Prabhat Sarkar and his social cycle

[Hintergrund]

Since we have a constellation of generations like we never had before, I expect that something will happen that has never been there before.

[pbrower2a]

(08-22-2019, 02:27 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: Since we have a constellation of generations like we never had before, I expect that something will happen that has never been there before.

More significantly, we already have nukes and ICBM's in place from before the start of the Crisis. Those who have command of them are as scared of them as are their potential enemies.

[pbrower2a]

(09-09-2019, 09:50 PM)taramarie Wrote: What makes an artist smarter than an Acquisitors? An artist here btw. Very curious as I do think we are all very clever in our own way. What about an entrepreneur artist? Interesting as I would never call myself an intellectual individual for being an artist. It is more a form of self expression. I thought society deemed emotions as a form of non intellect. Yes being sarcastic here, but I do hear it so often as an ISFP artist. So to be honest it is a nice change seeing this, but it does make me curious to hear more.

The warriors use brute force to get things done. They are smarter than the others of their time, but intellectual subtlety is not their strength. War is the definitive example of brute force. The sorts of buildings that warriors construct (fortifications, barracks, and docks) are typically lacking in humanizing quirks. On the other hand, if a community is emerging from the hunter-gatherer level to the start of agrarian civilization because hunter-gatherer societies cannot well defend themselves or has just been ravaged in some calamity, then the warrior (a Civic/Hero type) is what is available first.

War creates its own problems. It is not enough to make bows and arrows; to make them effective one must estimate what angle one to make them reach the targets. Warriors end up need medics (precursors of physicians) to treat the wounded who can be helped and priests to console the hopeless. Warriors' regulations are both ineffective and excessive in peacetime, so warriors need attorneys and judges to mitigate disputes and keep people in line. If war is to end in something other than annihilation, then there will be assistants (precursors of diplomats) to establish terms (i.e., this is our tribe's hunting ground and not yours). After the war the warriors will need poets to praise the Leaders' achievements and art to decorate things.  What pass as scientists, jurists, clergy, physicians, diplomats, and creative people of the time suggest the Adaptive/Artist type. In time they become more judgmental and divisive and start turning on each other as the Artist/Adaptive types become Prophet/Idealist types.

Then come the accusations of heresy and treason... and smart people find that the safe way to avoid trouble is to use one's intelligence to meet basic human desires -- through business. Besides, the warriors have often degenerated into an aristocracy and need the tax base  and the means of getting provisions for war. The Nomad/Reactive type becomes the businessman, broker, salesman, and manufacturer. The fault? Making money by investments looks easier than it is, so speculative activities mushroom. Inequality of economic result intensifies. Self-indulgent hedonism becomes the norm, and people who cannot create wealth as laborers except under the command of taskmasters seek freedom. 

The age of the worker is chaotic -- and short.

[pbrower2a]

(09-10-2019, 06:31 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-10-2019, 05:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-09-2019, 09:50 PM)taramarie Wrote: What makes an artist smarter than an Acquisitors? An artist here btw. Very curious as I do think we are all very clever in our own way. What about an entrepreneur artist? Interesting as I would never call myself an intellectual individual for being an artist. It is more a form of self expression. I thought society deemed emotions as a form of non intellect. Yes being sarcastic here, but I do hear it so often as an ISFP artist. So to be honest it is a nice change seeing this, but it does make me curious to hear more.

The warriors use brute force to get things done. They are smarter than the others of their time, but intellectual subtlety is not their strength. War is the definitive example of brute force. The sorts of buildings that warriors construct (fortifications, barracks, and docks) are typically lacking in humanizing quirks. On the other hand, if a community is emerging from the hunter-gatherer level to the start of agrarian civilization because hunter-gatherer societies cannot well defend themselves or has just been ravaged in some calamity, then the warrior (a Civic/Hero type) is what is available first.

War creates its own problems. It is not enough to make bows and arrows; to make them effective one must estimate what angle one to make them reach the targets. Warriors end up need medics (precursors of physicians) to treat the wounded who can be helped and priests to console the hopeless. Warriors' regulations are both ineffective and excessive in peacetime, so warriors need attorneys and judges to mitigate disputes and keep people in line. If war is to end in something other than annihilation, then there will be assistants (precursors of diplomats) to establish terms (i.e., this is our tribe's hunting ground and not yours). After the war the warriors will need poets to praise the Leaders' achievements and art to decorate things.  What pass as scientists, jurists, clergy, physicians, diplomats, and creative people of the time suggest the Adaptive/Artist type. In time they become more judgmental and divisive and start turning on each other as the Artist/Adaptive types become Prophet/Idealist types.

Then come the accusations of heresy and treason... and smart people find that the safe way to avoid trouble is to use one's intelligence to meet basic human desires -- through business. Besides, the warriors have often degenerated into an aristocracy and need the tax base  and the means of getting provisions for war. The Nomad/Reactive type becomes the businessman, broker, salesman, and manufacturer. The fault? Making money by investments looks easier than it is, so speculative activities mushroom. Inequality of economic result intensifies. Self-indulgent hedonism becomes the norm, and people who cannot create wealth as laborers except under the command of taskmasters seek freedom. 

The age of the worker is chaotic -- and short.

In that theory then I would be the "warrior" archetype? I guess my mbti type fits me more as I literally am an artist. But in times of crisis here in my own country I have taken force to get things done to help rebuild what was lost and I am also a person of action. But that does fit my mbti type more than anything else. I am an ISFP.

No matter what your MBTI type. in a real Crisis you may be expected to fit a specific role in the Crisis. Unless one has extraordinary talents one will be a foot-soldier if the right age and gender and not intellectually or physically handicapped, and if you are somewhat more competent you might be more specialized in a military role. If a really-good creative person you might turn your abilities to blatant propaganda; if you are a scientist or engineer you might be dedicated to making the war machine work better.

It is the age of the laborer that is so uncomfortable to so many people because the laborer dreams of ease, plenty, and indulgence without developing much skill (if one has real skill one is not really a laborer), effort, or investment. Such an age disparages physical effort, intellectual subtlety, and the usual sort of effective investment (which is typically long-term and low-yield, and requiring large personal commitment). The easy money that people made on owning early shares in some high-tech businesses (Hewlett-Packard was surprised to find that some of its janitors were millionaires!) creates the illusion that anyone can get rich by being in the right place in the right time and just doing a normal job. 

The age of the laborer is the era of get-rich-quick schemes that fail badly, of anti-intellectual culture, and of stupefying bad behavior. Despite popular expressions of equity in that some wailer on a soap-box is the equal of Goethe and the drunken crooner can pretend to be another Pavarotti, life gets awful. The economy melts down. The Warrior is the only one who can take over. 

OK, so there is a huge difference between an angry, intellectually- and morally-hollow Warrior like Hitler and an intellectual powerhouse like FDR -- but FDR could better bring out the strengths of the Warrior (the big water and highway projects of the 1930's) while keeping the worst tendencies of the Warrior in check. (Hitler liked military service more than he liked being an artist, and he loved military shtick in his organization of the Nazi Party, basically a gang with a military structure.

[pbrower2a]

In a Crisis at its most heated, you are likely to get the "offer that you can't refuse". As an artist you might be encouraged to create propaganda for your side. What sort? 

I would rather make this



than this 



and not solely as a question of artistic quality. The government must tread more carefully when people have freedom of speech, freedom to hold or seek a religious tradition (or make their own, or choose none at all), expect to not live in dire need, and all in all not dread the anger of the political leadership. On the other hand, treading more carefully means doing fewer crimes and other blunders. The biggest blunder of the Nazis was the mistreatment of people unfortunate enough to come under their rule. 

If you are familiar with the propaganda that is a fecal work both technically and morally (and, yes, the Rockwell piece really is propaganda!) it is by or for the war criminal Julius Streicher, who issued the definitive Jew-hating newspaper that blamed the Jews for every evil in the world and every misfortune in Germany.  This is not the worst depiction of Jews that Streicher and his sick cartoonists offered,  some of them depicting them doing ritual murder of Christian children (never mind that the Catholic Church had long debunked those stories).


One can easily end up with this dilemma





Are you a good propagandist or a bad propagandist?

[pbrower2a]

Any country that can elect Donald Trump has a cancer of its soul. Maybe not as bad as Germany had in 1933, but for America the cure is harsh. If it takes another economic meltdown such as that of 1929-1932, so be it. Good habits are worth the hardships that create those habits.

[Eric the Green]

Usually the classes of traditional society are described as Priests, Aristocrats (originally warriors), commercial classes, and peasants/workers. Sarker substitutes intellectuals for priests and puts them second. Joseph Campbell pointed out a succession of stages in a society, and saw it as stages of decline. The religious or spiritual era is the sourcepoint and the original highest class, the priests. In France that was the First Estate. It was given evidence by the religious building predominating the town. The second era was the aristocrats, or lords, called in France the Second Estate. In the town we see the predominance of the palace. The third stage is dominated by the commercial and business classes, the bourgeoisie, or Third Estate. The type of building dominating the town was the commercial tower such as a bank or insurance company. In France, all the common people were lumped into that category. Obviously the USA falls into this kind of society. The fourth stage might be Marx's utopia: or at least attempts at worker ownership or socialism, and was represented by the Jacobin "Mountain" during the French Revolution. Whether this process is a decline or an advance is a matter of opinion; might be some of each. But the point is that the original impetus for a civilization comes from the Spirit.

Obviously perhaps, as a prophet I am sympathetic to this succession, since that archetype is similar to the priests. Nomads like Gen X are certainly warriors, and the civics are certainly enterprising, although the character of entrepreneur or businessman also belongs to the nomad type, and civics are more political, so maybe those two archetypes can be switched in the generational succession. And civics are also more "intellectual," but mostly in a technical sense, not philosophical. The Adaptives are like peasants because they are sympathetic to all the people, and believe that people are people and all are equal.

[pbrower2a]

(09-11-2019, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Usually the classes of traditional society are described as Priests, Aristocrats (originally warriors), commercial classes, and peasants/workers. Sarker substitutes intellectuals for priests and puts them second. Joseph Campbell pointed out a succession of stages in a society, and saw it as stages of decline. The religious or spiritual era is the sourcepoint and the original highest class, the priests. In France that was the First Estate. It was given evidence by the religious building predominating the town. The second era was the aristocrats, or lords, called in France the Second Estate. In the town we see the predominance of the palace. The third stage is dominated by the commercial and business classes, the bourgeoisie, or Third Estate. The type of building dominating the town was the commercial tower such as a bank or insurance company. In France, all the common people were lumped into that category. Obviously the USA falls into this kind of society. The fourth stage might be Marx's utopia: or at least attempts at worker ownership or socialism, and was represented by the Jacobin "Mountain" during the French Revolution. Whether this process is a decline or an advance is a matter of opinion; might be some of each. But the point is that the original impetus for a civilization comes from the Spirit.

Obviously perhaps, as a prophet I am sympathetic to this succession, since that archetype is similar to the priests. Nomads like Gen X are certainly warriors, and the civics are certainly enterprising, although the character of entrepreneur or businessman also belongs to the nomad type, and civics are more political, so maybe those two archetypes can be switched in the generational succession. And civics are also more "intellectual," but mostly in a technical sense, not philosophical. The Adaptives are like peasants because they are sympathetic to all the people, and believe that people are people and all are equal.

In Marxist terminology the classes are the Big Bourgeoisie of financiers, industrialists, and big landowners; the petit- bourgeois traders, intellectuals, shopkeepers, and (stability suspect) yeoman farmers; and of course tne numerically-dominant but otherwise-powerless proletariat who do the nasty, hard, and ill-rewarded toil from which other classes profiteer. 

It is suspect. Others see class as largely cultural in identity which means that a PhD who scrapes by as an adjunct professor and has a love for art and literature, but would never dream of setting foot in an amusement park, is superior to some nouveau-riche  fellow who makes a fortune selling manufactured housing to proles or who creates reality television. Think of the late Paul Fussell, who had his nine classes of modern American society:

1. Top out-of-sight: super-rich old-money types who avoid public scrutiny.
2. Upper: people who live off inherited income
3. Upper middle-class: people who might be rich but were not always so. Typically they are business founders and high-level professionals such as physicians, attorneys, and architects. This includes much of the executive nomenklatura that may now be the worst exploiters in America (my observation). 

4. Middle. Not rich, but possibly on-the-make. It used to include lots of small businessmen, but with the increasing concentration of the economy those (especially small farmers) have gone on to other things. The middle class includes mostly degreed professionals in accounting, engineering, teaching, dentistry, and computer programming. 

---- THERE IS NO LONGER A LOWER MIDDLE CLASS ---

The once well-off class of clerks distinguishable by their 'solid high-school educations', or earlier 'solid eighth-grade educations', are now working class. 

5. High-proletarian. Skilled workers -- the craftsmen such as machinists, electricians, welders, plumbers, butchers, and the like who need a formal apprenticeship. Heavy-equipment operators. Nurses and flight attendants. Blue-collar supervisors, police, and prison guards. Postal workers.   

6. Mid-proletarian. The machine operators and assemblers with machine-paced jobs, retail clerks (even if they 'only' operate a cash register), and vehicle drivers. Ill-paid or subject to frequent lay-offs. This is the largest class in America. It is ill-educated and often very resentful but can do little about it except perhaps to fall for demagogues like Joseph R. McCarthy, George Wallace, Jesse Helms,and Donald Trump. 

7. Unskilled workers. Porters, janitors, messengers, roustabouts, pickers, and servants. Their work is invariably ill-paid or extremely unsteady.

8. Destitute. People managing to keep from being institutionalized due to welfare or disability payments; people with questionable means of making a living (prostitutes and criminals) and hobos of an earlier time. 

9. Bottom out-of-sight. People institutionalized for stupidity, insanity, senility, extreme disability, or gross immorality (as in criminals who get caught and sent to the Big House).

[Hintergrund]

"Class theory"... the very term is stupid. Is he talking about school classes? Then we could indeed speak of "class struggle".

[pbrower2a]

(10-29-2019, 08:21 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: "Class theory"... the very term is stupid. Is he talking about school classes? Then we could indeed speak of "class struggle".

The late Paul Fussell (my source for these categories of class from his book Class), defines class identity by occupation for most but also recognizes consumer preferences, intellectual pursuits, and consumer preferences. He largely dodges religion and ethnicity. He has his own questionnaire that establishes the class to which one belongs. A love for the archaic but reputable ordinarily establishes a high social position, and being addicted to the newest technology is suspect. Fussell wrote Class before personal computers, cell phones, tablets, and 200 channels of cable TV. Having a motorcycle in your living room is really low, but having a living room overflowing with books is impressive. It is obvious, of course, that great master paintings (replicas of the best-known great masters are social failures) indicate someone of very high status, and that mass-market schlock (velvet Elvis, dogs playing poker, Christ at the United Nations) isn't so impressive. A musical instrument associated with archaic music such as a viola or a pipe organ is more impressive than an instrument that can be used in a marching band; thus an oboe is "higher" than a clarinet, which is "higher" than a saxophone or trombone in a jazz ensemble, let alone an electric guitar. Genuine learning is high, and superstition is low. Blowing a few thousand dollars in Vegas is less classy (artificial, heavily associated with commercialism and mass low culture) than is spending much the same in Paris.

It is not cost as a rule. Natural fabrics such as wool are far preferable to orlon, rayon, and polyester. Gold is impressive if genuine, but gilded bathroom fixtures are tacky. What matters is not such symbols  one has -- but instead what one wants.    

Even if broke I have things to say about where I really belong. I have never had a motorcycle or a sailboat -- but I would probably enjoy a sailboat far more. I'd rather visit Prague than Vegas (I do not have Czech ancestry, but there is something attractive about a city not full of glass boxes... and I love the musical tradition of the Czechs), I use the computer to access antiquity. "Class" does not mean that one has the assets, but instead that one relates to certain things. Keeping a small aquarium in a bedroom? Sure. A big, expensive one complete with sunken galleons and opening clam shells? What? With fresh-water fish? Whatever you do, don't waste money on tickets to a boxing match. Opera or symphony? Sure.

[Hintergrund]

Ah, Paul Fussell. He also wrote that it's custom in the American middle class not to have any books lying around which have too challenging topics... if that's true, pretty pathetic for the middle "class".

[pbrower2a]

(10-30-2019, 07:57 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Ah, Paul Fussell. He also wrote that it's custom in the American middle class not to have any books lying around which have too challenging topics... if that's true, pretty pathetic for the middle "class".

Fussell is dead, and his contemporary commentary can get increasingly obsolete.

The middle class became infamous for cultural blandness, which could change as different ethnic groups enter the middle class. 

The 'proles', as Fussell called them, seem more likely to have books proudly displayed, especially if those extol the  ideology of the prole. Such books are icons of ideology penned or ghost-written by right-wing clergy and right-wing ideologues. 

At one time the middle class may have been scared to assert controversial ideas... but American political life has changed. Note well that the TV  has often become a substitute for newspapers and books, and when the TV goes dark or is used for pure entertainment, in which time the controversy abates.