Introduction
Summary of the Book The Great Leveler by Walter Scheidel Before we proceed, let’s look into a brief overview of the book. Imagine stepping into a world that often grows more divided as it grows more advanced. Throughout thousands of years, humans have crafted technologies, built empires, and designed governments, all in hopes of creating stable societies. Yet, over and over, small groups manage to gather huge wealth, while others live with far less. Strangely, our history shows that equality often improved when tragedy struck—when mighty empires fell, fearsome plagues spread, or angry revolutions erupted. This book takes you on a journey through stories of ancient hunters, medieval farmers, imperial soldiers, rebellious peasants, and modern economists, each holding pieces of a puzzle about why inequality persists. By exploring these patterns, you’ll discover both the grim truth that disasters can flatten social hierarchies, and the hopeful challenge of finding peaceful, lasting methods to bring about a fairer future.
Chapter 1: How Stable Climates and Early Settlements Quietly Planted the Seeds of Deepening Inequality Across Ancient Societies.
When we look back in time, it’s easy to imagine that the earliest human communities lived in simple harmony, sharing what little they had and supporting one another to survive harsh conditions. For a very long time, that was actually true. During the Ice Age, people lived mainly as hunter-gatherers, moving around to find food sources and never settling long enough to accumulate riches. Everyone had roughly the same basic possessions and faced equal struggles. Survival depended on cooperation. But then the world’s climate stabilized around 11,700 years ago, ushering in what scholars call the Holocene. Suddenly, certain areas, especially in regions like the Middle East, became suitable for cultivating crops. People figured out how to grow food more reliably, and that changed everything. Instead of moving all the time, humans started staying put, planting seeds, raising animals, and building permanent homes.
As soon as we stopped constantly roaming and began producing surplus food, life’s patterns were reshaped. With reliable harvests, not everyone needed to hunt or gather. Some individuals grew more successful at managing large fields and storing abundant grains. This gave them a special kind of power, a quiet but growing influence over their neighbors. The control of extra food meant influence over who ate well and who went hungry. Over time, people who were better at organizing labor, managing farmland, or trading certain valuable resources gained an edge. They used their advantages to secure more land, hire or force others to work, and accumulate things that others did not have. The moment agriculture took root, the delicate balance that once existed among roving bands of hunter-gatherers began to tip.
Archaeological evidence shows that this tipping started quite early. For instance, when researchers examine old settlement sites, they find that some ancient houses grew bigger and better equipped than others. Remains of meals show that certain families dined on larger fish, superior grains, or tastier cuts of meat, while others made do with smaller catches. The gap between rich and poor, though not as vast as it would eventually become, began to sprout right after we learned to cultivate fields rather than chase herds. This shift wasn’t abrupt or explosive; it was slow and subtle, but it planted the seeds of a social hierarchy that would bloom into something much more significant.
Surprisingly, even smaller tribal communities weren’t immune. Consider the Chumash tribe, who lived along the California coast between AD 500 and 700. They developed advanced canoes that allowed skilled fishermen to journey far offshore to catch bigger, more valuable fish. Those who controlled these canoes found themselves with leverage over the tribe, becoming gatekeepers to prosperity and safety. Before long, top tribal men dominated spiritual ceremonies, held influence over tribal lands, and were rewarded with gifts from others desperate for protection. This pattern, seen countless times throughout human history, shows that as technology and stability improved our quality of life, it also gave certain individuals an opening to climb a ladder of privilege, leaving others behind.
Chapter 2: From Shared Farmlands to Private Estates: How Early Civilizations Lost Their Egalitarian Edge and Yielded to Concentrated Power.
Thousands of years ago, the idea of one person owning huge amounts of farmland while others owned nothing simply didn’t exist. In the earliest known settled societies, land tended to be shared more equally. Take ancient Sumer, for example, located in what is now modern-day Iraq. Some 5,000 years ago, families generally tended their allotted plots under broad community rules. There were no corporate tycoons, no billionaire landlords. The harvests were split in ways that many considered fair, and community well-being mattered. But as time passed, certain groups—often priests, merchants, or leaders—discovered ways to grab more than their share. They started buying up fields, putting others into their service, and turning what had been communal resources into private property.
This turn toward private ownership created fault lines. For example, in early China thousands of years ago, private land ownership was unheard of. Yet over time, a class of powerful landholders emerged, accumulating territory and deciding who would get to farm it. The same pattern showed up in places like Mesoamerica with the Aztecs and in the Andes with the Incas, where communal traditions eventually gave way to uneven distributions of land. Once some people had locked down more resources than others, social imbalance began to spread like a slow-growing stain. As more land fell into fewer hands, struggling families often had to borrow money or food to survive.
The problem with borrowing was that interest rates and loan conditions were harsh and unforgiving. Families who failed to repay found themselves losing their ancestral lands, slipping into servitude, or even selling themselves into bondage to cover their debts. This meant that a once roughly equal community now had a wealthy upper layer and a lower layer that toiled under their command. In short, property relations became tilted, and a minority held the keys to wealth. Over generations, such imbalances hardened into traditions, customs, and laws, making it more difficult to return to equality.
The result was the birth of an enduring pattern: once land could be taken and guarded by the powerful, new forms of social inequality were locked into place. This wasn’t a sudden revolution; it was more like a creeping transformation fueled by human nature—some people’s desire to outdo others and secure their family’s future prosperity. Over time, this led to a world where a small group controlled resources while the rest were forced to accept whatever was offered. The original fairness that once guided land distribution got swallowed up by greed, ambition, and the cunning of those who knew how to play the system for their own gain.
Chapter 3: When Empires Crumble: How the Fall of the Roman Empire Accidentally Balanced Wealth Gaps in Europe’s Early Societies.
Inequality might seem like a stubborn weed that never stops growing, but history shows that catastrophic events have a strange way of leveling the playing field. In ancient Europe, one of the first clear instances of inequality came to light during the late Roman Empire, between about 200 and 400 CE. Rome had sprawling cities, incredible wealth, and an elite class that stood high above the masses. Yet as the empire struggled under internal pressures, invasions, and economic troubles, it started to fracture. Eventually, political authority collapsed, and with it, the grand structure that funneled wealth and privilege to the top layers of society began to break down.
The fall of Rome didn’t magically make everyone rich, of course, but it stripped many elites of their stability. Cities that had once been centers of aristocratic power faltered. Trade networks crumbled, making it harder for the powerful to accumulate resources. The empire’s sudden inability to maintain its old order meant that wealth could not remain so tightly clustered in just a few hands. Without the old political and social frameworks, a more even spread of resources took shape, if only temporarily. The chaos that followed Rome’s fall allowed smaller communities to emerge with less extreme wealth divisions.
This pattern reveals a grim truth: sometimes, the breakdown of powerful states and institutions wipes away the privileges of the elite, redistributing resources more evenly. Without strong central authorities to enforce laws and maintain class divisions, societies tend to revert toward more balanced arrangements. People who were once crushed under heavy taxes, rents, or social obligations suddenly find a chance to breathe. They can reclaim small plots of land, participate in local trade, and shape new communities less dominated by old aristocracies.
But this was rarely a permanent fix. In time, new powers would arise, new rulers would take the stage, and fresh inequalities would sprout. Still, the fall of Rome shows us a key pattern: the collapse of governments and institutions often reduces inequality, if only because it knocks down the ladders that elites once climbed. This stands as a powerful reminder that while prosperity and order can boost inequality, chaos and collapse can swing the balance the other way, however painfully and briefly. Such historical episodes set the stage for understanding other major shifts that reshaped the wealth divide across continents and centuries.
Chapter 4: The Black Death’s Gruesome Gift: How a Medieval Plague Accidentally Narrowed Social Gaps in Europe.
Imagine living in medieval Europe, a world of booming feudal estates owned by nobles and clergymen who held strict control over the lives of serfs and peasants. Inequality was staggering, with the powerful extracting wealth from the weak at every turn. But then came the Black Death, a horrendous plague that first struck around the mid-1300s and lingered for generations. This disease, spread by fleas on rats, tore through communities, killing millions. It was a tragedy that spared no class, though the poor often suffered terribly. Ironically, the massive reduction in population created a new reality that would lift the lower classes closer to economic balance.
With so many people dead, labor became scarce. Suddenly, the surviving workers could demand higher wages. Landlords, desperate to keep their fields producing, had to offer better conditions and salaries just to persuade people to work. In a grim twist, the terrible loss of life forced the powerful to treat laborers more fairly. Wages rose, and servants could hop from one employer to another, seeking the best deal. The strict divisions that had locked peasants into poverty began to loosen. Supply and demand turned in their favor, reshaping the social order.
This shift didn’t solve every problem, and the plague’s devastation was beyond heartbreaking. But from an economic standpoint, the tragedy created breathing room for those at the bottom. Previously, tight control over land and labor meant that the rich could squeeze the poor with minimal resistance. After the Black Death, the poor had more bargaining power. While the upper classes tried to fight back—passing laws to limit wage increases or tie peasants to the land—these efforts often failed. Nature’s cruel blow to humanity had unexpectedly tilted the balance of power.
Over time, as Europe recovered, new social arrangements emerged. While not perfectly equal, the societies that survived the plague were not quite as rigidly divided as before. The labor shortages and urgent need for workers’ skills improved living conditions for ordinary people in ways that kings, priests, and nobles had never voluntarily done. In a strange way, the most frightening event of the Middle Ages had given common people an unusual opportunity to step up and claim a bigger piece of the economic pie. This story shows that catastrophic events can level deep-rooted inequalities, even if they do so at a horrifying cost.
Chapter 5: Wartime Upheaval in the East: How Imperial Japan’s Defeat in World War II Reduced Social Divides.
Jumping forward centuries to Japan, we find another example of how disaster and conflict can shake a society’s inequality. Before and during World War II, Japan was an expanding empire with a population approaching half a billion people under its influence. The empire stretched from Southeast Asia to distant Pacific islands. Back home, economic and social inequalities were growing. The wealthiest 1% owned a hefty share of the nation’s resources, while the majority labored to get by. Society was structured so that elites enjoyed comfort, influence, and security, while common folk worked hard with few pathways to climb the social ladder.
The war brought unimaginable destruction. Japan fought ferociously, but by 1945 it lay in ruins. Atomic bombs devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. American air raids flattened cities. Millions of soldiers died, and the country’s infrastructure crumbled. The old order that had supported inequality—where elites could thrive behind stable economic walls—no longer stood firmly. The chaos and ruin forced radical changes, including large-scale economic restructuring and land reforms. These reforms, partly guided by the occupying American administration, reduced the concentrated wealth of Japan’s top families.
By transferring land from large owners to peasant farmers at affordable prices, the reforms dismantled a core element of Japan’s inequality. Huge estates owned by a few wealthy landlords were broken up, and small farmers gained more control over their livelihoods. As a result, the wealthiest 1% saw their share of national wealth shrink dramatically. This shift didn’t create a perfect utopia, but it did smooth out some of the sharp edges that had defined pre-war Japanese society. The war’s devastation thus unexpectedly helped narrow the wealth gap.
Japan wasn’t alone in this wartime leveling. Other countries, battered by conflict, saw similar patterns. The turmoil of war destroyed old hierarchies, forced governments to rethink economic policies, and sometimes led to more balanced distributions of land and income. Of course, no one would wish for war just to achieve equality. The human cost is too great. But the Japanese example demonstrates a recurring historical pattern: severe shocks like war can tear down entrenched inequalities in ways that peaceful political processes struggle to achieve. The story of Japan suggests that without radical disruptions, inequalities often remain stubbornly in place.
Chapter 6: Revolutions of Rage: How the Russian Revolution of 1917 Leveled Wealth by Sweeping Away Entire Social Classes.
Inequality does not only shrink when foreign bombs fall or empires collapse. Sometimes, internal revolutions do the job. One stark example is the Russian Revolution of 1917. Before the revolution, Russia was ruled by a Tsar and a cluster of aristocrats who held tight control over vast estates and enormous fortunes. Most ordinary Russians were peasants struggling to get by. The outbreak of World War I fueled discontent. Millions of Russian soldiers died in the trenches, and the war’s heavy taxes and shortages made life miserable for regular citizens. Against this backdrop of frustration and pain, revolutionary ideas took root.
Led by the Bolsheviks under Lenin, revolutionaries toppled the old regime. With staggering swiftness, they rewrote laws and upended the centuries-old social order. The aim was radical: to eliminate private land ownership and ensure that no single class held the reins of wealth. The Land Decree legalized the redistribution of estates from nobles and rich landowners to peasants who had long toiled under them. The new government tried to snuff out the old hierarchy, banishing the power of bankers, aristocrats, and religious leaders who once held sway.
This violent reordering did not come cheaply. The upper classes, stripped of their lands, banks, and businesses, lost everything. Many fled, while others were imprisoned or killed. As brutal as this was, it dramatically reduced wealth inequality. Peasants suddenly possessed the fields they worked. Although the revolution replaced one form of authority with another, it undeniably shook off the old inequalities and leveled the economic playing field, at least for a time. The new rulers might have had their own problems, but the centuries-old elites were effectively dismantled.
The Russian Revolution is a strong reminder that social upheaval can dramatically reshuffle the cards of inequality. When the old structures were torn down, wealth no longer clustered in the same hands. Yet the lesson is complicated: while such revolutions can blast open a locked social order, they often bring violence, suffering, and new forms of political control. Still, the Russian experience shows that sudden, forceful action from within a society can drastically curb inequality, though it may leave other scars in its wake. It’s a pattern that reminds us of the high human cost of leveling wealth through pure force.
Chapter 7: Collapsed States and Unintended Outcomes: How Somalia’s Post-1991 Chaos Offered a Curious Breather from Official Exploitation.
Not all reductions in inequality arise from revolutions or global wars. Sometimes, simply losing a government can scramble the social hierarchy. Somalia provides a striking example. In 1991, after decades of corrupt and oppressive rule under Mohamed Siad Barre, the Somali state disintegrated. Without a central government, the country fragmented into regions run by warlords, clans, and local militias. Many outsiders view Somalia’s collapse as a tragic tale of chaos and anarchy. But the author of The Great Leveler argues that, surprisingly, this collapse may have offered some benefits to ordinary people living under Barre’s oppressive regime.
Before 1991, government elites in Somalia funneled wealth and power into their own pockets. They burdened citizens with excessive taxes and violently suppressed opposition. When the state vanished, regular Somalis no longer faced that heavy-handed exploitation from the top. Yes, they had to deal with warlords and militias, but these groups often demanded less than the old government once had. In strange ways, losing a central authority left a bit more breathing room. Studies showed modest improvements in things like infant mortality rates and access to certain basic goods, though these findings should be taken with caution since reliable data was scarce.
Life after state collapse was far from ideal. There was no sudden wealth for everyone, no surge to prosperity. People continued struggling daily, and violence did not vanish entirely. The difference, however, was that without a central government rigging the system to favor certain elites, no single group could control all resources as thoroughly as before. Power was more dispersed, and while militia rule was harsh, it sometimes demanded less exploitative tribute than the old regime’s taxes and corruption had. This weaker form of exploitation unintentionally narrowed the gap between a privileged few and the struggling majority.
Somalia’s story is uncomfortable, demonstrating that the breakdown of a state can sometimes reduce economic inequality, even if conditions remain extremely rough. The key message here is not that state collapse is a good thing, but that the presence of a government does not always guarantee fairness. Sometimes, losing centralized authority can unexpectedly lessen certain inequalities. Of course, it’s a grim trade-off that no one would idealize. Yet the case of Somalia reminds us that inequality thrives on stable structures, and when those structures fall apart, the old patterns of unequal extraction often crumble too, at least temporarily.
Chapter 8: The Empty Promises of Democracy and the Limitations of Left-Wing Leadership in Closing the Gap.
In modern times, many of us believe that democracy is the cure for inequality. The idea is straightforward: if everyone can vote and choose their leaders, then policies should reflect the will of the majority, improving fairness and bridging wealth gaps. But research shows that democracy on its own doesn’t always reduce inequality. Political freedom allows citizens to express their voices, yet influential players—such as powerful business interests—can capture democratic systems and guide them for their own benefit. Just because a leader is elected doesn’t guarantee they will fight for the common folk.
Studies have looked for patterns connecting democracy and reduced inequality and have come up empty-handed. For decades, social scientists examined democracies worldwide, hoping to find clear links that more democratic processes produce more equal distributions of wealth. Instead, they found that democracy can coexist with high inequality. This is because elections alone don’t ensure that money stops pooling at the top. Wealthy individuals, corporations, and lobbyists can still shape policies through donations, media influence, and backroom deals, leaving ordinary voters with limited real impact on economic reforms.
Similarly, simply electing left-wing governments—those that supposedly champion social welfare—doesn’t necessarily guarantee a great leveling of wealth. Some studies show that under left-leaning parties, the super-rich might lose a tiny fraction of their dominance, but the change is often small. Even well-intentioned leaders face constraints: they must compete in global markets, maintain economic growth, and avoid angering powerful stakeholders. The result is that left-wing administrations often deliver only modest improvements in equality, if any. They do not magically dissolve the top 1%’s grip.
This might sound discouraging, but it forces us to confront the complexity of inequality. Just granting the right to vote or electing leaders who talk about fairness won’t automatically dismantle the structural patterns that let wealth accumulate at the top. It takes far more pressure and more creative solutions. While democratic institutions are certainly better than oppressive regimes in many ways, we must acknowledge that their mere existence can’t promise an equal society. As we reflect on this, it becomes clear that reducing inequality requires more than ballots and slogans. It calls for deep shifts in economic policies and power structures, something not guaranteed by democracy or leftist rhetoric alone.
Chapter 9: Imagining Alternative Paths: Proposed Economic Reforms and Their Uncertain Ability to Close the Inequality Gap.
If history shows that wars, plagues, and revolutions sometimes reduce inequality, are we doomed to rely on disasters to fix our problems? Not necessarily. In the modern world, people have proposed countless peaceful reforms aimed at tackling inequality head-on. For example, the British economist Anthony Atkinson offered a detailed menu of policy changes, including stricter taxation on the wealthy, better minimum wages, universal child benefits, and stronger support for labor unions. These ideas intend to shift some wealth and power away from the well-off and into the hands of those who need it most. Yet there’s a catch: we don’t yet know how effective they’d be in practice.
One big question is affordability. Raising taxes on the rich and providing universal benefits might sound great, but how can countries remain competitive in a globalized economy if they impose heavier burdens on wealth and capital? If businesses find it too expensive to operate in a country that enforces these reforms, they might move their investments elsewhere. Such risks must be weighed, and political leaders hesitate to scare away jobs or capital. This hesitation can water down reforms before they even get started, leaving the fundamental inequality problem barely scratched.
Another issue is uncertainty. Even if we implement Atkinson’s policies—say, boosting child benefits, ensuring everyone gets a decent wage, or tightly regulating financial markets—would we definitely see a significant reduction in the gap between the top and bottom? Economists can make forecasts, but actual outcomes might differ. Some countries, like Sweden, have managed to maintain relatively equal societies, but they also have unique historical, cultural, and political circumstances. Simply copying their policies doesn’t guarantee the same results elsewhere. Without trying, we’ll never know, and leaders fear betting their careers on untested measures.
Despite these challenges, the existence of proposed reforms shows that we aren’t helpless. As societies, we can brainstorm policies that increase fairness without bloodshed or catastrophes. Whether these reforms truly bring about lasting equality remains to be seen, but the conversation itself is crucial. It proves we aren’t locked into a cycle where only massive disasters can rebalance the scales. Instead, we can at least attempt peaceful experiments, measure their results, and keep adjusting until we find better pathways. The next chapter will further consider how, despite uncertainty, it’s worthwhile to keep searching for nonviolent methods to correct the world’s imbalance.
Chapter 10: Learning from Centuries of Struggle: Seeking Nonviolent, Sustainable Ways to Foster a More Equal World.
Throughout human history, equality has often improved after tragedy—be it plagues, wars, revolutions, or state collapses. These extreme events rattled old systems, sometimes flattening old hierarchies. Yet, who wants to rely on catastrophe to ensure fairness? The challenge we face today is finding ways to encourage a more balanced distribution of wealth and power without resorting to such horrors. We must be honest about what has and hasn’t worked. Democracy alone doesn’t guarantee fairness, left-wing governments can’t singlehandedly solve inequality, and top-down economic systems risk stifling freedoms. Still, we shouldn’t give up.
Maybe the key lies in empowering trade unions and local communities to negotiate better working conditions and fairer wages, ensuring that workers have a voice strong enough to stand up to powerful interests. Maybe we need wealth taxes that carefully target those at the very top. Or perhaps we need to reconsider universal basic income policies that ensure everyone’s basic needs are met from childhood onward. Beyond policies, public awareness and cultural values matter. If people start believing that extreme inequality is unacceptable, that shift in public opinion might force policymakers to act.
None of these ideas are guaranteed panaceas. Each proposal comes with potential downsides and opposition. Powerful actors will fight attempts to redistribute wealth. Global market forces will complicate well-meaning reforms. Yet, we must remember that the historical examples of leveling—wars, epidemics, and revolutions—came at a tremendous cost. If we are creative, patient, and determined, perhaps we can learn from the mistakes of the past. Instead of waiting for crisis, we can try to shape policies that gradually steer us toward more balanced societies. Balancing growth and fairness is tricky, but not impossible if we keep searching for solutions.
The greatness of our modern world is that we can look back and learn. We know that inequality stems from structures built over time—unequal property rights, concentrated political power, and legacies of privilege. We also know these structures can be dramatically shaken by catastrophe. Let’s use that knowledge to avoid repeating old cycles. By testing economic reforms, adjusting our approaches based on evidence, and holding leaders accountable, we might slowly reduce inequality. History warns us not to be naïve: it’s not easy to fix these problems. But it also encourages us that, with human ingenuity and perseverance, we might one day achieve a form of leveling that doesn’t arise from violence or plague, but from wisdom and will.
All about the Book
The Great Leveler by Walter Scheidel examines how societal upheavals have reduced inequality throughout history. This thought-provoking book reveals the interplay between violence, calamity, and economic equality, making it essential reading for understanding societal dynamics.
Walter Scheidel is a renowned historian and author, known for his insightful analysis of sociology and economics, particularly the long-term effects of societal disruption on inequality.
Economists, Historians, Sociologists, Policy Analysts, Social Activists
Reading historical literature, Engaging in economic theory discussions, Participating in social equality advocacy, Attending lectures on sociology, Exploring the relationship between history and economics
Income inequality, Social justice, Historical economic patterns, Impact of war and disaster on society
The reduction in inequality was almost always the result of catastrophic events, but the potential for a more equitable future remains.
Garry Kasparov, Malcolm Gladwell, Joseph Stiglitz
Financial Times Business Book of the Year, Herbert Hoover Book Award, American Historical Association’s James A. Rawley Prize
1. How does inequality affect societies throughout history? #2. Can catastrophic events reduce wealth disparities effectively? #3. What role do wars play in leveling economic status? #4. How have pandemics influenced wealth inequalities globally? #5. Do political revolutions significantly alter social hierarchies? #6. What patterns emerge from historical inequality and leveling? #7. Are economic crises a catalyst for reducing inequality? #8. How does taxation impact wealth distribution over time? #9. Can we learn from past societies’ responses to inequality? #10. What lessons do we gain from ancient civilizations? #11. How do social norms influence wealth distribution practices? #12. In what ways do empires confront inequality challenges? #13. What parallels exist between past and modern inequality? #14. How do natural disasters contribute to economic leveling? #15. What historical examples highlight the consequences of inequality? #16. Is economic inequality always detrimental to societal well-being? #17. How does urbanization affect wealth distribution trends? #18. Can education truly bridge the inequality gap? #19. What future implications arise from historical leveling events? #20. How might globalization impact future wealth disparities?
The Great Leveler, Walter Scheidel, economic inequality, social leveling, history of inequality, wealth distribution, economic history, collapse of societies, political instability, history books, socioeconomic studies, global inequality
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Leveler-Violence-Equality-Worldwide/dp/069116502X
https://audiofire.in/wp-content/uploads/covers/1654.png
https://www.youtube.com/@audiobooksfire
audiofireapplink