User:Jojohanson/sandbox

Radical egalitarianism is a political theory associated with the ideas of optimistic tendencies, the suggestions that Americans must work in a multiracial society and that citizens must use activism to achieve the ultimate goal of satisfactory conditions for the entire population.

Egalitarianism is the the base of before it becomes extreme, or radical. Egalitarianism is the belief legally that everyone should be displayed equally. From birth, race nor ability should make you any less than people around you, especially in social, political or economic situations. Some ideologies that are similar to egalitarianism would be Marxism, Communism and Anarchism. Anarchism is the lack of government, so there is no structure for discrimination based on social, political or economic issues because frankly they do not exist. Communism on the other hand falls in line with egalitarianism, and can become radical because the government is running the society and gives everyone equal ration unless you are an elite. A person theoretically can get the same pay within completely different professions, such as a convenience worker and a doctor, which can be looked at as unfair.

Extreme ideologies of radical Egalitarianism have not worked in the past because there is no system of class. In every established government there is an expressed leader. It would be interesting to see how a leader can make decisions with no rank, but since egalitarianism, especially when it becomes radical would be a difficult government to sustain.

Classless Societies
When you think about the modern world, class is a large part of the everyday lives of people. Having a class system is so engrained into the modern world, the thought of having the boundaries of class being stripped away seems nearly impossible. Radical Egalitarianism is the pinnacle of breaking down these structures and giving everyone an even playing field when born into this society.

=== Anarchism === Anarchy can fall under the category of Radical egalitarianism because anarchy is complete and total lack of government. What this means is that when there is no control system or government there is no way to structure class. Anarchism completely gives equality because it is a free for all.

=== Marxism === Marxism was a political theory developed by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engles which entails humans becoming like machines, besides the higher ups in the society. Marx believes in a free market economy which gives free way into monopolies. The problem with having a complete free market is because the few people at the top will have no restriction. They have the ability to buy out any kind of competition that exists and this will lead to anyone not in this high ranking place to be forced into working these low wage jobs because there is no other option. Of course, this does mean that there is some kind of class system but the problem is that the elite is so minimal that it just makes the rest of the people in society like robots. Just doing what they have to do to make money, and there lacks any other kind of opportunity to move forward. Marxism does not work because the average person ends up in a rut and the society functions just to benefit a few

=== Socialism === Socialism is where all entities in a society are managed together as one. This follows along with Marxist theory. When you think of socialism you think of the far left like you would with radical egalitarianism. Socialism in practice does have leaders in the government with power, but the point of a socialist society is for everyone to be equal. Entities such as free healthcare and free college are things that socialism tend to stand by. The unfortunate part of socialism is that it can be very restricting. This is due to the fact that in true socialism you usually are equally paid across the board whether or not your profession is deemed more important or not. Socialism might have a slight class based structure, but it would just be the elite and the rest of the people within living without these structures in place.

Communism & Radical Egalitarianism
Since radical egalitarianism and communism go together it is definitely looked at as a negative extremist government. Egalitarianism is something that sounds like a positive way to make sure everyone in a society is equal and there is no such thing as jealously, also that everyone gets everything equally, but the problem is that it makes it difficult for people with extraordinary ability to succeed. If you look at most of the most extraordinary advancements in science and technology have been from extraordinary minds. It is very possible that advancement would not happen when people are not able to capitalize on their inventions. Restrictions on the ability of people will come into play when egalitarianism comes to extreme and there is no leeway in the system. One of the most notable places where communism had been a structure of government would be China

Radical Egalitarianism and China
In 1973 there was an article posted in the American Economist about Radical Egalitarianism and its effect on the Chinese Experience. The person who wrote the article goes by E. Winter. He begins saying that the act of Radical Egalitarianism is something that is very perplexing for the average Westerner. Again going off of the fact that Radical Egalitarianism and Communism going hand in hand and there being an extreme fear of that among Western culture shows how corrupt this kind of government structure can be on a society. E. Winter also asks a lot of good questions when executing such kind of government like how do you distribute justice and how is authority obtained in this kind of society. The short answer is that radical egalitarianism will not work even in the depths of China. This is important because China has a long history with corrupt governments. If people fear communism, like with the red scare in America, this ideology is much worse. It is true that not every country is going to thrive with a democratic republic like the United States, but it seems that government have more sovereignty within themselves with a more balanced approach at government, rather than trying to crack down the system to make everything fair. For example, if everyone gets a trophy just for participating then there is no real reason to try. This leads to repetition and little progression in society.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/freedom-versus-radical-egalitarianism/

http://www.mit.edu/~rdoody/Economic%20Justice%20Handouts/RadicalEgal.pdf

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_egalitarianism.html


 * Winter, E. 1973. “Radical Egalitarianism: The Chinese Experience.” Am erican Economist 17 (1): 174–77. doi:10.1177/056943457301700120.


 * Spickard, James V. 1992. “The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism (Book).” American Journal of Sociology 98 (1): 193. doi:10.1086/229986.

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1989. “The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism and the Fall of Academic Standards.” Academic Questions 2 (4): 52. doi:10.1007/BF02682754.

Nielsen, Kai. "Impediments to Radical Egalitarianism." American Philosophical Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1981): 121-29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20013902.article proposal: Radical Egalitarianism

Article Proposal
Why it relates to the class: Radical egalitarianism relates to global issues because structures of government can lead to a lot of issues across the world. Take for example places like Venezuela where the government is incredibly weak, radically corrupt governments lead to turmoil in and outside of state lines. Radical Egalitarianism sounds like it could be positive because everyone is considered equal, but its like communism in that way, which does not work.

What im looking to add: History of where this form of government and if it has ever been implemented in the past, and characteristics of when governments become radical. There is only about a sentence for this wiki page and i think that there could be a lot added to it.