I'm analyzing a concept that we're all taught and indoctrinated with, and pointing out that we need to think outside the narrow boundaries it creates for us.
You have a one line "no, you're wrong, that's stupid".
When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.
It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism.
V. I. Lenin, someone who implicitly accepted the idea of nobility.
Can you point out where in my comment(s) that I made any assertion at all of congruency amongst humans?
I am making an argument about class and how we think of class. I am saying that the synthetic idea of "leadership" (as opposed to its standalone components) underlies the structure of class society.
Also, physical aptitude is multiple things, and mental ability is multiple things. But I'd give Lenin a free pass on that one because psychology, physiology, and kinesiology were much more rudimentary back then.
After actually thinking this through, I can see that you are right. "Leadership" is only harped on about by authoritarians and is only useful for stifling non-hierarchical organization structures.
dude some people are better at some things, while others are better at different things
some people can lead, others can put together space shuttles
you are being very strange
Broke: From each according to need, to each according to ability.
Woke: Actually, everybody is exactly the same.
Broke: Ruthless critique of all that exists.
Woke: ...except for the idea of "leadership", which I am particulary attached to.
Removed by mod
I'm analyzing a concept that we're all taught and indoctrinated with, and pointing out that we need to think outside the narrow boundaries it creates for us.
You have a one line "no, you're wrong, that's stupid".
Very convincing of you.
deleted by creator
V. I. Lenin, someone who implicitly accepted the idea of nobility.
Can you point out where in my comment(s) that I made any assertion at all of congruency amongst humans?
I am making an argument about class and how we think of class. I am saying that the synthetic idea of "leadership" (as opposed to its standalone components) underlies the structure of class society.
Also, physical aptitude is multiple things, and mental ability is multiple things. But I'd give Lenin a free pass on that one because psychology, physiology, and kinesiology were much more rudimentary back then.
After actually thinking this through, I can see that you are right. "Leadership" is only harped on about by authoritarians and is only useful for stifling non-hierarchical organization structures.
ok