Ultra-patriarchal ways of life are characteristic primarily of settled, agricultural, and urban societies that have property, inheritance, surplus production, and institutional hierarchies. If by indigenous we mean societies that have a lot less of that, including hunting and gathering societies, then it seems to be the case that they are and were mostly more egalitarian and less patriarchal. — Jamal

There is no way in which that is anywhere even slightly close to true.

The closer people get to the harsh, brutal realities of survival in nature, being unsupported by large scale institutions, the less egalitarian they get. Hobbes was right about the state of nature and it's frankly amazing that Rousseau lived before air conditioning because otherwise you have to be on a hell of a lot of laudanum to believe some of the stuff he said.

Anthropologists treat it as an empirical question, not a thought experiment. The evidence from many small-scale foraging societies is that they're relatively egalitarian compared with most agricultural state societies, though of course there's variation. If you think that’s wrong, I think you should point to anthropological research showing the opposite. Simply asserting that closer to nature = less egalitarian is unconvincing.

Neither did Austrailian aboriginees or the theoretical inhabitants of distant galaxies but when the majority population of a society prospers then that is, without qualification, a historically massive achievement for any society to ever be able to claim anywhere. — BenMcLean

I disagree. A society in which 51% prosper and 49% starve does not represent a "massive achievement", nor did the U.S. of the '50s and '60s. Besides, the well-paying working-class jobs of that era were well-paying by dint of the efforts of unions, which were all leftist. Also, the global economy and computerization have made such working-class jobs obsolete.

Wengrow and Graeber argue persuasively that the liberal, individual rights European philosophers of the 17th century were influenced by Native American philosophy. I won't bother to repeat their arguments; if you're interested, get the book. IN general, the book is an anti-Neo-Marxist approach to anthropology. It argues that instead of being shaped by class conflict or the economic infrastructure, simple cultures (like our own) are more intentional. People (philosophers?) think about the society they want, and work to achieve it.

The "liberal" individual rights proponents the modern right admires (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, etc.) borrowed "liberally" from Native American philosophers. — Ecurb

This is.... not the case. there's some vague, unfounded assumptions in Braeber among others, that travel reports were somehow assimilated as philosophically serious, and adapted to enlightenment thinking. That doesn't seem to be particularly well supported, although, the previous denial of any influence is also apparently not well supported.

Simply asserting that closer to nature = less egalitarian is unconvincing. — Jamal

Not only were simple societies more egalitarian, but they were also healthier. Average height (a reasonable measure of health) decreased by 3-4" with the advent of civilization. Why? Probably a diet based on single grains, disease caused by increased population density, and polluted water supplies were the culprits. Of course the elites were healthier than the hoi palloi, but they constituted a small percentage of the population.

This is.... not the case. there's some vague, unfounded assumptions in Braeber among others, that travel reports were somehow assimilated as philosophically serious — AmadeusD

If nothing else, the age of exploration exposed Europeans to cultures with which they had previously been unfamiliar -- including pre-civilization societies. This doubtless influenced Hobbes and Rousseau to speculate about the essential nature of humans. Both notions -- that of the Noble Savage, and that of the brutish savage -- were called into question by reports (often confused and contradictory) about actual cultures. Graeber and Wengrow suggest that the popularity of the travel reports, as well as the information from actual Indians who travelled back to Europe, could very well have influenced philosophy (although it's not certain).

Yes, i understand. I doubt it was particularly moving besides your first point - finally having access to the fact that there are pre-civilised (as it were - horrid term) societies must have been a real upheaval.

I suppose if by "egalitarian" you mean "bound together in a very non-egalitiaran hierarchy where some outside very non-egalitarian higher authority will punish what they arbitrarily and very selectively choose to label as unequal treatment of others" then sure, hunter gatherers are "egalitarian" in that non-sense of not having the social structures to impose modern "egalitarianism"

But if you take "egalitarian" you mean, "actually treating each individual other person approximately the same" then hell no, there is no way in which hunter-gatherers are egalitarian.

I disagree. A society in which 51% prosper and 49% starve does not represent a "massive achievement", nor did the U.S. of the '50s and '60s. — Ecurb

OK, let's follow this insanity to its logical conclusion.

Besides, the well-paying working-class jobs of that era were well-paying by dint of the efforts of unions, which were all leftist. — Ecurb

Which means that this wasn't an achievement. (according to your standard stated immediately previous to this) Labor unions, by ensuring that white men got well paid, were nothing but tools of oppression, which didn't achieve anything as per your own standard from the previous sentence. Labor unions are thus bad instead of good.

Racial minorities in the United States in the 1950s-60s obviously weren't en masse starving. They certainly weren't eager to migrate to any other country, I notice.

Which means that this wasn't an achievement. (according to your standard stated immediately previous to this) Labor unions, by ensuring that white men got well paid, were nothing but tools of oppression, which didn't achieve anything as per your own standard from the previous sentence. Labor unions are thus bad instead of good. — BenMcLean

Nothing I wrote implied that labor unions were tools of oppression, or that white men getting paid is a bad thing, although those unions that denied membership to minorities certainly were oppressive. My 49% starving comment is simply a hypothetical demonstrating the error of your previous comment that "if the majority prospers...that is a massive achievement."

Actually, black people were eager to migrate to different states -- legal segregation of schools, busses etc. still existed in many states in the '50s and '60s. Is that the era MAGA longs for? It seems so.

legal segregation of schools, busses etc. still existed in many states in the '50s and '60s. Is that the era MAGA longs for? It seems so. — Ecurb

This is far from the case. The only calls for segregation recently (serious ones, anyway, rather than social media schlock) have been from the Black community.

legal segregation of schools, busses etc. still existed in many states in the '50s and '60s. Is that the era MAGA longs for? It seems so.
— Ecurb

This is far from the case. The only calls for segregation recently (serious ones, anyway, rather than social media schlock) have been from the Black community. — AmadeusD

When was the era of America/s 'greatness" to which the acronym refers? And weren't the pictures of the Obamas as apes posted on Trump's Truth Social by MAGA supporters?

To disprove it, you would need historical counterexamples, not psychology. A historical movement which is indisputably left wing which is anti-progressive in the sense of evaluating the past as benevolent rather than as oppressive. — BenMcLean

The Russian Communists after the collapse of the Soviet Union.



Then, before the Putin dictatorship, the "left" and "right" were spoken about in Russia in opposite to the West, meaning that the communists were on the right and the liberal Pro-Western reformers were spoken to be the left.

This example shows how with generalizations of a universal "right" and "left" doesn't actually tell so much. When we disregard the unique developments in various countries and the unique historical situations where political movements operate, the conclusions are usually quite bland and basically leave us with stereotypes that aren't actually very useful.

In 1918 The Finnish Social Democratic Party was attempting a similar Bolshevik revolution as had happened in Russia few months earlier and now in the 2020's the same Social Democratic party, leading a left-center coalition with a female prime-minister rushed Finland to join NATO alongside Sweden, which had also a female social-democrat prime minister. So a lot has happened to the "leftism" of the Finnish Social Democrats, just as happened to the "conservatism" of the Republican party between Lincoln and Trump. (So much, that the latter obviously didn't know that Lincoln was a Republican president.) Hence it's questionable what we really get with generalizations of the "left" and the "right".

When was the era of America/s 'greatness" to which the acronym refers? And weren't the pictures of the Obamas as apes posted on Trump's Truth Social by MAGA supporters? — Ecurb

This is absolutely nothing to do with the previous two comments.

You've claimed MAGA want to go back to a segregated society. It is vanishingly rare to find anyone asking for this, except in the Black community. And I'm not admonishing that here (although, I am of the mind that its extremely distasteful and hypocritical - and infantalizing fwiw). I am just pointing out that the Black community is far more likely to fight for segregation than MAGA, albeit from totally incommensurate/orthogonal angles.

You've claimed MAGA want to go back to a segregated society. — AmadeusD

That's not what I "claimed", although I think both Trump and many of his MAGA supporters are racists. What I claimed was that the era many MAGA supporters see as "great" (and want to return to) was the '50s and '60s. Racial segregation was legal in many states back then -- MAGA supporters may be ignoring it, they may have forgotten, they may find other aspects of American society (the Viet Nam war?) back then "great".

So it is your posts (not mine) that have absolutely nothing to do with my comments.

Binary. If we had three arms, three eyes and three legs I reckon things might have played out differently ;)

Have you had the exact same thought in your head on a non-stop repetitive loop from your earliest moment of recollection to now? No? Neither does anybody else. People think. Therefore people disagree. Or as they say "I think, therefore I am."

There's not a single invention or innovation that would exist without someone holding a significantly different view than that of their given majority. It's not that complicated.

Then, before the Putin dictatorship, the "left" and "right" were spoken about in Russia in opposite to the West, meaning that the communists were on the right and the liberal Pro-Western reformers were spoken to be the left. — ssu

This absolutely 100% conforms to my model from the OP and does not conflict with it whatsoever. It's the strongest evidence I've seen so far that I am correct and I didn't even think of it. Read the OP again.

What I said about Communism was an accidental property of the Left. Look at what I said the essential property was.

Somehow this type of discussion, in truth, is underpinned by a singularity, a basic term reasoned, a byword to peer from, wherever this elaborate rumination proceeds to hold the fore.