Just now read Habermas' analysis of the formation of the 'bourgeois public sphere' by and during the rise of capitalism. He describes how the "interests of capitalists engaged in manufacture prevailed over those engaged in trade," specifically because the former were directly responsible for the "employment of the country's population." — Pantagruel

Was he talking about the British Industrial Revolution? Part of that event was an intentional transformation of Ireland into a purely agrarian domain to supply food so that English and Scotch labor could be transferred off the land to work in factories.

But prior to that, trading had been the path out of serfdom. The elite was a combination of aristocrats and clergymen whose religion explained why the dominance of the aristocracy was God's will. The rise of liberalism in Europe was clearly an egalitarian project in its infancy. Money was the great equalizer. Do you agree with that?

Because authoritarians can march toward the same place, but egalitarians go haring off in all directions.

If human beings have lived in stable egalitarian groups for long periods, that is, if egalitarianism (loosely defined, as in the OP) is significant in the history or prehistory of humans, then it’s wrong to say that egalitarianism is against human nature, or else it’s wrong to say that our natural inegalitarian instincts cannot be overcome.

So as I see it, @frank has to argue either that the kind of society that has been most common in the human past, namely hunter-gatherers, is or was not egalitarian, because of human nature; or that although those societies were egalitarian, they went against our nature, and given agriculture and industry, our inegalitarian nature is now impossible to overcome.

Anthropologists differ on how egalitarian humans are and on how egalitarian hunter-gatherers were, but it’s safe to say that we can withstand a great variety of societies, and I don’t see any reason to think that egalitarianism is doomed. In the end, that’s temperamental—but also political.

The rise of liberalism in Europe was clearly an egalitarian project in its infancy. Money was the great equalizer. Do you agree with that? — frank

I'm not sure that I do. By all accounts, things were a lot more equal before money. Money facilitated first trade, but then capitalism, which definitely does not contribute to egalitarianism through its own nature. Capitalism concentrates wealth through money.

As I mentioned elsewhere, it certainly seems like revolutions initially involve the hard-core "have-nots" and their ideological supporters who are better off. Then, at a certain point, when things start to get really messy, a certain class of people swing to the reactionary side (i.e. aligning with entrenched power and interests) to suppress the implementation of a more far-reaching equality.

I think these 'swing-votes' lie in the hands of what I would call the best-paid proletariat. Doctors, for example, have to work hard at what they do in order to be really good. If they didn't work hard, they wouldn't be good doctors. So as paid workers, they really are part of proletariat. And the elite (like everyone else) really needs good doctors. But medicine is about the care of the whole human. You really can't have healthy people in a sick society. So I'm good with doctors being well-paid, even the best paid. Just so long as they speak out for the welfare of their entire patient base when they are negotiating their terms.

then it’s wrong to say that egalitarianism is against human nature — Jamal

I think that when we examine the nature of any species, it's a mistake to pull the organism out of its world. Living things not only adapt, but they actively alter their environments. In a way, you could say the cohort and its environment are a unity. For multicellular organisms, this actually starts at the beginning. After sperm meets egg, the first differentiation in the blob is to grow something like a seed pod to surround the proto-embryo. In other words, the first action of your genetic material was to create a protective structure to allow further development. You eventually discarded that shell, but ever since, you have been engaged in that same activity: altering the world to suit your needs, and we do this on a larger scale as well. Most living things do.

So if our environment is part of what we are, let's allow humanity to be a moving target as it adapts to and reforms its circumstances. What was natural for hunter gatherers, whatever that may have been, was a reflection of what worked for us at the time.

So in the OP, when I say that egalitarian causes are obstructed by something that's coming to us naturally, my point is not to argue that we can't make that kind of transition, but rather to point out that we aren't beset by evil doers when we fail. Our ambitions are being thwarted by a natural tendency to create hierarchial social structures.

I'm not sure that I do. By all accounts, things were a lot more equal before money. Money facilitated first trade, but then capitalism, which definitely does not contribute to egalitarianism through its own nature. Capitalism concentrates wealth through money. — Pantagruel

Money was invented in Lydia around the 6th Century BC. I wasn't looking that far backward, but life was definitely hierarchial before that.

My point was that in Europe, the rise of liberalism was a movement against the aristocracy. It was an egalitarian project. The USA is product of that movement.

This is bullshit. If you are so badly educated in Marx' work that you think this has sensibly been attempted anywhere how he envisaged it then you really don't know what he wrote. — Benkei

I'm sure Nietschze wouldn't have been enthusiastic of the Third Reich making him their favorite philosopher either. But history tells us how ideas are used, abused and tried to be implemented.

On that note we can discount capitalism in its entirety as well because well... look around. — Benkei

Capitalism is fervently discounted all the time and likely will be continued to be opposed in the future too. Yet Netherlands is a quite nice place to live in.

Shall we now ignore what Smith wrote? Say? Mises? Only Marx is vilified because it's politically expedient. — Benkei

I'm not so sure if only Marx is vilified, especially when some have started to judge historical people from viewpoint of our present time and not as children of their age.

Yes, the Communist Manifesto should be understood in the context of it's time, and Marx himself acknowledge that the proletariat might just end up demanding higher salaries, yet it shouldn't be difficult to understand how people will take it when you write things like:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production

Then people reading Marx like gospel will go for those "despotic inroads".

It's just like populism: the adversarial juxtaposition of people can lead to ugly results, because people are divided to "us" and "them", good and bad.

What was natural for hunter gatherers, whatever that may have been, was a reflection of what worked for us at the time. — frank

...

Our ambitions are being thwarted by a natural tendency to create hierarchial social structures. — frank

So, are you suggesting that our natural environment has changed in the last few thousand years? Because absent that its hard to see what you could mean by saying a tendency to create hierarchial social structures is 'natural'. What environmental stimulus are you imaging we're responding to today that was absent when we were hunter-gatherers?

So, are you suggesting that our natural environment has changed in the last few thousand years? — Isaac

No.

Capitalism is fervently discounted all the time and likely will be continued to be opposed in the future too. Yet Netherlands is a quite nice place to live in. — ssu

The point (which you conveniently ignored) was at what cost is the Netherlands now quite a nice place to live?

At what cost to Africa (from which a large part of it's wealth was stolen)?

At what cost to the future (climate change, pollution, health decline)?

At what cost to values (is it just to buy a nice place to live for most at the expense of a few)?

Anything which focuses on only one part of a mixed system can exculpate itself by bracketing out any parts not amenable to the theory.

No — frank

Then how is a "tendency to create hierarchial social structures" natural absent of any evidence that that's what we do in all circumstances?

First, ssu mentioned Marxism, the tradition that grew out of Marx and developed the theories. One such development, as ssu has mentioned, was Marxism-Leninism, which can fairly be said to promote one party rule.

Second, Marx himself spoke in favour of “revolutionary terror” and of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

On the other hand, the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t necessarily entail one-party rule: anti-Stalinist Marxists point to the unfulfilled promise of workplace and soviet (council) democracy as a way to actualize it. — Jamal

As I tried to give @Benkei the example of Nietzsche and Nazi ideology. Was Nietzsche hijacked? Misunderstood or misinterpreted? That's one discussion, but it cannot refute the fact that Nazi ideology cherished Nietzsche's thoughts. However much "misinterpretation" there was.

Hence I understand fully well, that the writings of Karl Marx and Marxism-Leninism as it existed in the 20th Century are two different things. Yet to say Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union and all the attempts on creating a Marxist revolution have nothing to do with the Karl Marx, is a bit too far.

I agree. I’d go further and point out that Stalin was a committed Marxist and not just an opportunist monster as Trotskyists like to imagine.

But that’s all boring, and it doesn’t invalidate Marx’s critique.

Then how is a "tendency to create hierarchial social structures" natural absent of any evidence that that's what we do in all circumstances? — Isaac

As I explained, I don't think we gain much by examining what we do in all circumstances. It's helpful to think of culture as an indicator of what we've made of ourselves, and therefore what behaviors we'll gravitate towards.

The point (which you conveniently ignored) was at what cost is the Netherlands now quite a nice place to live?

At what cost to Africa (from which a large part of it's wealth was stolen)? — Isaac

Lol. I think you are mixing up colonies of Belgium and the Dutch (as the Dutch Cape colony existed until 1806) and the largest colony was the East Indies (modern Indonesia).

I agree. I’d go further and point out that Stalin was a committed Marxist and not just an opportunist monster as Trotskyists like to imagine. — Jamal

Above all Stalin was also an organizer, who kept the Soviet experiment going. But I don't think his way into power was some kind of accident, it's something that likely would happen sooner or later. When you are committed to revolution and using violence, it's no surprise that a very violent person (or some who use a lot of violence) will end up in charge.

That's why you do need the safety valves of a democracy, a constitution, elements of a justice state and so on.

But that’s all boring, and it doesn’t invalidate Marx’s critique. — Jamal

It's easy to make a critique of how things are. The important issue what you give as an answer.

I’m not sure any man can occupy a higher position over and above others if there is no such position. The failure of egalitarian causes is that they wish to occupy such positions, for whatever reason, thereby placing themselves over and above others. The problem is the existence of the State.

I’m not sure any man can occupy a higher position over and above others if there is no such position. The failure of egalitarian causes is that they wish to occupy such positions, for whatever reason, thereby placing themselves over and above others. — NOS4A2

Egalitarian causes, like socialism and liberalism, were born out of dissatisfaction with social structures which resulted in oppression and mismanagement. Historically, these movements appeared when there was a general sense that something was grievously wrong with the status quo. It's an eye opener to learn how widespread socialist attitudes were in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Marxism is just a vestige of something that was much grander. The world we live in is the opposite of that. Socialists are generally in the minority now and so it seems a socialist cause is, as you say, attempting to force something on the rest of the population.

The problem is the existence of the State. — NOS4A2

Statehood is something that's deeply embedded in who we are as a species now. Does it have a downside? Of course. It's like our knees: they cause all sorts of problems, but we can't very well stop using them.

As I explained, I don't think we gain much by examining what we do in all circumstances. It's helpful to think of culture as an indicator of what we've made of ourselves, and therefore what behaviors we'll gravitate towards. — frank

It's not about circumstances. I'm asking you to justify the claim that the behaviour is "natural".

Lol. I think you are mixing up colonies of Belgium and the Dutch (as the Dutch Cape colony existed until 1806) and the largest colony was the East Indies (modern Indonesia). — ssu

No, just not naive enough to think that Western nation which had less to do with colonialism miraculously derived their wealth independently of those who were more involved. Did the Netherlands have some kind of early boycott of all colonial-derived wealth?

And nice dodge of all the key questions, by the way. Like the specific matter of which actual capitalist country we're talking about is the point.

Statehood is something that's deeply embedded in who we are as a species now. Does it have a downside? Of course. It's like our knees: they cause all sorts of problems, but we can't very well stop using them.

Slavery was once considered in a similar manner. Nowadays we could never think about going back to it.

Slavery was once considered in a similar manner. Nowadays we could never think about going back to it. — NOS4A2

Sure. As I said, I think human nature is a moving target.

Human nature is both egalitarian and stratifying, i.e. we do have tendencies tor greed, social status seeking etc etc... but at the same time we also have a moral impulse that wants to tear down those who seek to elevate themselves above others at the cost of the group.

Egalitarian projects fail, because of scale and specialisation that becomes needed in larger groups. The moral impulse, social control, works better in smaller groups where nobody is inherently all that much elevated above others. But when you get larger groups, more specialisation and more power concentrated in certain required roles, it's harder for these moral impulses to keep those that seek elevation down.

Scale is the issue, not human nature (or at least not directly).

Scale is the issue, not human nature (or at least not directly). — ChatteringMonkey

I'll buy that.

Although the OP expresses the central thought of conservatism, conservatism actually offers an alternative that’s a bit more hopeful than a “homeostasis between good and bad that never progresses in either direction,” namely gradual, organic change produced communally.*

Of course, this change would merely avoid the most egregious evils of inequality and oppression, and never result in the banishment of social hierarchy. To the humane, optimistic conservative, hierarchy and inequality don’t have to be bad—they’re natural and we should do our best to live with them. — Jamal

Thanks for that perspective on conservatism.

All the same, if the "humane" form of conservatism you address does intend to progress toward somewhere, isn’t it incrementally progressing toward an more egalitarian society (contra progression toward the authoritarianism of a fascist state, for example)?

Maybe a root issue here is what is meant by “egalitarianism”. Does the term intend something along the lines of an equality of fundamental rights for every citizen (e.g., a CEO gets ticketed just as a janitor will for a parking violation despite the stratification of economic class between the two … to not bring into the conversation more complex issues, such as healthcare) or does it imply the absolute equality of all people in all ways?

I think all can agree that the latter interpretation is an absurdity through and through. Brings to mind Kurt Vonnegut’s short story "Harrison Bergeron":

In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, earpiece radios for the intelligent that broadcast loud noises meant to disrupt thoughts, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron#Plot

Not all people can be of an exact equal height, kind of thing.

With this in mind, I so far don't view egalitarian causes being incompatible to hierarchy / stratification. I've so far interpreted the egalitarian ideal struggled for to be one where people of different ranks, abilities, talents, intelligences, etc. are yet valued as people irrespective of their placements on these metrics. This in contrast to certain authoritarian ideals wherein a subset of humans will deem and treat others as less than human, or some such.

In Human Behavioral Psychology there isn't such a thing as "A" Human Nature but Human Nature has different expressions. Human behavior is affected by the environment(current and past).
Egalitarian societies score higher numbers in Societal Markers in functionality and Happiness, so they don't really fail. What really happens is ... powerful individuals within the society take advantage of our Economical and Political systems by either affecting our Environment or present a darker version of it while dividing the population. The problem is the environment (the established systems) not the "egalitarian causes".

Again I can not stress enough the importance of Scientific Knowledge in these topics.

In Human Behavioral Psychology there isn't such a thing as "A" Human Nature but Human Nature has different expressions. Human behavior is affected by the environment(current and past). — Nickolasgaspar

I've expressed this sentiment multiple times in this thread. Thanks for repeating it.

Egalitarian societies score higher numbers in Societal Markers in functionality and Happiness, so they don't really fail. — Nickolasgaspar

Never said they do fail. I said egalitarian causes fail.

Again I can not stress enough the importance of Scientific Knowledge in these topics. — Nickolasgaspar

Just out of curiosity, why are you capitalizing certain letters that wouldn't generally be capitalized in English? Such as "Scientific Knowledge?" Capitalizing it in that way makes it look like you're using it as a proper name.

Never said they do fail. I said egalitarian causes fail. — frank

"Egalitarian cause" is an abstract concept. Abstract concepts can not fail. What fails is the process displaying the property described by the abstract concept. Societies are where egalitarian causes are realized. Do you agree?

I've expressed this sentiment multiple times in this thread. Thanks for repeating it. — frank

-So we agree there are different expressions of human behavior...not a specific type of Human Nature!

Just out of curiosity, why are you capitalizing certain letters that wouldn't generally be capitalized in English? Such as "Scientific Knowledge?" Capitalizing it in that way makes it look like you're using it as a proper name. — frank

Emphasizing central/main points in statements.

So we agree there are different expressions of human behavior...not a specific type of Human Nature! — Nickolasgaspar

:up:

Human nature is both egalitarian and stratifying, i.e. we do have tendencies tor greed, social status seeking etc etc... but at the same time we also have a moral impulse that wants to tear down those who seek to elevate themselves above others at the cost of the group.

Egalitarian projects fail, because of scale and specialisation that becomes needed in larger groups. The moral impulse, social control, works better in smaller groups where nobody is inherently all that much elevated above others. But when you get larger groups, more specialisation and more power concentrated in certain required roles, it's harder for these moral impulses to keep those that seek elevation down.

Scale is the issue, not human nature (or at least not directly). — ChatteringMonkey

Useful post, thanks.

It’s well-known that urban settlements and the division of labour led to increasing stratification. The socialist response is that once, however, the basic necessities of life are abundant—the development of the productive forces has reached a certain level—we can abandon the stratification. I agree with that, and also think that we reached that point some time ago, but clearly it’s not an easy task.