House of Eratosthenes

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibnum, however far it is pushed one way or the other.
:
The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim…is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.

High == Republicans in Congress

Middle == Democrats in Congress

Low == Liberals who want to vote for Democrats

Am I right, or am I right?

Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High.

Aw gee, no way could that possibly happen after the glorious midterm revolution of 2006 right?

I mean gee whiz, we’ve only been promised Social Security is going to be “shorn up” for, like, I dunno, two generations now.

Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

Meet the new boss… same as the old boss…

I’ve never read 1984 … maybe I should.

Your observations are, as usual, good. The only thing that bugs me a little (and it wasn’t anything you said, but it’s from the 1984 text) is this bit:

The aim of the Low, when they have an aim…is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.

And of course, it bugs me because it sounds an awful lot like the beginning of our Declaration of Independence. Associating that with the low and the mostly aimless offends my sensibilities (guess I should go out and burn something or behead someone now, eh?)

But I got to thinking about it … there is, of course, a little more to the “low” than aimless folk — mostly because of what the first part of said Declaration actually says — that is, that all men are created equal. But as Bill Whittle points out, the problem is not the hardware (the individual human being) but the software (the culture that human being acquires). Culture can and does cross class boundaries; however, different subcultures tend to sprout and thrive within certain classes. Some good, some not so good. It is of course easier for an individual human being to acquire the culture into which he is born, but that’s not necessarily the way it happens all the time.

So I reconcile this by thinking that our founding fathers perhaps recognized that there will always be classes, and they sought to create a system in which at least a good deal of the inherent resistance to an individual who rejected the dominant culture of the low, to changing classes through his own positive effort. It’s about as fair as you can get.

Saying that all men are created equal is, in fact, different from saying that all men must be equal. Our system was built to recognize the former. Socialists pretend to endorse the latter, although in fact when successful end up being the new “High” who know best how to “take care of” the “Low”, who are ignorant and aren’t insightful enought to act in their own interests (ie “What’s the Matter With Kansas”).

How smug of them.
- Phil | 10/23/2006 @ 09:59
Actually it bugs me too. In the “all men shall be equal” thingy, Goldstein/Orwell/Blair does not speak for me. I did not clarify this because I didn’t want to dilute the message, but the observation is a little bit too “red” for me, and it would seem, too red for reality as well.

Taking this thing literally, if I were alive in, let us say, 1460 England when the nascent Yorkist movement was conspiring against the established Lancastrian ruling class, and as a “prole” I was being seduced by the “middle” Yorkists for my support as they sought to overthrow the “high” Lancastrians — would the sales pitch have something to do with me, a pauper, coming to enjoy the equivalent privileges of the Lancastrian Counts and Earls and Dukes?

Well, that just strains credibility. It contradicts everything I know about pre-industrial-age Europe and America. I should add that I’m a nearly-purebred Scandinavian fellow who’s spent his share of effort in geneological pursuits. As a Norsk, I don’t have to go back that many generations before I’m plumbing deeply into the agricultural wave, which I suppose is something of a blessing in these matters. What I know of ancient lifestyles from researching geneology, fits comfortably with what I know from reading up on history.

Point is, as far as I can tell, this fantasy about “all men being equal” — not “created equal” but “being” equal — appears, to me, a purely post-industrial-revolution fantasy. It’s just awfully tough for me to believe that some nameless faceless blacksmith or farmer living in 1460, or in 1066, or in any other tumultuous pre-revolutionary year in modern-but-agricultural human history, in his wildest dreams would have aspired to this or anything like it. Being equal to nobility? Nobility owned land. Not 10,000 sq. ft. suburban tracts you might mortgage today…but miles and miles and miles of it, complete with sweeping, elaborate castles and mansions.

No, the “proles” prior to 1900, near as I can tell, simply wanted to survive and for their children to survive. To do so with a little bit more certainty, and comfort, maybe with a somewhat shorter workday, would have been luxury enough.

And that fits with what I have learned about people: They start to be jealous of one another, after they can afford to be that way. This whole peeking-into-the-other-guy’s cereal-bowl to see if he got more Cheerios, and/or more milk, seems to come about only after starvation has been eliminated. Or at least relegated to a marginal possibility. Until then, the relativism and the jealousy are luxuries that can’t be afforded.

I think you’re right about the Founding Fathers, by the way. Perhaps the American experiment has succeeded beyond the realizations of anything going on in Europe, because the Yankees have embraced the concept common to all highly successful projects: A finite and limited scope. The Constitution gives us an empty crock pot, getting hold of the chicken and potatoes is up to us.
- mkfreeberg | 10/23/2006 @ 18:28
[…] me of something… Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/11/2012 @ 07:50

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

The More Things Change…Monday, October 23rd, 2006

The More Things Change…
Monday, October 23rd, 2006