To be fair to you I do have a mild contempt for most statisms, whether it be socialist, conservative, liberal, or fascist. The only difference between them is who ought to benefit from State power, the rise of which increases in inverse proportion to social power. In my mind, until State power decreases social power will never increase, and I think that makes me more socialist than I care to admit out loud. Unfortunately I lack the brain wiring required to accept any kind of collectivism.

I wonder if since N's time the idea of the "industrialist" and "commercial magnate" has gone under the sort of makeover required to form him into a being more interesting, that a worker might follow him as obediently as a soldier would his general. There are definitely obsequious and servile workers, but then again I'm not sure the stereotype of the industrialist has been altered too much since those days.

On the other hand, and despite the atrocities of the 20th century, State prestige has only grown in accordance with its power. Petitioning the state, taking part in its elections, and casting ballots is now the only means by which we can secure any right, which the state gets to confer at its whim and fancy. State power, then, becomes the means of salvation. That's why I would argue that the replacements for the old enchantments of religion and the divine right of kings is the State.

Banno calls it "bullshit" — unenlightened

Yes, I do. Some may not be aware that I stole the term from Harry Frankfurt. As a simple warding spell it has its place in everyday encounters, keeping at bay the smaller daemons. Using it allows me to tend my garden. Of course at any moment this or that Ubermensh might come along and ruin everything, but then again, maybe not.

Preserve us from The Great And The Powerful; from those who suppose themselves to control more potent spells. Would that they might learn just to tend to their own gardens.

Unfortunately I lack the brain wiring required to accept any kind of collectivism — NOS4A2

I think the collectivism-individualism polarity obscures more than it enlightens. I’ve recently been reading some Frankfurt School Marxists, and collectivism is one of the things they seem to hate the most. Socialism is about getting the balance right, and any socialism that does not exist to enable the full flourishing of individuals is not one I could get behind.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. — The Communist Manifesto

In other words, individual freedom is the necessary condition for collective freedom.

But that’s a side-issue.

I wonder if since N's time the idea of the "industrialist" and "commercial magnate" has gone under the sort of makeover required to form him into a being more interesting, that a worker might follow him as obediently as a soldier would his general. There are definitely obsequious and servile workers, but then again I'm not sure the stereotype of the industrialist has been altered too much since those days. — NOS4A2

There’s a sense in which Elon Musk has an aura, not of nobility, but of something modern and yet equivalent to it. At the very least, he does appear out of the ordinary, at least in his public image. But Henry Ford had something similar, so…this might be an American thing. Nietzsche in his day may have been unaware of any charismatic, larger-than-life captains of industry.

On the other hand, maybe even these people would have appeared lacking in greatness to Nietzsche. In any case, the main point of the last part of the OP was that even if business tycoons and executives appear ordinary to the masses, the magic of the economy (or the system) itself is so strong that they do not turn to socialism as they once did, but once again to larger-than-life characters.

On the other hand, and despite the atrocities of the 20th century, State prestige has only grown in accordance with its power. Petitioning the state, taking part in its elections, and casting ballots is now the only means by which we can secure any right, which the state gets to confer at its whim and fancy. State power, then, becomes the means of salvation. That's why I would argue that the replacements for the old enchantments of religion and the divine right of kings is the State — NOS4A2

As I’ve implied, I think this is compatible with my position. The difference is that, unlike me, you don’t see it as inextricably bound up with the economy (which is not to say that you can’t have an oppressive State without capitalism).

Learning the secrets of stars, whales and cicadas involves a tremendous amount of tedious work -- work considered tedious by the people who love doing it. The exciting moments are thinly scattered.

Now wait a minute... one of the benefits of civilization has been the rich discoveries of science, boring details and brilliant discoveries alike. What "magic of knowledge" did civilization shut down for so long??? — BC

Well, you got to my point first, hats off to you.

No, that's exactly the science I didn't mean. I mean learning the secrets of stars and clouds and oceans; learning the language of whales and cicadas; rediscovering the magic of knowledge that civilization had shut down for so long. One of the recurring myths of pre-agricultural peoples is the ability to communicate with and change places with animals, an ability we lost through some transgression against Nature. The Eden story is a reiteration of that theme. We are only just beginning to shed the constraints of the conqueror's application of natural curiosity. — Vera Mont

While I sympathize with your romanticism, as BC pointed out. It's all pretty tedious stuff. Some of it, mind-numblingly so. Mongering minutia is what we need to do to survive. We are all infused in the mongering and the mining of the Almighty minutia.

You notice even in this forum, to have cache, you have to mine more minutia than the next guy? If not, you are just not legitimate. The modern day legitimacy is how much minutia you can mine and monger. Mark my words. Otherwise, you are an untethered New Age, mystic freak. All big picture, no analysis. All pie in the sky, no hard-nosed data. When you get granular enough, the nihilism becomes ever so present because at some level, it is just people who need their minds to be occupied with details so it doesn't have to think broadly or generally or existentially. Minutia minutia minutia!

Do you have a decent explanation for how such transparent bullshitters (Trump, Boris, Berlusconi, etc) manage to convince enough people to gain power? And the synchronicity ,of their arising, that mirrors the rise of fascism around the world in the 30s?

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. — Karl Marx

Ok Karl, you da man. But what is the mechanism that determines it to be so?

Anyone?

Do you have a decent explanation for how such transparent bullshitters manage to convince enough people to gain power? — unenlightened

Yep. People are stupid.

While you might be looking for something with a bit more nuance, the general thrust of such an answer is indubitable.

Minutiae!

Here's a good example. A friend of mine who is interested in a lot of different topics, was a volunteer at a museum. One of his tasks was sorting "debitage" from an aboriginal site in Minnesota excavated some years earlier. Debitage is the rocks, bits of wood, bone, charcoal, and stone flakes and such that aboriginal people deposited on the sites they used. Each little piece is examined, identified, sorted, and characterized. It might sound mindless (and it is mind-numbing work) but it yields a lot of real data about diet, tools, trade, and so on. For instance, many of the stone pieces used in making arrow heads were from a distance of -- sometimes -- 150 to 300 miles away.

It's all about minutiae.

I did a project of my own minutiae back in 1990. I put together a long list (thousands of entries) of words derived from Anglo-Saxon. This was before the Internet became useful. I went through a collegiate dictionary and found the words, one by one. Very tedious, but I found it interesting. Then I wrote a program (more minutiae) to determine what percent of words in given text were derived from Anglo Saxon, and from that determine reading difficulty.

Hundreds of hours went into this project. There was a real, practical reason for doing this project, and we don't have to go into detail. It was "successful". (No animals were harmed by this research, but nobody's life was saved either, as far as I can tell.)

Life can so easily get bogged down in the foggy murky bog of minutiae.

People are stupid. — Banno

It doesn't really work for me. Are you saying that Trump is sufficiently plausible, convincing, a clever manipulator of people? He doesn't look that good to me, that he is the explanation of his own success. It's the same with our Boris; he's fucking turnip, always has been and always will be, and rarely makes enough sense to even achieve falsehood. If people are stupid why aren't the smart people in charge?

If people are stupid why aren't the smart people in charge? — unenlightened

Yeah, about that. Are you sure Trump, Boris, Berlusconi and friends are in charge?

Yep. People are stupid. — Banno

How does the person making this generalization exempt himself? Are you immune to bullshit?

Our famous rulers, from William the Conqueror on down to Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak, Anthony Albanese, et al didn't have to consult the masses to begin their ascent. The relevant gate keepers are relatively few in number. Only after Tweedledee and Tweedledum have been admitted as acceptable possibilities, do The People get to vote.

How does the person making this generalization exempt himself? — BC

I didn't exempt myself. Nor should you. But think how much less damage Putin could do if he were but an arborist.

Learning the secrets of stars, whales and cicadas involves a tremendous amount of tedious work -- work considered tedious by the people who love doing it. The exciting moments are thinly scattered. — BC

That is so in all areas of human endeavour. We celebrate the military victories, not the sloshing around in foxholes; thre political victories, not having doors slammed on campaigners' faces; the religious epiphanies, not the polishing of church pews.

Now wait a minute... one of the benefits of civilization has been the rich discoveries of science, boring details and brilliant discoveries alike. — BC

Who says? Stone-chipping and hide-tanning; canoe construction and making fire; wheels and pottery were all invented before civilization. Inquiry into how things work is far older than humanity, and human curiosity is far older than civilization.

What "magic of knowledge" did civilization shut down for so long? — BC

First, all that does not serve power; then, all that contradicts doctrine, then whatever does not generate monetary, political or military advantage.

Personally, I wouldn't put Putin in charge of a forest -- too much chance of him burning it down. Maybe he'd be suitable as a toilet cleaner at a large, very busy airport?

Otherwise, you are an untethered New Age, mystic freak. All big picture, no analysis. All pie in the sky, no hard-nosed data. — schopenhauer1

Pie is tedious to make. You have to get the proportions right, chill the dough long enough, roll it to the right thickness, bake it at the right temperature. Getting it up into the sky is even harder. But once done, it's magical. Hell, it was in the OP, and I never claimed legitimacy.

Yeah, about that. Are you sure Trump, Boris, Berlusconi and friends are in charge? — Banno

I didn't have you down as a conspiracy theorist. If that counts as an explanation at all, it's less convincing than the demonic tides in the collective unconscious theory.

not the polishing of church pews. — Vera Mont

I've cleaned the pews at Christ Lutheran a few times, and the main epiphany was that somebody else ought to do it.

Stone-chipping and hide-tanning; canoe construction and making fire; wheels and pottery were all invented before civilization. — Vera Mont

Or they ARE civilization. Even Neanderthals had a set of technologies. They could, for instance, extract a strong black pitch (glue) from birch bark. Not sure what they did with it, just off hand. Maybe repaired their bone china? They turned animal hides into leather (one of their processes involved chewing on the hide; we can tell by looking at their teeth.)

6000 years ago, aboriginal people were mining copper on Isle Royale in Lake Superior.

First, all that does not serve power; then, all that contradicts doctrine, then whatever does not generate monetary, political or military advantage. — Vera Mont

I don't know. Say more about that.

I didn't have you down as a conspiracy theorist. — unenlightened

I tend to believe any conspiracy theory right up until the point of analysing it. Including "collective unconscious". They are all-and-some propositions, explaining anything or everything and so not being all that useful. And that's also the trouble with 's explication in terms of magic, in that it closes off further analysis as just more magic.

But of course, nothing in those accounts shows them to be wrong.

I don't have the answer. But I have a garden.

It's partly the way you're interpreting events. We naturally look for repetition, so we highlight the similarities between now and the 1930s, using words like "mirroring.". This view is melancholic per Kierkegaard.

Alternately, we may see ourselves as unique in all of human history, and in some ways we are. There's hard edged drama to this outlook, because we see how we have problems no society has ever faced before.

It's a matter of predisposition.

Or they ARE civilization. — BC

They - science, innovation, laws, mores, beliefs and rituals are part of culture, but many cultures predate civilization.
My idea of civilization agrees roughly with National Geographic's

Civilization describes a complex way of life that came about as people began to develop networks of urban settlements....All civilizations have certain characteristics. These include: large population centers; monumental architecture and unique art styles; shared communication strategies; systems for administering territories; a complex division of labor; and the division of people into social and economic classes.

though I'm inclined to date its origins a little earlier.

Once a rigid hierarchical class system is in place, so is a prescribed religion and written law. Everyone has his or her place. You can no longer be a cobbler who dabbles in scientific experimentation: you have not enough time to spare from earning a living; the only lines of inquiry you can afford to pursue are those that might improve the treatment or dyeing of leather and thus enhance your financial prospect. Education becomes regimented and exclusive to the clerical an administrative classes; everyone else is trained in the skills pertaining to his trade, or put to work in the fields. Women, of course, are relegated to purely physical functions, no brain work.
A few exceptionally clever lads of the upper classes may become professional scientists: they design fortifications, aqueducts and cleverly concealed tombs for their aristocratic patrons. They're welcome to try turning lead into gold, improving the aim and range of projectile weapons and curing toothache, but had better not come up with any crazy ideas about life on other planets or a non-emperor-centered solar system.

I do think the state is inextricably bound to the economy, much to my dismay. It intervenes in trade on account of its preferred beneficiaries and plunders from its subjects their property, their labor, and the fruits of it.

So if we, like Marx and Engels, are to distinguish people by class, between oppressor and oppressed, it seems to me the proper distinction lies between the State, those who seek to capture the monopoly on violence, and the rest of us—workers, employers, sole proprietors, or anyone who is legally deprived of his efforts, and legally forced to labor for another’s benefit.

I think you’re dead on about how the individualism/collectivism debate obscures things. Ironically, individualism is a more inclusive form of collectivism. It considers every individual of any collective, which means the entire group. Collectivism as it has traditionally manifested subordinates the individual to group interests, which is always decided by a powerful group at the expense of the rest. The myth of the “common weal” or the “common good” is used to smuggle this conflict past the customs. Perhaps this is an example of another magic spell, something to be enchanted by.

They - science, innovation, laws, mores, beliefs and rituals are part of culture, but many cultures predate civilization. — Vera Mont

So, when I speak of "civilization" I use the same scheme that National Geographic uses. So ancient Egypt was a civilization, the Lakota people were not. Ancient Rome was a civilization, the typical African population were not.

Even though I use "civilization" in that way, such usage is certainly not above criticism. Whether one lived in Athens, on the plains of North America, or in the tropical forests of Africa, South America, and so on, the problems of survival and regulation were very similar. Cultural continuity required transmission of heritage through oral or written language. Both have been successfully used.

Does the fact that Athens built temples with fluted pillars make them superior to the Lakota who prioritized portability--so superior that Athens is a civilization and the Lakota are not?

I probably won't change my actual practice, but in a fight it might be hard to defend it.

For anthropologists, monument building is a mark of civilization.

Marx said that "the government is a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie." The gov is a servant. While the government sets the ground rules (sort of) by which business plays, Business is bigger than government. The bulk of GDP is produced by business. The government may have a monopoly on heavy duty violence, (outside of the 300 million guns in private hands) but its primary duty is to insure that the worldwide interests of its capitalists are protected.

Most of the depositors in the Silicon Bank were very wealthy individuals and funds. Not many payrolls were at stake.

I object to a lot of government activity (and to a lot of corporate activity too), but the government is also a service provider and its services are paid for with taxes. Mostly it seems like a good deal (especially at the state and local level).

Do anthropologists have an edifice complex? A bias for the material? The North American tribes were mobile and they memorialized events through their oral heritage. The Irish did this too, as have other groups.

I'm not especially interested in aboriginal cultures, but they seem to have built monuments in words. I much prefer reading about the civilizations of the Middle East, Egypt, Greece, and Rome than about the ancient people of the western hemisphere, Africa, Eurasia, and so on. That doesn't mean that these other cultures are inferior to my preferred civilization-topics. Or does it?

That doesn't mean that these other cultures are inferior to my preferred civilization-topics. Or does it? — BC

I don't think civilization is inherently better aesthetically. Obviously it ended up being more successful than other modes.

Does the fact that Athens built temples with fluted pillars make them superior to the Lakota who prioritized portability--so superior that Athens is a civilization and the Lakota are not? — BC

Not superior or inferior; different. In attitude, in priorities, in social organization, in philosophy and psychology.

It organizes the affairs of whomever captures it, capitalist or otherwise. All that changes from one ideology to the next is the class of beneficiaries and the extent of its exploitation.

The bulk of GDP is produced by business because government doesn’t produce anything. Its only means of subsistence is the exploitation of its own people. But we should remember that government, too, is an employer par excellence. Over 15% of the American workforce are involved in military, public, and national service at the local, state, and federal levels. That’s to say nothing about those employed in its orbit, like lawyers and contractors of various sorts.

I’m afraid the industrial scale of this exploitation goes largely unnoticed.

I like civilization, but ask yourself, how much longer did the pre-civilization cultures like the Australian and North American indigenous population last? The Egyptians had a very long record of civilization; some came and were gone in a few hundred years. Many indigenous cultures were longer lived.

The Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas were civilized--cities, big stone monuments, and all. Did the Western Civilization reps in the persons of the Spanish view them as fellow civilized people? Did the Pilgrims and Puritans from Merry Old England recognize the Nauset tribe of the Wampanoag Nation as a culture, a civilization, or primitive barbarians (even though the natives helped the Pilgrims survive)?

The vast scale of industrial exploitation by capitalists certainly hasn't gone unnoticed.

The Soviet State is a better example of government exploiting the people than the American State. The Soviet government was essentially "state capitalism" -- the government owned the means of production pretty much lock stock, and barrel, and the people were by and large its employees.

different — Vera Mont

Exactly.