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.

Money Trumps Empire

"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act." On Page 4 of the official Standard & Poor's "Research Update."



Republican obstructionism on behalf of their constituency, the wealthy and selfish (cf. the Selfish Class on this site), has done what the debt-ceiling agreement narrowly averted: brought into question the financial credibility of the US Government.

This is a big deal. Whether S&P used questionable measurements, whether it acted out of its own political agenda, it still did what no one had done since the US dollar became the reserve currency of the world. A credit downgrade from AAA to AA+, unless it is quickly reversed (unlikely), will lead, first of all, to higher borrowing costs for all of us.

Take that, barely whimpering economy!

But the decision will also hasten the day when the dollar will no longer be The reserve currency. That's an even bigger deal. It could mean the beginning of the end of the American Empire, because how can the US pay for its bloated military in 120+ countries, when borrowing costs really begin to rise? It can no longer just continue to borrow and expect the rest of the world to lend to us at rock bottom rates. Of course, the US can continue to borrow, and to inflate the value of the dollar, since it still owns its own printing press (the Treasury), and supposedly controls its own reserve bank (the Fed).

But then the US would be acting like any banana republic, except that US debt far exceeds the debt of any other country, or combination of them. There is no one who could bail us out, and most economies--including the US, of course--would be driven into such a Depression that the 1930's would look like an early rehearsal.

The world economy would have good reason to collapse. If it doesn't do so, then political leaders will have finally come together to save our civilization, but, on the evidence of the last 12 years, cooperation is not a great bet.

America's fall may come a lot faster than Rome's.

Rome had terrible credit and was continually diluting (inflating) its currency. But during Rome's long expansion it was also robbing the wealth of the peoples it conquered; it paid off its debts with the proceeds: gold, other treasures, and most of all, slaves. In the US, the considerable profits of empire are pocketed not by the US government, but by private, effectively stateless, global corporations. Maybe that's why they pay so little in US taxes, even with billions in profits--profits are earned abroad. Corporations avoid declaring profits in those nations, also. It's easy to find an island/city-state with nearly zero taxes.