I’ve recently just completed a crash course of studying for governmental history. Looking back one can notice a myriad of similarities between people’s governments that were miles and miles apart.
During the Middle Ages in Europe, the system of Feudalism became the norm. Japan at the same time created an extremely similar concept. Emperor=King,Samurai=Knight, etc. They also both created a code of honor chivalry vs. bushido. In both they also place women on a theoretical pedestal.
There are also more examples of similar types of government throughout history which I really don’t want to look up, but what could have possibly caused this. It was not cultural diffusion for at this time a) Europe was in shambles and was not traveling b)Japan, I believe, started its period of isolation and felt that Europe was barbaric. Is it possible that mankind is destined to evolve their government to the ultimate level, which I personally don’t think is Democaracy?
There probably would be no final form. Because if you look at evolution the things that do the best survive. Not some perfect form. There is no ultimate level. Just whatever is best for the situation
Societies based on a charismatic leader and supported by warriors with a code of honor are probably not that hard to come by. (With not too much stretching, you could characterize the Zulu and the pre-white-invasion Hawaiians in a similar manner.)
On the other hand, how many varieties of government can you imagine?
Rule by all the people by consensus or vote - democracies or republics.
Rule by oligarchy/aristocracy (who require martial supporters or vast public acclaim to maintain power).
Rule by despot/monarch (who requires martial supporters with loyalty to him or vast public acclaim to maintain the power).
You can mix and match these forms (Greece and Rome had voting among the Aristocracy to govern the masses, sort of a democractic (Athenian) or Republican (Roman) oligarchy), but most governments can be redefined to a few options.
I’ll agree with Sterra that no form is “ultimate.” Each form has problems that will cause them to crumble under certain pressures, to be replaced by a new form. I would hope that we never again resort to a “divine right of kings” model, but the democratic/republican model can still take many forms and different societal pressures can cause any specific government to collapse.
Well, if you’re Marxist, it’s evolutionary, but I’d argue that there were just similar circumstances in both areas that led to feudalism. In both cases, military leaders, who had accumulated land, siezed power in a time of chaos after the fall of the old, civil authority (In Europe, the fall of Rome, and in Japan, the burning of the Oten-mon and the revolt of Taira no Masakado) Of course, there are differences. In Japan, the Emperor and the old civil rulers still exist, and theoretically rule the empire. In Europe, the old Empire is destroyed completely.
An interesting post, Captain, but I don’t see the need to distinguish between Marx and the notion that “similar circumstances” account for similar governments. In fact, that’s exactly the logic behind a Marxian analysis: with a special emphasis on material circumstances. In an agricultural society where land is the primary source of wealth, feudalism will rise up to govern your butt everytime ;).
As to the point about democracy, I think it can’t be beat. Indeed, it’s too bad we don’t have one–at least not a functional one–in the United States.
Well, except Marx theorized a historical inevitablity in the change of economic and political systems. Is feudalism inevitable in an agrarian society where land is wealth? Maybe, but you need more examples than Japan and Europe to support that. I mean, the antebellum American South was an agrarian society where land was the primary source of wealth, but a plantation slave economy developed, not a feudal one.
More likely, we’ll be lucky to not fall back too far. I highly recommend Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society, by John W. Gardner, the founder of Common Cause. One Amazon reviewer wrote
My survivalist friend in back-woods Oregon is what I would call a “Constitutional Fundamentalist.” He treats the U.S. Constitution as a sacred document. In his opinion, the exact wording of the Constitution, and the Original Intent [TM] of the Framers, are the only things that should be taken into account when interpreting the Constitution. He feels that the Federal courts have “distorted” this original, pure, holy writ by interpreting it in ways that he personally would not interpret it, e.g. the expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the erosion of the Second Amendment, etc… He has never read, nor does he want to read, any real textbooks on Constitutional Law, because as far as he’s concerned, Con. Law textbooks only parrot the interpretations of the Constitution that those “twisted” Federal Courts have decreed.
Essentially, he is not willing to accept the notion that governments evolve. This isn’t the same United States that existed when the Constitution was drafted. The U.S. of 1787 wasn’t exactly the globe-spanning superpower it is today. Most of the technologies that we take for granted in the modern world weren’t even around back then. (And don’t forget that half the States at the time considered slavery to be perfectly OK.) And the government has evolved along with these changes. Heck, we’ve added 27 Amendments to the Constitution since it was first written! And shouldn’t the fact that ten of those Amendments were added in the first four years alone clue him in that maybe, just maybe, this “sacred document” isn’t as perfect as he would like to believe it is?
Captain
*“Well, except Marx theorized a historical inevitablity in the change of economic and political systems.” *
Agreed. I wasn’t trying to deny that. (Although it’s also the case that his idea of the inevitability, unlike Hegel’s, was directly rooted in material conditions, no?)
Is feudalism inevitable in an agrarian society where land is wealth? Maybe, but you need more examples than Japan and Europe to support that. I mean, the antebellum American South was an agrarian society where land was the primary source of wealth, but a plantation slave economy developed, not a feudal one.
Well, the antebellum American South was originally a colony (and part of a mercantilist economy) and later part of a republic. And we ought to make some distinctions between economics (where there isn’t, after all, a great deal of difference between plantation slaves and serfs) and forms of governance.
Just to clarify–I wasn’t trying to be reductive about the relation between material conditions and governance; nor to be a pain the ass. But I just find Marx very useful and I find that sometimes the explanatory power that he offers is underrated. (And I enjoyed your analysis just as it was.)