? Today, "equality" has been deeply rooted in people's hearts and put into practice in practice or form. At least no country, collective or individual admits that they are not "equal" or "pursuing equality". Regarding the understanding and thinking of the concept of "equality", I want to talk about my thoughts and thinking from four aspects: politics, society, economy and ideology.
I. Political equality
? Nowadays, which country dares to ask the world that its country is not "democratic", "equal" and "free". Although some countries often accuse other countries of being undemocratic and "not free" in their internal affairs, we therefore put them aside. In today's world, no matter which country's constitution or effective legal documents really mean, it recognizes and defends that all people are equal within the scope of national sovereignty. Under the condition of abiding by and not violating the law, every citizen with the nationality of that country is a free man, with the freedom not to be forced by others and the obligation not to force others (which should not exist in the first place). In my opinion, the basic logic of "political equality" is that a society composed of politically free people recognizes national sovereignty and formulates and abides by the laws they make. At present, the so-called democratic political forms in most countries, including "separation of powers", "representative system" and "democratic centralism", are all forms of democratic political practice derived from the concept of people's sovereignty.
But these are only theoretical political ideals in reality. Politics in reality will always be "those people", so let's call them "ruling groups" to control, manipulate and operate state power. They are either chaebol, political families or religious groups. The so-called representative system only represents the interests of these people, but sometimes it is disguised as "for the people", "for the country" and "this is democracy and freedom", and even incites populism. ? Having said that, what I want to express is: first, everyone is equal before the law endowed by national sovereignty and the political system stipulated by law; Second, but in the actual political operation, the benefits in politics are not balanced for different people or collectives. This involves economic and social equality. In fact, people or collectives who profit from political operations and hold power will naturally form a "power group."
Second, economic equality.
? If we look at economic equality mechanically, it is "uneven everywhere", as the saying goes, "people don't suffer from poverty but suffer from inequality", which is a negative embodiment of human nature. Perhaps economic equality is not the average share of material in terms of historical experience and theoretical verification, but the possession of all means of production (even * * *). This is a dialectical combination of private ownership of small-scale peasant land and state-owned land, combined with the ancient small-scale peasant economy in China ... This may be the best way of economic equality in my imagination. However, the fundamental contradiction between the dispersion of the means of production and the concentration of capital cannot be solved, and it does not conform to the law of historical development and will eventually be destroyed by itself.
Then how can we achieve "economic equality" from the early days of capitalism? According to western economists, capitalist economy is the most equal economic form. In this system, people are no longer "people", but "rational people" under economic rationality, and they will gain the greatest benefit in economic communication through rationality. Capitalist economy emphasizes freedom-free operation, free competition and free trade. In their theoretical system, "everyone is equal" because everyone is a free man, with equal opportunities and equal competition ... but what about reality? The first person to complete the accumulation of primitive capital becomes the first capitalist. Marx said: every pore of capital is full of filth in the world, right! The concentration of capital is the premise and result of capital alienation (dialectics), which capitalizes the assets of petty-bourgeois owners (farmers) ("enclosure movement") and turns them into the proletariat. People who have lost the means of production can only become workers in factories and combine with machines, which is the alienation between people and labor. Capital is greedy, and it always tends to concentrate (the emergence of monopoly organizations). These results are completely different from the liberal capitalist economy envisioned by classical economists, which relies on wisdom, diligence, courage and sweat.
The so-called equality of opportunity and competition in capitalism have caused material inequality and relative scarcity. Then the discussion on "economic equality" turned to the topic of "how to build a relatively fair economic system and distribution system, materially guarantee the people's basic material security, and give the bottom workers more dignity and respect". And I think China's current economic system and national policies are an excellent response to my second argument. My next discussion is "How economic inequality causes political inequality".
? I believe everyone has heard of Marx's theory that "the economic base determines the superstructure". Of course, he spoke from the perspective of macro-political economy. Similarly, the "power group" mentioned above is the beneficiary of political operation on the premise of economic profit. Relevant data show that most American families pay attention to political elections and political enthusiasm, while the political participation of the bottom families is relatively low, which is one of the factors that create family economy. The inequality of political participation and economic income promote each other, which intensifies social differentiation. Just like today's people lament the problem of class solidification, the richer they get, the poorer they get, the rich are ruthless, and the poor hate the rich. Social order shielding and division have intensified, and the problem of class solidification has existed since ancient times. Wealthy families spend several orders of magnitude more on family environment, education investment and interpersonal network than the bottom families (the bottom families have tried their best to survive), and the interpersonal network grown up from different world-like growth experiences naturally weakens the mobility between classes. This is the innuendo of economic inequality to social class inequality.
Third, social inequality.
What is "social inequality"? What I want to discuss is "whether different social classes can express their rights and make a sound instead of being silent". Have you ever heard of the difficult course of migrant workers asking for wages? Have you ever seen the youth of a young man imprisoned in a sweatshop assembly line die? What kind of filth is hidden behind the helplessness of Foxconn, the world's largest foundry company, young people jumping off the building? The bulldozers of the government and real estate developers let the demolished people pour gasoline on them and set themselves on fire in anger and helplessness ... They are a group of people who have lost their voices. In the public opinion praising the praise of the times and the material carnival of entertainment to death, their weak voices were ruthlessly covered up and indifferent. They have never really mastered the right to speak. Others say it is a prosperous time, maybe it is a prosperous time, but it is only a prosperous time for "power groups" and other profit-seekers. This inequality is the most terrible. It is silent, weightless and has no external guilt, which is unacceptable. Everyone is swallowed up by the great ship of the times and becomes a part of it, or it may be an insignificant part.
Fourth, the summary of the idea of "equality"
? Since ancient times, many people with lofty ideals have been striving for the realization of "equality" in human society, but they have to face the fact that real and complete equality does not exist. But since utopia can't be realized, it doesn't mean that utopia is wrong. We yearn for the utopian society we can build, which is equal and beyond its limitations. I don't know if this will fall into Hayek's "rational conceit" Teenagers always have pure, bold, rational and gentle ideals. I always feel that an "equal" society is good and worth pursuing. Although we can't completely eliminate "inequality", we are always moving towards a "new utopia". We will let more people get paid for their work, narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, and give more protection to more people in need. Practice is the way to know. we? Will have a deeper understanding and thinking of "equality thought" in practice.