In spite of my fairly good (I think) vocabulary, this is one of those words I have to look up every time I come across it just to be sure. Like the phrase "that begs the question" that 99.9 percent of the time is used incorrectly, "egalitarianism" is a word that most people use a bit too freely since either they (the user) doesn't know what it means and/or their audience doesn't. Problem is the word just sounds good, even though the image of "eagles" tends to come to mind for me and that only confuses me more when I'm trying to remember the definition. So basically it is a word I can respond to, but not a word I feel comfortable with introducing into a conversation.
Add to that the well worn fact that it can mean at least two different things: "equality of opportunity" or "equality of results" and it becomes even more problematic.
The version that expresses "equality of results" might be considered the shortest possible description of Marxism. Basically everyone shares everything with everyone else, and without complaint.
Of course it has never been achieved, and even Marx/Engels admitted the difficulty in ever achieving it. Their solution which was assembled in haste might have well read like: "Assemble all the requisite components for a strongly state-run economic system (and then a miracle happens) and everyone learns to love one another without reservation and the state dissolves." Um, yeah, pull the other one.
Sounds a bit like a religion that was once more popular than it is now. Not only has it not worked for large countries, it hasn't work for small communes either.
The problem is that each person thinks that they have been short-changed somehow and the people who have to arbitrate this always think they deserve a little bigger piece of the pie for being in that position. In the communes of the 60's there was always at least one "digger" who had to go out into the world and get a real job while the rest could stay home and listen to The Grateful Dead and get stoned.
The other form of egalitarianism "equality of opportunity" is often used to define capitalism. Again, this has never been successfully and completely implemented. This form of capitalism is often called "Darwinian" and you'd think that would at least win some people over. The grand irony is that most people who think that Darwinism was a great way to cause single celled organisms to "evolve" into mankind don't seem to think it's still a good way for mankind to evolve further. At what point did Darwinism fail to operate properly you think (I have only a hunch)?
As Femitheist wisely points out what is the point of defining an ideal that has never been achieved, and more likely can never be achieved? Setting our sights high is one thing, setting them on the impossible is folly. Endlessly (it seams) arguing two diametrically opposed forms of "Perfection" would then seem to be folly squared!
As they say: "The Perfect can become the enemy of the Good."
What we need is a new way to look at things and we need someone who has shown that they can think outside the box to come up with it, or at least point us in the right direction.
I have hope that that person has been located.
