Why are there more societies where the people are oppressed than free?

[dacruick]

It is not an original idea but it would seem that the mechanic behind religion is a reflection of the common social dynamic. Come to think of it it may have even been somewhat liberating for people in an earlier society to believe that there was an order of things above the nobles and masters that was benevolent in nature. That they would receive a reward for being a "good" person regardless of their social position.

Of course it was liberating for people to believe that there was a higher power. Heck, it still is. Think of how many people in this world take comfort in the fact that God is seeing over them and so forth. But this is the key to what I was saying. Governments used religion(regardless of their beliefs) to unite and control the lower class. Yes they also take comfort in the fact that there is a higher power than nobles and masters, but many rulers claimed divine heritage. So it makes them even more powerful if they were to say that God appointed them to the position. And you are absolutely right, they used religion as a reward system. Like every time you listen to your teacher you get a gold star, and if you get enough gold stars you win a prize. It is a form of manipulation and organization. Very powerful tool...not so much use in modern society though.

 

[noblegas]

I still think you're looking at it backwards. You keep thinking they start with freedom and risk it being taken away.

Who's to say that the oppression of people has always existed? I know that oppressive societies have existed a lot longer than free societies with relatively little force imposed on the people, but that does not tell me why this progression continues and how it got started, other than the possible reasonable explanations that parents were too busy raising their children and dealing with matters on a familial scale was more practical rather than matters that extended beyouond a familial scale.

Most people were born into the oppressed culture, or at least into dictatorships. This is what I mean by default state. They would have much(ish) of what they needed to survive, including looking after their families. This is what they know.

I don't dispute this claim. But you would still have to explain why more people are born into a dictatorship than a democracy or a republic that respect individual rights. I understand why direct democracies would not have formed in hunter and gatheriung societies because you would have to be involved equally in political affairs as well as family affairs. But why wouldn't representative democracies would not be formed

A man (or woman) would have to make a choice to risk everything he already has to rise up against a government. I wasn't being flippant when I suggested sharpening farm implements; a farm implement (and farmer) that has been turned into a weapon (and fighter) is not at home to till the field, and likely will never come home.

They would not risked everything if all families came together as a unit and acted against the person who tried to oppressed them, but I supposed if you subjugated the people that you oppressed to ignrorance it would be very challenging to come together as a unit since you were submersed in ignorance to a degree where someone else does all the critical thinking for you . I tell you , the people who rose to the top and into oppressers did a fine job of keeping people very ignorant for the bulk of human existence. I agree with the premise that the wealth of a nation has to increase before knowledge and education could increase, and therefore then the idea of free societies permeated in the minds of many humans. Now the question that could be asked is why it took humans such a long time to move beyond their own ignorance? Why couldn't the Elighthment epoch happen earlier in human history? I don't see why people could not turn to science first rather than superstitious explanations. It does not take wealth to apply critical thinking skills to everyday situations.

 

[dacruick]

They would not risked everything if all families came together as a unit and acted against the person who tried to oppressed them, but I supposed if you subjugated the people that you oppressed to ignrorance it would be very challenging to come together as a unit since you were submersed in ignorance to a degree where someone else does all the critical thinking for you . I tell you , the people who rose to the top and into oppressers did a fine job of keeping people very ignorant for the bulk of human existence. I agree with the premise that the wealth of a nation has to increase before knowledge and education could increase, and therefore then the idea of free societies permeated in the minds of many humans. Now the question that could be asked is why it took humans such a long time to move beyond their own ignorance? Why couldn't the Elighthment epoch happen earlier in human history? I don't see why people could not turn to science first rather than superstitious explanations. It does not take wealth to apply critical thinking skills to everyday situations

First of all, ignorance is bliss and there is not a truer statement than that. And you're right, you don't risk everything if everyone revolts. But there have to be bad enough conditions to make revolting worth it. And the worse the conditions become, the more dangerous the consequences of revolt. It is all a balance between what you have to gain and what you have to risk. If you have read 1984 by George Orwell I think that it is an accurate depiction of a dictatorship, which is no doubt exaggerated in some senses. Continuing to a point I made earlier on, religion was used as the foundation of every society. There was not the science, technology, or globalization to counteract religion at that time. To tie it all together, religion also creates boundaries, which impairs the interaction between separate peoples. I think that once you begin to realize that there are 3000 different religions you begin to question some previously assumed truths. I also believe that there was no place for critical thinking in most past societies. It provides nothing but problems for the progress of the tribe or group. People needed to be manipulated to be successful I think. It sounds stupid but I'm pretty sure I would do the same.

 

[calculusrocks]

There are more opressive societies than free ones simply because freedom and democracy are very expensive, both in resource and in energy terms.

Democratic society with broad freedoms is very decentralized structure, thus requiring lot of social interactions to function and make decisions. Each new interaction within society comes at a price in energy and resources. Western Europe, and its historical extension, USA-Canada, had access to wast amounts of resources and food, first domestically, and later in their colonies which gradually led to creation of various democratic institutions during the course of 400 hundred years or so. No other society ever had, or will have, access to such mind-bogglingly amount of resources as Western Europe and USA-Canada had.

That is why, I believe, worldwide democracy is impossible, and if current demographic and economic trends continue, we will see worldwide trend towards more authoritarian organization.

If so, then what is your explanation for the United States beating the Russians in the Cold War? Or the outcome of WWII for that matter...

 

[calculusrocks]

"Self-preservation are products of human evolution as well as the propensity to want to overpower other human beings."
Human beings survive better as a group. Groups work best under a leader. An instinct to work against the leadership, unless one is capable of leading themselves, would work against the group and the advantage to survival. We've only recently, it seems, come to a time in history where individualism can be advantageous.


It would seem, more or less, an intellectualization of the evolved "pack" mentality of social animals. Not to harp on.

I don't think this takes on an adequate representation of individualism. Think of a fast-food restaurant for instance. The cashier, the fry lady, the manager, everyone has an incentive to do their part with matching customers with deliciousness. Individuals frequently decide it is in their own best interest to work as part of a team. This is not the same as surrendering themselves to a collective because while being part of a team, their motive is firstly to benefit themselves. They work fast and meet quality expectations, because they don't want to be fired and may receive a raise for accomplished work.

 

[DanP]

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Start by understanding obedience and conformity. The book refers only to certain political contexts , but you can easily extrapolate and start to get an idea about the relationships between individuals, society and authority.

 

[DanP]

If so, then what is your explanation for the United States beating the Russians in the Cold War? Or the outcome of WWII for that matter...

Those are pictured today as idealized battles between democracy and totalitarianism. Propaganda ideas. Nothing could be more false.

 

[DanP]

An excellent overview of history and practice of human rights:

http://history.berkeley.edu/faculty/Laqueur/LS140D/index.html

video feed:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/media/c...ence_140D__001_Spring_2010_Video__webcast.rss

 

[calculusrocks]

Those are pictured today as idealized battles between democracy and totalitarianism. Propaganda ideas. Nothing could be more false.

So basically, authoritative governments are more efficient, but you have no explanation whatsoever for the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and would rather ad hominem by implying I'm a simply subject of democratic/capitalist propaganda?

 

[MotoH]

So basically, authoritative governments are more efficient, but you have no explanation whatsoever for the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and would rather ad hominem by implying I'm a simply subject of democratic/capitalist propaganda?

The Soviet Union was run like the shady strip club in the outskirts of town at the end of its days.

Monarchies sure lasted a long time and were very efficient, and the only thing that brought them down was the ability to spread information more efficiently.

 

[DanP]

and would rather ad hominem by implying I'm a simply subject of democratic/capitalist propaganda?

Im telling my opinion on a subject in a neutral way, with no references to you, your name, your persona, and you see yourself as a subject of propaganda ? And take it on personal level and claim ad hominem ?

 

[calculusrocks]

Im telling my opinion on a subject in a neutral way, with no references to you, your name, your persona, and you see yourself as a subject of propaganda ? And take it on personal level and claim ad hominem ?

You have no response to my question on the outcome Cold War. That much is clear.

 

[calculusrocks]

The Soviet Union was run like the shady strip club in the outskirts of town at the end of its days.

Monarchies sure lasted a long time and were very efficient, and the only thing that brought them down was the ability to spread information more efficiently.

Efficient compared to what?

 

[DanP]

You have no response to my question on the outcome Cold War. That much is clear.

Another assumption ?
Btw, who told you that the US won the cold war ?

 

[MotoH]

Another assumption ?
Btw, who told you that the US won the cold war ?

The Berlin Wall came down did it not?

Clear cut US victory.

 

[DanP]

The Berlin Wall came down did it not?

Clear cut US victory.

Berlin wall is IMO the biggest media stunts ever pulled, and one of the biggest propaganda images ever used in history.

Anyway, what is interesting is that there was significant opposition against reunification of Germany coming from particular western democracies, United Kingdom in particular comes in my mind now.

There are at least 2 major theories in history regarding the outcomes of the cold war. Both have their pro and cons. Both worth a impartial look.

The reductionist theories regarding WWII and Cold War as conflicts between democracy and totalitarianism are laughable.
There is so much more in history than childish picturing of major conflicts as good / evil conflicts.

 

[calculusrocks]

Another assumption ?
Btw, who told you that the US won the cold war ?

C'mon, the US won the Cold War, can we get past that point?

 

[jambaugh]

Berlin wall is IMO the biggest media stunts ever pulled, and one of the biggest propaganda images ever used in history.

Anyway, what is interesting is that there was significant opposition against reunification of Germany coming from particular western democracies, United Kingdom in particular comes in my mind now.

There are at least 2 major theories in history regarding the outcomes of the cold war. Both have their pro and cons. Both worth a impartial look.

The reductionist theories regarding WWII and Cold War as conflicts between democracy and totalitarianism are laughable.
There is so much more in history than childish picturing of major conflicts as good / evil conflicts.

There is Good, and there is Evil, and the fall of the Berlin wall was one of the great turning points toward Good in the 20th century. A media stunt!?.

Now I'm an atheist and I don't see Good and Evil in divine terms. But your jaded equivocating attitude is exactly what allows true Evil to flourish. There is a distinct difference between the socialist (communist or facist or whatever) vs western democratic governments, between societies which uphold individual civil liberties and those who put the state, or the church, or "the collective" above the individual.

You've called the theories "reductionist" and "childish" and "laughable" now argue your point. Tell it to a Holocaust survivor or a Tibetian, or the Chinese peasants during Japan's invasion. You'll get a punch in the nose at best.

Tell you what, be scientific and get some empirical evidence. Go to Cuba and wear a T-shirt saying "Castro is a F*g" for a week after a week spent in the US wearing a shirt saying "Obama is a F*g". Tell me there's no substantial difference in how you get treated by the state.

 

[DanP]

There is Good, and there is Evil, and the fall of the Berlin wall was one of the great turning points toward Good in the 20th century. A media stunt!?.

Yes. Berlin wall was transformed in a symbol by propaganda and media. It's a symbol which doesn't mean too much to many ppl.

A great event of the 20th century is the end of **cold war**. Not the Berlin wall fall. Hopefully you can make distinction between the two.

Good ? With capital "G" ? The war game it's about political power, territorial control, and influence. It's not about "Good". It's about dominance.

Now I'm an atheist and I don't see Good and Evil in divine terms. But your jaded equivocating attitude is exactly what allows true Evil to flourish

Hopefully, your not thinking I am Satan.

Tell you what, be scientific and get some empirical evidence.

Hahaha. I lived in Communist countries in a time when communism still meant something real and menacing , not a scarecrow most learn from books.

Go to Cuba and wear a T-shirt saying "Castro is a F*g" for a week after a week spent in the US wearing a shirt saying "Obama is a F*g". Tell me there's no substantial difference in how you get treated by the state.

This thread of discussion is not a about how do you get treated in Cuba or USA.

It's about history and reductionist theories, and child narratives that Yoda and Obi Wan kill Vader and the Emperor. History is a humanity, not to be told in terms of Good and Evil.

 

[CRGreathouse]

A great event of the 20th century is the end of **cold war**. Not the Berlin wall fall. Hopefully you can make distinction between the two.

You sure don't think much of the other posters.

 

[DanP]

You sure don't think much of the other posters.

Well, that's what you get from me when you accuse me that my attitude allows "Evil" to perpetuate in this world :P He could surely find a less dramatic way to express his views.

 

[Bartleby50]

Societies undergo a process of Evolution like biological species. "Freedom of people", "Human Rights" thou beneficial for the individuals, might have been no advantage in survival for the societies themselves until today.

 

[calculusrocks]

Yes. Berlin wall was transformed in a symbol by propaganda and media. It's a symbol which doesn't mean too much to many ppl.

A great event of the 20th century is the end of **cold war**. Not the Berlin wall fall. Hopefully you can make distinction between the two.

*yawn*

This thread of discussion is not a about how do you get treated in Cuba or USA.

It's about history and reductionist theories, and child narratives that Yoda and Obi Wan kill Vader and the Emperor. History is a humanity, not to be told in terms of Good and Evil.

I thought this thread was about the absence of free societies that cultivate liberty. Perhaps I have a "childish" "reductionist" "propagandist" view of the OP?

Well, that's what you get from me when you accuse me that my attitude allows "Evil" to perpetuate in this world :P He could surely find a less dramatic way to express his views.

Yes, he could have. But you sure found a way to shut him up.

 

[DanP]

*yawn*

I thought this thread was about the absence of free societies that cultivate liberty. Perhaps I have a "childish" "reductionist" "propagandist" view of the OP?

Perhaps you do, perhaps not. It's not for me to say it.

What I can tell is the theory of "good and evil" in sociology doesn't hold any water. That the theory is childish and reductionist.

 

[jambaugh]

Yes. Berlin wall was transformed in a symbol by propaganda and media. It's a symbol which doesn't mean too much to many ppl.

A great event of the 20th century is the end of **cold war**. Not the Berlin wall fall. Hopefully you can make distinction between the two.

Yes the [wall] event is largely symbolic but by no means insignificant. It's occurrence empirically demonstrated the wane of Soviet power and presaged the overthrow of the communist party in Russia. Ideas and symbols mean things. They influence peoples will to oppose tyranny and thus are not "mere symbols" but significant symbols.

We think in symbols and represent knowledge in symbols. The "mere symbol" can and does make "thinkable" the previously "unthinkable". This is especially important when a minority oppresses the majority out of fear. The knowledge that the tyrant can be opposed is all that is necessary to bring about his downfall. The suppression of that one bit of knowledge is the principle business of the tyrant. Hence oppression of free speech is the first, best indicator of tyranny. It does not matter that most "free speech" is BS, its existence not its content is what is good. Likewise the significance of the actual reunification of Germany may as you argue be insignificant, the fact that it was able to happen is far from insignificant.

Good ? With capital "G" ? The war game it's about political power, territorial control, and influence. It's not about "Good". It's about dominance.

Yes it is about political power, territorial control, and influence. Yes it is about dominance. But how does that preclude it being about good vs. evil. The question is Who? controls and Who? dominates and what they intend with that power.

You're right only if you misapply moral equivalence to the parties involved. The power issues are the mechanics of the conflict, not the quality of that use of power. By (a naive simplification) of that reasoning, a surgeon's scalpel and mugger's switchblade are "just about cutting, and rending of tissue".

Now you are correct in that you can't paint the one side as lily white and the other as pitch black. One can over-reduce the conflicts, and especially the virtues of specific actions, to simplistic black vs. white. But comparison can be made. Consider the distinction between North and South Korea and one cannot argue that U.S. involvement in the Korean war was not morally justified. One can also make the argument that trade sanctions against N. Korea and Cuba have done great harm, reducing the chance of moderation and evolution out of tyranny which might otherwise have occurred.

Hahaha. I lived in Communist countries in a time when communism still meant something real and menacing , not a scarecrow most learn from books.
...
This thread of discussion is not a about how do you get treated in Cuba or USA.

It's about history and reductionist theories, and child narratives that Yoda and Obi Wan kill Vader and the Emperor. History is a humanity, not to be told in terms of Good and Evil.

Who is being "reductionist"? You are "reducing" the position you disdain to a caricature of naive rednecks equating history with bad movies.

All historical theories are "reductionist" to some degree. They must be to encapsulate the immensity of individuals and events and factors into generalizations and trends.

Characterizing the cold war as "just about dominance" is no less reductionist as characterizing it as "purely a battle of good vs evil."

 

[DanP]

The problem with good and evil, morality and ethics, is that they are relative concepts, which can wildly differ from a social organization to another.

It doesn't matter that you say "we are the good guys", your opponent will claim the same. I am sure Russians seen themselves as the good guys as much as Americans did.

You may say that Serbians where the bad guys during 90s, but I live close to Serbia, and I tell you, bombing their country didn't made US too popular down there. They surely thought at themselves as the good guys, and at US as the very bad immoral guys.

Humans do terrible things to each other and in the process they always think at themselves as the "good guys". It happens all over again in the history.

It doesn't really matter after all. History must stay away from morality issues. It should be a stone cold recorder of facts. A stone cold history is the best way, since even in this case, it will be perceived differently in different social contexts. Attributions of morality are always biased. "Holier than thou" is here to stay.

 

[calculusrocks]

There are more opressive societies than free ones simply because freedom and democracy are very expensive, both in resource and in energy terms.

Democratic society with broad freedoms is very decentralized structure, thus requiring lot of social interactions to function and make decisions. Each new interaction within society comes at a price in energy and resources. Western Europe, and its historical extension, USA-Canada, had access to wast amounts of resources and food, first domestically, and later in their colonies which gradually led to creation of various democratic institutions during the course of 400 hundred years or so. No other society ever had, or will have, access to such mind-bogglingly amount of resources as Western Europe and USA-Canada had.

That is why, I believe, worldwide democracy is impossible, and if current demographic and economic trends continue, we will see worldwide trend towards more authoritarian organization.

If so, then what is your explanation for the United States beating the Russians in the Cold War? Or the outcome of WWII for that matter...

Those are pictured today as idealized battles between democracy and totalitarianism. Propaganda ideas. Nothing could be more false.

The problem with good and evil, morality and ethics, is that they are relative concepts, which can wildly differ from a social organization to another.

It doesn't matter that you say "we are the good guys", your opponent will claim the same. I am sure Russians seen themselves as the good guys as much as Americans did.

You may say that Serbians where the bad guys during 90s, but I live close to Serbia, and I tell you, bombing their country didn't made US too popular down there. They surely thought at themselves as the good guys, and at US as the very bad immoral guys.

Humans do terrible things to each other and in the process they always think at themselves as the "good guys". It happens all over again in the history.

It doesn't really matter after all. History must stay away from morality issues. It should be a stone cold recorder of facts. A stone cold history is the best way, since even in this case, it will be perceived differently in different social contexts. Attributions of morality are always biased. "Holier than thou" is here to stay.

Nowhere in that exchange did I assign values of 'good' and 'evil'. I just pointed out what should be plainly obvious. The old Soviet Union was a clear form of centralized gov't. The United States was somewhat decentralized. I am merely asking a pertinent question.

Nowhere in there did I assign any values of 'good' or 'evil'.

If authoritarian government is so obviously more efficient, then why couldn't the Soviets waste the Americans during the Cold War? If the hypothetical is true, then the explanation should be forthcoming. :zzz:

 

[DanP]

If authoritarian government is so obviously more efficient, then why couldn't the Soviets waste the Americans during the Cold War? If the hypothetical is true, then the explanation should be forthcoming. :zzz:

From exactly the same reasons US couldn't waste URSS during the cold war. The risk for a global scale nuclear war with all consequences was too big.

 

[calculusrocks]

From exactly the same reasons US couldn't waste USSR during the cold war. The risk for a global scale nuclear war with all consequences was too big.

You know that's not what I meant. Not all wars are fought militarily. That's reductionist.

 

[DanP]

You know that's not what I meant.

How could I know ?

And it's URSS in my native language :P