by exploited » Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:41 pm
@Dharma
Once again, that makes no sense at all.
People already form alliances to prevent others from dominating them. That is egalitarian according to the definition of anthropologists - you have just tried to use it to support your ideology, by purposefully conflating it with the modern use of egalitarian, and hoping no one would notice.
The entire point of my argument is that the desire to form social hierarchies is innate, as is non-conscious decision-making, therefore, political equality cannot exist. Even in your supposedly egalitarian societies, political inequality was the name of the game - the only thing keeping one person from dominating the group is for others in the group to form yet other groups, who threaten violence if their interests are attacked. That isn't equality. Neither is the imposition of social roles onto women, handicapped, midgets, transgendered, etc., all of which is well-documented, as is the discipline faced by those within such groups who tried to disobey those roles.
It's like saying 19th Century women and blacks lived in an egalitarian society because some people opposed sexism and slavery and because they had roles, which if fulfilled, meant they wouldn't be punished.
Last edited by
exploited on Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.