The proposition is that emergence of a few dominant individuals in any society is all but inevitable.
All the more reason to be concerned and to make sure that they don't dominate. This is why, as a result of generations of struggle by "the many", we have democracy. It wasn't given to us willingly from above. - the french revolution helped clear their minds. Very real fear of the guillotine!
The discussion was initiated related to skewed wealth and income distribution, not related to what we would both agree are unacceptable manifestations in terms of bigotry, violence, etc. As a pragmatist I accept that many solutions to life's questions are shades of grey, not B&W.
The problems evolve and change as do the solutions
You can disagree with the proposition - a matter of opinion - in which case we will agree to differ.
I agree with you. A few tall, short, fat, boring, crazy people are also inevitable and we have to deal with any issues or problems they cause, as necessary, if any.
If by observation of historical societies the proposition is proven supportable, then there are two fundamental options:
Pragmatically accept what appears to be a reality. Dominant individuals need a structure beneath them to secure their hold on power - selection may well be based on a mixture of patronage, experience, talent, effectiveness etc.
And the majority need to undermine that structure, which they have done, in spite of the brutality visited upon them over the years.
Whether in pursuit of status or wealth it is in the interest of the dominant to ensure society functions optimally.
Nonsense. They need to ensure that society functions without objecting too severely to the greed and exploitation. Not an easy task and regular uprisings have occurred throughout history. Nothing "optimal" about it, in fact highly inefficient and regressive.
The threat certainly has been productive over the years. Peaceful meetings even more important. In recent years the `
Peterloo Massacre was a major turning point
Providing healthcare, training, good diet, housing etc can be. Assuming all is subordinate to the immediate pursuit of wealth is simplistic.
Fight to improve the lot of those towards the bottom of the food chain - in 5000 years of settled societies, none have yet evolved close to a point where egalitarianism is a reality - some today are very slightly closer than others towards the ideal.
"Egalitarianism" is a popular right-wing demon. It isn't the issue in a literal sense, but they have made the impossibility of it an excuse for not doing anything at all and chosen the familiar Thatcherite neo liberalism, free-market crack pot ideology.
However worthy the fight, I do not believe it will succeed. It may even prompt a sharp move to the right.
You obviously haven't been taking any notice:
We got the franchise! It took some time. 300 years or more depending on how you look at it. Read
"The Vote" by Paul Foot. Very readable and interesting.
We got Labour governments! Also expanded upon in the book, not always in a positive way, he is no ideologue.
We got the NHS, ban on slavery and child labour, workers rights, shorter hours, habeus corpus, official holidays, minimum wages, social services, welfare provision, union rights, detailed regulation regarding health and safety, thousand and one improvements.
No going back, except as short-term wiggles - look what happened when building regs control went slack at Grenfell Tower and several thousand other buildings not yet consumed by the failings of right wing ideology
Banging head against a brick wall is one common expression - more crudely it is like f&rting against thunder.
Banging on the walls seems to work very well. Non of the advances above were offered from above except in reaction to pressure from "the many" throughout history.
Keep banging on the walls chaps! Joining a union is a good start. Street protests are effective.