What many anarchists seem to forget is that we are already in a state of anarchy. The government is just a crime syndicate that has brainwashed and stockholm syndromed the masses into believing in their legitimacy.
As for left versus right, a group is defined not by what it claims to be, but by the qualities of its membership.
If a country is full of smart culturally similar people, then it's government and atmosphere will reflect it.
If it's full of antagonistic morons, it will be a hell on earth no matter what system is used.
Moreover, the terms have no material significance. Many of the supposedly opposing views lead to the same outcomes. Example:
Communism is where the state absorbs all the corporations and becomes a central authority.
Fascism is where the state and the corporations unite to become a central authority.
Both lead to a military dictatorship of the most popular demagogue.
Many take this to mean we should support centrism to avoid dictatorship. But corporations are indistinguishable from constitutional monarchy in any case. Even without the printing press, the radio, and television, their influence on both education and the average workplace environment would allow them to control popular sentiment.
In a democracy the demagogues win and lose favour within a handful of years unable to deliver on any of their promises even if they wanted to.
In effect, it is just an accelerated perpetual war taking place inside the country against itself instead of against other countries. Thus nothing is accomplished, and a gradual weakening continues until it is destroyed by external influences.
Thus no matter which system is chosen, the nature of the resulting society is a product of the people in it.
What many seem to miss is that the real reason why native americans could have a society without money, and the communists couldn't, is that money is a replacement for trust and that the communists didn't trust eachother so a dominance hierarchy formed.
Real trust is symmetric and earned over a long period of time often between family. But they were too mentally ill for this, so they worshipped a chosen leader as an idol like the biblical heretics using popularity and fear as the only acceptable forms of wealth.
In summary, any group composed of trustless mentally ill people will inevitably establish an atrocious system, become a living nightmare for all involved and ultimately fail.
Whereas any group of sane, trustworthy people, possessing keen insight and wisdom, would form a better system and avoid catastrophe.
If Nevermore were a university course I'm convinced I'd get a failing grade. Why? Because I simply can't keep up with the amount of reading material! These are very dense subjects you're introducing here which requires background that many reader probably don't have. I definitely feel the impulse to abandon the study for lack of time, and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that. It's frustrating because the material is first rate, and as you've seen, prompts me to at least try and participate, but again, can I afford to devote as much time to the subject as the author(s) who are clearly devoting most if not all of theirs to the endeavour?
One of the things Peter Duke is undertaking holds great promise I believe. Peter is taking dense 1000 page academic books on complex subjects and using ChatGPT to extract the basic arguments and present them in a form that a grade 12 high school student can understand. The result is usually about 200 pages of material that makes the subject matter far more accessible.
Keep in mind, most of the serious works on history, anthropology and other disciplines were not written for a general audience. They were academic works, often thesis material, aimed at one's peers. Some authors have addressed this limitation, notably Stuart Chase who condensed Alfred Korzybski's work into something far more readable (The Tyranny of Words) that retained all of the basic concepts. Another example is Joseph Plummer's 'Tragedy and Hope 101' which boiled Carroll Quigley's 'Tragedy and Hope' down to its essential points, but these are just outliers. A more generalized approach is what Peter is advocating, as well as leading by example.
Peter is just starting down this road, and I support his efforts fully as it supports my own work in communications theory which I believe is essential to getting one's point across, whatever that might be. As such, I try not to pick sides or engage in polemics on the various sites I frequent as part of my research, and it's encouraging that I haven't run into this problem here.
That said, there's a common thread that runs through most substacks and other similar sites in that they tend to bury the reader in detail the authors assume the reader has some knowledge of. When I see a post where the reading time is in triple digits I often put it aside never to return. I don't want to do that, but I have no choice as like everyone else, I have to prioritize my time.
Another thing I run afoul of is paywalls. Nothing puts me off more than a 7-day trial prompt to continue reading an article I'm interested in. Fortunately that hasn't happened here. I don't charge for my site and never will, and while I realize people want to get paid for their work, their expectations in many cases are simply unrealistic, at least for someone like me whose research takes them to dozens of sites, with new ones appearing almost daily. Apart from the time involved, I simply don't have the money for it. Well, actually I do, but if I pay $1000/year to access material (it adds up quickly) is it money better spent than using it to aid earthquake victims and refugees?
Going a bit off topic now, but I think Substack has missed the boat in some regards, their animus towards advertising being one of them. Why not let the authors decide if they want to carry ads, and let them chose which ones? It would help both revenue streams without impacting the reader overly much, and might even be welcome when done properly. Consider a site about hiking the great trails of the world. Would ads for mountaineering gear or specialized travel agents be a burden? I don't think so. Likewise, I'd be happy to host one or two ads per post on my site if they were music related, such as for Korg, Fender or Roland. I plan to bring this up with Substack as it looks like they're in a tight corner. One of the things I do besides music and media studies is financial analysis, and based on what I've seen (they're private so not as transparent as a public co.) I'm concerned that Substack may soon run out of money unless they try a new approach. When you get right down to it, All communications are advertising. It's just a question of what product you're promoting and how well it's presented.
Tragedy and Hope 101 is an excellent example. Quigley's book was not meant for anyone but academics. Besides, Plummer puts his own slant on things, which I think is useful in this case.
"In this chapter Graeber points out that many of they key insights and concepts associated with the European enlightenment – ideas of individual liberty and equality, and the rejection of religious dogma and established social hierarchy based on ascribed status – were heavily influenced by Europeans’ encounters with Native Americans. "
I've no way of assessing whether this is a valid concept without digging into the material, but my first reaction is that it's an unfair comparison. I say this because it compares two distinct cultural patterns with no reference to the fact that they were on the same continuum, but simply separated by time and material circumstance.
European civilization had the same starting point as NA paleolithic hunter-gathers. As Marvin Harris has pointed out, the transition to neolithic was heavily dependent on three things. Suitable animals for domestication, suitable farmland with adequate water, and reliable seasonal patterns, either the 4 season cycle in northern climes or the 2 season cycle in hydraulic cultures (Ganges, Euphrates, Nile, etc.).
Lacking the two most important elements, cattle and horses, NA native groups were limited in that transition, and thus their cultural arrangements were formed around that fact. This is illustrated by the rapid rise in NA plains horse culture that emerged almost immediately after the Spanish arrived and some of their horses escaped. That was a great leap forward, and absent the colonial impositions would have put them on a path towards something similar to Neolithic Europe or Asia. In short, it wouldn't have been too long before bison were domesticated and enclosure and settlement followed, with everything that implies.
What I'm saying is that from the same starting point, Europe and Asia had the jump on the Americas for purely material reasons, and their cultures likewise developed differently as a result of that. So to compare the two without reference to that point is somewhat appley-orangey, no? Again, I didn't have time to dig into the material, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
This same factor figures into the decline of Mayan and Aztec cultural centres. They basically hit a Malthusian dead end. Malthus was correct in his assumptions for his day. What he didn't account for was the effect of rapid technological progress that vastly expanded the food supply, while at the same time creating urban environments less conducive to population growth.
Applied to the Americas, the theory goes that population growth exceeded the cities' ability to feed themselves. This owing to, again, the lack of cattle and horses which allows for much greater expansion of cultivation and transportation as seen in Europe. Especially lacking was protein, which in the Aztec's case was a result of over-fishing and hunting to feed the growing population. The Mayans abandoned their cities while the Aztecs sought to maintain their capitol through ritual warfare and cannibalism imposed on the weaker surrounding peoples. Chances are had Cortez not appeared they would have fallen eventually anyway, as their victims either rebelled or relocated.
The same thinking can be applied to Mississippian culture with the added feature that they may have been irreparably damaged by floods when the river changed course, which it's done many times in the past.
That's the first defence of Malthus I've ever heard from a living person! Again, I'm unqualified to weigh in. I haven't read Malthus or made a study of him - I associate him with the "Science Uber Alles" movement later exemplified by Bertrand Russell, the Huxley family, the Darwinists, etc... I tend to see such people are British Empire apologists... I feel like the British ruling class decided to ditch Christianity because they were sick of British civil servants abroad having crises of conscience...
"I feel like the British ruling class decided to ditch Christianity because they were sick of British civil servants abroad having crises of conscience..."
Funny that you should say that. My background is British Empire, and while my father made the best decision of his life moving the family to Canada when I was four, he never lost the British attitude, which was framed by his serving in the Royal Navy, where he met my mother, who at the time was WRNS. Following family tradition I was on a path to military service as well, starting with cubs, then scouts (Baden Powell) then cadets in a Highland regiment where I played the bagpipes in our band. That part was OK, as was ripping around in APCs and stuff.... but in the end I couldn't take it anymore, and once I met some hippies, ironically at our base where unused H-huts were converted to a hostel, I left home and hit the road at age 15. Ironically around same age as my father when he joined the Navy to get away from a tyrannical father. That was in 1969, so my experience with the counter culture began then. I eventually returned home, by which point my father had given up any ambitions he had for me, and I was the hippest guy in my high school for a while, until that fell apart and I had a choice to make - work or move out. I did both! I got a job working on oil tankers, first on the Great Lakes, later on the East Coast. So I actually went to sea for much the same reasons as my father. Weird, right?
I place Malthus' theory in the same class as Newton's laws of motion. They are only applicable within a certain frame. In Newton's case they break down at high energy levels, such as found in the subatomic world and at near-light speeds. In Malthus' case, they break down when expansion of holdings or new technology offsets the effect of population growth.
Malthus thought that the prosperity brought about by expanding land under cultivation would lead to population growth that would eventually overrun the food supply leading to a need for more expansion. Expansion works until you run out of arable land, or are butting up against another group faced with similar pressures, in which case either conflict or a merging of estates would ensue, the aim being strength in numbers to defend against other estates faced with similar pressures.
It took centuries to arrive at that condition as previously land was readily available for expansion as the population grew, until you reach the times of Malthus (late 18th C) when all possible exploitable land was occupied. That end point was delayed by several factors. Plagues took the population down hard, which acted as a reset. Famines had the same effect, caused by either seasonal changes, pests, or poor cultivation practices. Once it was realized that land had to lie fallow to be restored, you had another factor driving the need for expansion.
Of course wars also took population down, but they had a further effect as well. Once you'd reached the level where ready land was unavailable and competing interests arose you needed soldiers for defence, which would be recruited from the peasants. That meant a family unit had to have more than one son, and given that the Church also had a claim on your offspring, three or four sons were considered optimal. You needed extra hands to work the land, but sons were also a form of insurance for when you were too old to continue working and needed support. That's where you get your population growth in excess of what the land can support.
Bear in mind, the Church ruled in conjunction with the landed aristocracy, but being celibate, lacked the ability to produce the needed hands to work their land holdings, which were often quite extensive. Thus they had claim on a son who would enter the priesthood. There's also a theory, I forget who proposed it - perhaps LaRouche - that the various Crusades were an attempt to reduce the population pressure that was already manifesting, the idea being that most of the Crusaders would not return, but would settle in the Holy Land, or somewhere along the way. Perceiving the problem, since they were better educated, the Church framed this as a holy obligation since that provided motivation for what would otherwise be resisted by both landlords and serfs. Who wants to march off into the unknown unless it's in God's service? Likewise, why reduce your military unless your potential enemies do likewise?
Another factor that warded off the day of reckoning was emigration to the new colonies once those were established circa 1600, the Irish potato famine being one example.
In the big picture, expansion, plus new technology and improved farming practices warded off the day of reckoning, starting with animal domestication, especially draft animals, followed by things like crop rotation, inter-cropping, fallowing and improvements in plowing, harvesting and milling. The crisis point was reached in Malthus' time, so his theory fit the observable facts. Ironically, his realization came at the dawn of industrialism, powered by steam engines which once again changed the equation. Mechanization reduced the demand for farm workers while increasing the need for factory workers, which often meant women or children, as they could be paid less. At this point Malthus' theory breaks down as food production expands enormously, and the social relations of feudalism break down as well, with distribution and ownership of resources taking a more prominent role.
There's a lot to take in here, but I believe by looking for the underlying material causes, most of pre-industrial social and technological development can be explained in Malthusian terms. The problem today is that our ruling class still hews to this idea, which is clearly no longer applicable. Advanced industrial societies all have adequate food supplies and declining birth rates, so the issue is no longer production but distribution, which brings you to Mills, Hegel and Marx whose theories replaced Malthus' at least among those who didn't have a vested interest in it.
Since I first read Harris in 1981 I tend to look for underlying material causes to explain social development. Harris' 'materialism' has its cognates in Korzybski's 'referent' and McLuhan's 'hidden ground.' Hofstadter's contribution was the notion of 'framing' - the realization that for a theory to have good explanatory power it has to be situated within the appropriate 'frame' as with the example of Newton.
My main complaint with most social, psychological and economic 'theories' is that they fail to take account of underlying material causes - causes which may not have been known, or only dimly perceived by the historic figures themselves. Thus you get King Henry decreed this and that, or Thomas Aquinas said such and such, without asking where they got their ideas from, and whether those ideas had an actual referent or were just wishful thinking.
Harris took aim at the problem in anthropology, where he saw scholars such as Claude Lévi-Strauss attempting to wedge their observations into a preexisting 'theory' rather than first gathering the evidence then proposing testable hypotheses, which is how science is supposed to work. As a final note, my own writing, which is really just a recounting of the above mentioned authors, should be treated the same way. Nothing is ever final.
Wow. I'm going to have to read this comment at least three times and then think about it. I think I may have encountered this idea in Daniel Quinn's Ishmael, which means you may have connected two major dots in my brain. Very interesting, thank you for taking the time to share that!
Your explanation of Malthus makes a lot of sense. I would argue that industrialization and improvements in transport/communiation did not solve the problem though. It just means that those who use those technologies continually overtake and displace those who live more connected to the earth, and continually destroy the environment.
In fact, having traveled most of my adult life - China, Latin America, Europe - I do not disagree with the assessment that the earth is overpopulated. Sure there may be enough food to go around - poor quality, pesticide-ridden industrial garbage - but that does not mean it's all good. People who live disconnected with the earth, in cities run together where they have no idea even where their food comes from - where THEY come from - no connection with nature, live out an artificial existence divorced from our own nature. Modern culture spins out of control. Technocratic megalomaniacs see only one way forward - the advancement of THE MACHINE.
What many anarchists seem to forget is that we are already in a state of anarchy. The government is just a crime syndicate that has brainwashed and stockholm syndromed the masses into believing in their legitimacy.
As for left versus right, a group is defined not by what it claims to be, but by the qualities of its membership.
If a country is full of smart culturally similar people, then it's government and atmosphere will reflect it.
If it's full of antagonistic morons, it will be a hell on earth no matter what system is used.
Moreover, the terms have no material significance. Many of the supposedly opposing views lead to the same outcomes. Example:
Communism is where the state absorbs all the corporations and becomes a central authority.
Fascism is where the state and the corporations unite to become a central authority.
Both lead to a military dictatorship of the most popular demagogue.
Many take this to mean we should support centrism to avoid dictatorship. But corporations are indistinguishable from constitutional monarchy in any case. Even without the printing press, the radio, and television, their influence on both education and the average workplace environment would allow them to control popular sentiment.
In a democracy the demagogues win and lose favour within a handful of years unable to deliver on any of their promises even if they wanted to.
In effect, it is just an accelerated perpetual war taking place inside the country against itself instead of against other countries. Thus nothing is accomplished, and a gradual weakening continues until it is destroyed by external influences.
Thus no matter which system is chosen, the nature of the resulting society is a product of the people in it.
What many seem to miss is that the real reason why native americans could have a society without money, and the communists couldn't, is that money is a replacement for trust and that the communists didn't trust eachother so a dominance hierarchy formed.
Real trust is symmetric and earned over a long period of time often between family. But they were too mentally ill for this, so they worshipped a chosen leader as an idol like the biblical heretics using popularity and fear as the only acceptable forms of wealth.
In summary, any group composed of trustless mentally ill people will inevitably establish an atrocious system, become a living nightmare for all involved and ultimately fail.
Whereas any group of sane, trustworthy people, possessing keen insight and wisdom, would form a better system and avoid catastrophe.
Love your analysis!
Wow, I'm doing something right if I'm attracting readers like you! I want to know more about you! Very few people understand politics like you do!
If Nevermore were a university course I'm convinced I'd get a failing grade. Why? Because I simply can't keep up with the amount of reading material! These are very dense subjects you're introducing here which requires background that many reader probably don't have. I definitely feel the impulse to abandon the study for lack of time, and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that. It's frustrating because the material is first rate, and as you've seen, prompts me to at least try and participate, but again, can I afford to devote as much time to the subject as the author(s) who are clearly devoting most if not all of theirs to the endeavour?
One of the things Peter Duke is undertaking holds great promise I believe. Peter is taking dense 1000 page academic books on complex subjects and using ChatGPT to extract the basic arguments and present them in a form that a grade 12 high school student can understand. The result is usually about 200 pages of material that makes the subject matter far more accessible.
Keep in mind, most of the serious works on history, anthropology and other disciplines were not written for a general audience. They were academic works, often thesis material, aimed at one's peers. Some authors have addressed this limitation, notably Stuart Chase who condensed Alfred Korzybski's work into something far more readable (The Tyranny of Words) that retained all of the basic concepts. Another example is Joseph Plummer's 'Tragedy and Hope 101' which boiled Carroll Quigley's 'Tragedy and Hope' down to its essential points, but these are just outliers. A more generalized approach is what Peter is advocating, as well as leading by example.
https://thedukereport.com/about/
Peter is just starting down this road, and I support his efforts fully as it supports my own work in communications theory which I believe is essential to getting one's point across, whatever that might be. As such, I try not to pick sides or engage in polemics on the various sites I frequent as part of my research, and it's encouraging that I haven't run into this problem here.
That said, there's a common thread that runs through most substacks and other similar sites in that they tend to bury the reader in detail the authors assume the reader has some knowledge of. When I see a post where the reading time is in triple digits I often put it aside never to return. I don't want to do that, but I have no choice as like everyone else, I have to prioritize my time.
Another thing I run afoul of is paywalls. Nothing puts me off more than a 7-day trial prompt to continue reading an article I'm interested in. Fortunately that hasn't happened here. I don't charge for my site and never will, and while I realize people want to get paid for their work, their expectations in many cases are simply unrealistic, at least for someone like me whose research takes them to dozens of sites, with new ones appearing almost daily. Apart from the time involved, I simply don't have the money for it. Well, actually I do, but if I pay $1000/year to access material (it adds up quickly) is it money better spent than using it to aid earthquake victims and refugees?
Going a bit off topic now, but I think Substack has missed the boat in some regards, their animus towards advertising being one of them. Why not let the authors decide if they want to carry ads, and let them chose which ones? It would help both revenue streams without impacting the reader overly much, and might even be welcome when done properly. Consider a site about hiking the great trails of the world. Would ads for mountaineering gear or specialized travel agents be a burden? I don't think so. Likewise, I'd be happy to host one or two ads per post on my site if they were music related, such as for Korg, Fender or Roland. I plan to bring this up with Substack as it looks like they're in a tight corner. One of the things I do besides music and media studies is financial analysis, and based on what I've seen (they're private so not as transparent as a public co.) I'm concerned that Substack may soon run out of money unless they try a new approach. When you get right down to it, All communications are advertising. It's just a question of what product you're promoting and how well it's presented.
Tragedy and Hope 101 is an excellent example. Quigley's book was not meant for anyone but academics. Besides, Plummer puts his own slant on things, which I think is useful in this case.
"In this chapter Graeber points out that many of they key insights and concepts associated with the European enlightenment – ideas of individual liberty and equality, and the rejection of religious dogma and established social hierarchy based on ascribed status – were heavily influenced by Europeans’ encounters with Native Americans. "
I've no way of assessing whether this is a valid concept without digging into the material, but my first reaction is that it's an unfair comparison. I say this because it compares two distinct cultural patterns with no reference to the fact that they were on the same continuum, but simply separated by time and material circumstance.
European civilization had the same starting point as NA paleolithic hunter-gathers. As Marvin Harris has pointed out, the transition to neolithic was heavily dependent on three things. Suitable animals for domestication, suitable farmland with adequate water, and reliable seasonal patterns, either the 4 season cycle in northern climes or the 2 season cycle in hydraulic cultures (Ganges, Euphrates, Nile, etc.).
Lacking the two most important elements, cattle and horses, NA native groups were limited in that transition, and thus their cultural arrangements were formed around that fact. This is illustrated by the rapid rise in NA plains horse culture that emerged almost immediately after the Spanish arrived and some of their horses escaped. That was a great leap forward, and absent the colonial impositions would have put them on a path towards something similar to Neolithic Europe or Asia. In short, it wouldn't have been too long before bison were domesticated and enclosure and settlement followed, with everything that implies.
What I'm saying is that from the same starting point, Europe and Asia had the jump on the Americas for purely material reasons, and their cultures likewise developed differently as a result of that. So to compare the two without reference to that point is somewhat appley-orangey, no? Again, I didn't have time to dig into the material, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
A whole bunch of those thoughts had never even occurred to me! I'll have to get back to you on that.
This same factor figures into the decline of Mayan and Aztec cultural centres. They basically hit a Malthusian dead end. Malthus was correct in his assumptions for his day. What he didn't account for was the effect of rapid technological progress that vastly expanded the food supply, while at the same time creating urban environments less conducive to population growth.
Applied to the Americas, the theory goes that population growth exceeded the cities' ability to feed themselves. This owing to, again, the lack of cattle and horses which allows for much greater expansion of cultivation and transportation as seen in Europe. Especially lacking was protein, which in the Aztec's case was a result of over-fishing and hunting to feed the growing population. The Mayans abandoned their cities while the Aztecs sought to maintain their capitol through ritual warfare and cannibalism imposed on the weaker surrounding peoples. Chances are had Cortez not appeared they would have fallen eventually anyway, as their victims either rebelled or relocated.
The same thinking can be applied to Mississippian culture with the added feature that they may have been irreparably damaged by floods when the river changed course, which it's done many times in the past.
That's the first defence of Malthus I've ever heard from a living person! Again, I'm unqualified to weigh in. I haven't read Malthus or made a study of him - I associate him with the "Science Uber Alles" movement later exemplified by Bertrand Russell, the Huxley family, the Darwinists, etc... I tend to see such people are British Empire apologists... I feel like the British ruling class decided to ditch Christianity because they were sick of British civil servants abroad having crises of conscience...
"I feel like the British ruling class decided to ditch Christianity because they were sick of British civil servants abroad having crises of conscience..."
Funny that you should say that. My background is British Empire, and while my father made the best decision of his life moving the family to Canada when I was four, he never lost the British attitude, which was framed by his serving in the Royal Navy, where he met my mother, who at the time was WRNS. Following family tradition I was on a path to military service as well, starting with cubs, then scouts (Baden Powell) then cadets in a Highland regiment where I played the bagpipes in our band. That part was OK, as was ripping around in APCs and stuff.... but in the end I couldn't take it anymore, and once I met some hippies, ironically at our base where unused H-huts were converted to a hostel, I left home and hit the road at age 15. Ironically around same age as my father when he joined the Navy to get away from a tyrannical father. That was in 1969, so my experience with the counter culture began then. I eventually returned home, by which point my father had given up any ambitions he had for me, and I was the hippest guy in my high school for a while, until that fell apart and I had a choice to make - work or move out. I did both! I got a job working on oil tankers, first on the Great Lakes, later on the East Coast. So I actually went to sea for much the same reasons as my father. Weird, right?
Wow! You've lived a very interesting life! Do you kids? If so I hope they go to sea too!
I place Malthus' theory in the same class as Newton's laws of motion. They are only applicable within a certain frame. In Newton's case they break down at high energy levels, such as found in the subatomic world and at near-light speeds. In Malthus' case, they break down when expansion of holdings or new technology offsets the effect of population growth.
Malthus thought that the prosperity brought about by expanding land under cultivation would lead to population growth that would eventually overrun the food supply leading to a need for more expansion. Expansion works until you run out of arable land, or are butting up against another group faced with similar pressures, in which case either conflict or a merging of estates would ensue, the aim being strength in numbers to defend against other estates faced with similar pressures.
It took centuries to arrive at that condition as previously land was readily available for expansion as the population grew, until you reach the times of Malthus (late 18th C) when all possible exploitable land was occupied. That end point was delayed by several factors. Plagues took the population down hard, which acted as a reset. Famines had the same effect, caused by either seasonal changes, pests, or poor cultivation practices. Once it was realized that land had to lie fallow to be restored, you had another factor driving the need for expansion.
Of course wars also took population down, but they had a further effect as well. Once you'd reached the level where ready land was unavailable and competing interests arose you needed soldiers for defence, which would be recruited from the peasants. That meant a family unit had to have more than one son, and given that the Church also had a claim on your offspring, three or four sons were considered optimal. You needed extra hands to work the land, but sons were also a form of insurance for when you were too old to continue working and needed support. That's where you get your population growth in excess of what the land can support.
Bear in mind, the Church ruled in conjunction with the landed aristocracy, but being celibate, lacked the ability to produce the needed hands to work their land holdings, which were often quite extensive. Thus they had claim on a son who would enter the priesthood. There's also a theory, I forget who proposed it - perhaps LaRouche - that the various Crusades were an attempt to reduce the population pressure that was already manifesting, the idea being that most of the Crusaders would not return, but would settle in the Holy Land, or somewhere along the way. Perceiving the problem, since they were better educated, the Church framed this as a holy obligation since that provided motivation for what would otherwise be resisted by both landlords and serfs. Who wants to march off into the unknown unless it's in God's service? Likewise, why reduce your military unless your potential enemies do likewise?
Another factor that warded off the day of reckoning was emigration to the new colonies once those were established circa 1600, the Irish potato famine being one example.
In the big picture, expansion, plus new technology and improved farming practices warded off the day of reckoning, starting with animal domestication, especially draft animals, followed by things like crop rotation, inter-cropping, fallowing and improvements in plowing, harvesting and milling. The crisis point was reached in Malthus' time, so his theory fit the observable facts. Ironically, his realization came at the dawn of industrialism, powered by steam engines which once again changed the equation. Mechanization reduced the demand for farm workers while increasing the need for factory workers, which often meant women or children, as they could be paid less. At this point Malthus' theory breaks down as food production expands enormously, and the social relations of feudalism break down as well, with distribution and ownership of resources taking a more prominent role.
There's a lot to take in here, but I believe by looking for the underlying material causes, most of pre-industrial social and technological development can be explained in Malthusian terms. The problem today is that our ruling class still hews to this idea, which is clearly no longer applicable. Advanced industrial societies all have adequate food supplies and declining birth rates, so the issue is no longer production but distribution, which brings you to Mills, Hegel and Marx whose theories replaced Malthus' at least among those who didn't have a vested interest in it.
Since I first read Harris in 1981 I tend to look for underlying material causes to explain social development. Harris' 'materialism' has its cognates in Korzybski's 'referent' and McLuhan's 'hidden ground.' Hofstadter's contribution was the notion of 'framing' - the realization that for a theory to have good explanatory power it has to be situated within the appropriate 'frame' as with the example of Newton.
My main complaint with most social, psychological and economic 'theories' is that they fail to take account of underlying material causes - causes which may not have been known, or only dimly perceived by the historic figures themselves. Thus you get King Henry decreed this and that, or Thomas Aquinas said such and such, without asking where they got their ideas from, and whether those ideas had an actual referent or were just wishful thinking.
Harris took aim at the problem in anthropology, where he saw scholars such as Claude Lévi-Strauss attempting to wedge their observations into a preexisting 'theory' rather than first gathering the evidence then proposing testable hypotheses, which is how science is supposed to work. As a final note, my own writing, which is really just a recounting of the above mentioned authors, should be treated the same way. Nothing is ever final.
Wow. I'm going to have to read this comment at least three times and then think about it. I think I may have encountered this idea in Daniel Quinn's Ishmael, which means you may have connected two major dots in my brain. Very interesting, thank you for taking the time to share that!
Your explanation of Malthus makes a lot of sense. I would argue that industrialization and improvements in transport/communiation did not solve the problem though. It just means that those who use those technologies continually overtake and displace those who live more connected to the earth, and continually destroy the environment.
In fact, having traveled most of my adult life - China, Latin America, Europe - I do not disagree with the assessment that the earth is overpopulated. Sure there may be enough food to go around - poor quality, pesticide-ridden industrial garbage - but that does not mean it's all good. People who live disconnected with the earth, in cities run together where they have no idea even where their food comes from - where THEY come from - no connection with nature, live out an artificial existence divorced from our own nature. Modern culture spins out of control. Technocratic megalomaniacs see only one way forward - the advancement of THE MACHINE.