- village A invades village B for food (the fact that out-of-touch aristocrats occasionally send an army of unwilling soldiers at the gates of A is another possible reason)
- village B consumes more food than village A, simply because aristocrats like to eat, so it starves first
- in village B, servants die of starvation, the ruling class is incompetent to feed itself
- villagers of village B simply walk by foot into village A, leaving their oppressors to care for themselves
- there's a revolution in village B, making it, effectively, a village A2 (possible catalyst: shortage of food)
in other words, i don't think that's why. however, i haven't read the article, so maybe their arguments are more convincing than yours.
The idea that social inequality automatically involves an incompetent, idle class of aristocrats giving orders to wretched underlings, who do all the work, is a straw man. All that's required, for this model at least, is an order of precedence in the distribution of food at harvest time (an agricultural equivalent of preferred stock, if you will). This is irrespective of how the food was produced, of the relative size of portions, and of whether anyone takes commands from someone else. A very simple example of such social stratification would be e.g. a "pecking order".
my point is that unequal distribution of food in case of a natural disaster is not an absolute factor, it's only one of the possible scenarios that affect the preservation of a system.
Yes of course there are lots of other factors, and history itself is a series of accidents. The point of this paper is that, all else being equal, a stratification in the distribution of food seems to improve the resilience of agricultural societies.
The reason this may be important, in my view, is that it offers a model for what may have happened in the Ubaid period, when previously egalitarian agricultural societies became gradually more stratified, and finally transitioned into the beginnings of our civilization.
The traditional, Marxist explanation is that agriculture generated a production surplus, which was illegitimately seized by upstart elites. This paper's alternative model indicates incipiently hierarchical societies might actually have had a survival advantage, under the conditions of the period.
Perhaps I should read the paper to see if they're generalizing or not, but I'm too lazy to; if it was a wikipedia page - perhaps I would.
If we're talking hierarchy generally rather than (more) distinct classes - which are not prone to (positive) change - I'd concur that it is more successful in general. For the reason of being able to emphasize the collective needs I suppose, though a question of mapping talent to positions remains (and unmapping).
The traditional, Marxist, explanation does not contradict this paper's model. If the traditional explanation is true, and I don't see why it couldn't be, this paper merely adds to it "and that gave the society as a whole a survival advantage".
- village A invades village B for food (the fact that out-of-touch aristocrats occasionally send an army of unwilling soldiers at the gates of A is another possible reason)
- village B consumes more food than village A, simply because aristocrats like to eat, so it starves first
- in village B, servants die of starvation, the ruling class is incompetent to feed itself
- villagers of village B simply walk by foot into village A, leaving their oppressors to care for themselves
- there's a revolution in village B, making it, effectively, a village A2 (possible catalyst: shortage of food)
in other words, i don't think that's why. however, i haven't read the article, so maybe their arguments are more convincing than yours.