[Pants-of-dog]

I think that depends on definitions.

If we mean the historical particularities following the collapse of Rome, then you may be right, but obviously I am referring to a future scenario that would not be exactly the same.

Furthermore, regarding what you and Potemkin have stated, it would seem a lot of this rides of how broad or strict we are regarding the term "anarchy."

Once again, if by anarchy we only mean a state of chaos (the more colloquial use of the phrase), then of course the two are incompatible.

However, I have been using Anarchy in the more etymological sense of "no government" as in, no third person monopolization of coercion and expropriation over-and-against other private property owners.

My use of term has been broad enough to allow for both a chaotic period immediately post-collapse and after the dust settles, so long as no third-party government that violates absolute property rights emerges.

That this system is essentially feudalism in its structure, for me, is entirely sufficient to at least call it "Neo-Feudalist."

Such a third party government would necessarily arise in order to protect the interests of the (neo-)feudal landowners.

The trouble with anarcho-capitalism is that it creates an imaginary world where capitalism (or feudalism) and government are at odds. This is obviously not the case nor is it likely to ever happen, seeing as how capitalism and/or feudalism require a state, and the state benefits from the support of the wealthy, be they business owners or landed aristocrats.

[Potemkin]

But Master.......I am still weak and cannot but finish my tin of cherry liquer soaked cavendish....forgive my weakness (and frugality).

My inner Scottish Calvinist approves of your frugality, grasshopper. You are forgiven.

Teach me O' Master.....what shall I smoketh?

One word, grasshopper: Stonehaven. I shall say no more. *smiles inscrutably*

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Pants-of-dog,

Did you vote in the Poll? What is your vision of the future?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog,

Did you vote in the Poll? What is your vision of the future?

If I were to vote, it would be other, as I think that there are too many variables and that even in the event of a large scale collapse of society, there would be too many regional variables to assume that all of humanity would share the same fate.

Your neo-feudalism sounds primitive and hierarchical.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Your neo-feudalism sounds primitive and hierarchical.

Correct.

Correct! Poor, violent, stagnant, unjust, ignorant -- all the societal qualities Atilla and the witch doctor (to borrow from Ayn Rand) find most desirable. Right up your alley.

Sufficiently Correct.

Which is why societies with governments reliably out-compete those without.

Often true, in which case disparate groups unify to form or recognize a government (typically a king) and though I prefer feudalism to monarchy, I don't mind monarchy much either.

Feudalism has never emerged in any pre-governmental society, only in post-governmental ones.

Well since we are talking about a future epoch following our own in which government exists, I don't see how this point is really relevant other than to point out that pre-civilizational savages didn't have a concept of private property....

Also, What are your political views if I may ask? Are you a communist? fascist?

I really can't tell from most of the posts I have read of yours and it seems you piss of commies on here on a regular basis....

Just curious....

[Truth To Power]

Often true, in which case disparate groups unify to form or recognize a government (typically a king) and though I prefer feudalism to monarchy, I don't mind monarchy much either.

Right. European feudalism devolved inexorably into monarchy. That's just how power works.

Well since we are talking about a future epoch following our own in which government exists, I don't see how this point is really relevant other than to point out that pre-civilizational savages didn't have a concept of private property....

Pre-agricultural societies normally have private property in the products of labor, but not in land.

Also, What are your political views if I may ask?

I advocate liberty, justice and truth -- but unlike others who claim to do so, I actually mean it. And I can prove that they don't.

Are you a communist? fascist?

Geolibertarian is close enough. Soi-disant libertarians like Hoppe -- who think "liberty" means the strong get to forcibly remove everyone else's liberty rights to use land but the victims can't use democratic institutions to defend themselves -- actually advocate feudalism.

I really can't tell from most of the posts I have read of yours and it seems you piss of commies on here on a regular basis.....

I piss off the commies and fascists, socialists and capitalists, anarchists and theocrats, and most others. They all hate the truth because it proves their beliefs are false and evil, and that they actually oppose liberty and justice.

[Godstud]

The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

Egalitarian and Advanced!

[anasawad]

@Potemkin and others.
Since 'm from a tribe, let me correct some basic misconception you seem to have, or atleast I think you have.

1- Tribes are not small, this is not 2000 years ago. A tribe has 100s of thousands or millions of members in it, and the "elders" aren't a bunch of people ruling directly, but they themselves set in a hierarchy where each tribe is made of branches and each branch is made of bloodlines and each bloodline has several small clans in it. The elders of a clan organize it directly in accordance to the best of itself and the tribe as whole.
In organized tribes like the central Asian, Persian and to some extent a couple of Egyptian tribes; every bloodline is ruled by a council made of all clan leaders, in turn this council has a representative in a bigger council which rules over the entire branch and like wise in an even bigger council ruling over the entire tribe. The final council either appoints a shah, khan or generally king, or in other tribes appoints a dynasty to reign while the council is generally the keys to power of the dynasty.

2- Tribes have laws just like states do, those laws are recorded, modified and adjusted according to need by various councils, and enforced across the board.
What is not so formal is economic policy in which there generally isn't any as each clan generally decides the path it wishes to take on its own, as long as they contribute to the overall tribe. The contribution varies from tribe to tribe, for example; for us, its regular taxes. For Roujam, they don't have taxes but rather distribute tasks in their cities and communities between branches and bloodlines and even clans.

3- While tribal laws are indeed harsher than regular "liberal laws", they aren't all death and exile. There are a variety of punishments for crimes and only the serious ones gets the death penalty.
And as a disclaimer, the barbaric behaviors of the so called "tribes" in Pakistan aren't shared anywhere since north Pakistan doesn't have actual organized tribes, similar to the Arab world, the empires there broke down the governing systems that existed within the local tribes and as such you see the chaos that resulted from that continuing to this day as while the governing systems were broken down indeed, they weren't replaced.

4- Tribal systems does not equal feudalism. Tribes, at the current age, are like small nations and adopt a variety of governing systems just like regular states.
Thats why in central Asia and Iran, tribes are left to their own means as they have their own governing systems and laws and basically act as states within states where there is even diplomacy done between them and the governments.
You can see such meetings happening very regularly if you watched local news of a country with organized tribes.

While you specifically seem to conflate the clans collectively owning lands as feudalism, its not. A clan and even a tribe as a whole both owns certain lands collectively (i.e public properties) as well as individuals of all degrees and rankings own lands of their own (private property). Tribes expand their influence and reach by collecting funds and purchasing more lands, true; but those lands are split to some that will be used for public purposes and remain collectively owned, and other parts where it will be distributed among individuals (mainly young members who generally just entered adulthood) to start their own lives and use the land. Basically being given a piece of land by your clan, and in many times with an already built small house on it, is like a welcoming package to adulthood and responsible life.

5- Among tribes, you'll find everything ranging from diplomatic relations, unions, targeted trade treaties, and yes even sometimes hostilities and wars.
Tribes built empires remember; Because a tribe is a nation with its own history, culture, heritage, and even sometimes its own language, not just a group of people or an extended family.

6- Not everything that happened or existed in Europe necessarily existed somewhere else. Europe, with all due respect, was a place of barbarians and savages for most of its history while other parts of the worlds were building entire civilizations. As such, when studying the social and political development of other nations outside of Europe, and specially in Asia, it is a major mistake to use European path of development as a launching base.


Now excuse me. As I, the tribal barbarian from the middle east, am going to make a hookah and coffee in the comfort of the home I own thanks to what was provided to me by the group of primitive barbarians I call my clan. While you "Advanced and civilized" Europeans can go back to work to save money to afford buying a house.

[Oxymandias]

@anasawad

Which tribe are you from? Is it around Qom?

Also to be fair, most nations both modern and ancient are composed of tribes. Cities themselves are simply a large concentration of tribes into one location. The only difference is that the West is composed of broken tribes (especially in America) while in Iran it's commonplace. To be completely honest, I am not that much knowledgeable on actual tribes in the Middle East so this is a bit of new information to me.

[SolarCross]

I tend to think that this is such an immanent possibility, that "barring" it amounts to the same thing as a big "if." It just sounds very presumptuous (which might be a little unfair since we are predicting the future....)

I think the current state of affairs, globally, is such that it seems crazy to assume unmitigated technological progress. So much of it is so contingent upon highly attenuated factors after all; whereas, in stark contrast, the factors of major decline and potential collapse amount to an almost irreversible critical mass.

I suppose I just find far-right futurists kinda baffling. Perhaps you could explain to me how this will all "resolve itself" but the end of the west, as we know it, seems to be foregone conclusion and with its end it seems that technological advance will almost have to cease or take a very long break (dark age?).....

Why should you think otherwise?

On disasters: homo sapiens has been through a lot in the last 10,000+ years, a few notable disasters include the black death which killed a third of europe to the 1918 spanish flu which killed 100 million globally in just 15 months. To those involved it probably felt like the end of the world but it wasn't and homo sapiens as a whole was barely slowed by them. At this point it will take something nearly literally planet shattering to undo technological development for the whole species. I agree that disasters are inevitable but not necessarily inevitably disastrous enough to reverse technological development. The birth of ASI (predicted to happen around 2045 give or take a decade) is the best candidate for an extinction level event for humans in the near term but since that is essentially our own technology gaining a life of its own even that won't be a reversal of technology just a change of who is wielding it.

The limits of science: I don't think scientific progress can continue exponentially because presumably there are only so many things that can be known and at some point we will know them all. I guess where we are now probably isn't all that far from that point. What is missing in physics? A grand unified theory. What is missing in biology? Not much really mostly all that is left to do is book keeping on genomes and what not. Chemistry? What are the chances of discovering new elements? All the low hanging fruit has been found, probably most of the paradigm shifting stuff has been found too, most all that is left is just bookkeeping and bean counting.

The limits of technology: technology is the practical application of science. However while there can only be one set of laws of motion there are nearly infinite ways of applying those natural laws for practical purposes. Technology consequently has nearly infinite scope for continuing to develop.

However if all the science gets done and there is nothing left to discover, the map of life, the universe and everything completely inked in, that doesn't mean a reversal, a great forgetting, is in the works. You asked if the future would be more advanced or more primitive, I just don't see the odds in it being more primitive.

But now you are referring to the "west" and not the world. The west is suffering from culture cancer (SJWs, communists, progressivism and everything else like that) it may be these mental plagues will be fatal maladies for the civilisation of the west too. The west might have birthed the modern world but it no longer is the only ones proficient in it, east asia, or parts of it, are completely caught up with us and so far they seem to be immune to our cultural plagues, except for communism from which they have mostly recovered.

If the west ceases to be a place of intellectual creativity no doubt east asia or the slavosphere or even somewhere else will be happy to carry on without us.

[anasawad]

@Oxymandias
Semnan actually, but i guess thats close.

Full tribe ? Hazzar or as the Greeks call us, Parni. And no, thats not the same as the Hazara.
We're generally spread across north eastern Iran, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
For us directly, We're from Fadel Mihran bloodline.

[SolarCross]

On feudalism: the word "feudalism" was coined in the 19th century by pseudo-intellectuals and charlatans (like Marx and Engles) who thought that they knew all about 11th century history by reading the recently published novel Ivanhoe. The word is loosely derived from an old frankish word feodary which means land, cows, money or other property especially when used as payment or in an exchange. HILARIOUSLY the "capital" in capitalism is an old Latin word which means land, cows, money or other property especially when used as payment or in an exchange... Essentially if "feudalism" means anything at all it means:

The belief in and / or practice of keeping and trading property.

And "capitalism" means exactly the same thing just in Latin instead of Frankish

Idiots are apt to pretend that "capitalism" was just some weird shit people did during the industrial revolution in England while trying to achieve their true destiny as the dispossessed slaves of communist agitators and that "feudalism" was some completely different weird shit that people did in the 11th century England while waiting for the industrial revolution to happen so that they could all be a bit nearer to communism. All the while these idiots desperately try not to think about all the other centuries and places where everybody also believed in and practised the keeping and trading of property.

[B0ycey]

@SolarCross

The problem with predicting a future technocacy society is the cost to create and maintain it. Even the richest country in the world (USA) has plenty of undeveloped and less advanced regions within its borders that I cannot see being advanced or developed to coincide with any future technological advances. So what hope is there for the rest of the world, most notably poor nations, doing likewise?

Also, to me the whole Capitalist system relies on the Dollar being the reserve currency and having a special relationship for being a broker between commodities. As commodies become more scarce the Dollar will inflated and the global Capitalist system will need to reset itself. Many nations will lose wealth and the wealth divide within society across the whole planet will grow. coupled with Global warming and a food shortage, potential resource wars and human tensions within nations, I suspect that a primitive future is more likely than an advanced one.

[SolarCross]

The problem with predicting a future technocacy society is the cost to create and maintain it. Even the richest country in the world (USA) has plenty of undeveloped and less advanced regions within its borders that I cannot see being advanced or developed to coincide with any future technological advances. So what hope is there for the rest of the world, most notably poor nations, doing likewise?

Well technological development has always been uneven, like as not though technological development also reduce costs and that can let the laggards catch up a bit though and so the overall net effect is an increase in technological sophistication. Back in the late 19th century a means of transmitting sounds across vast distances was invented which we now call the telephone. By the 20th century the people of the US were an early adopter and prolific developer of the telephone and they went on a mission to wire up just about every human residence within its vast and still sparsely populated land. Maybe in terms of population density Africa is kind of comparable to the US, but they for whatever reason completely failed to match the US for the roll out of landlines. Now by the 21st century new ways of transmitting the human voice over vast distances has been developed, the mobile phone, which don't require vast tonnes of copper to be buried in the earth or suspended in the sky to act as a transmission medium, plain empty air will do just fine. Africa is now rapidly getting that voice over distance, the laggards catch up some, thanks to reduced costs.

What is required for innovation is just human ingenuity and the more humans the more ingenuity is possible. So one way technology might reverse itself is if there is a catastrophic drop in the human population, fewer people then fewer inventors and technologists. But there is a lot of slack in the system, we have hundreds of millions of people perfectly capable of being some kind of technological kulturtrager who just can't be arsed and hundreds millions spending vast sums of money and time in educational institutions doing pointless and vacuous vanity projects like Gender Studies and Patriarchy Analysis or whatever. If a catastrophic drop in the population occurred like as not the human population would respond to that challenge and stop wasting human potential and up the proportion of technologists in the population to compensate. So I think low birth rates or a even a black death level epidemic won't be enough to cause a significant loss of technology, it will take a planet smack by a super sized asteroid or a full blooded nuclear war, something on that scale, to kill enough to do that.

Also, to me the whole Capitalist system relies on the Dollar being the reserve currency and having a special relationship for being a broker between commodities. As commodies become more scarce the Dollar will inflated and the global Capitalist system will need to reset itself. Many nations will lose wealth and the wealth divide within society across the whole planet will grow. coupled with Global warming and a food shortage, potential resource wars and human tensions within nations, I suspect that a primitive future is more likely than an advanced one.

Okay I don't mean to single you out and I am not but I am literally sick to death of people using the word "capitalist / capitalism" incorrectly and for propaganda purposes. At this point it should a rule that no one should use the word without referencing an actual definition, because every bug-eyed ideologist has his own special definition which is completely different to the regular usage. It makes cogent communication impossible when words don't mean what they should.

Capitalism

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Right so that is the box standard dictionary definition as yet uncontaminated by the bug-eyed frothy mouthed ravings of ideologists like your commies or geoists. Do you see the word "dollar" there? Or reserve currency? Strictly speaking capitalism doesn't even require money, yes that's right if all you do is barter your cow for a pocket knife because you want a knife more than you want the cow then you are a capitalist even if you are bare foot African herding your little herd of half starved cows around. If they are your cows and you decide when and for what you trade them then you are doing:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Is it that hard to grasp?

So I guess rather than "capitalism" what you really mean is fiat dollar dominated international trade, sometimes also called globalism. Well I would say the world has been doing international trade for a lot longer than you realise and mostly managed just fine on a grab bag of currencies from gold to silver to salt or other more exotic barters. If the fiat dollars go bust then the world's merchants will just go back to using something else, completely unsentimentally and without missing a beat.

Commodities are not getting more scarce, the world's population is huge compared to centuries past and that is an increase in demand but since it is people + their technology that produce those commodities so supply has increased to match demand in general. But you will say:

- Commodity prices in dollars are increasing sharply over time?! Do not increasing prices indicate a worsening supply / demand imbalance?!

Well it would if the money you are measuring them against remained of steady value over time.. but that isn't the dollar or any fiat currency. They are all haemorrhaging value over time like blood from an ebola victim. Commodities aren't getting more expensive the dollar is just getting more worthless which is a completely different problem.

[Rugoz]

Advanced obviously and likely Egalitarian.

I expect technology to reduce biological differences in the future (genetic engineering), which, in combination with meritocracy, should lead to more egalitarian societies.

Which is not egalitarianism. This is probably what VS means when he says that egalitarianism is not a 'natural' state of affairs.

Egalitarianism is kind of the "natural state". You can win a one-on-one fight, but against 2 or more you're already fucked.

...the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines, as having, by the law of nature and reason, the power of the whole.

[Decky]

1. Mankind's Future Will Be Advanced and Egalitarian.

My faith in dialectical materialism is unshakable. There can be no barriers between classes when there is only one class, the working class! The parasitic lazy capitalists will be gone, the lumpen scum of the aristocracy sitting around and doing nothing will be history.

The party science directorate will take us into the future, we with have technology hitherto undreamed of and all will bow to the general secretary for all eternity Comrade Corbyn who will lead us from his golden throne!

[Potemkin]

the box standard dictionary definition

The word you're looking for is 'bog', SolarCross. We refer to something as being 'bog standard', the word 'bog' being an acronym for 'British or German'. Back in about 1900-1910, Britain and Germany were Europe's leading industrial nations, so they set the industrial standards for the rest of Europe.

Oh, and capitalism is not synonymous with trade. If it were, then the ancient Sumerians were capitalists, and they weren't, or the tribes of Papua New Guinea would be capitalists, and they aren't. Capitalism is based on two things: the private ownership of the means of production, and the investment of capital for profit.

[Rancid]

Other.

We will probably kill ourselves off before we could hit any of the other options.

[Pants-of-dog]

The most likely future scenario is that some parts of the world will be advanced and egalitarian, some will be advanced and hierarchical, some will be primitive and egalitarian, and some will be primitive and hierarchical.

Much like the present.

[SolarCross]

The word you're looking for is 'bog', SolarCross. We refer to something as being 'bog standard', the word 'bog' being an acronym for 'British or German'. Back in about 1900-1910, Britain and Germany were Europe's leading industrial nations, so they set the industrial standards for the rest of Europe.

That's a fun little factoid thanks for that.

Oh, and capitalism is not synonymous with trade. If it were, then the ancient Sumerians were capitalists, and they weren't, or the tribes of Papua New Guinea would be capitalists, and they aren't. Capitalism is based on two things: the private ownership of the means of production, and the investment of capital for profit.

It is private property and the trade thereof by private decision which is exactly what everyone does from ancient Sumerians, bare foot Africans to modern giant multi-nationals. And everyone wants to make advantageous trades, profitable trades, you think any bare foot African wants to make a loss? What is good about making a loss anyway? Everyone invests too. Nothing develops without somekind of investment. Even commies invested. Do you think the USSR could have thrown their white elephant projects into space without investing resources? I don't understand how you can be such a nitwit. It's a little disturbing to be honest.