4 ms·

There were plenty of Westerners who were concerned with inequality -- there were numerous failed peasant rebellions throughout Europe ever since the Middle Ages

There were plenty of Westerners who were concerned with inequality -- there were numerous failed peasant rebellions throughout Europe ever since the Middle Ages.

hacksnewer 5y ago
Having read too much history for fun and jobs, the comment sounds wrong. You can go back to the Roman republic to find people concerned about this (Gracchi brothers).
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Or the Book of James about 2000 years ago (in the Roman Empire).
  - goatlover 5y ago
    Or some parts of Jewish scripture and the New Testament.
- quadrangle 5y ago
  As clarified in the other reply by the other commenter here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29195026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29195026 The claim isn't actually that inequality wasn't a topic, the claim is that discussing inequality within the framing that equality might actually be the natural state of thing, or at least just as natural… that was a novel topic at the time of Rousseau. And sure, it's probably more fair to talk about why even that topic was burgeoning in popularity rather than to imply that it was truly novel.
diego_moita 5y ago
He fully addresses that in the book. Don't take my word for it, I don't have his explaining skills. But what he addresses is radical equality, as a fundamental value, as opposed to "less inequality". Equality under a ruler or rebellion against abuses is not the same as thinking the whole society as composed of equals. Think of no-slavery, equality among genders, sexual freedom, etc. Even thinkers that thought about equality before Iluminism (e.g. Thomas More) didn't go that far. I strongly recommend you reading, at least, chapter 2 in the book. Is way deeper than what I explain.
- Eebocia 5y ago
  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28
- xhevahir 5y ago
  To give one example, the leaders of the Münster Rebellion of 1534 certainly weren't content with "less inequality."
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  How would contact with “First Nations” in any way help European elites to come to the concept of the radical equality you are describing? They neither had nor believed in any of these things.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  > But what he addresses is radical equality, as a fundamental value, as opposed to "less inequality". Typical Graeber. Total nonsense. Radical equality has multi-origins in religious cults for 1000s of years. It has been part of 'Western' history writing for almost as long as we have historical narratives. Pretty much as far as we can tell these ideas are resurfacing over and over in every big culture. For most we have no documentation but its clear there and has been documented lots of time.
NoThisIsMe 5y ago
I haven't read the book but I assume here Rousseau is serving as an emblem for the Enlightenment (or an aspect of it at least), which is generally regarded as uhh kind of a big deal. That there were earlier Europeans here and there who discussed some of the same concepts is of little significance.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  The Enlightenment didn’t grew out of concerns for inequality, it wasn’t even its big point even though the Enlightenment was a very intellectually diverse movement. Read Kant’s essay on the Enlightenment, it contains the word “equality” exactly zero times. Also, it is quite ironic to mention the thought of Rousseau as an exemplar of the Enlightenment when he is often put into the camp of Counter-Enlightenment.

There were plenty of Westerners who were concerned with inequality -- there were numerous failed peasant rebellions throughout Europe ever since the Middle Ages.

hacksnewer 5y ago

Having read too much history for fun and jobs, the comment sounds wrong. You can go back to the Roman republic to find people concerned about this (Gracchi brothers).

Robotbeat 5y ago
Or the Book of James about 2000 years ago (in the Roman Empire).
- goatlover 5y ago
  Or some parts of Jewish scripture and the New Testament.
quadrangle 5y ago
As clarified in the other reply by the other commenter here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29195026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29195026 The claim isn't actually that inequality wasn't a topic, the claim is that discussing inequality within the framing that equality might actually be the natural state of thing, or at least just as natural… that was a novel topic at the time of Rousseau. And sure, it's probably more fair to talk about why even that topic was burgeoning in popularity rather than to imply that it was truly novel.

diego_moita 5y ago

He fully addresses that in the book. Don't take my word for it, I don't have his explaining skills. But what he addresses is radical equality, as a fundamental value, as opposed to "less inequality". Equality under a ruler or rebellion against abuses is not the same as thinking the whole society as composed of equals. Think of no-slavery, equality among genders, sexual freedom, etc. Even thinkers that thought about equality before Iluminism (e.g. Thomas More) didn't go that far. I strongly recommend you reading, at least, chapter 2 in the book. Is way deeper than what I explain.

Eebocia 5y ago
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28
xhevahir 5y ago
To give one example, the leaders of the Münster Rebellion of 1534 certainly weren't content with "less inequality."
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
How would contact with “First Nations” in any way help European elites to come to the concept of the radical equality you are describing? They neither had nor believed in any of these things.
panick21_ 5y ago
> But what he addresses is radical equality, as a fundamental value, as opposed to "less inequality". Typical Graeber. Total nonsense. Radical equality has multi-origins in religious cults for 1000s of years. It has been part of 'Western' history writing for almost as long as we have historical narratives. Pretty much as far as we can tell these ideas are resurfacing over and over in every big culture. For most we have no documentation but its clear there and has been documented lots of time.

NoThisIsMe 5y ago

I haven't read the book but I assume here Rousseau is serving as an emblem for the Enlightenment (or an aspect of it at least), which is generally regarded as uhh kind of a big deal. That there were earlier Europeans here and there who discussed some of the same concepts is of little significance.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
The Enlightenment didn’t grew out of concerns for inequality, it wasn’t even its big point even though the Enlightenment was a very intellectually diverse movement. Read Kant’s essay on the Enlightenment, it contains the word “equality” exactly zero times. Also, it is quite ironic to mention the thought of Rousseau as an exemplar of the Enlightenment when he is often put into the camp of Counter-Enlightenment.