[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '
')
So Ancient Greece, Romans, Egyptians upto Cleopatra, Europe during darkages, medieval times and beyond, Russia till 1917, various African tribes, Incas, China till 1949, India till 1947 and Japan count as the minority?

[Markos101]

I'll need some documentary research about this. My assumption is perhaps different to yours in that I think all organised human cultures have a rulng class. The head of the tribe and his warriors. The medicine man. It doesn't matter; it seems that if an organisation forms, there is a ruling class, including in even small isolated tribal groups.

Mark

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'Y')es, they do, versus 10,000 tribal cultures.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'I')'ll need some documentary research about this. My assumption is perhaps different to yours in that I think all organised human cultures have a rulng class. The head of the tribe and his warriors. The medicine man. It doesn't matter; it seems that if an organisation forms, there is a ruling class, including in even small isolated tribal groups.

Mark

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '
')
Is 10,000 a real number or one plucked from your proverbial?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')ribe Form of sociopolitical organization usually based on horticulture or pastoralism. Socioeconomic stratification and centralized rule are absent in tribes, and there is no means of enforcing political decisions.

[Markos101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'I')'ll need some documentary research about this. My assumption is perhaps different to yours in that I think all organised human cultures have a rulng class. The head of the tribe and his warriors. The medicine man. It doesn't matter; it seems that if an organisation forms, there is a ruling class, including in even small isolated tribal groups.

Mark

[Markos101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')ribe Form of sociopolitical organization usually based on horticulture or pastoralism. Socioeconomic stratification and centralized rule are absent in tribes, and there is no means of enforcing political decisions.

[rogerhb]

Four legs good, two legs better.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'I')n terms of power, I am talking about either

(a) Having higher purchasing power than other individuals
(b) Having higher powers to pass legislation to coerce individuals

By 'ruling class' I am talking about those individuals who have more of these two powers than others.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', '
')
That may be correct, however you wll then have a power vacuum solved by barbarism; that is, 'might is right'. Individual tribe members will enforce their individual will on others in some situations by physical coercion rather than internal compulsion, as is the case with law.

[Markos101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'I')n terms of power, I am talking about either

(a) Having higher purchasing power than other individuals
(b) Having higher powers to pass legislation to coerce individuals

By 'ruling class' I am talking about those individuals who have more of these two powers than others.

[rogerhb]

I think the problem is one of scale.

Tribes can work for upto 150 people where everyone can actually know everyone else.

Once you try and organise anything bigger you need hierarchy and end up with bureaucracy.

[Markos101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', '
')
That may be correct, however you wll then have a power vacuum solved by barbarism; that is, 'might is right'. Individual tribe members will enforce their individual will on others in some situations by physical coercion rather than internal compulsion, as is the case with law.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', '
')
People can exist in a totally indepedent, redbeck sort of existence, being totally self-sufficient. However most of us exist in organisations, large or small, and in all, there are leaders. The same is the case for tribal cultures.

Mark

[rogerhb]

Ironically, despite the fascinating discussion about tribes (yes it was good) my comment about "race to the bottom" being an individual effort was actually aimed at "individual nations".

Eg, end of globalisation being trade between nations where for some reason despite having totally different economies, lifestyles, payscales, exchange rates etc, we were supposed to all be able to compete equally, and with globalisation that equals not a raising of standards all round, but a lowering of standards all round as the richer nations have to cut costs and sacrifice lifestyles to compete with poorer nations.

This could also be seen as the [in]visible hand trying to get us back on topic!

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'I') think the problem is one of scale.

Tribes can work for upto 150 people where everyone can actually know everyone else.

Once you try and organise anything bigger you need hierarchy and end up with bureaucracy.

[Markos101]

I think globalisation will simply serve to magnify the fragmented society we already live in - the division of labour causes the loss of understanding of the individuals contribution to the bigger picture ('alienation'). Less division of labour is better, not more. There is also no 'global community' - I still only know a certain number of indiviudals in my social circles, whether I watch BBC World or have the internet. All globalisation has served to create is a society that looks to the abstract of global community to replace the (non-abstract) local community. It has simply served to erode social cohesion. People are less concerned it seems today about problems of their local areas - the elderly, sick, disabled - or problems of crime. Rather, they are more interested in what is going on in a third world country or what the leader of North Korea said about some political issue. People's minds are being led more, and more away from their own predicament.

It has also led to a centralisation of information sources (although with the internet this is being solved) and a centralisation of power in all areas of our lives. It has led to rule by fewer, and fewer individuals over the greater number.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'T')here is also no 'global community' - I still only know a certain number of indiviudals in my social circles, whether I watch BBC World or have the internet. All globalisation has served to create is a society that looks to the abstract of global community to replace the (non-abstract) local community. It has simply served to erode social cohesion. People are less concerned it seems today about problems of their local areas - the elderly, sick, disabled - or problems of crime.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') agree with you. I don't know that the abstract of a global community is entirely a bad thing, but it shouldn't replace the actual local community.