Throughout much of recorded human history there were almost no complaints about inequality even though inequality was much worse then.
Really? Were peasant revolts not a thing that happened? Or were peasant revolts not caused by perceptions of inequality (economic, social, political, or other)?
It’s really noteworthy that the end of the severe wealth disparities of the medieval era in Western Europe have led to a dramatic decrease in peasant revolts.
Peasant revolts were actually pretty rare. The only reason it seems otherwise, is that lists like the one you linked to compress centuries of the history of all of Europe into a few lines.
Also, like Desrtopa said until the 17th century, if not later, peasants revolts were about specific grievances rather than an abstract concept of inequality.
When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.
John Ball (priest), in a sermon during the 1381 Peasant’s Revolt. Like fubarobfusco says elsewhere in the thread, there were probably similar memes behind other similar revolts, that were suppressed and didn’t survive into recorded history. (This one did because of the huge “memetic fitness” of the rhyming question at the start; I read it many years ago, and remembered it well enough to Google it and find the source now.)
Also, like Desrtopa said until the 17th century, if not later, peasants revolts were about specific grievances rather than an abstract concept of inequality.
Prior to the Enlightenment and secularism, “the abstract concept of inequality” was described as a religious concept rather than a secular one; and was a common feature of medieval “heresies”.
peasants revolts were about specific grievances rather than an abstract concept of inequality.
What exactly is the difference? I want equality, and I have a list of specific changes (grievances, if you prefer) that I think would create equality.
Giving the peasants what they wanted would have reduced inequality. I assume the peasants leaders were smart enough to notice that fact.
Peasant revolts were actually pretty rare.
For every revolt large enough to actually make it on to a list like that (about one every generation), how many smaller, historically unimportant defiant acts in favor of equality occurred. The fact that the local elite didn’t keep detailed records doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.
In parallel, major slave revolts in continental North America also happened about once every generation (it’s hard to compare to peasant revolts because the historical record is better). Surely that isn’t evidence that the slave population didn’t express (or desire to express) complaints about inequality when they weren’t engaged in armed uprisings.
In parallel, major slave revolts in continental North America also happened about once every generation (it’s hard to compare to peasant revolts because the historical record is better).
For a striking contrast with North American slavery, consider the case of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome, where they where, despite the occasional rebellion, sufficiently confident in how much control they had over their slaves to use them as cops and prison guards.
The Greeks and Romans didn’t practice chattel slavery (with serious legal and social limitations on manumission). So it’s not surprising that they were able to trust slaves to a degree unthinkable in the Antebellum South.
When I’ve heard experts talk about about the differences between ancient slavery and antebellum slavery, “chattel slavery” was used exclusively to refer to the latter—which was also described as harsher (measured by the difference between slave and typical underclass).
But I can’t find any cites to support my previous understanding of the difference between ancient and antebellum slavery. Adjusting beliefs accordingly.
I’m falsifying John’s claim that most inter-factional conflict focusing on issues of inequality is a historical universal.
Giving the peasants what they wanted would have reduced inequality. I assume the peasants leaders were smart enough to notice that fact.
That fact only seems as salient as it does because we live in a culture that places high value on equality. For another perspective look at how Confucianism is able to combine a justification for peasant revolts under some circumstances with support for a strong social hierarchy.
Surely that isn’t evidence that the slave population didn’t express (or desire to express) complaints about inequality when they weren’t engaged in armed uprisings.
The difference is that the slaves lived in a culture where “all men are created equal” was already an established meme.
He claims it is a universal now—but I don’t see the claim that it was a historical universal.
Also, your response does not explain the distinction I’m asking about—I mostly understood the general context of why you were attempting a distinction, but I’m still confused by the disconnect you seem to be drawing between object level expressions like “I’m poor, you caused it, grr” and abstract concern with inequality.
He claims it is a universal now—but I don’t see the claim that it was a historical universal.
He attempts to provide an ev-psych explanation, which makes no sense unless it’s a historical universal or near universal.
Also, your response does not explain the distinction I’m asking about—I mostly understood the general context of why you were attempting a distinction, but I’m still confused by the disconnect you seem to be drawing between object level expressions like “I’m poor, you caused it, grr” and abstract concern with inequality.
It’s not “I’m poor, you caused it, grr”, it’s “I don’t have enough food/money/free time [to live the lifestyle I’m accustomed to], you’re causing it, grr”. The peasant doesn’t have a problem with the lord having more and better food than he does any more than he has a problem with birds being able to fly and him not. The problem is that he’s not getting the amount of food he feels he’s entitled to.
I think one could make a case that peasant revolts were generally more about fighting specific cases of victimization; being overworked, overtaxed, underfed, etc. rather than trying to obtain equal social status to the nobility. So in that case peasant revolts would be more like worker’s union strikes.
I don’t consider myself informed enough to take a stand on either position; the French and Russian revolutions at least certainly were strongly motivated by a drive to equalize social status.
Regardless of the particular cause (political, economic, social, etc), the existence of peasant revolts falsifies the assertion that “there were almost no complaints about inequality” before the modern era (which I’ll broadly define to stretch back to the 1700s or late 1600s if Eugine thinks it helps his case).
Not if you don’t take peasant revolts as complaints about inequality. Workers may go on strike without agitating for equal status with their bosses.
I’m not standing by the position that they aren’t, but I don’t think that you’ve really established that their occurrence qualifies as a refutation either.
(As an aside, I’m going to note that I’m not the one who’s downvoted your comments.)
At this high level of abstraction, is there more to a peasant revolt than “I’m poor, you nobles caused it, grr”?
Sure, the proximate cause of any particular rebellion will be much more nuanced than that, but I sincerely think that the abstraction is essentially accurate. If that abstraction is accurate, aren’t peasant revolts seeking less inequality. You don’t have to demand identical circumstances to in order to be pro-equality (as the label is used), do you?
In short, a labor strike with the explicit goal of reducing but not eliminating the disparity in wages between management and workers seems reasonable to call “pro-equality” as that political label is normally used.
Would you draw a distinction between a goal or reducing disparity in wages, and a goal of raising wages for the underpaid? Obviously, unless you also increase wages for the managers, this will reduce disparity, but I don’t think it follows that reducing disparity is the motive. If the employers could increase benefits for the workers while at the same time increasing benefits for managers (in practice they generally can’t,) then workers in an equality-motivated strike would reject that solution, whereas workers striking purely out of self interest or self preservation would not.
I think the rhetoric of reducing inequality is merely an attempt to communicate the shared self-interest of the members. People just aren’t used to being even the slightest bit analytical about their lives, so there’s very little pressure to improve the coherent of the rhetoric that leads to the alliance building before edge cases actually occur (plus: mindkiller).
As a lawyer, I’m well aware of spite as a motivation for (less than optimal) decisions, but I think rejection of a plan that calls for a larger share of a bigger pie is not optimal, even measured by the judgment of an anti-inequality activist. In the (more common) bigger piece of pie, smaller share of pie, bigger overall pie offer, anti-equality strongly suggests rejection, but that’s not usually what happens in the real world, regardless of the pre-deal rhetoric.
I think the rhetoric of reducing inequality is merely an attempt to communicate the shared self-interest of the members.
This is not the only rhetoric that can do this job and historically wasn’t the only one (or even the most common one used). You may want to look into the works of Confucius and the theory of the mandate of heaven for an example of an alternate theory of social organization and rebellion.
Really? Were peasant revolts not a thing that happened? Or were peasant revolts not caused by perceptions of inequality (economic, social, political, or other)?
It’s really noteworthy that the end of the severe wealth disparities of the medieval era in Western Europe have led to a dramatic decrease in peasant revolts.
Peasant revolts were actually pretty rare. The only reason it seems otherwise, is that lists like the one you linked to compress centuries of the history of all of Europe into a few lines.
Also, like Desrtopa said until the 17th century, if not later, peasants revolts were about specific grievances rather than an abstract concept of inequality.
John Ball (priest), in a sermon during the 1381 Peasant’s Revolt. Like fubarobfusco says elsewhere in the thread, there were probably similar memes behind other similar revolts, that were suppressed and didn’t survive into recorded history. (This one did because of the huge “memetic fitness” of the rhyming question at the start; I read it many years ago, and remembered it well enough to Google it and find the source now.)
Interesting, it appears I misremembered when that rebellion occurred by a couple centuries. Updating accordingly.
Prior to the Enlightenment and secularism, “the abstract concept of inequality” was described as a religious concept rather than a secular one; and was a common feature of medieval “heresies”.
What exactly is the difference? I want equality, and I have a list of specific changes (grievances, if you prefer) that I think would create equality.
Giving the peasants what they wanted would have reduced inequality. I assume the peasants leaders were smart enough to notice that fact.
For every revolt large enough to actually make it on to a list like that (about one every generation), how many smaller, historically unimportant defiant acts in favor of equality occurred. The fact that the local elite didn’t keep detailed records doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.
In parallel, major slave revolts in continental North America also happened about once every generation (it’s hard to compare to peasant revolts because the historical record is better). Surely that isn’t evidence that the slave population didn’t express (or desire to express) complaints about inequality when they weren’t engaged in armed uprisings.
For a striking contrast with North American slavery, consider the case of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome, where they where, despite the occasional rebellion, sufficiently confident in how much control they had over their slaves to use them as cops and prison guards.
The Greeks and Romans didn’t practice chattel slavery (with serious legal and social limitations on manumission). So it’s not surprising that they were able to trust slaves to a degree unthinkable in the Antebellum South.
What definition of “chattel slavery” are you using? By the standard definition (slaves can be bought and sold) the Greek and Roman practice qualifies.
Apparently, a really stupid definition.
When I’ve heard experts talk about about the differences between ancient slavery and antebellum slavery, “chattel slavery” was used exclusively to refer to the latter—which was also described as harsher (measured by the difference between slave and typical underclass).
But I can’t find any cites to support my previous understanding of the difference between ancient and antebellum slavery. Adjusting beliefs accordingly.
I’m falsifying John’s claim that most inter-factional conflict focusing on issues of inequality is a historical universal.
That fact only seems as salient as it does because we live in a culture that places high value on equality. For another perspective look at how Confucianism is able to combine a justification for peasant revolts under some circumstances with support for a strong social hierarchy.
The difference is that the slaves lived in a culture where “all men are created equal” was already an established meme.
He claims it is a universal now—but I don’t see the claim that it was a historical universal.
Also, your response does not explain the distinction I’m asking about—I mostly understood the general context of why you were attempting a distinction, but I’m still confused by the disconnect you seem to be drawing between object level expressions like “I’m poor, you caused it, grr” and abstract concern with inequality.
He attempts to provide an ev-psych explanation, which makes no sense unless it’s a historical universal or near universal.
It’s not “I’m poor, you caused it, grr”, it’s “I don’t have enough food/money/free time [to live the lifestyle I’m accustomed to], you’re causing it, grr”. The peasant doesn’t have a problem with the lord having more and better food than he does any more than he has a problem with birds being able to fly and him not. The problem is that he’s not getting the amount of food he feels he’s entitled to.
“accustomed to” and “entitled to” don’t really have the same meaning when the existence of an anti-inequality motive is at issue.
But I agree that there is a disconnect between the ev-psych invocation and the lack of any other claim of universality.
My point is that this distinction is extremely modern.
Do you have an accessible cite explaining this point?
I think one could make a case that peasant revolts were generally more about fighting specific cases of victimization; being overworked, overtaxed, underfed, etc. rather than trying to obtain equal social status to the nobility. So in that case peasant revolts would be more like worker’s union strikes.
I don’t consider myself informed enough to take a stand on either position; the French and Russian revolutions at least certainly were strongly motivated by a drive to equalize social status.
Regardless of the particular cause (political, economic, social, etc), the existence of peasant revolts falsifies the assertion that “there were almost no complaints about inequality” before the modern era (which I’ll broadly define to stretch back to the 1700s or late 1600s if Eugine thinks it helps his case).
Not if you don’t take peasant revolts as complaints about inequality. Workers may go on strike without agitating for equal status with their bosses.
I’m not standing by the position that they aren’t, but I don’t think that you’ve really established that their occurrence qualifies as a refutation either.
(As an aside, I’m going to note that I’m not the one who’s downvoted your comments.)
At this high level of abstraction, is there more to a peasant revolt than “I’m poor, you nobles caused it, grr”?
Sure, the proximate cause of any particular rebellion will be much more nuanced than that, but I sincerely think that the abstraction is essentially accurate. If that abstraction is accurate, aren’t peasant revolts seeking less inequality. You don’t have to demand identical circumstances to in order to be pro-equality (as the label is used), do you?
In short, a labor strike with the explicit goal of reducing but not eliminating the disparity in wages between management and workers seems reasonable to call “pro-equality” as that political label is normally used.
Would you draw a distinction between a goal or reducing disparity in wages, and a goal of raising wages for the underpaid? Obviously, unless you also increase wages for the managers, this will reduce disparity, but I don’t think it follows that reducing disparity is the motive. If the employers could increase benefits for the workers while at the same time increasing benefits for managers (in practice they generally can’t,) then workers in an equality-motivated strike would reject that solution, whereas workers striking purely out of self interest or self preservation would not.
I think the rhetoric of reducing inequality is merely an attempt to communicate the shared self-interest of the members. People just aren’t used to being even the slightest bit analytical about their lives, so there’s very little pressure to improve the coherent of the rhetoric that leads to the alliance building before edge cases actually occur (plus: mindkiller).
As a lawyer, I’m well aware of spite as a motivation for (less than optimal) decisions, but I think rejection of a plan that calls for a larger share of a bigger pie is not optimal, even measured by the judgment of an anti-inequality activist. In the (more common) bigger piece of pie, smaller share of pie, bigger overall pie offer, anti-equality strongly suggests rejection, but that’s not usually what happens in the real world, regardless of the pre-deal rhetoric.
This is not the only rhetoric that can do this job and historically wasn’t the only one (or even the most common one used). You may want to look into the works of Confucius and the theory of the mandate of heaven for an example of an alternate theory of social organization and rebellion.