22
How exactly did class society come to be? (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 month ago* by to c/theory@hexbear.net
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I understand the general Marxist theory about why class society arose, there was surplus production and that lead to the institution of private property and the rest follows.

All of that makes sense on a high level but what exactly happened on an individual human level? Conceivably those early civilizations could have elected to go for a more equitable and democratic distribution of the surplus value even if the result would probably not be 100% equitable and would result in some poverty due to material constraints at the time. How do you explain the first appearance of private property and class society on an individual level without delving into some evopsych nonsense about evolutionary instincts or whatever?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 1 month ago (6 children)

The answers are great, but they also miss the decisive influence of war. War loot made proto-aristocracy richer and allowed them to fund better armor and weapons, which both made them more successful in external wars and made them more efficient in imposing their will internally; war pressured nearby societies to develop state instutions from informal relationship networks and eliminated those societies that clinged to a more equitable organization.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    yeah like once you get armor with swords, guys with sticks suddenly look like walking lootboxes usufruct yet not utilized, anarchists point to this as primary contradiction persisting through all manner of societies. i haven't seen literature though which came first - somebody deciding to protect against covetous neighbors first or getting armed guys to raid tribes nearby first

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    Unarmored men were still able to fight, just less effectively and heavy infantry actually started really dominating the field only by ~300 BC (in Europe), and this significantly accelerated the process of state expansion.

    i haven't seen literature though which came first - somebody deciding to protect against covetous neighbors first or getting armed guys to raid tribes nearby first

    Probably was a classic case of coevolution with small advances on each stage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    obviously, hunting equipment was probably used since ice age to raid nearby tribes for slaves/women/tribute, but the bronze sword is very different from spears in purpose, but one can imagine protection requires at least 3 guys outfitted with swords (possibly rotating them), so from settlement of 50 you have to appropriate at least 10% surplus to supply them, while raiding requires at least 5-10, but they can be part-time. so one sword doesn't do anything for you in both cases, and protection seem much more obviously extractive due to time constrains

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The primary armament was typically spear, bow/sling and shield. Swords were really expensive and limited to aristocracy.

    And also non-state or proto-state societies had absolutely insane levels of mobilization at war. Typically they could sent in the field 20-25% of total population. This is almost every adult man, and some societies (like Scythians) armed women too. The most mobilization-intensive ancient state society (Rome) had peak mobilization level of roughly 6-8% of total population during the Second Punic War, and most of the rest could barely achieve 1-2% (Carthage and Greek poleis could achieve something around 3-4%, although it is more of a guesstimate than hard numbers).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    counting or not counting slave population kiryu-stare damn, their harvests must be really powerful to support such levels of mobilization compared to pitiful battles of medieval england.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    This is counting the slave population (it actually was a pretty small fraction in most societies, except those powerful enough to have a strong slave influx from war).

    The harvests were shitty. This level of mobilization was balanced by being really short-term, which was one of the weaknesses of non-state societies, because when war was long enough, militias of smaller settlements often just left the main army and went home for agricultural work. So even if they managed to beat back the Roman Army, Rome often won just by maintaining the pressure, until non-state armies (if you can apply the term) started dwindling, then forced the battle on favourable conditions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent