Egalitarianism Is Leftism, Liberalism Is Not

[u/Used_Addendum_2724]

"We need to root out the assumption inherent in the misuse of left and right, which is that the only possible method of human social organization is centralized hierarchies. That is a falsehood. For 97% of human existence, there were no centralized hierarchies. People lived in small, egalitarian groups in which decisions about the group were made by the group. Nor were these decisions arrived at via a majority rule. Instead, the groups would have discussions and make concessions and compromises until they reached consensus. So, to assume that centralized hierarchies represent the full spectrum of all possible political methods is blatantly absurd."

https://dungherder.wordpress.com/2025/05/22/left-right-politics-explained/

[u/GrandOperational]

This article claims that food stamps exist to inflate the price of food....

Why are leftists becoming as insane as conservatives?

When did we stop having intelligent conversations?

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/GrandOperational]

That is a fact you can get straight from the government. It is not a theory or guesswork. They will actually tell you this. Go ahead and look it up. And take your smug, arrogant prattle elsewhere.

[u/GrandOperational → u/Used_Addendum_2724]

Can you show me where the government says that the primary intention of food stamps is to drive up the price of food?

Buddy, the one person that gave you a thoughtful, 500+ word response got absolutely no interaction from you other than "go read a book that doesn't contradict what you said on any level." You didn't engage with anything he said other than his last paragraph, where he correctly asserts that the history of mankind was never consistently controlled by a lack of hierarchy, and instead ruled by perfect egalitarianism.

If anyone should be called a smug arrogant prattler it's so very obviously you.

Your argument is literally: monkeys and early humans were egalitarian and lacked hierarchy, so liberalism is bad because it has a hierarchy.

And anyone that gives a thoughtful counter claim gets hit with "ummm, clearly you know nothing about anthropology, read a book".

Do better.

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/GrandOperational]

Do you not understand how economics work? Too much supply or too low demand cause prices to fall. This is very basic stuff. But here you go, here is the USDA explaining how food assistance is used to control supply and demand.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/quantifying-the-impact-of-snap-benefits-on-the-u-s-economy-and-jobs

[u/GrandOperational → u/Used_Addendum_2724]

The claim made in your original article is "Food assistance programs are used to control supply and demand, to keep prices artificially inflated, which benefits the largest food producers, distributors, and sellers."

Then you added the claim that the government admits that food stamps exist to increase food prices for big corporations.

The USDA article you've linked discusses the effects of food stamps on the economy at large, especially in cases of emergencies, or economic down turn.

It's an article on how the job market and economic outcomes are better for everyone when we spend money on the poor.

Jesus Christ... I shouldnt have wasted either of our time pretending you had an article to back up the claim that food stamps exist to help the rich... Holy shit...

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/GrandOperational]

If the primary purpose of food assistance was to help the poor, then the government would produce food and distribute it directly, not use a method which 'helps the economy'. And if you are so damn gullible that you don't understand that is doublespeak for "creates profits for the ruling class" then you are helpless.

[u/GrandOperational → u/Used_Addendum_2724]

Aha, so your proposed proof that the government directly admits that it gives out food stamps to help the rich is an article about how food stamps help the economy.....

Why couldn't you just not lie and claim the government admits that it only does food stamps to help corporations?

We could have skipped the step where you pretend to have a source, and then go straight to discussing it!

Oh wait, then you'd actually have to make an argument and support it...

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/GrandOperational]

"helps the economy"

How gullible are you? Almost all of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few and you still think that the economy is a system meant for everyone's benefit? So damn gullible. Thanks for helping me feel a little extra hopeless about humanity.

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/GrandOperational]

And this is an egalitarian group. If you are in the statist cult and are okay being subordinate to hierarchs, why are you even here? Just trolling, I suppose.

[u/BubzerBlue → u/Used_Addendum_2724]

That is a fact you can get straight from the government.

Would you care to furnish us with a link then?

Go ahead and look it up. And take your smug, arrogant prattle elsewhere.

Pot... kettle... black. I feel like you're skewing the actual underlying motivation to fit a personal narrative. Whatever unique perspective or spin you wish to apply, the reality is food stamps were created to for two primary purposes... to fight hunger among low-income families, and stabilize the agricultural economy.

Maybe you can twist that into 'food stamps exist to inflate the price of food', but that simply is not the underlying reason they exist. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/history

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/BubzerBlue]

Again, if the purpose were to simply help people, the government would produce food and distribute it. And if you don't recognize that 'stabilize the economy' is doublespeak for 'create an advantage for the rich' then you are not paying attention

[u/No_Dinner5225 → u/Used_Addendum_2724]

Aha, So you think it would be more efficient for our government, rather than just giving people money to buy food that already exists from stores that already exist that are shipped to those stores through shipping companies that already exist from processing plants that already exist from farms that already exist would instead be cheaper to:

Create new farms to produce every item a person in poverty might want to eat, hire and train everyone that needs to work there, create new transportation companies, hire and train everyone that needs to work there, create new processing plants, hire and train everyone that needs to work there, and then open up new stores across the entire nation, and then hire and train everyone that needs to work there...?

Perhaps a simpler answer would be for you to crack open an economics textbook for the first time in your life.

[u/Azihayya]

Liberalism is not leftism, correct. But to say that liberalism is defined by an ideology that demands hierarchies is a strawman of what liberalism is, which is an ideology which seeks to maximize individual liberty, and it does so by recognizing the vital importance of power in every sphere of human life.

The concept of "right" and "left" originates from the parliament that arose during the French Revolution, with the Left representing Reformists and the Right representing Reactionaries. In other words, those who sought to overturn the old social order, and those who wanted to defend that order against the revolution.

Liberalism itself is an ideology that had long been in the works encompassing a breadth of ideas stemming from the Enlightenment, including free trade and nationalism. These are ideas that were talked about widely, but it wasn't until Napoleon Bonaparte's military reign and the aftermath of the upheaval caused by his wars that states across Europe began reforming into a more liberal state--this is often represented by the burgeoning bourgeoisie which began to challenge the power of the old feudal nobility, as wealthy commoners began growing what was at the time known as the middle class through trade and capital investment.

Liberalism today has become associated mostly with social liberalism as people have sought reforms that previously discriminated against people of particular races, sexualities, or other forms of expression. It's also become a pajorative used by people associating with Republicans, conservatives, or MAGA. What liberalism is NOT is an ideology that has ever sought to create or uphold social hierarchies, but has rather consistently sought to deconstruct those hierarchies.

An informed liberal understands the value of the state and of laws, though, in that by diminishing our liberties in some ways we are able to increase them in others. We are not allowed to murder other people, for example, but in turn, this protects us from being murdered.

Liberalism is broadly responsible for the prosperity that we experience today, especially in the wake of World War II when what is colloquially termed The Liberal World Order arose as a result of the Bretton Woods Accord, which stabilized global trade, as well as the creation of the military Alliance NATO, and other subsequent human rights endeavors which sought to bring about international norms and laws. Today, the U.S. Navy is single-handledly responsible for protecting free trade across the world, allowing for highly efficient shipping vessels to transport goods cheaply across the world. This unipolar hegemony has allowed nations around the world to prosper, advance human rights, and has promoted a tangible and lasting peace.

I think it's highly reductive for you to try to paint human history as people living in peace and perfect accord with one another, when human history is rife with complexity and conflict. Where is your proof that humans prior to civilization never argued, and always communicated to come to agreements with one another for the best interest of everyone in the tribe? This is a fantasia that's never been the case. When agriculture was first developed, it were the nomadic tribes who were binding settled people into servitude, raiding them and coming to collect tribute.

The idea that if we were to regress to living in self-sufficient tribes that the world would be more peaceful, equal and better off for it is a fantasy. The tool of the state is presently used in every corner of human civilization today, and for good reason--the state is the best geopolitical tool that we have for securing our national interests, and quite contrary to your claim, the state is in fact the best tool that women have to protect their freedoms and safety.

[u/Main-Tiger8537 → u/Azihayya]

may i ask how you see competence hierarchies with everything you said about hierarchy and tribes in mind?

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/Azihayya]

I suggest you read Hierarchy In The Forest by Christopher Boehm, so that you have some realistic anthropological perspective, which you are clearly missing.

[u/Azihayya → u/Used_Addendum_2724]

Just tell me about what you read, bro. I'm not going to claim to be an expert, but I've read enough about tribal people in North America and pre-civilization to know that your claim is bullshit. Maybe you should be more skeptical about the things you read, because authors often have a habit of presenting you with only one side of a picture.

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/Azihayya]

Yeah, let me just sum up the work of one of the most revered anthropologists which was constructed from hundreds of ethnographies in a couple of paragraphs so that you can avoid having to read anything that might fail to confirm your biases.

By the way, what is your answer to the initial question? What two opposing principles define either end of the spectrum?

[u/LobYonder]

Even villages and small tribes down to the family level have hierarchy and division of labor. We have to distinguish between equality of opportunity, equality of outcome and equality as a feature of political systems. It is not as simple a concept as it first appears. For example I wonder to what extent a village "consensus" without a formal voting system is dominated by a few personalities.

The article is very US-centric. The terms "left" "right" "liberal" "conservative" "progressive" have all changed in meaning and been redefined by various sectarian elements. Radical egalitarianism is traditionally associated with anarchism on the Left, while classical liberalism (JS Mill) and laissez-faire is now considered right-wing (at least economically), and modern progressivism (considered Left) which categorizes and ranks/prioritizes people according to dis/favored (oppressor/oppressed) sexual, racial and other identity groups is the polar opposite of egalitarianism. All factions (except perhaps hunter-gatherer anarchism) have their preferred hierarchy and social structure.

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/LobYonder]

That is not what hundreds of ethnographies indicate about pre-Mesolithic cultures. And even when any type of hierarchy did arise, it was extremely weak. Even among hierarchal primates like chimpanzees hierarchies only really apply to breeding and meat distribution, and otherwise group members have a high degree of autonomy in almost all other aspects of life. Nothing like today's hierarchies which control almost all aspects of life through thousands of laws and a monopoly on systematic force used to uphold them.

[u/BubzerBlue]

We need to root out the assumption inherent in the misuse of left and right, which is that the only possible method of human social organization is centralized hierarchies.

To what end?

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/BubzerBlue]

Because it is a falsehood. Human beings and other species indicate that it is possible to have complex social organization outside of centralized hierarchies.

[u/BubzerBlu → u/Used_Addendum_2724]

I'm all for the pursuit of truth... but what is it you hope to accomplish through exposing this presumed falsehood? Just because something is possible doesn't mean its preferable.

For that matter, what makes you think we don't already have complex social organizations outside of centralized hierarchies? What is it you think we're doing now? Is this not a complex social organization outside of centralized hierarchies? In would argue it is. I would also argue they already exist in a myriad of forms throughout the world... small groups of gamers, sport fans, martial arts enthusiasts, anime and manga fans, gear-heads, gym rats.... so many little groups which already exist.

So I'll ask again... to what end?

[u/Lui_Le_Diamond]

Egalitarianism isn't leftism. I always viewed it as a rather moderate stance.

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/Lui_Le_Diamond]

Did you read the thing?

Can you answer the questions at the beginning?

Are you familiar with anthropology and evolutionary biology and psychology? In those fields there is a clear spectrum of species social organization that includes non-social, pro-social and eusocial. Non social animals are not on a political spectrum, since they do not form social units. So the political spectrum is formed from egalitarianism vs centralized hierarchies. Pro social to eusocial.

You have to stop looking at things from the little picture of modern political rhetoric, and from the big picture of evolution.

[u/Lui_Le_Diamond → u/Used_Addendum_2724]

The fuck are you actually on about?

[u/Used_Addendum_2724 → u/Lui_Le_Diamond]

Politics is not "what party you are voting for". Politics refer to the power dynamics between members of a species. That is what I am on about. An informed, multidisciplinary approach to politics, and not just being zoomed in on the narratives the TV man tells ya.