its scary, but is it true?

[uth1984]

As socialist, we implicitly oppose all forms of inequality, but many historians now claim that inequality is the basis of all human civilisation. It's an uncomfortable fact, but -- apparently -- fact all the same. Basically, it was by one group gaining more money that they were able to spend on "un-nessisery" things. Also, as one group gained more power than another, they were able to rule. Ergo, the transition from primitive, pre-historic societies into modern-ish ones is linked inexorably with oppression.

Maybe Marx was right when he said that "the history of all hitherto human societies is the history of class struggle"

[Conghaileach]

Do you have an article on it? I'd like to see how the historians try to prove their point.

How, for instance, do they explain where the communal tribes, who formed the first "societies" in many countries, fit into their basis of civilisation?

[stick person]

When the word "civilization" is used, it is a short-hand for sedentary, agriculturally-dependent, complex societies. Because of the level of complexities in such societies (which includes most of the ones anyone here would be familiar with), and because of the labor-intensive nature of their economies, social inequality was a necessity. The initial division of labor and imbalance of status was along gender lines in relatively simple societies. All subsequent inequality rests on inequality between the sexes.

The historians who point out the inequalities in human civilization, and who make the case that civilization rests on inequality aren't saying anything new, nor are they supporting (necessarily) a continuation of inequality. What they *are* doing is pointing out that there would be no Jeffersons without the Hemmings.

Personally, I think that continued technological improvement will allow for the end of necessary inequality. A machine is a perfect slave--it does not complain, it works at maximum until it dies, and it has no learning curve. The gun equalizes power, and the computer equalizes knowledge. Look at how those whose secure status depends on inequality attempt to keep both machines out of the hands of the masses.

[Supermodel]

I think what helps greatly is to take the model you described, of certain individuals constantly rising to the top of (economic) society, and put in into motion.

You see, dynamically, it frequently happens that the rich of one generation never manage to keep the riches in thier family for very long.

In ancient communities (and some current ones), laws and rules were put in place to perpetuate the ruling classes.

Today, with estate taxes and capital gains taxes, the government has means of limiting the growth of wealth generation after generation. Also the dispersion of wealth among generations of cousins disperses the wealth. This "family tree" method of breaking up the wealth is a powerful force as more generations are born.

You would be surprised how many working folks today claim some distant, wealthy relative. This is the mechanism by which society evens out, but only over several generations.

[Tchort]

Aristocracy has beene the basis of order and thus government in every nations history. Inequality is natural.

[Lefty]

is it nature or nurture? is it society that makes it human nature to have a leader, or is it just something in our collective subconsious?

[sickdiscobiscuit]

How can anyone classify civilization? civilization began when people stayed in groups, how is nomadic civilizations not civilized?! the strongest ruled, because the people chose them to. that's how chiefs were chosen in tribes and how nomadic chieftans were also. isn't this more civilized than today's "civilized" societies?