Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

futurity.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

#21

Post by zeteo »

toyg wrote: post #9

I think people in social sciences tend to ignore the most obvious factor: military power. A successful campaign needs rapid coordinated efforts, which are best delivered by hierarchical models. And if you suck at war, chances are that your civilization won't stick around for very long.

>A successful campaign needs rapid coordinated efforts, which are best delivered by hierarchical models.

This may be an argument for the superiority of militarist states (e.g. Assyria, Prussia), but it's anachronistic for the study at hand, which deals with the type of situation prevailing in e.g. the pre-civilization and pre-organized army Neolithic.

Re: Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

#22

Post by toyg »

zeteo wrote: post #21
toyg wrote: post #9

I think people in social sciences tend to ignore the most obvious factor: military power. A successful campaign needs rapid coordinated efforts, which are best delivered by hierarchical models. And if you suck at war, chances are that your civilization won't stick around for very long.

>A successful campaign needs rapid coordinated efforts, which are best delivered by hierarchical models. This may be an argument for the superiority of militarist states (e.g. Assyria, Prussia), but it's anachronistic for the study at hand, which deals with the type of situation prevailing in e.g. the pre-civilization and pre-organized army Neolithic.

I'm sure Neolithic tribes liked a good quarrel as much as anyone, and the models do scale down. My group of brutes has a charismatic, fairly specialized leader with good tactical skills and huge biceps; he imparts clear, undisputed commands on the battlefield and knows how to plan a nightly raid on your women. Your group of brutes is a bunch of equal individualists, with no real specialization and where each brute does his own thing, resulting in endless diatribes about "why should we defend your cave and let my cave get raided?". Maybe you have an outstanding hunter, but he can't leverage the others as easily and effectively as my uber-leader... until the tribe is so beaten down and numbers are dwindling so much that they cave in to the hierarchical model and let Best Hunter be the boss.

I'm generalizing here, but there's so much we don't know about those times...

Re: Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

#23

Post by zeteo »

toyg wrote: post #22
zeteo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A successful campaign needs rapid coordinated efforts, which are best delivered by hierarchical models. This may be an argument for the superiority of militarist states (e.g. Assyria, Prussia), but it's anachronistic for the study at hand, which deals with the type of situation prevailing in e.g. the pre-civilization and pre-organized army Neolithic.

I'm sure Neolithic tribes liked a good quarrel as much as anyone, and the models do scale down. My group of brutes has a charismatic, fairly specialized leader with good tactical skills and huge biceps; he imparts clear, undisputed commands on the battlefield and knows how to plan a nightly raid on your women. Your group of brutes is a bunch of equal individualists, with no real specialization and where each brute do…

The key word in your example is "undisputed". The successful group that you describe must have previously adopted a system of beliefs that elevates some individuals over others. (It's a system of beliefs, and not sheer physical force, as even the strongest individual can be overpowered by a coalition of the disgruntled.) For the purposes of this paper's model, it doesn't matter whether the distinction is based on strength, beauty or purported magical powers.

Re: Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

#24

Post by paxcoder »

zeteo wrote: post #20

Here's the paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... The crucial idea: > Our simulation results support the hypothesis that socioeconomic stratification may have spread due to its effects on the demography of small groups—i.e. by demic diffusion—rather than cultural adoption. [...] In variable environments, stratified groups migrate more and are less likely to go extinct than egalitarian…

Here are a couple of alternative scenarios:

- village A invades village B for food (the fact that out-of-touch aristocrats occasionally send an army of unwilling soldiers at the gates of A is another possible reason)

- village B consumes more food than village A, simply because aristocrats like to eat, so it starves first

- in village B, servants die of starvation, the ruling class is incompetent to feed itself

- villagers of village B simply walk by foot into village A, leaving their oppressors to care for themselves

- there's a revolution in village B, making it, effectively, a village A2 (possible catalyst: shortage of food)

in other words, i don't think that's why. however, i haven't read the article, so maybe their arguments are more convincing than yours.

Re: Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

#25

Post by zeteo »

paxcoder wrote: post #24
zeteo wrote: post #20

Here's the paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... The crucial idea: > Our simulation results support the hypothesis that socioeconomic stratification may have spread due to its effects on the demography of small groups—i.e. by demic diffusion—rather than cultural adoption. [...] In variable environments, stratified groups migrate more and are less likely to go extinct than egalitarian…

Here are a couple of alternative scenarios: - village A invades village B for food (the fact that out-of-touch aristocrats occasionally send an army of unwilling soldiers at the gates of A is another possible reason) - village B consumes more food than village A, simply because aristocrats like to eat, so it starves first - in village B, servants die of starvation, the ruling class is incompetent to feed itself - vil…

The idea that social inequality automatically involves an incompetent, idle class of aristocrats giving orders to wretched underlings, who do all the work, is a straw man. All that's required, for this model at least, is an order of precedence in the distribution of food at harvest time (an agricultural equivalent of preferred stock, if you will). This is irrespective of how the food was produced, of the relative size of portions, and of whether anyone takes commands from someone else. A very simple example of such social stratification would be e.g. a "pecking order".

Re: Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

#26

Post by paxcoder »

zeteo wrote: post #25
paxcoder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are a couple of alternative scenarios: - village A invades village B for food (the fact that out-of-touch aristocrats occasionally send an army of unwilling soldiers at the gates of A is another possible reason) - village B consumes more food than village A, simply because aristocrats like to eat, so it starves first - in village B, servants die of starvation, the ruling class is incompetent to feed itself - vil…

The idea that social inequality automatically involves an incompetent, idle class of aristocrats giving orders to wretched underlings, who do all the work, is a straw man. All that's required, for this model at least, is an order of precedence in the distribution of food at harvest time (an agricultural equivalent of preferred stock, if you will). This is irrespective of how the food was produced, of the relative siz…

my point is that unequal distribution of food in case of a natural disaster is not an absolute factor, it's only one of the possible scenarios that affect the preservation of a system.

Re: Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

#27

Post by zeteo »

paxcoder wrote: post #26
zeteo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that social inequality automatically involves an incompetent, idle class of aristocrats giving orders to wretched underlings, who do all the work, is a straw man. All that's required, for this model at least, is an order of precedence in the distribution of food at harvest time (an agricultural equivalent of preferred stock, if you will). This is irrespective of how the food was produced, of the relative siz…

my point is that unequal distribution of food in case of a natural disaster is not an absolute factor, it's only one of the possible scenarios that affect the preservation of a system.

Yes of course there are lots of other factors, and history itself is a series of accidents. The point of this paper is that, all else being equal, a stratification in the distribution of food seems to improve the resilience of agricultural societies.

The reason this may be important, in my view, is that it offers a model for what may have happened in the Ubaid period, when previously egalitarian agricultural societies became gradually more stratified, and finally transitioned into the beginnings of our civilization.

The traditional, Marxist explanation is that agriculture generated a production surplus, which was illegitimately seized by upstart elites. This paper's alternative model indicates incipiently hierarchical societies might actually have had a survival advantage, under the conditions of the period.

Re: Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

#28

Post by paxcoder »

zeteo wrote: post #27
paxcoder wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my point is that unequal distribution of food in case of a natural disaster is not an absolute factor, it's only one of the possible scenarios that affect the preservation of a system.

Yes of course there are lots of other factors, and history itself is a series of accidents. The point of this paper is that, all else being equal, a stratification in the distribution of food seems to improve the resilience of agricultural societies. The reason this may be important, in my view, is that it offers a model for what may have happened in the Ubaid period, when previously egalitarian agricultural societie…

Perhaps I should read the paper to see if they're generalizing or not, but I'm too lazy to; if it was a wikipedia page - perhaps I would.

If we're talking hierarchy generally rather than (more) distinct classes - which are not prone to (positive) change - I'd concur that it is more successful in general. For the reason of being able to emphasize the collective needs I suppose, though a question of mapping talent to positions remains (and unmapping).

Re: Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

#29

Post by nazgulnarsil »

yardie wrote: post #6
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #3

I find myself constantly amazed at academia's ability to pretend that ideas that have been around for centuries are suddenly new and original.

Just because the idea isn't new doesn't mean it shouldn't be scrutinized for reasons. It is entirely possible that class based societies existed for other reasons then what we assume. In this case our assumption turned out to be correct. Now, how do are you going to convince koreans that sleeping under a fan isn't going to kill them?

I'm talking about refusing to acknowledge past thinkers on an idea even when the new stuff is parroting old stuff. A prominent example is professor Romer's Ted Talk.

Re: Why class societies are the rule, not the exception

#30

Post by motherwell »

zeteo wrote: post #20

Here's the paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... The crucial idea: > Our simulation results support the hypothesis that socioeconomic stratification may have spread due to its effects on the demography of small groups—i.e. by demic diffusion—rather than cultural adoption. [...] In variable environments, stratified groups migrate more and are less likely to go extinct than egalitarian…

I lie that, but I think the article implies that unequal societies encourage migration:

> unequal sharing of scarce resources created more incentive to migrate in search of additional resources.

In other words, societies where some have less encourage the lesser havers to move in search of better opportunities. So you are right, with the added benefit that even in other times, the lesser are encouraged to migrate and spread.

Post reply on HN