Some institutional network of decidability must provide people with decidability given the available institutions versus the available means of production. That intersection sophistication of institutions vs Trusthworthiness of those institutions, v available means of production determined demand for institutions and decidability under those institutions. This is rather obvious but I wasn’t able to put together the German incentive until now. Fukuyama only gets the recent not the ancient and medieval and late modern.

=====

From discussion with “Teacher” Alhaji Dada

OK. I see what you mean. I see. I just have to translate it from the intellectuals justification to what it was that they were justifying….

So the Germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies, in Europe, and had them before democracy, so that they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government – and still (unfortunately) do.

The French rebelled against aristocracy and church, and were already the most backward government in Europe by the time of the revolution. They still retain self righteousness of the ‘liberty equality fraternity’ and the fantasy that they led the world with the revolution rather than they were the rebellion against modernity.

The English rebelled against France and Spain in particular, the church in general, and the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, so they retained internal trust. The empire gave them the resource (commerce) curse, and when the empire collapsed they followed the Spanish into fantasy-preservation without the resources for it and lost their industrial base as well. So they profit by becoming a virtue signal and financial center while their continue their collapse.

The Americans rebelled against the aristocracy but not the church, although the church was terribly weak (protestant) without the catholic institutions, land ownership, and political infrastructure, and and could retain the English (Scandinavian) raiding (pirate) culture because they were expansionary at all times.

So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the Atlantic continent and european plain given the different trust-paths to modernity.

But, as you’ve said this tendency is ANCIENT, and as Candice Mary is trying to get across to me, the maternalism – heaviest in France because of the original Venus cult’s influence – less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, but still dominating and dominant the south, …. that demand is constant over time. So we have lower trust south all around (maternal), with demand for family, church, and hierarchy. While we have the germans, germanic Scandinavians (west), Finnio-russian Scandinavians, and then the slavs, and southern slavs, each retaining…. ok. I get it.

And that demand never changed because it was a constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north, were most similar to greek (llyrian), had much migration (Scythian), and were ruled by old europeans (byzantines), then by ottomans (muslims), so they never had the northern influences other than during Austro-hungarians.

ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now. (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you.

(Thinking: Damn …. DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (A SET OF INSTITUTIONS) + DEMAND FOR TRUST (FROM A SET OF INSTIUTUTIONS) + Degree of paternalism from raiding, and then from trade, vs demand for maternalism as resistance, vs settled-landed mixed demand. yep. demand for trusted authority from the set of available institutions given the means of available production.)
Aug 17, 2018 6:46pm

Advertisements