I am reading the book, The New Golden Age, by Ravi Batra, and he has a section in the book comparing the rise and fall of the Roman, British and American Empire.

He uses Sarkar's social cycle to illustrate the similarities between these empires.

Sarkar's social cycle

According to Sarkar there are four basic types of human minds;
1) Warriors, defined as strong, physical people who are not adverse to taking physical risks.
ie. soldiers, police officers, fire fighters, professional athletes
In general, anyone who tries to do well in society with the help of their muscles and valor belongs to the class of warriors.

2) Intellectuals, defined as persons who will try to develop analytical skills to accomplish their goals.
Anyone, who tries to do well in society with the help of their brains rather than brawn.
ie. professors, authors, scholars, and scientists.

3) Acquisitors, defined as persons who tend to accumulate wealth to obtain the amenities of life. Though not as smart as intellectuals, often brighter than warriors, and possess entrepreneurial abilities and business skills.
ie. merhants, bankers, landlords.
Acquisitors tend to covet money for the sake of money.

4) Laborers, defined as a group which lack the others' marketable skills, however quite often their work is indespensible to society's well-being, but their large numbers preclude them from making a decent living.
ie. unskilled farm and factory workers, peasants, or "serfs".
Usually people born into poverty or who have never had the educational opportunities available to wealthy are in this class.

The era of laborers is followed by the era of warriors, the era of warriors by the era of intellectuals, and the era of intellectuals by the era of acquistitors, cultimating in a social revolution.

'Peering into the eons of history, we read about myriad kings, queens, general, poets, artists, prime ministers, chancellors, presidents, pharoahs, religions, jobs, and occupations. But according to Sarkar's history's, seemingly randon and unrelated events, vast, complex and unfathomable, have all followed a singular pattern determined by natural laws, furthermore, such societal happenings will continue to follow the pattern of social cycles in the future.'

Basically, what we are presently experiencing in our own society , is a pattern that has been in an existence since large societies existed.

I finally was able to get a copy at the library. Interesting perspective.

This constant shuffling for power forever repeating itself. Guess we're ready for another repeat. Aquisitors tend to create messes and bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

He made an observation I've made myself...economists and other educated authority figures (intellectuals) tend to be bought by the aquisitors to justify their power positions. When those positions are no longer sustainable by the society, things tend to fall apart economically and socially.

Looks like we're getting ready for a repeat performance if his theory holds true to form. One can certainly see his thesis in operation historically, even within the U.S. Just not certain if their are other unknown variables that have come into play.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Have you finished the book Poly?

I have a terrible habit of reading three books at the same time, I finally finished the Shock Doctrine, now I am almost done with Ravi's book.

I think his view of our future is much more realistic than individuals who just look at one aspect (in fact he does have an interesting perspective of our economists don't exactly tell us the truth).

Mel,
which model of the human mind would you say most closely describes you?

quote:

Originally posted by meljomur:
Have you finished the book Poly?

I have a terrible habit of reading three books at the same time, I finally finished the Shock Doctrine, now I am almost done with Ravi's book.

I think his view of our future is much more realistic than individuals who just look at one aspect (in fact he does have an interesting perspective of our economists don't exactly tell us the truth).

Yep. Finished it last night. Some economists are pretty good. They just don't make the "high powered payrolls", just as some scientists didn't make the "high powered payrolls" with tobacco companies.

History does seem to repeat over and over. An aquisitor class grabs a nations wealth to themselves, get de-throned, and it begins all over again. Each age, each society, finds the means to justify it until it reaches excess.

The strange thing is, most, including myself, really don't mind a wealthy class...in fact, they are kind of interesting. It's when they go to extremes and impoverish the majority, destroy economies and in general take upon themselves excesses that are extremely detrimental that they are brought down a peg or two. It needn't ever be if they didn't go to excess. (I'm an excess type...that's one reason I gave away my wealth and became a monk).

Who doesn't enjoy the spector of jewelled Royalty riding in a gilded coach? Perhaps a starving population might object, otherwise, it's an interesting adjunct to what might otherwise be a very dull day.

The current corruption, the "monied" political process, and social phenomenon are all pretty much historical repeats.

Why do the power brokers always insist on killing the goose that laid their golden egg? Roosevelt saved the goose, (along with their financial necks) and his class called him a traitor!

Read the postings of Freetrader. They fit examples of Batra's book (feudalism and present) perfectly.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

In the eighteenhundreds, an indelicate group of philosophes reparteed regarding the aesthetics of politics. The leader, more or less Ernst Bloch, held together the group largely supportive of 'utopian' politics. Essentially, my friends, this involves endless battles between rich and poor. In art. In politics.

The more enlightened view, may be to accepted a disparity in the way the Earth's bounty is discovered, and that those with more or less equal portions will want and need to associate together! Then, and most importantly, would be to envision a role with respect to predictability, in our society for the rich, the middle class, and the poor.

Pee wee,

I think I spent enough years in school to qualify for the intellectual category.
I certainly don't have the brawn to be a warrior.
I don't care enough about money to be an acquisitor, although it is nice to have enough to be comfortable.
Laborer, well I did waitress for a little while when I was in college...

Poly,

So did you become a monk because you couldn't trust yourself with money, or didn't like what it made you become? Its a little like an alcoholic, becoming sober. I don't mean any offense by this comparison, but I am truly fascinated with such a decision in one's life.

Hey, I do wonder that also.
I think it is a perfect idea: get rid of all your wealth and then expect others to pay you to do nothing. Then you can bitch about the system all day long instead of providing for yourself.

Mel said:

quote:

I think I spent enough years in school to qualify for the intellectual category.
I certainly don't have the brawn to be a warrior.
I don't care enough about money to be an acquisitor, although it is nice to have enough to be comfortable.
Laborer, well I did waitress for a little while when I was in college...

I haven't read the book, but I asked because the categories seem kinda simplistic to me. I don't like to pigeonhole people, and Sarkar's categories seem kind of limiting. At different stages of my life I've strongly exhibited traits of all of Sarkar's categories. I found it difficult to neatly classify the people in my life into these categories, I just wondered if it was difficult for you, too.

In addition, people and their behaviors are dynamic. At different stages of my life, I would have classified myself in all four of those categories.

I haven't read the book, so I just wonder what's the point of pigeonholing people? Just for fun, where would you place these famous personalities?

Rosie O'Donnell
Jay Leno
Hillary Clinton
John Daly
Rush Limbaugh
JC Watts
Madonna
Ed McMahon
Ted Bundy
Karl Rove
Regis Philbin

Just wondering...

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
Hey, I do wonder that also.
I think it is a perfect idea: get rid of all your wealth and then expect others to pay you to do nothing. Then you can bitch about the system all day long instead of providing for yourself.

It's a great concept.
Critisizing anything is easy because you are not part of any solution as you have no involvement.
You are "owed" free money, and if not, you'll take it anyways. Then critisize the system that gives you free money.

Ron, Slab,

Don't you think you should have a better understanding of what it means to be a monk, before you make such criticisms.

How do you know Poly does nothing? You don't know that? How do you know he didn't do something wonderful with all of his wealth, instead of hoarding it and just buying more crap.

Do monks receive government hand outs?
I don't know, I know plenty of wacky Christian churches which do.

Pee Wee,

I think these "categories" obviously evolve as our society has modernized. Certainly in more modern times, it is difficult to pigeon-hole people into just one set, however in general, I think most people do fit primarily into one category (whether we like it or not).

OK Melissa. Let me answer your questions:

quote:

Don't you think you should have a better understanding of what it means to be a monk, before you make such criticisms.

Well he has provided a glimpse of his life. Good enough for me.

quote:

How do you know Poly does nothing?

Sure he does something, but is it in the form of job that gets paid money so he can support his mother and himself?

quote:

You don't know that? How do you know he didn't do something wonderful with all of his wealth, instead of hoarding it and just buying more crap.

Immaterial what he did with his money. He could have used the 5 speed slot machine to stimulate the economy for all I care. Only that he had it gave it away and now expects others to pay his way.

quote:

Do monks receive government hand outs?

I am sure as a religious organization they get hand outs, but really we are talking about individuals and yes he claims to get handouts and complains about that also.

quote:

I don't know, I know plenty of wacky Christian churches which do.

Yes, but we are talking individuals and of course those Democratic institutions also get them.

Well to be fair to Poly, I think I am going to wait for his response, as you are sure to have a bias in all of this Ron.

Do you think that NO person should ever receive government assistance?

If that is the case, where do we draw the line on that idea, and who decides which individuals the government helps?

I am sure if Poly was a wealthy member of our American society, than he must have paid his fair share of taxes, in which case, it is hardly a hand out if he is now being provided some government assistance. If that is the case, where do we draw the line on that idea, and who decides.

You values are very foreign to me, I don't understand the selfishness of those views. But I am actually glad I don't get it.

Who is more selfish,

the guy that expects able bodies citizens to earn their own keep, or those that bleed the tax funded "assistance" programs dry?

People can and do earn money to pay their way with computers, telephones, by mail, etc.... Not everyone has to have a strong back to be employed.

Most people on the dole are their by choice. Why work when there is free money available?
Now, multiply that mindset by millions that choose to sit and collect.
It's tough on the country.

I have no problem with Poly personally. I have a problem with those that milk the give-a-way system and then bitch about it.

quote:

Do you think that NO person should ever receive government assistance?

Do you think anyone should be bailed out for the bad choices they make in life? Do you think smokers all their life have the same right to transplant organs as others that have chosen to not smoke?

quote:

If that is the case, where do we draw the line on that idea, and who decides which individuals the government helps?

Obviously it is not my choice on who gets or not. But if the rules are consistent and unbiased then I have no problem with whoever is entitled to it to receive it. Do you think that millionaires should be able to get food stamps if their income is low enough?

quote:

I am sure if Poly was a wealthy member of our American society, than he must have paid his fair share of taxes, in which case, it is hardly a hand out if he is now being provided some government assistance. If that is the case, where do we draw the line on that idea, and who decides.

So since rich people pay in, do you think they should get more benefits? I once overheard a person talk on and on about how cost of a car should dictate rights on the roads.

quote:

You values are very foreign to me, I don't understand the selfishness of those views. But I am actually glad I don't get it.

True enough. You are willing to forgive anyone that has made life choices and give the same to those that played by the rules and for causes outside of their control they need help.

Similar to how we view the illegal immigrant situation.

How do you know my views on illegal immigration, I don't recall ever sharing my feelings on this site.

I don't understand the way you have written your last comment.

What is playing by the rules? Who defines the rules?
Is making a lot of money, playing by the rules? Is that how we measure who is winning the game? Shallow world you inhabit.

quote:

How do you know my views on illegal immigration, I don't recall ever sharing my feelings on this site.

Probably true. But notice I did not say I knew what you think.

quote:

What is playing by the rules? Who defines the rules?
Is making a lot of money, playing by the rules? Is that how we measure who is winning the game? Shallow world you inhabit.

Society. Change society if you so desire. In our society yes that is playing by the rules if that is their desire to do that. Some people measure success by money but ultimately it is the desire to obtain utility. Maximization of utility. Thus many people have different ideas of success, but this is stuff you should have already learned in grade school.

Do monks earn their living? Yep. Most monastaries I know of are entirely self-supporting.

Do I make mine? Nope. I'm living outside of monastery grounds and collect Social Security...I also get $10 bucks worth of food stamps.

Did I pay for them? Yep. And then some.

Why renounce wealth? The accumulation of money for money's sake can become an addiction. I saw what it did to people I know, and saw what it was doing to myself.The money was disposed of in a manner that did the most good for the largest number of people.

Did I enter a monastery upon getting rid of my money? Nope. I was suddenly given the responsibility of raising my neice and nephiew. The monastery had to be postponed until they completed their college educations. The extended family assisted with this.

Do I feel guilty collecting my $10 bucks in food stamps? Nope. At one time my yearly STATE income taxes were more than most people earn per year...and that was just state taxes, it doesn't include federal. My $10 bucks a month is a very modest return, don't you think? And I utilize it to bake nutritious breads for my neighbors. It allows me to bake more.

I have learned this: a monastery functions in a manner where there are no homeless, no hungry, no one without medical care, everyone who is able works at what they do best and most enjoy, and continuing education is open to those seeking it. There is ample time for the pursuit of hobbies, recreation and social discourse.

It basically functions almost as an independent nation-state. Socially and culturally, it functions well for everyone living within its boundaries. By comparison, the society beyond its boundaries is like social chaos.

Do we have "maximization of utility"? Sure. Everyone lives comfortably, and has ample time to pursue their interests. Maximization of utility and "absurd maximization" of utility are perhaps two different things. One harms nobody....the other can harm entire nations and billions of people.

Do I have health insurance? Yep. Considering its with a private co., not as bad as some. Though I'm denied prescribed meds and have a six month wait for required surgeries, at least a minimal amount of testing is done when rquired. And most of my neighbors don't have any health coverage.

Do I prefer a government health program? Yep. Because I saw a government program uncover 5 illness that if not treated were fatal. They weren't uncovered by a private carrier. The patient died because the discoveries came too late (within a week of death). The death certificate stated the illnesses were of "years duration". The private carrier had a "revenue sharing" clause for physicians and hospitals...keep testing to a minimum, reap a bonus. Maximum utilitity I suppose, but certainly not for the patient paying the premiums.

Health care for middle-man profit tends to kill people.

In general, monks earn their keep. All monasteries operate a busines to generate "outside revenue". That revenue is expended in a manner the contributes to a comfortable, though simple life, for every member of the community. Amounts above simple needs are used charitably in the greater society beyond the monastery that doesn't seem to have the capabilities of caring for its own as we do.

I suppose I should ask, why is the U.S. such an immediate drain on our resources? The money could best be utilized in poorer nations...but when your own citizens come knocking on our door, we don't turn them away.

It seems to me, that socially, your society is becoming an abject failure.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Thanks for the explanation Poly, fascinating, and very admirable.

I suspect Ron and Slab are attacking you because you are the type of person, who makes them uncomfortable in their own insular lives.

(BTW, Ron, your definition of 'the rules', is rather limited in its scope, but I guess I expected as much, so I wasn't disappointed).

Historically, all societies are full of individuals, who's greed and focus on wealth and materialism, ultimately leads to destruction.

My husband and I are fairly well off, but in actual fact we live rather modestly, mainly because neither one of us care about stuff.

It does help to live in a city like Seattle, where conspicous wealth, is frowned upon, but even so, I just don't understand the "keeping up with the Jones" attitude.

The two things we spend money on,

Our 7 year old son (who will be attending a fairly pricey private school in London next year), and travel. The rest really means very little to me.

We all make decisions in life, and we all have to live and die with those choices. I wonder who is the happier person in the end.

Empires at least had the primary virtue of civility. Starting with the Roman Empire, charity has been the greatest good.

In our American Empire, city agencies face the spector of privatization; co-operation as an important path to charity and civility, may be relegated to probability or chance.

Does it seem to others who write here, that pockets of services failures are popping up everywhere, recently?