Which pre-modern society had the most egalitarian, non-hierarchical social order?

Which pre-modern society had the most egalitarian, non-hierarchical social order?

almost any nomadic society

THERE CAN BE NO EGALITARIANISM IN SOCIETY, OR OUT OF SOCIETY, BECAUSE EGALITARIANISM IS UNNATURAL, THUS, IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH; ANY ATTEMPT AT IMPOSING EGALITARIANISM INEVITABLY RESULTS IN STRIFE, SUFFERING, DEATH.

EGALITARIANISM IS EQUIVALENT WITH ANARCHY; EGALITARIANISM LEADS TO KHAOS; EGALITARIANISM IS ABSENCE OF HIERARCHY; ABSENCE OF HIERARCHY ENTAILS ABSENCE OF ORDER; ABSENCE OF ORDER ENTAILS ABSENCE OF STABILITY; ABSENCE OF STABILITY ENTAILS VOID.

ONE SHOULD NOT CONFLATE EQUITY WITH EQUALITY; EQUALITY NEGATES QUALITY, CONSIDERING ONLY QUANTITY —EQUALITY IS AN AGENT OF HYBRIDIZATION—; EQUITY DISCERNS BETWEEN QUALITY, AND BETWEEN QUANTITY, AND CONSTRUCTS ORDER FROM THEM, IN CONCORD WITH FAIRNESS, AND WITH JUSTICE —EQUITY IS A FORCE OF PURIFICATION.


?

NOMADISM FACILITATES HYPERTRADITIONALISM, DESPOTISM, AND PATRIARCHY, OR MATRIARCHY —HIERARCHY BASED ON SEX, AND ON GENDER.

IT IS A MATTER OF DEGREE AND COMPARISON, THE ORIGINAL POSTER WAS REQUESTING SOCIETIES THAT WERE THE MOST EGALITARIAN AND NON HIERARCHICAL NOT SOCIETIES THAT HAD ACHIEVED ABSOLUTE NON HIERARCHICAL OR EQUALITY.

G-D FUCKING DAMNIT ITS YOU AGAIN. GET THE FUCK OFF Veeky Forums AND NEVER COME BACK

THERE IS NOTHING EGALITARIAN IN NOMADISM.

faggot please never post again

What's your problem?

I WAS RESPONDING TO YOUR STATEMENTS ADDRESSING THE OP AND NOT THE POSTER IN

The future Netherlands were already known for their high social mobility during the late medieval ages

AND?

>Egalitarianism = social mobility

If you don't know anything about the topic, why post?

Basically every tribe without substantial agriculture

IT MEANS THAT THERE CAN STILL BE VALID ANSWERS TO THE ORIGINAL POSTERS QUESTIONS.

WITH THE EXAMPLE OF THE NOMADS THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA HAD A LESS HIERARCHICAL AND MORE EGALITARIAN SOCIAL ORDER THAN YUAN CHINA.

THEIR HIERARCHY HAD LESS DIVISION, SEPARATION, AND ISOLATION BETWEEN CLASSES THAN THE YUAN CHINESE WHO COMPARATIVELY HAD A COMPLEX AND EXTENSIVE ONE.

>IT MEANS THAT THERE CAN STILL BE VALID ANSWERS TO THE ORIGINAL POSTERS QUESTIONS.

NO —DID YOU NOT READ THE POST TO WHICH YOU REPLIED?

>THERE CAN BE NO EGALITARIANISM IN SOCIETY, OR OUT OF SOCIETY, BECAUSE EGALITARIANISM IS UNNATURAL, THUS, IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH; ANY ATTEMPT AT IMPOSING EGALITARIANISM INEVITABLY RESULTS IN STRIFE, SUFFERING, DEATH.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN "EGALITARIAN SOCIETY".

EGALITARIANISM DOES NOT HAVE GRADATION.

>WITH THE EXAMPLE OF THE NOMADS THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA HAD A LESS HIERARCHICAL AND MORE EGALITARIAN SOCIAL ORDER THAN YUAN CHINA.

LESS HIERARCHICAL STABILITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTAIL "MORE EGALITARIANISM".

>THEIR HIERARCHY HAD LESS DIVISION, SEPARATION, AND ISOLATION BETWEEN CLASSES THAN THE YUAN CHINESE WHO COMPARATIVELY HAD A COMPLEX AND EXTENSIVE ONE.

ABSENCE OF CLASSISM, AND MORE SOCIAL COHESION, DO NOT EQUAL, NOR ENTAIL, EGALITARIANISM.

APPARENTLY, YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT YOU IGNORE WHAT IS EGALITARIANISM.

ALSO, WHY DO YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO IMITATE MY POSTINGSTYLE?

>NO —DID YOU NOT READ THE POST TO WHICH YOU REPLIED?

I DID READ IT.

>EGALITARIANISM DOES NOT HAVE GRADATION.
>LESS HIERARCHICAL STABILITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTAIL "MORE EGALITARIANISM".

THIS IS A POINT I DO NOT THINK YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED IN YOUR POST

>ABSENCE OF CLASSISM, AND MORE SOCIAL COHESION, DO NOT EQUAL, NOR ENTAIL, EGALITARIANISM.

A SOCIETY THAT IS MORE EQUAL RATHER THAN LESS EQUAL IS THE MANIFESTATION OF THE EGALITARIAN IDEOLOGY

>ALSO, WHY DO YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO IMITATE MY POSTINGSTYLE?

THERE IS NO COMPULSION I MERELY BELIEVED THAT THIS IS THE WAY YOU PREFER TO COMMUNICATE WITH OTHERS AND THAT BY ADOPTING IT FOR THIS THREAD BETTER COMMUNICATION COULD BE FACILITATED.

IF YOU HAD COMPREHENDED WHAT YOU READ IN MY FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE POSTED ANYTHING.

THIS DIALOGUE IS SUPERFLUOUS.

THEN I AM HAPPY TO LEAVE

FOR FUTURE REFERENCE FOR OTHERS WHO MIGHT BE FOLLOWING DO YOU PREFER BEING RESPONDED TO IN THIS POSTING STYLE?

SPEAK, AND TALK, IN YOUR OWN STYLE; TYPE, AND WRITE, IN YOUR OWN STYLE.

Very well. Im curious do you write in caps to distinguish yourself from others or is it more about the forcefullness ?

ADDENDUM TO POINT NUMBER TWO: THIS APPLIES ONLY TO STANDARDS SET ON A MASS LEVEL, NOT TO INDIVIDUALS —ID EST: THIS IS HOW PEOPLE SHOULD TYPE, AND WRITE, AS A RESULT OF BEING REARED TO TYPE, AND WRITE, LIKE THIS, NOT HOW AN INDIVDUAL SHOULD TYPE, AND WRITE, AS A RESULT OF INAUTHENTIC CHANGE, OR IMITATION, THEREFORE, I DO NOT DEMAND FROM OTHERS TO TYPE, OR WRITE, LIKE I DO, DURING PRIVATE DISCOURSE.

NEW STANDARDS SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON CHILDREN ON A MASS LEVEL, NOT ON ADULTS ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL.

he's an attention whoring faggot like every other tripfag

I feel like I'm in the middle of an argument between autists.

You're good.

The Cucuteni–Trypillia culture would be an interesting contender, but would require further investigation of socioeconomic aspects we can't really study.

Nuragic

Scandinavia before the Renaissance

Why are y'all typing in caps?

>shouting autist still here after all these years
get a life

Hunter-gatherers