What is socialism?

Socialism is hard to describe, partly because it has changed over the last two centuries, and partly because no distinctively socialist template has ever become a successful method of organizing a modern nation. If you ask a socialist what socialism is, you are likely to be told what it is not. Socialism is not capitalism. It is not exploitation. It does not mean that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. That is all very fine, but what is it? No one seems to know. The one thing that all socialists have in common is a deep sympathy for the plight of the working class in oligarchic society.

Two centuries ago socialists focused on the idea of self-sufficient agricultural communities. The intention was to take working class families out of the poverty stricken and crime ridden, urban slums and relocate them to the fresh clean air of the countryside. They would live together in a community somewhat similar to the old peasant village, except there would be no aristocrat to demand a portion of the harvest. They would share the land, the work, and the food that was produced. In theory everyone would be healthy, happy, and self fulfilled. No one would be uncertain about where their next meal would come from.

In the 19th century hundreds of these rural communes were established in Europe and the United States. Most of them did not last. They all suffered from the same basic problems. Some of the inhabitants would be hard workers and dedicated to the socialist ideals. Others would be lazy and primarily looking for an easy place to live. The majority would fall somewhere in between these two extremes. There were arguments over who should do what work, arguments over the decision making process, and arguments over religion.

The original intention of the communes was supposed to be cooperation and sharing. The reality tended to be jealousy, factionalism, and petty quarrels. Since no one was paid for their work, many people tried to do as little as possible. Attempts were made to remedy this in various ways, but they were not very successful. Most communes broke up after a few years or a few decades.

When it became obvious that rural communes were not the solution to the plight of the working class, the socialists did not give up. They deplored the poverty and misery of the urban slums and were sure that reason and enlightenment could find a solution. Many of them turned their attention to the new arena of electoral politics and the growing labor union movement. Socialist political parties appeared to champion the rights of the working class. This brought a new set of problems.

The ruling oligarchs had not objected to the rural communes, but labor unions and socialist politics were an entirely different matter. Employers were determined to quash the unions, and they rigorously opposed social legislation, which they believed must inevitably cost them money. As the capitalist oligarchs became more anti-socialist, the socialists became more anti-capitalist. They began to support class conflict and proletarian revolution. Political battles between socialist workers and ruling oligarchs began in mid 19th century Europe, and continue to this day in many developing nations. Venezuala is a current example of this problem.

The political battle between capitalist oligarchs and the socialist faction of the working class is something of a paradox. The socialists have evolved along two separate lines. The trade union socialists have concentrated their efforts on pragmatic reforms. These include universal suffrage, an eight-hour workday, health insurance, workman’s compensation, unemployment insurance, pensions, and social security. Most of these reform programs have in fact been adopted by the more advanced capitalist nations. The paradox is that even though these programs were primarily supported by socialists and opposed by capitalists, they have made capitalism stronger and better.

The more militant wing of the socialist movement is convinced that capitalism is evil and that mere reforms are not a solution. They have focused their efforts on the destruction of capitalism and the socialization of the means of production. This is the program of the socialist faction that turned to communism, but there are many socialists who are still looking for some non-capitalist and non-communist method of organizing a modern economy. These people have still not accepted the fact that the modern world uses markets as the primary mechanism for distributing food, and that capitalism is a necessary part of any market economy. If capitalism and markets are destroyed, how will people eat?

Modern socialists have no answer to that question. There is no known socialist method of agriculture. There is no specific socialist mechanism for distributing food to non-food producers. There is no socialist method for building housing and producing consumer goods.

In the wealthy industrial countries all of this is essentially a philosophical debate, but in developing nations with an entrenched oligarchic class, it is a major problem. In many of these countries, the main political opposition to the ruling oligarchs is still led by socialists. They are not interested in reforming capitalism. They want to end it. This has led to a sterile political struggle between oligarchs who want to defend and maintain their wealth and power versus socialists who want something that does not exist.

The real solution to poverty in developing nations is not less capitalism; it is more capitalism. The oligarchic monopoly on capitalism must be broken. The market economy must be opened to everyone. Ordinary people must be encouraged to become capitalists and small business owners. The small business owners who work hard and have good ideas must be allowed to prosper and become large business owners. Aside from striking oil, this is the only way for modern nations to become wealthy and prosperous.

Many socialists believe that ordinary people in developing countries are much too poor to become capitalists and business owners. This shows a lack of understanding about how modern business is financed. Bill Gates founded Microsoft when he was a 24-year-old college drop out. Henry Ford had little or no personal wealth when he built his first automobile. In a properly functioning market economy, it is usually possible to find capital to finance a good idea.

The political struggle between oligarchs and socialists is a dead end. Neither side is encouraging ordinary people to become capitalists. The oligarchs retain their monopoly on wealth and political power and use it to exploit the rest of society. The socialists continue to denounce capitalist exploitation and use that issue to maintain their leadership of the working class. As this goes on decade after decade, the people continue to suffer.

The socialists use strikes, demonstrations, and riots to put pressure on the employers and the government for change. The oligarchs use their control of the government to fight back with the army and police force. The resulting battles have led to chaos and near civil war on many occasions. Germany, Italy, and France between the world wars are examples of this, as are the political problems and death squads in Latin America during the 1970s.

What is the working class?

In aristocratic society most people lived in peasant villages or were part of some aristocrat’s household. They either grew their own food or ate from the aristocrat’s kitchen. There were some agricultural day laborers, but relatively few people depended on a daily wage to put food on the table. Even in the cities less than half the adult population were wage earners. Merchants and master craftsmen lived off their profits. Apprentices were paid very little and ate most of their meals in their master’s kitchen while they learned their trade. Journeymen were sometimes paid wages, and there were unskilled day laborers who worked for money.

When the aristocrat peasant relationship breaks up, some peasants are able to retain their land and become modern farmers. Many peasants are not so lucky. They are left without any land and have no choice except to become laborers. At the same time increased economic activity is creating a demand for more wage labor. There are roads to build, canals to dig, and trees to be sawed into lumber. In the 18th century the industrial revolution began in England. The new factory system requires large amounts of unskilled wage labor.

There is a lot of work to do, but usually the supply of labor is greater than the demand. Employers are able to keep wages at subsistence levels. For the new class of wage earners, low pay and long hours are not the only problems. Most jobs are temporary and accidents are frequent. Workers live in a constant state of uncertainty. They never know whether they will be working next week or not. If not, how will they feed their families?

The working class first became a large part of the population in 19th century Europe, but the same basic conditions exist today in most developing nations. In oligarchic societies there is no safety net, no workman’s compensation, and no unemployment insurance. Workers are at the mercy of their employers, most of whom are not concerned about their welfare. The poverty, hardship, and uncertainty of the workers lives convince many people that something is fundamentally wrong with this new kind of society.

In 19th century Europe, it was the rise of markets and capitalism that created the working class. People began to romanticize about the good old days in the peasant villages. Life may have been hard, but at least people did not need money to buy food. They did not have the uncertainty of not knowing where their next meal was coming from. Thinkers and philosophers began trying to imagine a new kind of society, one that would not have this kind of terrible exploitation of the working class.

What is oligarchic society?

In this explanation of history, oligarchic society is the transition period between aristocrat peasant society and democratic market society. There were earlier oligarchic states in the Ancient Mediterranean world and Southern Asia that are not included in this discussion.

Modern oligarchic society began in 17th century Europe and evolved out of aristocratic society. The oligarchic class gradually formed from a combination of aristocrats, lawyers, and wealthy merchants. After World War II about a hundred former colonies became independent nations. These countries formed a new group of oligarchic states. In this case the oligarchs evolved from a number of different sources. Some were the leaders of the anti-colonialist resistance movements. Some came from the relatively small group of native people who had gotten a modern education during the colonial period. Others were talented and energetic people who rose to the top after independence was achieved. Both kinds of oligarchic societies function in a remarkably similar way.

In modern society, the market economy takes over the food distribution function that used to be part of the aristocrat peasant relationship. After the market becomes dominant, it is clear that the monarch and aristocrats can not continue to rule by themselves. They have very little experience with business and markets. In aristocrat peasant society wealth is achieved through the control of land and peasants. In a market economy nation-state wealth is achieved through capitalism.

As the markets increase in size and strength, successful merchants, capitalists, and lawyers become wealthy. In a nation-state, wealth is power. At first this new group of wealthy commoners begins to challenge the aristocrats for political power. It is very typical, however, that soon they start to intermarry with the nobility. In a few generations these two groups merge to form a new oligarchic ruling class.

The development of this new ruling class is not an evil conspiracy perpetrated by the rich and powerful. It is a natural evolutionary process. Aristocrats were specifically defined as a ruling class. Early oligarchs retain that tradition. In the beginning, a person’s status in the oligarchic ruling class is almost as hereditary as in the aristocratic class. The same wealthy families often dominate the government and the economy generation after generation.

It is easy to get the impression that oligarchs are the bad guys, but it is actually much more complicated than that. Oligarchs are normal people who were born into rich and powerful families. They use their political power to try to protect and increase their wealth. This is normal behavior. The general idea is to pass on the same degree of power and wealth to their children as they inherited from their parents. The problem is that this behavior tends to stifle economic and political opportunity for the rest of the population.

In the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries the first few countries to make the change from aristocratic to oligarchic rule usually had a difficult time. Religious cleansing, anarchy, rebellion, civil war, and revolution were common. For countries that started the process in the second half of the 19th century or later, aristocratic resistance tailed off, and the nobility and wealthy capitalists merged more easily. In most of these countries, the hard part is the change from an oligarchic ruling class to democratic government.

As the oligarchic class is forming and ruling there are a thousand and one other things to do. Borders must be established. Who is, and who is not, a citizen must be decided. It is very common to have border wars, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, religious cleansing, anarchy, factional infighting, and general confusion. There are often cycles where waves of violence are followed by periods of relative calm. Strong authoritarian dictators are sometimes required to reestablish order so that the economy can function.

In the middle of all this mayhem, the economy must continue to grow and develop. Transportation and communications infrastructure must be built. Wholesale markets and stock exchanges must be developed. Laws, rules, and regulations that are designed to keep order and protect the markets must be adopted and enforced. All of this is called nation building. It is always a difficult process, but in some countries it is more difficult than in others.

Next comes the hard part, the change from oligarchic to democratic market society.

A few countries, including the United States, had a relatively benign period of oligarchic development. This can sometimes happen if the emerging market economy develops with a tradition of free enterprise and open economic opportunity. Markets tend to reward hard work and good ideas. Oligarchs do not have a monopoly on these. In an open economy, ordinary people who are clever, lucky, and hard workers will become successful. They join the growing middle class. Each year a few of them join the ranks of the wealthy capitalists.

As wealth spreads through the population so does political influence. Electoral politics begins to develop into a meaningful mechanism for sharing power. At some point the politicians realize that they must represent everyone, rich and poor alike. When this happens, the country is ready to change from oligarchic to democratic market society.

Unfortunately, few countries make the transition through oligarchic society that easily. More often there is a problem. In many countries, the oligarchic ruling class retains its monopoly on wealth and power. With the government in control of the economy, and the oligarchs in control of both, it is natural for them to entrench their position, protect their wealth, and limit competition from the rest of the population. In this kind of society the oligarchs are wealthy and powerful. The vast majority of the population becomes the working class, which is impoverished and often powerless. In between there is a small middle class of skilled workers and small business owners.

Oligarchic societies often have a hard time deciding how to choose government leaders. Oligarchic families have the same kinds of rivalries, jealousies, and factional disputes that divided aristocrats. One solution to the problem of who should lead the government is to have an election. These elections are not for the purpose of sharing power with the people, and they are not for the purpose of deciding government policies. Their primary purpose is to decide which oligarchic faction should rule for the next few years. In Asia and Africa the top oligarchs sometimes run for political office themselves. In Europe and Latin America this job is usually left to politicians who are dependent on some oligarchic faction for money and influence.

Electoral politics requires a lot of money. The oligarchs control most of the money and most of the elections. When unwanted popular challengers appear, they can be starved of funding. They can be prevented from running by legal maneuvering, or they can be stopped by electoral fraud. If all of this fails, and a popular leader wins election, he can be co-opted into the oligarchic class. The majority of elections in oligarchic societies are not a sign of democracy. They are a mechanism for monopolizing power within the oligarchic ruling class.

Some oligarchic countries have relatively free and open elections. Over time the politicians have learned the rules of the game. They can campaign as they choose so long as they do not become a threat to the wealthy ruling class. The oligarchs feel secure in their overall political and economic dominance. They are willing to tolerate a certain amount of populist rhetoric. If the situation begins to get out of hand they can always take steps to deal with the troublemaker when the need arises.

An entrenched oligarchic society is an unhappy society. The working class is impoverished and exploited. Wages are kept low. Justice is for the wealthy. Free enterprise is discouraged. The only solace for the ordinary people comes from their friends and their families, which tend to be large. The people know that they are being exploited, and they know that it is not right, but they do not know what to do about it. The problem is often blamed on capitalism. Various other ideologies have sprung up to try to find a solution. These include socialism, communism, fascism, and Islamic fundamentalism. So far, none of them have been very successful.

What is the reason for ethnic cleansing, religious cleansing, and genocide?

Ethnic cleansing, religious cleansing, and genocide are not random events. They do not happen because some dictator wakes up in the morning and decides to kill an ethnic minority that day. These things occasionally happened in tribal societies and aristocrat peasant societies. Democratic market societies try to integrate minority groups into the mainstream and encourage them to become productive and prosperous citizens.

That leaves oligarchic society, especially countries that are in the early stage of nation-state development. This is when most episodes of ethnic cleansing, religious cleansing, and genocide occur. The largest single example happened when India and Pakistan gained their independence from the British. Angry mobs forced tens of millions of Muslims to flee India and seek refuge in Pakistan. Millions died along the way. At the same time Pakistani mobs evicted millions of Hindus from their homes and forced them to march south into India, again with great loss of life. This terrible episode of religious cleansing finalized the creation of two nations, one Hindu and one Moslem, out of what had been British India.

It is all very well for Western nations to oppose the horrors and brutality of ethnic and religious cleansing, but the well-documented evidence of history is very clear on this subject. Most Western nations also made use of horrific episodes of ethnic and religious cleansing in the development of their own nation-states. The historical data is there for anyone who cares to investigate. Ethnic and religious cleansing have been regularly used as a common occurrence in the process of nation-state development.

The Netherlands was the first recognizable, modern, market economy nation-state. It was born out of the terrible religious wars of 16th century Western Europe between Catholics and Protestants. The Habsburg Spanish Catholic dynasty, which ruled the Netherlands, tried to exterminate the Protestant heresy. The Protestant Dutch fought back against the Spanish, and against the Catholics in their own population. When the smoke cleared, the Spanish armies and the local Catholics had both been cleansed from the 16 Northern Provinces of the Netherlands. After getting rid of the monarchy and the largest source of disunity, they formed a united government and quickly became the first modern nation-state.

The second nation-state was Great Britain. It was formed in 1707 by the union of England and Scotland. The Lowland Scots more or less accepted this union but the Highlanders most emphatically did not. After centuries of English interference in Scottish affairs, the Highlanders looked upon the English as enemies. As part of their rebellion the Highlanders supported the Stuart dynasty which had previously been monarchs of Scotland and England but were now deposed and in exile in France. Parliament and the new monarch were determined to end Highland rebellion once and for all.

For years English troops roamed the Scottish Highlands killing all who opposed them. A more imaginative solution was also used. Highland clan chiefs were encouraged to evict their clansmen and enclose the land for sheep. If they accepted this proposal, the land—which previously had been the common property of the clan—would become their private property. If they refused, English troops would be brought in to kill everyone that could be found. In today’s idiom, this is called “an offer that cannot be refused.” It was usually accepted. Tens of thousands of displaced Highlanders were rounded up and transported as slave labor to the sugar plantations in the Caribbean, where their life expectancy was about one year.

The United States was the third modern nation-state. It still holds the world record for the most acts of ethnic cleansing perpetrated over the longest period of time. For two and a half centuries, from the 1630s to the 1890s, European colonists to North America evicted the native Indian tribes from their homes and forced them westward. As the settlers pushed west themselves, the Indians were cleansed again and again. Some of the most worthless land in the west was set aside for their use as Indian Reservations. Most reservations were little more than death camps where Indians were sent to starve.

When minorities are forcibly evicted from some of their land, that is ethnic cleansing. When they are evicted from nearly all of their land, and only tiny remnant communities survive, that amounts to genocide. Most Americans today seem to believe that genocide is an evil act committed by brutal dictators for the sheer joy of killing. At the same time they have made legends and great heroes of the frontiersmen who led the fight against the Indians. This may be the greatest example of the “double standard” known to history.

There are three general reasons for ethnic and religious cleansing.

1. An ethnic group that the nation wants to exclude from citizenship inhabits land that the nation wants to include as part of its own territory. This was the reason for the cleansing of Indians from the United States and the cleansing of Palestinians from Israel.


2. There are many cases where two or more groups with different identities inhabit the same area. This usually causes problems for newly developing, market economy nation-states and often leads to violence, but in most cases it does not lead to all out ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, this situation is so common that even though it leads to ethnic cleansing only in a small percent of the most difficult cases, that still accounts for many such instances known to history. This was the reason for religious cleansing in India and the Netherlands.


3. In a few aristocrat peasant societies and more often in imperial colonies, a situation has arisen where an ethnic minority becomes the commercial class of the society. This happened with the Jews in Central Europe and with the Greeks and Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. The British imperialists sometimes brought Indians to their colonies in Africa and elsewhere to perform the role of small shopkeepers or to labor on the plantations. In the 19th century large numbers of Chinese infiltrated into Southeast Asia and became the primary commercial class in Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia while these countries were under imperial control. In aristocratic states and imperial colonies it was quite possible for a foreign minority to dominate small-scale commerce and industry. When the change is made to a market economy nation-state it is absolutely impossible for this situation to continue. Commerce and industry are the life-blood of a modern nation-state. They cannot continue to be dominated by a foreign minority. This, along with the number two problem stated above was the reason for the Holocaust of the Jews.

In the last sixty years something like 120 new nation-states have been created. Most of them were previously colonial possessions. The local populations did not form the boundaries of these countries in any kind of natural way. They were established by imperial conquerors and in many cases have no relationship to natural ethnic or economic territories. The inevitable outcome has been chaos and confusion for many of these new nations. Many of these countries have already endured episodes of ethnic violence and ethnic cleansing. Many more such episodes can be expected in the future.

Some readers may believe that I am advocating or condoning ethnic cleansing and genocide. If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I do not condone ethnic cleansing. I am just trying to explain it. In recent years some Western nations have decided that they should intervene to prevent ethnic cleansing in other countries. It is difficult to argue with this decision. However, when debating the question it should not be phrased in terms like: should we stop this evil dictator from carrying out his senseless plan for ethnic cleansing? The question should be debated with the full knowledge and understanding of the complexities of the issue.

What is a Nation State?

The concept of nations and nationality has been around for thousands of years. Herodotus wrote about the German nation 2500 years ago. In those days the term did not refer to a country, a government, or a state. It referred to a people. There were dozens of different German tribes with no central authority, but together, they still constituted the Germanic nation. Nations were the sum total of a given “people” who were part of a single ethnic group, with the same language, the same religion, and the same cultural identity.

The development of the nation-state is often called nationalism. It was by far the most powerful political force of the 19th and 20th centuries, and will probably remain the most important political force in the 21st century. The national government has two primary tasks. It is responsible for maintaining national security and protecting the safety of the citizens. Just as important, it is responsible for establishing a regulatory framework to support and protect the market economy. The success or failure of the government in regulating the market economy will determine whether the population enjoys prosperity or suffers from poverty.

When aristocrats began to lose control of Western European society during the 17th century, aristocratic states began the slow and difficult transformation into nation-states. The modern nation-state is a very different kind of society from the earlier aristocratic state. Peasants become farmers. Instead of turning over a portion of their harvest to the aristocrats, they sell it through a system of wholesale and retail markets. The market economy becomes the most important factor in people’s lives. The primary activity of nearly all nation-state governments is to regulate the market economy and make sure that it does not collapse, as recently happened in Argentina.

Market based nation-states do not have to consist of a single ethnic group, with one language, one religion, and one culture, but they have fewer problems when that is the case. The reason has much to do with the market economy. In a market-based society, people must routinely do business with strangers. It is much easier to trust strangers, and do business with them, if they speak the same language and share the same basic cultural identity.

As the market economy grows larger, it must be regulated by the state. The government must define what money is, and establish who has the right to coin or print it. The government must regulate banks, corporations, wholesale markets, retail markets, and a great deal more. Activities that constitute fair market practice must be defined, written into law, and enforced. Activities that do serious harm to the markets, such as theft, fraud, and extortion must be outlawed. Most of the legal code in a nation-state is there to regulate and protect the market system.

The process of developing modern regulatory mechanisms is slow and often painful. Societies that are still in the early stages of developing their nation-states can hardly be faulted for poor economic regulation. It usually takes many generations to design and adopt successful regulatory mechanisms. The process of market development, national development, and regulatory development are all accomplished much more easily if the population and the government share the same ethnicity, language, and culture.

Hereditary monarchs and aristocrats cannot successfully rule a modern nation-state. The monarchy either becomes a ceremonial position or it is ended altogether. All of this takes time. No society has ever transitioned from an aristocratic state to a fully operational nation-state within a single generation. Some things change through a slow, relatively peaceful process of reform and evolution. Other things change through a bloody process of civil war and revolution. That is how the process of nation building has always operated in the past, and that is how it will continue to operate in the future.

The process of establishing and developing a nation-state is not ancient history. It is one of the largest and most important issues of our time. Will the Palestinians have a nation-state of their own? Will Taiwan become a nation-state? Will the Basques, Mayans, Kurds, Berbers, Tibetans, and Native American Indians ever have a nation-state of their own? Will the two different ethnic groups in Northern Ireland ever stop fighting each other and become a unified population? We are talking about the problems of the present and the future, not the problems of the past.

Most countries in Africa were originally established as European colonies. After World War II they became independent. Now the world wonders why so many of them are unable to function as successful nations. You cannot take an imperial colony with a dozen ethnic groups, a dozen languages, three major religions, and very little indigenous market tradition, give it independence, and expect it to become a successful nation-state in two generations. It is not going to happen.

Most colonies functioned essentially as aristocrat peasant societies. The native people were the peasants and the European colonists were the aristocrats. This kind of society can have many different ethnic groups, languages, religions, and cultures. Different people in different villages do not have to get along with each other and do not have to cooperate with each other. Most people seldom left their villages or had business with strangers.

A nation-state is very different. It must have a large, unified, and successful system of markets. It must have a strong central government to closely and competently regulate the market economy. Rules and regulations must be designed to be easy to use, and must encourage increased economic activity. Everyone engaged in the market economy must interact with each other and with the government on a regular basis. They must accept and use the government’s rules, regulations, and laws.

When a country has numerous ethnic groups who are suspicious of each other, jealous of each other, and unwilling to cooperate with each other, who will form the government? How can any government gain the trust of the people? How can it regulate the economy successfully without the trust and cooperation of the people?

There are about two hundred nation-states in the world today. Less than half of them are prosperous and successful. Many countries that have not yet prospered only need time and an ongoing process of development. But many other nations have serious structural problems. Time and patience will not solve these problems. They may eventually be solved by war and ethnic cleansing. If the world wants a better solution, we will have to understand what the problems are, how they started, and how they can be fixed. This is possible. The data needed to understand the process of nation-state development is available. It is sitting in history books on library shelves all over the world.

Colonial Societies

Colonial society is not a traditional form of society, but in this section we are looking at the starting point for societies around the world before they began the transition to modern nation-states. This makes it impossible to ignore colonial society. At the peak of imperial expansion during World War II, more than half the world’s land and people were part of some large empire. In the great implosion of empires that occurred after the war, these colonies quickly became independent.

In the more productive colonies that had a large native population, the imperialists functioned much like aristocrats. They were a small ruling class with a monopoly of political power. Many of the native people were essentially much like peasants. They produced agricultural commodities such as sugar, tea, spices, and rubber—which the imperialists took and shipped to foreign markets. There were also many colonial areas that produced little of value. In these areas, imperialism was a thin veneer that overlaid a native society, which at heart retained most of its traditional tribal or aristocratic character.

After World War II when the imperial age ended, most of the colonists returned home, and the native people suddenly found themselves to be citizens of brand new nations. In Europe most nation-states arose through a long, violent revolutionary process. In the colonial world statehood came relatively quickly. Unfortunately, the modern revolution from traditional society to a market economy nation-state does not happen that easily. In many cases, the newly independent countries were modern nations in name only. In reality they were still predominantly tribal or aristocratic societies. These countries are now squarely in the middle of the very long and difficult revolutionary process that will eventually convert them into modern nation-states.

Aristocrat Tribal Societies

The change from tribal society to aristocrat peasant society probably happened quite slowly in a long evolutionary process that is not very well understood by historians. It is not necessary to speculate about the details of that transition, but it is important to note that in many areas of the world, the change was never fully completed.

Aristocrat peasant society is specifically designed to distribute substantial agricultural surpluses from peasant-farmers to specialized workers and non-food producers of the society. There are many parts of the world where agriculture and animal husbandry can be used, but the land is not fertile enough to produce a large surplus. This is especially common in mountainous and semi-arid environments. In many of these areas tribal leaders evolved to acquire the titles and status of aristocrats, but they could not hope to accumulate large agricultural surpluses from the people they ruled.

This kind of society sometimes has the outward appearance of being an aristocrat peasant society, but in reality the common people have not been reduced to peasant status and are not compelled to deliver large amounts of food to their political leaders. This means that the common people retain a great deal of personal freedom and independence. These people fully realize that they have much more freedom than the peasants in neighboring societies and are determined to defend it. Most of the men carry weapons most of the time. This group contains quite a large number of different people. It includes Albanians, Kurds, Chechens, Berbers, Druse, many of the Arab countries, Afghans, a number of groups in Central Asia, Tibetans, Mongols, Gurkhas, and a number of Hill Tribes in Southeast Asia. The Scottish Highlanders were a member of this group before they were destroyed in the 18th century.

Most of these people lived in mountains, deserts, and difficult hill country where it was just not possible to produce a reliable food surplus. They were tough, well armed, and sometimes envious of the wealth that was produced by their more prosperous neighbors. It used to be common for many of them to raid their neighbors for food, women, and moveable wealth. It was a very macho form of society that admired physical toughness and ability with weapons. These aristocrat tribal societies seem to have a high level of resistance to the transition into modern nation-states.

Tribal Societies

Modern nation-states use markets to distribute food to non-food producers. Aristocrat peasant societies use a command economy mechanism to collect and distribute food. The most important characteristic of tribal societies is that they do not have a strong and reliable mechanism for food distribution. This makes it difficult or impossible for tribal societies to have cities and higher levels of civilization based on literacy.

There have been many variations of tribal society. They range from the primitive hunting and gathering bands of our earliest ancestors to relatively sophisticated tribal nations like the Iroquois Confederation that confronted the American colonists. Some tribal societies retain a primarily hunting and gathering economy, but many have also developed agriculture and animal husbandry. Quite often, members of the tribe share food with each other. This is certainly a form of food distribution, but it is not reliable enough for the development of large numbers of specialized workers and non-food producers.

Most tribes have a political structure based on chiefs, elders, and councils. The religion is often shamanism. In most tribes the young men are expected to be warriors. Tribal warfare usually takes the form of raids, but sometimes large groups leave their homeland and go looking for a new place to live. This has caused a number of major upheavals in history. Some tribes are docile, some are dangerous when disturbed, and some have been downright aggressive. Many tribes are relatively sedentary, while others are highly mobile.

When colonial empires evaporated in the decades following World War II, many tribal societies found that legally and constitutionally they had suddenly become nation-states. Unfortunately, the transition to a successful, market economy nation-state is not that easy, and tribal societies seem to have a particularly difficult time. There will be a great deal more discussion about this transition in the coming pages.

Aristocratic Peasant Societies

The defining element for all aristocrat peasant societies is the use of a command economy mechanism to distribute food. After the development of agriculture, a need arose for some highly reliable system to distribute the surplus food to non-food-producers. This was six thousand years ago. A market system could not possibly do the job. Instead agricultural societies came to be divided into at least two separate classes: aristocrats and peasants. Peasants grew the food, and every year they delivered a substantial amount to their aristocratic lords. This gave the aristocrats a large supply of food, which was distributed in many different ways to specialized workers—including soldiers, servants, masons, priests, artisans, and many others.

There were many different variations of the aristocrat peasant theme, but most of them had many things in common. Aristocrat peasant societies were class-based societies. They had a very small ruling class and a much larger subordinate class, which was mostly deprived of political rights. In aristocratic society a person’s birth, family, and marriage were all-important. The position of being an aristocrat was usually hereditary. The top aristocrat was normally a monarch. Ruling families were dynasties. The monarchs and aristocrats had a monopoly on political power. It was very common for aristocrats to fight each other for control of land and peasants.

Markets existed in most aristocratic societies, but they were not nearly as important as today. Relatively few people relied on markets to provide their daily food requirements. If the market system suffered a near fatal collapse, the aristocrat peasant food distribution system could still continue to operate. Even in normal times most people went for weeks or months without purchasing anything at a market.

The end of aristocratic society is often difficult to pin down. The market system gradually grows stronger and slowly becomes the primary method of food distribution. This change began in parts of Western Europe as early as the 16th and 17th centuries, but it was not completed until the 19th century. After markets take over the food distribution task, aristocrats become redundant. In fact, they get in the way. As the markets increase in size and power, a new group of wealthy merchants and lawyers slowly become part of the ruling class. In most countries the old nobility gradually merge with this new group of wealthy families to form a larger oligarchic ruling class. It is a very slow process. When the United States became independent two hundred and twenty-five years ago, most of the world was still ruled by aristocratic dynasties.

What are traditional societies?

Before we can understand the world-wide revolution that has led to the development of modern nation-states, it is necessary to have some understanding of the kinds of social organization that were used before this massive revolution began. It is possible to distinguish three kinds of traditional societies that existed prior to the development of the modern world. These are aristocrat peasant society, tribal society, and a form of mixed tribal and aristocratic society that used to be common in lands that were not very fertile. It is also necessary to briefly describe colonial society, which spread across much of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Purpose of the blog

The purpose of this blog is to explain the large-scale political, social, and economic problems in the world today. Why is the United States having difficulties with the Arab and Islamic world? Why is it that half of all the countries in the world do not have successful governments and economies? What is going on in emerging and developing nations? What are they emerging from, and what are they developing towards? This includes countries like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. This blog will use historical data to answer these questions. It will show that the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan were once emerging and developing nations themselves. We will look at the recorded history of the problems faced by these countries in their development process in order to understand the problems of developing nations today.

Where to find good history books?

Large libraries are the best place to find history books. The selection is awesome, and the price is right. If you prefer the bookstore, don’t go to the popular histories that are prominently displayed. They tend to emphasize entertainment value over scholarship. They often try to be best sellers by telling the audience what they want to hear. Instead, go to the discount table. Histories that are slow sellers and have been marked down in price often have the best data. Avoid biographies that concentrate exclusively on some popular hero. However, biographies that explain the historical context within which the main character lived are often very good.

The best history books are usually written by specialists who have spent a lifetime researching the material, but there are many exceptions. Good contemporary history is often written by journalists. Many excellent histories have been written by archeologists, linguists, and amateur historians. The best historical fiction can also provide a good picture about everyday life in a given time and place.

If you are reading a history book and it is continuously telling you that your own countrymen are magnificent, heroic, and brilliant and that foreigners who oppose them are vile, evil, and stupid, watch out. There are a lot of books like this, and they are often entertaining, but they are not good history. The data they contain is biased. There is always another side to the story.

Why is there so much anarchy, war, and revolution in the world today?

The world is half way through a gigantic revolution from traditional forms of society to democratic market society. This revolution began in the 16th century in the area known as the Netherlands. Since then it has spread throughout the entire world. Many very difficult tasks have to be performed in every country during this revolutionary period. The political power of monarchs and aristocrats has to be broken. Modern nation-states must be organized. Their borders and citizenship must be determined. Their market economies must be greatly expanded. Political power has to be shifted first from aristocrats to oligarchs and second from oligarchs to ordinary citizens. These are long and difficult changes that usually require centuries for each country to complete. Multiply that by about 200 countries and the whole process of revolution from traditional society to modern society must inevitably include a thousand wars, revolutions, civil wars, dictators, anarchy, and chaos. I call this entire process the modern revolution.

Welcome to World History Explained

This is a blog that would want to address common questions about the world history and about how to study and interpret historical data.

I will make everything possible to write new posts often and to answer any question.