Actaually it is a scientific fact that females are XX and males are XY...phobia has nothing to do with that fact.

Statics are a mathematically probability, based in sound principles WHEN done correctly and without an agenda, whether you like the outcome or not. Racism as nothing to do with the results.

Statistical voting patterns are again based on data. IF the data is correct a statically pattern may show that the results are impossible. Example, you have more people voting, regardless of who they that live there, you have a statistically impossibility. Fascism has nothing to do with it.

I can take your post as your actual feelings, subjective not objective, fact based; or as being facetious. I will choose the latter.

Yes but by today's standards that 190,000 years was characterized by abject poverty. Yes it worked because it was the only thing that ensured the survival of the tribe/clan/family. Everything was probably shared somewhat equally in order for the numbers to remain at sustainable levels. Too many folks seem to dredge up the fond genetic memory of that equality while conveniently forgetting the survival level poverty that was the human condition for most of that 190,000 years..

@Rosary_Trace
Of course, but all I read about our growing base of knowledge about hunter/gatherer societies says they were strongly oriented toward egalitarianism.

Private property is an illusion, try not paying your property taxes.

@Geofrank
That Hobbesian view of ‘nasty, brutish and short’ is losing currency in academic circles today. Of course they were poor by modern standards; money hadn’t even been invented. But that doesn’t mean they weren’t reasonably healthy and happy, all things considered. There are a few hunter/gatherer tribes extant today that bear witness to this fact, and who still have not taken up the agricultural and capitalistic behaviors.

I’m not proposing we return to the past. Just pointing out that to say “it never worked” is just not historically true. If a valid argument is to be made against egalitarianism, it will need to be based on something else.

@wolfhnd Private property is theft!

@WilyRickWiles That's why women can do what men tell them with their own bodies. I get it. LOL

@BlurtReynolds "...but all I read about our growing base of knowledge about hunter/gatherer societies says they were strongly oriented toward egalitarianism."

Don't think so, Chief. You have failed at comprehension.

@BlurtReynolds

I have written extensively here on why "civilization" is incompatible with the instincts evolved for small groups. Productivity is a difference that explains most of the dysfunction seen when those instincts are followed.

@BlurtReynolds One -I think- valid argument against egalitarianism is that it does not really exist in nature. Nature does not entertain any notion of equality. Equality is a mathematical principle only. In nature you don't get any support or recognition just for being alive. You have to grab it and growl or be lunch. I have often thought that Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" was an unfortunate choice of words for the simple fact that there are now people who, without parsing the word "equal" have gone far beyond the understanding that equal means that everyone gets to participate and have a voice in the governance of their lives. Equality of opportunity was never intended to mean equality of outcome without equality of input. In nature there are no artificial supports. If you do not produce you die off. I do not by any stretch mean to suggest that there is anybody who doesn't have the right to be alive. But I will suggest that there is nothing in the United States Constitution that suggests that I have an obligation to forego my own well being for another's. As I have said elsewhere, of the two eternal verities, Taxes and Death, when the burden on the producers of the wealth that is being distributed has exhausted the revenue for Taxes, all that will remain will be Death.

@FrankZeleniuk
It doesn’t much matter what you or I think, chief, unless you’re an anthropologist. I’d gladly trade you a scientific article that supports my view for one that supports yours. I’m here to learn. How about you?

@wolfhnd
Private property is a pretty persistent illusion. Try assuming control of somebody else’s manufacturing facility without their agreement and a hefty transfer of funds.

@wolfhnd
Apologies but I haven’t been here long enough to see your other writings. Not sure I understand your point about productivity, but sounds interesting. I do agree that our instincts are not natively compatible with civilization, but again, not sure I understand where that fits into the discussion about egalitarianism.

@Geofrank
I'm not sure the 'doesn't exist in nature' argument is going to be very helpful here. For starters, it doesn't distinguish egalitarianism from private ownership of the means of production, or wage slavery, or all those other features of capitalism that aren't found in nature either.

And if you're comparing them to the 'grab it and growl' competitiveness of other species, that's another paradigm that hasn't stood the test of time scientifically. Competitiveness exists in nature but it isn't the only quality that does. There are species that live mostly solitary lives, and there are social species like our own. And within many of the social species, altruism is well documented. The definition of which is basically getting support just for being alive.

So we have many qualities that we share with other species and many that are unique to us. One that we possess to a degree no other species does is our capacity for complex culture. We have the ability to solve certain problems with culture when our biology alone would not suffice. We are not only not at the mercy of our competitive nature, we're not even limited to our biological altruism. We can, and have as far back in our past as we can detect, gone beyond competition AND altruism to solving problems with cultural solutions.

One of these cultural solutions has been non-biological, that is to say non-instinctual, egalitarianism. There is a growing consensus among anthropologists who study modern hunter/gatherer societies that "fierce egalitarianism" has been the human norm for as far back in our 200,000 year existence as we can see. During all that time, it was never about making either outcome or opportunity perfectly equal. It was about making sure the tribe survived and nobody became boss. Seems like people who are interested in individual freedom would like the idea of not being told what to do by another.

My only point in all of this is that the argument that "that experiment has repeatedly failed" is not a balanced picture. In modern times it has failed repeatedly because there were individuals who had powerful motivations to make it fail. There is nothing inherent in the system itself or in human nature that made it fail, because it worked just fine for at least 190 of our 200 thousand years of existence.

And there is nothing about this idea that obligates anyone to forego their own wellbeing. Indeed, the whole point of it is that everyone's wellbeing is guaranteed. The only thing anybody might have to forego is having 335 times as much wellbeing as any human could possibly need. The idea that the revenue would be exhausted represents another Hobbesian calculation that the heart of human nature is primarily selfish, and that idea found its obsolescence a long time ago.

If there are other arguments against egalitarian organization of societies, I will listen, but this one is not supported by the data.

@BlurtReynolds When I've read historical accounts usually there is a leader of a tribe. It isn't "egalitarian". The tribe almost always had a "chief" that rest of the members looked to for leadership.

@BlurtReynolds What do social scientists have to say about the emergence and ascendance of leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc whose leadership has resulted in somewhere on the order of 100 million* deaths in the 20th century alone either from direct dictate or the result of disastrous policy. You can of course say well that wasn't true egalitarianism but in the minds of the people who supported these leaders at the grassroots level it probably seemed to be initially and was probably sold as such. When we discuss human nature a clear appraisal of such men should be sought. I don't mean to gloss over the failings of capitalism. The engine of capitalism- capital, the banks- have created debt slavery which enslaves even the "wealthy" to some degree or another, but I've not seen an example of egalitarianism that works as a social philosophy. As a political doctrine one can write laws guaranteeing equal rights, but policies that intend to equalize the outcomes of actions from physically/mentally/spiritually unequal actors seems to me doomed to failure if only from the resentment of the productive for being held responsible for the welfare of the non-productive. It seems to me that this is just human nature.

• A very conservative estimate

@FrankZeleniuk
Historical accounts of what, where, and when? There are no “historical accounts” of prehistoric societies. There are only anthropological accounts. Modern hunter/gatherer tribes typically have no ruler. They are strictly egalitarian.

@Geofrank
When there’s a leader, that’s not egalitarianism. I’m not promoting any political system. My only claim here is that when people say egalitarianism has never worked whenever it has been tried, they are just repeating popular propaganda, because it isn’t supported by the facts. Whether it could work in modern, agricultural societies may be an unknown. Maybe we are addicted to hierarchies now. There are plenty of reasonable ways to question the practicality of egalitarianism in modern societies. All I’m saying is, that claiming it has never worked isn’t one of them.

It worked for 90% of our time on earth and it is working today in modern hunter/gatherer societies all over the globe.

From Wikipedia:
"Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos, although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America) are an exception to this rule. Nearly all African hunter-gatherers are egalitarian, with women roughly as influential and powerful as men. For example, the San people or "Bushmen" of southern Africa have social customs that strongly discourage hoarding and displays of authority, and encourage economic equality via sharing of food and material goods. Karl Marx defined this socio-economic system as primitive communism.

The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never total, but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity's two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male.

So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by paleoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.

Anthropologists maintain that hunter-gatherers do not have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed."
[en.wikipedia.org]

@BlurtReynolds Wikipedia? Really? Not a great scientific source. What does, "the egalitarianism typical of hunter gatherers is never total but striking when viewed in an evolutionary context.", mean? "Resistance
to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness...blah,blah,blah..." What drivel.
The closest thing in modern times to an egalitarian society that has had any sustainability are the religious sects like the Amish, Hutterites and Mennonites. You could call them socialist communes. Ask why their colonies are sustainable despite modern civilization and you'll perhaps come to the realization what the requisites are for egalitarianism to be sustained and why progress is not possible in an egalitarian society.

Sorry, just realized you were replying to Geofrank. Anyway, I'll leave the above for your consideration.

"There are no “historical accounts” of prehistoric societies." Sociologists can only surmise out of anthropological evidence how prehistoric societies were structured. But, yes there is no historical recording from the time of that structure.

@BlurtReynolds I concede to your point but I think most of us here are not referencing hunter/gatherer communities in our thinking when we speak of applying socialism to America today. Complex modern societies, for better or worse, are so far removed from the state of primitive cultures that I somehow can't imagine any transition away from hierarchies to leaderless egalitarianism without a lot of danger, death and despair. The cooperation of hunter/gatherers will not come quickly or easily to modern American cities.

@Geofrank
Very likely true. I’m not expecting it.