CarolSeer2014 suggested: "Perhaps we need a new thread, a discussion on how socialism as a politico-economic was begun. My own theory is that the discovery of agriculture caused widespread settlements of larger groups of people, yet the abstract notions of governance had not (or were not able to be) been comprehended by primitive peoples. It took the experience of feudalism in the Middle Ages to formulate an idea of government that could balance power against power. Our founders were lucky in that they had not yet been infected with the malignant philosophy of 19th century Europe..."

Jane Jacobs said that poverty needs no explanation because poverty is the default mode: it is production that must be understood and explained.

It is not that socialism was invented, but that capitalism was.

Underlying that, though, we must be careful about drawing conclusions from pre-history because very few "primitive" peoples are left. Those that are with us - Bushmen, Inuit and Eskimo, Australian aborigines, and others - have been marginalized; so their customs may not at all reflect how our ancestors lived 12,000 or 120,000 years ago. Consider that from your grandparents to your grandchildren is only five generations and the extent of living history. Anything earlier is "from the beginning of time." So, "primitive" customs might be quite recent, and be reactions to relatively recent events, natural calamities, territorial conflicts, etc.

Again, referring to Jane Jacobs, in _The Economy of Cities_ Jacobs attacks the myth that agriculture led to cities. Rather, she said, cities evolved from permanent hunting camps where people came to trade surpluses.

We all know the Code of Hammurabi. "The Ur-Nammu law code is the oldest known, written about 300 years before Hammurabi's law code. When first found in 1901, the laws of Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) were heralded as the earliest known laws. Now older collections are known: They are laws of the town Eshnunna (ca. 1800 BC), the laws of King Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1930 BC), and Old Babylonian copies (ca. 1900-1700 BC) of the Ur-Nammu law code , with 26 laws of the 57. This cylinder is the first copy found that originally had the whole text of the code, and it is the world's oldest law code. Further it actually mentions the name of Ur-Nammu for the first time."
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/a...

These must be codifications of tribal custom, even if we allow them as the insightful mandates of a Solomon. It remained for the Greeks to ask the deeper questions about what is right in law. Sophocles's _Antigone_ is the paradigm for placing the state under a mandate of higher moral law. However, I believe that our strong western tradition of denying that might makes right comes from the Christian church. Note, however, that throughout the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, the Church was often (usually) powerless against mundane local rulers. And of course, no one proposed a virtue of selfishness.

Just as we know of ancient steam engines and even batteries much older than that, it is arguable whether "science" existed before 1600. Lewis Wolpert places the origin of science with the Greeks in _The Unnatural Nature of Science_ (Harvard 1993). On the other hand, Nicholas Nicastro in Circumference (St. Martins 2008) disagrees: Democritus of Abdera posited the existence of atoms. Aristotle accurately described the embryology of the chick. Aristarchus put the sun at the center of the planetary system. Yet nothing like “science” existed before the Renaissance.

The Wealth of Nations and the Declaration of Independence were published at about the same time. Just before both of those - and heralding both - was Benjamin Franklin's "The Way to Wealth" (1758).

"Pray, Father Abraham, what think you of the times? Will not these heavy taxes quite ruin the country? How shall we ever be able to pay them? What would you advise us to?" Father Abraham stood up, and replied, "If you would have my Advice, Iwill give it you in short; for A word to the wise is enough., as Poor Richard says." They joined in desiring him to speak his mind, and gathering round him, he proceeded as follows.

"Friends," said he, "the taxes are indeed very heavy, and, if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly; and from these taxes the commissioners cannot ease or deliver us, by allowing an abatement."
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey...

•