- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 47,058
- Reaction score
- 22,917
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Once there is a group of people who are pursuing power for themselves over others - plutocrats, a 'noble class', etc. - they sort of need to do it strongly, for it to succeed.
It's not as easy as some think - "he's the king and absolute ruler, nothing else to discuss". It's always been more of a challenge pretty much. You rarely see a 'great ruler' where even the next generation don't have issues of in-fighting, or rebellion, etc. It's why Machiavelli wrote "The Prince", on techniques how the monarch could keep power, manipulating the people.
I was just reading an example case of this. The kings of France ruled for over a thousand years, with Louis XIV looking like an untouchable, all-powerful monarch; he spent half of the nation's economy on his Versailles palace. But it was just the second next Louis, XVI where that completely changed.
Louis XVI sounds like what you'd 'want' in a monarch largely. Recognizing the changing times and culture in the enlightenment, he was 'progressive'. I'll let Wikipedia explain:
The King also *supported* the American colonists revolting against a king; he was responsible for the success of the United States' revolution. The reaction? Well, it was the rest of the *nobility* who said, 'we don't think so', and blocked his reforms.
Following that, there were economic problems, and the people more and more began to oppose both the idea of the 'absolute monarch', and the rest of the nobility who opposed his reforms. Revolts led to him recognizing an elected assembly having power - and that led to yet more revolt.
Finally, the people had the revolution, and out came the guillotine - for the King, and that nobility.
There's a lesson there, somewhere, that the plutocrats, the monarchs, are best off keeping the people as weak as possible, to limit their ability to revolt, however cruel. Let them do better, and it can lead to their wanting more.
The US situation has some of the same principles, but is a bit different given that we have elections. So instead of the pure oppression, the plutocrats try to do all they can to control who people vote for, whether that's with requiring big money to win so only people they donate to are viable, and propaganda, and voter suppression, and more.
That's the compromise. The plutocrats have a very large thumb on the scale limiting who can be elected, while they and the people agree to pretend 'anyone can be elected'.
Of course, there is a huge change in the *ability* of the people to revolt. The power of the state to control the population is massively increased from the time of the French revolution. But they're quite skilled at getting the people to blame the wrong things for the plutocracy, so it doesn't come to that (e.g., those damn illegals! that damn China! Those damn Democrats! and so on).
So, you tend not to see successful tyrants who say, 'let's have a softer rule'.
It's either stronger tyranny, or democracy, or the third situation we have in the US that compromises where the nobility keep the power and wealth, but agree not to have actual titles of Nobility. So it's just 'Charles Koch, billionaire kingmaker', not 'Duke Charles Koch'. Problem solved? Not really, no.
It's not as easy as some think - "he's the king and absolute ruler, nothing else to discuss". It's always been more of a challenge pretty much. You rarely see a 'great ruler' where even the next generation don't have issues of in-fighting, or rebellion, etc. It's why Machiavelli wrote "The Prince", on techniques how the monarch could keep power, manipulating the people.
I was just reading an example case of this. The kings of France ruled for over a thousand years, with Louis XIV looking like an untouchable, all-powerful monarch; he spent half of the nation's economy on his Versailles palace. But it was just the second next Louis, XVI where that completely changed.
Louis XVI sounds like what you'd 'want' in a monarch largely. Recognizing the changing times and culture in the enlightenment, he was 'progressive'. I'll let Wikipedia explain:
The King also *supported* the American colonists revolting against a king; he was responsible for the success of the United States' revolution. The reaction? Well, it was the rest of the *nobility* who said, 'we don't think so', and blocked his reforms.
Following that, there were economic problems, and the people more and more began to oppose both the idea of the 'absolute monarch', and the rest of the nobility who opposed his reforms. Revolts led to him recognizing an elected assembly having power - and that led to yet more revolt.
Finally, the people had the revolution, and out came the guillotine - for the King, and that nobility.
There's a lesson there, somewhere, that the plutocrats, the monarchs, are best off keeping the people as weak as possible, to limit their ability to revolt, however cruel. Let them do better, and it can lead to their wanting more.
The US situation has some of the same principles, but is a bit different given that we have elections. So instead of the pure oppression, the plutocrats try to do all they can to control who people vote for, whether that's with requiring big money to win so only people they donate to are viable, and propaganda, and voter suppression, and more.
That's the compromise. The plutocrats have a very large thumb on the scale limiting who can be elected, while they and the people agree to pretend 'anyone can be elected'.
Of course, there is a huge change in the *ability* of the people to revolt. The power of the state to control the population is massively increased from the time of the French revolution. But they're quite skilled at getting the people to blame the wrong things for the plutocracy, so it doesn't come to that (e.g., those damn illegals! that damn China! Those damn Democrats! and so on).
So, you tend not to see successful tyrants who say, 'let's have a softer rule'.
It's either stronger tyranny, or democracy, or the third situation we have in the US that compromises where the nobility keep the power and wealth, but agree not to have actual titles of Nobility. So it's just 'Charles Koch, billionaire kingmaker', not 'Duke Charles Koch'. Problem solved? Not really, no.