Marxism Never Died, It Just Went Underground

[Hwen Hoshino]

That kind of barbarism was par for the course through most of human history. Going back further than 200 years isn’t going to save you from mass slaughter. In fact, it will only normalize it.

Eh.. debatable.

Body counts rose dramatically with the Enlightenment.

You might argue that was just the effect of industrialization, which would have happened under our previous aristocratic system (and in some places did), but I could counter it was the actual devaluing of human beings and subordination of people to state and ideology that was the exacerbating factor.

For European peoples, anyway. The lack of honor and animus towards civilians we saw arise in the Enlightenment was SOP for other civilizations.

SOP?

[Speaker to Animals]

That kind of barbarism was par for the course through most of human history. Going back further than 200 years isn’t going to save you from mass slaughter. In fact, it will only normalize it.

Eh.. debatable.

Body counts rose dramatically with the Enlightenment.

You might argue that was just the effect of industrialization, which would have happened under our previous aristocratic system (and in some places did), but I could counter it was the actual devaluing of human beings and subordination of people to state and ideology that was the exacerbating factor.

For European peoples, anyway. The lack of honor and animus towards civilians we saw arise in the Enlightenment was SOP for other civilizations.

SOP?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=SOP&t=lm&ia=web

Standard Operating Procedure.

[Hwen Hoshino]

That kind of barbarism was par for the course through most of human history. Going back further than 200 years isn’t going to save you from mass slaughter. In fact, it will only normalize it.

Eh.. debatable.

Body counts rose dramatically with the Enlightenment.

You might argue that was just the effect of industrialization, which would have happened under our previous aristocratic system (and in some places did), but I could counter it was the actual devaluing of human beings and subordination of people to state and ideology that was the exacerbating factor.

For European peoples, anyway. The lack of honor and animus towards civilians we saw arise in the Enlightenment was SOP for other civilizations.

There is a lot of variance in loyalty to the state, before that technology forced you into more limited options.

[Speaker to Animals]

That kind of barbarism was par for the course through most of human history. Going back further than 200 years isn’t going to save you from mass slaughter. In fact, it will only normalize it.

Eh.. debatable.

Body counts rose dramatically with the Enlightenment.

You might argue that was just the effect of industrialization, which would have happened under our previous aristocratic system (and in some places did), but I could counter it was the actual devaluing of human beings and subordination of people to state and ideology that was the exacerbating factor.

For European peoples, anyway. The lack of honor and animus towards civilians we saw arise in the Enlightenment was SOP for other civilizations.

There is a lot of variance in loyalty to the state, before that technology forced you into more limited options.

In medieval Europe, there were strict codes of conduct about warfare. It was very limited amongst European peoples. It was only with foreign races that we exterminated all our enemies whenever possible. The Enlightenment saw an end to the idea that we treat one another as something more important than foreign peoples.

Actually annihilating an entire city of fellow Europeans would have been grounds for a cassis belli for total war to destroy the offending aristocracy. The Pope would stop that shit forthwith.

I am not saying it was all noble and sweet either. It was still brutal. But very limited compared to modern warfare. The only analog in western history is what we do to foreign invaders who legitimately threatened our civilization. Read Carnage and Culture for more.

[Martin Hash]

I don't understand why you don't join the Amish?

[Hwen Hoshino]

Eh.. debatable.

Body counts rose dramatically with the Enlightenment.

You might argue that was just the effect of industrialization, which would have happened under our previous aristocratic system (and in some places did), but I could counter it was the actual devaluing of human beings and subordination of people to state and ideology that was the exacerbating factor.

For European peoples, anyway. The lack of honor and animus towards civilians we saw arise in the Enlightenment was SOP for other civilizations.

There is a lot of variance in loyalty to the state, before that technology forced you into more limited options.

In medieval Europe, there were strict codes of conduct about warfare. It was very limited amongst European peoples. It was only with foreign races that we exterminated all our enemies whenever possible. The Enlightenment saw an end to the idea that we treat one another as something more important than foreign peoples.

Actually annihilating an entire city of fellow Europeans would have been grounds for a cassis belli for total war to destroy the offending aristocracy. The Pope would stop that shit forthwith.

I am not saying it was all noble and sweet either. It was still brutal. But very limited compared to modern warfare. The only analog in western history is what we do to foreign invaders who legitimately threatened our civilization. Read Carnage and Culture for more.

The Pope would stop it? GTFO, Rome got sacked.

Like those codes got obeyed.... Foreign people were treated as more importnat. France allied with the Ottomans, Russians allied themselves with Mongols and paid tribute, Byzantium used all sorts of steppe people as hired muscle or sent tribute to them, the crusaders sacked Constantinopole instead of taking back the Holy Land. I could go on.

[Speaker to Animals]

There is a lot of variance in loyalty to the state, before that technology forced you into more limited options.

In medieval Europe, there were strict codes of conduct about warfare. It was very limited amongst European peoples. It was only with foreign races that we exterminated all our enemies whenever possible. The Enlightenment saw an end to the idea that we treat one another as something more important than foreign peoples.

Actually annihilating an entire city of fellow Europeans would have been grounds for a cassis belli for total war to destroy the offending aristocracy. The Pope would stop that shit forthwith.

I am not saying it was all noble and sweet either. It was still brutal. But very limited compared to modern warfare. The only analog in western history is what we do to foreign invaders who legitimately threatened our civilization. Read Carnage and Culture for more.

The Pope would stop it? GTFO, Rome got sacked.

Like those codes got obeyed.... Foreign people were treated as more importnat. France allied with the Ottomans, Russians allied themselves with Mongols and paid tribute, Byzantium used all sorts of steppe people as hired muscle or sent tribute to them, the crusaders sacked Constantinopole instead of taking back the Holy Land. I could go on.

This post is full of historical problems with respect to my argument. Rome got sacked in late antiquity, not the medieval period. Russia was not part of Western Europe at all and aligned with the Mongols because nobody was coming to save them.

You don't understand what you are talking about or even what I was trying to explain to you.

Go read Carnage and Culture.

When we dealt with existential threats from foreign peoples, we would exterminate them if possible. But when dealing with one another, we followed a loose code of conduct. There existed no such thing as a chivalry or laws of armed conflict anywhere else in the world. We invented it. Then we ignored it when we adopted the Enlightenment, and the wholesale slaughter of our own people ensued.

You asked me who wouldn't want to live in modernity. Well, I'd say any of the many hundreds of millions of innocent people slaughtered by it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The upside of having professional armies is that they don't just form up into free companies and go looting when the conflict is over, which was fairly common medieval Europe.

[Speaker to Animals]

The upside of having professional armies is that they don't just form up into free companies and go looting when the conflict is over, which was fairly common medieval Europe.

Good point. Maybe that is why we always had professional armies. Good convo.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The upside of having professional armies is that they don't just form up into free companies and go looting when the conflict is over, which was fairly common medieval Europe.

Good point. Maybe that is why we always had professional armies. Good convo.

We might be having a definition problem. I don't know if I would call the loose alliance of various lords, and the ad hoc groups of foot soldiers they would bring with them for most conflicts 'professional' in any meaningful sense.
Also, the amount of destruction leveled against a town would change based on the goals. A lord coming through to claim a productive area by some sort of old right or treaty would be restrained, but they could be absolutely brutal in a scorched earth kind of way to cities that changed sides.
And codes of chivalry didn't really apply to people who weren't nobles. The large battles, when they were met, could also be restrained, but since one of the ways to get your enemy actually meet you on the field was to run around his lands killing his villeins and serfs and anyone else who fell out of the chivalric purview, I doubt things looked all that rosy.

Sure, many more people die in modern wars, but the proportion of the population affected has gone down substantially, so if I got to choose, I would unhesitatingly choose modernity on statistics alone.