Current hierarchy (or extreme human social stratification) began in earnest at the end of Sumer/beginning of Babylon civilizations when scattered human "cities" began to grow larger from more abundance of food thanks to the advancement of agriculture. It's when modern warfare because of resource wars/greed.
Near Eastern studies was my academic focus, and I took a course on the rise of cities and civilization in the area specifically. You are incorrect.
The Sumerian city states already showed all the signs of hierarchy and kingship. We see stratification in burials almost as soon as cities begin; there are signs of this in the Levant as well. While the differences are not as extreme as they will eventually be, they begin almost immediately.
The Sumerians had kings and lords from almost the beginning, whether they were called kings or not (and there is a strong textual opposition to referring to them as kings in this period, but much of that is for societal complexity reasons, and feels paternalistic on the part of some modern scholars).
You may have a point if you go as far back as [Catalhoyuk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk), but they far predate Sumer, and even they have signs of stratification in the size and decoration of houses.
Uhh, isn't the Ubaid period considered the start of the Sumerian civilization (Ubadians were the first in what is known as Sumer), which lasted for thousands of years?!? My point stands (I said EARLY Sumer, did I not?)- stratification started when agriculture became more developed and society became less communal because of it, and THIS where the root of inequality must be studied, not in the middle ages 6,000 years AFTER the fact.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/11/lentils-origins-of-social-inequality
agricultural societies likely started as egalitarian in nature. hierarchical societies probably stem as a response to a complex mix of climate change, pastoralism and climate refugees coming together with new technologies and new ways of looking at the world that came about from urbanism and far reaching trade routes. im not an academic historian though.
Hierarchical societies are compounding with the idea of permanent settlement and permanent wealth. For nomads, all your real property, your real wealth, was what you could carry with you, and the skills you had. Once agriculture began, and settled living with it, suddenly land became a store of wealth.
Your house was wealth, your land which produced food was wealth. Once you have this, and the ability to pass this wealth on to your children, hierarchy is almost inevitable unless a group works against it intentionally. Whoever has power, even a little, can consolidate more of it, and then pass that power down to their children through inherited wealth. Thus stratification begins.
Ubaid was. And guess what, there are already signs of emergent social stratification in the Ubaid period, not the Babylonian. Hierarchy grew with cities; we don't have any real solid evidence of how (due to the lack of written records), but the arhcaeological evidence is fairly clear on this point. The disparities in dwelling sizes and burial goods point to hierarchies.
Yes, this is where they should be studied, and there are people who do so (Gil Stein is one). That said, any attempt to study the culture of the earliest Sumerian city states is limited because material culture is all we have.
Again, if you want to see egalitarianism at the start of settled agriculture, you would need to go back to Catahoyuk, back in the neolithic. Sumerians already had social hierarchies.
>The assertion that"corruption exists because society tolerates it," emanates from a deep contemplation of collective responsibility. Certain opponents, perhaps echoing sentiments of thinkers like Thomas Hobbes in his 'Leviathan', and driven more by entrenched traditional views than rigorous objective scrutiny, advocate an inherent human bent towards competition, often drawing upon selective, sometimes Eurocentric, historical interpretations.
It's conservatives. That's corruption: "rules for thee, but not for me". In the legal sense, if there are no privileges, this works at the level of applying the law. So while laws are somewhat fixed, the interpretation and application of laws are is dynamic, contextual, opportunistic. I can say this from experience in my part of Eastern Europe, this is how corruption works at the petty level: people know someone and influence *someone* in a position of power to bend the rules. It's cheating. And, on the side of the "enforcers", this is manifested as how they apply attention, since universal attention is rarely possible. In essence, they make the law by deciding when to activate or deactivate the law. When these two people combine, you get a nullification of rights/laws because they bypass them. The social power of "knowing someone" and the opportunism of "receiving bribes" are the platforms for cheating.
That's why it's not enough to end capitalism or class society.
On the other side of the mirror though, speaking from my experience in southern europe, if the legislation was actually enforced, day to day life would be impossibe since so much of society now rests on rule bending and "corruption".
It is far easier to see what is wrong, than what is right, isn't it? It is clearly faulty to to see the world through an ideological filter as it distorts, and indeed, what are the chances of your ideology being correct? It seems arrogant to suppose it is. But what is the correct way to see things? Quite a question.
,
My view is obviously influenced by the person I am, the culture I'm embedded in and the ideas I've been exposed to, but I try to aim for objectivity in my subjectivity, as an ideal. A lot of people try to claim objectivity, but I would say it is an ongoing process of self analysis and analysis of the world to try for that objectivity, as opposed to the thing itself that is important. To claim objectivity, would not seem to be justified in the circumstances I.e the nature of humanity and the universe, but a good goal.
To claim even that much, is perhaps too much. But people generally do claim too much, which is what started this conversation.
How many people have died and been killed in the defense of these systems only for them to be consumed by them and then become victims of their collapse?
In 100 years people will ask why the world stumbled blindly into this disaster just so stock values could keep going up.
It's something like world war 1 I guess. Already in the final decades of the 19th century people were having an ominous feeling that disaster and death on an unprecedented scale approached. Later they even wrote that the coming huge war on europe was "inevitable", it was just hard to predict when it would actually explode.
Typical Anarchist drivel.
Those who don't understand the origins, the the rise and development of a thing, understand nothing about it. And so for the Anarchists and both "hierarchy" and the State.
For those interested in serious study, I recommend The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and The State. The beginnings of modern society lie not in previous States, but in the primitive communistic societies, and their social organization.
I bet to differ.
Anarchy is the foundation to human organization, and so its analysis is ever more needed in precisely to understand where what your premise alluded to as fundamental character of the history gone wrong, because whether one’s accept the analysis or not, the future of social organizational fundamentals will be borrowed of anarchic principles.
Secondly
>Those who don't understand the origins, the the rise and development of a thing, understand nothing about it.
Quite extraordinary stance, I find.
Thirdly, the recommended resources are of utter importance. We yet to see if the writer will base the subsequent essays on the noted material. I have faith.
I would further disagree with abrupt analysis on an ontology that has a continuum. No certain point in human history, changed radically and rapidly the cognitive structure of individuals and thus of the societal gestalt which made current society be different from ancestorial methods of organization and development.
The referenced material is not sufficient enough to understand human psyche which influences social organization; never mind that there are predicated on materialistic assumption.
>Anarchy is the foundation to human organization, and so its analysis is ever more needed in precisely to understand where what your premise alluded to as fundamental character of the history gone wrong, because whether one’s accept the analysis or not, the future of social organizational fundamentals will be borrowed of anarchic principles.
The foundation of human organization is the concrete, material ways they live and produce the material conditions of their existence.
Even your nitwit Graeber directly demonstrates this in showing how early human societies differed in their social structure corresponding to what form of production they were engaged in in a given season.
Secondly, you would be completely mistaken about the future being Anarchistic. At most, it will share the same degree of Anarchism as early human society (that being that the fundamental conditions for class distinction, which is the basis of your "hierarchy" simply won't exist.)
It will be brought about not by some deliberate choice, some fanciful ideal the Anarchist works towards, but simply because it is the natural and organic consequence of the class struggle. The majority class, for the first time, has become revolutionary, and as a result it will produce no new classes in pursuit of its class aims.
History proceeds exactly as it has, since the beginning of real history, as ends ultimately where it began. Class society began, exists, and will inevitably end; not because the Anarchists have ended it, but simply because all things end. All contradictions inevitably resolve.
Third, while you can dress your language up as well as you please, you've clearly no real grasp of Engles. While Origin of the Family does not deal with cognition, it's a subject the Marxists have tackled, both in scope of the individual and of society..
Moreover, while you are correct that the Idea certainly influences human social organization (as Engles actually demonstrates in Origin of the Family), you are entirely wrong in your implications that it exists apart from the material world. In essence, you are arguing for a "soul" of sorts (something perfectly in keeping with the Anarchists Idealism), and ultimately must fall back on *creatio ex nihilo*
Just as Kropotkin is forced to ignore the existence of the State in Europe prior to the middle ages to credulously present his theories, the Anarchists are forced to ignore the material basis of our own selves to shoehorn in their magical notions about "the human psyche".
The following submission statement was provided by /u/conscsness:
---
The article discusses the profound societal shifts that have occurred over the past century, from the remnants of feudalism to the rise of modernity influenced by The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. It examines the emergence of new forms of imperial dominance, even as the world grows more interconnected through globalization. Drawing on historical examples, the piece elaborates on how various forms of hierarchical authority, even those that aren't directly feudal in nature, can trace their roots to past empires, highlighting the deep-seated human propensity for domination and control. The article further delves into the issues caused by the current political climate, where emotional rhetoric often overshadows reason, leading to propaganda-driven narratives. It touches upon the dangers of unchecked capitalism, especially in its tendency to maintain and further hierarchies, while pondering the potential future outcomes for society. There's a discourse on the importance of understanding one's place in historical context, as it aids in personal introspection and societal understanding. The piece concludes with a contemplation on the cyclical nature of hierarchical systems, questioning whether a new enlightenment era is on the horizon and emphasizing the need for self-awareness and critical thinking.
The author posted that further explication will follow. Curious, I, if they will reference Joseph Tainter' and Cotton's work.
Connection to collapse. I find the article suggests that throughout history, the dominance of hierarchical systems, whether feudal, colonial, or capitalist, has led to divisions, inequalities, and potential societal collapse. The unchecked ascent of these systems often results in power imbalances, promoting a few at the expense of many. Furthermore, the manipulation of public perception through propaganda and emotional rhetoric, especially in the absence of rational education, can erode the foundations of a cohesive society. It further hints at the potential dangers of unchecked capitalism and the ongoing neglect of humanity's deep-rooted tendencies towards domination. This persistent trend of hierarchy, combined with rapid technological advancements without the accompanying societal wisdom, places society at a crossroads. One path might lead to decay, with the environment and societal structures deteriorating, while another offers a more cooperative and harmonious future. Without vigilance, introspection, and active efforts to promote egalitarianism and cooperation, society might lean towards the former, risking its eventual collapse.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/15lyvx8/egalitarian_echoes_navigating_humanitys/jvdhpvo/
The article discusses the profound societal shifts that have occurred over the past century, from the remnants of feudalism to the rise of modernity influenced by The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. It examines the emergence of new forms of imperial dominance, even as the world grows more interconnected through globalization. Drawing on historical examples, the piece elaborates on how various forms of hierarchical authority, even those that aren't directly feudal in nature, can trace their roots to past empires, highlighting the deep-seated human propensity for domination and control. The article further delves into the issues caused by the current political climate, where emotional rhetoric often overshadows reason, leading to propaganda-driven narratives. It touches upon the dangers of unchecked capitalism, especially in its tendency to maintain and further hierarchies, while pondering the potential future outcomes for society. There's a discourse on the importance of understanding one's place in historical context, as it aids in personal introspection and societal understanding. The piece concludes with a contemplation on the cyclical nature of hierarchical systems, questioning whether a new enlightenment era is on the horizon and emphasizing the need for self-awareness and critical thinking.
The author posted that further explication will follow. Curious, I, if they will reference Joseph Tainter' and Cotton's work.
Connection to collapse. I find the article suggests that throughout history, the dominance of hierarchical systems, whether feudal, colonial, or capitalist, has led to divisions, inequalities, and potential societal collapse. The unchecked ascent of these systems often results in power imbalances, promoting a few at the expense of many. Furthermore, the manipulation of public perception through propaganda and emotional rhetoric, especially in the absence of rational education, can erode the foundations of a cohesive society. It further hints at the potential dangers of unchecked capitalism and the ongoing neglect of humanity's deep-rooted tendencies towards domination. This persistent trend of hierarchy, combined with rapid technological advancements without the accompanying societal wisdom, places society at a crossroads. One path might lead to decay, with the environment and societal structures deteriorating, while another offers a more cooperative and harmonious future. Without vigilance, introspection, and active efforts to promote egalitarianism and cooperation, society might lean towards the former, risking its eventual collapse.
21 Comments
Visual_Ad_3840@reddit
E_G_Never@reddit
Visual_Ad_3840@reddit
Zestyclose-Ad-9420@reddit
E_G_Never@reddit
E_G_Never@reddit
dumnezero@reddit
Zestyclose-Ad-9420@reddit
dumnezero@reddit
frodosdream@reddit
cassein@reddit
conscsness@reddit (OP)
cassein@reddit
NolanR27@reddit
tombdweller@reddit
ChefGoneRed@reddit
conscsness@reddit (OP)
ChefGoneRed@reddit
Inner_Association911@reddit
StatementBot@reddit
conscsness@reddit (OP)