/lit/ - Literature

>>14999574
There will always be a hierarchy and power will always be what the state seeks. Hierarchies can be positive or negative for the group, I care not for the individual nor do I want personal power. If the current hierarchy promotes invaders to take the territory of my people, go against their interests and such then I'm against it. If the hierarchy is with my people I'm for it. Don't care where in the hierarchy I am, were I a peasant, a knight or a priest in medieval times I'd support a good king regardless of my position and help defend my people against conquerors who sought to pillage, enslave, kill or otherwise harm them. Had I a communist state as the Chinese or the DPRK do then I'd support that too, I don't care if that entails toiling in the fields or whatever. As long as the collective organism is the heart of it. It doesn't matter if some have more power than others or if some wear better clothes or drink finer wine. This is a trivial issue.

The problem with international finance or the mercantile society is not that it exploits the people but where it places power and that it goes against the interests of the people, that the people do not toil for their own sake but against themselves. Europeans slave away today for a future without them in it at all, all industry was moved to China and other areas of the world where labour was cheaper.

What would make my life better would be if my people were in charge of their own state and with a hierarchy bound by blood to them. That wielded absolute power in an explicit way that came with responsibility.

>>9938220
>there's anything that even comes closer to silmarillion?
No.