A revived form of civic militarism (military prowess sustained by egalitarian social forms, group cohesion and genuine efforts to develop human capital) has much to recommend it. But state of the art weaponry requires the fabrication of computer chips, the extraction and refinement of rare earths and the launch and maintenance of satelli…
A revived form of civic militarism (military prowess sustained by egalitarian social forms, group cohesion and genuine efforts to develop human capital) has much to recommend it. But state of the art weaponry requires the fabrication of computer chips, the extraction and refinement of rare earths and the launch and maintenance of satellites. These would pose extraordinary difficulties for decentralised, egalitarian, systems.
Furthermore, the ability to develop and deploy advanced weapons systems requires the application of advanced STEM skills. There is nothing egalitarian about STEM.
In the long run military advantage will deservedly go to the side with the deepest reservoirs of quality human capital.
The ruling caste in the US currently thinks it can maintain planetary supremacy with a technocracy recruited from the Ivy League supplemented with Asian migration while it constrains the development of the legacy population through maleducation, infotainment, cannabis and austerity economics. This situation can’t go on forever. The latest Russian air defence systems are extinguishing Anglo-globalist air supremacy, rendering the standard NATO military model obsolete. Change is on its way.
The immediate future may see the US cut a deal with rival oligarchies, while attempting to maintain the present social system. A degree of latitude will be extended to those portions of the population needed to ensure sufficient loyalty and capacity to die for the state, but it will all be a matter of degree.
The scale of the society and size of the supply chain isn't necessarily the key issue; rather, it's cost per unit. A military paradigm based on 'small, fast, and cheap' is going to inherently require a greater degree of participation than one based on 'big and expensive'. In any case, I don't see any reason why a heavily networked economy composed primarily of small, independent producers can't produce high tech widgets in large quantities, so long as the necessary trading infrastructure is available to source raw materials. 3D printing will also have to be factored in to this analysis.
Regarding egalitarianism, it depends what you mean. Both the Greeks and the enlightenment Europeans were intensely meritocratic, prizing ability and achievement above all else. The same remains more or less true in STEM. Egalitarian doesn't imply equal outcomes; it's more accurate to say that it involves a greater per capita investment in resources towards education and access to opportunity, such that the average human quality of the populace is raised to the highest degree possible.
So far as the US goes, if history is any guide, as the legacy empire America will fail to implement the reforms to its social order necessary to optimize use of emerging weapons tech, and will rather choose to double down on its existing system. The result will be eventual defeat by a periphery power that does make the necessary changes. Then again, you never know - Americans are an innovative bunch, and a revolutionary challenge by an internal renegade elite may succeed in displacing the ruling class and opening the way for those necessary changes.
Valid points and essentially we are in agreement. If you have not already read it, in THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES the Christopher Lasch made the distinction between two types of modern society: those that aim to raise the level of ability amongst the people in general and those that give up on the masses and focus on developing excellence within the elite only. There is no question which one we have got.
As for STEM, I should have explained myself better. STEM is indeed intrinsically egalitarian: logic, mathematics and analytic thinking are great levellers and potentially socially disruptive, which is one reason why access to high quality education in STEM is so carefully rationed. The problems with STEM in the West today is the uneven distribution of ability as well as the difficulty involved in rebuilding what has been destroyed or neglected.
The neglect of industry and manufacturing and the concurrent mismanagement of education has weakened the US military no end. This is the central point that Andrei Martyanov makes endlessly.
"Christopher Lasch made the distinction between two types of modern society: those that aim to raise the level of ability amongst the people in general and those that give up on the masses and focus on developing excellence within the elite only. There is no question which one we have got."
Glancing at our so-called elite, I'm extremely skeptical that they're systematically cultivating anything remotely approaching excellence within their own circles.
That's the fatal weakness of the sort of elitism that seeks to push down rather than lift up. By depressing the human quality of the masses, a ruling class can afford a lower level of quality itself. Eventually it loses the mandate of heaven and is brushed aside by an elite that is fit to rule.
On the other hand, an elite that seeks general improvement of the population - in the sense of making the average man as smart and strong as is possible given his genetics - will be forced by circumstance to be smarter and stronger still. They'll have a harder time retaining power, but having developed the virtues will also use it more effectively, and can furthermore call upon a pool of far more capable men when their society is challenged by outsiders.
"Glancing at our so-called elite, I'm extremely skeptical that they're systematically cultivating anything remotely approaching excellence within their own circles."
I'd say that much of the elite simply assume their own excellence. Many confuse excellence with intellectual/ethical/social conformity, while others understand it in ways that would make little or no sense to anyone reading POSTCARDS FROM BARSOOM. One of the key problems with this approach is that social distance enables illusions of this kind to get established and to persist. The US elite is certainly becoming dumbed down to a point that will compromise the viability of the US as a superpower.
This: "Glancing at our so-called elite, I'm extremely skeptical that they're systematically cultivating anything remotely approaching excellence within their own circles."
The utter corruption of the "leaders" will spell their downfall, and I'm hopeful that it's coming soon. The system is much too easily gamed, and much too reliant on sociopaths. Currently the self-proclaimed elite are stealing as much as they can, with little concern for concealment, because they know the opportunities for doing so are going to disappear real soon.
If America goes through anything resembling post-Soviet Russia (the most relevant point of comparison), it will be exceptionally grim. Russia had several advantages that America does not: intact families, a highly socialised population, a coherent national culture and a well-educated professional class.
Also many Russian families had allotments which they could use to grow food and rent was pretty cheap. Finally, the Soviet collapse allowed Russia to rid itself of a periphery that was supported or subsidised financially by Russian industry and natural resources (especially energy).
The USA, by contrast, has an atomised society, traditional familial structures are stressed or decayed, a weakened common culture and a dumbed down professional class. Worse still, food supply chains are extended across a continent and additional economic burdens (in the form of illegal immigrants) exist in vast and rapidly growing numbers.
The best case scenario is that the US will survive with a ceremonial and powerless national government, but with a renaissance of power and autonomy in the states. Those states with sufficient capacity (food, energy, low levels of public debt) will manage OK, provided that they have the resolve to face facts and make tough decisions.
Unsentimental regional and local oligarchs with an interest in maintaining a viable society will be self-interested, but, hopefully, an improvement on the present national oligarchy.
All true. Another factor is consumer goods. Soviet goods were hard to get, but durable and easy to repair. American goods all suffer from planned obsolescence, and are often deliberately manufactured to be impossible to repair. A few years during which it is impossible to replace broken appliances will severely impact the American standard of living.
Pharmaceuticals and medical equipment will be another one to watch. Any equipment relying on computer chips will also be difficult to replace or repair should China chose to seize Taiwan and cut-off the supply of chips.
The possibility of collapse is now being taken in deadly earnest by regional and local elites. Several states have recently lifted sales taxes on precious metals and legalised the use of bullion as a means of exchange. Texas has established a bullion deposit facility. It is hard to imagine a stronger expression of no-confidence in the system.
If you are not already aware of him, the definitive authority on the subject of comparative systemic collapse is Dmitry Orlov. He has written several books on the subject. He is uniquely capable of comparing Soviet, American and post-Soviet Russian conditions. He blogs at ClubOrlov | I d e a s t o b l o w y o u r m i n d (wordpress.com)
One thing remains to be seen - the power of unfettered connectivity where ideas are elicited, debated and shared online and the quality that emerges is transformed into policy quickly. RFK jr talked about this in his presidential run and it’s basically the operating system of Trump’s team so there is hope.
A revived form of civic militarism (military prowess sustained by egalitarian social forms, group cohesion and genuine efforts to develop human capital) has much to recommend it. But state of the art weaponry requires the fabrication of computer chips, the extraction and refinement of rare earths and the launch and maintenance of satellites. These would pose extraordinary difficulties for decentralised, egalitarian, systems.
Furthermore, the ability to develop and deploy advanced weapons systems requires the application of advanced STEM skills. There is nothing egalitarian about STEM.
In the long run military advantage will deservedly go to the side with the deepest reservoirs of quality human capital.
The ruling caste in the US currently thinks it can maintain planetary supremacy with a technocracy recruited from the Ivy League supplemented with Asian migration while it constrains the development of the legacy population through maleducation, infotainment, cannabis and austerity economics. This situation can’t go on forever. The latest Russian air defence systems are extinguishing Anglo-globalist air supremacy, rendering the standard NATO military model obsolete. Change is on its way.
The immediate future may see the US cut a deal with rival oligarchies, while attempting to maintain the present social system. A degree of latitude will be extended to those portions of the population needed to ensure sufficient loyalty and capacity to die for the state, but it will all be a matter of degree.
The scale of the society and size of the supply chain isn't necessarily the key issue; rather, it's cost per unit. A military paradigm based on 'small, fast, and cheap' is going to inherently require a greater degree of participation than one based on 'big and expensive'. In any case, I don't see any reason why a heavily networked economy composed primarily of small, independent producers can't produce high tech widgets in large quantities, so long as the necessary trading infrastructure is available to source raw materials. 3D printing will also have to be factored in to this analysis.
Regarding egalitarianism, it depends what you mean. Both the Greeks and the enlightenment Europeans were intensely meritocratic, prizing ability and achievement above all else. The same remains more or less true in STEM. Egalitarian doesn't imply equal outcomes; it's more accurate to say that it involves a greater per capita investment in resources towards education and access to opportunity, such that the average human quality of the populace is raised to the highest degree possible.
So far as the US goes, if history is any guide, as the legacy empire America will fail to implement the reforms to its social order necessary to optimize use of emerging weapons tech, and will rather choose to double down on its existing system. The result will be eventual defeat by a periphery power that does make the necessary changes. Then again, you never know - Americans are an innovative bunch, and a revolutionary challenge by an internal renegade elite may succeed in displacing the ruling class and opening the way for those necessary changes.
Valid points and essentially we are in agreement. If you have not already read it, in THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES the Christopher Lasch made the distinction between two types of modern society: those that aim to raise the level of ability amongst the people in general and those that give up on the masses and focus on developing excellence within the elite only. There is no question which one we have got.
As for STEM, I should have explained myself better. STEM is indeed intrinsically egalitarian: logic, mathematics and analytic thinking are great levellers and potentially socially disruptive, which is one reason why access to high quality education in STEM is so carefully rationed. The problems with STEM in the West today is the uneven distribution of ability as well as the difficulty involved in rebuilding what has been destroyed or neglected.
The neglect of industry and manufacturing and the concurrent mismanagement of education has weakened the US military no end. This is the central point that Andrei Martyanov makes endlessly.
"Christopher Lasch made the distinction between two types of modern society: those that aim to raise the level of ability amongst the people in general and those that give up on the masses and focus on developing excellence within the elite only. There is no question which one we have got."
Glancing at our so-called elite, I'm extremely skeptical that they're systematically cultivating anything remotely approaching excellence within their own circles.
That's the fatal weakness of the sort of elitism that seeks to push down rather than lift up. By depressing the human quality of the masses, a ruling class can afford a lower level of quality itself. Eventually it loses the mandate of heaven and is brushed aside by an elite that is fit to rule.
On the other hand, an elite that seeks general improvement of the population - in the sense of making the average man as smart and strong as is possible given his genetics - will be forced by circumstance to be smarter and stronger still. They'll have a harder time retaining power, but having developed the virtues will also use it more effectively, and can furthermore call upon a pool of far more capable men when their society is challenged by outsiders.
"Glancing at our so-called elite, I'm extremely skeptical that they're systematically cultivating anything remotely approaching excellence within their own circles."
I'd say that much of the elite simply assume their own excellence. Many confuse excellence with intellectual/ethical/social conformity, while others understand it in ways that would make little or no sense to anyone reading POSTCARDS FROM BARSOOM. One of the key problems with this approach is that social distance enables illusions of this kind to get established and to persist. The US elite is certainly becoming dumbed down to a point that will compromise the viability of the US as a superpower.
This: "Glancing at our so-called elite, I'm extremely skeptical that they're systematically cultivating anything remotely approaching excellence within their own circles."
The utter corruption of the "leaders" will spell their downfall, and I'm hopeful that it's coming soon. The system is much too easily gamed, and much too reliant on sociopaths. Currently the self-proclaimed elite are stealing as much as they can, with little concern for concealment, because they know the opportunities for doing so are going to disappear real soon.
Case study: Kamala Harris.
Things are definitely coming to a head.
If America goes through anything resembling post-Soviet Russia (the most relevant point of comparison), it will be exceptionally grim. Russia had several advantages that America does not: intact families, a highly socialised population, a coherent national culture and a well-educated professional class.
Also many Russian families had allotments which they could use to grow food and rent was pretty cheap. Finally, the Soviet collapse allowed Russia to rid itself of a periphery that was supported or subsidised financially by Russian industry and natural resources (especially energy).
The USA, by contrast, has an atomised society, traditional familial structures are stressed or decayed, a weakened common culture and a dumbed down professional class. Worse still, food supply chains are extended across a continent and additional economic burdens (in the form of illegal immigrants) exist in vast and rapidly growing numbers.
The best case scenario is that the US will survive with a ceremonial and powerless national government, but with a renaissance of power and autonomy in the states. Those states with sufficient capacity (food, energy, low levels of public debt) will manage OK, provided that they have the resolve to face facts and make tough decisions.
Unsentimental regional and local oligarchs with an interest in maintaining a viable society will be self-interested, but, hopefully, an improvement on the present national oligarchy.
All true. Another factor is consumer goods. Soviet goods were hard to get, but durable and easy to repair. American goods all suffer from planned obsolescence, and are often deliberately manufactured to be impossible to repair. A few years during which it is impossible to replace broken appliances will severely impact the American standard of living.
Pharmaceuticals and medical equipment will be another one to watch. Any equipment relying on computer chips will also be difficult to replace or repair should China chose to seize Taiwan and cut-off the supply of chips.
The possibility of collapse is now being taken in deadly earnest by regional and local elites. Several states have recently lifted sales taxes on precious metals and legalised the use of bullion as a means of exchange. Texas has established a bullion deposit facility. It is hard to imagine a stronger expression of no-confidence in the system.
If you are not already aware of him, the definitive authority on the subject of comparative systemic collapse is Dmitry Orlov. He has written several books on the subject. He is uniquely capable of comparing Soviet, American and post-Soviet Russian conditions. He blogs at ClubOrlov | I d e a s t o b l o w y o u r m i n d (wordpress.com)
Orlov is where I got the talking point regarding Soviet vs American appliances. An insightful guy to be sure.
One thing remains to be seen - the power of unfettered connectivity where ideas are elicited, debated and shared online and the quality that emerges is transformed into policy quickly. RFK jr talked about this in his presidential run and it’s basically the operating system of Trump’s team so there is hope.