>If people stop complying we would get way more power and overall reduce inequality between the few rich and powerful and politically connect and you everyday Joe.

I dont believe it

Inequality would be even worse and upward mobility would be reduced, at least in the west.

Why do you believe this?

That’s … not how it works. The US had built strong unions in multiple areas of work because people didn’t comply with what was expected of them. This is part of why its middle class became large and monetarily strong. We’re people to band together in defiance of the expectations of the wealthy and political class, they could wrestle power back and rebalance the system. It’s history. Go read it.

Unions are quite different than armes response

>If the people armed themselves and coordinated, they would outnumber policemen and soldiers.

It feels like chaos would emerge, no true leaderships, gangs, mafias everywhere

The early history of unions is full of violent clashes

Violent uprisings are historically common, including in the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire. They were crushed judiciously early by Rome's farmer-warriors (who had a very martial culture) and hundreds of years later by Rome's professional army. This is the primary way that states de facto have power.

You're right that you can't have a Pharaoh without a huge society built around one, but you don't get that society without a professional force policing the farming of the Nile, and you don't get successful farming of the Nile without a police force strong enough to oppose resistance / enforce retribution on "cheaters" with regard to water redistribution.

Regarding revolutions: sometimes the govt realizes it has a cancer and takes steps to cut it out or irradiate it. Sometimes the cancer wins and the entire body dies. Out of the ashes typically rises...autocracy. You only get something else when the power brokers actively strive to make such a thing, and even then you still frequently end up with autocracy.

History. Go read it.

If we stop cooperating, what defines "upward"? Isn't upward just the direction of "more people are cooperating with your plans"?

> For the same principle, Russia could never control Ukraine without support, the romans couldn't control their provinces without local approval.

The same principle applies to colonialism. The British in India, the French in Indochina, and countless other examples from history: the imperial power always needs support from the locals, usually the elite or in some way privileged classes whose welfare becomes tied to the rule of the imperial power.