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:

[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:

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]

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.