[Scot Griffin]

“Complexity” is an interesting word.

For me, when it comes to human beings and their social constructs, complexity is fractal in nature and driven primarily by the number of human beings involved, not by the mode of power.  More people necessarily result in more conflicts, which result in the creation of hierarchies that seek to limit the number and nature of those conflicts in order to continue scaling the social construct (adding more people).

Some modes of powers are more scalable than others, though, and capitalism seems purpose-built to scale where other modes of power have inherent and unavoidable limits imposed by the passage of time and the expansion of space (the geography over which the construct is spread), each of which increases the likelihood that a social construct will become “out of true” and collapse on itself.  Plato’s Phoenician tale (aka noble lie) in Republic sought to circumvent these limitations.

[Scot Griffin]

Have you considered using a biological analogy to the mega-machine instead of using a mechanical analogy? For example, human beings are made up of cells (cogs) that do not have agency but do contain DNA (instructions for creording) that dictate the replication and replacement of cells as they are destroyed. While the human being as a whole is a rational actor who seeks to exert power on the world around him, the human body is essentially an automaton whose operation is largely a mystery to the human mind.

I have never read Mumford, only Nitzan’s and Bichler’s summary of his work, but perhaps the inspiration for his societal “mega-machine” was its smallest constituent part, the human being itself?  How does a ruler forge a collection of individuals into an extension of herself?

[Author]

Replies