States are established by the weak against the strong. This isn't always obvious on the surface, but it's easy to realise. The first states were established because of agriculture: cereals in the granary had to be guarded, which required a security service and a chain of command with someone at the top. A register of stocks had to be kept, and rules had to be put in place to regulate who could access their grain stored in the granary and how. This defined the basic structure and functions of the state and continues to define them to this very day.
The strong have never needed states. They have enough assets and soldiers to fend for themselves. The weaker, on the other hand, need a state partly to promote their common interests and partly to defend them from the private armies of powerful predatory individuals. This need is what creates states, followed the insight that it is better to accept a state administration based on more or less shared values than to suffer the tyranny of warlords. Around 1600, Thomas Hobbes listed the 10 rules of civic cooperation establishing a state and added 10 rules for state administration. He called them natural laws, since it is easy to realise that if all states collaped tonight, we'd have to reestablish them using Hobbes' rules tomorrow morning or face extinction. Using modern terminology, we could call Hobbes' rules inescapable rules of evolution, as they are, well, inescapable. You might want to take a good look at them.
A state is established not by the weakest, but by those who are relatively weak and autonomous at the same time. In other words: by the middle class. A well-functioning state is a vested interest for the middle class, which is why every state favours the middle class at the expense of the upper and lower classes. If it fails to do so, it loses part or all of its legitimacy.
This is bad news for the upper class: the role of the state is to repress it somewhat and compel it to pay its taxes. Consequently, the upper class cannot veto taxes or checks on its power, because if it succeeded in getting rid of these restrictions, the state would lose the support of its voter base, i.e. the middle class, and collapse. This would lead to anarchy, then a dictatorship, and then the middle class - the dominant force in sheer numbers and in cooperation - would take over the rein again to reestablish the state in conformity with Hobbes' rules.
This is bad news for the lower class as well, since solidarity with it is not mandatory. The middle class owes the lower class nothing at all. (Please note that the upper class doesn't owe the middle class anything either, but the middle class is powerful enough to vindicate and get what it deems due via legislation and law enforcement.) The lower class is distinct from the middle class in lacking power, cooperation, consciousness and ambition. Whoever is ready to cooperate and has consciousness and ambition, albeit, on a low income, is automatically middle class. Those lacking cooperation, consciousness and ambition live on the charitable donations of the middle class.
The middle class is interested in keeping the lower class above the poverty line for two reasons: if large numbers of people live in abject poverty, they will start a revolution, which will cause the state to collapse, only to be reestablished in a new form that includes the ambitious members of the lower class turned middle class through cooperation/consciousness/ambition. Which can be achieved more easily and at less expense without a revolution, so it makes sense for the middle class to strive to raise the masses above the poverty line. The other consideration is humanitarian: there should not be a lower class at all. Those at the bottom of the social ladder should climb upwards through cooperation, consciesness and ambition and become middle class. The middle class saves itself a lot of trouble and tension by urging, even prodding the lower class to study, work hard and get ahead. None of that is mandatory, it's just common sense. The lower class will never be at the helm for long, as it lacks cooperation, consciousness and ambition. Communism might seem an exception, but it eventually proved to be short-lived, and led to states favouring the middle class in comformity with Hobbes' rules. Solidarity exists only in the middle class, anyone else is confined to charity, i.e. there is such a thing as lunch, but you'll have to work hard to earn it.
What this means specifically for Hungarians at this stage is that the middle class has the power to vindicate and get via legislation and law enforcement any ill-gotten/unmerited gains of the upper class, and it makes sense for the middle class to strive to raise the lower class above the poverty line. Much as the latter may be unwilling to study and work hard, and much as it may vindicate solidarity in the form of handouts with no strings attached, it won't have its way and will have to climb the social ladder to become middle class.
Agree or disagree? Drop a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment