Have historically equal societies been better to live in than unequal societies?

I do think so because for the whole to be strong the singular should be weak enough to conform.

Individualism within a society always leads to what happened with the boomers and the eventual turning from traditional to all accepting and then eventual hedonistic.

Communism is a form of system where the unequal hold the status of authority and then proceeds to treat EVERYONE unequally, it is literally about silencing opinion for virtual enslavement. External surplus to internal debt a concept where the individual for the sin of existing has to forgo certain rights and freedoms entitled to him due to consciousness being stripped away all for the so called 'greater good' of society.

People nowadays unknowingly conform because it is socially limiting if they do not and they harbour this sub consciously though many are conscious of this, it kills their want to interact if the speech is not sanctioned by popular thought so many do it out of fear, some admit other do not. People go from conservative rural, traditional/rural, traditional citizens, suburban citizen, liberal citizen and then eventually to activists and then populist censures are bought to the front stage of culture.

Unequal societies exist because the cycle of human culture dictates that they exist. That exists because we depend on the world for our thriving expansion as a species. We are the ultimate species on this planet as far as we know, but we depend on its rules and RESOURCES for existense, so culture is humanity having an existential crisis, it will eventually end with matter creation machines or some such Post Scarcity, but that will mean the end of greed, which is a fundamental human trait.

In some societies, the good side is to be a member of the ruling party. In any case, it's about having power.

The leftists in the society you describe would be the ones trying to remove the ruling party with a promise that things will be better if they do; the rightists would be supporting the status quo with a promise that things will get better if they just stay the course a little longer.

>sweeping dismissals with no sources or factual information

sure sign you've found yourself a hysterical right winger

yeah because it's totally not a matter of degree

Hunter-gatherer societies are generally much more egalitarian than agricultural civilizations.

ayyyyy

>The leftists in the society you describe would be the ones trying to remove the ruling party
WTF are you talking about nigga, leftists trying to remove the ruling party of an egalitarian socialist tyranny? Leftist are only "revolutionary" when it comes to capitalism. When it comes to socialism they become "reactionaries" and fanatic apologists. See that faggot Bertolt Brecht making apologizing for the Soviet violent repression of the German workers revolt of 1953. See that deranged lunatic Sartre shilling for Mao. See every leftist subhuman idolizing the mass murderer Che Guevara.

No, the myth that holds capitalism up is that the people at the top deserve to be there, and that those in the lower ranks might be in the same position if they had worked harder, been smarter or fitter, or just committed more of their life to ambition. That is why starting advantage is the most controversial, some might even say the only, form of inequality.

...

How to show you don't have an argument 101

>WTF are you talking about nigga, leftists trying to remove the ruling party of an egalitarian socialist tyranny? Leftist are only "revolutionary" when it comes to capitalism. When it comes to socialism they become "reactionaries" and fanatic apologists. See that faggot Bertolt Brecht making apologizing for the Soviet violent repression of the German workers revolt of 1953. See that deranged lunatic Sartre shilling for Mao. See every leftist subhuman idolizing the mass murderer Che Guevara.

Leftists in general are trying to change the status quo, rightists are trying to maintain it.

How often do you hear leftists say that they want to live in a country like the USSR? Honestly?

>idolizing Che Guevara

You can thank capitalism (or 'cultural marxism') for that one.

move to china and see

>it is literally about silencing opinion for virtual enslavement.
wtf are you saying

Yes. And that's why while we will perish and no one will remember us the tribes in the Amazons and other "remote" parts of Earth will remain after you and me are 6 feet under and rotten. Nice day OP, let's "enjoy" capitalism as long as we don't need health services otherwise we are f u c k e d :)

>historically equal societies
Is this a joke or a Monty Python sketch?

>"Dennis. There's some lovely filth over here"

It's like the Soviet raping German women was planned from the start.

Cherry picking much?

La Commune

All of those guys did the right thing tho

no they never lasted long enough, and normally they sucked because it takes massive blood shed and violence for them to be formed

Wehrmacht systematic rape of Russians was pretty brutal.

You are willfully ignorant to think they are actual equals though. It is also an impossible society to model in modern times without a combination of genocide and purposeful resource destruction.

"no true equality" fallacy

>implying that the hunter males and warriors weren't more respected and powerful than the women

delusional

also, unless you're literally th Unabomber and advocate for genocide and complete destruction of society, there simply isn't a way to actually achieve hunter-gatherer status again

Look at Venezuela, great country, lots of progress.

/thread.

Vá dormir Br

*tips*

Yes. All things equal, countries with a higher equality tend to have a higher economic growth, that is linked to the development of society and general wellbeing

>countries with a higher equality tend to have a higher economic growth
Like America, China and India?

Like korea, taiwan and singapore in 1960, japan in 1950, and yes, china in 2000. All other things being equal, a country that has more income equality has a higher grow that a more inequal country

Oh, wait, you're serious...

I'd be the first to point out that the term "leftist" isn't very well defined, but it sure as fuck doesn't mean "against the status quo". You just made that definition up

>Mao
>the right thing
>2tankie4me

he is, you nimrod.

>Hurr mah death statistics

>He doesn't know about the GINI coefficient

How do you fail THIS HARD at economics and not have some sort of diagnosable mental disorder?

Karl Marx NEVER said or wrote this.

It is NOT in Capital, volume I,II OR III

Nor is it in ANYTHING by Marx.

This is a NAZI meme and is a LIE!!

Test

>falling for the most obvious bait

are you new to Veeky Forums?

The Soviet Union did not support Pol Pot.

Cultural Revolutionary China supported them.

Red Vietnam was a client state of the Soviet Union.

Vietnam put an end to the Khmer Rouge, supplied directly by the Soviets.

China and the USSR nearly went to war.

i am aware of that, this meme is picking up 'tankie' ideas, the term 'tankie' being coined after those, who were okay with 'sending the tanks' into hungary and cssr. so in general just any hardline ML person who will defend anything as long as it itself claimed to be socialist

No, I am not new.

I regularly seek Nazi hate on 4 and infinity chans, and counter it with their most hated enemy.

I am a Marxian Socialist.
I am a Bolshevik.

Neo-nazis will take this ahistorical meme and use it for their propaganda.

I have posted under my nom de revolutionerre in many threads, especially on /pol boards.

Long live the Bolshevik Revolution!

>I am a Bolshevik

are you saying, that you see the bolshevik revolution uncritically? may i ask you where you are from?

>He thinks the dictatorship of the proletariat must have limitless power

To be fair "tankie" as it's used today has basically nothing to do with the historical usage of the word. By now it's basically degenerated to mean "Any leftist who isn't an anarchist".

Yeah, what's wrong with that?

>generally much more egalitarian
>generally
Learn to read.

m'comrade

That seems kind of contradictory to both be a Bolshevik and a Marxian Socialist, friend.

The brand of Marxism-Leninism that the Bolsheviks espouse isnt compatible with traditional Marxist thought, as the USSR proved. How can you claim to be both?

He probably thinks Stalin ruined it.

Equality is a meme used to justify naked power grabs by organized intellectuals.

When they talk about "equal" societies, they mean a society where an intelligentsia controls every single aspect of society, which is the most absolutely unequal society de facto because power distribution is concentrated in a single authority. But since it benefits intellectuals, it's still considered "equal". See Scandinavian societies as examples of such "equal" societies.

I honestly believe that all intellectuals should be lined up and shot, then we would have real equality, since power would be shared by all patriarchs and therefore being within the possibility of exercise by normal people.

The vast majority of people who support equality are not intellectuals.

>I am uneducated and untrained, as my post proves
>Therefore uneducated and untrained people should have the most power

Reminder that this autist has made the same post dozens of times and never responds to arguments.
desuarchive.org/_/search/image/F0UCE3ikjkcqclVMuH2iCw==/

No. Equal is unfair.

amzn.com/125008444X

>I honestly believe that all intellectuals should be lined up and shot

See

>these hot opinions

Communism has ALWAYS been trash.

There has never been an equal society in history.

But some were more equal than others. The results are kinda mixed.

To even be called a society, however, almost certainly entails some sort of hierarchy. Anything that lacks this tends to be transitional anarchy, from which some sort of hierarchy, and thus inequality, is inevitably formed.

It woulda been nice if you hadn't used that fake Marx quote as /pol/ bait though. Even in racially homogeneous civilizations (which most have been), there's never been equality.

i think i'd rather live in ancient athens than be a kung bush person, personally. ymmv

>t. Pol Pot