Welcome to the NEW HistoryExplained.Com

24. List of current countries by social system

August 2003

panderson Subject: List of current countries by social system.

Posted in the forum section: 10/31/2002

Mr. Maurer ... it's really a pleasure to read your logical, clear and detailed answers.

Another BIG request... I suppose that is quite tedious to fulfill this request, but the result should be REALLY informative. Could you give the list of CURRENT nations divided by social system? Just to know ... Maybe just the big countries. Just an indicative division, for a first approach.

Many questions arise...1-US, Canada and Western Europe are DMS, but what about Eastern Europe and the Balkans?

2-Are Russia and China disguised oligarchies?

3-What about Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Argentina?

4-Are the Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan tribal societies?

5-Is South Africa a DMS?

6-Are Saudi Arabia and Iran fundamentalist societies?

7-What is Turkey?

8-What about India and Sri Lanka?

9-Is Taiwan a DMS?

10-Is it possible to have different social systems in one nation?

And so on...

I suppose that oligarchies can be divided in two sub-groups. A) Stagnant - “dangerous” oligarchies. B) Developing - “wise” oligarchies. Is it possible to identify these two sub-groups in the list?

Is fascism always equivalent to dictatorship?

Ciao.

Replies

davidmaurer Subject: Re: List of current countries by social system.

Posted on: 11/06/2002

Since the end of World War II almost the entire world has become organized into nation-states. There are a few exceptions, some principalities and city-states, but most of the world has coalesced into sovereign nations. The easiest way to look at it is to say that these nations are either oligarchic societies or democratic market societies.

Oligarchic society is a catchall category. Its official definition is all societies that are in the transition period from traditional forms of society to democratic market society. For example, when Papua New Guinea became an independent nation it also became an oligarchic society, but it is a country at the beginning of the transition into modernity. Therefore, it still looks a lot like the tribal society that it used to be. As it passes through oligarchic society it will gradually become less tribal and more modern. This will take at least a century and probably longer. Eventually it will become a democratic market society.

The point is that at the beginning of its oligarchic experience a country looks a lot like whatever traditional society that it started as—tribal, aristocratic, or colonial. One or two centuries later, towards the end of its oligarchic period the society will look like something close to democratic market society, which is what it will soon become.

During the middle of the oligarchic experience, most countries are similar, but there is room for a large amount of variation. For the most part they are ruled by a small class of people with some degree of wealth, power, education, and family connections. This is often called the political class. These people own most of the businesses; they form most of the governments, and they control most of the power and wealth.

Oligarchic governments are usually weak. They are often greedy and corrupt, and the majority of the population quite often does not like them. In response, some oligarchic governments become brutal and authoritarian in order to survive. Others collapse on a regular basis and are continuously reformed only to collapse again.

In many countries the oligarchic government is so disliked that the people are continuously looking for some kind of alternative. In some cases they are desperately unhappy and will grasp at anything that looks sufficiently different from the corrupt oligarchs. This has led to the development of socialism, communism, fascism, religious fundamentalism, and the rise of various dictators.

Unfortunately, these attempts to bypass oligarchic society always fail. In theory communism was supposed to be the exact opposite of oligarchic society, in practice it turned out to be remarkably similar. The same is true for fascist dictators and fundamentalist religious leaders. They always start out emphasizing how different they will be from the hated oligarchs, but in the end they usually become very much like the oligarchs.

I really don’t see much point in making a distinction between oligarchic society and communism, fascism, and religious fundamentalism. After Russia had its communist revolution you could say that it was no longer an oligarchic society, it was now a communist society. But it had been an oligarchic society, and it would be one again. Over the years, the communist government became more and more like an oligarchic government. So why bother to make a distinction. When a country is in the middle of the transition to democratic market society, we might as well just call it an oligarchic society even if it has temporarily adopted communism or religious fundamentalism in a deliberate attempt to be something other than an oligarchic society.

The sub-categories of oligarchic society that I use are early stage oligarchic society, late stage oligarchic society, and the middle of oligarchic society. Early stage oligarchic societies still look a lot like their previous traditional form of society. They do not yet have many successful modern companies that create wealth and jobs. Late stage oligarchic societies do have a modern economy with corporations and jobs. They just need to spread the wealth and power more widely to become democratic market societies. Countries in the middle of their oligarchic experience have come a long way toward modern development but still have a long way to go.

Now back to your questions.

1-US, Canada and Western Europe are DMS, but what about Eastern Europe and the Balkans?

Parts of Central Europe including Slovenia, Estonia, Hungary, and Poland are in the late stage of oligarchic society. The rest of Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans are still in the middle of oligarchic society.

2-Are Russia and China disguised oligarchies?

Russia is in the middle of oligarchic society. China is in the late stage of oligarchic society.

3-What about Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Many questions arise...Argentina?

Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina are all in the middle of late stage oligarchic development. Chile is very close to graduating from oligarchic society to democratic market society.

4-Are the Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan tribal societies?

These are early stage oligarchic societies that still retain much of their tribal past.

5-Is South Africa a DMS?

South Africa is in the middle of its oligarchic experience.

6-Are Saudi Arabia and Iran fundamentalist societies?

Saudi Arabia is in the early stage of oligarchic society. It is still ruled by its pre-modern royal dynasty, which from the beginning identified itself with Islamic fundamentalism. Iran is in the middle of oligarchic society. It used Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow its ruling monarch. Those fundamentalists are still in overall control, but they share power with an elected government.

7-What is Turkey?

Turkey is in the middle of oligarchic society.

8-What about India and Sri Lanka?

They are in the middle of oligarchic society.

9-Is Taiwan a DMS?

If Taiwan were an independent nation-state, I would say that it has recently become a democratic market society. But its official status is still uncertain.

10-Is it possible to have different social systems in one nation?

Yes, Brazil is an oligarchic society, but the Yanomami and a few other Amazonian Indians have retained their tribal society. The Roman Empire was mostly aristocrat peasant, but it contained some tribes, and many of the large cities functioned very much like oligarchic societies. Author’s note August 2003. This statement is technically correct, but not a good answer. In modern times it is difficult to impossible to have two different social systems within a single nation-state.

I suppose that oligarchies can be divided in two sub-groups, A) Stagnant - “dangerous” oligarchies. B) Developing - “wise” oligarchies. Is it possible to identify these two sub-groups in the list?

I wouldn’t use the term stagnant. Most oligarchic societies experience periods of slow change mixed with periods of fast change. The most dangerous oligarchic countries today are ones that used to have a mixed aristocrat tribal social structure. Most oligarchic countries develop slowly. In East Asia and Southeast Asia there have been some exceptions that have developed much more quickly. I’m not sure that wise is a good term either. It might be appropriate in the case of Hong Kong and Singapore. In South Korea, it was the Korean War that shook the country awake and propelled it into the modern world. In Taiwan, it was the communist revolution in China that accelerated land reform and rapid development.

Is fascism always equivalent to dictatorship?

Fascism is a reaction against weak oligarchic government. The quest for a strong government that can lead the nation to greatness usually results in a dictatorship.

panderson Subject: Re: List of current countries by social system.

Posted on: 11/07/2002

Thanks for the long and detailed answers. It's all much clearer. One more question... Are there statistical variables which can discriminate with precision the three oligarchic classes + DMS (Ex: per capita income or average life span)? Otherwise what could be the guidelines? I ask this because I'd like to create nice world map of current and past times (with nations grouped by your social system) and maybe send them to you to enrich your website.

davidmaurer Subject: Re: List of current countries by social system.

Posted on: 11/14/2002

Like you, I believe that mapping history is a very valuable tool. It would be really great to be able to look at a series of maps and watch the countries change from one type of society to another. On the surface it would seem like it should not be that difficult to do, but when you get into the details it becomes much more complicated.

In the 1970s and 80s I worked hard on devising a quantitative data system that would show how societies change over time. It concentrated primarily on differentiating tribal, aristocrat peasant, oligarchic, and democratic market societies. The idea was to ask a serious of questions about each society that all had numerical answers. For example: What is the percentage of the population that is dependent on purchasing food through a market system? What percentage of the population has some say in the government? Etc. etc.

There were two problems. First, it was very difficult to find good answers to the questions. Second, even after finding numerical answers, the results still did not give a clear picture of social change. The image was fuzzy. For some countries it worked reasonably well, but for others it was misleading. Each time I tried to fine tune the questions, it brought some countries into sharper focus but made other countries fuzzier. I could not find a single set of questions that worked equally well everywhere.

In order to do what you propose, we need a method of distinguishing when a country changes from its traditional form of society to early stage oligarchic society. Next we need to identify the change from early to middle oligarchic society. Then we have to locate the change from middle to late oligarchic society, and finally the transition from late oligarchic society to democratic market society. Let’s take these one at a time.

The change from traditional society to oligarchic society always begins with the slow process of market development. For a long time nobody realizes that anything new or different is happening, and the political institutions continue as before. But the traditional rulers, mostly monarchs, are not able to properly control and encourage the developing market economy. Eventually, the society gets out of kilter. It needs a new form of government that is competent to regulate the market economy.

Oligarchic society begins when the political institutions start to change as required by the growing market economy. In the Netherlands this happened in the late 16th century. The people revolted against their Spanish monarch, fought and won a massive civil war, and established a government made up of city oligarchs and local aristocrats. This gives us a clear date for the beginning of oligarchic society in the Netherlands.

In Britain the political response happened between 1640 and 1714 as the monarch became less powerful and Parliament seized control of the government. In France the political change started in 1789. In the rest of Western Europe political change began in response to the French Revolution and the conquests of Napoleon. In Central Europe oligarchic society began with the rebellions of 1848, and in Russia with the freeing of the serfs in 1861.

Outside of Europe it is relatively easy to pick a date for the start of oligarchic society. Most non-European countries were caught up in the wave of imperialism. They became oligarchic countries when they gained their independence. In China it happened when the last emperor was deposed in 1911. In Japan it happened in the 1860s.

The change from one stage of oligarchic society to another is harder to pin down. Early stage oligarchic society lasts as long as the country looks more traditional than modern. In this kind of society most people do not have regular jobs. The capitalist corporate economic structure is not well developed. A large part of the commerce that exists is carried on by individuals. In some cases monarchs, aristocrats, or tribal leaders still hold political power. Just looking at economic statistics alone can be deceptive. Resource rich countries like Saudi Arabia may look very modern, with a high gross domestic product, when in fact they are still very traditional.

I am having a hard time finding words that uniquely describe the middle stage of oligarchic development. The early stage and late stage are much more obvious. If an oligarchic country is not in either of these, than it is in the middle of its oligarchic experience. There is a dozen different things that are going on. The first successful capitalists have already become wealthy and are expanding their businesses into new fields. Elite business families and elite political families have intermarried. In most cases there is an elected government, but the real power is still tightly held by a relatively small group of elite families. Half the population have formal jobs, but most of them are low paid.

As generations pass the modern capitalist economy gets bigger and broader. It moves out from the primary commercial centers and penetrates into small towns and villages. Subsistence farmers begin to disappear. Most of the population is educated and either has a regular job or is looking for one. The country’s borders become stable. Ethnic minorities are merging with the mainstream.

As the country begins to look and act fully modern it enters the late stage of oligarchic development. There is a small class of very wealthy business owners, a middle class that makes up 20-30 percent of the population, and a working class that is the majority. The middle class earn enough to own a modern home and be active consumers. The working class are just trying to put food on the table and make ends meet.

At this point what the country needs is, more business owners, higher productivity, more competition for workers, and higher pay. This moves more people from the working class to the middle class where they become consumers and property owners. As the number of consumers increases, businesses have more customers and expand to meet the demand. The economy goes into high gear.

Once the majority of the population have become middle class consumers and property owners, they insist on taking an active role in government. Politicians must work hard to maintain economic growth or they are kicked out of office. The country is now a democratic market society.

You asked for a statistical quantitative method to distinguish these different variations of society. I tried but was unable to accomplish the task. You will have to settle for this qualitative description instead. Someday there will be thousands of very bright people working on this kind of analysis. They may be able to find the quantitative data system that you and I are looking for.

Russ Subject: Re: List of current countries by social system.

Posted on: 11/23/2002

Good question(s) and good answer(s) here, also this is where the “Artificial Intelligence Engine” I proposed in an earlier thread could help in digesting some of this stuff. Bunches of little tiny databases group together to make a “data warehouse”, for some “mining”.

davidmaurer Subject: Re: List of current countries by social system.

Posted on: 11/23/2002

You are absolutely right Russ. If historians used scientific methodology, my theory of history, and standard definitions, each specialty could have its own database that would contain everything needed to plot the course of social change. Those databases could be combined into a data warehouse. Panderson would then have everything needed to create his maps. Unfortunately, it looks like that day will be a long time in the future.

anonymous Subject: Re: List of current countries by social system.

Posted on: 11/25/2002

Well, the categories are rather subjective, more general ideas than specific standards. And history is not a science, it is more of an, and this is not the best word, “art”.

anonymous Subject: Re: List of current countries by social system.

Posted on: 12/26/2002

Hello, great web site, it is very informative. It is nice to finally see something that makes you think. I have many questions however I will ask only this: Why, in your opinion, do systems such as communism, fascism, or religious fundamentalism, appear only in response to an oligarchy? I understand that an absolutely free democratic market society cannot be conformed by the restraints of communism, socialism, etc. However socialism, for example, seems to be more in line with an aristocrat peasant society. Perhaps the evolution of society should be a socialist aristocrat oligarchy. But it is clear that it is not, as history communicates. So how can democratic market society be right if the stages to reach it are often overthrown and rejected by the people, as you have documented. The oligarchs and aristocrats will always control the wealth, even in a democratic market society. They will never come to the realization that they need to serve the poor and wealthy. They only realize that they need to serve themselves and make themselves more money at the expense of the poor.

So I would be desperately interested to hear your very informed opinion on why society does not evolve from aristocrat peasant society to a socialist society, then a democratic communist market society.

Thank you for your time,

Mike

davidmaurer Subject: Re: List of current countries by social system.

Posted on: 12/26/2002

Hi Mike, always glad to have a new contributor, thanks for the compliments.

You said that, “The oligarchs and aristocrats will always control the wealth, even in a democratic market society. They will never come to the realization that they need to serve the poor....”

In a sense you are correct. Even in the most modern democratic market society a small group of very rich families controls a disproportionately large amount of the societies wealth. Most of these very wealthy people are businessmen, or they are doctors, athletes, entertainers, etc. The point is that they get their wealth by selling something, either their product or their skills. By definition, sellers must have buyers. If most of the people live in poverty; they cannot buy things; they cannot be consumers.

If there are few consumers, there will be few wealthy people, and their wealth will be limited. That is why the rich and powerful in democratic market societies must ensure that most ordinary people have a decent income. The more money those average citizens have, the more they can spend to buy goods and services from businessmen and talented people. This allows the wealthy to get even richer. It is a symbiotic relationship.

This also explains why socialism, communism, fascism, and religious fundamentalism have very little appeal in democratic market society. Most people are middle class consumers. They are not desperately poor, and they are not desperate to find an alternative form of society.

There may come a time in some democratic market society when the rich and powerful will get too greedy and take all the money. If that happens, there will be a massive depression and business will collapse for want of demand. Many of the wealthy will go broke, and the country will fall back into oligarchic society. This has never happened, but if it does, the wealthy will have only themselves to blame.

You ask, “why society does not evolve from aristocrat peasant society to a socialist society, then a democratic communist market society.” There is a serious problem with socialism and communism. They don’t know how to create wealth. Instead of the market controlling the economy, the government controls the economy. Many countries have tried to do this in some fashion, but it has never worked. That is because governments have never been able to learn how to organize the wealth creation process. Every time it has been tried, it fails, and everyone is poor.

Much of Western Europe and especially Scandinavia have a system that is essentially market capitalist, but the people pay high taxes and the government distributes about half of the society’s wealth. For some countries, usually those with a very homogeneous population, this seems to work fairly well. That’s great for any country that can do it. But it is not socialism. It is a form of capitalism.

anonymous Subject: Re: List of current countries by social system.

Posted on: 12/27/2002

Hello David, thank you for the quick response. However I am afraid the old adage, the more you know the less you know applies here, for I have a question in response to your response.

Do you believe Western Europe and Scandinavia will become full market societies, despite the fact that year after year they are ranked as the top countries to live in the world? And if so, how will the change occur? What will be the turning point where they shift from a socialist, capitalist society (my description only, you may disagree) to a full market orientated society? ... It is not a stretch, but rather a fact to say that workers are treated better in Europe than in North America. In my opinion this is because of the fear that the oligarchs and aristocrats have of the workers; 1) as you explained to me, not being able to afford the services or products being offered by skilled workers, and talented businesspeople, therefore forcing the oligarchs and aristocrats to raise the standard of living of the peasant because the level of enlightenment and truth of the peasant had also risen 2) before the above mentioned fear gripped the oligarch and aristocrat societies, the immediate fear they had of a workers' state is the quite natural fear of survival. They would lose power ( and did lose power) in a workers' state. Power would be transferred from the aristocrats to the peasants.

These fears never gripped North American oligarchic powers the way they gripped European oligarchic powers. So, perhaps the natural evolution process that you believe in has been enlightened, or put backward (depending an your political viewpoint), or perhaps simply changed by the power of the people?

davidmaurer Subject: Re: List of current countries by social system.

Posted on: 12/27/2002

Mike, I believe that Western Europe and Scandinavia are fully market societies. To me, market economy society is a large category. It is big enough to contain a lot of variety. In the United States all government budgets together amount to about 35 percent of the gross national product, maybe a little more. In Scandinavia they are about 50 percent, maybe a little more. This certainly makes them different, but it still falls into the category of a market economy.

The reason I say that is because they use market capitalism as the primary means of wealth creation. If they had collectivized farms, or if half the industries were government owned, that would be different. The voters elect governments that charge more taxes and provide more services. I don’t have a problem with that. Most of those services have to do with health care, child day care, better schools, and a little more generous unemployment and welfare benefits. As someone who has very seldom had health insurance, I can see certain advantages to that.

The problem they face is that some of their most talented people are leaving and establishing residence elsewhere where the taxes are lower. I can also sympathize with that. People who earn millions of dollars a year as music stars or tennis players really don’t want to pay more than half of it in taxes. There are a lot of tradeoffs in this world. More tax and more services versus less tax and less services is one of them. It is up to the voters in each country to decide.

It is a bit disconcerting to me when you refer to ordinary people in democratic market society as peasants and wealthy people as aristocrats. Peasants are people with no political rights who work the land and deliver a large percent of the harvest to their aristocratic lords. This is a very different thing from the modern middle class.

Aristocrats are a hereditary ruling class who take food from their peasants and distribute it to non-food producers. This is very different from modern wealthy capitalists. Oligarchs are a ruling class of wealthy capitalists who monopolize nearly all wealth and political power. Wealthy capitalists in some democratic market societies have more than their fair share of political power, but they certainly do not monopolize it. When you use standard definitions it is a lot easier for everyone to know what you are talking about.