6 ms·

There is always a ruling class. It's an emergent phenomenon which always reasserts itself after any upset. Basically a law of nature.

BoxOfRain 3y ago
Isn't pre-agricultural society supposed to have been fairly egalitarian in comparison?
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  There were plenty of agricultural societies that were also fairly egalitarian. One interesting bias we tend have is that we identify "advanced" societies by how much they look like our own. This leads to a general bias towards deeply hierarchial, stratified societies being described/perceived favorably in media against their less familiar neighbors.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Which ones were fairly egalitarian compared to others?
    - AlotOfReading 3y ago
      The ones I was specifically thinking about were the Puebloans of the American Southwest. There's a famous old paper whose title summarizes the situation pretty well: "Although they have petty captains, they obey them badly"
    - trgn 3y ago
      I mean, it doesn't need to be extreme comparisons. We have gini-coefficient already, which captures similar. The rankings correspond reasonably to my intuition too, when I think of which have "elite" universities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#Gini_coefficient,_before_taxes_and_transfers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
- Joker_vD 3y ago
  In comparison, yes.
- tay_bridge 3y ago
  I think the argument that “1% of the pre-agricultural humans didn’t hoard 90% of the bronze” is more of an issue of logistics than desire. Even apes and chimps have hierarchies.
- fnovd 3y ago
  Hierarchies in society get stronger, deeper, and more complex the larger the societies are. There is a function to hierarchy, it doesn't exist for its own sake. In small groups those hierarchies are not as useful so they aren't as pronounced. Think of the neural complexity required for an amoeba to navigate with flagella vs a fly to navigate with wings. Even the fly's complexity is dwarfed by, say, the neural complexity of an elephant's control of his trunk. And that pales in comparison to the neural complexity required to get a spacecraft into orbit. Complex behavior requires complex systems and complex systems require the simplicity that hierarchies provide.
DougN7 3y ago
I agree. As long as there are personal differences in motivation, intelligence, energy level and moral compass, there will be classes of some sort or another.
Xeoncross 3y ago
It's almost like humans are inherently selfish.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
axolotlgod 3y ago
Wow, that's a strong claim. There are various counterexamples to this, so I'd say it's definitely not a law of nature. And anyway, nature by nature (lol) is essentially lawless. It's all random collisions of tiny molecules. So, if anything, I'd say the one law of nature is that there are no laws of nature. Thus, no, there isn't always a ruling class. It doesn't have to be that way.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  What's a counter-example at a reasonable scale? By reasonable scale, I mean millions of people.
  - komali2 3y ago
    I never understood why the "at reasonable scale" is presumed. What happens if I reject that presumption? Why do we assume "millions of people" operating in the same social order is a good thing? Because iphones? Is that reason enough? Do we presume that having millions of people under the same social order is required to make advancements in medicine? It didn't take millions to build Linux or wikipedia, just a couple hundred to a couple thousand absurdly dedicated people. Anyway, there are many counter examples of egalitarian and fluid societies throughout our many thousands of years of being speaking humans. David Graber's final book, I believe "Origin of everything," explores some of these. No, they didn't have iphones, but some of them lived so well that early American colonials would abandon everything they know to join the alien cultures. Must have been doing something right!
    - EA-3167 3y ago
      > What happens if I reject that presumption? You get a commune that has no real power, off in the middle of nowhere, which dies out when the original generation involved does. It can't be hard to understand that systems which work for a few hundred struggle to work with billions? > Anyway, there are many counter examples of egalitarian and fluid societies throughout our many thousands of years of being speaking humans. David Graber's final book, I believe "Origin of everything," explores some of these. No, they didn't have iphones, but some of them lived so well that early American colonials would abandon everything they know to join the alien cultures. Must have been doing something right! I read that book, and just a nitpick, it's David Graeber and David Wengrow. I'd also add that those societies described in the book weren't just pre-industrial or pre-iPhone, they were in the literal stone age.
CuriouslyC 3y ago
There's nothing wrong with having "elites," so long as there is strong social mobility in society in both directions (progressive taxation, no bailouts for the rich, aggressive inheritance tax, lots of social services). In that case, the initial playing field would be a lot more balanced and people who are elites would have had to actually earn it themselves, rather than being recipients of an eternal legacy.
kweingar 3y ago
At one point in history, it was a law of nature that a substantial portion of children will die at very early ages. Up to that point, it was basically universally true across space and time. We changed that law of nature. There are lots of “laws of nature” we face today that people dare to hope can be changed, like war. I think peace is a good goal even if you could somehow prove it’s in our nature to fight.

BoxOfRain 3y ago

Isn't pre-agricultural society supposed to have been fairly egalitarian in comparison?

AlotOfReading 3y ago
There were plenty of agricultural societies that were also fairly egalitarian. One interesting bias we tend have is that we identify "advanced" societies by how much they look like our own. This leads to a general bias towards deeply hierarchial, stratified societies being described/perceived favorably in media against their less familiar neighbors.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Which ones were fairly egalitarian compared to others?
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    The ones I was specifically thinking about were the Puebloans of the American Southwest. There's a famous old paper whose title summarizes the situation pretty well: "Although they have petty captains, they obey them badly"
  - trgn 3y ago
    I mean, it doesn't need to be extreme comparisons. We have gini-coefficient already, which captures similar. The rankings correspond reasonably to my intuition too, when I think of which have "elite" universities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#Gini_coefficient,_before_taxes_and_transfers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
Joker_vD 3y ago
In comparison, yes.
tay_bridge 3y ago
I think the argument that “1% of the pre-agricultural humans didn’t hoard 90% of the bronze” is more of an issue of logistics than desire. Even apes and chimps have hierarchies.
fnovd 3y ago
Hierarchies in society get stronger, deeper, and more complex the larger the societies are. There is a function to hierarchy, it doesn't exist for its own sake. In small groups those hierarchies are not as useful so they aren't as pronounced. Think of the neural complexity required for an amoeba to navigate with flagella vs a fly to navigate with wings. Even the fly's complexity is dwarfed by, say, the neural complexity of an elephant's control of his trunk. And that pales in comparison to the neural complexity required to get a spacecraft into orbit. Complex behavior requires complex systems and complex systems require the simplicity that hierarchies provide.

DougN7 3y ago

I agree. As long as there are personal differences in motivation, intelligence, energy level and moral compass, there will be classes of some sort or another.

Xeoncross 3y ago

It's almost like humans are inherently selfish.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

axolotlgod 3y ago

Wow, that's a strong claim. There are various counterexamples to this, so I'd say it's definitely not a law of nature. And anyway, nature by nature (lol) is essentially lawless. It's all random collisions of tiny molecules. So, if anything, I'd say the one law of nature is that there are no laws of nature. Thus, no, there isn't always a ruling class. It doesn't have to be that way.

karaterobot 3y ago
What's a counter-example at a reasonable scale? By reasonable scale, I mean millions of people.
- komali2 3y ago
  I never understood why the "at reasonable scale" is presumed. What happens if I reject that presumption? Why do we assume "millions of people" operating in the same social order is a good thing? Because iphones? Is that reason enough? Do we presume that having millions of people under the same social order is required to make advancements in medicine? It didn't take millions to build Linux or wikipedia, just a couple hundred to a couple thousand absurdly dedicated people. Anyway, there are many counter examples of egalitarian and fluid societies throughout our many thousands of years of being speaking humans. David Graber's final book, I believe "Origin of everything," explores some of these. No, they didn't have iphones, but some of them lived so well that early American colonials would abandon everything they know to join the alien cultures. Must have been doing something right!
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    > What happens if I reject that presumption? You get a commune that has no real power, off in the middle of nowhere, which dies out when the original generation involved does. It can't be hard to understand that systems which work for a few hundred struggle to work with billions? > Anyway, there are many counter examples of egalitarian and fluid societies throughout our many thousands of years of being speaking humans. David Graber's final book, I believe "Origin of everything," explores some of these. No, they didn't have iphones, but some of them lived so well that early American colonials would abandon everything they know to join the alien cultures. Must have been doing something right! I read that book, and just a nitpick, it's David Graeber and David Wengrow. I'd also add that those societies described in the book weren't just pre-industrial or pre-iPhone, they were in the literal stone age.

CuriouslyC 3y ago

There's nothing wrong with having "elites," so long as there is strong social mobility in society in both directions (progressive taxation, no bailouts for the rich, aggressive inheritance tax, lots of social services). In that case, the initial playing field would be a lot more balanced and people who are elites would have had to actually earn it themselves, rather than being recipients of an eternal legacy.

kweingar 3y ago

At one point in history, it was a law of nature that a substantial portion of children will die at very early ages. Up to that point, it was basically universally true across space and time. We changed that law of nature. There are lots of “laws of nature” we face today that people dare to hope can be changed, like war. I think peace is a good goal even if you could somehow prove it’s in our nature to fight.