History Explained ,by David Maurer. Is this that simple?

[Zixinus]

Firstly, da link to the website in question.

I downloaded the PDF version of this ages ago and only fully read it now.

To sum up the most interesting points of his theory:
Maurer tells that most feudal aristocratic societies are born as a measure to spread food from the producers to non-food producers that still do something productive (priests and the aristocratic warriors protecting them). However, there comes a point where food distribution is taken away from aristocratic hands and into oligarchic hands. Oligarchic leaders do mix with the aristocracy as they have the most powerful thing in a market-based society: wealth. Thus a period of oligarchic society appears.

The next thing is that people do grow tired of their oligarchic overlords. This is do that in an oligarchic society the middle class can grow and form itself to the point where there is a demand for social change. Or in his words:

As wealth spreads through the population so does political influence. Electoral politics begins to develop into a meaningful mechanism for sharing power. At some point the politicians realize that they must represent everyone, rich and poor alike. When this happens, the country is ready to change from oligarchic to democratic market society.

This is where the interesting tidbits come in:
Maurer writes that this transition is not simple or easy. There are always problems getting in the way, usually the oligarchs. If they feel threatened, they will entrench their position. If elections are ran, competitors will appeal to the oligarchs for they have money to run the election.

When a status que continues and the problems of the working class still goes on. Low wages, unequal justice system, the clear signs of exploitation, etc.
So, people want an alternative. Thus communism, socialism, fascism and Arab fundamentalism enter the mix.

Maurer argues that all of these, aside from being ineffectual in terms of distribution and creation of wealth, are actually temporary states. They are able to overthrow the oligarchic system by moving the masses but are incapable of creating a sufficient alternative.
The only working system is representative market democracy, as this creates more and more wealth. Even the poor have significantly high standards of living. Maurer gives a list of criteria of what these should be.

And that's pretty much it. He also gives some analysis on the Middle East and what is "wrong with it". From what I gather, he states that the creation of Israel was a mistake (or at least, an event that has polarised nations in that area against the USA) as well as badly-thought out foreign policy. He names the USA, well, I think I should quote here:

The United States was the third modern nation-state. It still holds the world record for the most acts of ethnic cleansing perpetrated over the longest period of time. For two and a half centuries, from the 1630s to the 1890s, European colonists to North America evicted the native Indian tribes from their homes and forced them westward. As the settlers pushed west themselves, the Indians were cleansed again and again. Some of the most worthless land in the west was set aside for their use as Indian Reservations. Most reservations were little more than death camps where Indians were sent to starve.

In sum, I am posting this because I would like to see this from the perspective of forum members. I myself have difficulty finding flaws in the man's arguments and I find them rational, if a bit simplistic.

[Samuel]

However, there comes a point where food distribution is taken away from aristocratic hands and into oligarchic hands.

That is... extremely vague.

The only working system is representative market democracy, as this creates more and more wealth.

Except that non-representative countries are also able to generate wealth.

It still holds the world record for the most acts of ethnic cleansing perpetrated over the longest period of time.

And his proof of this is...?

[Zixinus]

I wanted to add this to my first post but the time ran out:

EDIT: After some searching around there is a David J Maurer listed as chair of the Department of History in the Michigan State University. So the guy might be a genuine academical (although his forum profile says he's a "Airport Shuttle Van Driver" but it seems clearly to me that he was joking.
Too bad that the forum became closed. I think he should have found or appointed a moderator.

Samuel

Keep in mind that what I've written is based on what got stuck in my head. I might be misrepresenting what he writes. The document is actually fairly short (he lays it out in a question-and-answer format), can be downloaded and is fairly easy to read.

But I'll try to get back to you either way, it's just that I have some chores to do.

[K. A. Pital]

The real solution to poverty in developing nations is not less capitalism; it is more capitalism. The oligarchic monopoly on capitalism must be broken. The market economy must be opened to everyone. Ordinary people must be encouraged to become capitalists and small business owners. The small business owners who work hard and have good ideas must be allowed to prosper and become large business owners.

This is a lot of vague self-defeating speak.

If you break the "oligarchic" monopoly of the, presumably, former owners of large industrial capital, you will annihilate:
1) lots of capital in the breakdown
2) all economies of scale hitherto arisen due to capital concentration

This would lead to economic damage to the nation and much human suffering.

"Small business" in all usual (let's call them "formed") sectors of the economy largely has irrelevant clout; and in fact, if I'm right, the share of small business and it's economic and political power are rapidly declining for the last century, while the centralization of capital in both industrializing and industrialized nations is increasing and probably at a local maximum (if not at a global one - capitalism is not old).

Concentration of capital is a natural process. In what way small businesses which rise to supercorporation status after, presumably, the goverment deposes or breaks down the former "oligarchies" and "oligarchs" would be superior to them? That is hardly a proven thesis. They would start with a lesser base, acting without the already accumulated economy of scale, and eventually turn into the same large organization. Is the task just to rotate large capitalists? In that case, why not just deny large capitalists ownership? Because I don't think large capitalists would be fine with them being "rotated" i.e. deprived of assets.

And the site's full of such claims.

Many socialists believe that ordinary people in developing countries are much too poor to become capitalists and business owners. This shows a lack of understanding about how modern business is financed.

He should look into a statistical almanach on any Second or Third World nation, not spout this.

Bill Gates founded Microsoft when he was a 24-year-old college drop out.

In a First World nation.

In a properly functioning market economy, it is usually possible to find capital to finance a good idea.

It's a question of luck, chance and the presence of a FORMING sector of the market (new techology) than "market" par se.

What was imperialism?

Imperialism still exists. It's forms have changed, but the fundamental underlying principles of fuelling your economic and political goals, heavily intertwined, by military and political domination, remain.

Since World War II, no countries have tried to conquer new empires.

Nature of empires has changed with the increased concentration of capital. Today it's enough to control a nation's entire economy which may even lack a national currency, and it's almost as good as having a colony. Thus, today it's more important to take over a nation economically than directly politically. That is a result of the increasing globalization and spread of capitalism, not an "end" of imperialism, but a new, more globalized phase of it.

It seems clear that in the future all nations will have a prosperous democratic market form of society.

"Market = end of history". That's Fukuyama all over again, except a little with "anti-oligarch" slant.

Moreover, he abuses the term "oligarchy". It's a term of capitalism, and applying it to feudalism is misleading. Feudalism is a fundamentally different type of society vis a vis capitalism. The main non-human productive resource is land, and main occupation is agricultural, of course. Industry is virtually nonexistent, and thus it's hard to speak of "oligarchy" when the very productive resource owned is different (and so are the means of it's exploit).

There are many other issues with the site. I'm sure that trying to explain history in a 300,000 character essay on a website is no more "history explained" and certainly no more correct than:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.

Hey, who made that simplification? And who's to prove that vague statement is not right?

I think simplifying history is bad enough on it's own. Political history has it's place, but Maurer is no more skilled to make judgements about it than any other person exploring history. His political agenda holds no more water than mine or yours, and is built on generalizations and extrapolations, and own statements, rather than some sort of meticulous scientific analysis with macroeconomic simulation (at least that's what Marx tried last time when he criticized capitalism; he doesn't even do that).

I see nothing special.

[Zixinus]

I was suspicious about why was this published over the internet and on a website, rather than appear as a scientific journal or book aimed at academical.

Still, even if its nothing special, its interesting and has some merit, if only enough to dissect it and find what is wrong with it.
It clearly doesn't view the USA as an epitome of all that is good and true, for one thing.

Of course, this should be a bit of a lesson for me to be cautious of such simplified theories of historical progression (wouldn't then it be sociological progression then?).

That is... extremely vague.

To quote the site itself.

In modern society, the market economy takes over the food distribution function that used to be part of the aristocrat peasant relationship. After the market becomes dominant, it is clear that the monarch and aristocrats can not continue to rule by themselves. They have very little experience with business and markets. In aristocrat peasant society wealth is achieved through the control of land and peasants. In a market economy nation-state wealth is achieved through capitalism.

As the markets increase in size and strength, successful merchants, capitalists, and lawyers become wealthy. In a nation-state, wealth is power. At first this new group of wealthy commoners begins to challenge the aristocrats for political power. It is very typical, however, that soon they start to intermarry with the nobility. In a few generations these two groups merge to form a new oligarchic ruling class.

Except that non-representative countries are also able to generate wealth.

I think he means to generate wealth efficiently and plentifully.

Also, to be fair, he uses the term: "democratic market society". The "representative" is something that got stuck in my head. He may be thinking of representative but he may be talking about democracy in more broad terms.

And his proof of this is...?

He doesn't go out and directly prove this. However, he mentions the USA several times when ethnic cleansing is brought up. He does mention the death squads sent to Southern America.

In a First World nation.

Yeah, I found that needle there too but forgot about it.

From what I understand, Bill Gates became immensely rich by introducing his software to the right people at the right time. He used aggressive business tactics and monopolization to create Microsoft.

So, yeah, I don't think he's a good example.

"Market = end of history". That's Fukuyama all over again, except a little with "anti-oligarch" slant.

I am not perfectly sure whether this answers your argument as I am not familiar with Fukuyama, but he doesn't view market democracies as the final phase of history. He admits that he is unsure what the future holds, except perhaps going towards self-sufficiency.

To quote:

There may well come a time when new technologies allow everyone to become self-sufficient in the necessities of life—food, clothing, and shelter. If that happens people may no longer have to depend on markets to distribute these things. Or the world may find a method of economic distribution that works better than markets. Either of these possibilities could lead to the evolution of a new form of society.

[Thanas]

People should learn to think before they post. If you go to a doctor and he tells you he can explain everything about mediciine, would you trust him? No, you would regard him as a loon.

Any website that has the title of "history explained" is a scam. He is just another person with delusions of grandeur who is laughed at in the field. A quick scan through the forum section of the site reveals that he is just another self-thought "expert" whose knowledge does not even exceed wikipedias.

Also, his advice on how to treat bad history is exactly how one should proceed with his site:

If you start a history book and realize that it is completely one sided or it exhibits juvenile scholarship, toss it. There is so much good history available that it is not worth wasting time on the poor or mediocre.

[Frank Hipper]

The fact that the list of questions on the first page are so incredibly narrow in scope, yet the site brags that it explains history, are all I personally need to dismiss it.

The Untited States and it's conflicts do not explain history.

[Samuel]

After the market becomes dominant, it is clear that the monarch and aristocrats can not continue to rule by themselves.

Given that monarchy in Europe was destroyed by war and not internal political reform, I'm calling BS.

They have very little experience with business and markets.

I mean, it isn't like kings are organizing campaigns and are familiar with logistics or aristocrats are financing companies...

In a market economy nation-state wealth is achieved through capitalism.

And in a society emerging from being based on rural agriculture a good portion of the capital will be controlled by the people who were previous on top. New people will circulate, but as long as it is possible to enter the aristocracy this is not a fatal problem. I'm pretty sure historical nobility had a rapid turnover rate so this isn't out there.

In a nation-state, wealth is power.

Capitalism=/ nation state.
One is an economic system, the second refers to political boundaries aligning with ethnic identity.

I think he means to generate wealth efficiently and plentifully.

Also, to be fair, he uses the term: "democratic market society". The "representative" is something that got stuck in my head. He may be thinking of representative but he may be talking about democracy in more broad terms.

It depends on what you mean by wealth. I probably could design a totalitarian technocratic state that had a faster rate of growth, but I don't think anyone would claim it is inevitable.

However, he mentions the USA several times when ethnic cleansing is brought up.

I'm pretty sure other countries have killed more or larger percentages- Turkey and the British Empire come to mind.

He does mention the death squads sent to Southern America.

They were supposed to be used for peace!

Unless he means the school of the Americas which was to fight counter insurgency warfare.

He admits that he is unsure what the future holds, except perhaps going towards self-sufficiency.

Yeah, I'm sure the trend towards more and more complicated technology, globalization, large scale industry and specialization will magically reverse itself somehow.

There may well come a time when new technologies allow everyone to become self-sufficient in the necessities of life—food, clothing, and shelter. If that happens people may no longer have to depend on markets to distribute these things. Or the world may find a method of economic distribution that works better than markets. Either of these possibilities could lead to the evolution of a new form of society.

We already have that in the first world. We call it prison. Unless he means you can make it yourself- we call that magic.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, I'm sure the trend towards more and more complicated technology, globalization, large scale industry and specialization will magically reverse itself somehow.

To be fair, technological progress in many ways contradicts the globalization and concentration of capital, when capital outflows into other nations allow them to create large-scale industries of their own. There are de-centralization processes emerging as a resistance to globalized specialization. Self-sufficiency in industry can once again become viable with a new technological leap; except the author does not postulate one as a necessity.

We already have that in the first world. We call it prison

First World prison might actually be a very welcome existence to the majority of Third World populations. He is speaking about "everyone", presumably everyone in the world. I see nothing bad about it (other than it just being a good wish and nothing more).

[Samuel]

Yeah, but he isn't talking about industry, but the kind of future enable by nano-wank where you have copurnica machines (or ironically cottege industries). He says:

There may well come a time when new technologies allow everyone to become self-sufficient in the necessities of life—food, clothing, and shelter.

[Simon_Jester]

I think simplifying history is bad enough on it's own. Political history has it's place, but Maurer is no more skilled to make judgements about it than any other person exploring history. His political agenda holds no more water than mine or yours, and is built on generalizations and extrapolations, and own statements, rather than some sort of meticulous scientific analysis with macroeconomic simulation (at least that's what Marx tried last time when he criticized capitalism; he doesn't even do that).

I would be interested to hear more about Marx's methodology for his scientific analysis; I am at most passingly familiar with his conclusions, hardly at all with his technique.

[K. A. Pital]

I'd just advise reading "Das Kapital", not to derail the thread. Das Kapital quite probably is no more true than the ramblings of that guy; but it's a huge tome of economic statistics, economic theorems and social investigation, more or less trying to derive from hard facts and full of supporting calculations and factual references.

That guy hardly even bothers with bringing up quantifiable examples that would support, if not prove beyond all doubt, his "theories". He only postulates hypothesis, and not even that - hypothesis should be quantifiable and testable as well per the scientific method. Vague statements are not such.

[Zixinus]

Just a curious question: can it even be reasonably said that revolutions are a necessary if undesirable (social reform is preferable)? The idea that revolutions occur and follow trough a cycle of brief, unstable and even unfeasable government system that ends up either by collapsing and emerging from the violent mess or by simple selection, a dictator. A dictator will then emerge, able to solve or at least try to solve, fix or even put a band-aid on the problems that caused the revolution in the first.
The dictator creates infrastructure and security.
Then the dictator is removed and the successive government inherits a more stable country that has a chance to do economic reform.

Is there such a cycle in revolutions, typically?

[Samuel]

Just a curious question: can it even be reasonably said that revolutions are a necessary if undesirable (social reform is preferable)? The idea that revolutions occur and follow trough a cycle of brief, unstable and even unfeasable government system that ends up either by collapsing and emerging from the violent mess or by simple selection, a dictator. A dictator will then emerge, able to solve or at least try to solve, fix or even put a band-aid on the problems that caused the revolution in the first.
The dictator creates infrastructure and security.
Then the dictator is removed and the successive government inherits a more stable country that has a chance to do economic reform.

Is there such a cycle in revolutions, typically?

I think Augustus would disagree with "the dictator is removed". Why would someone who seizes power to save the state return it to its origional form? It only works when talking about modern states because there is strong pressure to become a democracy.

[Zixinus]

It only works when talking about modern states because there is strong pressure to become a democracy.

I was thinking only in terms of relatively recent (say, past 300-400 years) revolutions.

I admit ignorance, oh I admit to so much ignorance that I don't even know how much I can admit to, but somehow revolutions seem like a modern phenomenon to me: mass uprising within the heart of a nation, directly aimed at its government's system (not just its leaders: but the method of government itself).
My Roman history is very blurred: I don't remember much from my lessons (even though I think I passed with reasonable marks; that's bad education for you). I recall that by that point, Rome became an Empire and most people accepted this as such. I'm going out on a leg here, and say that this might be because the Senate was viewed inadequate and politically effective population liked the idea of a emperor.
I am sure Thanas will give far better reasons why Agustus was able to crown himself Emperor after Caesar than this (possibly Caesar's will, Agustus's military force?) if he finds it worthy to correct my misconception.

In modern terms, things should "start getting better" after the dictator's death because the dictator has temporarily stabilised the country and developed an infrastructure (primarily for the military) and established a security that you can use and build on, along with administration and bureaucracy that allow a method for the country to function. The idea is that income could be gained by opening the country's markets to other countries.

A dictator would do this too, for his own gain or for the country's gain, or just both.

Of course, this wouldn't happen overnight but over years, decades, generations in a gradual process.

There is the issue of interrupting the (hypothetical) cycle: if the problems that the revolution started and the reason why the dictator is at power is not resolved or sufficiently mitigated, there is no chance of economic reform. If a trade embargo is made, then the hypothetical cycle will be slowed down if not choked, because the country has little to no outside access to resources to create income if that is what is needed. Under such conditions, the impossible task is made to make a country self-sufficient and secure, a task difficult due to instabilities that caused the revolution and subsequent dictator in the first place.

I think the gist of my possibly silly hypothesis is that in unstable times, human societies naturally chose dictators of one kind or another. If these dictators are able to stabilise the country and solve/mitigate the core problems, then there is a chance of renewal.
Of course, another dictator could be elected and start the whole shebang all over again, but with the possibility of understanding the problem and sharing power with his supporters. Again, the process may be gradual: from shithole dictatorship to a working country, given the chance.

But I think I miss-answered your question.

Why would someone who seizes power to save the state return it to its origional form?

The dictators won't, obviously. The dictator's successor's have a chance to do so. The dictator has to be removed, either by natural death or by exile or whatever.

If it exists of course. I am really just sharing my likely silly musings for the sake of trying to make more sense of these processes.

[K. A. Pital]

Just a curious question: can it even be reasonably said that revolutions are a necessary if undesirable (social reform is preferable)? The idea that revolutions occur and follow trough a cycle of brief, unstable and even unfeasable government system that ends up either by collapsing and emerging from the violent mess or by simple selection, a dictator. A dictator will then emerge, able to solve or at least try to solve, fix or even put a band-aid on the problems that caused the revolution in the first.
The dictator creates infrastructure and security.
Then the dictator is removed and the successive government inherits a more stable country that has a chance to do economic reform.

Is there such a cycle in revolutions, typically?

Actually, most of the time, it is like that. There can be a failure on the part of the new revolutionary government (not necessarily a dictator, but necessarily a dictatorship, or at least somewhat autocratic in modus operandi) to resolve the issues which led to the original revolution. In that case it will not last long. In case the issues have been resolved one way or the other, the state has a chance for stabilization in the mid-term. After that it's another government and another story.

But it's not necessarily a dictator (single). Dictatorship, either with a pronounced leader or with a ruling circle, oligarchy, new aristrocracy, informal ruling cabal, or even close-to-anarchy are just some of the multitude of options possible for the social structure of a post-revolutionary society.

[TC Pilot]

My Roman history is very blurred: I don't remember much from my lessons (even though I think I passed with reasonable marks; that's bad education for you). I recall that by that point, Rome became an Empire and most people accepted this as such. I'm going out on a leg here, and say that this might be because the Senate was viewed inadequate and politically effective population liked the idea of a emperor.
I am sure Thanas will give far better reasons why Agustus was able to crown himself Emperor after Caesar than this (possibly Caesar's will, Agustus's military force?) if he finds it worthy to correct my misconception.

It's important to remember that Augustus was not an emperor in the modern sense, but rather "first among equals". What he established was the Principate, which was essentially his effort to rule through the republican systems. Caesar was far more overt in his bid for supreme power, and paid the price with his life. Augustus, in contrast, claimed to have restored the Republic following his victory at Actium.

Developments in Roman society were indeed what allowed for a series of individuals to exert such influence on the Roman state and undermine the republican institutions. Following the Punic Wars, the backbone of the Roman state and army, the small landholding class, began to die out. Competition with foreign agriculture is part of it, the devastation wrought by the Carthaginians is part of it, and steady accumulation by aristocrats of massive slave-based latifundia (essentially plantations) all contributed to this. Moreover, with the empire's expansion, it became less and less feasible for these Roman freeholders to go off to fight Rome's battles. The most prominent examples of the failed attempts at reform are the Gracchi brothers, both of whom were ultimately assassinated. A large class of dispossessed Romans (barred by law from serving in the army for failing to meet the minimum property requirement) flooded the cities, and Marius was the first to exploit them as soldiers (Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, and Augustus would all follow suit). As a result, the general essentially became these citizens' patrons, shifting their loyalty from Rome to the general who lead them. Worse, the political integrity of the republic was shaken by the civil war between Sulla and Marius, in which Sulla actually marched on Rome twice. Sulla, essentially the reactionary to Marius' populist, won out and was appointed dictator and went about purging the state and restructuring the government to ostensibly strengthen the oligarchic elements of the government.