etc. and safe ports, so it reaches a peak at this time. Also bulk shipments of grain, wines, and manufactured goods can take place increasing the variety of goods available, and the general quality of life.
Finally in phase 9 as the empire disintegrates, trade holds
up and is maintained as long as possible since it has become obvious to everyone that prosperity depends in major part on commerce. Yet the temptation to loot wealth eventually exceed the social restraint and trade is choked off by more and more pirates, highwaymen, and other bandits - tax collectors of all and numerous sorts. These people may hide under then names of "revolutionary" groups, or make claims to being THE government in a war against the "other" competing government. But the net result is that no sane trader will try passage through that disputed territory with anything that does not have prior pre- arranged rights of passage for the whole route. More and more "black market" goods appear, and much of the profit comes from extortionate prices. Merchants always move goods from where they are cheap to where they are required and where demand makes the prices lucrative for the effort. AS bulk trade falls, trade in valuables still exists. Precious metals and gems are high on the list, but spices, silk, and Myrrh and Frankincense, are also included. Usually tonnage shipment like grain and base metals declines and virtually stops in the anarchy that follows. But the profitability and adventure of very costly items still allows trade in rare - expensive items.
RESPONSIBILITY: Self responsibility vs collective actions. The individual responsibility and the cognate reward is the incentive that drives all actions - good or bad. The pattern of self motivation - or self responsibility in the empire is linked to the probable gain - or risk associated, with the gain and the value systems of what is desired. Early in the empire virtually all actions are self motivated, and self responsibility is all that there is. As the empire "progresses" the individual responsibility give way to group actions, with less and less individuality, and more collectivism. By the bureaucracy phase collective "responsibility" (an oxymoron) has become more and more popular in theory, but every time it has been tried it also has failed dismally. Eventually the early tries are abandoned in the reform phase, but group actions again become common and socialism, or communism, or collectivism under what ever name is current is tried on a grand scale. It works so long as the labor is forced, and fails if individual incentive is required. The key concept in this cycle is the altruistic wish that people would act for the good of other people. This works if the parents love their children, and if there is sufficient love to act as the incentive. But it fails with strangers. The communistic "from each according to his ability - to each according to his need" results in a lot of VERY "needy" people since they are regarded for their lack of ability and general incompetence creating needs. On the other hand wealth is taken from those who produce, in direct proportion to their productivity, and thus they are punished for their productivity.
The net result is lots of "needy" non-workers who refuse to work and exist on welfare, and fewer and fewer producers. The only type of responsibility that really exists is individual, and it exists only as it is found in individual people and their actions. As the empire collapses for lack of self responsibility (and reward for responsibility) all that exists in anarchy is individual actions and rewards.
COLLECTIVISM vs INDIVIDUALITY: As has been mentioned above, collectivism is tried on a limited basis in phase 5,6 and more in 7, abandoned in 8 but becomes rampant in phase 9 and is a major cause of the total collapse of the empire. Individual recognition is maximal in the early phases, and declined as more and more "team" projects occur. The action of large masses of people who cooperate to achieve outstanding projects happens more and more as cooperation is possible. Then group cooperation is demanded, not voluntary. This is "army" like discipline applied to civil projects. Thus the power of individual actions is reduced to the point that eventually individuality almost disappears. And with that so does innovation and progress.
MARXISM, Communism and Socialism: Karl Marx was correct in much of what he said, and he should be ignored only at great risk. But he also should be taken only with a great deal of skepticism and caution. His concepts were limited in that it applied only to one small portion of the overall cycle. Marxism has a fundamental flaw in assumptions in that it idealizes a primitive communistic society as a goal. But in reality the primitive agrarian commune societies could not compete with the following landed agrarian societies, then they in turn could not compete with the merchant society distributing goods from smaller craftsmen, and finally those individual craftsmen and small merchant distributors could not complete with the more specialized factory societies; even with all the ills of the factory systems. Marx correctly listed some of the ethical problems of the factory system- as did Charles Dickens. But those problems are no ethical excuse to steal from the factory owners. One form of ethical misbehavior is no excuse for another. Still some variant of collectivism like Marxism has appeared in the later collapse stages of most civilizations, and that collectivism is rationalized as a reason for stealing form the rich. If the rich - like Henry Ford for example - earned their wealth, the theft is inexcusable. If the rich have ill gotten gains, then it should be removed from them on the basis on their own bad ethics, and the unethical means used to accumulate the wealth, not just stolen because they are rich.
GENERALIST vs SPECIALIST: This is a cognate to the above. In the early "primitive" stages prior to good communications everything must be made locally. The local "blacksmithy" must do everything himself. The farmer must raise all varieties what he eats- each person produces of his own food. This age up to about phase 4 where communications and trade starts in earnest is the age of the generalist. In phase 5 bulk commerce allows people to specialize. By specialization a worker can produce more efficiently and trade allow the more efficient produces to swap what they can make easily for what they need. As the empire progresses specialization goes further and further. In the latter phases this goes into overspecialization. The end product may pass through so many hands in the process of manufacture that any break in the total path halts all production. For example in Rome to make a fine garment, the chain involved no less than a dozen specialists. The flax farmer raised the flax, his one crop, and passed that to the beater. The beater released the fibers and passed that to the cleaner. The cleaned fibers were next spun to thread, which was passed to the weaver to make cloth, that went to the dyer to color it, and the wholesaler to cut and pass to the retailers, to sell to the tailor, who sewed the basic garment that went to the finisher to put on trim and finally to the embroiderer for the fancy embroidery work. None of the people could do without the others, and they were interdependent. It is that interdependency and the inability to operate alone - to be a generalist- that eventually halts production when trade and communications fail.
Art, Music, crafts, production: QUALITY AND QUANTITY:
ART: The wealth in the early phases is sufficient only to support a very few artists. Even then only primitive art exists, and very little of that. As more and more wealth is accumulated more time can be concentrated on art, and the artist with more practice gain in skill. Thus the peak in quality happens in phase 5 and 8. But the demand also rises faster than the number of really GOOD artists, and large volumes of very mediocre quality also is turned out, particularly in phase 6,7 and 9. As the wealth declines the poor artist are the first to go, and good quality may still happen in phase 9,10 : however, the lack of value systems and accumulation of wealth by people who did not earn it (i.e. who stole it) also leaves myriad bad taste and lots of artistic charlatans to take advantage of it. Thus the "knock out copies" and cheap mass produced junk so dominate the market that what we see from the far future usually only is this mass of poor quality, not the few good pieces of art.
The art itself is primitive early, develops in a style following rules, to a peak within that set f rules and then the quality deteriorates. In the later stages art frequently turns to trash. Art is a means of communication. That implies there is a concept in the mind of the artist who communicates it to your mind with minimal distortion. The better the art the less distortion, and the better the communication. It there is no thought to start with there can not be "good art". Some of the decadent art in later phases is so "abstract" that is probably should not be called art at all, since it lacks meaning. If the society also has lost its criteria and means of judging art, this is not noticed. Thus fools support poltroon who purvey this sort of nonsense. I think of the wrapping of an island in blue plastic as one such meaningless mindless waste of wealth and time. The 20 miles of cloth running over the Californian hills up from the shores is another such example of mindless non-art that was recently foisted off as "art".
Music starts out as folk music, and most people participate at least to some degree in the community music. Then dedicated musicians appear, usually traveling minstrels. They also serve to carry gossip form town to town. As the phases progress there are more musicians who cooperate and in the recent cycle this culminated with the symphonic orchestra with hundreds of people cooperating to create the very complex music. This includes the "big band sound". AS the social structure decays this drops in popularity, and smaller and smaller even yet groups dominate. The quality of the music also drops, as "loudness" is mistaken for quality. It gets wilder and wilder, with fewer rules and breaks social rules with lyrics and sounds. The music tends to be ahead of the times in that it predicts what is going to happen, i.e. less cooperation, and more rebellion are in the music predicting social lack of cooperation and disintegration.
The crafts start out simple, if for no other reason that they must find all components locally since trade is limited. But the crafts also are practical- they USE the "quilts" and such on a daily basis. As the society progresses to more sophisticated products it tends to forget the earlier very practical crafts of the earlier periods. Yet they are remembered and later become more prized than mass produced times of similar utility. There is a tendency to keep these crafts alive, and they serve as the spark to ignite the flame of creativity when it is necessary to return to such crafts as trade and mass production fails late in the cycle.
Production was covered elsewhere, but it also follows the pattern of more and more complex chains as the empire grows. When communications fail, this sort of production also fails. The quality peaks in phase 5 and again in phase 8, with an usually abrupt decline late in phase 9 in both quality and quantity. The quantity peaks in phase 8 since that is the time of mass cooperating and the efficiency allowed by specialization. The over-specialization starts the decline in quantity.
SOCIAL MOBILITY: In the early phases, social mobility - perhaps with the exception of the kingship- the highest office- is very high. People rise on their competence and fail on their own incompetence. As the cycle progresses social structure becomes more and more locked in, inherited, and people can not rise or fall by their own competence or incompetence. This rigid caste system destroys incentive, and eventually helps destroy the vitality of the empire. The counter point of this is the relatively recent "all men are created equal" democratic theory. This is blatantly incorrect, all men are different, even identical twins show enough difference to be distinguished apart. The next argument that the proponents try, that all people have or should have equal rights is equally silly. People have different needs, and goals, and thus need different "rights" even. What was intended by Thomas Jefferson and the others who wrote this down however was a counter reaction to "nobility" and rigid restriction on social mobility by birth and inheritance. That was a desirable goal, even if it is based on a lie! Thus we need to consider each person and try to allow room to optimize and maximize that person's freedom and development to the most that they can become. This acknowledges the differences, and yet refuses to place arbitrary restrictions not present in nature.
DIVERSITY and POLARIZATION: The differences between people can be used as a beneficial selection factor. Those with some special skill should be encouraged to use that skill. Variability in any species allows it to adapt to variable environments. Diversity is in itself a value. However, when differences become argumentive, and accentuated different values can become polarized and the cause of great dissention. This happens in the latter parts of most societies. Polarization, without any exception I can name, is destructive of the society. The Swiss have learned to accommodate their language differences. If there are 10 German and 2 French speaking people in a situation, normally they will speak French to accommodate the minorities. That is good manners. The reverse, polarization, accentuation of differences, the
inability to compromise and recognize different values, and going to extremes, fanaticism, can cause undue inflation of differences without recognition of the value of diversity; and the resultant polarization is destructive. It can result in "Quebecer"- English speaking Canada type destructive separatism /provincialism / regionalism/ or nationalism. The polarization happens in the decline in phase 6,7 with limits, and with major effects in phase 9 and 10. The same ideas are part of destructive "Provincialism or Nationalism" which happens late in the society (see Empire).
RELIGION: New religions tend to be founded only in phase 3 or early phase 4 of the empire. Christianity, Islam, Zoroasterism, Osirus, Buddhism, Confucianism (which actually should not quite be classified as a religion) and Taoism for example follow this rule. This new religion becomes the driving force later in the empire, as it supercedes and displaces the older prior main religion(s).The new religion starts out in founding "stage one" (new, or revolutionary, or experimental religion. The word stage used here as specific jargon, associated with the phases in the 700 cycle). The religion usually is a rather primitive and doctrine usually is relatively simple, with a simple message. It must be proselyting to grow. Some of the concepts must be different or contradictory to some or many of the fundamental concepts of the prior/present dominant religion(s) with which it is to compete in order to attract converts.
These early concepts are quickly "interpreted" by well
meaning men and later to some extent corrupted by power hungry men who want to control the religion and its people and the power base they represent in its secondary (stage two) growth. These men "amplify", explain and further define the main concepts to suit their needs. In later stages they may actually reverse the original meaning by contorted logic.
In stage three, growth the religion is becoming respectable,
and grows by proselyting into a major influence. By stage four, dominance, the religion has become politically powerful in a major area and displaces the other competing religions, and thus forms its own political hierarchy, starts building churches, etc. and takes on the trappings of a mature religion. In the later stage, five, it becomes the mature, established, religion, and becomes conservative as opposed to the earlier labels of new, controversial, and experimental. In Stage 7 the conflicts between numerous interpretations leads to dissatisfaction, loss of blind faith, and loss of belief in some of the interpreted or founding assumptions. There is a general disaffection with the actions of power hungry men who now do not represent ideals and god but are really dominated by greed and desire for political power. This last leads to major abuses of political power. There is a minor reform which goes with the founding of the phase 2 appearance of the new empire, and a major resurgence of the religion, which is SUCCESSFUL because of the successes of the emperors, followed by more severe abuse of power as the now older conformist religion tries to repress any competition. This creates the conditions needed to open the way for another new religion. The old religion must either be reformed, and altered, or displaced.
1 New founding 3
2 Secondary "amplification", "definition" 3-4
3 Growth, Formal organization, initial respectability 5
4 Hierarchy, becomes majority and dominant 6-7
5 Mature,conservative,intolerance of differences 8-9
6 Contradiction, Loss of faith, confidence- disaffection 9-10
7 Resurgence, reform 1-2
8 Repression of competing religions 3-4
note: The religion can, as described by Toynbee, change form in the phase 3 of the next cycle, and undergo a resurgence as a new religious basis for the next 700 year cycle. A religion may be further altered, past the normal reformation in phase 2, by a second set of interpretive leaders who further redefine it, and it thus becomes "a second stage" or even in a third 700 year cycle a "third stage" religion. ("stage" here used as Toynbee used that word). For example Christianity was dramatically altered about 1100 AD by Thomas Aquinas and others. The newly changed Christianity included for example the symbol of the cross as a major feature as opposed to the earlier fish sign, and the associated "saved by Grace" and "he died for us"emotional guilt trips. It also included "Divine Right of Kings". The philosophy of Aquinas et. al. altered the religion of that time into something very different from the Christianity of the prior centuries. It included philosophical components not originally recognized or implicit. Osirus of 3400 BC was altered by 2700 BC and changed yet again in the New Kingdom ca 1400 BC so that this religion passed through 3 distinctly different "stages" depending on which empire and in which century we are talking about it.
Let us list these stages in our sense of that word for two examples below: Christianity and Islam.
STAGE founder, main book Phase
1 New Jesus,Bible Mohammed, el Koran 3
2 Definition Acts Letters Sunna, Ijma 3-4
3 Growth Apostles,Disciples Jihad I 5
4 Hierarchy Bishops Popes Caliphate
Buildings Churches Mosque systems 6-7
5 Maturity ca 400 AD ca 1100 AD 8-9
6 Split Roman/Greek Sufi-Shiite-Suni 9-10
(6b next cycle Protestant)
7 Reform Aquinas 1-2
8 Repress. inquisition Crusades, Jihad II 3-4
CIVIL CONSTRUCTION: The size and number of projects in any empire / civilization has two distinct peaks. These correspond to phase 5 and phase 8 of the empire. A list of the great monuments would find for example the Great Pyramids ca 2750 BC in phase 4-5, and the Colosseum of Rome ca 75-80 AD under Vespasian, phase 5 as well as some of the best monuments and tombs, in the Valley of the Kings. The numerous Monuments and monumental construction of Ramses II was in phase 8. Many of the later Coliseums of many other cities in the Roman Empire which were following the example of Rome itself, and much or the Roman road system fall in the phase 8 period. There are enough exceptions to be troublesome. The Great Wall of China being one of the largest problems as it was built ca 300-210 BC in phase 10, or 1 depending on variations in analysis. In fact neither the short lived Ch'in dynasty or the more or less contemporary Empire of Alexander the Great fit comfortably in the overall 700 year pattern. Consider the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World: The Great Pyramid(s) (three or largest of Kufu/ Cheops (ca 2750 BC)- with or without the Sphinx of Kafare), The Hanging Gardens of Babylon (ca 1400 BC), The Mausoleum of Halicamassus (ca 352 BC), The Artemission (Temple of Diana) of Ephesus, The Colossus of Rhodes (erected 292-280 BC, destroyed 224 BC earthquake), The Zeus Statue by Phidias (ca 440 BC), and the Lighthouse at Alexandria (ca 300-250 BC) (and or Walls of Babylon -ca 1600-1200 BC). Several of these fit this pattern. The Taj Mahal (1629) also is in phase 5-6. The Panama and Suez canals are phase 8 projects. There is a financial reason why the Periods of grandiose
public construction also coincide with peaks of the empires in general. It is those times which have the excess wealth and resources to do such things. In other times the wealth simply does not exist to start or complete such projects.
LUXURY: FREE TIME: LEISURE: The excess wealth available to create a leisure class happens in phases 4 through late 9 and even into 10. The lack of wealth happens only in phases 1,2,3 and is strongly reduced in phase 7 and late 9 into 10. Thus creativity and innovation tend to cluster into these times with enough leisure to allow contemplating nature, mathematics or something other than where the next meal is going to come from. Thus there tends to be a concentration of major works of art and periods of innovation of all sorts in phases 5 and 8, with reduction in other times.
FRACTION OF POPULATION NEAR POVERTY and the HOSTAGE MENTALITY: The wealth of the empire, as has been stated, is far from uniformly distributed. The Quality of Life for the lower income fraction of the population is often ignored in History books. There is a reason for this. It is very difficult to deal with this topic. The conditions of the poor part of the society simply is not well recorded. The life style of the rich and famous is well documented, but the life style of the workers in their stables, kitchens, and farms are not recorded, other than by chance. We are not interested in the daily drudge, only in leisure. Thus we are left with more conjecture than hard facts.
In the anarchy phase the poor are frequently, even almost
always, living in bad conditions which are near starvation, and there are a large fraction of the population in that class. As overall wealth in the empire increases the conditions, the lot in life, of the poor peasants also is improved. Particularly the working poor, so long as they can work, including slaves, have much better living conditions. In phase 6 and 7 this declines somewhat as far too much of the wealth, the GNP, is diverted to bureaucracy, but overall standard of living for the masses, and for the "average" citizen (if that is not a myth) is better than in phases 1,2,3 and /or later in late 9 or 10. In the reform phase 8 the taxes and duties of empire fall more strongly on the poor than on the middle class so they are not as well off as phase 5 but better off than before in phase 7. This improved condition is caused in part by introduction of "welfare" and "dole" etc. - collectivism under what ever name is popular in that empire.
The empire diverts wealth in phase 8 to the needy taking
over the functions of charity from individuals, or individually controlled organizations such as churches, and assuming public, governmental responsibility (if that is not an oxymoron) for that had been only a private or individual controlled responsibility. Initially this is appears to be a noble concept. But in very short order it extends from those who are actually worthy of such charity to those who do not produce, and to social parasites.
At first the dole system of Rome was very well intentioned
and was meant to provide retirement befits for faithful civil servants who had served Rome well for many years. It was a civic concept meant to equalize benefits enjoyed by soldier who after 20 years service were donated a small plot of land and perhaps a retirement pension. But this went astray and by 340 AD virtually half of the city, sometimes even more, had Dole cards. Depending on the precise time the Dole card allowed the owner either free grain or provided for purchase of grain and other items like beans or cabbage at some fraction, such as half, or one third of retail value. Thus the virtuous civic concept turned into a major drain on the public coffers, and a nightmare. It is very like welfare in the US which was initially intended to help a few hundred thousand needy at most, initially costing only 10 million dollars a year. And it wound up with 15 million people drawing benefits costing over 50 billion dollars a year - more if "social security" (SS) is counted. SS is another attempt to eliminate starvation and to provide a minimal standard of security. This concept has been turned into a retirement plan - something it was never envisioned to do when it was initiated. Even more to the point returning to considering the ills of welfare, is the number of people who have never been productive now going on to five generations. They are and have been totally parasitic on the society as a whole. The Social Security applies only to past workers who earned enough to qualify, so that is not the totally negative incentive that welfare is. Medicare and medicaid again both were well intended, but the latter at least has again turned into a major public financial disaster. The medicare is again restricted to past workers, and thus not a major anti production incentive. The medicaid and all universal benefit plans, all collectivism, particularly such as universal health coverage plans reduce incentive to produce or earn benefits.
Thus the redistribution of the wealth also tends in later
phases to eliminate the worst of the poverty, but at the expense of removing perhaps as much as 50% of the menial workers from the work place. It is a financial drain on the producers which causes more and more to drop out of production and "go on the dole". In the collapse phases these people often are either enslaved, or die of starvation as they can not, literally are unable, to support themselves. They have never worked, and never learned how to do anything of use.
THE HOSTAGE TERRORIST MENTALITY:
The welfare / dole recipients did learn how to whine and
receive more benefits from making a nuisance of themselves. As an alternative they become violent mobs of plebs demanding "bread and circuses" and they rampage destroying property and killing innocent people to demand their increasing desires. They hold the safety of the city hostage - ethically a form of kidnapping or terrorism. In collapse they revert to looting, the only thing which they do know. If the city had reacted earlier and more firmly against such actions it would not be destroyed by such mobs later in the cycle.
But these internal parasites are not the only looters. The
self destruction from within is under the control of the cities. They can maintain safety from violence originating within. They can maintain order much longer than usually happens. They;however, can not control all looters, particularly the nomads who reside outside the empire. These roving bands of Vandals (Ostrogoths etc.) were never under the control of the city, and they do the same things ethically speaking. Thus the ethics of terrorism has prevailed in the long run in all cases. The nomadic terrorists from outside the empire have sacked one city after another throughout all of recorded history, from Sumer and Ur, to the Kassites of Babylon, to the dozen Indus Valley civilizations being over run by nomads, to the Andean cultures and Maya in the Americas, to Rome herself as well as most of the provincial capitals of the Roman Empire like Ephesus and Corinth. Thus looting and "Get something for nothing" holding the whole city hostage to terrorism and demanding "Danegeld" is a theme in phase 10 of all history.
This need not continue. The whole world now is more or less
under one umbrella. There are no more unexplored areas not under the control of any empire or government. The bands of violent rowdy looters cannot originate from outside. They can be from outside any given government, but the mass migrations of nomadic tribes like the Goths, the Vandals, the Franks and Germanic tribes, sweeping across the plains of Europe, and sacking city states is past. The danger is within and we can control it if we have the will and the sense to do so. We as a United Nations must not tolerate a build up of any major rogue group anywhere that threatens any member of our global society. We must have the fortitude to suppress with violence any threatened violence. We did not react to Hitler when he could have been suppressed easily and allowed the cancer to grow into disastrous proportions. The present Serbian - Bosnian mess is another such cancer that we do not recognize for its danger. If it is allowed to continue and grow, it can destroy first the civilization in what was Yugoslavia, then spread like any cancer to surrounding nations wiping out Germany, then France and Spain and Italy. Far better to treat any such cancer while it is small, even at the unpleasant necessity of destruction of either or both of the genocidal factions, than to allow the later consequences. This is a case where the whole social fabric of our civilization is threatened and no restraint can be justified. We should try rationally to minimize our own use of violence in response to their violence- but make no mistake it is retaliatory and needed preemptive action to halt terrorism and the philosophy it entails before it is profitable and spreads. Taking an extreme case; it would be better to annihilate Belgrade and all Serbs, as well as all Bosnians and Croatia- the entire nation, wiped out in a nuclear holocaust - than to allow their variety of anarchy to spread. The real question is how much violence, or how little, is absolutely necessary and how to stop their hatred, genocide, and violence with minimal use of counter violence, and yet to be sure it has been totally stopped. How much tissue associated with the cancer must be excised to be sure we got it all and that it does not spread? The consequence demand drastic action, yet by the philosophy of the times, the lack of morals, let alone moral leadership, those in power can not detect this clear and present danger. The pusillanimous "leadership" so called of all major European nations as well as the US lack the ethics to understand the situation! The election of an admitted adulterer and draft dodger -an anti war activist as commander in chief of the armed forces indicates the absurdity and depth of amorality to which the US has sunken.
PHILOSOPHICAL MOTIVATION: The motivations which drive the actions of the empire can be summarized by 4 periods, 4 words abstract these 4 periods:
Since I first published these ca 1977 I have read of these same four periods in works of Ravi Batra who was quoting prior analysis by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, using the terms A:) "The Laborer Era" which was stated as not a motivation of empire since the laborers do not create empires, they are the direct physical workers (perhaps including the slaves- perhaps not) and are more concerned with planting this year's crop, the cow's health, the weather, and avoiding/evading taxes; B:) The Warrior who is relatively simplistic and straightforward and who tries to subdue matters to his control by direct force of arms;C:) A Intellectual Era where Priests, scribes, poets, physicians, teachers (professors) and scientists who use indirect methods, dogmas, devise theories, and use cults to convince and if necessary to confuse and dominate the warrior;and D:) The Acquisitive Era involves men who enjoy possession of physical objects, and wealth, and hire intellectuals and in turn warriors to do their bidding, they control by means of their wealth. Thus these correspond (more or less) to my words:
1) Military The Warrior Era
2) Religious The Intellectual Era
3) Economic The Acquisitive Era
4) Social The Laborer Era
These are perhaps not quite the same, but they are close enough that we would be quibbling - arguing over fine points when we agree in general terms.
The military eras include phase 2, 3, 4 and 8. These eras
are always controlled by might which makes right. The religious or intellectual or perhaps ethical considerations come to the fore in phase 5 and late phase 8 or early 9. The Traders gain such power in phase 5 that they become dominant and Economic control occurs in phase 6, 7 and again for a short time in late phase 9. The Social reform, with welfare and similar problems mentioned above happens in phase late 9 or 10 and is one of the problems briefly just before phase 8 in late phase 7. The social problems are part of the cause of the "reform" in phase 8. Thus social concerns - the welfare of the masses is more important than Batra or Sarkar mentioned, but certainly not the easily recognized dominant forces of the Military, intellectual or Economic/trade eras.
Loyalty to EMPIRE vs NATIONALISM/ REGIONALISM /PROVINCIALISM:
In the early phases people cooperate to build "Their" empire. In the later phases - this loyalty and patriotism more or less evaporate. This recognition of the value of the empire and the associated patriotism, loyalty to something bigger than the individual, is part of what builds the empire. The king etc. demand this loyalty, but they also can earn it by creating security and prosperity and justice. With them go freedom and liberty, and hope. These motivations combine to create a soial structure stronger than any king or any one driving force. As the empire declines in pahse 6 and 7 these factors are erroded as the liberty and justice etc. also decline. They are reneued in phase 8 and more or less collapse into cynicism in phase 9 and 10.
The collapse and disintegration of numerous empires is
because of former subjects rebelling or just plain breaking away from the main government. This provincialism and Nationalism happens because they claim to want "sovereignty" and local rule. In reality the laws and customs and conditions change so imperceptibly that one wonders why they bothered. The key is the politicians who could not be dominant in the big government gaining more (ill used usually) power and it is THEY not someone else who gets to tell their "subjects" what to do. In reality the poor subject are inevitably worse off since the local tyrants have less check over them, and the efficiencies of the army of the empire etc. are all lost. They pay more taxes for less security and more graft / corruption without the oversight of the imperial government to check local politicians.
INDIVIDUAL SECURITY, SAFETY: The people early in phase 1 are at a minimal security, and safety level. Unexpected raids, general piracy, theft, and murder for little or no reason happen. The mass movements of nomadic tribes mean raids may happen any time, and they tend to loot anything of value or to enslave the peasant in the lands as they rampage through the area.
The security grows steadily in phase 2 and 3 and reaches a
maximum level in phase 5. The decline in phase 6 an 7 finds the individual being harassed by the bureaucrats who are perhaps less a real threat than the migrating tribes, and they certainly are more predictable in their tyranny. The security of phase 8 is increased again, but it involves loss of individual freedoms in return for mass physical security. The individual responsibility of phase 5 gives way to groups trying to take that over. It does not work. Thus the total freedom etc. is less, but still better than the mess in between in phases 6 and 7. The whole structure deteriorates with regional wars, and the inability of the society to provide security for its people.
The security in all areas is minimal in phase 1 and even 2,
but as the empire develops the cities are more secure than rural areas. This trend continues into phase 5, but in phase 6 and 7 the rural areas are generally more secure. In phase 8 the cities are flooded with people looking for opportunity, but the security is declining, and by mid phase 9 the cities are so insecure that many people flee from them. By late 9 there is a mass movement of productive people from the core of the empire, to the fringes, and as the empire falls apart these fringes remain emotionally loyal to the empire, but as a matter of practicality they are the first to become independent since they have the best people and CAN be independent.
DELEGATION, ARMS and ARMIES:
It is a truth which we seem incapable of remembering that we
must provide our own security, and that this can not be delegated. We try to hire a police force to do our police work. So long as we control them, that can work. But the police soon demand that they and THEY ALONE have the right to arrest people. They want a monopoly. This unethical monopolistic trend is reinforced by the lawyers and judges taking control of the judicial system. They seize the power which was actually delegated from the people, and forget the roots of their power. They demand delegation - which must be voluntarily given to be effective. This is the "specialization" and "over-specialization" as applied to the court system. The same thing applies to armies. The initial army in phase 2, 3, and 4 was made of local citizens who more or less volunteered. Conscription is used only when sufficient volunteers fail to sign up. It is a sign that the empire no longer has popular support. "The Roman matrons told their sons to come back with their shield or on it. Later this custom declined. So did Rome." (quote R.A. Heinlien). As patriotism fails conscription is tried, called the draft, and usually hidden under a false patriotism which is trumpeted, but under the facade is the unpopularity of the "cause". The internal mob actions, rampant theft, and external threats cause the security to drop more and more as the empire collapses until we arrive where we started.
Thus civic security is a one to one link to the people themselves being responsible for their own actions. As the government tries to assume individual responsibilities the overall responsibility and thus security fails. The US founding fathers knew this all too well, and the amendment they placed with the "Bill of Rights" more or less said this. "A well disciplined Militia being necessary to the defence of a FREE state, the right to bear ARMS shall not be INFRINGED." The first phrase has been misinterpreted by tyrannical and contemptible men to rationalize the limiting of ownership of arms which could be used against them as tyrants, and thus negate and reverse the meaning of the entire sentence. In England ca 1750 there was an "armed" gentry and the common men were prohibited ownership or the right to bear arms. Thus the minority with "armorial bearing" dominated the majority. This is how the 10% with arms in Sparta controlled the majority. This sad state of affairs happened after the freemen citizens, the long bowmen of England defeated the French, and every citizen was required to own and practice its use. Thus the common men were disarmed, and this also happened prior to WWII where they had no weapons available to defend against a German invasion. It is an old story, repeated all too often.
The founding fathers of the US realized that the citizens
in order to be free, to maintain a FREE nation, had to control their own destinies. To do that they had to be able to protect themselves against any elite "armed" group. In specific they had to be able to use force to stop the elitists who might try to gain tyrannical power by control of a mercenary army. They meant that the citizens were to be well disciplined, to know what they were doing and why. This is exactly the ideal of Switzerland, they are "an armed but moderate people". The Swiss got that idea from the US. The basic concept was that the people themselves could and should own and bear "ARMS"- anything that any army could use must available to the citizens. It says ARMS, not just guns, not restricted to sports weapons, and it was meant to include the very best weapons of the day - then Pennsylvania and Kentucky Rifles, now in today's world "automatic weapons". The term arms is can not ethically be restricted to include limitations on "just" hand guns, it means ARMS of all sorts and particularly the types of weapons possessed by a possible aggressor army. The citizens were to be able to spring to the defense of nation, and to become THE army. This precept is followed in Israel where the men retain their arms, among the very best available, in their homes. The militia are the home guard, and this in their concept must include every single citizen who WISHES to defend HIMSELF or HIS nation. The ability and choice as to when to act is not that of the other citizens of nation, but each individual. And the this ability to make that choice rests on his ability to resist tyranny, and the right to bear arms is not to be INFRINGED. Note how very strong a prohibition they used, infringed means not to even get close to limiting. Thus all the sophistries of the present elitist who wish to remove those arms and enslave the citizens are helped along by criminals who use arms in unethical ways, and in the inability (and unwillingness) of many (most?)of the citizens to do their own police and army work. The army now is overspecialized. The citizen no longer is allowed to maintain "Arms" so that HE at home can be part of the militia. The fools in congress (they either are fools, or even worse they are knowingly removing our liberties, making them tyrants) and the courts who have tolerated this sophistry, have followed the trend of other civilizations in the decline and collapse phases, and we now have a professional army, and a monopolistic police. That leaves the citizens helpless to defend themselves when the time comes. That inability or unwillingness to defend themselves led to the sack of numerous cities in ca 400 AD.
The Goths, Ostrogoths, etc. would defeat the mercenary army and enslave and sell the men and women of the city, and sack the city. It was a very profitable "business". Far better that a few had died defending their city, than the consequences, but they were totally dependent on their professionals, and were unable to defend themselves.
The rights exercised in our name by the army and police have actually been taken away from the very people form whom the rights were delegated. In case you missed the irony - how can the army use any weapon in our name that we do not have the right to delegate them to use, and if we have that right in the first place how can it be taken from us? If we did not have that right, then from what source does the army obtain the right to bear what arms it bears? We have lost our fundamental concept of delegation of rights, and with the concept we also lost the rights.
LAW ENFORCEMENT: The laws and enforcement in the early phases is usually rather primitive, rapid and preemptory. The criminals are brought to rather summary justice. No doubt some innocent people are convicted and punished, but mostly there is more justice than later in the empire with all the complex machinery. As the empire becomes larger the machinery of justice becomes more and more complex. This does nothing really to improve justice, despite the intentions of those who build that machinery. The key to justice is impartiality, and speed, and complex machinery is totally opposed to the latter, and only offers more chances to compromise the former.
The police in phase 4 to late 9 are the "thin blue line" that
holds together the society. The society is only so good as they are, and they more or less represent the whole of society. The pride of the London police in their maintenance of order with minimal force is a reflection of that whole society. They perhaps represent the best of the society, and their pride is fully justified. When that fails, you can also be sure that the whole society is also failing.
COURTS - JUDICIAL SYSTEM
The courts early on are rather primitive. Later they become
more and more complex, and with complexity less efficient. The laws initially are made complex to enhance justice, but in the end it has the exact reverse effect. The courts of Rome were initially required a "formulari" - both plaintiff and defendant agreed to a formula of what would be just such as "If it be found that Antonius was negligent and his ox gored and killed the cow of Marcus, then he shall give the ox to Marcus who must give the carcass of the dead cow to Antonius". This formulari had to be agreed to by both parties before the judge (Judex) would hear (adjucate) the case. And then once "justice" was agreed to the court tried the case. Later the judges (Great Judges or Magnus Strada from which we get the word Magistrate) could inflict their own formulari on the principles. The people could not speak to the judge until he spoke to them first, and only in answer to his question, or with his permission could anyone speak. Any person who broke the rule automatically lost the case right then and there no matter what his "cause". This in theory was to prevent verbal outbreaks, and to maintain order in the court. Later yet the principles could not address the court directly at all, and were heard only by way of Lawyers, Legestii. Later yet these lawyers only presented the court only with a bare request for what claims their principals asked in judgement, and then made a half hour discourse on some topic designed to please the judge, with the opposition doing the same. The case was decided on which side hired the best orator and knew the whims of the judge best! Justice ?!!? This sort of decay has happened time after time.
There are four key characteristics to justice: 1)Facts 2)Law (which should presumably are based upon and agree with ethics, which it rarely does in later phases) 3) Equity, and 4) Speed.
The courts must determine the truth, and from the truth attain equity. As soon as the court ignores facts it corrupts justice. Thus failure to hear ALL facts and from the truth to seek to reach a equitable decision automatically excludes systematic justice. This includes our present exclusion of evidence which was illegally obtained. The court can and even should order punishment for the illegal acts, but should never exclude truth from the proceedings!
The laws must be based upon ethics, and must be such that everyone knows what is done is correct. The law must never allow technicalities to overshadow truth. Equity is a balance of interests, it must consider all sides, and decide what is "just" for all. One of the most contemptible and irrational actions has happened in the U.S. where the Supreme Court has the power of Writ of Certoriti and refuses to hear any case except those IT considers to be important. I can see then sending a case back with the simple statement that decision of the lower court upheld, but failure to hear or consider the case at all is ethically intolerable. It places the court "above" the control of the people and thus justice is beyond their reach.
But most importantly justice must act as quickly as possible. "Justice delayed is justice denied" we have allowed our courts to forget this, and the years of appeals and so on corrupts justice to where no one- particularly the criminals- have any respect left for the proceedings. The lack of respect causes the court system to become ineffective. That last leads to people taking the law into their own hands again, which is the anarchy of phase one and two all over again. Yet the "vigilante" actions at least are more just than the farce it replaced.
There is also one further item. The courts must be held responsible for their actions. AT present they are NOT held responsible for their actions. They MUST be held responsible, particularly for bad decisions. Judges will err, and an occasional error without malice, particularly in close calls, is permissible. Stupidity and actually being contemptible are intolerable. Our courts have become so corrupt that in excess of 90% of all proceeding are opposed to justice, OPPOSED - a reversal of justice. They have forgotten the foundations, do not trace delegation, and demand comparison of the myriad of laws to the constitution to exclude bad, unconstitutional, laws. Instead they deal first with the LEAST significant part of the law, not the most important.
The army justice military justice always is more swift, and
even that later is infected with the disease of nit picking and myriads of details.
The penal- jail system and punishments are rather primitive at first, and become more "humane", meaning less severe and thus less effective as a deterrent later, and become absolutely decadent in the final phases. The initial punishments are punishments. Later the "bleeding hearts" to use our recent idiom, dilute the speed and harshness of real punishments. We are the first cycle to try to do away with capital punishment, - a noble well intentioned idea - if only the killers and murderers would also stop killing people. It is based upon the lack of logic of judging criminals by OUR own ethics, -rather than applying each person's ethics to everyone themselves. Once that is done, the killer condemns himself. Society does not agree with his evaluation, and that is the whole point. We disagree with his values and condemn his action. But a logical and free self responsible society insists only that he be self consistent, and his lack of respect for life be applied to himself. The anti-capital punishment forces are applying their own judgments and ethics to the values (or lack of values) of someone else. While I deplore the need to execute people who have killed for self gain, I also realize we kill animals who are in pain, or animals who have become dangerous to us. The murderer is a defective sub human animal and should be treated "humanely" - and destroyed before he kills again. Keeping any animal locked up and in mental pain for the rest of his life is no more humane that keeping an animal in physical pain alive. The punishment is meant to teach and deter a repetition. But if we are not going to allow the man his liberty again, then we are sadistically applying mental pain for no possible purpose. The execution of a murderer demands that we make a decision, and be responsible. All too many people do not want either of those. If they want to pay for keeping a man in jail, then they should be free to do so-- OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS exclusively. But they should not be allowed to ask me to do so. They should not be allowed to "tax"- i.e. steal value to inflict their ideals and values on me.
In fact that may be a key point worthy of further emphasis.
The busy bodies always seem to want to require other people to do what THEY deem correct. They remove liberty and freedom of choice from everyone. A free society insists that people be held SELF responsible for their actions, and perhaps that is the definition of a just society, as opposed to an enslaved society. In all societies prior to this when the laws have been dictated from above, the society has become rigid and unable to respond to the needs of its people, and it is just that rigidity that condemned the society. Everyone was being asked to do the same thing that the powers that be dictated. There was no room for initiative. There was also no further growth. The flexibility of the individual was gone, and we have only slaves and robots instead.
The lack of variability and the ability to adapt condemns any overspecialized species. Laws must come from custom and from the people who must obey them. Laws, no matter how well intentioned, which come from an elite group, particularly from a minority are socially destructive, and unethical.
FRACTION INVOLVED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ARMIES / NAVY etc.
The Number of people involved in the police initially would be almost zero, and grows to about 1 in 500, or a bit more in some cases. That is all that is really needed if the people are allowed (required) to police themselves. The village judge / mayor will hear disagreements, and there is not point in too much force. AS the phases progress more and more police appear, and by phase 7 they are up to 1 in 80 or so, depending on the civilization. There has been a wide variation and some used considerably more, some far less. But the trends, always tend to be the same. In phase 8 the number increase again as security declines. This seeming paradox of more police and less security happens since they are required to be the only law enforcement, and some of their duties include enforcement of unpopular laws. Eventually even with 2% of the population in the police force disorder overwhelms the cities. The larger number includes rich people hiring "private" police to protect them when the public forces fail and are insufficient to handle the mobs and "organized crime" of the local and time.
The armies start out with a small standing army, which is swelled as the need arises by recruits who serve only for the duration of the campaign or battle. The Navy has less fluctuation since ships can not be conscripted on short notice, but even that fluctuates a great deal. As the phases pass more and more trained soldiers and permanent standing soldier are present, and by phase 8 and 9 there is a relatively large standing army. It is professional as opposed to the drafted peasant soldier of phase 3 and 4, and thus more efficient. But it also cost more to maintain. Typically up to 3% of the population in some cases were in the army, and another 3% or so in the naval forces protecting trade. As pirates are fewer the need for the Navy declines, but the trend toward more ships and men still persists - a contradiction in motivational and observational terms.
The armed population of 10% has been typical in times of severe
anarchy, and supporting that 10% in the manner to which they would like to become accustomed is dangerous, as they may as readily turn on their "masters" and loot them as defend them. Even that can not halt the migrations of nomadic tribes where every man is a soldier, and these overwhelm the cities whose men have by now given up the art of defense and hired professional soldiers. They have "gone soft", both physically and in the head. They are enslaved as result.
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM: (also see Laws, and Law enforcement above)
1) Local, Swift, run by local citizens or local mayors, chiefs
2) Slower, relatively impartial, still for everyone
3) Ponderous, corrupt, dis-respected contemptible, for priests and elite class only, excludes common people.
4) Excessively slow, unusually corrupt and unjust, farcical, parasitic on people
The number and the complexity of the laws increases, and the judicial system also becomes so complex to accommodate them that it looses touch with the average person. Thus he number and complexity of laws is reflected in the complexity of the Judicial system. But the complexity of the system complicates the laws, a vicious circle.
PRIVACY vs PUBLIC INTRUSION:
In the early phases privacy is well respected as is private property, but as they progress more and more intrusion into the individual lives happens, until eventually the invasive forces dominate and there is virtually no privacy any more. This takes place in contracts, which were originally between individuals and later seem to be moderated by a third party, and in extremes the third - intrusive - intervention is demanded. The private contractor must have a "license" and the builder also an approval from zoning and planning and numerous other petty officials before the principal can contract with his selected builder. The medical profession is "licensed", and third party "insurance" tells you who you can and can not use. The store must have permission to sell foods, etc. Thus privacy, and self responsibility are eroded, and collective rules attempt to replace individual decisions. This goes so far that sexual rules are offered in phase 7 and late 9, the ultimate intrusion into privacy.
TAXES: This is more or less a trend from lowest at phase 2 up and up and up. There is rarely or never a decline in taxation until the whole government ceases to exist. There are jumps in taxation with every war. War is an "excuse", a "national emergency", to increase taxation, governmental meddling, and control. But after a tax is in place it is rare indeed that it is ever reduced or removed. The most recent prime example is at the start of the WW II where Income Tax in the United States was instituted and insinuated. Initially circa 1900 income tax was to be imposed only on the VERY rich, and would "never apply" to the average person. As soon as this was well in place, having taxed the rich in the 1920 era without open rebellion, it was time to extend the tax base. At the start of WW II it was extended from something only the rich had to pay to an "emergency measure" to pay for the war as it went along. It was a "voluntary tax" paid out of patriotism, with virtually no enforcement mechanism, save the withholding done at the pay check to "make it easier" for the individual to collect and pay the tax. - Needless to say it has never been rescinded. The intrusion into the pay checks, making the employer the tax collector - also has never been rescinded. Once you pay Dane geld you never get rid of the Dane.
The faction taxes in early empires - in anarchy varies wildly, and depend on circumstances. A typical tax in phase 3 or 4 is 5% of GNP. Naturally this falls most heavily on the small producer peasants who do not have good connections or enough political pull to avoid or evade the tax by some sophistry. By phase 5 this may be up to 6-7%. In the translation from 6 to 7 it usually jumps from about 10% to over 20% in just a few years. The government has been returning services up to that point which were at least reasonably equal to the tax "revenue" received. But afterwards in phase 7 the taxes seem to just disappear into a bottomless pit. In phase 8 there usually is a level rate near 20% until near the middle or end when a war gives an excuse to jump total taxation to above 25%. This creeps up until - as we are now- near the end of the collapse phase it peaks near 40% which is intolerable economically. This is one of the causes for the collapse of empires.
CIVIL SERVICE: The number of people "workers" (?) on the public payroll follows a general pattern of being low initially, and held below 10% until the start of phase 7. At the start of phase 7 there is a major jump from well under 10% , usually about 6 or 7 % of the population being paid from governmental "revenues" i.e. taxes, to something well over 10% - typically 15% - being paid from public coffers. This threefold jump is easy to spot, and a clear marker of the start of the bureaucracy phase. It usually happens at a point where there is a strong recession, and the unemployed people are put to "work" as a form of giving them a way to earn food to stop this economic problem.
The number of public employees continues to edge up until the reform stage where the new dynasty fires - gets rid of the "non-productive" bureaucrats, retaining only those who are productive, with the word productive being from the point of view of the new dynasty. This point of view means that tax collectors bringing in wealth, and people doing monumental construction are productive, while people providing local services to the people are not, as are paperwork shuffles and petty officials whose help or control is really a hinderance, and the excess accountants (who do not help collect or control expenditure of money) generally are not. This is a step reduction from probably above 30% to less than 20% with 15 % residual being typical.
The number of "useless" or nonproductive workers from the narrow point of view of the central government and those in power continues to decline in phase 8, with an increase in "efficiency" a shift to more of those who actually appear to help run the central government, or produce monuments that please the dynasty, and away from local government and local services to the people. As this phase and the dynasty decline and drifts into obscurity, the pressures toward fewer public servants increases and as they are poorly paid, and people can earn more with the same efforts in private ventures. The mechanisms of tax collection fail, as do the distribution channels, so public pay becomes irregular. There thus is an incentive not to be on the public payroll. Thus the total number drops again below 10%. There is another step increase in phase 9 equivalent to the step increase at the start of phase 7. From below the 10% line the total jumps again by roughly the threefold factor, and again in a very short time of two to three or four years. This happened in the US in 1932 with the WPA and so on swelling the ranks of publicly paid "workers".
In the collapse phases, the government simply can not collect taxes, and thus can not pay public employees so the numbers drop and drop until they are again under control.
CURRENCY: There are two words which must be carefully defined here to avoid confusion. Money is something that is Real, has intrinsic value, Tangible, easily portable, and easily divisible. Thus gold or silver coin are money, and the "minor" or "base" coins of nickel or copper also can be money. Currency is the monetary circulating medium used to exchange value. Paper dollars for example are currency. They originally were certificates by banks that were more convenient to carry, that "certified" the bank had a certain quantity of gold or silver on deposit in their vaults. Debts also can be currency, Instead of exchanging positive values, some reputable person or organization owing someone else they can exchange a loan, and pass the loan to you and now the debtor owes you. The "Federal Reserve Note" which is now the currency of the United States is this sort of economic tool. There is a children's poem which points this out, but the point is rarely understood "The Owl and the Pussy Cat went to sea all in a pea green boat - they took some honey and lots of money all wrapped up in a five pound note". The Bank of England note was NOT money but was currency. The concept of hallmarked pieces of metal of a specified weight and purity, of coins of specified value was invented about 750 BC, and coins did not exist prior to that time. People exchanged weights of metal of various purity, a "Talent of Silver" or Gold. Another common medium of exchange was the Phoenician ingot of copper, exchanged by weight.
The circulating medium of empires follows a pattern. In phase 1, anarchy, currency is anything of value, gems, Gold which is the key medium, with silver also being used on a weight basis. This also continues in phase 2 and by phase 4 gold is the main, almost only medium of exchange. Silver etc. are exchanged in terms of Gold. This then follows the pattern:
2) Gold- Silver bimetallism
4) Silver- Base metal (copper, brass, bronze, or tin of old)
5) base metal only (Nickel, cupro-nickel, Zinc and Al recently)
6) base coin with script- circulating debts - bank notes
7) Un-backed script - bank note - etc. "paper economy" alone
8) collapse of system, acceptance of money (Gold Silver) only.
In nations which are not part of empires this cycle may happen much more rapidly than in empires, and for example the US starting in 1776 went through stage 1 to stage 2 with the arguments of William Jennings Bryan for "Free Silver" coinage at 16:1 on gold, ca 1900. Gold was totally removed as currency 1932, (stage 3) and silver in 1964 (stage 5). We in 1994 are in a stage 7 economy, no money at all exist, despite the strict requirement in the US constitution which requires that "No State shall make a tender of any Thing but gold or silver coin". - giving the power to mint coin exclusively to the Federal Government. We ignore the rules of the founding fathers only at the risk of the ills they sought to prevent being a punishment for disobedience.
There is a new invention, a new factor, credit, and checks / plastic / paperwork- bookkeeping exchange medium which clouds any prediction. In Indonesia 1994 for example they still use a paper - cash economy for most people; and only businesses have checking accounts. In the US something in excess of 90% of all value is exchanged via checks, verified electronically, or credit cards, also verified electronically. Cash is becoming less and less used, particularly for "big ticket" items. Credit buying also is a major factor, which has not penetrated third world but should do so soon. Thus the past is not a completely reliable guide to the future because of the invention of "plastic", credit cards, electronic bank transactions, and swapping totally intangible values.
In Rome something akin to checks existed. A prominent land owner or Senator for example would write an IOU promissory note to pay - for example 300 bushels of oats, at some specific future date, usually the time of the next crop harvest, written on a wooden framed bee's wax tablet. As he paid the debt to the current owner of the tablet, he would heat the bee's wax and "erase" the debt. The tablets circulated as a form of currency. They were sometimes discounted, depending on how far into the future the delivery dates were, and the reputation of the signatory. If this sounds a lot like commodity futures, it also is a primitive form of that exchange also. The most reputable senators and major land owners deliberately emitted "pay on demand" wax tablets to accommodate circulation of value, and some of these were more valued than some debased coins. Typical of the debasement of coins was the Denarius of Rome. Ca 30 BC it was about nickel size silver, later by 60 AD cut to half that weight of metal, and then silver replaced with brass/bronze of double the weight ( the "double denarius" an attempt to revalue the coin. Ca 250 AD the coin was made by casting slag left from making steel into "coins" and dipping them in tin. These were mixed to about 20% in bags of real coins and merchants were required to take them in payment of civil debts. A few objected too strongly and when they resisted and were killed, the other got the idea and did not object. Note that Rome generally would not accept the same coins back in payment of taxes; however, unless the bags were just handed over returned unopened at the same time Rome tried to hand them out. Eventually ca 330 AD Constantine had to completely re-do the whole coinage system. The top of the line coin - about the size of the US $50 gold piece of 1850, was the Sol. It was a "prestige" coin and represented the wages of a centurion, quite a high value. To make the debasement short, in 1850 in the French Republic there was a lineal descendent of that coin a tiny bronze coin which was so small and worthless it was a nuisance - "Not worth a Sou".
INFLATION: This goes with the above topic of currency. It can best be illustrated by a history of the penny. Originally ca 800 AD a penny was precisely one penny's weight or 24 grains of "Sterling" 92.5 % pure silver. By John I and Henry I and starting about 1066 AD the "long cross" penny or "short cross" penny had been debased to 18 grains. After the wars of Henry IV it was cut to 14 grains. The Penny of Henry VIII and Elizabeth was further debased to 12 grains. After the Cromwellian rebelling it was cut afterward for a long run at 6.5 grains from 1660 Charles II through Victoria, and WW I 1920. This must be judged by dividing the weight of a larger coin by the number of pennies in it as the penny was a copper coin, and silver pennies were issued only as Maundy money. in 1920 the coins were debased by cutting the purity form sterling to 50% silver. The bank of England had been weighing coins instead of counting them to determine value, and this allowed them to continue to weigh coins. The final blow after WW II was the complete replacement of all coins to a currency of cupro-nickel without silver in it. They also were changed to decimal format but the debasement had already occurred. The pound now is backed only by the honesty of the government, and perhaps the less we think about that , the happier and the better off we will be.
Note that debasement in all cases above followed a major war. This is generally true. Wars are not only the excuse to increase taxes, they are paid for by borrowing money. And the cost of the war afterwards is partially paid pack by stealing value from those who are unwary enough to loan a government money by the debasement of the coins. Debasement allows the government to steal part of the value it borrowed. The coins were borrowed at 18 grains of silver and melted down, re-cast and paid back at 14 grains of silver. Or borrowed at 6.25 and paid back at 3.125 grains, etc.
MIGRATION: The migrations of both individual people and masses of people follow different trends with the phases. Migration of whole tribes such as the Goths, Ostrogoths, the Vandals, about 400 AD, and earlier the Ayrians into India, the Sumerians ca 3500 into Mesopotamia, later then Akkadians ca 3000 BC, the Amorites concurrent with Hurrians/ Hittites about 2100 BC, the Aramaens and Chaldeans about 1000 BC take place in the collapse phases. The empires can defend themselves earlier, but loose the ability to defend their frontiers in late phase 9. At that point these nomadic nations are also on the move looking for better lands, and cross into the empires and sack them - many times settling down to become the dominant people in the next cycle. They displace the older "settled" peoples, and later usually blend with and both assimilate each other to the total loss of distinction between them. The Normans took over the Saxons in 1066, but at this late date people have so intermarried and mixed that the English are "Anglo-saxon", claiming both heritages.
People individually can not move with ease in phase 1,2,3,4 but by 5 they can do so and by late 8 many individual families have moved within the empire. There is a tendency for the founding families of the empire to abandon the capital as it becomes filled with "other" people, and unsafe. These people had ethical principles that conflict with mixture or lack of ethics that the admixture promotes. They wish to be left alone to practice their "outmoded" habits in peace and so leave for provinces to do that. The best example was the exodus of the older Romans for Provinces in France (Gaul) - many settled near Burgundy. Thus if you wish to see some of the original stock of fair complexion, red haired peoples that initially were the Romans you go to France ! The present Romans come from the admixture that was left after the original Romans abandoned the city. This also is true of the Roman period Iberians, and the people across the straights, the Mores, they were driven out ca 8-900 AD with the Islamic Sacean invasions and fled to Ireland. Thus the classical irish green eyed red haired colleen is a lineal descendent of the Mores or Iberians, and closely related to the original Romans
EXPLORATION and ADVENTURE: Times are too unsafe in phase 1 and 2 for travel, and even phase 3 is unsafe. By phase 4 some travel is possible, but the key word of phase 5 is EXPLORATION. The Queen Hetshepshut of Egypt sent an expedition to "Punt" "where no Egyptian had been seen for many years" in this phase. The need to explore and the ability increase to where phase 5 is characterized by this occupation. By phase 6 and 7 there are no more new worlds to explore, and trade is perhaps an adventure, but the words explore are not used. The long trips are now a well established "trade route". The exploration of the New World in 1492 and Lief Eriksen ca 1000 AD are typical of this activity. However the open frontier mentality made exploration happen in our age from 1700 to 1840 or so and perhaps even including the atypical and un-characteristic Arctic and Antarctic expeditions of the early 20 th century and the Moon trips of 1969-72.
FORM of GOVERNMENT: There are several forms of Government that have been used. In the fist part of history there were village chiefs, followed by city kings, and later the city kings gave way to national kings, and then "king of kings (a title for Assyrian and Babylonian Emperors) -with the invention of democracy by the Greeks in and about Athens ca 300 BC. The democracy proved to be a disaster since the majority persecuted and stole from almost any minority, to such an extent that the Republic, described by Plato, was invented. Thus there have been a progression of types of governments at various times. Ignoring the progression of forms available, and the fact that later stages do not apply to earlier cycles of civilizations the present societies go through several sequential stages.
Amateur: Initially the people control, and it must be popular as a new government no matter what form by which it is called. This popular support is required just to form the government. It by its nature is amateur, they have never done this before.
The Republican form is next, with a great deal of care to try to protect minorities.
This gives way to a "professional" government. These people are more efficient and thus it allows more government for less cost, but that leads in turn to abuses of power and theft.
The next phase is a turn to "democracy" with mob rule, and loss of the republican protection. The mobs elect officials who will steal for them from the richer minorities.
This leads to handing power over to an elite - a "triumberate" or often a single dictator to stop this mob violence and anarchy. The elitist, if benevolent, is the most efficient government of all. And if benevolent he is long remembered and emulated as the many Caesars (Tzar, Kaiser) and Augusti followed the original two attest. Men who will not abuse power are rare, but if we find them the best government of all.
The elitist form leads to an Imperium, and these following men are not so benevolent, in fact in general they badly abuse power. They can not control everything alone so an Oligarchy build up about them. These elitists do NOT answer to the masses, no matter what the nominal form, elected or not.
This oligarchy a bit later is not under the control of the leaders or the people. It matters not one iota which party you vote for, you are voting for Oligarchy A or Oligarchy B- and they have "honor among thieves" alternating, playing the game, waiting peaceably, knowing it will be their turn next.
Finally the terminal phases is a government by inertia. These people rally do nothing, - initiate nothing new, and change nothing fundamental. They CAN not change. They also can not meet forces from outside, and can not adapt as needed. Thus when a major threat happens they are ineffective. The "system" is so tied into its own inertia they can not respond to change. Thus when changes overwhelm them the system collapses. With that there is an overthrow of the nominal head of the inertial government who takes the blame. and a new system or at least a new set of amateur governors is tried.
This progression is : Amateur; republic; professional; democracy (mob); Elite (imperium); oligarchy; nominal oligarchy (without real control); Inertial uncontrolled government; which declines into anarchy with some stress or major change in conditions.
Send mail to
questions or comments about this web site.