Agreed that it was a bit heavy, but, as you see read and observe other things, you'll see the insights here in action, and it'll ring true and be more easily understood. it will become clear a lot faster than you'd expect.
Reading it is a bit like reading the Roman jurists. Clearly the product of a very different civilisation starting from very different premises, but also the work of an outstanding intellect.
Ibn Khaldun is brilliant. I first became aware of him when I was doing Crusades history 25 years ago. But Lorenzo’s work makes me want to go back and read him again!
Fascinating, all round, so far. There is something particularly profound, in my estimation, within the closing paragraphs of this piece, and that is reference to a transition from "territorial" to "social" occupation by the state (though, I'm guessing this is probably more a "ratcheting up" effect, actually, given the historicity of social occupation qua civilizing was noted by Norbert Elias). I'd be intrigued to see if there is any treatment of so-called "fiscal illusion" effects in the narrative that Lorenzo will provide over coming weeks/months? I raise the fiscal illusion point because coincident with the "trade" from an imperial to welfare state was the introduction of certain tax policies, such as income tax withholding. Such measures seem to vastly reduce the perceptibility of citizen-voters (agents) with respect to not only the tax burdens they face, at any given time, but to the more fundamental fact of their activities veritably posing as the "crop" of "fiscal agriculture" harvested by convenors of the state apparatus. It takes effort, and rather exhaustively so, for political actors to maintain extractive technologies that ensures at least the begrudging acceptance of the populace, and the design of tax policy (and other kinds of policy) attempting to obfuscate the nature and extent of burdens felt is part of this. Anyhow, all of this is thought-provoking.
Great point, which I do not intend to explore because the focus of the series is not so much on the mechanics of public consent as the end-runs done around it. One of the reasons states liked trade taxes so much is it was often paid (in the direct sense) by “outsiders”, so a particularly useful fiscal illusion.
Jan 20, 2023·edited Jan 20, 2023Liked by Helen Dale, Lorenzo Warby
I think I understand what you mean by the state "creating" most of the surplus in a society, but as these posts go on I am getting less sure. The surface-level objection is that economic surplus created by workers, framers, factories most of which are not part of the state apparat.
By "create" the surplus I think you mean some combination of:
1. Create the conditions under which production (and commerce) can occur
2. Create the conditions under which some of that gets diverted away from making babies.
I take your point that the Marxists have it all backwards: the state does not merely reflect the nature of the economy. It shapes it. But talking about the state creating the surplus seems like a strange way to make that argument, and could be easily strawmanned by a Marxist opponent.
Surplus is resources in excess of subsistence. Normal Malthusian dynamics is that more food means more babies. Fertility will “eat up” food resources, so it almost all is for subsistence. The taxing power of the state takes resources before they get eaten by fertility. The taxed resources then become surplus which is used to support the state apparat and state projects. This surplus would not exist without the taxing of the state. So, taxes create surplus. That is 2.
It is in the revenue interest of the state to encourage production and trade and production-for-exchange has to create some surplus to operate. So, the pacification by the state does increase that level of surplus, but that is not as large a source of surplus as taxation itself. That is 1.
A way to think about it is that the state’s taxing ensures that farming niches individually support fewer children than they otherwise would, yet its pacification makes more such niches viable. That can shrink farming niches, as limits of arable land start biting, increasing the effective tax burden even if taxes are not increased. This pattern is quite clear in China, and does much to create Dynastic collapse, as inequality (and so banditry) and peasant unrest increases the longer a Dynasty has pacified society.
The state does not create the production, but does divert production from subsistence, and that diversion creates surplus (production in excess of subsistence). Without the state, the mortality check on population is much higher.
It's hard to see your point fairly if you get stuck with ruffled feathers at the idea that "the state TAKES surplus, it doesn't MAKE surplus!"
It's like gastric bypass surgery. The gastric bypass that forces you to eat only tiny portions doesn't CREATE surpluses, well, it does, but only by forcing you to not finish what's on the plate. Maybe "enables" surpluses is easier, or "enforces a surplus" or... darn it's hard to find a word.
You say states may tax 30-50% of GDP, but corporations only have a 15% profit and thus states are a greater generator of surplus.
But, doesn't this mean you're comparing state revenue, to corporate profit? Apples to oranges?
If a state taxes 100m to build a road, that'd be 100m in "surplus" diverted from sustenance. But if a corporate entity charged 100m in fees to build a road, and only created a 10m profit, you're only considering that a 10m surplus. Right?
It would almost demand all non-agricultural corporate revenue to be deemed surplus to compare apples to apples.
(I think, I only mostly think I grasp your nuance here.)
Good summary of a sane perspective. This sentiment is similar to a formulation used by Dartmouth economist Meir Kohn, who centers his core theory of economics and economic development around the problem of "how to limit the predation of states,"
"Ibn Khaldun articulated the fundamental paradox of the state: we need the state to protect us from social predators, but the state is itself the most dangerous of social predators."
“Muscovy was a farming state that was the heir to, and adaptor of, the institutional politics of pastoralist polities. Politically, it was the heir of Tartary, not Kievan Rus.”
This is close to the truth, but not quite right. After all, the Muscovite and the Golden Horde political systems actually differed in many ways: unlike great princes, khans were elected by kurultai, an aristocratic assembly, and could be just dislodged if necessary. Also, unlike in Rus, the tradition of passing title strictly from father to son never took hold in that culture.
What really happened was a social and political deformation of the Russian society and politics under the Mongol rule, where princes were, in a way, “colonial administrators” for Mongols. They continued the same practices even after having done away with the Mongol rule, after previous traditions of political life basically destroyed and they knew only one way of doing things (and they could keep all the money for themselves!). And so, hundreds of years later, here we are.
Yes, I need to emphasise not taking on any aspect of the kurultai tradition. The notion of being the heir to Tartary’s colonial control is a useful formulation.
Looks entirely fascinating. However it will likely take me at least a lifetime to process.
I'm publishing the pieces in a gradual way so people have a chance to read & think them over.
Above my ability and pay grade for certain but entirely interesting and well presented. Will look to my due diligence friends to help out.
Agreed that it was a bit heavy, but, as you see read and observe other things, you'll see the insights here in action, and it'll ring true and be more easily understood. it will become clear a lot faster than you'd expect.
Thank you for the encouragement. It helps. The old art of steady skill building.
I have published a post on my Substack to clarify the state creating niches point.
https://lorenzofromoz.substack.com/p/the-niche-creating-species
That is the best article in this series so far! Well done!
Cheers - Lorenzo will be pleased!
Thank you for bringing *The Muqaddimah* to my attention.
Reading it is a bit like reading the Roman jurists. Clearly the product of a very different civilisation starting from very different premises, but also the work of an outstanding intellect.
Reading it is slow going. So much to think about.
Ibn Khaldun is brilliant. I first became aware of him when I was doing Crusades history 25 years ago. But Lorenzo’s work makes me want to go back and read him again!
I do enjoy a good use of Ibn Khaldun, she says with a very satisfied sigh.
Fascinating, all round, so far. There is something particularly profound, in my estimation, within the closing paragraphs of this piece, and that is reference to a transition from "territorial" to "social" occupation by the state (though, I'm guessing this is probably more a "ratcheting up" effect, actually, given the historicity of social occupation qua civilizing was noted by Norbert Elias). I'd be intrigued to see if there is any treatment of so-called "fiscal illusion" effects in the narrative that Lorenzo will provide over coming weeks/months? I raise the fiscal illusion point because coincident with the "trade" from an imperial to welfare state was the introduction of certain tax policies, such as income tax withholding. Such measures seem to vastly reduce the perceptibility of citizen-voters (agents) with respect to not only the tax burdens they face, at any given time, but to the more fundamental fact of their activities veritably posing as the "crop" of "fiscal agriculture" harvested by convenors of the state apparatus. It takes effort, and rather exhaustively so, for political actors to maintain extractive technologies that ensures at least the begrudging acceptance of the populace, and the design of tax policy (and other kinds of policy) attempting to obfuscate the nature and extent of burdens felt is part of this. Anyhow, all of this is thought-provoking.
Great point, which I do not intend to explore because the focus of the series is not so much on the mechanics of public consent as the end-runs done around it. One of the reasons states liked trade taxes so much is it was often paid (in the direct sense) by “outsiders”, so a particularly useful fiscal illusion.
I think I understand what you mean by the state "creating" most of the surplus in a society, but as these posts go on I am getting less sure. The surface-level objection is that economic surplus created by workers, framers, factories most of which are not part of the state apparat.
By "create" the surplus I think you mean some combination of:
1. Create the conditions under which production (and commerce) can occur
2. Create the conditions under which some of that gets diverted away from making babies.
I take your point that the Marxists have it all backwards: the state does not merely reflect the nature of the economy. It shapes it. But talking about the state creating the surplus seems like a strange way to make that argument, and could be easily strawmanned by a Marxist opponent.
I'll leave Lorenzo to respond in more detail, but I have edited the pieces to make 1 & 2 as clear as possible.
The issue may be with using Marx's term, "surplus", because yes, it sounds like the state is just snapping its fingers & pulling rabbits out of hats.
Surplus is resources in excess of subsistence. Normal Malthusian dynamics is that more food means more babies. Fertility will “eat up” food resources, so it almost all is for subsistence. The taxing power of the state takes resources before they get eaten by fertility. The taxed resources then become surplus which is used to support the state apparat and state projects. This surplus would not exist without the taxing of the state. So, taxes create surplus. That is 2.
It is in the revenue interest of the state to encourage production and trade and production-for-exchange has to create some surplus to operate. So, the pacification by the state does increase that level of surplus, but that is not as large a source of surplus as taxation itself. That is 1.
A way to think about it is that the state’s taxing ensures that farming niches individually support fewer children than they otherwise would, yet its pacification makes more such niches viable. That can shrink farming niches, as limits of arable land start biting, increasing the effective tax burden even if taxes are not increased. This pattern is quite clear in China, and does much to create Dynastic collapse, as inequality (and so banditry) and peasant unrest increases the longer a Dynasty has pacified society.
The state does not create the production, but does divert production from subsistence, and that diversion creates surplus (production in excess of subsistence). Without the state, the mortality check on population is much higher.
Have done a post on my Substack to clarify the surplus creation point.
https://lorenzofromoz.substack.com/p/the-niche-creating-species
Thank you!
It's hard to see your point fairly if you get stuck with ruffled feathers at the idea that "the state TAKES surplus, it doesn't MAKE surplus!"
It's like gastric bypass surgery. The gastric bypass that forces you to eat only tiny portions doesn't CREATE surpluses, well, it does, but only by forcing you to not finish what's on the plate. Maybe "enables" surpluses is easier, or "enforces a surplus" or... darn it's hard to find a word.
One clarification.
You say states may tax 30-50% of GDP, but corporations only have a 15% profit and thus states are a greater generator of surplus.
But, doesn't this mean you're comparing state revenue, to corporate profit? Apples to oranges?
If a state taxes 100m to build a road, that'd be 100m in "surplus" diverted from sustenance. But if a corporate entity charged 100m in fees to build a road, and only created a 10m profit, you're only considering that a 10m surplus. Right?
It would almost demand all non-agricultural corporate revenue to be deemed surplus to compare apples to apples.
(I think, I only mostly think I grasp your nuance here.)
Good summary of a sane perspective. This sentiment is similar to a formulation used by Dartmouth economist Meir Kohn, who centers his core theory of economics and economic development around the problem of "how to limit the predation of states,"
"Ibn Khaldun articulated the fundamental paradox of the state: we need the state to protect us from social predators, but the state is itself the most dangerous of social predators."
I coined "Hitler as the secular Satan" independently. Is this the first published formulation of that insight?
I believe Tom Holland got there first, in his book "Dominion" (2019).
Tom Holland gets the credit, as far as I am aware.
Read that, on the recommendation of John Gray. I must have picked it up there and forgot its origin.
Really easy to do. Especially if you read a lot.
“Muscovy was a farming state that was the heir to, and adaptor of, the institutional politics of pastoralist polities. Politically, it was the heir of Tartary, not Kievan Rus.”
This is close to the truth, but not quite right. After all, the Muscovite and the Golden Horde political systems actually differed in many ways: unlike great princes, khans were elected by kurultai, an aristocratic assembly, and could be just dislodged if necessary. Also, unlike in Rus, the tradition of passing title strictly from father to son never took hold in that culture.
What really happened was a social and political deformation of the Russian society and politics under the Mongol rule, where princes were, in a way, “colonial administrators” for Mongols. They continued the same practices even after having done away with the Mongol rule, after previous traditions of political life basically destroyed and they knew only one way of doing things (and they could keep all the money for themselves!). And so, hundreds of years later, here we are.
Yes, I need to emphasise not taking on any aspect of the kurultai tradition. The notion of being the heir to Tartary’s colonial control is a useful formulation.