A review by nghia
The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century by Walter Scheidel
3.0
Despite the wealth of data, information, and factoids I found *The Great Leveler* a bit unconvincing. Part of that is because I think it bites off more than it can chew: Scheidel makes the claim that his Four Horsemen (war, violent revolution, state collapse, and mass epidemics) are the only things that can affect inequality in any meaningful way. To do that requires two things: first he needs to show that the Four Horsemen *do* affect inequality in a meaningful way. But it also requires a sometimes exhaustive (and exhausting) disproval of other possible causes.
Scheidel's book also has a bit of an identity crisis: at times it is a "history of the Four Horsemen's affect on inequality" and at other times it is trying to convince you of a thesis "the Four Horsemen are the *only* thing with a consistent track record of reducing inequality any appreciable amount". The chapter on violent revolutions -- which is basically about communism in the 20th century -- is an example of this identity crisis. If I told you that the communist revolutions in Russia and China reduced inequality would you find that a surprising thing? Would you need dozens of pages to be convinced? Or would you go, "Uh, yeah, that kinda makes sense, give me a page or two of high level numbers to back it up and then move on".
At other times Scheidel's argument is a bit weak and he doesn't offer convincing reasons for why. It is clear why the mass mobilization would have caused the US, UK, Germany, France, etc to adopt policies that reduce inequality. It is less clear why uninvolved countries like Sweden and Mauritius (!) did so. Scheidel leans heavily on "the *threat* of violence from neighbors was enough to motivate it" but that feels a bit unsatisfying as an explanation.
Ultimately, I think the book has two major weaknesses. Scheidel often veers between two very different claims: (1) that the Four Horsemen are the **only** things in history with a track record of reducing inequality and (2) that the Four Horsemen have the **best** track record of doing so and the historical record is spotty when it comes to other things. For instance, when talking about some reductions in inequality before WW1/WW2 Scheidel eventually says "well, it was only a few years and then the wars happened so there's no way of knowing whether it was a temporary thing or not". I think (2) is on much firmer ground than (1): for (1) to be false all you have to do is find one or two exceptions and it seems to me that Scheidel includes a fair few of them in his book.
The second major weakness is I felt like there was a poorly explored undercurrent that it isn't global wars or communist revolution or massive epidemics **per se** that usually result in lessened inequality. It is that those things resulted in mustering the political will to implement policies that don't solely favor the elite. It is really that "mustering the political will" that seems to reduce inequality and I didn't feel that Scheidel really explored that in much detail.
Even though I didn't love this book, I think he does make a pretty good case that -- especially when you look at the historical record -- inequality seems to be only go up until something extraordinary intervenes. And it can be decades or centuries before that "something extraordinary" occurs. If you do decide to read it, I suggest reading it "out of order": after introductory chapters, skip the sections that focus in detail on the Four Horsemen, and read the final two sections on "Alternatives" and "The Future of Leveling" first. If you're still keen, then go back and get all the detail on the Four Horsemen.
Scheidel's book also has a bit of an identity crisis: at times it is a "history of the Four Horsemen's affect on inequality" and at other times it is trying to convince you of a thesis "the Four Horsemen are the *only* thing with a consistent track record of reducing inequality any appreciable amount". The chapter on violent revolutions -- which is basically about communism in the 20th century -- is an example of this identity crisis. If I told you that the communist revolutions in Russia and China reduced inequality would you find that a surprising thing? Would you need dozens of pages to be convinced? Or would you go, "Uh, yeah, that kinda makes sense, give me a page or two of high level numbers to back it up and then move on".
At other times Scheidel's argument is a bit weak and he doesn't offer convincing reasons for why. It is clear why the mass mobilization would have caused the US, UK, Germany, France, etc to adopt policies that reduce inequality. It is less clear why uninvolved countries like Sweden and Mauritius (!) did so. Scheidel leans heavily on "the *threat* of violence from neighbors was enough to motivate it" but that feels a bit unsatisfying as an explanation.
Ultimately, I think the book has two major weaknesses. Scheidel often veers between two very different claims: (1) that the Four Horsemen are the **only** things in history with a track record of reducing inequality and (2) that the Four Horsemen have the **best** track record of doing so and the historical record is spotty when it comes to other things. For instance, when talking about some reductions in inequality before WW1/WW2 Scheidel eventually says "well, it was only a few years and then the wars happened so there's no way of knowing whether it was a temporary thing or not". I think (2) is on much firmer ground than (1): for (1) to be false all you have to do is find one or two exceptions and it seems to me that Scheidel includes a fair few of them in his book.
The second major weakness is I felt like there was a poorly explored undercurrent that it isn't global wars or communist revolution or massive epidemics **per se** that usually result in lessened inequality. It is that those things resulted in mustering the political will to implement policies that don't solely favor the elite. It is really that "mustering the political will" that seems to reduce inequality and I didn't feel that Scheidel really explored that in much detail.
Even though I didn't love this book, I think he does make a pretty good case that -- especially when you look at the historical record -- inequality seems to be only go up until something extraordinary intervenes. And it can be decades or centuries before that "something extraordinary" occurs. If you do decide to read it, I suggest reading it "out of order": after introductory chapters, skip the sections that focus in detail on the Four Horsemen, and read the final two sections on "Alternatives" and "The Future of Leveling" first. If you're still keen, then go back and get all the detail on the Four Horsemen.