Fascinating, all round, so far. There is something particularly profound, in my estimation, within the closing paragraphs of this piece, and that is reference to a transition from "territorial" to "social" occupation by the state (though, I'm guessing this is probably more a "ratcheting up" effect, actually, given the historicity of social occupation qua civilizing was noted by Norbert Elias). I'd be intrigued to see if there is any treatment of so-called "fiscal illusion" effects in the narrative that Lorenzo will provide over coming weeks/months? I raise the fiscal illusion point because coincident with the "trade" from an imperial to welfare state was the introduction of certain tax policies, such as income tax withholding. Such measures seem to vastly reduce the perceptibility of citizen-voters (agents) with respect to not only the tax burdens they face, at any given time, but to the more fundamental fact of their activities veritably posing as the "crop" of "fiscal agriculture" harvested by convenors of the state apparatus. It takes effort, and rather exhaustively so, for political actors to maintain extractive technologies that ensures at least the begrudging acceptance of the populace, and the design of tax policy (and other kinds of policy) attempting to obfuscate the nature and extent of burdens felt is part of this. Anyhow, all of this is thought-provoking.
Jan 20, 2023·edited Jan 20, 2023Liked by Helen Dale, Lorenzo Warby
I think I understand what you mean by the state "creating" most of the surplus in a society, but as these posts go on I am getting less sure. The surface-level objection is that economic surplus created by workers, framers, factories most of which are not part of the state apparat.
By "create" the surplus I think you mean some combination of:
1. Create the conditions under which production (and commerce) can occur
2. Create the conditions under which some of that gets diverted away from making babies.
I take your point that the Marxists have it all backwards: the state does not merely reflect the nature of the economy. It shapes it. But talking about the state creating the surplus seems like a strange way to make that argument, and could be easily strawmanned by a Marxist opponent.
Good summary of a sane perspective. This sentiment is similar to a formulation used by Dartmouth economist Meir Kohn, who centers his core theory of economics and economic development around the problem of "how to limit the predation of states,"
"Ibn Khaldun articulated the fundamental paradox of the state: we need the state to protect us from social predators, but the state is itself the most dangerous of social predators."
“Muscovy was a farming state that was the heir to, and adaptor of, the institutional politics of pastoralist polities. Politically, it was the heir of Tartary, not Kievan Rus.”
This is close to the truth, but not quite right. After all, the Muscovite and the Golden Horde political systems actually differed in many ways: unlike great princes, khans were elected by kurultai, an aristocratic assembly, and could be just dislodged if necessary. Also, unlike in Rus, the tradition of passing title strictly from father to son never took hold in that culture.
What really happened was a social and political deformation of the Russian society and politics under the Mongol rule, where princes were, in a way, “colonial administrators” for Mongols. They continued the same practices even after having done away with the Mongol rule, after previous traditions of political life basically destroyed and they knew only one way of doing things (and they could keep all the money for themselves!). And so, hundreds of years later, here we are.
Looks entirely fascinating. However it will likely take me at least a lifetime to process.
That is the best article in this series so far! Well done!
Thank you for bringing *The Muqaddimah* to my attention.
I do enjoy a good use of Ibn Khaldun, she says with a very satisfied sigh.
Fascinating, all round, so far. There is something particularly profound, in my estimation, within the closing paragraphs of this piece, and that is reference to a transition from "territorial" to "social" occupation by the state (though, I'm guessing this is probably more a "ratcheting up" effect, actually, given the historicity of social occupation qua civilizing was noted by Norbert Elias). I'd be intrigued to see if there is any treatment of so-called "fiscal illusion" effects in the narrative that Lorenzo will provide over coming weeks/months? I raise the fiscal illusion point because coincident with the "trade" from an imperial to welfare state was the introduction of certain tax policies, such as income tax withholding. Such measures seem to vastly reduce the perceptibility of citizen-voters (agents) with respect to not only the tax burdens they face, at any given time, but to the more fundamental fact of their activities veritably posing as the "crop" of "fiscal agriculture" harvested by convenors of the state apparatus. It takes effort, and rather exhaustively so, for political actors to maintain extractive technologies that ensures at least the begrudging acceptance of the populace, and the design of tax policy (and other kinds of policy) attempting to obfuscate the nature and extent of burdens felt is part of this. Anyhow, all of this is thought-provoking.
I think I understand what you mean by the state "creating" most of the surplus in a society, but as these posts go on I am getting less sure. The surface-level objection is that economic surplus created by workers, framers, factories most of which are not part of the state apparat.
By "create" the surplus I think you mean some combination of:
1. Create the conditions under which production (and commerce) can occur
2. Create the conditions under which some of that gets diverted away from making babies.
I take your point that the Marxists have it all backwards: the state does not merely reflect the nature of the economy. It shapes it. But talking about the state creating the surplus seems like a strange way to make that argument, and could be easily strawmanned by a Marxist opponent.
Good summary of a sane perspective. This sentiment is similar to a formulation used by Dartmouth economist Meir Kohn, who centers his core theory of economics and economic development around the problem of "how to limit the predation of states,"
"Ibn Khaldun articulated the fundamental paradox of the state: we need the state to protect us from social predators, but the state is itself the most dangerous of social predators."
I coined "Hitler as the secular Satan" independently. Is this the first published formulation of that insight?
“Muscovy was a farming state that was the heir to, and adaptor of, the institutional politics of pastoralist polities. Politically, it was the heir of Tartary, not Kievan Rus.”
This is close to the truth, but not quite right. After all, the Muscovite and the Golden Horde political systems actually differed in many ways: unlike great princes, khans were elected by kurultai, an aristocratic assembly, and could be just dislodged if necessary. Also, unlike in Rus, the tradition of passing title strictly from father to son never took hold in that culture.
What really happened was a social and political deformation of the Russian society and politics under the Mongol rule, where princes were, in a way, “colonial administrators” for Mongols. They continued the same practices even after having done away with the Mongol rule, after previous traditions of political life basically destroyed and they knew only one way of doing things (and they could keep all the money for themselves!). And so, hundreds of years later, here we are.