Why are sedentary societies almost always unequal?

[Aware]

How is it that since the rise of agriculture, all human societies are unequal, with an elite that remains firmly in control, taking the majority of their society's wealth for themselves? How could "they" succeed for so long? You would think after 1000s of years, things would have changed. Are human beings, on the whole, that stupid? Are the ruling elites really THAT cunning?

[Skyhilist]

Because if you can afford to live a more sedentary lifestyle, then you likely live in the first world. If you live in the first world, you live in a place that the rich also like to make their home. That means that there are going to be very rich people and people who, by comparison, have much less.

Given that though, some of the most unequal countries in terms of distribution of wealth are often not sedentary at all. IIRC Namibia is actually one of the most unequal countries in terms of that.

[Aware]

Because if you can afford to live a more sedentary lifestyle, then you likely live in the first world. If you live in the first world, you live in a place that the rich also like to make their home. That means that there are going to be very rich people and people who, by comparison, have much less.

Given that though, some of the most unequal countries in terms of distribution of wealth are often not sedentary at all. IIRC Namibia is actually one of the most unequal countries in terms of that.
I'm talking about over the entire course of agricultural civilization, not just after the industrial revolution. And not everybody in Namibia is a nomad.

[Skyhilist]

I'm talking about over the entire course of agricultural civilization, not just after the industrial revolution. And not everybody in Namibia is a nomad.

Countries like Namibia aren't exactly "sedentary" by global standards yet still have really bad inequality (like many other similar nations) is my point. Before the industrial revolution I'm not really sure what you mean. What countries were really that sedentary before then?

[DDR]

Division of labour. You toll the soil, you herd the cattle, and we rule because my armed thugs buddies and I say so.

[Aware]

Countries like Namibia aren't exactly "sedentary" by global standards yet still have really bad inequality (like many other similar nations) is my point. Before the industrial revolution I'm not really sure what you mean. What countries were really that sedentary before then?
Most people after the rise of agriculture were sedentary. Sendentary is a lifestyle where you stay in one place. Industrial technology isn't a prerequisite, only agriculture or a very lush environment.

[Aware]

Division of labour. You toll the soil, you herd the cattle, and we rule because my armed thugs buddies and I say so.
Could it really be that simple? For so many thousands of years with NOTHING changing? How can this be? I know that is probably the answer, but still. It's simplicity is aborent.

[DDR]

Could it really be that simple? For so many thousands of years with NOTHING changing? How can this be? I know that is probably the answer, but still. It's simplicity is aborent.

Division of labour creates class systems, class systems produce class struggle, class struggle is the motor of history. So the "theme" has been the same for thousands of years, but it has been a lot of chage, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.

[Skyhilist]

Most people after the rise of agriculture were sedentary. Sendentary is a lifestyle where you stay in one place. Industrial technology isn't a prerequisite, only agriculture or a very lush environment.

It also means somewhat inactive, so I thought you were referring to areas where people didn't have to do as much labor in general and are able to live a suitable life more easily (which on a comparative global scale is the first world). Didn't know you were referring to human patterns of movement, so my mistake I suppose.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Really the change comes about due to surplus value potential with agriculture. Those who worked the best land and got the best harvest could exchange that for the best tools/weapons/slaves to allow them to maintain their hold over the land and if one bad harvest or one enemy raid could lead to such a huge loss of potential wealth then these new land owners guarded their land jealously. Simultaneously, this surplus food provided for esoteric social roles such as priests and, if landowners had the support of priests, this legitimised their position of private owners of land.

This wasn't an instantaneous change but a process that came with thousands of years and improved agricultural techniques and understanding. You should check out the first chapter of Chris Harman's A People's History of the World for an introduction to this.

edit: I misread your initial question, sorry. Suffice to say, as Marx pointed out, the history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of class struggles. We find throughout history periods where the working classes fight against the domination of the ruling classes. It has only really been in contemporary times that members of the working classes have realised their potential coupled with advancing labour-saving technologies, thrown off the shackles of religion and tradition, and strived for a free world without classes.