Philosophy The social pyramid of modern society

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Feudal and early modern society was pyramidal. King ruled the state through nobility, while clergy had been coopted to provide a divine justification for royal authority and power. Difference between the feudalism and early modernity lied in the power of the center - in middle ages, periphery (free cities, provinces, minor and local nobility and clergy) held significant power. This balance shattered in the modernity, with the center accumulating power - all the scare stories of tyrannical kings only really come from the modernity, and for a good reason. Where medieval kings had to rule with the consent of all the other power centres, early modern kings (e.g. Louis XIV) used the administration and the nobility to enforce their own will. But the social pyramid survived with only slight changes. The feudal social pyramid was structured as King / magnates + high priesthood / minor nobility + minor priesthood / free commoners / slaves. In early modernity, the structure was formalized into estates. The first estate consisted of the Catholic clergy, and the second estate of the major nobles - 2% of population who owned 20% of the land; thus the first two estates divided the second rank of feudal society. The third estate consisted of the citizens / burgeoisie, poor city dwellers and peasants.

Today's society is no less pyramidal - only the roles have changed. The role of royalty had been taken by the international magnates. Nobility are the local magnates and the "elected" representatives, while the role of clergy had been taken by the mass media and the academia (and the educational system in general). This synthesis of various systems for the purpose of mind influence was termed by Curtis Yarvin "the Cathedral" (though the term actually comes from the expression ex cathedra, rather than the Catholic cathedral). What differs from the medieval society are various systems of the government designed to give commoners a voice - elections, referendums, campaigns and so on. But while these systems do give commoners a voice, they provide them with very limited to nonexistent real influence. Decisions are still made by the top of the pyramid, while the Cathedral brainwashes the peasantry into obedience.

All of this suggests that the social pyramid is an inherent feature of any complex society, and that all attempts to get rid of it will be fruitless. Communists and various socialists have tried, at different times, to remove the pyramid - but they never did succeed in doing so. And the reason can be easily inferred: humans are not the same or equal, and the social structures cannot help but replicate this inequality. As such, democracy and equality cannot be a countermeasure against tyranny, because they are inherently unworkable.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
I don't nessarly mind the fact that a group of people will be in charge.

The goal is to have said elite, be sane, relatively competant, and not really give a shit about how people live their personal lives.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
I don't nessarly mind the fact that a group of people will be in charge.

The goal is to have said elite, be sane, relatively competant, and not really give a shit about how people live their personal lives.

Well, as I wrote, it is probably unavoidable to have a group of people in charge. It is this second part that you point out which has to be focused on, and nature of modern society (including, but not only, representative democracy and political competition) ensures that said group will be largely psychopathic and/or sociopathic.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top