anti-civ.net forum

Full Version: Egalitarianism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I agree that total equality may be an unrealistic goal, I am not much of one for hierarchy or authoritarian star trek pursuits or that of Hitler.

Wild mushrooms are in season, perhaps you should go outside and pick some. ;)
I agree - egalitarianism is an ideal of the political Left, and the anti-civ position is beyond or outside of the political Left or Right (which are so dated and decontextualized from their 18th-century French origins as to be close to meaningless, anyway).

An anti-civ position, I think, needs to look honestly at human beings' nature, needs, possibilities, and desires. Humans, while in some ways all quite similar, are not equal, either in their abilities, talents, weaknesses, needs, desires, and so forth. And they don't need to be. Organisms are unique in each life and in each moment in life. A post-civilization world would (will?) allow for thousands of different cultures to exist, which are likely to vary considerably from one another. Individuals would have far more freedom in such a space to find a culture that suits them, or perhaps find none that suit them and exist in a liminal space.
(Mon, 30 Apr 2018 21:07:27 +0000, 09:07 PM)Bellamy Wrote: [ -> ]I agree - egalitarianism is an ideal of the political Left, and the anti-civ position is beyond or outside of the political Left or Right (which are so dated and decontextualized from their 18th-century French origins as to be close to meaningless, anyway).

An anti-civ position, I think, needs to look honestly at human beings' nature, needs, possibilities, and desires. Humans, while in some ways all quite similar, are not equal, either in their abilities, talents, weaknesses, needs, desires, and so forth. And they don't need to be. Organisms are unique in each life and in each moment in life. A post-civilization world would (will?) allow for thousands of different cultures to exist, which are likely to vary considerably from one another. Individuals would have far more freedom in such a space to find a culture that suits them, or perhaps find none that suit them and exist in a liminal space.
Well said, Bellamy. Indeed letting other cultures be would certainly be a breath of fresh air, unlike our western dominator culture as Terrence Mckenna and Riane Eisler so eloquently pointed out in their writings.
I doubt anyone, either leftist or anarchist, is seriously advocating 'total equality'.

What most people who advocate egalitarianism mean is political and economic equity in which wealth differentials are minimal and cannot be parlayed into political power. And also where abilities and talents cannot be used as political authority over others.
So, basically nihilism.

Destruction is also a form of enforcement on others who don't want what they value destroyed in the name of your just cause.

You cannot destroy politics. It is inherent in sociality.
Indeed survival is important Zhachev. There are challenges on a daily basis to be faced by men.
(Fri, 04 May 2018 03:01:33 +0000, 03:01 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt anyone, either leftist or anarchist, is seriously advocating 'total equality'.

What most people who advocate egalitarianism mean is political and economic equity in which wealth differentials are minimal and cannot be parlayed into political power. And also where abilities and talents cannot be used as political authority over others.

You might be right for the most it, but what when the left for example tries to enforce a 50/50 men woman, positions in work place. Isn't that forcing a bit to much ?
I think a certain kind of egalitarianism could be worthwhile. Arne Næss reformulated Kant's categorical imperative (after doing some other necessary philosophical legwork which I won't go into here) thus: do not do not adapt a lifestyle that you consider desirable, unless you can seriously wish for others to reach it too. What this means is that if you assume a lifestyle that is above others, then those others will often strive to achieve it too; and if your lifestyle is so extravagant that our biosphere could not take all human beings living that way, then you should not assume it. As such there is an egalitarianism I think proper, and that is the one nature has given us—the limits of Mother Earth. I think this kind of egalitarianism—which I firmly believe to be more interesting than an utterly banal natural laws' egalitarianism, e.g. "we are all subject to gravity"—is largely not discussed or thought about in most political philosophy.
I'm not trying to determine or impose limits or expectation on others. I'm concerned with changing my own lifestyle, and engaging other perspectives through my own.
Kind of mother nature, species egalitarianism.
Pages: 1 2