Enforced Egalitarianism

[pulstar]

Good or bad, what do you think? Elaborate your reasoning

[Smeagol]

You'd have to be retarded to argue it's in anyway good.

[pulstar]

You'd have to be retarded to argue it's in anyway good.

I respect your view.

[pulstar]

By the way, I think its interesting to see how imposing some criteria works on natural selection. In the video below they test a couple of it, but I think there needs some alterations for what I had in mind. The video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZGbIKd0XrM

[KirillMazur]

The problem is that all progressive paths of further social development are inextricably linked precisely with egalitarianism. In fact, this is the only way in which humanity can move forward. All other paths deliberately lead humanity to degradation and death, at least at different speeds. It must be clearly understood that within the scopes of elitarism, stable social progress (further) is fundamentally impossible and any attempts to combine it with more advanced and higher socio-economic formations, for example, with socialism, will inevitably, sooner or later, lead society to collapse and the subsequent restoration of capitalism (or even more wild, ancient and primitive formations).

Elitarism is, first and foremost, a competitive organization of society, when the “best people” who are at the top of the social pyramid receive unjustified advantages over everyone else, the opportunity to manage society as a whole and dispose of all its resources in their narrow group interests (moreover, the group interests of the elite quickly begin to be perceived by them as the interests of the whole society and become indistinguishable from them). Moreover, the hierarchical principle itself and the competition it instills in relations between people, inevitably revives the inhuman destructive idea of ​​"man to man is a wolf."

Egalitarianism is a solidary organization of a society when there is no social pyramid, and the people themselves manage and distribute resources in the interests of the whole society as a whole (the main problem here is precisely the creation of such a system and reliable mechanisms for protecting it from being infected with elitism and usurping power by parasites) .

According to egalitarianists, only the people can and should become the main source of power, its rightful owner, and without it we are doomed to constantly stagnate, plunging into the chaos of crises and wars created by regularly degrading and scumbling world elites. The elitists, on the contrary, consider the people to be a dark, stupid and conservative mass, over which some special intelligent and progressive personalities (selected professionals, thinkers, etc.) should rule. Disagreements between elitists of different sorts and varieties occur only regarding the principles of selecting these same "best people", as well as regarding the definition of their main goals and objectives. Moreover, elitists who call themselves communists look especially stupid and obscene.

[pulstar]

The problem is that all progressive paths of further social development are inextricably linked precisely with egalitarianism. In fact, this is the only way in which humanity can move forward.
No, not necessarily.


All other paths deliberately lead humanity to degradation and death, at least at different speeds. It must be clearly understood that within the scopes of elitarism, stable social progress (further) is fundamentally impossible and any attempts to combine it with more advanced and higher socio-economic formations, for example, with socialism, will inevitably, sooner or later, lead society to collapse and the subsequent restoration of capitalism (or even more wild, ancient and primitive formations).
Also disagree here. As you can empirically see all of the European countries were led in autocratic or anocratic fashion during their biggest development:
<iframe src="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/political-regime-updated2016" style="width: 100%; height: 600px; border: 0px none;"></iframe>
Anarchy has been deadliest of all regimes.


Elitarism is, first and foremost, a competitive organization of society, when the “best people” who are at the top of the social pyramid receive unjustified advantages over everyone else, the opportunity to manage society as a whole and dispose of all its resources in their narrow group interests (moreover, the group interests of the elite quickly begin to be perceived by them as the interests of the whole society and become indistinguishable from them). Moreover, the hierarchical principle itself and the competition it instills in relations between people, inevitably revives the inhuman destructive idea of ​​"man to man is a wolf."

Egalitarianism is a solidary organization of a society when there is no social pyramid, and the people themselves manage and distribute resources in the interests of the whole society as a whole (the main problem here is precisely the creation of such a system and reliable mechanisms for protecting it from being infected with elitism and usurping power by parasites) .

According to egalitarianists, only the people can and should become the main source of power, its rightful owner, and without it we are doomed to constantly stagnate, plunging into the chaos of crises and wars created by regularly degrading and scumbling world elites. The elitists, on the contrary, consider the people to be a dark, stupid and conservative mass, over which some special intelligent and progressive personalities (selected professionals, thinkers, etc.) should rule. Disagreements between elitists of different sorts and varieties occur only regarding the principles of selecting these same "best people", as well as regarding the definition of their main goals and objectives. Moreover, elitists who call themselves communists look especially stupid and obscene.

In any case this is about enforced egalitarianism. If a society is non-egalitarian it would do it a great harm if all of a sudden egalitarianism becomes a norm.

[Tooting Carmen]

Enforced egalitarianism is bad, but then so is enforced inequality and segregation e.g. Apartheid, fascism and free-market dictatorships (Pinochet, Suharto etc).

[pulstar]

Enforced egalitarianism is bad, but then so is enforced inequality and segregation e.g. Apartheid, fascism and free-market dictatorships (Pinochet, Suharto etc).

Enforced egalitarianism is the thing right now. The thread would be different if some other form of enforced system would be present.

[Rædwald]

https://i.postimg.cc/sgppwjJY/ESDRxq-VXs-AAWP1-R.jpg

No.

[KirillMazur]

Also disagree here. As you can empirically see all of the European countries were led in autocratic or anocratic fashion during their biggest development.
It was a long time ago. At the moment, the development potential of an elitist society has been exhausted, as I wrote above. Capitalism is the highest point in the development of elitism, it will not develop above, but it can easily degrade into feudalism and slavery. Further progress lies in the socialization of the means of production and natural resources and the destruction of vertical hierarchical structures.


In any case this is about enforced egalitarianism. If a society is non-egalitarian it would do it a great harm if all of a sudden egalitarianism becomes a norm.
Sometimes a big shake is the only way to get out of the swamp. Plus, an increase in the level of education of the population, in which an elitist society is completely not interested.
"A horrific end is better than endless horror." - Russian saying.

[pulstar]

It was a long time ago. At the moment, the development potential of an elitist society has been exhausted, as I wrote above. Capitalism is the highest point in the development of elitism, it will not develop above, but it can easily degrade into feudalism and slavery. Further progress lies in the socialization of the means of production and natural resources and the destruction of vertical hierarchical structures.

Capitalism teaches people some very important lessons. How to organize your life without interference from the government, it comes at some price, but in general its the best so far because people believe they have a chance to become wealthy, they have something to hope for. Feudalism and slavery is hardly an option because that would be violation of many conventions, but on other hand society that allows such thing should face the consequences for their procrastination.


Sometimes a big shake is the only way to get out of the swamp. Plus, an increase in the level of education of the population, in which an elitist society is completely not interested.
"A horrific end is better than endless horror." - Russian saying.

But had it occurred to you that you might only speak like that because Russian elite is like that. Perhaps you took into account UK or USA too, they too have their problems, but many other countries don't have elite where they would charge every service because they know that in the long-term they will profit much more. Also, competition of private ventures can speed researches, bring new technology and lead to further scientific progress way faster than if its all governed by the government. For simple example, check the progress of aerospace industry. NASA, Roscosmos, ESA and others are in this industry for decades and couldn't find a cheaper and more economic way to send the rockets to the orbit, but private company such as SpaceX did it in under a decade.

[JamesBond007]

You'd have to be retarded to argue it's in anyway good.

The number of black people who have what it takes to be rocket scientists is roughly the same as the amount of Vietnamese people who qualify to play in the NBA.

[coolfrenchguy]

https://i.postimg.cc/sgppwjJY/ESDRxq-VXs-AAWP1-R.jpg

No.
as i understand well towards their maoist reading grid ,i'am transphobic because straight men like me prefer pussies damn,i wasn't aware

[JamesBond007]

Enforced egalitarianism is bad, but then so is enforced inequality and segregation e.g. Apartheid, fascism and free-market dictatorships (Pinochet, Suharto etc).

You are not diverse enough you need to move into a high crime black ghetto neighborhood and smoke crack cocaine with the local blacks. I have an apartment, in the area, waiting for you and you will be forced to move there by bayonet gun wielding thugs.

[KirillMazur]

Capitalism teaches people some very important lessons. How to organize your life without interference from the government, it comes at some price, but in general its the best so far because people believe they have a chance to become wealthy, they have something to hope for. Feudalism and slavery is hardly an option because that would be violation of many conventions, but on other hand society that allows such thing should face the consequences for their procrastination.
Perhaps, but the potential of capitalism as a system has been exhausted. Capitalism needs constant growth and the search for new markets, but our planet turned out to be too small;).
There is a way out for capitalism - to kill the nine-digit number of people and destroy the economies of their countries, in order to then begin the process of expansion from the beginning. From this follows the vicious original essence of capitalism - there are countries of the core of capitalism and countries of the periphery (or colonizers and colonized).

Lol, big capital merged with the state, accepts and lobbies laws and conventions only in its own interests. The capitalists do not give a shit about some conventions 50-100 years ago, if necessary, they will be edited and they will tell the population that this is necessary for their "security".

Some people still believe in the American dream. but since Reagan, this dream has been farther and farther from the common man. If earlier it was enough 5 years to achieve it, now it may not be enough for your whole life, and your debts will be inherited by children. And all responsible and profitable positions for many generations are occupied by representatives of the same families.


But had it occurred to you that you might only speak like that because Russian elite is like that. Perhaps you took into account UK or USA too, they too have their problems, but many other countries don't have elite where they would charge every service because they know that in the long-term they will profit much more. Also, competition of private ventures can speed researches, bring new technology and lead to further scientific progress way faster than if its all governed by the government. For simple example, check the progress of aerospace industry. NASA, Roscosmos, ESA and others are in this industry for decades and couldn't find a cheaper and more economic way to send the rockets to the orbit, but private company such as SpaceX did it in under a decade.
Capitalists are the same everywhere, especially now, in the era of globalization.
Competition in the monopolistic era is unprofitable - it increases costs. All the competition between them now is who will save more on costs. Costs also mean the quality of goods, the quality of workers, their social security, etc. As a result of "competition," you must buy a new iPhone every year (0.5 mm thinner than the previous one!), and other items with planned obsolescence.
By the way, your private business can easily be absorbed or destroyed by a monopoly if it poses even the slightest danger to them. Here is such a "competition" now.

What are the long-term goals of capitalism?
How are they going to solve the economic, social and environmental problems of mankind (and not just the "golden billion")? We all have only one planet, and nowhere to run from, no matter how rich you are.