Picture the first stage of civilisation. It does not begin with a parliament, a sermon, or a committee. It begins with a store of grain that not everyone produced and not everyone controls. A few families, or a few men, command more calories than they can eat before the next harvest.
That surplus is the first machine. It feeds people who no longer have to hunt or till every daylight hour. Toolmakers appear. Builders appear. Ritual technicians appear who track seasons and begin the long work of notation. The settlement thickens into something that can remember itself.
This is the image that later moralists refuse to look at. The same surplus that feeds the specialist also concentrates power. House sizes diverge. Grave goods diverge. Draught animals and more intensive land use widen the gap.
Cities, the engines of civilisation, were not invented by an equal band of foragers. Nor was administration or writing. Stratified farming societies did this, with surplus and hierarchy arriving together because they are simply the same event seen from two sides.
Where socialists and liberals get things wrong is that civilisation is not the overcoming of inequality. It is, in fact, what inequality, once it has produced a usable surplus, makes possible.
The present tantrums against tech billionaires (and AI) are understandable from some angles (and greatly amplified in the public mind by these being associated with the toxic sleaze and corruption of Donald Trump) but this is essentially the latest iteration of this misunderstanding of what civilisation truly is. Trump, by the way, despite his ill-gotten gains is essentially a bankrupt loser who only got ahead of the game by riding his own wave of underclass ressentiment.
"Spartacus"
But back to the idiotic hypocrisy of a society that could not endure five minutes without semiconductors, orbital logistics, or high-density energy but which spends most of its moral energy denouncing the men who still produce those things.
The fortune of a Musk or a Bezos is not a trophy. It is surplus capital capable of surviving years of failure. Reusable rockets, satellite constellations, and frontier AI are not the sort of project a median voter, a ministry, or a subsistence household can underwrite. They require concentrated command over resources and a willingness to burn them on what has not yet paid.
That is the same operating system as the first granary. The scale has changed. The logic has not. Greece and Rome made the mechanism explicit. Slave labour generated the agricultural and household surplus that freed a citizen and elite class for politics, geometry, law, literature, and, yes, further military conquest.
The Athenian citizen could spend his day in the assembly or the theatre because someone else performed the toil. Aristotle’s household and the economy of the polis rested on that arrangement. Rome intensified it. with educated slaves and freedmen serving as scribes and collaborators, while unfree labour underpinned the leisure of the free.
The result of these unequal arrangements was not merely comfort, it was the Academy, the Lyceum, Roman engineering, and a literary culture that later Europe treated as foundational. Slavery was brutal, but it was also the economic base that allowed an intellectual class to exist at all in a time before 99% of our modern technology. Those who want the second without the first are asking history to run backwards.
"Crassus"
The Age of Discovery repeated the pattern with merchant and royal capital. Portuguese princes and Spanish monarchs, drawing on accumulated tax and trade wealth, financed the voyages. Joint-stock companies later pooled private fortunes to share the risk of Atlantic and Indian Ocean expeditions. The inflow of silver, new crops, and trade routes did not merely enrich a few families. It expanded the pool of resources available for ship design, cartography, and the early scientific networks that followed.
Exploration was not a spontaneous popular festival. It was capital-intensive, state-backed, and privately underwritten. The same concentration that produced colonial violence also produced the knowledge and shipping technology that knitted the world together and broke our Malthusian bonds.
The Industrial Revolution turbo-charged the breakthrough. In Britain, technical change raised the demand for capital. The oppression of the working class that inspired Marx's mistaken theories and predictions also created the "pool of inequality" that ultimately made everyone richer. As wages lagged, assisted by the self-impoverishing behaviour of the British working class, the capital share of income rose. This was not an unfortunate side-effect. It was how the factories, steam engines, and machine tools were paid for. Industrialists—for the most part drab, boring, even spergy men of a type that is still with us—then reinvested earnings into further plant and invention. Later, as capital accumulated and productivity spread, wages rose. A rising sea floats all boats, remember. That is the only concession that should be made to equality.
Societies that refused this logic remained picturesque and poor, and sometimes not even very picturesque.
The contemporary tech fortune is only the latest version of the Neolithic granary. A handful of individuals can now command resources large enough to attempt reusable orbital vehicles or dense training runs. Most of those bets will fail. But a few will reset what is possible.
Surplus is captured unevenly, whereupon it is spent on activities that have no immediate payoff for the people who produced the original surplus. If you want a mental picture of that, imagine the first agricultural storehouse worked.
That is how it still works.
The egalitarian texture of modern morality is not a refutation of this structure. It is one of its by-products, and possibly a dangerous one. A hierarchical system that LARPs as democratic finds it useful to denounce hierarchy in the abstract while depending on it in practice. But what id that democratic ressentiment, petty envy, or childish fear actual throws a spanner in the works?
A civilisation that eats the fruit and curses the tree will soon be both a treeless and fruitless desert. Attempts to flatten inequality have not produced a higher form of life. They have produced stagnation, then a new elite that feeds off and reinforces that dysfunction. This is why communism ultimately produced these blood-sucking parasites:
"Spartacus"
Civilisation has never been the product of shared poverty. It began when some people commanded more grain than they needed, and others were thereby freed, or compelled, to become something bigger than themselves. Everything since—philosophy, navigation, industry, space exploration, AI— is that first storehouse writ large.
There is no going back.
There is no going back.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All Comments MUST include a name (either real or sock). Also don't give us an easy excuse to ignore your brilliant comment by using "shitposty" language.