• universeness
    6.3k
    The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists is an old book by Robert Tressel, whose real name was Robert Noonan. This has been a very important book to me and probably to many other people.
    The money trick is a chapter in the book. It describes how land first fell into the possession of the few.
    The main points would be; The toughest person would beat up all challengers to become the leader of a group. This process continued and grew from gang size to clan/tribe/nation size etc. The reward for the few was always control/ownership of land and its resources, despite the fact it was the majority that fought the battles. This system makes perfect sense if you consider our Darwinian 'law of the jungle' beginnings. Animals will fight other animals to steal their kill or gain access or control over areas of high resource etc. It's also logical that when leaders reach the status of 'Don' or 'Chief' or 'King' etc that they would eventually do less of the fighting themselves and send out subordinates to do it for them and reward them with land and titles such as 'Earl' and 'Duke' etc.
    Once the 'few' owned the best land etc. They would employ/force large numbers of 'their subjects,' (named slaves, peasants, serfs etc). To 'work the land.' The produce would then be owned by the landowner and be consumed by them and their nearest and dearest to a gluttonous level. The rest would be stored (warehoused) for the purposes of trade etc and those who produced the material would be 'paid' at a subsistence level only. There would often come times when the warehouses were full or trade was interrupted etc and peasants were thrown off the land by the landowners. They had no storage of resources so would often starve and die or become part of the masses of 'poor'.

    The money trick refers to the invention of money, as a means of exchange in order to maintain the system described above. Individual humans in the category of 'poor' would, of course, find this system unfair and would often rebel against it. Sometimes they would get slaughtered and sometimes they would succeed and their lives would improve a little. The justice of this system has been debated since it emerged from the consequences of our experiences in the wild. Religion was invented by the rich/rulers to justify their actions and socialism was created by the poor to justify their actions.
    They battle to this day.
    Some socialist imagery was used in religious fables to confuse the cause of the poor. 'Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the KINGDOM(notice the reference to the divinity of the word KING) of heaven' and the idea that 'Rich should help poor through 'Alms' or charity.' The poor woman putting a copper coin in the collection box means so much more than the rich rolling many gold coins into the same box.' In my opinion, these are all ways to detract the poor from their goal of economic equality as a birthright rather than ONLY EXISTING within the gift of rich. ONLY THEY will decide to award such to individual members of the poor. Meanwhile, the poor must accept their reward will come to them in heaven AFTER THEY ARE DEAD!

    I think that today, religion is getting replaced by the 'culture of celebrity,' as the main weapon against the progress of the poor against the rich.

    The rich have hijacked the concepts of entrepreneurship, hard work, personal innovation, individual progression, individual choice and even 'freedom' and suggest that these highly prized aspects of the human psyche will be subdued or will be absent in any system of 'economic equality.' In the West, they mainly cite examples such as China or Russia as bogeyman-type examples of the dangers involved. Both of these systems became dictatorial, early in their development and are not in any way, socialist.
    My socialism has to be democratic and strongly humanist, and full of adequate checks and balances.

    I know that what I am about to suggest, will come across as a totally naive example but I don't think it is, from the standpoint of 'hope for the future.' and 'there has to be a better way.'
    The societal system put forward by Gene Roddenberry and others in Star Trek and other stories suggests an existence without money or rich humans and poor humans. A society whose main goal is the pursuit of new knowledge of understanding. The concepts of entrepreneurship, hard work, personal innovation, individual progression, individual choice and 'freedom all exist and flourish within the 'Star Trek' world but there is economic equality without religion and with little interest in celebrity, established.

    Maybe I should have titled this thread, 'is the star trek picture of human society better than our current reality?' You can use that starting point if you wish. The Star Trek Universe is certainly still portrayed as a dangerous place but would it be vastly better than our current Universe?

    The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists and (Star Trek) are contributors to my Atheism and Socialism, as was Carl Sagan and 'Cosmos.' I consider raw capitalism and celebrity-driven culture as the two most regressive aspects of our current system.
  • Raymond
    815



    Great analysis Scotsman! I tend to agree. Many modern day loan slave drivers, the corporate owners, are directly connected with the old landlords somehow. Of course there are selfmade ones. And isn't the system wonderful: we all can become selfmade millionaires! Krate! We are all offered the means to become slavedrivers...

    The book that I thought of when reading your well written thread (it keeps you reading till the end! Not a very common feature) was "Lord of The Flies". I'm not sure if children in reality would be like that (I assume you know the book). Evolution can also be viewed from a purely altruistically angle, an altruistic gene, so to speak. So they "serve" us instead of we being their submissive slaves (is that a tautology?).

    The way you describe the rise to power of the capitalists seems a true description. Once they have power its easily maintained by the weapon. Nowadays the loan slaves are kept satisfied by offering a small part of the cake. Enough to keep them alive, and they are even supposed to be thankful for this!

    Coincidently, I saw Star Trek "Into Darkness" yesterday evening. I'm not sure I want to live in that society. You only see interstellar bars with a wide variety of creatures having fun, battles, the extensions of the final frontier ("made in a Hollywood basement"), or political gatherings of the federation leaders in defense of the Klingon threat, which is always present.
    But how do people on Earth actually live? What's the role of Spock? Why didn't he join the Klingons? Should religion be forbidden?
  • universeness
    6.3k

    Thanks Earther!

    "Lord of The Flies". I'm not sure if children in reality would be like thatRaymond

    Another great book and a great story. I think such stories suggest how humans will 'most likely' behave (based on past evidence and what we see when we watch animal behavior, in David Attenborough programs,) when they are placed in situations where individual survival, is at serious, immediate, and continuous, risk. This was the situation in early human settlements and is even still true for many people today.

    Almost all our fictional stories, since we left the wild, consider human dilemmas. even those which were placed in divine frameworks.
    The classical philosophers in Greece probably based their musing of life and what they proposed would encourage more civilised behaviour based on their reading of similar dilemma based stories.
    The concept of 'civilised' versus 'savage' has always been a main battleground for humans.
    Its just a pity we made the wrong decision in the early days that we would accept the rule of the few.
    The majority in those days could have overthrown every attempt to establish this but it seems they were unable to. Maybe it was simply because an educated minority was always able to subdue an ignorant majority, in the same way, that one Shepard(and not a benevolent one) can control a multitude of sheep.
    The current rich and powerful better be very careful however as this malignant shepard/sheep reality is being eroded more and more.

    The way you describe the rise to power of the capitalists seems a true description. Once they have power its easily maintained by the weapon. Nowadays the loan slaves are kept satisfied by offering a small part of the cake. Enough to keep them alive, and they are even supposed to be thankful for thisRaymond

    Cannot agree with you here, strongly enough Raymond. I would shout a very loud but atheist hallelujah brother but....oh....I just did.

    Coincidently, I saw Star Trek "Into Darkness" yesterday evening. I'm not sure I want to live in that society. You only see interstellar bars with a wide variety of creatures having fun, battles, the extensions of the final frontier ("made in a Hollywood basement"), or political gatherings of the federation leaders in defense of the Klingon threat, which is always present.
    But how do people on Earth actually live? What's the role of Spock? Why didn't he join the Klingons? Should religion be forbidden?
    Raymond

    Yeah, i like the new star trek stories, especially star trek discovery but I prefer the universe as presented in the original...TNG....Voyager...etc
    Anytime the people of Earth or life on Earth has been referenced in Star Trek, it has always been described (by humans at least) as a paradise. Spock is a logician, the Klingons would be far too emotional for him.

    No religion should NEVER be forbidden but its tenets should always be challenged and its claims must be proved before accepted.
  • Raymond
    815


    There is one episode of Star Trek, with the female captain, I can vividly remember. They arrived near a planet and saw the planet developing in a crazy pace. They could see history of ages in hours. From the surface of the planet the Enterprise was a static appearance in the sky. Contact was difficult. Can't remember the details but it made an impression!

    No religion should NEVER be forbidden but its tenets should always be challenged and its claims must be proved before accepted.universeness

    Agreed! So, me too shout, fulfilled with pristine joy, inviting praise, righteous surrender, and obedient voice: "Hallelujah! Brothers and sisters of the Glorious Conglomerate! Brothers and sisters of the Eternal Erect and the Unvincible Dual Ejaculate, let's hold hands and ask that MF to just leave us alone! Let's...etc."

    How can a claim of the (a)theist be proven right or wrong?
  • universeness
    6.3k
    There is one episode of Star Trek, with the female captain, I can vividly remember. They arrived near a planet and saw the planet developing in a crazy pace. They could see history of ages in hours. From the surface of the planet the Enterprise was a static appearance in the sky. Contact was difficult. Can't remember the details but it made an impression!Raymond

    Yeah, I remember it well, I cant state the title, director, date first released etc. I don't have those geek level credentials (I don't judge those that do) but my geekness does remember the main points of the 'episode'. The species below considers the arrival of this new 'star' in the sky as 'from the gods' or 'is god', so its a parody of the 'star of Bethlehem fable' The Voyager crew are very concerned that this compromises their prime directive, not to interfere with the natural development of emerging species. The episode then goes through the various moments of when the emerging species first 'discover that Voyager is not a star or a god but is a vessel or a 'skyship.' Then the species develop rockets and try to shoot down the skyship. Then they visit it and two of the species communicate with the Voyager crew. and eventually, the species help Voyager escape the planets hold on them and they go merrily on their way. I think the overall message of the episode, relates to assuming that what you don't currently understand must come from or be a god, is a bad idea.

    let's hold hands and ask that MF to just leave us alone! Let's...etc."

    How can a claim of the (a)theist be proven right or wrong?
    Raymond

    No need to hold hands and ask it anything as it doesn't exist and the way for a theist to prove themselves correct is for their god to show up physically, somewhere like Central London on a busy afternoon, announce themselves as our creator, and prove to us that their claim is true. How they prove it should be easy for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creature. If it can't do that then it's not god.
    The way an atheist can prove themselves correct is that fact that the scenario I have just described has never and will never happen.
  • Raymond
    815
    Yeah, I remember it well, I cant state the title, director, date first released etc. I don't have those geek level credentials (I don't judge those that do) but my geekness does remember the main points of the 'episode'. The species below considers the arrival of this new 'star' in the sky as 'from the gods' or 'is god', so its a parody of the 'star of Bethlehem fableuniverseness

    Yes! That's the one! Seems an appropriate episode for this thread!

    On the issue of gods we'll never agree, I guess. Sorry for you... (just kidding!).
  • T Clark
    13k


    I think your; and I guess Robert Noonan's; understanding of history, society, and politics; is very naive and very inaccurate. It's a myth made up to promote a simplistic political cartoon. That doesn't mean things aren't unfair, just that that's not how it happened.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    The toughest person would beat up all challengers to become the leader of a group.universeness

    It doesn't always work like that. If the "toughest" is a bit of a dick, the others will gang up and throw him out. Happens in chimp and gorilla tribes, too.

    There's much more subtlety involved.
  • universeness
    6.3k

    You would have to elaborate and use examples to evidence your point of view. Otherwise what you have typed is mere simplistic opinion.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    It doesn't always work like that. If the "toughest" is a bit of a dick, the others will gang up and throw him out. Happens in chimp and gorilla tribes, too.Banno

    There are many examples of leaders being replaced and sometimes the one who takes over, proves to be worse than the one who was overthrown.
    I agree there are many subtleties. A leader today is 'elected' in most systems rather than taking power by force. Unfortunately, the education level of the majority is still too low to prevent the election of horrors like Donald Trump in the USA or Boris Johnston in the UK. There are many other examples.
    Whatever subtlety you care to exemplify does not change the fact that the cumulative effect of all human decisions made since we left the wild, has created the states of rich people and poor people. An economic range, rather than economic equality. This has allowed imbalances of power to exist in all levels of society. In the UK and in many other countries there are UBI movements. These are growing and suggest that until we get rid of money all together. A Universal Basic Income should be given to everyone on the planet. A weekly/monthly income given without any form of means testing which would take care of everyone's basic needs of survival. Food, shelter etc.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    On the issue of gods we'll never agree, I guess. Sorry for you... (just kidding!)Raymond

    I prefer to receive sympathy from any individual compared to receiving some of the less palatable emotions such as hatred.
  • Raymond
    815
    Boris Johnston in the UK.universeness

    How on Earth could he be elected? The guy is a total joke! Crying for his wife to clean his arse or wipe his weeney!
  • universeness
    6.3k
    How on Earth could he be elected? The guy is a total joke!Raymond

    Couldn't agree more. A clown in charge of the Circus. Bo Jo the clown. RESIGN CLOWN RESIGN!
  • Raymond
    815


    I prefer to receive sympathy from any individual compared to receiving some of the less palatable emotions such as hatreduniverseness

    :heart:

    May the love of the Lord accompany you in your walk on his holy fields...
  • Hello Human
    195
    A few people owning most of the things is not necessarily a problem. It can be a good thing if those people use their resources for improving the welfare of society in general. In the case where they use it only for their own welfare, it becomes a problem. That's why measures against monopolies and moral and civic education is important, not just for the rich but for society as a whole.

    However, one might say that because the economic power of the rich is already established by the time it becomes a problem, it is too late. The rich will immediately take control of any institution that can become a threat and no progress will be made. In that case, it seems that the only ways to rectify the situation are:
    -the revolution of the rest of society;
    -civilizational failure.

    If revolution happens, there are still a risk that the leaders of the revolution end up becoming another parasitic elite. In that case, the previous dilemma arises once again.

    If civilizational failure happens, either the people become miserable and disorganized, or they migrate to other countries, or they all die. In the first two cases, a new parasitic elite might still appear.

    So from this, we have learned that any effort towards better social organization will potentially end in another situation with a parasitic elite. We must also remember that this elite is composed of people with valuable skills, but who use it in the wrong way.

    The ways out of this it seems to me are:
    -the elites and the rest of society become perfectly moral beings
    -the elites and the rest of society become perfectly rational self-centered beings and the elites try calm down the rest of society through improvement of their material conditions out of self-interest
    -the elites are replaced by perfectly rational and moral AI
    -the economy becomes extremely adaptive through advanced communication technology and centralized power becomes less efficient than the extremely adaptive and quick spontaneous organization of high-tech decentralized free markets
  • Raymond
    815
    In the case where they use it only for their own welfare, it becomes a problemHello Human

    This is what usually happens. Propaganda is made for "the individu" (the undividable) but this individuality is merely exploited in favor of a small group of possessing individuals.
  • universeness
    6.3k


    I think all the points you raised are valid.

    Consider two fundamental questions, 'who are you?' and 'what do you want?'
    If we only knew the answers to these questions for each individual and we could ask and have them answered relatively regularly to find out if anything has changed then perhaps we could apply 'balances' to try to protect others from the imbalances that they have.

    Why does one human want power over others? Why do most people want to be rich?
    You might say that the answers to such questions are well known and are varied but I think the answers to many of the societal imbalances we currently have do lie in gaining a much better understanding of the human psyche. Perhaps discussing the human psyche should be a core subject in every school.
    I do understand the obvious danger here. I am not suggesting we mould children from birth to be nice little automatons but I think we should discuss the two questions above, regularly, at school level.
    I do think that if the majority of people could study their own psyche in a very open and honest way, they might change a lot of their priorities but perhaps my thinking is too simplistic here and a little naive.
    But maybe it would be a starting point, to ask these two questions of everyone regularly to encourage more self-analysis.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    I meant ask the two questions 'who are you?' and 'what do you want? regularly not the two questions
    Why does one human want power over others? Why do most people want to be rich?
  • Raymond
    815
    The wall built by the possessing class. Possession must be protected. By walls and surveillance. Being rich... To be rich means a lot of possession. Now material things can give satisfaction. We can't even life without it. But WTF is so important about possessing them? Don't ask me...


  • T Clark
    13k
    You would have to elaborate and use examples to evidence your point of view. Otherwise what you have typed is mere simplistic opinion.universeness

    I think you have it backwards. You're the one who made the claims. It's up to you to provide evidence that they are correct. Everything you presented in your original post is what I call "seems to me" history, anthropology, political science, and economics. I know enough history and anthropology to know it ain't so.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Sure.

    I think it important not to promote the myth that the biggest bastard always wins. It isn't so, nor is it true that violence always wins.
  • Changeling
    1.4k
    'ragged-trousered' is a compound adjective so it needs a hyphen between the two words.
  • Hello Human
    195
    when examining yourself and your goals you realize that wealth and power are not as good as you thought, they are merely tools that can be used for an end, and they can do great good and evil. Perhaps if people were taught how to think critically, they’d think twice before they start committing evil in the name of some personal desire.
  • Hello Human
    195
    This is what usually happens. Propaganda is made for "the individu" (the undividable) but this individuality is merely exploited in favor of a small group of possessing individuals.Raymond

    Exactly.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    I think you have it backwards. You're the one who made the claims. It's up to you to provide evidence that they are correct. Everything you presented in your original post is what I call "seems to me" history, anthropology, political science, and economics. I know enough history and anthropology to know it ain't so.T Clark

    I have provided evidence in my loose historical references to actual historical events and suggested conclusions that other readers may consider as valid/invalid.
    So based on your to know it aint so comment, let's exchange examples and others can decide which points are the most convincing.
    You may choose to explain or exemplify the origins of 'leader', 'boss', 'Chief', 'King,' 'God' and how such concepts may or may not compare with 'Alpha male,' within the animal kingdom.
    You may choose to offer your explanations of why the rich, poor range exists, whether or not you think it's a good system and what you think should be done to maintain/enhance/change it.
    You may also choose to describe your origin story for the invention of money and its subsequent effects on human civilisation and you may also choose to compare it with earlier 'barter' systems for exchanging goods and services or offer your own ideas of a 'better system.'
    Present your case in whichever way you like.
    It's also perfectly fine for you to choose to pick up your ball and remove yourself, if you don't want to play. You can move on to other threads or read the comments of other contributors to this thread and gain whatever amusement or insight you might garnish by doing so.
  • universeness
    6.3k

    "I think it important not to promote the myth that the biggest bastard always wins. It isn't so, nor is it true that violence always wins."

    Well, I don't think I am doing that, but it is not a myth to suggest that evil or perhaps it would be less emotive to say injustice often wins and that overall, in our current world, there is more injustice than there is justice. There are many more 'unfair' situations than 'fair' ones. I also think that it's unwise not to give enough attention to such, due to the very important (in my opinion) adage, "All that evil needs to survive, is for good people to do nothing."
    I do not offer myself as a champion of the people, far far from it. In fact, I regularly accuse myself of being an armchair warrior and I ask myself 'well what the hell have you done in your life to help alleviate the suffering of others, as compared to anyone else.' I try to answer but I am rarely satisfied by my response.
  • universeness
    6.3k

    There is no such hyphen in the title of the cover on the actual copy of the book I have but my knowledge of English grammar is limited. In fact, the spell-checker just corrected my error of 'grammer.' So it looks like I don't excel in that area either. Hey ho!
    But I'm sure Robert Noonan thanks you, from his grave.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    when examining yourself and your goals you realize that wealth and power are not as good as you thought, they are merely tools that can be used for an end, and they can do great good and evil. Perhaps if people were taught how to think critically, they’d think twice before they start committing evil in the name of some personal desire.


    Couldn't agree more...:clap:

    I have often asked friends and even pupils during my career, the two questions, 'Who are you?' and 'what do you want?' Most people struggle to answer them honestly. For me, the answers given, provoke lots of other follow-up questions. You should use these two questions with your own friends, the resulting conversation can be a very interesting one.

    The questions came from J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of the Babylon 5 sci-fi series.
    I doubt he is the originator of the questions but I don't know their origin beyond him, perhaps they are too obvious to have a particular origin.

    In Babylon 5, the two most powerful species are the Shadows and the Vorlons. The shadows believe in chaos, war, hate etc and that strength comes from learning through conquest and suffering and rebuilding again and again, becoming stronger and more advanced after each cycle of war and chaos. They always seek allies by asking the initial question 'what do you want?' They then do their utmost to help a race gain what they want, especially if it's 'kill all the.....whatever's.'

    The Vorlons believe in order and that strength comes from cooperation and, love (especially acceptance and love of them as gods/teachers/guides etc) and working together for common cause etc.
    They seek allies by asking the initial question 'who are you?'
    All the other races in the galaxy, including us humans are asked to choose between 'order' and 'chaos.'

    It's just very interesting to me, how human dilemma or just dilemma is presented to us via dramatic license etc. I think that such mediums, greatly enhance our conversations but can also be used as powerful manipulators. I think the human 'storytelling' tradition is where all religion comes from.
    It's just unfortunate (in my personal opinion) that the religious stories have been so strongly skewed due to the affect known as 'Chinese whispers.' If the Babylon 5 depiction of the Vorlons and the Shadows had been written down in ancient text then I reckon we would have another two religions today. This is further evidenced by the fact that the 'Jedi' religion is the fastest-growing religion today. Whether you consider it a tongue-in-cheek(to The Opposite: look! I hope you credit me here with my attempts to use hyphens correctly) religion or not. The fact that some such fables have been accepted by some human groups as literal fact, has allowed the use of such, by some members of the rich and powerful as an 'Opiate for the masses.' It's a deception on a global and historical scale, which makes it worthy as a methodology that the Shadows might employ but perhaps the Vorlons would make their own use of it also.
  • T Clark
    13k
    Present your case in whichever way you like.universeness

    As I noted, it isn't my job to make the case, and you haven't done it. You've made claims about the way things happened without any references or backup other than the book you're discussing and "seems to me."

    It's also perfectly fine for you to choose to pick up your ball and remove yourself, if you don't want to play.universeness

    You've misunderstood the purpose of philosophy and of the forum. Criticizing your ideas is part of the game. It is playing. If you want me to pick up my ball, I suggest you don't respond to this post. If you do respond, that's an invitation for me to continue.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    Which socialist society appeals to you? Kampuchea, Cuba, North Korea? Eritrea? East Germany?

    Resist falling under the spell of socialism, if you can. The world is still recovering from its lies and ruin.
  • T Clark
    13k
    Resist falling under the spell of socialism, if you can.NOS4A2

    Yes, and get rid of Social Security and Medicare while you're at it.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment