Feudalism and Now

The Roman Senatorial class, during their period of economic and political dominance (ca 300-476), invented European feudalism. The Senators had huge latifundia, often scattered from the north to the south of the Empire, rendering them close to self-sufficient. Originally, powered by slaves during the earlier era of conquests, after Diocletian's reign (284 to 305), slaves became less available (no conquests, only holding off the hordes, and usurpers). Yet, there were willing hands to work the huge estates. People--poor to yeomen to middle class--were depopulating the unsustainable cities and unprotected lands; they were desperate for work, any work--and safety, from the state as much as from the barbarians. They became serfs, with nearly the same lack of rights as slaves, although they were legally free. They were, legally, the humiliores (the humble), as contrasted with the honestiores (the honored), who owned the lands, and the government, too, with only the increasingly barbarian military as competition for control.

The late Empire was in a state of coexistence between the military, largely manned by German tribesmen, increasingly led by them, or their Romanized sons, and the Senators, who controlled the Empire's bureaucracy, and an increasing share of the land. By convention and law, Emperors could only come from the military, or the ruling imperial family. Since Diocletian, Senators were excluded from military service, on the principle that otherwise they'd be too powerful.

What's relevant to us, in this description of a feudal system ad initio, is that it looks as if the radical "conservative" worldview is becoming increasingly similar to that of the Roman Senators. The whining billionaire, who compares a hike (of 8%?) to his taxes to the Nazis' extermination of the Jews, is only one example. Another is the State Legislator, who campaigns to end Food Stamps for 100,000 people in his State, while receiving Medicaid and other taxpayer-paid disability compensation, because he was paralyzed when either he, or his equally drunken friend, drove down a ravine. So, not only does he have someone tying his tie, at taxpayer expense, but he wants to take away the food stamps 100,000 people (blameless, unlike him) depend on in Oklahoma. Another is practically any Republican legislator, or executive, and too many Democrats, who viscerally ally with wealth and power. The corollary is to look increasingly on those without wealth and power as people who are fundamentally disfigured, morally, not physically. Physically, of course, the poor are strong enough; they're just lazy, and given to drugs and sponging off Uncle Sam.

This kind of worldview justifies cutting Food Stamps, raising taxes on the poor--switching from income to sales taxes, for example--and at the same time, cutting taxes on the rich, and on business, "to attract" business, or talent. The epitome of this worldview might be refusing to extend unemployment insurance, while hiking subsidies or contracts to wealthy corporations. The reason given for opposing unemployment extensions is: 'who's paying for it,' but there is no empathy displayed by proponents for the losers. People who can't find jobs after 79 weeks, aren't usually unemployed by choice; they simply can't find jobs, and the longer they're out of the workforce, the less employable they are.

What happens to such people? Somehow, most of them survive, but because they're desperate, they'll do almost anything: like "crowd work" for job entrepreneurs, for a dollar an hour, or hauling radioactive waste for minimum wage, or, the even more desperate, or morally weak, may see various forms of crime as the means to survival.

This isn't happening by accident; it's happening because the extremely wealthy isolate themselves from the rest of us, and know that our misery feeds their ease and luxury, and besides, from their worldview, they deserve it and we deserve less than the crumbs from their groaning tables.

We probably won't call the next era feudalism. For one thing, the successor nobility to the Roman Senators, gained a sense of noblesse oblige, born perhaps from surviving together during the barbarian takeover: look after your dependents and they'll support you. Now, our contemporary Roman Senators don't feel any obligation to look after anyone but themselves and their own.

So what, if the climate is permanently f...ked, helped immeasurably by the likes of the Koch brothers, profiting from destroying it! The elite can live in climate-controlled estates, villages or cities with enough dependents surrounding them to do the work, while everyone else, outside, starves, thirsts, freezes or boils in the uninhabitable environment humans have created.

How do we avoid this outcome? Overthrow upper-class dominance; turn their class war against them. Restore balance. How?

Note, the above blog will be the last posted on the site roman-empire-america-now.com. Occasional blogs will be posted on this site. A new host for the above website may appear, if I can successfully transfer it.

Arizona, Global Warming and 2 Billion Headed North

What does immigration have to do with US foreign policy?

Why do illegal immigrants have a moral right to work in this country?

The Arizona law is outrageous, but not entirely so. Its justification is ineffective enforcement of immigration laws by the Feds, which in turn is due to the insupportable nature of the laws themselves.

Immigration, especially of the illegal variety, is caused by US imperial policies. With NAFTA, CAFTA and "anti-Communist," "anti-terrorist" or drug war policies, the US is massively involved in destroying jobs in other countries.

When the US insists that large US agribusiness can export subsidized corn to Mexico, for example, it causes massive displacement of campesinos from their farms. This displacement was intended to create cheap labor for the maquiladoras near the border, but not enough jobs were created. The excess jobless have nowhere to go but to el Norte.

When the US helped local elites stave off or drive out democratic governments in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and most recently, Honduras, something very similar occurred: the repressed and displaced have nowhere to go but el Norte.

When the US wages wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen, it creates huge disruption--and large numbers of refugees. The only reason we don't see more of them is distance.

When the US and other "advanced" nations do too little and too late to address climate change, disproportionately caused by us, but disproportionally affecting less developed nations, we will see even more massive dislocation of populations. If the monsoon rains fail because of climate change (there is good reason to expect this will happen) then large parts of South Asia, Southeast Asia, south China and Africa will be unable to support their huge populations.

Where will these "climate refugees" go? Two billion people or more could be headed north, to Europe, Canada, Russia and the US. And the reason would be the failure of the above "developed" nations to come up with a climate change treaty that would alleviate or reverse climate change: climate change they largely caused with two centuries of industrial development!

If climate change was largely caused by us (and Europe), and if its worst effects are felt in places like India and Bolivia, doesn't that make us morally responsible?

This is why the poor, developing nations demand "reparations:" to alleviate the effects of runaway climate change, and to respond to it, despite their own poverty--exacerbated by developed nation policies (led by the US and its corporate elites).

We should stop fooling ourselves: our imperial meddling creates illegal immigration. Two billion more could surge north, because of our inability to deal adequately with climate change. It would be like the Age of Migrations, which brought down the Roman Empire.

The corporations, which profit so handsomely from our imperial policies, should be taxed to fund developing nations' reparations.