armyrecognition.com

The Ruling Elite: A Definition
In response to my last Contemplation, I was called out by a reader (KH) for an oversight that I am wholly guilty of: I have failed to define what I mean by “the ruling elite”. His point was that I too closely associated government with the term, giving those few good politicians, and thereby the institution in general, a bad rap.

Here, I wish to address the oversight of not defining what I meant by the term “the ruling elite”, but also to push back on the notion that government is not necessarily part of this element of our societies.

I approach the notion of a ruling elite from my background in anthropology and archaeology. As such I view this particular aspect of large, complex societies from the work in these fields of study. This, then, is my response to the reader:

“KH, you’re right that I failed to define what I see as “the elite.” I’ve come at this from an anthropological and archaeological perspective, so here’s what I’d argue: the ruling elite is a structural position, not a list of villains — it’s whoever disproportionately controls decision-making, surplus, ideology, and the means of violence.

And by that definition, I’d further argue that government isn’t adjacent to the elite — it’s integral to it. State apparatuses are among the most durable elite instruments ever devised: they tax, legislate, police, and legitimate. Politicians, then, aren’t external to elite machinations but more often its brokers, and at times its authors.

Composition varies — military juntas, corporate boards, oligarchic families — but in every iteration the state appears to be the chassis upon which elite power is constructed.

This structural analysis doesn’t shift with a few good politicians, because the institutions and interests served don’t alter — and haven’t in millennia. So anti-government sentiment isn’t irrational; it’s often a correct view of an institution that doesn’t merely comply with elite interests but constitutes them.”

This is not to say that all politicians are corrupt or that all governing institutions fail to serve a legitimate function; it is to argue that the structural position of government within a large, complex society makes it a primary instrument of elite power–regardless of the intention of individual actors within it.

I apologise for this oversight and should know better than to not define an important term, especially when I am using it repeatedly. Thank you to KH for pointing this out.

Now, back to the ruling elite’s response to diminishing returns of military expansion…

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview.

See my free book offer to readers at the end of this Contemplation…

Military Expansion: The Conquest Response
The issue is relatively straightforward for the ruling elite when the surpluses that help to sustain the complexities of a society begin to falter: more resources are required. Part 2 of this series examined the extraction response in which more is squeezed from the existing resource base of the state, especially its citizens; Part 3 looked into the ideological response that attempts to justify the squeeze. This analysis considers another option that history has also shown to be appealing: take resources from nearby states.

Taking resources from some other territory through military conquest would seem to address the resource deficit directly. New agricultural lands. Unextracted mineral wealth. New source of labour and taxes. With military expansion, treasure, slaves, and tribute suddenly materialises and can help alleviate diminishing returns; at least for a while. And for elites confronting a domestic legitimacy crisis, a foreign victory can demonstrate strength, competence, and aid in diverting attention away from domestic woes thereby helping to reinforce the ideological narratives discussed in Part 3.

It is typical of societies growing in complexity to develop military and security apparatus that can facilitate expansion. But as with any additional complexity, costs escalate alongside the growth. New territories must be maintained via garrisons, administration, and defences. Newly established borders require fortifications and troops, while newly conquered populations have to be pacified and any resistance suppressed. While a net gain in resources was expected–and does occur for a short time right in the wake of a victory–most military adventures end up being a net drain as maintenance costs of a larger state soon exceed the revenue generated.

The logic of the response is quite seductive, but it has proven to be self-defeating again and again: each conquest requires more resources to maintain the new territory than it can in turn provide. To address the shortfall, the elite often pursue more expansion and military conquests; which require even more resources–and the treadmill accelerates…

How Elites Pursue Military Expansion
Military expansion takes different forms depending on the society in question but patterns do appear across time and culture.

External Conquest and Territorial Annexation
From ancient times to the present, the most common form of expansion is that into neighbouring territories and annexing them into the now-enlarged state. Rome expanded across the Mediterranean, adding Greece, Egypt, Gaul, and Britain. The Mongols moved across Asia into Europe. The Aztec began small and then absorbed most of Mesoamerica, while the Inca similarly moved through the Andes mountains. And various European powers fought over and divided up Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

The expansionist states gained substantial returns upon their initial conquests but the costs of defending and maintaining expanded territory soon exceeded the benefits. Roman legions became stretched across three different continents. Succession disputes and administrative challenges overwhelmed the Mongol Empire’s capacity to govern its far-flung territories. Independence movements and costly far-off garrisons forced European powers to rethink continued governance of their colonies.

Prestige Wars and Status Competition
Sometimes the elite engage in warfare not for material resources but for prestige and status. War victory can show competence, affirm the cosmic or civilisational order, and/or intimidate potential rivals. For the Maya, it was often about capturing sacrificial tribute in order to help reinforce the ruler’s divine status rather than for territorial expansion. Aristocratic wars in medieval Europe were primarily about financial gain, but were also for knights looking to compete for honour and to demonstrate their martial value.

Such prestige wars produced little if any material benefits, but their pursuit did consume huge amounts of resources. One could easily argue that they are ideological justification pursued through military means–a way to demonstrate the deservedness of elite power due to martial prowess.

Defensive Expansion and the Security Dilemma
It is not uncommon for states to frame military expansion as defensive in nature; they are creating buffer zones or securing trade routes or preempting potential threats. Rome, for example, justified its expansion into Gaul and Britain as necessary to protect itself from barbarian incursions. The securing of frontiers, along with manifest destiny, was the reason provided for the US westward expansion. Modern-day interventions are frequently said to be for reasons of national security or ensuring international order or to expand democratic rule.

Such moves, however, create a greater security dilemma: new borders are created and must be defended; new threats arise and must be dealt with; and new commitments are made and must be honoured. Expansion to secure frontiers and prevent future threats results in more frontiers to secure and entanglement in more conflicts and the generation of new threats.

The Costs of Military Expansion
Military expansion is costly. It consumes massive resources, yet doesn’t necessarily address the underlying material issues that likely prompted it.

Standing Armies and Military Infrastructure
In peacetime, standing armies are not inexpensive to sustain. Soldiers. Fortifications. Supply chains. All of these must be established and maintained. And as states expand, the costs multiply and build. At its height, the Roman Empire maintained a standing army of about 400,000 soldiers whose maintenance consumed a significant portion of imperial revenues. Today, the US spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined given its attempts to maintain more than 800 military bases in over 90 countries.

The expenditures go beyond financial in that they also consume a lot of human capital and material resources, both of which could be directed towards other purposes and actually helping to mitigate diminishing returns on investments.

Administration and Pacification
Ensuring governance of conquered territories is another expense. Administrative infrastructure. Legal systems. Mechanisms of tax collection. Security forces to suppress resistance and protect bureaucrats. Revolts arose frequently in the Roman provinces with each requiring the military to intervene and suppress them. African and Asian peoples resisted the European colonial powers, and resulted in decades of military campaigns to subdue the indigenous populations.

It is quite typical for the initial gains from conquest to be exceeded by the eventual drain on the state treasury because of the required administration of the new territory and the pacification of its population. While victory and benefit is the framing by the state elite in the shadow of the expansion, the long-term reality is almost always something quite different.

The Psychological Cost: Elite Rigidity
Expansion has costs that go beyond the physical support of the military. Perhaps the most significant one is the impact it has upon elite decision-making. When a society’s decision makers become locked into a worldview that martial conquest is the most appropriate response to political and economic issues, it’s next to impossible for them to admit that such an approach may actually be counterproductive–such an admission after years of investing in the strategy would be akin to admitting failure; and a very costly one at that. Institutional and psychological rigidity are the results of domestic propaganda and long-held beliefs, stymying far less expensive adaptations that may have helped to mitigate the consequences of diminishing returns.

The Devastating Backfires
As with other responses, military expansion costs activate reaction chains that serve to accelerate societal decline.

The Overextension Spiral
Expanding empires take on a number of new commitments with each conquest. These commitments, in turn, come with heavy costs. Resource demands to maintain the military require additional revenues. Revenue is sought via domestic taxation and territorial conquests. More territory creates more borders to defend and territory to administer. Resource demands grow. This spiral creates a trap leading to overextension as more and more territory is needed to maintain that already conquered.

This trap can be seen in the Roman Empire’s third-century crisis, where both internal stress and external pressure grew, leading emperors to be on campaign constantly. Rome was rarely able to consolidate its gains before new threats arrived and had to be dealt with. Its revenues eventually fell below the costs of maintaining its ever-increasing territory. The elite responded by debasing its currency and increasing taxes on its citizens as diminishing returns on its military investments grew.

The Military-Industrial Complex
There is a relatively small class of entrenched interests that benefits significantly from military expansion. These arms manufacturers, military contractors, and standing armies lobby endlessly for increased spending and new wars, resisting any attempts to reduce military budgets. A self-reinforcing military-industrial complex can consume larger and larger portions of a state’s budget with zero concern as to whether its growth is a rational response to diminishing returns or not.

Perhaps the clearest example of this dynamic can be seen in the modern United States. Military spending by the US has continued to grow significantly–with recent requests for increase being astronomical relative to earlier ones–with a military-industrial complex (that Eisenhower warned about) that has enormous influence over policy and decisions. Alongside monetary machinations, resources are diverted from almost all other areas (e.g., healthcare, education, infrastructure) to support the military.

The Blowback Effect
It is impossible to avoid blowback–the unintended consequences of expansion that lead to new threats and costs. Resistance from conquered peoples that may last for generations and give rise to terrorist groups. Destabilisation of nearby regions due to fleeing populations. Increasing alliances between rival powers to counter the growing threat to them of a state’s growing power.

The expansion of the Roman Empire into Germanic areas resulted in repeated conflicts with local tribes. The US interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere have generated refugee crises in surrounding regions, including Europe, as well as regional instability that precipitates longer and growing engagement–especially as resistance groups multiply and become emboldened by successes.

Attempting to address diminishing returns via military expansion almost always results in the creation of unintended consequences that require further military involvement, and results in a spiral that is next to impossible to extricate oneself from.

The Classic Maya
In parts 2 and 3 I discussed the ideological and extraction explanation for the Maya military engagements: they were primarily seeking to capture rivals for sacrifice to help bolster the divine status of their ruler and his maintenance of the cosmic order. Warfare was about demonstrating martial prowess to please the gods; it was not about annexing new territories.

Rather than bolster material resources, the wars actually served to draw these resources down more quickly than they might be otherwise. Warriors were drawn from the agricultural population and reduced the labour force for food production. The logistical support and military weapons consumed resources that may have helped to address the environmental degradation the sacrifices were meant to forestall.

This warfare did nothing to help the crisis the Maya were facing; in fact, it intensified the ecological degradation–especially the deforestation aimed at expanding agricultural yields, which led to soil erosion and rainfall shifts and actually reduced food surpluses. Not only did their wars disrupt trade networks and displace populations, but they destroyed agricultural infrastructure and further reduced food production. It was impossible to assess rationally the consequences of their warfare given the ideological framework the Maya viewed the world through: the gods had to be pleased in order to maintain the cosmic order, and the gods were pleased through increasing sacrifice and the construction of new temples; both of which consumed more and more resources.

The consequences of this response are fairly clear in the final phase of the Maya collapse: as warfare intensified, agricultural yields declined and urban centres were abandoned; shrinking surpluses were fought over by rival elites, with the resources they were competing over being degraded through the wars being fought. Signs of the escalating violence in the late stages of the Classic Period can be seen in the archaeological evidence where structures were burned, fortifications were intensified, and bodies were left unburied.

The Western Roman Empire
As was often the case, especially early on in expansionist empires, conquest served to enhance the centre where treasure, slaves, and tribute got funnelled to. This was the engine that drove the Western Roman Empire’s approach to societal maintenance and growth. The early centuries were characterised by this and helped to grow the complexity of Roman society greatly.

But as with any such growth, diminishing returns are soon encountered. The costs soon grew beyond the revenues expansion generated. The Roman Empire was facing a fiscal crisis by the third century CE as its military became overstretched from the non-stop expansion. Constant tax increases and currency debasement to fund the conquests degraded life for the masses.

Rather than halt their military adventures and retrench to stabilise the situation–and perhaps simplify–the Empire strove to expand further. New campaigns were launched in order to secure the expanded frontiers and try to access fresh resources. The bureaucracy and military were doubled in size during Diocletian’s reforms that led to numerous new layers of complexity. These changes were compounded by Constantine’s adoption of Christianity and its ideological layer; a further complexity that did nothing to address the diminishing returns being experienced in the resource realm.

More and more revenue was being diverted to the military as they faced increasing pressure from various tribes along their frontier. To help secure revenue, new bureaucracies were created to chase down tax evaders. Administrative and military costs exceeded the revenues of the Empire by the fifth century leading to a weakened state that made it much more vulnerable to invasion and eventual collapse.

The last few decades of the Western Empire were punctuated by a continuing attempt by emperors to expand and defend everywhere. A thin and depleting force was spread across three continents, unable to concentrate anywhere effectively. There existed no reserve forces to bolster the borders when the Goths and Vandals invaded. What had been the instrument of expansion and dominance became the engine of Roman collapse.

Modernity: The Military-Industrial Expansion
The same response exists to this day. It may be more sophisticated and appear very different than in the past, but it is much more costly given its dependence upon finite resource extraction and the industrial-scale production of complex technologies.

The American Hegemon
The scale of the US global military is unprecedented in human history, and it expends more than the next ten nations combined in order to maintain over 800 military bases in over 90 different and far-flung countries. The US Empire justifies its expenditures and interventions by way of the security narrative I discussed in Part 3: it is needed to protect national security, maintain adherence to an international and rules-based order, and to defend democracy throughout the world.

Despite encountering diminishing returns on its enormous investments on this buildup and its ongoing maintenance, costs for its military continue to rise–and spectacularly so the past few decades. Middle Eastern wars have cost trillions of dollars; dollars that could have been invested domestically on the US masses. And the blowback from these wars has led to new threats with the response being even further military engagement and costs.

The US faces an overextension spiral similar to Rome: new commitments and costs are created with each attempt to secure its foreign interests militarily; this consumes surpluses that might otherwise be used to mitigate diminishing returns domestically.

The Proliferation of Military Spending
Expansion is of course not limited to the US with states across the globe pouring increasing resources into their militaries for the same logic as the global hegemon: competition and security. Not since the Cold War have the three largest competitors (i.e., US, China, Russia) invested so much. And then there are the regional powers–particularly in Eurasia, such as Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and India.

This global arms race is consuming resources on a scale almost impossible to comprehend; resources that could be directed towards productive strategies to help mitigate diminishing returns and the existential challenges our planet faces. This is the competitive spiral that Tainter suggests locks peer polities in a self-reinforcing cycle, leading them towards sociopolitical collapse together. Since protecting against peers requires military buildup–which in turn causes them to build up, and so on–the cycle perpetuates itself. This cycle unfortunately depletes the surpluses that could be directed towards domestic resilience building.

The New Proxy Wars
Rather than engage an enemy directly, modern military expansion tends to take the form of a proxy war in which larger powers support opposing sides in a regional conflict. The world has witnessed this with the US and Russia (and others) engaging in such areas as Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine; or Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen. Little if anything is resolved in such conflicts but they–like the Maya prestige wars–consume massive amounts of resources that further erode needed surpluses. They also lead to refugee crises in neighbouring countries, deepen regional rivalries, and create new conflicts.

The Shared Signature
Through time, states that rely upon military expansion during periods of diminishing returns demonstrate some shared signatures. The intensification of military investments and expansion occurs in the time just prior to societal collapse. Fortifications are enhanced, standing armies are increased in size and location, and an increasing number of military campaigns occur. And it is those societies with the most overstretched military commitments that tend to be the ones that experience the fastest collapse.

The reason for this is fairly straightforward: resources get stretched and diverted towards military campaigns, leaving fewer to help in mitigating societal decline. The more expansion, the more resources diverted, and the less surplus to help maintain society’s complexities.

Military expansion, like the extraction and ideology responses discussed in previous Contemplations, is subject to diminishing returns given the easiest and most effective campaigns are pursued first with more difficult ones later. But as time passes and diminishing returns begin to draw down surpluses, the military option is becoming more expensive but less effective. Even just maintaining a military apparatus that has grown in size and complexity as a response to previous expansion is an exceedingly costly endeavour, and the decline that the military was meant to help address gets sped up.

The world of modern global geopolitics is demonstrating this in spades. Military spending and campaigns–especially via proxy wars–have been intensifying, with the globe’s finite resources being drawn down at an alarming rate to feed this. Rather than forestall societal decline, this response–like the others discussed so far–is increasing instability and accelerating decline. It is not creating resources to bolster surpluses; it is consuming them and eating away at the surpluses needed to mitigate the impacts of diminishing returns.

Military expansion is even more problematic than extraction and ideology. Extraction can at least provide short-term revenue; and ideology can help to maintain social cohesion for a time. Military expansion, however, is pure consumption masquerading as an investment–it produces no material benefit when all costs are accounted for; in fact, it is a destructive force whose costs far outweigh any supposed benefits.

The Strategic Trap: Inability to Imagine Alternatives
Similar to other responses, a significant cost of military expansion could be argued to be the impact it has upon elite decision-making and their worldview. Martial solutions to political and economic issues increasingly become a dominant response, and once initiated it is next to impossible to admit that the strategy has failed and draw them down–typically a doubling down occurs when things are devolving. Adaptations that may have been pursued to help address societal issues are prevented due to the institutional and psychological rigidity that has developed in the wake of repeated and ongoing martial responses.

Expansion was part and parcel of the Roman Empire–its emperors and elite could only perceive a world in which the Empire was growing. Today, the United States cannot imagine a world in which it is not the sole hegemon and is pouring every resource it can muster into preventing rivals from challenging its vaunted position. This inability to imagine a multipolar world prevents the adaptations the United States might pursue in the face of diminishing returns and greatly reduces its ability to mitigate the inevitable consequences of its decline.

In Part 5, I will explore the fourth type of elite response: scapegoating and the search for internal enemies.

Special Offer

If you have made it to the end of this Contemplation, I have an offer for you. Send me an email at olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com requesting a copy of Part 1 of my trilogy and I’ll fire off a PDF of it to you for your “fictional” reading pleasure. If you like the beginning of the tale, please consider ordering the trilogy here: Purchase Book(s) — Olduvai.ca.

What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:

Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.

Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.

If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my “fictional” novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the “profits” of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a “tip” on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.