# Sisyphus Revisited



## Winston (Jun 9, 2019)

At the time of Homer's writings, Humankind's early triumphs and follies were already well known and frequently documented.  Many of his stories are still timely as well as entertaining today.  Some are hauntingly predictive, and frankly sad.     
Yet, despite access to millennia of lessons and knowledge, we keep making the same mistakes. 
Plato revered Homer.  Plato was the teacher and philosopher, while Homer the historian and story teller.  If they could see modern Man today, would they lament what lousy students 2,500 years of society has wrought?  I think so. 


From the dawn of time, some humans simply had it better.  They settled in fertile valleys, with access to fresh water, game and other resources.  Other humans lived on the margins.  They eked out an existence on the edges, in rocky soil with sparse food.  Each tribe survives, and sometimes thrives, in it's own unique way.     

As humans will do, tribes elect / appoint / have leaders imposed on us.  People tend to be unruly and disorganized, more so when formed into groups. After these tribes contact one another, a decision must be made regarding how they will interact.  When avoidance is available and appropriate, some Kings dictate that.  When both tribes are at parity, trade may be reasonable.  And often profitable.  
But if a few millennia have taught us any concrete lesson, it is this:  No tribes are ever fully equal.  One will have advantages that the others will not.  That is not fair, but it just is.  

The tribe that has less will see that they are being out-produced; in food, goods and birth rate.  This tribe will watch the other tribe expand beyond their fertile valley, reaching the rocky margins.  The King of the marginal tribe reaches that sociological decision point:   Fight or Flight.
The fertile tribe sees "the barbarians" on the margins.  The hungry tribe on the margins will probably already have "taken" some of the fertile tribes resources, just to survive.  The reasons for the theft are irrelevant to the fertile tribe.  For the fertile tribe to survive and thrive, the marginal tribe must no longer threaten them.  With iron, horses, and more men, the decision is an easy one.  

With a nods to Homer, Herodotus (and Mel Brooks), there is your history of the world.

In this human calculus, the tribe leader "King" is the pivotal figure.  People, for the most part, are rational creatures.  While "crimes of passion" do occur, they are rare and their societal impact is limited.  However, when a King orders his people to take up arms and kill large numbers of another tribe, we do not call that murder.  We call it war.  

While tribesmen can be forced to fight, they are most often motivated by the culture of their tribe (dictated by their King).  Killing another person is not a natural or common act.  It must be encouraged, inculcated and made morally just. In the above scenario, this diverges into two separate destructive philosophies:
"They have more.  It is not fair.  We will take what they have."
or
"They want to take what we worked for.  It's not fair.  We will stop them."

In the year 2019, does this sound at all familiar?  

Violence is always justified.  In Clausewitz terms, it simply vacillates between war and politics.  The long periods of "peace" are no more than unarmed conflicts between "wars".
And the cycle never ends.  

The Romans learned much from the Greeks, but apparently not enough. The Romans expanded, settled and pushed into the boundaries of the barbarians.  Eventually, as they will do, the barbarians pushed back.  It did not end well for the Romans.
Alexander III of Macedon was perhaps one of the greatest warrior-kings in history.  He did everything right (mostly), including political arraignments that actually enriched his former foes.  And yet, he still didn't make it all the way across Asia. 
But both the Greeks and Romans spread their culture...   And left many dead in their wakes.  
And after it all, both empires boundaries shrank to their original size.  
What good did it serve, anyone?  

Kings appeal to our fears, but also to our greed and avarice.  During the Crusades period, the Christian crusaders were not only promised a heavenly reward, but an earthly one as well.  Land could be taken from the Saracen, sanctioned by The Church, and granted to The Devout.  
And of course, Saladin dished out the goodies to his folks as well, including Allah's promise of Heaven for killing Infidels.  
A real win-win, right?  

Before we stroll any further down memory lane, we should be asking ourselves how such mass-scale killing became "normalized".  I mean, when we see someone with a better phone, we don't just club them then activate their phone on our plan.  
We must be told that we deserve what The Other has, and The Other is not worthy of our consideration.

For the Romans and Greeks, they _knew_ that they were superior.  Any theft and murder of barbarians on their part was simply for the greater good.  The concept of rights and rule of law did not apply to the unwashed masses.  Bringing culture to barbarians was what the gods wanted.  And, if they could enrich themselves in the process, all the better.  

For the Crusaders, they _knew_ they were right.  With the Holy Authority at their backs, the Crusaders could rape, pillage and plunder.  And it's all forgiven.  I'm sure that a Crusader or two silently thought "what the f**k" as they torched a Muslim village.  But it's all for the greater good, and it's what God wants.  The Pope said so.  

(Suggested contemporary reading:  Stanley Milgram's "Obedience to Authority", and the Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment)  

Through the Middle Ages, The Divine Right of Kings prevailed.  Landowners willingly gave the literal fruits of their labour to their Lords.  The social contract was that it was better to be periodically abused by your king than ransacked by a barbarian.  And the serfs working the land had absolutely no rights.  After all, even The Magna Carta applied to barons, not the little people.    
There were wars during this period, but a majority of violence was directed at a country's own citizens.  At this point in time, The Other were all those not of your class.  It became common for one king to marry another country's queen.  And both monarchs oppressed their citizens equally.  

The rise of Nationalism changed everything.  No longer did a monarch or Pope have power, but power rested in this new nebulous "state".  Now, where you lived dictated if you were The Other or not.  And, political indoctrination replaced religious dogma as the means of social control.  There were still wars over resources, but also fighting over lines on a map and the people behind those lines.  
That was the dirty little secret.  Despite the power resting in The Sovereign, the people were the actual power, and always have been.  Controlling land was important.  Controlling people, doubly so.   

At this time, ner-do-wells and their fancy printing presses were spreading discord with their pamphlets and such.  This lead to experiments such as The United States, and republican government.  Shortly afterward, The French Revolution erupted.  Power was now in the hands of "the common man"... at least in theory.  In reality, in France the guillotines dropped like crazy on the heads of her citizens, while the new U.S. enslaved Africans and forcibly removed Native Americans.   
In practice, the new power structures behaved just as the old ones.  Those with power used the tried and true "divide and conquer" strategy to deal with their enemies (foreign and domestic).   It was a New World, playing by the old rules.  

By the mid 19th Century, Nationalism and Industrialism combined to make the average person's life a living nightmare.  During peacetime, the citizen slaved-away under the watchful eye of the government / industrial complex.  During war, the citizen was sent to a foreign land to kill people that he had no legitimate quarrel with.  Afterward, new resources were acquired for the citizen to forge at his factory.  
For God, for Crown and for your Country.  For you?  Not so much.  

Looking back at this point, it's hard not to be pessimistic for the fate of the average person.  The arc of history has not been kind since the first strongman forced his fellow tribesman bludgeon some stranger across the way.   This desperate environment breeds false prophets and snake oil salesmen.  A number of apocalyptic cults formed at this time.  Among them were Karl Marx and Freidrich Engles and their Communist Manifesto.  

It has been said that the best lies have elements of truth.  The Communist Manifesto was nonsense and almost impossible to read, but it struck a nerve.  Hope is a dangerous thing, and Marx & Engles armed the desperate working class with it.  The average citizen now saw "a way out".  The formula was simple: The Others are our leaders that have been oppressing us. Once we defeat them, we win.
In retrospect, this simplistic nonsense is laughable.  After all the riches of the elite are redistributed, then what?  And who replaces the elites?  The Communist Manifesto provides answers, and I advise anyone with a few hours to kill (and a lot of black coffee) to read it.  

But let's be honest. Aside from a few self-loathing professors and academics, no one knows what's in that book.  In reality, the theory is just a borderless neo-theocratic form of social control.  It's assumptions are near faith-like in their presentation, and since it's publication, it's tenets haven't worked anywhere they've been tried.  Not.  Even.  Close.  

And, it gets worse.  Even though Communism is a philosophical / political system that can never work, that hasn't stopped anti-Communists from forming.  Now, the anti-Communists use the tactics of social control enslaving people similar to Communism. 
(Which today, has spurred ANTIFA:  Anti Fascist, but really anti-anti Communist).    
The Others are only limited by one's small mind and bigotry. 
Opposing tribes now span the globe.  Our hate is boundless.  

Hence, the 20th Century became the age of political violence.  It started with anarchist assassinations, one of which lead to the first nation-state free-for-all.  The Great War was named for it’s size and scope, not because it was in any manner good.  With industrial production, and mechanized slaughter, it was still the same game.  Germany wanted Belgium. Italy wanted some rocky Austrian ground.  The Turks wanted Armenia.  The Brits wanted the Dardanelles.  Russia wanted some central European swampland, and a castle.  Everyone wants something.  Those conscripted to fight this unholy war wanted something too.  They wanted to live.  
You don’t have to be a history major to know that not everyone got what they wanted.

The United States wanted to make money, and if possible, avoid the meatgrinder that was Europe.  But when the two couldn’t be separated, the propagandists stepped in.  The King, or Uncle Sam, must always lead. If the people are too stupid to see the value in dying over some ground, he will open their eyes.  Gotta go give it to those Huns.  

Meanwhile, Russia (lead by the inept and negligent Czar Nicholas) was ripe for revolution.  After millions and millions die for no appreciable gain, the ground was fertile (just not for food… starvation was rampant).  Desperate people will suspend their reason for the promises of a good orator.  Lenin took Marx’s gobbledygook, and promised the Russian people things that EVERYONE knew couldn’t happen.  
And, within a few short years, the Russian people went from killing Germans to killing each other.  A corrupt Nationalist Monarchy was replaced with a corrupt Internationalist Soviet.  Except for the Poles and Ukrainians, at the Soviets weren’t bothering anyone.    

At that time, another revolution was fermenting.  The pamphleteering and yellow journalism of the previous century was evolving. The new invention of radio made instantaneous communication possible.   It also enabled mass indoctrination on a scale the world had never known.  

A political agitator and ex German army corporal took advantage of this new technology.  He used the accepted science of his time (eugenics) to justify the dehumanization of his fellow citizens.  He showed the German people The Other were everywhere, and anyone that was not of pure Aryan blood was an enemy and sub-human.  
Thousands of years of human arrogance, avarice and stupidity were on naked display.  
Hitler murdered his own people and his neighbors on a scale that shocked the world.
He wanted his tribe to have more fertile land (Caucuses), and punish the barbarians (Slavs).  New weapons, new social control… same game.  

Nazi Germany was such a threat, the western democracies actually had to hold their noses and ally with Soviet Russia.  Stalin had just oversaw pogroms and purges that killed millions, including the starvation of countless Ukrainians.  But politics makes strange bedfellows, right.  I mean, Stalin wasn’t Hitler…Until he was. 

The Cold War was fueled by fear, dogma and mass communication.  While ‘cold’ for the most part, millions died in proxy wars and conflicts over whose political system was better.  Korea and Vietnam were tragic and unavoidable, pretty much like every war.
But the conflicts did serve as an effective form of internal control.  Joseph McCarthy kept a generation busy looking for Commies under their beds.  While the Soviets built walls to keep their citizens in.  

The Soviets got tired of mass-murdering their own citizens (damn Kulaks), and passed the torch to Mao in China.  The Cultural Revolution “re-educated” anyone that didn’t deify Mao and his Little Red Book.  The Other were folks that had the tenacity and gall to think for themselves.  
Funny thing was, they could have used a few intellectuals. Especially before Mao dictated that everyone should kill those little birds that were eating China’s crops.  With the birds gone, the insects ate twice as much grain the following year.  The death toll from murder and starvation was three million.  Give or take.

But even the little guys can get in “the game”.  After the US left Vietnam, the power vacuum enabled some Southeast Asian domestic housecleaning.  Pol Pot in Cambodia purged his country of all those pesky dissidents, educators and such.  There was no room at Pol Pot’s table for those that weren’t with his game plan.  Literally, no food, and work until you die.  For Pol Pot, it was easy to tell The Other: They wore glasses. 
Two million dead.  We don’t know for sure.  He killed all the bookkeepers. 

Here we are in the 21st Century.  Have things gotten any better?
It started with the murder of thousands of civilians by terrorists, for political goals.  
Then, retaliation that killed thousands, including civilians.  For political reasons.  
And while we were there, we decided to stick around and impose democracy on a bunch of tribesmen that could care less.  More died. 

The Russians took over Crimea, because they wanted the land.  The North Koreans went nuclear, because they want the whole peninsula for themselves.  And the Chinese?  They literally made islands, and occupied them. Now Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines are pissed-off.  But it’s okay.  The US will insert its nose into the South China Sea and “stabilize” everything.  

It’s a mess.  Human nature is to assign blame.  Once it’s “someone’s” fault, we can punish them and move on.  Bad leaders.  Not my problem.

Based on our history, how’s that working?  

What do Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Wilhelm and Pope Urban II have in common?
They didn’t kill a single person.
(OK, Stalin did.  He was a hands-on guy).    

Evil leaders need evil followers.  There was justice at Nuremberg, but we still have Vladimir Putin thinking Stalin was a damn good Russian.  

Much has already been written on morality, and the responsibilities of a citizen in society.  
After all, a tyrant can’t build and operate all those guillotines by himself.   But the Tyrant-King does lead.  It is our choice to follow.  

As a people, we keep making the same mistakes over and over.  We are told that either we do not have enough, or someone is going to take our stuff.  Then, we buy the false narrative and the anti-solution:  We must attack.  

Often, the simplest solutions make the most sense.  I’m going full minimalist here:
Stop taking stuff that doesn’t belong to you.  Stay out of the other tribe’s way.  And leave your people alone.  

The Universe IS inequity.  Stars are not uniformly distributed.  Our land masses on Earth are irregular.  Resources are unevenly distributed.  I suppose making order out of chaos is in our human DNA, but let’s get real here.  If there are 7 billion kilos of gold on Earth, not everyone gets a kilo.  Not every person on Earth gets to live in a temperate, fertile climate.  And, until we reach the Kardashev Level III, we’re not moving any stars around.  Apologies to all you control freaks.

No.  You don’t get to push stars, continents or tons of ore around.  And you don’t get to push people around.  Your Tyrant-King tells you all the stuff you want to hear.  The Moslems have all the gold in Jerusalem.  The Royals have all the gold in Versailles. The Jews have all the gold in Switzerland.  The One Percent have all the gold in Davos.  
It’s not fair.  The universe isn’t fair.  Get over it.    

We don’t have a lot of choice in life.  Sure, we have the illusion of freedom.  We get to pick how we take our coffee.  The color of our car.  Perhaps, you get to pick where you live.  But we abdicate our most important choice.
No, I’m not talking about the franchise and ability to pick our King.  

We can follow, or not.  We can think, or not.  We can comply, or not.

I think I’ve pretty much demonstrated that throughout time, bad people are going to take power.  Regardless of what you do.  But, the easy route is to not question them, blindly follow their edicts expect the rewards they promise.  Has that worked… ever? 
Now, do you think slavish obedience to the political opposition will work any better?
Sorry to burst your bubble.  They are the same people.   The Russians replaced Czar Nicholas with Vlad Lenin.  

In today’s connected world, a lie circles the world before the truth gets its bits on.  
It’s up to us to be the most critical thinking consumer of information that we can be. Don't let emotions dictate your perception of reality.   
A shoe salesmen in 1914 Austria didn’t have many options for information.  You do.  Failure to observe due diligence is costly.  

Despite thousands of years of technological development, we’re still the same tribes.
It takes courage to say no.  But you know you should.
No picking up that rock.  That club.  Torch.  Pitchfork.  Brick.  Gun. 
And when they tell you it’s your duty to roll that rock up the hill, tell them where they can stick it.

Work on your own issues first.  Then, go fix the world.  
That is, if the world wants your help.  In reality, it probably doesn't.  

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
  But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
  Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 9, 2019)

"Et tu Brute?"


----------



## Plasticweld (Jun 9, 2019)

Well written and researched. In your conclusion you seem to contradict yourself. I think I know what you meant to say, but it is not clear.


We don’t have a lot of choice in life. Sure, we have the illusion of freedom. We get to pick how we take our coffee. The color of our car. Perhaps, you get to pick where you live. But we abdicate our most important choice.
No, I’m not talking about the franchise and ability to pick our King.  

We can follow, or not. We can think, or not. We can comply, or not.

A shoe salesmen in 1914 Austria didn’t have many options for information. You do. Failure to observe due diligence is costly.  




knowledge and the ability learn and change is freedom. 

 Phony intellectuals lacks either a full knowledge of the facts or lacks and understanding of the words they are using or their history.  Distorting the language is the first phase of disinformation. Using the word fascism as an example, I have seen numerous people use the term incorrectly describing someone else, trying to label them and lump them in with past leaders. In reality they had no idea what the term means nor its true definition.  It is the spread of misinformation which maybe just as powerful as information, in a world of men who pretend to be smart.  

Thanks for all of the hard work you put into this piece.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jun 9, 2019)

Applause from the peanut gallery.:applause:

"Human nature is to assign blame." Turn that around:"Blame, assign to is nature, human."  You got it right, it's the people who are the problem.  We are what we are.


----------



## velo (Jun 10, 2019)

"Failure to observe due diligence is costly."  

Indeed, yet I find that people generally have lost the ability to properly vet sources.  There is so much biased information on every conceivable subject in the connected, online world today that it's a full time job just to sort out what's bs, what has a kernel of truth to it, and what is actually reliable information.  Even in this piece that feels well-researched there is a biased slant.  But read on to see why that's to be expected...


"People, for the most part, are rational creatures."  

I have to mostly disagree with this.  We are still animals and react emotionally far more quickly and easily than we react rationally.  I've been taking a hard look at confirmation bias and irrational belief systems lately and the psychology is fascinating and terrifying.  The science indicates we are anything but rational in the grand scheme.  Look at the flat-earthers...the way they process information on the subject is so clearly skewed and incorrect yet they are not overly unintelligent or what we would call irrational people.  These are people who go to work, contribute to society, have families, etc and so forth.  Yet they are tied to this clearly ridiculous belief system because of some deep-seated emotional/psychological need that is probably unique to each individual but perhaps stemming from the shared human need for connection and belonging.  

Even scientists, the people we've been taught to believe are the least guided by emotion, are not fully rational.  The discovery of Gobleki Tepi in 2010 completely upturned history's view on when mankind built large societies yet the science refused to accept the clear and convincing evidence for years.  I grew up being taught that humans didn't make their way to the North American continent until ~35k years ago across the Bering Sea land bridge yet recently evidence has been uncovered that humans were in the Americas possibly as far back as 130k years ago...this is real, solid evidence yet instead of investigating and re-working theory reputable scientists are slamming and ignoring this evidence simply because it disagrees with the paradigm they've come to espouse.  It may end up being untrue, but new evidence deserves investigation despite the foibles of human animals.  

The irrational pushback by leading scientists who refuse to even open discussion about the possibility of the previously accepted scientific viewpoint is entirely unscientific.  If you need any more glaring example that we are not rational creatures at our core I'm not sure what one would be.  I wonder if truly critical thought is possible by anyone?  Most of us come to our conclusions based on whatever combination of biology, experience, and psychology exists between our ears and we shape our belief systems to match.  

Rational?  We like to think ourselves such but the evidence doesn't really back up that assertion. We've gone to the moon, peered into the quantum realm, discovered many secrets of the universe...yet we're really nothing more than hairless primates scurrying around trying to fulfil our basic, mammalian needs in whatever ways the modern world allows.  

::grunts::

::throws poo::


----------



## escorial (Jun 10, 2019)

It's just fake news...loser


----------



## ppsage (Jun 10, 2019)

In the first place, here is a really small nit (about which I may be in error) but I feel like you've confused the Communist Manifesto, (which isn't that an actual journalist publication of extreme brevity?) with Marx's long work Capital? If I'm remembering this right, than authorial credibility suffers when one says it's impossible to read, when it clearly isn't. I don't think people consider Marx the journalist, if you go by nineteenth century standards, difficult. Marx the academician is a different story; even a close admirer of his thought (Oldham, I think it is) calls reading his academic writing like following the flight of bats at twilight. ............ I'm happy to see some one else trying to put what we moderns call nationalism in a proper chronological framework; almost nobody is willing to make it the relatively recent (post Reformation and Enlightenment) development that it is and insist on conflating it with patriotism which goes back a long way, maybe to the beginning, but which attaches not to the land but to the people (literally to the father.) ..... As far as literary criticism goes, I find this a strong effort, slightly marred, for me at least, by the somewhat pat nature of the enormous (but not wholly uncalled for, given the argument) generalizations it makes, and considerably more marred by the snide belligerence which routinely marks most of your composition and which probably dooms it to singing for the choir. I doubt I'm the demographic intended here, although, if the effort has more purpose than venting, perhaps I ought to be. I do appreciate the opportunity to read your thinking in such detail and in such civil environs, and I thank you for that. pp


----------



## midnightpoet (Jun 10, 2019)

Some here may be missing the point of the piece, he's basically naming the problem - humans tend to forget the lessons of history, and if we want to solve our problems, it begins with the man in the mirror.  The OP may have overdone the hyperbole, which I suppose could cause some to nitpick the thing rather than get the point.  Humans need to work together to solve problems, not fight each other.  But it depends on whether we want to fight each other or come to common ground and move forward.  Right now this nation is polarized to the point of self-destruction.  Leaders are using fear to control the populace so they will get elected again.  We are sheep if we follow blindly.

This isn't the right foaming at the left so much as trying to say that both sides, being human, are not listening.  This is for everyone.  Respect each other.  Learn to live with each other, no matter color of skin, religions affiliation or sexual preference.  

Sadly, one of the reasons I'm pessimistic that this will happen soon is human nature.  Humans are a selfish, violent lot and I don't see things changing much soon.


----------



## Winston (Jun 10, 2019)

> The OP may have overdone the hyperbole..


I'll own that.  It may be a false dichotomy, but I'll take an impassioned semi-coherent rant over an immaculate droll recitation, every time.  Y'know, if I want to actually read something interesting and provoking.    



> "People, for the most part, are rational creatures."


Word parsing time.  I suppose I would have been more accurate with the phrase 'Rational Actors'.  Yes, humans are carnal, emotional, short-sighted and destructive.  Leaders (good and bad) channel those impulses into actions that meet their goals.  People will act rationally to stimuli (carrot / stick).  Assuming people will react rationally is a basic tenant of sociology, and one I adhere to. 
When I worked in a group home with addicts, you learn one important skill:  Know when you're being played.  



> In your conclusion you seem to contradict yourself. I think I know what you meant to say, but it is not clear.


Yeah, PW, I stumbled over my own demons and doubts at the end.  Part of me wants to believe the socialist utopian dogma, that if we throw off the shackles, we can free ourselves.
But my pessimistic realist will not be silenced.  We have the world of information at our fingertips, and everyone on YouTube watches a feud between PewDePie and T-Series.  
I just keep hearing Aldous Huxley whispering in my ear, reminding me that people will crave their enslavement, and desire it more than knowledge or freedom.  He's right.

But hey, those of us that can fight, will fight.  Until they Soma gas us and exile our lot to an island for antisocial activity.  I hear The Falklands are kinda nice.    

Do we need to be protected from our innate destructive tendencies by a patriarchal government?  Each can answer that question for themselves.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 10, 2019)

I feel like Sisyphus every time I start a new book.
Really, that's how it is.
I roll, roll, roll for a year or so, get to the top, and it rolls back down over me.
Then I start over, rolling that boulder up Indie hill.
I'm halfway up the fucking hill now, so 6 months...







This guy actually has a nice flat path. I don't have a path. My hill is all lumpy and rocky.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 11, 2019)

> In the first place, here is a really small nit (about which I may be in error) but I feel like you've confused the Communist Manifesto, (which isn't that an actual journalist publication of extreme brevity?) with Marx's long work Capital? If I'm remembering this right, than authorial credibility suffers when one says it's impossible to read, when it clearly isn't.



No error, pp. I was packing books to move the other day and found my father's pre-war copy of the manifesto, price sixpence, translation approved by the Moscow Marxist-Leninist Society. As you say, a slim, easily read, pamphlet.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 11, 2019)

> At the time of Homer's writings, Humankind's early triumphs and follies were already well known and frequently documented.


 That makes it sound as though Homer was merely following on in a long tradition, yet the follow on makes it clear that you are talking about his writing. It is also a bit wordy and I see no reason to capitalise the awkward compound 'Humankind.
'In Homer's time human triumphs and follies were already being documented'. Nothing was frequently documented then, fewer people and most were illiterate, and if it was documented, it was known. 



> From the dawn of time, some humans simply had it better.


There were no humans at the dawn of time, the dawn of history ?

Have to get on now, I will try and return later.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 12, 2019)

Hi, I'm back.




> As humans will do, tribes elect / appoint / have leaders imposed on us.


I think those / slashes are a bit of an ugly way of writing, and will people be distracted trying to think if you have included all the ways, which is not important, I would go for a general term, 'As usual with humans, leaders will emerge...'  something along those lines.


> That is not fair, but it just is.


Two points, reducing things to a minimum gives them more 'kick', compare 'It's not fair, it just is'. I guess you have come across my antipathy for the word 'just', but here you are also using it alongside 'fair', slight potential for confusion, 'Is it fair or is it just?'


> With iron, horses, and more men, the decision is an easy one.


the iron and horses came from nowhere, hadn't seen them mentioned before. It is good in some ways to be specific, in others phrases like 'With better resources' might serve better.


> In this human calculus, the tribe leader "King" is the pivotal figure


This didn't sit easily, '...the tribal leader, or king ...' some sort of punctuation, that looks as though his name is "King", and is 'pivotal' quite the right word? 'Societal' impact, 'social' impact? I would go for the simpler one.


> In Clausewitz terms, it simply vacillates between war and politics.


Phrased like that it needs a possessive on Clausewitz, that would be a problem for me 'Clausewitz's'? I would re-phrase, 'In the terms of Von Clausewitz...', and I would lose the qualifying 'Simply'.

This is all a bit nit picking, but I will go on if you wish, one thing I would suggest is a quick re-run of the Sisyphus legend at the start, it's a great title, but there will be a certain number of readers who. think Sisyphus is a nice little holiday village on the Turkish coast.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Jun 12, 2019)

Wow, Winston. This was a very open piece of writing. The language was used efficiently and effectively to reiterate your points, through and through, and you provided a historical backdrop (brought forth by a timeline of history itself) in order to reinforce some of your points. You took us along the your journey, your Odyssey (if you will,) and pointed out specific historical examples to prove that the more things change, the more they stay the same. I think this was a great piece of writing for inspiring thinking and careful consideration. While I also believe that Plasticweld and Olly have some good points- this, I believe, is a great piece of work.

Hats off for me! Good job!


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 12, 2019)

> While I also believe that Plasticweld and Olly have some good points- this, I believe, is a great piece of work.



Don't get me wrong. I point out the stuff I think might be helpful when I read something worth it.  Also if people are looking for crit on a writing forum I feel more inclined to comment on the expression than the content.


----------



## Winston (Jun 12, 2019)

First, thanks for the detailed crit.  But you and ppsage made me introspective regarding my memory hole involving Marx's work... 



Olly Buckle said:


> No error, pp. I was packing books to move the other day and found my father's pre-war copy of the manifesto, price sixpence, translation approved by the Moscow Marxist-Leninist Society. As you say, a slim, easily read, pamphlet.



I read The Communist Manifesto first at age 15 when I was an anarchist punk.  Since I was in an altered state on most days that end in "y", it's possible my memory failed in recalling the size of the document.  Luckily, I matured and left all that mind-altering rubbish behind.  
However, a few years later, I did re-read the CM for my college thesis regarding "Marxist Theory and Societal Controls".  My professor was a socialist, and it was a challenge forcing myself to defend a position that I knew was untenable.  

But y'know how when you read a really good book, and it's page after page, until it's over too soon?  You wish there was more, and are sort of sad you finished so quickly?
That's why I thought the Communist Manifesto was longer than it was.

Thanks for indulging my _laboring_ the point, and Kapital-ising on the opportunity to clarify.


----------

