Did the formation of the agricultural revolution necessitate the formation of heavy social stratification in a society? Did you always need the(often more numerous) lower class or actual slaves proving all the slave labor to create the surplus while wealth concentrated to certain groups of individuals only?
I always look to the cradle of civilization for evidence of slaves. Ancient Egyptian pyramids are evidence of centuries of treating our own proletariat like complete shit.
>>525876
Social surplus produces class societies, even in gatherer/hunter, fisher, horticultural or herder societies.
Agriculture amplifies this by vastly expanding the productive class and through protein differentiation (military capacity) between the gens/tribes.
However, social surplus is also indicative that post-scarcity has been achieved, which makes the achievement of a post-class society a matter of capacity for human organisation. Sadly, prior to capitalism, no class possessed a culture that was an-ideological because every class had a hypostatised property form within it's own preferred relations of production.
So since about 1790, no we haven't needed a lower class providing all the labour while wealth has concentrated in a certain class only.
>>525876
Fuck no, all you have to do is look at the nations in western Washington to see that.
>>525889
Yes but I specified between heavy stratification verses that guy who has the biggest harem because he's very good at hunting and fighting.
>>525876
I would say that it didn't necessitate it, but it certainly facilitated it, and not just in the sense of it being equally likely to happen or not, but heavily weighting the likely outcome towards some form of social stratification (I'm stating this with no moral opinion on it).
>>525957
>Yes but I specified between heavy stratification verses that guy who has the biggest harem because he's very good at hunting and fighting.
You think Potlatch isn't a classed behaviour?
>>525889
As to your other points(forgot about that), I meant was it inevitable that it would happen at all?
Also can someone explain how it could every be physically possible for post scarcity to occur, especially accompanied with a surplus?
>>525972
>Also can someone explain how it could every be physically possible for post scarcity to occur, especially accompanied with a surplus?
"Surplus" means that the total social product isn't being consumed. This means that any scarcity is artificial.
>>525969
Didn't the behavior vary between different tribes and times though? It also had to do with giving large gifts in many cases. Anyway, I wasn't refuting any king stratification, I just mean large ones.
>>526042
I'm sure it did. Human behaviour varies.
Class society is a fucking mess, but we need to remember that the limits of consciousness are the horizons of the material relations of those classes. The material potential of post-scarcity has never (yet) been socially realised.
