Today‘s column:
Poverty, private property and government
Based on the observations of anthropologist Lewis Morgan in “Ancient Societies”, the evolution of private property and social classes may be viewed as the inevitable and logical offshoots of progress–progress being defined as the development of physical tools to ensure the survival of man.
The thing about Morgan’s theories, about how the growth of the wealth and power of government was the natural consequence of progress, is that they almost echo Rousseau’s “social contract” theory. You know, that many voluntarily agreed to be bound by the authority of a higher order because they believed that an administrative body was necessary for growing communities to function effectively. But it is also possible that government came about as a result of force, coercion or deceit, or all of them.
Let’s go back to that point (see Tuesday’s column on page one of this entry) when families started accumulating wealth but there was, as yet, no clearly defined government (even Morgan implies that these two events did not transpire at the same exact point in history). It is well accepted that in the state of nature, people survived by brute strength and it was a case of survival of the fittest. When the earliest forms of communities were established, “survival of the fittest” took on a new meaning because “strength” became synonymous with economic strength. The family or clan who had more and better tools, and more seeds to plant (accumulated wealth), became the stronger.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the first tribal leaders (primitive government) sprung from among these families. Let me elaborate.
Did government came about as a result of force, coercion or deceit?
It defies logic to assume that the rest of the community simply accepted the superior status of these families. In a situation where one or two families owned enough seeds to plant crops for the coming year and they could withhold those seeds from the rest, it would be naïve to say that no form of coercion was present.
Coercion? Okay, according to Morgan, each family was concerned with strengthening itself and, hence, the invention of inheritance to keep wealth among its members. Is it reasonable to presume that these powerful families would distribute their wealth (let’s say seeds) without demanding anything in return? There are two logical consequences:
1. The family who was in a position to prevent famine demanded recognition as an authority.
2. Those who needed the resources of these families were forced to pledge something in return–labor, servitude or even the unequivocal agreement to return the same amount of seeds plus interest, whatever the primitive form of interest was.
Morgan said that primitive tribes developed tools and stockades not only to produce and store food but also to defend themselves in case of attack by warring tribes. The families with the most number of, and best quality, tools– weapons–was in a position to determine whether the tribe could survive war with another. Again following Morgan’s theory that each family was concerned with strengthening itself, wouldn’t a situation like this be an opportunity to establish itself as an authority?
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the first primitive government sprung from among these families and that the earliest forms of government were not created as a matter of voluntary agreement but as an inevitable act borne out of coercion. In primitive society where tribal wars were a way of life, the victorious tribe annexed the lands and wealth of the occupied tribe. Tribal wars, therefore, were also a case of one government imposing its power and will on another.
Tribal wars may have also created the first cultural minorities. After all, it is rather hard to imagine the winning tribe treating the members of the losing tribe as equals. And the losing tribe being deprived of land and properties, they would have been the poorest of the poor in the merged community.
From one perspective, there’s nothing really modern about today’s governments. It is really curious how much of primitive society is retained in modern states. Take the Philippine Constitution, for instance. The concept of national patrimony is an echo of the primitive society’s system where land is owned in common while the right to till is subject to private ownership. The “right to till” as private property is found in all those laws granting mining rights, fishing rights and even the rights to dig for oil.
Then, there’s the fact that government officials who don’t do anything apart from administering “matters of the state” are paid with taxpayer’s money. Primitive governments were entitled to a share of the produce even though they did not contribute any effort to the planting, harvesting or hunting, and the preservation of food for the lean seasons. Salaries, allowances and pork barrel funds are just the modern-day terms for “share in the produce.”
In that sense, it is not difficult to understand why many modern-day governments have little concern over addressing poverty and the plight of the disenfranchised. The continued existence of social and economic classes is the backbone of government because government itself is an elite class. It is not difficult to understand either why governments are more concerned with the protection of the interests of the wealthy. It’s just a case of protecting its own.
Is that a validation? Hardly. It is just an attempt to comprehend why things are the way they are — without blame, without rhetoric, without emotional appeals. Where we go from here, if we have the guts to break away from all vestiges of primitive societies, is up to us.
Pages: 1 2
Where we go from here? How about all of us not paying taxes for a month, or a year. Or all of us borrow money up to our credit limit, and not pay anything back, then declare bankruptcy. And stop giving money to churches too. Or, all of the above.
Sometimes, it seems that what we see as real is only apparent, and truly real. Like government. WE demand so much from it because we’re working under the assumption that it should work for all of us. But did it ever?
Blame it all on agriculture. When everyone was a hunter-gatherer, no one had time to be the king/president/chief cause they were too busy trying to catch their next meal.
The culprit was when we became monogamous. Because as cited, our behavior since then became contrived instead of when we were honest and true with the moment.
Plus agriculture allowed the setting up of armies and religions since not everyone had to forage for food any longer with all the attendant horrors those institutions have wrought throughout history.
The fact that in the regular course of history, different societies produce wealthy and poor state of people means that having wealthy and poor people is the “natural” state of this imperfect world. The goal of making all people rich (capitalism) or making them all poor (socialism) are two extremes that exist only in the mind and finds no counterpart in reality. Forcing these ideas on people by any means possible only produces more evil than the good that it seeks to achieve.
Extreme form of poverty is a relative evil that all of us must contribute to eradicate. But poverty, in a personal level, is in itself, a virtue that all of us must nurture. Root cause? I agree with Connie that it is rooted in our inordinate desire to have more for ourselves than what we really need. Will having a little less than what we really need be the answer?
Miguk, interestingly, that is the theory being spoused by Daniel Quinn’s “Ishmail” where the supposed teacher, a gorilla of all things, divided us into takers and leavers. I had been thinking about it as I read Connie’s article.
Miguk, the irony is that without agriculture, no civilization would have developed. The even bigger irony is that it is civilization that gave birth to social inequities. You know, while the “short, brutish life” in the state of nature sounds horrible, it does have its attractions. No government, no laws, no taxes, no man claiming to be a conduit to god…
Tom, I was thinking about the monogamy part of Morgan’s book… I mean, he had a focus of study (specific Indian tribes) and monogamy might have been a much, much later development in other cultures. I think that the formation of family (and the thrust to preserve it, ergo, accumulation of wealth etc) and monogamy did not necessarily go hand in hand. There were some points in Sumerian civilization (and this was long, long, looooong after the period of primitive societies) when polygamy was still practiced.
John, re “Will having a little less than what we really need be the answer?”
Ummm… But that will be anti-progress, won’t it, because it is the desire for more (eg., build stronger houses, create better tools, find better ways to get and store water…) that gives way to inventions and new discoveries.
Tito Rolly, I’m still looking for that book. Pretty Socratic in approach, don’t you think?
To put it a little extreme, weapons were developed as tool to secure ones interest. This brings to war. History is replete with wars. It is easy to look at it in the context of a country. In the 2003 memo of Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo states, “The decision to deploy military force in the defense of US interests is expressly placed under presidential authority by the Vesting Clause and by the commander-in-chief clause.”
The US president may launch pre-emptive war against any state or nonstate actor by his simple assertion that US interests require it. Venezuela or Iran could be invaded on the president’s say-so alone to secure adequate oil and gas supplies. That is to secure one interest over others. War is just only one option. Dictating the terms of economic and trading agreements is another.
Possessions translate to power. The power holders determines who has priority interest. Today, addressing poverty is elusive because giving up possessions diminishes power which is a key to survival.
d0d0ng, Morgan’s data validates that — he wrote about stockades and weapons for defense. War appears to be inextricably linked with the earliest form of private property.
One way we could rid ourselves of the vestiges of primitive societies is to recognize that we couldn’t be straddling the Ages. It’s either we remain in the Industrial Age or fully transition into the Information Age.
I read somewhere that if one is born poor, it’s not his fault; but if one dies poor, it’s his fault. All men are created equal in the sense that each one of us has exactly 24 hours each day. What one does with his twenty four hours determines his station in life…those that produce and maximize the use of their time get rich while those that squander their allotted time each day become poor.
re: “those that produce and maximize the use of their time get rich while those that squander their alloted time each day become poor.”
What an inspirational thought. My idea of maximizing the use of my time these days is campaigning to bring the income up an average of $100,000.00 a year. Because if the campaign succeeds we would be in a position to correct a lot of these financial situations we got ourselves in.
Never should we allow ourselves to remain quiet along the fringes while these characters connive at squandering our money and time.
Another inspirational thought from Napoleon Hill, “Remember, no more effort is required to aim high in life, to demand abundance and prosperity, than is required to accept misery and poverty.”
Yes, I will do it!!!