No, not at all. The partnership systems I've been describing all this time are not.
Linking this to you again.
"A leader in this type of hierarchy is someone who recognizes people’s potential and develops it in alignment with the greater goals of the organization. Special ops groups such as the Navy Seals use this type of hierarchy because it is much more agile than a more paternalistic style in which every move has to be approved from above.
One of the ways to distinguish a hierarchy of actualization from a dominance hierarchy is that rather than being based in power over, it is based in power to or power with. Increasingly, businesses are embracing this model for the same reason that the Navy Seals do — it’s a lot more agile to let the people closest to the work make most of the relevant decisions.
Not everyone has the same level of authority, but those with more use that power to make sure that the people in their charge have what they need to fulfill the mission. They are the coordinators, the facilitators, the monitors who make sure that things are on task and they do that by engaging with their team, not by managing from above."
Socialism and communism are really economic systems, one on the far left and the other on the far right. Social democracies can and do work better for more people, rather than only a few having the largest benefit, but that alone is not enough to truly disrupt patriarchy. For example, the Nordic countries still have a significant problem with rape culture.
I don't know what you are referencing specifically, but I wouldn't call speaking up about the fact that the gap between rich and poor keeps getting wider shaming. I'd say it's naming the elephant in the room. You can't improve a problem that you don't see.
We don't have a lot of examples of widespread egalitarianism - that's precisely why I write about it, to talk about the ways where we could potentially bring more of that into our culture. I'm encouraged to see it in the business world, because things that lead to a better bottom line are more likely to continue rather than simply trying to shift the social system because it's a kinder way to behave. Right now in America the very ruthless kind of capitalism that is practiced dovetails nicely with the might makes right aspects of patriarchy. If that begins to shift within businesses, we might have a chance to impact it in the wider social system.
I'm not expecting a full-on abandonment of the very deeply entrenched social dynamics that we have, but that doesn't mean we can't still encourage moves in the right direction.
