Review of The Lessons of History
A few years ago I read a book titled The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant.
This small book is full of wisdom derived from historical patterns. There was one idea, in particular, that I derived from the book that had to do with socialism.
The book lays out an observable pattern in the history of society whereby in seasons of war, famine, or emergency, governments tend to operate more efficiently - for a time - when power is consolidated within the state. This can succeed for a moment, helping a country rally together under a single leader and a single vision, and thereby enable them to win wars, build infrastructure, and navigate their way out of an economic depression.
The problem is that under a socialist state, these effects only work during times of distress when everyone has the same intentionality. After the wars are over, problems ensue.
Once the war or economic depression is no longer in mind, the strong leader who rallied the country under a united banner dies or retires and some other person comes into leadership who may not be as benevolent, wise, or intelligent as the first. Once this happens, the country then has a problem on its hands. The citizens were willing to consolidate power under a strong leader because their country was in a state of emergency, but once that emergency was over, and peace time ensued, they found themselves subject to tyranny. It then might have been argued that the condition of their country afterwards became worse than it was during the war.
So the first biological lesson of history is that life is competition.
—Lessons of History, page 19
“I am not a 'democrat' only because 'humility' and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility, but universal greatness and pride, till some Orc gets hold of a ring of power--and then we get and are getting slavery.”
―J.R.R. Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
The main idea is that socialism isn’t a great system in the long run. It seems like a great idea in the face of dire need, but it’s a short term fix that leads to disastrous long term consequences. The only reason for this is that people in power have been throughout history, generally speaking, incompetent and selfish, and selfish people will only unite for a common cause when they have no other choice.
If we all lived in heaven where everyone believed in and practiced the truth it could work, in theory, but it would have to be an opt-in only system, or else it wouldn’t be heaven but some sort of counterfeit. You can’t force heaven on people if you want them to be willing participants in a system.
Reading The Lessons of History had a profound effect on how I thought about this idea because it exhibited this bleak reality of socialism within the context of human history. It’s an important book, because by learning the lessons of history, mankind can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
I read it around the time Bernie Sanders was running for President of the United States in 2016. I was a fan of Bernie, and although I never considered myself a socialist, I liked (and still like) how he was challenging the establishment. Bernie labeled himself a “democratic-socialist,” which seemed like a good idea - and I think he actually believed in it - but I’ve come to realize that his ideas were not completely achievable because they didn’t take into account human nature. Anything labeled socialist tends to be, in the end, a facade, because economies can never be efficiently managed in this fashion in the fallen world we live in.
A passion for learning and creativity is more important than resumes and titles.
“I think college is basically for fun and to prove that you can do your chores, but they’re not for learning.”
—Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX
The best economies consist of leaders who delegate tasks into the hands of individuals, enabling them with the power and autonomy to contribute without bureaucracy standing in the way. The reason this works is because these leaders thoroughly vet people for genuine intentionality before putting them to work and then allow them to fail and iterate quickly on their ideas, becoming more knowledgable each time. In fact, skillsets and resumes aren’t very important. What’s important is love, willingness, persistence, and ingenuity - values associated with capitalism, where work actually gets done, more than socialism, where work is often blocked for review by committees. Capitalism can certainly be motivated by excessive greed and pride and that leads to its own evil which we want to alleviate, but more often than not, even when that happens, it results in a less severe outcome than socialism, because at least something is getting done.
Bernie Sanders, constantly frustrated (because socialism doesn’t work).
Bernie’s ideas were built on idealism - I believe he would have come into office and stood up to corporations and made every attempt to do the right thing everywhere. And the thing is, I believe if he had become President, he would have made a positive difference in that regard. The problem is, by doing so, I feel there may have been the risk that he would have consolidated governmental power so much that once he left office, whoever was next in line would have inherited that power, but with fewer altruistic intentions than Bernie. In addition, he would have sent the country into huge amounts of debt, crippling the country’s future in an attempt to solve every problem in a top-down fashion (as President Biden is doing, but perhaps even worse). As the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
In my opinion the way to reform a country is not by throwing more money at its problems or by consolidating more power into the government, but through innovative changes in the hearts, minds, and lives of the people. And this has to come from what appears to be their own initiative. Once that’s accomplished, a leader’s role is to protect them so that they are able to act as if acting on their own, defending their right to create, build, and compete. And this can only occur when the people believe in God and believe that everything good comes from him and not from themselves. But this is the key: it must be understood that everything good individuals have comes from God, the One Infinite Being, and not from any mortal king or president.
All light comes from God, not from ourselves.
That brings us to the topic of monarchies.
Lessons of History actually states that monarchies can be surprisingly efficient, when done right…
“If we were to judge forms of government by their prevalence and duration in history we should have to give the palm to monarchy; democracies, by contrast, have been hectic interludes.”
—Lessons of History, page 69
Wait, am I as an American promoting monarchy? Well, not really. In reality, the United States isn’t a democracy or a monarchy, it’s a republic. In some respects, we have the best of both worlds. We’re like a monarchy to a small degree because we have an executive president that sits at the head of the state. In addition, we are like a democracy because we have a system of checks and balances with our legislative branch and judicial branch.
One of the most important elements of the success of the United States lies in its term limits on our President and other officials. Our President cannot serve more than eight years, and so if he becomes corrupt, we can soon elect someone new, which brings innovation into the government at a regular interval. I think we would do far better as a country if members of Congress had shorter term limits also. Lessons of History mentions that the best form of monarchy is not one of succession by wealth, paternity, or nepotism, but rather one by education.
“The emperor transmitted his authority not to his offspring but to the ablest man he could find; he adopted this man as his son, trained him in the functions of government, and gradually surrendered to him the reins of power.”
—Lessons of History, page 69
In this respect, the United States government also has a major flaw: although it’s great that we generally avoid nepotism, we elect whoever is the most wealthy and famous rather than the most competent and wise. Our system of government worked when it was young because it was made up of a rag-tag team of honest farmers. Whether or not it continues to work the way it was meant to work remains to be seen.
Since wealth is an order and procedure of production and exchange rather than an accumulation of (most perishable goods), and is a trust (the “credit system”) in men and institutions rather than in the intrinsic value of paper money or checks, violent revolutions do no so much redistribute wealth as destroy it. There may be a redivision of the land, but the natural inequality of men soon re-creates an inequality of possessions and privileges, and raises to power a new minority with essentially the same instincts as in the old. The only real revolution is in the enlightenment of the mind and improvement of character, the only real emancipation is individual, and the only real revolutionists are philosophers and saints.
—Lessons of History, page 72
In the Roman Empire, there were a string of emperors known as the “good emperors.” These were all adopted sons, and thus made for much better rulers. Their adopted status imbued them with a sense of humility.
We can take for example, the famous stoic, Marcus Aurelius, who is known for the wise thoughts that he recorded in Meditations. In the movie, Gladiator (which is based on a real story), Marcus’ son, Commodus, murders him. But this part of the story is fictional. In reality, Marcus made a mistake by allowing the empire to go into the hands of his biological son by succession.
If Rome had been given to an adopted son instead, perhaps it would have maintained its power longer?
This is a fundamental error with monarchy. One mistake, even by a man as wise as Marcus Aurelius, can lead to the downfall of an empire.
All in all, monarchy has had a middling record. Its war of succession brought mankind as much evil as the continuity or “legitimacy” of the monarchy brought good. When it is hereditary it is likely to be more prolific of stupidity, nepotism, irresponsibility, and extravagance than of nobility or statesmanship.
—Lessons of History, page 70
Marcus Aurelius, from the movie Gladiator.
And about democracy…
All deductions having been made, democracy has done less harm, and more good, than any other form of government. It gave to human existence a zest and camaraderie that outweighs its pitfalls and defects. It gave to thought and science and enterprise the freedom essential to their operation and growth. It broke down the walls of privilege and class, and in each generation it raised up ability from every rank and place. Under its stimulus Athens and Rome became the most creative cities in history, and America in two centuries has provided abundance for an unprecedentedly large proportion of its population.
—Lessons of History, page 79
Hopefully by now I’ve made a convincing argument that the lessons of history prove that socialism is not a great option, and neither is monarchy. I encourage you to read the book for more examples. Democracy seems like a much better option, but of course it has its pitfalls as well, such as how it appeals to the lowest common denominator of fame and wealth in the elected. But what about a republic - that option looks like a really great fit, right? Well, my takeaway from Lessons of History is that there is no perfect form of government that can be summed up in one word like this. Rather, what’s most important are true intentions and love for one’s neighbor among the people of any community. Whatever the government’s name is, its strength lies in that root. When that root is established - God in the hearts of all - better and better forms of government inevitably take form, because without altruism among its members, those governments cannot operate as they claim. This is why Will and Ariel Durant say, “The only real emancipation is individual, and the only real revolutionists are philosophers and saints.”
But do civilizations die? Again, not quite. Greek civilization is not really dead; only its frame is gone and its habitat has changed and spread; it survives in the memory of the race, and in such abundance that no one life, however full and long, could absorb it all.
—Lessons of History, page 93
